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!

cancel ×

436 comments

Yay! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11596954)

First post!!!!

Re:Yay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597294)

waht is ``qt''? will it make me attractive to the opposite sex?

first post (-1, Offtopic)

p80 (771195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596957)

:p

Trolltech (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11596958)

Does this refer to the technology that automatically inserts GNAA trolls on Slashdot as first posts?

Re:Trolltech (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597212)

Does this refer to the technology that automatically inserts GNAA trolls on Slashdot as first posts?
No, GNAA trolls come from the General Troll Kit

Is TrollTech trolling? (4, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596970)

They claim that to use their software in a commercial setting (or to develop proprietary software from their code, which isn't an issue), you need to buy a commercial license rather than using the GPL. By releasing their software under the GPL, aren't they making it impossible to require a commercial license for use in any setting?

Can't I just download their software under the GPL, and redistribute it to anyone to be used under any setting at all?

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (5, Informative)

Nurgled (63197) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597009)

I think by "use" they mean linking the library to your application. The application developer is the user of Qt, not the application user.

If you want to write an application and not release it under the GPL, you must purchase a commercial licence.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1, Informative)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597019)

Nope. They are releasing two seperate versions of the code. One is under the GPL and the other is under the Qt Commercial license. I don't advise trying to fight this. They are playing about as fair as it gets.

Plus if you try and use the GPL version for commercial development it is as eay as running the strings command on your binary and greping for the appropriate words....they will catch you.

I have used QT in both open source and now commercial ventures. They have a great business model. I was allowed me to test the software for a couple of years on open source projects and then when the time came to start my own business the choice was very simple. QT.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597206)

Plus if you try and use the GPL version for commercial development it is as eay as running the strings command on your binary and greping for the appropriate words....they will catch you.

I have used QT in both open source and now commercial ventures.


There is nothing wrong with using GPL'd software for commercial ventures; in this case it just means you have to release your software under the GPL to your customers.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597249)

I think the original question was "since you can distribute commercial software under the GPL, can't you use the GPL version for commercial software?"

The answer is yes. What you can't do is distribute PROPRIETARY code based on the GPL Qt. This includes proprietary commercial software, proprietary shareware, and proprietary freeware.

The GPL version can be used for commercial and non-commercial purposes, as long as you comply with the terms of the GPL.

Please check the GPL FAQ for the answer to the question "Can I charge money for my GPL software?"

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (2, Interesting)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597025)

I think they're trying to make this dual-licensing model similar to MySQL's - develop GPL'ed (even commercial) software with GPL Qt, but if you want to release it under different license (not as free as GPL), buy a commercial one from them.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597065)

Except that (unless they've changed it recently) they specifically prohibit you from doing this. If you develop non-GPL code you must do it on the commercial version. The non-GPL version is licensed on a per-seat basis, so you can't have all of your developers using the GPL version and a single build machine running the commercial version.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597209)

Well, if you think it's bad (requiring license for developing "proprietary commercial software", as written on Trolltech site), I think you read too many RMS interviews recently.

(yes, you can mod this one troll and flamebait, I don't care, OSS zealots!)

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597324)

This is a good thing for free software: more windows developers might get involved into writting free, cross platform software.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

sepluv (641107) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597347)

Because, of course, as everyone knows RMS is always evangelising proprietary software in his interviews...is that what you are saying? Yes, I think you are trolling.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597382)

No, what I'm saying is that forcing everyone (especially companies) to release all their product under GPL and only GPL is just plain bad and there should be commercial licenses available to buy for developing proprietary soft.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597229)

I don't understand that matter. You can develop your software inhouse under the GPL (just let every developer subscribe an NDA), you don't have to publish your code unless you distribute your software. Once it's complete, you relicense it under any proprietery license, you wish. I don't think, that trolltech can forbid any relicense. You go out and buy one qt-commercial license und recompile your relicensed app. Voila. Where is the problem?

Trolltech is NOT trolling. (2, Informative)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597360)

Do you even read their license? They cannot forbid you from relicensing your software, but they will forbid you from using their commercial license if you do.

So, if you write GPL code, OK. You want to relicense, OK. But the commercial version of Qt states,

NOTE: Qt Free Edition is licensed under the terms of the GPL and not under this Agreement. If Licensee has, at any time, developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using Trolltech's publicly licensed Qt Free Edition, Licensee must comply with Trolltech's requirements (see http://www.trolltech.com/developer/download/qt-x11 .html) and license such Application(s) (or any portions derived there from) under the terms of the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License version 2 (the "GPL") a copy of which is located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1 (i.e., any Product(s) and/or parts, components, portions thereof developed using GPL licensed software, including Qt Free Edition, must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL-based source code must be made available upon request).

They will NOT license you a commercial version if you try to do it. They will withdraw your commercial license if you do this. See? You do this, you are left with only a GPL distributable. They also said in their email release that they will enfore their license. So please, don't try to pull a fast one on Trolltech.

You have your rights to relicense software. They have their rights to license their software to you.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (2, Informative)

Vengie (533896) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597064)

The idea is that if you want to keep YOUR source code closed, you need to license a commercial license from them. If you are writing an open source (GPL) application, then you can use the GPL'd QT. If you are writing a closed source proprietary application, you *can't* use the GPL qt, so you license the closed source one from trolltech.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597072)

If you use QT under the GPL then you have to release the source code of your software under the GPL as well. KDE isn't affected because all of their stuff is GPL, though commercial companies might have a bit of a problem with being forced to give away their source, and thus are forced to buy a commercial license.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597077)

Do you know what Qt is? It's a library. For what purpose are you going to download and "use" it, if not to link your application with it? Anyone you give the GPL'd source code to can read the source, but they can't link any non-GPL code to it (without paying for the commercial license).

QT has been available on win32 for some time now (2, Informative)

inmate (804874) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597093)

QT *does* have a win32 "non-commercial" distribution of the QT3 API - unfortuantly, it is only available with the book 'C++ GUI Programming with Qt3' by J Blanchette and M Summerfield.

i've taken a number of qt-based linux apps off kde-apps.org and recompiled on windows - as long as the developers stick to the Qt API, its a breeze to port!

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597101)

Trolltech have just confused the terms 'proprietary' and 'commerical', just like a number of /. trolls. Perhaps that's where their name comes form.

Replace some instances of 'commercial' with 'proprietary' in their blurb and it reads better.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (2, Insightful)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597105)

From their FAQ:

"If you are using Qt commercially - that is, for creating proprietary software for sale or use in a commercial setting - you must purchase a commercial license from Trolltech. Alternatively, if you wish to write Open Source software you can use the Open Source version of Qt, released under the GPL. If you use the Open Source version you must release your application and complete source code under the GPL as well."

Here's my question: what if I want to make commercial software released under the GPL, and provide the source to my paying customers, do I have to buy a license? What if I don't sell the software but provide support for 120/hr? What if I GPL my software, including the Qt libs, and my customer turns around and sells it to 4000 other people, with source under the GPL? Do they have to get a commercial license? The answers aren't so obvious. Once something is GPL'd, it's not that easy to turn around and say: "Woah, sorry, no you can't use it anymore."

I think their plan is half-baked.

To the parent: Yes, I think you're right. They are just prohibiting people from selling binaries-only. But once the code is GPL'd, nobody is interested in binary only, when you can go get the source at a bittorrent near you.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

eivindthrondsen (694907) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597146)

Note the word "proprietary".

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (2, Informative)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597244)

So the Commercial License should be renamed the Proprietary License, don't you think?

It has nothing to do with commercial or non commercial, rather, it has to do with binary-only (proprietary) or source-available-under-GPL.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597196)

More GPL-non-understanding here:

Here's my question: what if I want to make commercial software released under the GPL, and provide the source to my paying customers, do I have to buy a license?

