Novell Desktop To Standardize On Qt [updated] 615
Balinares writes "NewsForge reports that Novell has settled for Qt as its Linux desktop development environment, casting more light on their strategy to unify KDE and GNOME. This ought to be interesting. The prospect of using Mono to code against Qt makes me drool in advance. Maybe programming will suck no longer!" Update: 03/30 00:01 GMT by T : Sounds like that story doesn't quite hold water; Nat Friedman writes in this Slashdot comment that "We have not decided that we are standardizing on Qt for the desktop. ... We support development with a variety of toolkits, and our internal development is done using the right tool for the right problem. This includes Qt, Gtk, VCL, XUL and others, depending on the application."
Novell... (Score:3, Redundant)
GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
- Will they be writing a GTK-on-top-of-QT layer?
- Ditching GTK apps?
- Using GTK apps but not encouraging their creation?
- Just using QT for Novell-specific stuff (like Redhat uses GTK for its configurators, etc)?
*confused*Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) I believe #4 is correct, at least for today's news.
2)In the big picture, Novell wants to be a major Linux player, bought a lot of expertise, and is trying to integrate the two development platforms and environments without antagonizing either the developers from both sides or the screaming fanboys. I doubt if they themselves have a long-term plan yet.
As long as I'm posting -- here's something I've asked a zillion times and still don't understand: given the GTK and Qt bindings for Mono, will it be possible to make run-anywhere applications on Linux that will work on Windows? Will generic
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the UI libs go, a lot of the time, they are going to have bindings into native code-- but that is something the libraries handle for you. So assuming your qt library or whatever has linux and windows support, it should work on both platform. Obviously, if a coder screws up one side or the other, there will be issues, but that can be said of any kind of multiplatform development-- or any development at all.
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:3, Informative)
It's been a long time since I looked at this stuff but this is what I knew back then.
C# is a lot like Java in that is it "portable" but not really. That is, all the underlying API's have to be there or it won't work and Mono does not currently have all the stuff that you get with Microsoft.
For example, on Windows the default C# GUI API is using the Windows.Forms interface (or whatever it is called). M
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft clumsily exposed a lot of the Win32 API underneath the Forms API. Bindings must either reimplement significant portions of the Win32 API (good luck!), or call through and let Wine handle the messy bits.
Either way is sub-optimal, but at least using Wine is realistic!
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Informative)
My team and other teams within Novell continue to
develop and use Gtk as their toolkit (recently
open sourced Simias/iFolder for instance) and
all of the Mono GUI development tools.
The only use of Qt that am aware of today
is SUSE's recently open sourced YAST.
Btw, if you have been following my posts on
my blog and on the desktop-devel-list, you will
know that my feeling is that all of the existing
toolkits today (Gtk, Qt, XUL and VCL) will
become obsolete and we need to start looking
at the next generation toolkit system.
Miguel
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
toolkits today (Gtk, Qt, XUL and VCL) will
become obsolete and we need to start looking
at the next generation toolkit system.
Which IS the next gen toolkit?
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Informative)
You can do object oriented and event oriented programming in c fine.
Besides C is much more portable and there is a C++ interface for GTK to.
So the only difference between QT and GTK from a language perspective is that with GTK you get a choice, QT you only get C++. (Not counting even higher languages such as C# since both have wrappers for that and are sort of equal)
Jeroen
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but it will be spaghetti code, using type-unsafe macros. Have you looked at a custom GTK+ widget implementation in C before? It is some real ugly code.
So the only difference between QT and GTK from a language perspective is that with GTK you get a choice, QT you only get C++. (Not counting even higher languages such as C# since both have wrappers for that and are sort of equal)
Actually, there are a lot of bindings for Qt. PyQt
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. http://dot.kde.org/1073668213/ [kde.org]
Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Informative)
Boy. (Score:5, Funny)
Boy, you really need to get out more.
Re:Boy. (Score:5, Funny)
you must be new here.
Re:Boy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Boy. (Score:5, Funny)
You and Miguel?
Re:Boy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of NET's good or bad points, it's a potential legal land mine for open source that could make the SCO fiasco look postiviely quaint. Unlike SCO, Microsoft would have an actual case.
How Much to dev with? (Score:5, Informative)
From the trolltech site: http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licensing.ht
" Use the Qt Commercial License to:
Build commercial software.
Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise."
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:5, Informative)
Persons who develop GPL-incompatible software for the new desktop will probably have to GPL their code or purchase both a Qt license and a separate Novell license. Not cheap, but other than that, definitely fun.
$0.00 (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that Novell is going to use QT is very telling. Novell is a software corporation whose existence past, present and future relies on selling software. That means that while they will throw the open source community a GPLed bone (Yast, Evolution) they will also offer up lots of closed source applications and some will be QT based.
Novell is not afraid of having to pay a very reasonable licensing cost for commercial development and neither are most other software companies. They already pay licensing for MS Visual DEs, Borland DEs and probably many others. Paying for a QT license is a minor cost of doing business and it will not deter any serious software house.
Re:$0.00 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:4, Informative)
(Either Qt/Windows or Qt/X11 or Qt/Mac)
Prices per developer. Includes one year of support and maintenance. See also the Professional/Enterprise Comparison Chart
Developers Professional Edition Enterprise Edition
1 $ 1550,- $ 2490,-
2 - 5 $ 1500,- $ 2250,-
6 - 10 $ 1410,- $ 2120,-
11 - 20 $ 1330,- $ 2000,-
Which sort of sucks, because it sounds like I buy a license to develop under X and then need another to debug the problems that crop up under win32.
It's not a lot of cash, but it's sort of tough to compete with a robust, free product.(i.e. GTK)
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:4, Informative)
Sure you can. The GPL does not require that you *RELEASE* your software to the rest of the world. This would work quite well, if your users were mostly ignorant, and didn't go on demanding the source and sharing with the outside world. But for most internal business users, they wouldn't care less.
However, you cannot use the free Qt version to create software that you intend to keep closed- whether you're giving it away as freeware or if you're selling it. Or, if you want to use a license other than the GPL- for example, the LGPL, BSD or MIT. For that you need the commercial license.
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:5, Informative)
Otter replied: You're assuming wrong. This has to do with QT development -- ie, you can't develop proprietary internal apps with the free Qt version. As opposed to the GPL which only deals with release. (Apple has similar restraints on using modified Darwin internally.)
I don't think that's right either. Qt is available under two licenses:
...and the big thing with the GPL is that you application can only be distributed under its terms if it's based on any GPL software (including Qt/X11).
That's not a problem with internal applications. They're not distributed at all. Thus, you can develop internal apps against the GPLed Qt/X11. No money required.
Where you do need to buy a license is if you are doing any of these things:
Of course, you should read the GPL [gnu.org] yourself, where the terms are stated much more precisely.
Re:How Much to dev with? (Score:4, Informative)
a correction:
Qt/Mac and Qt/Embedded are available under the GPL:
http://www.trolltech.com/download/index.html [trolltech.com]
It seems it's just the Winblows version which isn't GPL'd
Programming (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, if programming were easy, people would do it for free.
Re:Programming (Score:5, Funny)
--dave
Re:Programming (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see why this is funny. It is clear that if programming were easy then people would do it for free (like everything else that is easy). On the other hand it dosen't mean that because people program for free, that programming is easy (it's not!). That's why we should all celebrate all those programmers that program for free and share their work with the rest of the world!.
Makes sense for desktop interop (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, there is still the opportunity to attract developers to cross-platform
It would be a double-bonus if Novell could make Mono a unified framework for writing apps that can be backended by KDE, GNOME, or Microsoft Windows without a rewrite. Let's see what happens. What's really a shame is that
Discussions elsewhere say this article is invalid. (Score:5, Informative)
Many BrainShare attendees have already dismissed this as a badly written article, as it combines statements from Novell about their desire to see a unified Linux desktop (see one of the worst examples of tech reporting in years [slashdot.org]) with rumors and rampant speculation. There is no basis of truth in the heise article.
I'm sure Novell will send out someone with authority in due time to stomp this out, but this is just what I've heard so far.
So this means C# is bring embraced? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been impressed with the CLI implementation and the SOAP and Web Services technologies that are a part of the
As a new Qt programmer... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the license is different. I often wish there was a small-business or starting-business license, but this is only pertanant if you are going commercial work. for GPL work it is completely free.
Right now I'm doing some advanced work with QSA (Javascripted Qt apps) It is easy and cross platform. I can now replace a browser (and the rendering issues with a user interface file (loaded at run-time) and ECMA script code (platform indep. cause we run on various architectures with limited space, whose list may change at any time)
The Troll Tech stuff is top notch.
GPL != noncommercial (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no reason a small business can't do commercial work and license it under the GPL. It's done all the time by the Linux distributors both large and small, and many other development groups.
Anyway, I see this misconception about QT's licensing all the time, and I think part of it stems from Trolltech's own use of the word commercial to describe their other license. The word they (and you) are looking for is proprietary, not commercial. If you don't want to use the GPL (usually because you're paranoid about people stealing the ideas, or because you want to link with some other proprietary code), then you have to pay for commercial (i.e. proprietary) Qt licensing. However, you're free to use the free (GPL) version of Qt commercially, as long as you follow the GPL.
Redhat got it right (Score:3, Interesting)
With [gimp.org] so [sf.net] many [rhythmbox.org] of [sourceforge.net] the gtk programs riviling the qt equivalents, I wonder why companies always flock towards Qt.
Re:Redhat got it right (Score:3, Interesting)
The bindings are no problem as well, there are bindings for most of the commonly used OO languages including excellent ones for java.
It is a matter of time, I think a license for Qt is well invested given that the license costs itself probably are gathered in within weeks due to the speed you can code the thing in.
The problem with Qt is, that the current license costs basically locks out single developers wh
Re:Redhat got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to moderate, but this is driving me insane. There are just too many posts like this. How is $1000 "locking out" single developers who intend to sell closed-source licenses? Even for sole proprietorships $1K is nothing special. Besides, you are talking about selling closed-source software, which by definition requires other people to pay you money per license, but somehow you think TrollTech is a fiend for wanting to do the same thing. If you want to be open, TrollTech is right there with you.
Redhat got it wrong (Score:3, Flamebait)
The Gimp: Well, it uses Gtk+, but it isn't officially a part of the Gnome platform, is it? It doesn't use too many other Gnome libraries. I don't really count it as a Gnome app. And, er, why was it in development for three frickin' years to get to 2.0?
Gaim: Yes, Gaim is very good, but you should see the new Kopete messenger in KDE 3.2. Very slick, supports MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, and IRC, wit
Re:OOP and C++ vs. C -- probably Offtopic -- or no (Score:5, Insightful)
I despise C++. Hate it. It is an abomination both to C, and to OO programming. The syntax extensions to C are complex, as is the OO model. The only thing I think C++ did right is the templating system.
I prefer Objective C, which takes a minimalist approach, and the late dynamic binding makes templating irrelevent. It's a much cleeaner language.
So, the issue comes down to choice. I know a lot of people prefer C++ to Objective C. You can't account for taste-- it seems more people prefer Budweiser to any other beer, and McDonald's to any other food source, and MS-Windows to any other desktop OS. But the point is, there is choice. I know I don't want to declare a single standard language for all programmers to use, and I distrust anyone who does.
If they standardize on any one toolkit, we are screwed as developers. Instead, they should concentrate on standardizing protocols. And, from a comment Nat Friedman made somewhere along the line in this topic, that's exactly what Novell is doing.
Anyway, just my two bits.
- Tony
This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)
The only potential problem I see is Trolltech's insistance on license fees for commercial development. Not that this is any different in the Windows world, but it'd be nice to give ISVs a completely royalty free solution. I'd like to see Novell take that $50 million that IBM gave them and purchase TT outright and put Qt under a more liberal open license. The wording on the KDE Free Qt clause seems a bit unclear to me. Does Qt get automatically BSD'ed when any company buys Trolltech. What if the purchasing company doesn't make the license any more closed that currently, does that have an effect.
Anyway, I've never understood the reasons people chose to write a whole desktop environment in straight C. C++ just seems a far more natural fit. I've looked over both GNOME and KDE fairly extensively, and there is no doubt in my mind that KDE has a cleaner code base and architecture. With all the "higher level language" rumblings going on in the GNOME community, I suspect that those developers are hitting a brick wall in terms of where they want to go and what the current code is capable of becoming. That sort of thing isn't happening in the KDE world, so I think that speaks volumes.
Good luck Novell, you've got at least one supporter here.
Re:This is good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it still costs the company and the consumer, just in different areas. With Trolltech, you pay a per developer license and be done with it. Free to distribute to whoever you want for whatever you want.
If you develop a Microsoft solution, the the consumer has to pay for Windows licenses and the developer has to pay for Windows licenses and likely Visual Studio licenses as we
Re:This is good news (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not necessary at all. There are a lot of good free-software development tools for the Windows platform. As for the cost of windows, when you're making a windows app your target audience already has that...
"Use the GPL for your project or pay us thousands of dollars" is hardly free. By contrast, in my view GTK+ and wxWidgets are free.
God Dammit!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a sec... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, derStandard.at asked for confirmation at Novell and they assured that no decision would have been fallen yet.
They (Novell) also demoed quite a few new Gtk applications at the keynotes, most notably the interesting iFolders (using Gtk on Linux), while I don't think there has been shown any _new_ Qt program.
So take this all with a grain of salt, I can't really imagine that this is a clear decision yet.
If only (Score:3, Funny)
C++ and binary compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I still don't understand the popularity of QT. It's as if people don't want linux to be taken seriously as a deployment platform. Why target a host that won't run your binaries next year?
Re:C++ and binary compatibility (Score:3, Informative)
there's nothing wrong with keeping them separate (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I think this is a good idea? Keeping them separate but equal promotes competition between them. It makes them work harder to fix those little glitches that annoy users. KDE is looking kind of like windows xp, and gnome mac os X. It'd be nice if they took on more of an original look, but hey rome wasn't built in a day. I think that having the choice between both desktops knowing that most applications will work the same without needing a hundred different rpms for each thing is what's needed. I also think that libraries need to be consolidated. Basically I guess I'm saying this: the ease of installing programs on windows, but the ability to run them on a mac. Sound difficult? eh, look how far things have come.
Setting the record straight. (Score:5, Informative)
We're not really sure where the rumor came from that Novell is standardizing on Qt as its desktop platform. Chris Stone said no such thing during his keynote; the video for the keynote is available here:
http://www.novell.com/brainshare/keynotes2004.h
Novell supports GNOME and KDE, Qt and Gtk. We have not decided that we are standardizing on Qt for the desktop. First of all, most software developed for the Linux desktop is developed by the broader community, and Novell could never impose a standard platform on the community at large. We support development with a variety of toolkits, and our internal development is done using the right tool for the right problem. This includes Qt, Gtk, VCL, XUL and others, depending on the application.
We do not regard the variety of toolkits and platforms in the Linux world as a problem, as long as there are standards and shared code which allow applications to work together.
And frankly, today's Linux toolkits and platforms are one of the least interesting topics on the Linux desktop today. The important issues for this industry and market are our opportunity to innovate in information management and collaboration, improving interoperability with Windows users and services, bringing more ISVs and developers to the Linux platform, enhancing the usability and consistency of the various components that make up the desktop, enabling Windows migration with tools and training and documentation, and creating a manageable Linux desktop to enable large-scale deployments.
We see freedesktop.org as one of the most important and central elements of the Linux desktop for the next several years. The desktop today is made up of a number of components, including OpenOffice, Mozilla, Evolution, and of course GNOME and KDE. Over time we hope to work with freedesktop.org to unify the key interfaces and functionality of these components, to improve integration for users and provide a common open
source desktop platform.
Nat Friedman
Novell/SUSE Linux Desktop Lead
MOD THIS AS HIGH AS YOU CAN. (Score:4, Interesting)
So how could the keynote speech have been misconstrued?
Re:Setting the record straight. (Score:4, Interesting)
I see you are *still* presenting yourself as the desktop lead, Nat. Interesting since from all accounts, Chris Stone occupies that position.
Why don't you set the record straight as to the organizational heirarchy of the company and where you and Miguel sit in the organizational tree? Do you answer to Chris Stone or Richard Seibt or do they answer to you? Or are you all just a bunch of middle management?
Re:Setting the record straight. (Score:4, Funny)
To that, we must throw out everything and clone Longhorn.
This is so beneficial I cant believe its not obvious to everyone.
Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Novell made the right choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Novell is trying to create a professional desktop environment for Linux. To this end, choosing the highest quality toolkit is much more important than having to pay a small fee for the development of non-GPL applications.
Gtk's licensing only has an advantage over Qt's for those shops that want to create commercial non-GPL applications yet are too small to afford Qt's relatively cheap license. Novell have obviously decided that those shops aren't such an important market to sway their choice.
Microsoft's Trump Card? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know if it's just heresay, but could MS patent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Use GNOME/Gtk, because you can USE Gtk as much as you want for COMMERCIAL development without paying anything.
Don't use KDE/Qt, because you can only develop FREE software using it, otherwise it costs money.
So.. NOW KDE/Qt is the champion of free software, whereas GNOME/Gtk is for the COMMERCIAL (and apparently not so evil after all) PROPRIETARY closed source solutions.
You make me laugh!
If GNOME/Gtk is REALLY a friend, let's see them place everything under GPL (for true software protection) rather than the LGPL.
What's the big deal about support Qt is you use the toolkit? Yep.. it's commercial...and if you use it for commercial development, it costs money... so?? Is someone suggesting their software business plan is only to sell like 10 copies of their software, so they can't afford to by a real development license?? Just seems weird.
Is Novel smoking the same crack as Darl? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I wonder what in the world would make Novell pick QT? I don't have a problem with the QT license since it is free for GPL'ed code and if you want to do closed source, you pay, just like the rest of the world. I am fine with that. What I don't understand is what is Novell's game plan concerning all the Ximinan "IP" that they bought? There is no acceptable QT based groupware application that is ready _NOW_, while there is GTK+ based Ximian Evolution that even works very well with MS Exchange. There is Mozilla that is GTK+ based. Novell is not going to get all those users to switch to konq when, IMO Konq is not standards compliant enough yet and the rendering engine is not up to snuff with Gecko. What about OOo? Again, it uses GTK+, I cannot see Novell porting that beast to QT. These three apps are critical to the Linux desktop, everything else is fluff in comparision.
Maybe they plan to do some good QT/GTK+ integration? I hope so, since the two tool-kits have issues with simple interoperation such as drag-n-drop and copy-n-paste, not to mention how different the widgets look. I personally don't want a Linux desktop that has no consistency between the widgets. This is the main reason I always look for Gnome apps over KDE apps to keep my desktop consistent (with the exception of K3b, since it is one great app).
Oh, there is also the issues of the different technologies that the two desktops use. What sound server are they going to use? arts or esd? Are they going to make the coding changes to to the all the other apps or do they expect a user to have both running? DCOP or Orbit? etc vs etc. IMO, Novell should have picked one desktop and then ported any of the very good apps from the other desktop over. It would take a long time to port Evolution, Mozilla/Firefox and OOo to QT and have it be stable.
Since Redhat dropped interest in the desktop, I was hoping for Novell to help push Desktop Linux, though this move makes me less optimistic.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I am *not* a license expert. This is pure hearsay.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure you can use QT with all your GPL stuff all you want.
Given that Qt is available under the GPL itself [trolltech.com], it's an absolute certainty you can use Qt in a GPLed project.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Informative)
From the Trolltech website:
When Qt Free Edition is Open Source and GPL, can I use it to make commercial (proprietary/closed-source) software?
No.
You will still need to purchase the Professional or Enterprise Edition to make commercial (proprietary/closed-source) software with Qt.
