Desktop Environment / Window Manager Preference/Comparison Thread

[ralph_ubuntu]

'You started out by saying that Qt was not free because Trolltech could somehow simply take the GPL'd Qt away."

I said that Qt was a commercial product that is currently under a free licence.

You said that too, which doesn't invalidate my point.

"Then you claimed (and still seem to claim) that Trolltech could somehow decide not to release future versions of Qt as free software. Now apart from the fact that this holds true for nearly any software under the GPL, this doesn't hold true for Qt. Again, Tolltech has signed a contract that makes sure that would Trolltech do such a thing any new version of Qt would also be released as free software. So in this sense you are on the safer side using Qt than you are using almost any other GPL'd software."

You are dreaming. That "contract" only proves that they realize that people have concerns about their pilocies.

How so? Any argument to support your claim? Are you a lawyer, could you break it done for us laymen why the contract doesn't offer the protection it is supposed to offer? Thanks in advance.

"Now as this situation seems to sink in you suggest that Trolltech could release a closed, reworked, renamed library, thereby circumventing the contract they signed. Now if constructing this scenario doesn't speak of desperation, what does?"

Why can't you just be nice? Yes, this is what I said.

Because I don't like people spreading FUD and insulting people.

"But let's look at it anyway:
First of all, Trolltech would clearly break a contract, so this situation would be highly problematic for them, to say the least and of course highly unlikely. But even if they did pull this stunt of, there would still be the GPL'd version of Qt.

Ah, but now you claim that the closed, reworked, renamed library released by Trolltech breaking a contract would have some killer features the original GPL'd Qt has not, thereby making all the apps linked to Qt obsolete. This is of course a funny "argument", as this situation isn't different from any opensource software that has a closed source equivalent that is superior. So what exactly does make this problem so terrible with regard to Qt?"

Having an equivalent is completely different than licencing _the same software_ under two licences.

Which does have exactly what to do with the issue at hand? Oh, nothing. So again, what exactly does that have to do with the issue at hand? How does the fact that it is currently dual licensed make a scenario where Trolltech break a contract and release a closed, reworked, renamed library worse? How exactly does it make it different from a scenario where there is an equivalent superior closed source product for an opern source program?

"And now here's your last argument. You seem to assume that the open source community is somehow able to develop a world class operating system, world class tools for it, great toolkits like gtk, great desktop environments like Gnome and Kde but somehow for some freakish reason wouldn't be able to sustain the development of Qt in case that Trolltech doesn't develop it anymore. (Remember, they broke a contract and went closed source ). Now why this should be the case is beyond me, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me."

You said it yourself. The open source community did not develop Qt. A commercial enterprise did. It is completely feasable. MacOS X is based on FreeBSD. They have an open-source project named Darwin. Can Darwin run Safari? Does it have all the features of OSX?

Which does tell us exactly what about the issue at hand? Again, nothing. So again, what exactly prevents a community that can create and maintain several operating systems, several databases, several desktop environments, you name it, suddenly incapable of maintaining Qt?

[TravisNewman]

Note: part of this post references topics discussed here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...9&page=2&pp=40

ralph, are you familiar with the BSD license? Nowhere near as much protection for the user as GPL. THAT is a serious worry for me. If CompanyA decides to grab the source and develop on it, closed source, and goes leaps and bounds, sets standards for QT variants, and obliterates the competition, then that's a major problem. You've said yourself that it could go to a BSD license.

I would like to mention that I think this is a non issue as of now. It may BECOME an issue.

You also ask how their licensing is wish-washy. Well, they have two different licensing methods, one of which being GPL, and if they ever stop development it goes BSD. That sounds wishy-washy to me.

Now lets talk about FUD as a concept.

FUD=Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
If I say I don't like KDE because it's bloated, there are 15 different applications for each task, etc (note that I wouldn't, I don't agree with these points), is that FUD? No. It's an opinion. It may be misinformed, and it may be specific to the user, but it's not FUD. No opinion can be considered FUD, and no misinformation can be considered FUD, unless it's INTENTIONALLY trying to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in people. Microsoft using skewed tests to prove that they are cheaper for running servers is FUD. If I were to say "Windows sucks because it's slow, it crashes all the time, it's bloated, etc" most people on these forums would say "yep, you're right" but if I were to say that I hate KDE (which I don't) because it's bloated, slow, and I don't like the licensing, about half the people start screaming FUD. It CAN'T BE BOTH WAYS.

[KiwiNZ]

Play nice folks , my finger doth hover over close button

[KiwiNZ]

This thread I believe has run its course , again my finger doth hover over the close button

[TravisNewman]

The subject being discussed in this thread is exactly the same as the subject in this thread:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...ed=1#post81963

It was supposed to be a SERIOUS KDE/GNOME thread, as the topic suggests, and it isn't anymore, therefore I'm closing this topic. Any further discussion along these lines should go to the thread above.

If anyone wants to try another thread, feel free, but I doubt it will work. There are too many zealots for both environments for this to ever happen.

[ralph_ubuntu]

This thread I believe has run its course , again my finger doth hover over the close button

Please press now!

Edit:
Just saw panickedthumb's post:
Yes I am familiar with the BSD license, yes I do prefer the GPL, no that doesn't speak against Qt. You might not be aware of it but every author can change the license for future versions of his software. The only difference is that Trolltech provides its users with the assurance that would they ever decide to go fully closed sourced, they will not be able to. That's more than you get with practically any other GPL software, yet it doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

Now about the FUD issue, intentionally ignoring information and repeatedly giving out misinformation is FUD. And claiming against all the information there is and against any common sense that KDE is not free software, that it might someday not be free software anymore, that it is against the free software spirit, that people who use and develop kde don't care about freedom is insulting and FUD.

Examples:
"It's a messy situation, and the fact that there's no GPL means that they could change stances at any time. Why would they license the software in this way if they didn't have at least an inkling of a plan for this?" There's no GPL, they have an inkling of a plan of this? This is not FUD?

"I'm referring to the version that requires licensing. They could pull the gpl version at any time and require licensing to use qt at all. That's not FUD."
It isn't? If it isn't FUD it is at least totally uninformed and wrong, which is of course surprising, as the links showing that this bs is wrong have been posted several times already. So what am I supposed to assume, that you are unable to read or that you are spreading FUD?

"My point about the licensing is that they could pull their gpl'ed version and completely switch over to the one that requires licensing. And that's not FUD." This after it has been shown specifically to you that this is not that case. No FUD? But what else could explain your behavior?

And now please close the topic or I might really get angry.

[TravisNewman]

This thread I believe has run its course , again my finger doth hover over the close button

If it can stay clean, or rather GET CLEAN, I see no problem with it staying open. It's good to have a kde vs gnome thread as long as GOOD topics are discussed. It was one of these threads that actually got me to try KDE again and not hate it anymore (though I do hate the older versions). However two heated threads on the exact same topic is couterproductive and useless, so the other one is closed.

My finger doth'd hovered and then clickethed.

[KiwiNZ]

Good on ya , now you watch them why I go make some lunch cos my stomach is sending distress signals to see if my throat is cut

[az]

It would be interesting to count how many times our opinions were repeated in the past seventy posts in both threads.

In regard to cleaning this up, I have nothing personal against ralph. He can buy me a beer anytime. We'd discuss abortion or something...







Zealots? You're a digit!

[TravisNewman]

Back on the point of KDE in general, I'm about to try 3.4 RC1, and I've never used Konstruct before. It reminds me a lot of emerge in Gentoo, but man it's slick so far.

It even picked the closest mirror quite accurately! I'm downloading from VA Tech, and I live about 15 minutes away from VA Tech. However, this brings back memories of living in the dorms of Radford University (as opposed to the 1 block away from RU I live now) and trying to download from VT servers. They are SLOW for some reason. So while it picked the closest server, it didn't exaclty pick the fastest one. Does anyone know which it's SUPPOSED to do?

And if you're a stalker, please go back and unread that last paragraph

Anyway, I would like to say, now that I'm much more chilled out, that I do openly welcome KDE to Ubuntu. While the licensing DOES bother me, it's not restrictive at the moment, and like I said in the other thread, it's a non issue for me. Windows licensing has always bothered me but I used it for years, didn't I?

Seriously though, I'd love to see some cooperation between Gnome and KDE devs to make Knome or GDE or something. They both annoy me sometimes, but they could come together to make something spectacular. I think there needs to be more cooperation like that in the Linux community.