Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: Qt 5.1 Finally Released With Lots Of Good Features

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    When GIMP stops using the GIMP Toolkit? Somewhere between when pigs fly and when hell freezes over, I suspect.
    I deliberately wrote that sentence about GIMP.

    Thing is, despite all that trolling about how evil Qt supposedly is, it's the best toolkit under a free license. If Qt was so very evil, why is GTK so bad? One would think everybody would flock to it to make it better…
    Xfce is the last mainstream Linux shell that's written using GTK.
    GNOME Shell is written with Clutter. So is Cinnamon.
    Plasma Workspaces never were written in GTK, Unity uses Nux and will switch to Qt, and now LXDE has been ported to Qt. (OK, maybe you can count MATE as major shell.)
    And while I'm aware of GIMP’s roadmap, the GIMP team hasn't really been in a hurry to make the jump to GTK3.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    would be very nice if gtk developer help improve even more Qt and Mir get into the dark history books, we will get rid then of many duplications and improve a lot many things. /dream

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    before any troll come here to feed, let me clear this a bit

    Gtk has many technical merits and Qt has many nice cool features, what i mean if you merge the good in both into 1 badass toolkit would remove a lot of duplication that exist this day. i mean you can always find an application in gtk that do the same than an Qt one and it exist just because one is gtk and the other is Qt.

    this would remove all the duplication and efforts wasted in make gtk apps look like Qt one or viceversa that if you ask me will help a freaking lot to keep experience among different desktop a lot more cleaner.

    shitstorm in 3 2 1

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post

    Gtk has many technical merits and Qt has many nice cool features, what i mean if you merge the good in both into 1 badass toolkit would remove a lot of duplication that exist this day.
    The main 'technical merit' that I have seen in favor of GTK is that it is written in C and a bunch of Gnome devs are irrationally afraid of C++. Unfortunately this makes it more difficult to use and less feature rich than Qt. Honestly, I have never understood GTK.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    A)Digias contributor agreement gives the right to relicense free to non-free versions. Agree?
    B) KDE Free foundation has a conditional right to relicense free to non-free versions. Agree?
    B)
    1)Why would kde ever do this? They are one of the biggest free software projects. They have never produced non-free software and feel very strongly about free.
    2) Even if kde wanted, you are 100% false, KDE cannot relicense qt to be non-free.

    The Foundation has a license agreement with Digia and Nokia. This agreement ensures that the Qt will continue to be available under both the LGPL 2.1 and the GPL 3. Should Digia discontinue the development of the Qt Free Edition under these licenses, then the Foundation has the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license or under other open source licenses. The agreement stays valid in case of a buy-out, a merger or bankruptcy.

    A) Because of what I just said above, if Digia ever made Qt non-free (which they won't as this would kill their business), KDE automatically relicenses Qt as free.

    Qt cannot be closed.


    Qt commercial license is exactly the same as the LGPL qt, only under a more liberal license with support, this is how Qt makes money. The sources of both are the same. Even Richard Stallman supports this dual licensing business model.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    GTK is a steaming pile of s***. Not to discredit the hard work that the devs put into it, but after kindergarten you don't get an A for effort.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowBane View Post
    The main 'technical merit' that I have seen in favor of GTK is that it is written in C and a bunch of Gnome devs are irrationally afraid of C++. Unfortunately this makes it more difficult to use and less feature rich than Qt. Honestly, I have never understood GTK.
    well gtk is a bit more memory aware, it support web integration[very cool feature], used to work better than Qt with software rendering, widgets are actually double buffered since while ago and i think their theme engine was very well thought[gtk2 times].

    i do consider gtk API insane too and sometimes C is just too low and make their code look really intimidating.

    but the fact is, they are good developers with experience in this area, so maybe is not a good idea to port actual code but use their experience to bring more ideas to Qt and make GTK dissapear for good[which that alone is a huge win in the not-reinvent-the-wheel-again department] which i assume will translate in many duplicated project to modularize or join efforts[openshot and kdenlive would be nice candidates or amarok and banshee or brasero and k3b, etc]

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    KDE can not relicense Qt. KDE can relicense Qt Free Edition. This is very important to understand. Threatening Digia to keep doing Qt Free Edition releases by keeping the license is not very powerfull KDE can only threat Digia by releaseing a non-free but liberal licensed version of Qt Free edition.

    So if Digia goes non-free so kan KDE. How can this not be seen as holding to guns against freedom?
    You make no sense AT ALL.

    Did you even read my comment?

    There are not editions of Qt, it is all the same source code, just available under different licenses. LGPL/GPL (free), or if you pay money, you get a commercial license without the GPL/LGPL restricitons and get paid support.
    The Qt free agreement garuntees the free licensing option of Qt will always exist. If that option were to be removed tomorrow, KDE automatically get's to relicense Qt under any open source license they choose, (be it BSD, LGPL, ect.).

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honton View Post
    Please dont use such language. Let us get clear about the facts.


    A)Digias contributor agreement gives the right to relicense free to non-free versions. Agree?

    B) KDE Free foundation has a conditional right to relicense free to non-free versions. Agree?
    please this is not a WoW forum, if you wanna troll at least freaking read the thing you wanna troll first and find a gray area worth trolling[Q we need you back], really just troll an public document that have been checked by every FSF lawyer/qt developer/Kde developer and actual good trolls before you has found no actual way to do this.

    beside the agreement actually state in bold free licences only[i mean is hard to miss, you dislexic?]

    btw the agreement is free to read men and is even in wikipedia and 100% public for everyone to read, maybe you could have more luck if it were secret but you not even failed at trolling or googlefu you even epic failed in reading.

    im not joking unban Q, between honton/boss and ubutroll, the trolling is hitting sad low

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    please this is not a WoW forum, if you wanna troll at least freaking read the thing you wanna troll first and find a gray area worth trolling[Q we need you back], really just troll an public document that have been checked by every FSF lawyer/qt developer/Kde developer and actual good trolls before you has found no actual way to do this.

    beside the agreement actually state in bold free licences only[i mean is hard to miss, you dislexic?]

    btw the agreement is free to read men and is even in wikipedia and 100% public for everyone to read, maybe you could have more luck if it were secret but you not even failed at trolling or googlefu you even epic failed in reading.

    im not joking unban Q, between honton/boss and ubutroll, the trolling is hitting sad low
    I think Honton is the new funkSTAR.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •