William Burrow wrote:
>
> Well, you see, once the source code has been released, it is somewhat
> like Pandora's box. Programs relying on the old Qt will function as
> always. Free programs relying on the new, unreleased, pay-for-it Qt...
> well, there just won't be many of those around.
If there were no bugs in that "free" version.
> As for not being able modify Qt, not really. Qt supports inheritance, so
> can be modified at a higher abstraction. Your argument is based on FUD.
> Meanwhile the freeware community diddles around with various uncompleted
> toolkits.
Again, this assumes the parent classes are bug free. But remember that
the this thread started as discussing the relevance of kde to Debian.
And as far as I am concerned there is no point in using Qt for developping
kde when there are other free alternatives around, such as V.
> <flame>
> Personally, I expected much more from the X development model than has
> appeared. The X world seems to have grasped a commercial library, Motif.
> Where is the plethora of excellent concepts and toolkits? Seems the big
> commercial OSes get those (MacOS, Windows, OS/2 -- not neglecting NeXT,
> it just didn't get to the big status). So, what went wrong?
> </flame>
There is a plethora of toolkits; concepts? Don't know.
> I don't support Qt as much as I support a free toolkit that is being
> developed on a continual basis. It would not be a first to put a wrapper
> around Qt calls, if you so desired, either.
I don't mind individual programs such as nethack using Qt. What I
dislike is people putting in a lot of time and effort developping
things like kde on top of a non-free toolkit like Qt when there are
viable free alternatives around.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 1.1 is out! { http://www.debian.org/ }
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{ http://greathan.apana.org.au/~herbert/ }
PGP Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or any other key sites
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
