[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: Gimp, Gnome, Gtk, KDE, Qt...
From:       Steve Hutton <shutton () gte ! net>
Date:       1998-07-16 2:54:14
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Alan Cox wrote:

>I'll tell you why it worries me, all other licensing arguments aside. A lot
>of Linux ports are done unofficially at first. That "need to spend money"
>barrier is a very big one stopping the techies from happening to have
>a Linux edition ready "Portability test honest Boss" when someone from the
>bean brigade says 'What would Linux support cost us'

Some corps might also have managers who complain that they want the
toolkit they choose to be "commercially supported" like QT is.  Linux now
gives commercial developers several good tookit choices.  What's the big
deal about this?  Linux is about choice.

Anyway, this is not a Netscape/Java vs. IE/ActiveX style exclusionary decision.
Apps written in GTK (or Motif, etc.) are perfectly functional under KDE,
and they are perfectly viable in the marketplace.

Oooh, but the widgets won't  match exactly!  Big deal, there are many
successful commercial apps even under Win32 that have their own look and
feel (because they were written without MFC).  For example, Lotus Notes has not
been shunned from corporate desktops just because it uses "twisty-arrows" in
it's tree control instead of the ubiquitous MS folder icons and plus signs. 

Similarly, I doubt that Star Divison and Netscape are flooded with emails 
complaining that their Motif-built apps don't match the look and feel of
their TCL/TK and Athena-built apps...  

Steve

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]