Which suggests that I cannot make a GPL'ed commercial application? Perhaps that should be clarified. I also cannot make a GPL'd native (non-Cygwin) Windows application at all. QT is nice to work in, but it's a long way from bein
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Where did you read that? It only says you cannot make proprietary/closed-source software with Qt, just as you can't with the GNU Readline library or the GNU Scientific Library or any other GPL'd software.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
It also sounds like you don't recognize the legitimacy of dual-licensing models. Do you support or oppose the LGPL? The LGPL enables companies to use GPL libraries, free of charge, to build closed source software (just like the BSD licenses).
All Trolltech is saying is that if you want to use Qt to build closed source software, then you have to pay for Qt. They don't offer a GPL version for Windows because people were abusing it.
At core is whether or not an application built on Qt is a derivative work or not. If it is, the GPL means you can't build a closed source application on top of. This is a feature that has prevented corporations from using GPL libraries. Hence the LGPL, and dual-licensing in general.
It sounds like you're just mad that Trolltech decided not to go with a "free for commercial use" model like the LGPL.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm perennially amazed that the GNOME zealots, who started out from the GNU "all software must be free" zealot camp, now argue that Qt is bad because it doesn't allow proprietary applications. (Actually, it does, if you buy a licence from Qt. Unlike, say, GNU's readline library, which was deliberately GPL'd and not LGPL'd by Stallman, who will not issue you a commercial licence.)
In fact, RMS even wrote an article on why you shouldn't use the LGPL for your next library [gnu.org]. Without the backing RMS gave GNOME in its early days, when it was an unusable piece of crap and KDE had already hit a high-quality 1.0, it would never have got off the ground. (Remember GNOME 1.0? *shudder*) And yet the selling point now is that GNOME is more suitable to proprietary apps? I just can't figure out where all this is coming from.
If anything, Qt is a shining success story on how to make money with GPL'd software using a dual-licensing strategy. Far from continuing to vilify Troll Tech, the GNU/GNOME zealots ought to trumpet this story as a way to encourage more proprietary software companies to play nice with the linux world. (Peter Deutsch did the dual-licence thing long back with ghostscript, but he only released year-old versions of ghostscript under the GPL, and that's still the practice. Troll Tech releases current versions of Qt under GPL as well as their commercial licence.)
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?.
Inappropriate for basic foundations of Linux software.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? Oh, nevermind.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
> basic foundations of Linux software..
But that is the reality. Core libraries should be LGPL to prevent no end of problems. Imagine trying to get Mozilla or OO.o up and running in a world where Qt was the only suitable toolkit. Either the Windows & Mac ports would have to be dropped or each and every developer would need to possess a license for the commercial version of Qt.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:4, Interesting)
the most obvious is that it is a barrier to adoption. if your model is to sell software and make yr money that way, everything's fine... but if you're model is have free wares to drive sales of other commodities (hardware, support, data &c) then the extra pricetag on the software can tank your business.
since you asked....
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux has been free for years and yet only accounts for 5% of the desktop max. So what is the real barrier to people adopting Linux then?
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, the cost of the software was only listed as a barrier to adoption, not the only one. As for what the additional barriers there are, two that I can think of quickly are learning curve and OEM buy-in. It is human nature to be reluctant to learn to use product B when you already are comfortable using product A. It takes a pretty good incentive to push people to expend the necessary energy. As for the OEMs, if they aren't already locked into a restrictive exclusive contract with Microsoft, they are probably reluctant to spend the resources to support installation of an alternative operating system on the machines they sell unless they see a sizable market. Given that it's a chicken and egg argument, adoption of Linux on the desktop will be slow until the market gathers enough mass. If and when that point is reached, you'll probably see very quick gains in market share. Getting large companies like IBM and Novell behind the push will go a long way in helping adoption.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing if you aren't using it as a core library for a free desktop system
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of "free" software is that it is open for perusal, poking, sharing, etc. not that it's gratis so you don't have to pay for it. Granted because of the first the gratis part is often the case but the mentality that free speech software MUST mean free beer software is just wrong.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Insightful)
While it is probably impossible for Redhat not to create a free as in beer version of their free as in speech software, the fact that it can and is paid for is very telling.
