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

List:       userlinux-discuss
Subject:    Re: Polite liscensing discussion (WAS Re: [Discuss] Introducing my
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () olympusproject ! org>
Date:       2003-12-19 6:37:38
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

this is the wrong list for this discussion and as much as i'm dreadfully tired 
of this whole thread, i have a real hard time watching misconceptions get 
thrown around unanswered...

On Thursday 18 December 2003 10:04, Gregory Scott Bledsoe wrote:
> Third, I think we can all agree that integration between the KDE DE and
> the QT toolset is very tight?  Likewise the integration between the
> GNOME DE and GTK toolset?  But the integration between applications made
> with QT don't integrate *as well* into the Gnome DE, and applications
> built with the GTK toolset don't integrate *as well* into the KDE DE?

the integration gap is limited in scope these days to the point that general 
usage doesn't show it up. how many people on this list have mistaken an app 
for being a KDE app when it wasn't, or vice versa? i've seen it happen a few 
times now.

> And we have no assurance that integration will ever get substantially
> better.  In fact, it could get worse.  Not being fortune tellers, there
> is no way to know for sure.  We can guess that it will, but that is just
> that:  a guess, an assumption.

wrong. assuming that we don't trust the developer's word, there are three ways 
to prove that the integration is getting better and will continue to get 
better:

 o the gap is narrower than it was in the past
 o there's an organization even for this stuff now: FreeDesktop.org. and it 
has gotten busier and busier over the last while, standardizing a HUGE number 
of things on the desktop
 o there is code currently being written that narrows that gap further, and 
not just between Gtk/Gnome and Qt/KDE, but also betwen OOo, Moz, etc... cf:

	OOo/KDE: http://kde.openoffice.org
	Sodipodi/KDE: http://dot.kde.org/1071748404/
	Qt/KDE Accessability, using the same underlying systems that GNOME uses: 
http://dot.kde.org/1071757088/
	DBUS, a standard IPC mechanism: http://freedesktop.org/Software/dbus

in other words we have historical evidence, current movement, and a 
standardization body. no guesses, no assumptions necessary.

> So this leaves us in the position that, *for now at least* we probably
> need to pick either KDE/QT or GNOME/GTK.

and here's where i get to knock down the whole strawman at once. if we 
therefore need to pick either KDE/Qt or GNOME/Gtk because of these nascent 
gaps in interop, why do we have Java, Mozilla or OOo in the picture?

> The argument goes that if ISV's profiting from their own code, then they
> won't have a problem ponying up for developer licenses.  That may be so
> in many, maybe most, cases.  But consider just a few with me:

there are two flaws with this reasoning:

1. development cost is measure more than in tool cost. there's quality and 
time to delivery, both of which are more important because they are more 
expensive. to wit, how much on tools does the average MS developer spend, and 
yet look how many MS Windows apps there are. 

2. if someone doesn't want to pay $s and wants to create proprietary software, 
use Gtk+, or Java, or whatever else you you wish. nobody is saying because 
there's Qt you can't have your Gtk+ or Java... User Linux is saying, "To give 
options (0 cost of acquisition proprietary development) we need to remove 
options (Qt)." that makes very little sense.

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
while (!horse()); cart();
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/4py21rcusafx20MRAvEPAKCEsVNA4cfeqPgvRPnEh4zvalVOoQCdFvF1
7AW6yDhFs55GQpWulransEI=
=WSzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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