Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Novell Desktop To Standardize On Qt [updated]

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the making-it-better-and-faster dept.

GUI 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."

cancel ×

615 comments

Novell... (3, Redundant)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704778)

Novell is slowly changing my opinion of them...

Re:Novell... (2, Redundant)

attemptedgoalie (634133) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704799)

I'd say me too, but I still have this gut feeling that they're going to screw up heinously somehow.

Re:Novell... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704890)

Didn't they just do that by adopting QT instead of GTK ?

It makes perfect sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704791)

There is no support from corporations for GNOME but there has always been strong support for QT.

Jeez you act like this is a shocker...

Try and keep up, mmmkay?

I think I speak for us all when I say (0)

strictnein (318940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705062)

WHO CARES

QT? What about licensing? (1, Troll)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704796)

Doesn't QT have a bunch of annoying licensing restrictions?

Re:QT? What about licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704811)

Not for GPL'ed code.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704812)

You mean the GPL?

Re:QT? What about licensing? (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704816)

I'm pretty sure you can use QT with all your GPL stuff all you want. If you want to do commercial work, on the other hand, yeah.

But I am *not* a license expert. This is pure hearsay.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704834)

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? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704820)

What, like GPL?

Re:QT? What about licensing? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704823)

Not anymore, most of them have been resolved some time ago.

Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?

Re:QT? What about licensing? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704874)


Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?
.

Inappropriate for basic foundations of Linux software.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (2, Insightful)

Roberto (1777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704974)

> Inappropiate for basic foundations of linux software.

Says who? Oh, nevermind.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (1)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704876)

Whats wrong with software you have to pay for?!? How about, it isn't FREE, and if it isn't free it leaves alot of people out of luck. PS - Whoever modded me a troll can just go to hell. This was a legitimate question, from a concerned user.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (5, Insightful)

slipstick (579587) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704945)

Hmm. I hope you mean free as in speech not as in beer because otherwise that's not much of an argument.

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? (1)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705088)

Why on earth would you say that? How can it possibly benefit the world if the software is not free. How can it be free as in speech, but not as in beer? Wouldn't one necessitate the other?
As an example, if I have the code to something than I can just compile it and use it for free. Why pay for it?
The main advantage of Open Source to most people is not in the openness of the code, but in the freeness of the binary. Although a few geeks such as myself feel like we need the source, most people would never miss it. Your kind of idealism is nice, but not even close to most of the real worlds point of view. Not to mention that if I had a choice between paying for KDE, or using gnome for free, I know which one I would use. Regardless of features.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (3, Interesting)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704904)

Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?

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? (3, Insightful)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705006)

Besides, whats wrong with software you have to pay for?
Nothing if you aren't using it as a core library for a free desktop system

Re:QT? What about licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704841)

I don't know if this (parent) is supposed to be funny or what...but I always think of Quicktime when I see Qt...

Re:QT? What about licensing? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704848)

No. Qt hasn't had annoying license restrictions in years, as it was released under the GPL [trolltech.com] four years ago, allowing for such projects as a GPL'd Qt3/Win32 [sourceforge.net] .

Somehow, this is still news to people...

Re:QT? What about licensing? (1)

steveit_is (650459) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704913)

Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know :)

I think (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704996)

I think that many commercial development companies would consider the GPL to be "annoying license restrictions" if all they want to do is write a GUI app.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705009)

Not to criticize or anything, but that project is years away from producing something useable.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705037)

"Qt hasn't had annoying license restrictions in years, as it was released under the GPL four years ago"

The GPL *IS* a license with annoying restrictions, especially for a library.

Re:QT? What about licensing? (3, Informative)

Erik Hensema (12898) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705070)

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? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704932)

"Doesn't QT have a bunch of annoying licensing restrictions?"
It seems Novell does not think the same as Bruce Perens [userlinux.com]

About time (1, Interesting)

deacon brown (733444) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704802)

It's good to see these two being merged. I love Linux, but it seems as if some people need to see a common desktop, for them to feel like Linux has arrived. BTW: FP!

YOU SO FUCKING FAIL IT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704865)

Re:About time (2, Interesting)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705067)

This is what good widespread systems need, and it's understandable that Novell is aiming for consistency.

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 be stability, if not from a support point of view then for a User point of view.

Users don't care, and shouldn't, about the technicalities of their tools, and that's what support is for. Only when they have a well constructed and supported toolset (their desktop in this case) can they perform with 100% concentration on their REAL job be it marketing, secretarial, analysis and so on

Acker's Nude & Anime Desktop Gallery [67.160.223.119]

FP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705105)

Maybe in the future you won't be so moronic as to mention FP or other lame things like that.

What an idiot. You look even more stupid because your post is like the 20th in the thread. Sheesh.

GTK is out, then? (4, Interesting)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704808)

What about that Ximian purchase? I guess it was just for Mono.
  1. Will they be writing a GTK-on-top-of-QT layer?
  2. Ditching GTK apps?
  3. Using GTK apps but not encouraging their creation?
  4. Just using QT for Novell-specific stuff (like Redhat uses GTK for its configurators, etc)?
*confused*

Re:GTK is out, then? (2, Interesting)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704840)

I personally would much rather see GTK adopted instead of QT, just because of licensing costs alone.

Re:GTK is out, then? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704970)

What's the difference in cost?

Re:GTK is out, then? (2, Informative)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705013)

NEWSFLASH: Qt is available under the GPL!

So, if you want to do your closed source software with Qt, you can pay through the nose. However, if you develop GPL software you are free and free. Like with GTK, right?

Re:GTK is out, then? (5, Informative)

t4k1s (706242) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705114)

No, GTK is licensed using the LGPL license. Meaning that you can develop GPL software with it and commercial software without paying a dime.

Re:GTK is out, then? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704898)

GTK is written in C.

That sucks for GUIs.

Re:GTK is out, then? (4, Informative)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705048)

Actually it doesn't matter much...

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705078)

Didn't Miguel recently wrote that C is dead?

Re:GTK is out, then? (4, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704931)

Not that I know anything but:

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 .NET apps routinely work on Linux? Or is all developed code going to be toolkit specific?

Boy. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704822)

The prospect of using Mono to code against Qt makes me drool in advance.

Boy, you really need to get out more.

Re:Boy. (1)

ffub (322605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704849)

yup, it's a regression back to toddler days to use <em>QT</em> with Mono.

Re:Boy. (5, Funny)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704866)

Boy, you really need to get out more.

you must be new here.

Re:Boy. (2, Interesting)

sosume (680416) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704983)

Actually, this may be the event I was waiting for to start writing X desktop apps instead of Windows. Mono is very very powerful and combined with Qt its even better. Who'd have thought that .NET could actually lead developers away from Microsoft..

You think THAT's bad... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704826)

You know how, when you type the last character that'll fit on the last line in a text window, the top line disappears, all the other lines move up one, and the cursor appears in the first position of a new blank line?

IBM has a patent on that.

Re:You think THAT's bad... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705005)

And Apple has a patent on anything resembling a window, icon or mouse pointer.
And Microsoft has a patent on all error messages.
And Amazon has a patent on "one click" mumbo jumbo.
It's all quite silly in the end.
And the greatest creation of all -- the very structure of the universe -- wasn't even patented.
Shows how off the mark and back-asswords the human mind is.

LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704831)

Nobody want to use the god-awful GIMP toolkit! Can't blame them. I mean, who wants their programs to look like something a gimp would design?

How Much to dev with? (4, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704836)

How much will it cost to use QT to write business apps?

From the trolltech site: http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licensing.htm l

" 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? (2, Informative)

kensai (139597) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704882)

IIRC, it's $1000/seat.

Re:How Much to dev with? (1, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704905)

Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise."

in other words, every company out there that uses KDE legally needs to buy a QT license???

Please someone tell me that I am assuming wrong.

Re:How Much to dev with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704917)

It appears that TrollTech thinks you should and in todays society where people sue for no reason at all...

Re:How Much to dev with? (3, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704976)

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.)

Re:How Much to dev with? (1)

Roberto (1777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705039)

You are assuming wrong because:

a) That's not what it says there. "Build" is not "uses"

b) The software is licensed under a license (actually, several licenses). If you want to know what you can or can't do with it/to it, you need to read the license, not the two-dollar version (the webpage)

Re:How Much to dev with? (4, Informative)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704964)

Qt is released under GPL, and so Novell has every right to sell the desktop. Of course, everyone who purchases the software also has their GPL rights.

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 (5, Informative)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704965)

It costs nothing to develop business applications qith the QT toolkit. The only requirement is that if you use the $0.00 license(GPL) the app must be GPL. It really isn't much to ask.

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 (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705007)

That isn't what the copyright holders (trolltech) think. They should change the wording on their site so it is truthfull, don't you think.

Re:$0.00 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705100)

It doesn't matter what the copyright holders think. As long as we abide by the terms of the license(s) under which we received those copyrighted works, we're in the clear. Produce in-house or commercial applications with the GPL version of Qt. It's legal as long as you comply with the GPL. It's a very good deal. (Hell, even the "commercial" Qt license is a good deal by proprietary standards)

Re:How Much to dev with? (3, Informative)

Frequanaut (135988) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705042)

From their website [trolltech.com]

(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)

Programming (5, Funny)

Bingo Foo (179380) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704843)

Maybe programming will suck no longer!

Hey, if programming were easy, people would do it for free.

Re:Programming (4, Funny)

davecb (6526) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705041)

I think mixing C, C, ++, GTK and QT should make programming much more fun, by making it almost totally impossible (;-))

--dave

Re:Programming (4, Insightful)

thames (558443) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705095)

Hey, if programming were easy, people would do it for free.

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!.

Re:Programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705106)

Hey, if programming was difficult, your job wasn't outsourced.

Give me a break! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704844)

No way, not cool. I don't want to sell my customers a Linux distro and then tell them that if they choose it for development, they have to pay for dev licenses of QT and an IDE and ... That's bullshit. What's the alternative in my client's eyes? Write internal code against GTK, which will look like a secondary/inferior choice to them, whether it is or isn't. And with Mono inhouse now, how long before Miquel and the Mono group will be forced to use QT#? Wow, now the default toolkit for Mono requires a developer license (which is WAY overpriced). I disagree with this wholeheartedly. My opinion may not amount to anything, but they are wrong in doing this.

Re:Give me a break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704885)

You're right. Your opinion doesn't amount to anything. Took you an awful lot of words to say it, though.

Re:Give me a break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704902)

Yes, please give me a break.

Why should you buy a license to write internal code????

Re:Give me a break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704987)

Don't be stupid. If you don't pay for Qt, you have GPL rights. That is the same as GTK, no more, no less. But with Qt, you have option to close your code if you want to. Look at http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/freelicense.h tml
before commenting from your stomach.

Re:Give me a break! (2, Informative)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705023)

> That is the same as GTK,

False. GTK is licensed under LGPL, which is far less restrictive. Do some research before you spout this drivel.

Not acceptable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705077)

Not everyone wants to use the GPL. Me, I like the GPL. But some people don't want to use it , for varying reasons, and that's their right.

When we're talking about, say, incorporating large portions of an open source project into your program, if you say "but I don't want to use the GPL!", that's no excuse. You're getting something of value. If you don't want the value provided by the GPLed program code you incorporate, write the code yourself.

When we're just talking about developing for Novell/Linux using the default GUI widget toolkit, "but I don't want to use the GPL! and i don't want to pay for a developemt license, either!", is pretty fricking reasonable. In this case, the people don't want the value added by Qt, they just want their scrollbars to look the same as the scrollbars in all the other Novell/Linux apps.

Re:Give me a break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705057)

If they choose it they may use it to develop in whatever toolkit they prefer! Not just Qt! Write internal code against GTK?? Do you even know what you're talking about? Pay for an IDE? KDevelop is free and one of the best. I'm stoping here, this is pure nonsense.

Re:Give me a break! (1)

slipstick (579587) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705075)

Huh? There is a version of Qt under GPL your clients are free to use it for development even if they want to do commercial development.

Either you didn't know this or your hopped up on too much caffeine.

So take a break, enjoy the GPL, but most of all "DON'T PANIC".

Re:Give me a break! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705110)

Well, you could always sell your customers a windows desktop. Then, if they want to develop apps for it, they can

- pay MS for Visual Studio
- pay Borland for Delphi
- pay Trolltech for Qt
- use a secondary/inferior toolkit like gtk/java/etc

use ncurses instead, for great justice! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704851)

hello. how are you gentlemen? ncurses is da bomb! main console turn on. take off every `gui`. for great justice!

GTK#? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704852)

So the obvious question: does this mean Novel has changed Mono's mind about GTK# which they've been saying lately is their preferred widget set? Presumably.. but they are fairly well entrenched in GTK I think.

That settles it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704860)

I've been hesitating to jump ship from Fedora to SuSE for fear that SuSE would, over time, become just as difficult to run/maintain KDE on (beyond the token Fedora KDE install option, which works--actually USING it on Fedora, which isn't so fun). Looks like I should wait no longer. All hail the lizard!

Makes sense for desktop interop (4, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704862)

This does make a lot of sense, actually. And it might actually be early enough in the game for it to work.

Right now, there is still the opportunity to attract developers to cross-platform .NET API's. .NET might, in fact, actually be the fastest route there (aside from Java, which I think people ought to be using for this purpose, but let's set that aside for a moment). Perhaps if, boosted by a Novell push, developers begin writing and publishing .NET code that uses Qt libraries, there will be that many more cross-platform desktop apps available that won't be bound to Windows.Forms, Avalon, or whatever other Windows-bound API's Microsoft wants everyone to use.

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 .NET is, on its face, a good design, but that we have to worry about Microsoft using it as a cudgel to beat back its competition.

Mistake (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704864)

This article must be a mistake. GNOME zealots always tell us that corporations don't like Qt because it's GPLed. Obviously, this article is wrong, right?

Discussions elsewhere say this article is invalid. (4, Informative)

Rahga (13479) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704867)

It's a bit odd that this article wasn't posted to /. sooner, as most people first noticed it when it made osnews almost a week ago.

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.

HEISE confirms (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704908)

The german newsmagazine HEISE a very popular and creditible organisation was reporting about that as well. As they got told from first hand QT/KDE is doing the run.

You can read more here [heise.de] on their site.

Re:HEISE confirms (1)

daniel borgmann (679904) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705083)

Uhm, newsforge is quoting this Heise article as the source...

So this means C# is bring embraced? (3, Insightful)

Offwhite98 (101400) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704914)

The old Microsoft approach is to Embrace an Extend. I often hear people say that Mono is going to die because MS has the staff to write more and more APIs and Mono will not be able to keep up. But my thoughts are that Mono and other Open Source projects should be able to implement some impressive and highly usable C# and .NET implementations completely independent of MS influence and support. Essentially the community will have the ability to Embrace and Extend a MS created technology with just the ECMA standard C# and CLI recommendation.

I have been impressed with the CLI implementation and the SOAP and Web Services technologies that are a part of the .NET framework are very robust when compared to traditional network communications such as CGI or OLE. It is clearly an ideal glue language for a diverse Linux desktop which often mixes many programming and scripting languages together.

As a new Qt programmer... (5, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704919)

I can say that there is nothing easier outside of web development. I am an old MFC programmer. I am often lost in developing Qt apps, but I am very comforatable with that because the documentation is copius cnad clear. Whats more is it is soooooooo well thought out. It makes MFC look like the crap that it is (C++ wrappers for C objects). Learning Qt is like learning to walk the right way. It's amazingly simple. I will always request that Qt be used regardless of platform in future jobs.

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.

Novell Doesn't want to support redhat. (-1)

infojack (25600) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704920)

Maybe, novell doesn't want to put all their effort into a gnome based desktop, and gnome based apps, just to have redhat take all of their work and put it into the redhat environment. This sounds like a great busines move for novell. No reason to do all of redhats work for them.

more "Utah software" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704924)

Canopy is run out of Utah.
Novell is run out of Utah.
Canopy representatives sit on the Trolltech board
and SCO and Canopy own chunks of Quasar
Technologies ... err... I mean Trolltech.
Trolltech produces QT.

What's up? Is their some kind of dealing going
down?

Wonder what Bruce Perence has to say to it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8704929)

Ups, sorry I forgot, he's busy providing QT support and services for several companies as reported on slashdot.

mono and linux is a wonderful combination (2, Informative)

Christopher Anthony (766404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704938)

The combination of Mono with Qt and Linux is great. The Open Source nature of these applications means that they are virtually bug free. I am glad to see that Novell is in top form once more, supporting Linux. I have used Mono extensively and it really is great. It is not proprietary like Java, and it is a wonderful tool to use. Mono is the programming platform that will put Microsoft to rest once and for all!

Redhat got it right (3, Interesting)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8704943)

I'm surprised redhat has stuck with gnome this long as their DE of choice. It is more usable, and that's why I am glad personally they have.

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 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705051)

Because due to the plain well organized OO API coded in an OO language Qt is very easy to code in.

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 who dont want to go the GPL route. I know at least two excellent shareware projects which didnt use Qt for exactly that reason.

TrollTech should offer a small developers license which would be affordable by individuals.

Re:Redhat got it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705071)

> Redhat got it right

Of course they got it right, that's why they discontinued their Desktop stuff and put it out to the community to work on called Fedora. They realized that they can't make any money with their Desktop solution and continued concentrating on real solutions like server etc.

Re:Redhat got it right (0, Flamebait)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705104)

wow rhythmbox looks like a really bad clone of iTunes. Wonder why they didnt include rendezevous(sp?)

Re:Redhat got it right (2)

Drinian (621383) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705112)

With so many of the gtk programs riviling the qt equivalents, I wonder why companies always flock towards Qt.

Because QT is solid, elegant and well supported. It makes coding in C++ trivial, which means time saved, which means money saved, and that's what companies think about. People seem to appreciate the gtk look and feel over QT, but for a framework QT is awesome.

I Am Trolling (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705000)

Qt SUCKS! I hate C++! Long live GTK+! Fuck you Novell, you Linux-stealing bastard mother fuckers. Ya know they have ex-SCO execs working for them? They're both based in Utah after all. I say fuck 'em all and we keep the code to ourselves.

This is good news (5, Interesting)

jared_hanson (514797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705008)

I personally have been hoping for a while now something like this would happen for the Linux desktop. It's going to take a corporation to step up and unify this effort in order to gain mass acceptance. I'm sure there will be some grumbling in the community, but open source is open so feel free to customize to your hearts content if you don't like it. Most people don't want to have to go to this effor though.

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.

Thats what I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705017)

Quicktime works in linux?

All that I want.. (-1)

0x54524F4C4C (712971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705018)


Is a filemanager with tabs..

God Dammit!!! (3, Funny)

AyeRoxor! (471669) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705024)

I hate QUICKTIME!!! /should I rtfa?

Novell going to buy TT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705034)

That is the only logical choice left to them.. if they want to encourage 3rd party applications that integrate into their desktop.

-

Re:Novell going to buy TT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705109)

Could you please elaborate on why this would be the only logical choice?

Also, are you aware of the fact that QT gets published under a BSD license if TrollTech was bought by Novell?

answering Ob-License-Rants? (0, Redundant)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705064)

You don't want to use a non-Free version of QT for developing commercial aps? Fine, don't. No one is saying you have to. GTK won't die precisely because of this. Stop complaining, continue to release apps using GTK (or other toolkit) and be done with it. Or better yet, consult with someone who has great insight into the QT license and see if there is a way for you to release your commercial code independent of non-Free QT, and allow the user to link their own widget toolkit in (i.e., Free QT) post-distribution.

I don't know if that is either technically or legally possible. just my .02

QT vs. GTK (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8705096)

What about wxwidgets (the GUI development library formerly known as WxWindows [wxwidgets.org] ? Sounds like a safe compromise with strong portablility and no licensing hassles.

Wait a sec... (3, Interesting)

daniel borgmann (679904) | more than 10 years ago | (#8705113)

The only source of this so far has been Heise. In their original article, they word this quite unclear (I'm german) basically just mentioning that this information "slipped through during the day", without any source or confirmation.
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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...