The main advantage of Open Source to most people is absolutely NOT the free binary whether they know it or not. It is not a "few geeks such as yourself" there is a very large world of geeks out here that value the source to their programs for many reasons other than that it may be free as in beer as well.
If in fact you value the monitary freeness of your software over the freedom of the source than I would argue that your not a geek at all but just someone who wants to ride a gravy train.
Furthermore the dichotomy you used between KDE & gnome is false because both are GPL'd. Would you rather pay for an Open Source KDE or get a closed source Windows for free? If you choose the Windows option than you definitely don't understand freedom and your no geek I want to hang out with.
The fact is that people have to stop with this idea that "free" in the GPL'd way means "free beer". Free software is a costly thing,I have spent untold hours of my valuable time helping to code free software, but that's fine I don't expect payment for that work because I was paid in kind by other coders. But users who just take and never give back must understand exactly what they are doing. I can't force anyone to pay for software they can get for "free" but your mentality that software MUST be free as in beer is totally antithema to the actual freedom that is espoused by free(dom) software.
Freedom software is about having the source, never looking over your shoulder for the thought police, adding to something and feeling you've contributed, learning, sharing. "Free beer" software is about being a leech!
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
Somehow, this is still news to people...
I think (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Cry me a river. Trolltech spent a huge investment on making Qt the best cross-platform GUI toolkit available anywhere. I think they're decision to provide a GPL'd version was an incredibly noble thing for them to do (althogh in truth, they do get a lot out of it in return, especially through their relationship with KDE). My hat is off to Trolltech.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in demanding that one software company (TT) must give away its product for free so that other companies can profit from the work? How does that make any kind of sense?
Re:I think (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds [gtk.org] reasonable [wxwindows.org] to [gnustep.org] me. [sun.com]
Re:I think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to be confusing that one can buy a commercial version of Qt. That version however is extra. If you don't want it, just stick to plain old GPL'ed Qt.
MySQL is doing something similar. Nobody seems to be confused by that one though.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that you have to buy a licence for closed source may be a problem for hobby developers that have more time than money. To companies like Novell the quality is more important than the price . To them, time to market is everything. And they will spend far more money on developer saleries and marketing than they will spend on QT licences. So they will go for the best tool. And QT is one of the best there is. (Cross platform, good development tools, well designed framework...)
And if they want to release free software they have less risk of being hurt by some competitor if they release it under GPL than under LGPL or BSD type licences. I guess this was the reason MySQL AB changed the licence on their client libs to GPL.
So, QT would be a very good choise.
Re:QT? What about licensing? (Score:3, Interesting)
*Proprietary* Qt is Dangerous to Linux!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
And if we are not careful, Trolltech is going to end up controlling Linux. [We also need to consider the possibility of a backroom deal between Trolltech and Microsoft, similar to the deal between Microsoft and SCO.]
The danger, of course, is not the GPL'd version of Qt. KDE is also not a problem. Both of those are Open Source, so we don't have to worry about them, and I have no reason to talk about them.
The real danger of Trolltech is the proprietary version of Qt and the applications that depend on it.
Or, in more general terms, the danger is proprietary middleware.
Let's look at an example from history. Remember when the PC platform was open, from bottom to top? Remember when you could not only buy the hardware from any number of vendors, but there were also competing vendors for the BIOS, there was more than one windowing architecture (Gem, Geoworks, Borland's GUI libs,...), and there were dozens of development environments, and thousands of code libraries? Remember when standards were simple, when it was easy to write code to interface directly with printers, with video cards, and so on?
What happened? Microsoft introduced Windows.
After a while, Windows became an indespensible component of the PC. Applications depended on it, and hardware manufacturers had to support it. And there was only one supplier of the Windows component, namely, Microsoft.
Soon, Microsoft started using its control of Windows to make itself the winner in the applications market. And today, Microsoft (with a few accomplices) also dictates the standards for PC hardware, its BIOS, its peripherals, and its network protocols.
What was special about Windows? It was proprietary middleware!
Windows sat in the middle, in between the applications and the PC. Any applications that wanted to access PC hardware used (and became dependent on) Windows APIs. And any PC manufacturer that wanted applications had to support Windows APIs. Bill Gates once said that by controlling the APIs, he controlled the industry.
Likewise, PC users became locked in. They could replace their hardware. They could replace an application. But they couldn't replace Windows. As the PC became cheaper, Windows became more expensive, as did the Microsoft applications that Windows "encouraged" users to use.
The proprietary version of Qt is just like Windows. It is proprietary middleware. It sits between the applications and Linux. The applications that use Qt are dependent on its APIs. And if Linux wants to be able to run those applications, then it has to support Qt.
What applications are we talking about? Applications like Kylix, Hancom Office, Opera, the professional versions of Quanta and Rekall and various other TheKompany products, ATI's setup utility, Quasar Accounting, Adobe Photoshop Album, and so on. If a Linux distribution wants to be able to run those applications, then it must support the proprietary version of Qt.
So how bad is it? Has Linux been taken over by proprietary middleware, the way the PC was taken over by Windows?
In other words, Have we reached the point where the proprietary version of Qt, with its single supplier, is an indedpensible component of Linux?
If this article is correct, and Novell is standardizing on Qt as the foundation of its desktop and development environment, then things are very bad.
Others have also argued that it has become almost impossible to have Linux without proprietary Qt...
In their paper Conquering the Enterprise Desktop [kdenews.org], a group of developers argued that Bruce Perens' UserLinux would have trouble succeeding, unless it included the Qt Library in its basic install. Were those developers just talking about the GPL'd version of Qt? No, as shown by these statements:
Re:Give me a break! (Score:4, Informative)
The first correct statement in your post. Nothing stops your customers from using Qt to develop software, as long as the software is either GPL'd or for internal use only. If your customer wants to develop proprietary software to distribute for profit, perhaps you can do them a favor and recommend Windows, since windows users are more likely to buy into (literally) the proprietary software model.
Re:Give me a break! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would hope that Novell will try to do this by bringing those persons into *our* way of doing things, not by trying to change the Linux community into the Windows community. If the latter is their goal (which I seriously doubt), then I say no thanks.
Re:Give me a break! (Score:3, Informative)
False. GTK is licensed under LGPL, which is far less restrictive. Do some research before you spout this drivel.
Re:Give me a break! (Score:3, Informative)
On Novell Linux, there will be a cost. So-long, shareware market! Not that there is really a Linux shareware market now, but this would be pretty effective in stopping one from appearing. I also wonder if Trolltech will try to submarine Linux at some point in the future, ala SCO.
Novell could sell "Novell Developer Studio," which includes KDevelop, QT Designer, etc. plus a QT lic
Re:Give me a break! (Score:3, Insightful)
What's stopping a shareware market from appearing is OpenSource, not Qt licenses.
GTK (and most GNOME libs) are LGPL (Score:5, Informative)
So please mod parent down.
This is inaccurate (Score:3, Informative)
GTK has no such restriction. It is released under the LGPL. [gnu.org]
Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)
In the whole world of UI/Desktop use, choice is a good thing. It means complete customisation control from one purpose such as industrial process control, to corporate desktop, to games system (humor me and look to the future when this is the case with Linux. It will happen eventually). However for Novell who will be supporting a system, and selling it as a solution for businesses, then there needs to b
Re:more "Utah software" ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll admit it, the first time I read this conspiracy thoery I was worried. I looked into it. Trust me there are no black helicopters being dispatched from SCO.
KDE Myths #60: http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/viewMyth.php?myth
"According to http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html the Canopy Group only has 5.7% shares of Trolltech while 64.7% are in posession of Trolltech employees with an additional 5% controlled by the Trolltech founders. One can hardly say that the Canopy Group owns or controls Trolltech."
Don't forget Canopy is just an investent group. They'd probably like to see TrollTech get this boost because SCO is a loss at the moment, and they aren't going to get better.
It is like saying that you own a mutual fun that invests in two competitors, and that you are going to devalue one so the other can rise. The problem is that you want BOTH to perform.
haha (Score:3, Insightful)