No, just use the GPL one. "Commercial" in this case is "non-open", not "for money".

What if I don't sell the software but provide support for 120/hr?

Easy: precisely the same. No licenses need be bought.

What if I GPL my software, including the Qt libs, and my customer turns around and sells it to 4000 other people, with source under the GPL? Do they have to get a commercial license?

No, they received under the GPL, they distribute under the GPL. No problem whatsoever. If they can make money off this, more power to them.

Once something is GPL'd, it's not that easy to turn around and say: "Woah, sorry, no you can't use it anymore."

Have you even read the philosophy behind the GPL? That forever-libre thingy is intentional!

I think their plan is half-baked.

On Linux, it's been fully baked for quite some time. Qt is used, for example, by KDE (GPL license) and Opera for Linux (non-GPL, I presume).

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597118)

Can't I just download their software under the GPL, and redistribute it to anyone to be used under any setting at all?

No, you received Qt under the GPL, so you may only distribute it under the GPL. This means any program you link with the GPL'd Qt will have to be GPL-compliant (not necessarily GPL itself, but it usually is). This absolutely prevents "proprietary" or "non-open" Qt programs for zero cost, as it's supposed to.

If you want to develop your app with Qt, and do not want to share your source (which many commercial apps won't want to), you have to get a version of the Qt libraries that you can redistribute without requiring your code to be open. Fortunately, Qt can also be had for a non-GPL license, but in that case, it costs money. And that's the reason for dual-licensing.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (5, Informative)

eivindthrondsen (694907) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597119)

No, we are not trolling. The point of the dual license model is that we are _dual licensing_ Qt. We offer the Commercial license for proprietary use, and the Open Source Edition for Open Source use. You are of course free to download and redistribute the Open Source Edition, but you need to comply with the provisions of the GPL (distribute source with the binary, accept the freedom of your users to redistribute and modify the source). This is not the same as use under any setting at all.

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597237)

You are of course free to download and redistribute the Open Source Edition, but you need to comply with the provisions of the GPL (distribute source with the binary, accept the freedom of your users to redistribute and modify the source).

I think the point the OP was making was that there is a difference between using and distributing. If I am IT-guru for a company and write an in-house program for our workers to use on their workstations, Trolltech can not require that the source be made available, despite that being a commercial setting. If we give it/sell it to another company then we must do so. The grey area in the GPL is how it fits with the notion of a company as being the individual. Are the workers really not users? Is installing the software on workstations really not distribution as per the GPL?

TWW

Re:Is TrollTech trolling? (3, Interesting)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597267)

I think what had me confused is the use of the word "use" in the dual license FAQ.

I read it as prohibiting use of even open source programs built with Qt in a commercial setting without a commercial license, which would violate the GPL. It's clear from other posters in this thread that it's prohibiting only the development of closed source software without a commercial license.

Of course, I'm not entirely convinced that even resolving this ambiguity helps; I'm fairly certain that the GPL allows me to develop closed-source software from GPLed code for use in any setting I want to use it in, as long as I don't actually distribute the derived program to anyone else. (e.g., if an investment banker somewhere wants to write a program using Qt for his own use in his office, for a commercial purpose, without distributing the program or the source, the FAQ seems to prohibit that, but the GPL says it's perfectly fine.)

It's like a fair tale.. (0, Flamebait)

MukiMuki (692124) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596974)

Yay! The blue fairy has arrived, and soon The Gimp can become a real program!

+1 Informative? Try -1 Disinformative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597379)

Gimp uses GTK, not Trolltech APIs.

GPL Qt for Windows (4, Interesting)

Nurgled (63197) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596981)

Didn't someone external to Trolltech port the GPL-licenced code to Windows and licence it under the GPL? Without special clauses in the licence to prevent that, that would presumably be allowed.

Or, do the X11 and Windows versions differ so greatly that such a port is an insurmountable task?

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (4, Informative)

atomice (228931) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597042)

Yes they did [sourceforge.net]

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597148)

That's not a native port. It does not directly target win32 but rather targets an open source *nix compatibility layer for windows.

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (4, Informative)

atomice (228931) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597191)

Yes it does [sourceforge.net] (target Win32)

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597282)

Wow... it looks like they had no choice but to go this route. Better to have people using their software than risking a fork incompatible with their commercial code.

Very cool

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (-1, Flamebait)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597067)

Isn't it kind of pointless now that TROLLTECH IS RELEASING A GPLed VERSION FOR WINDOWS?!? *sigh*

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (1)

Nurgled (63197) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597089)

Sure, it would be pointless to do it now, but I'd be amazed if someone hadn't done it already given that it's been quite a while since the X11 version of Qt was released under the GPL.

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597136)

qt4 is quite a change - adapting all the changes neccesary to do the win32 port might be non-trivial.

but maybe kde-cygwin showed trolltech that win32 devs are _really_ serious about using qt for win32/gpl apps..

or maybe gtk/win32 just matured enough to be a rival

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597088)

INAL but Trolltech does not waive their copyright when they release software under GPL. If they had not previously dual licensed it for windows, that external developer would have been in breach of licensing agreements and copyright violation.

Again, INAL but given that they had previously only offered the commercial license to windows developers, it stand to reason that the copyright holders purposefully intended to not allow GPL versions on windows until now.

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597139)

no, that developer isn't. The "licensing agreement" he agreed to was the GPL, which allows him to do whatever he wants as long as he releases his code under the GPL also. What he can't do is tag another license to it.

And Trolltech understands that. The only time you need to get their commercial license is when you don't want to release your software under the GPL. And there's no way around that.

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597149)

The porting effort uses the Qt/free sources from the X11 version and as they are triple licenced and one of the licences if GPL, it is OK to do create a Win32 port from it.

Re:GPL Qt for Windows (2, Insightful)

Trestop (571707) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597188)

It doesn't matter whether they allow Qt to run GPLed on windows or not - by releasing a GPLed version of Qt they are specifically allowing it to be modified and redistributed under the terms of the GPL. One possible modification is porting Qt to run on MS-Windows. so I can get Qt/X11, port it to Win32 (as the kde-cygwin project on sf.net do) and release it under the GPL. Other people can now use this version to develop and distribute Qt based application on Win32 - but again only using the GPL. So even given that case (and Qt from kde-cygwin is nowhere near production quality) I can still not distribute commercial non-GPLed software for Win32. I can however make in-house, not for distribution Win32 software based on Qt - something that wasn't available earlier. The problem is that doing the Qt/X11 to Win32 port is hard time consuming work which has to be done (to some extent) for each new release of Qt - so its not much of a threat to Trolltech buisness model. Still its a welcome change and might facilitate faster adoption of Qt in the MS-Windows world, which is a "Good Thing"(tm)

Aha! Interoperability! (1, Interesting)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596989)

Microsoft asks and they shall receive!

Screw application heterogeneity, write once, compile thrice, and run everywhere!!!

KDE on Cygwin (2, Informative)

NeilO (20628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596993)

I suppose this is the end of the KDE on Cygwin [sf.net] project, and good news in general for Qt/KDE applications on Windows?

Re:KDE on Cygwin (1)

moon-monster (712361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597045)

I tried KDE on Cygwin a while back, without a great deal of success. (At least as far as using the window manager effectively was concerned.)

With any luck we'll soon be able to use KDE natively on windows, as a drop-in replacement for Explorer. That would be awesome.

Re:KDE on Cygwin (1)

Jason Hood (721277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597434)

I think we are a ways off from that. It would take considerable effort to port KDE off of cygwin and run it natively in windows.

Having Qt4 for windows (free version) could have some interesting effects in the future. If KDE does get ported over and some people can try it out without installing windows, they may find it usable and be more likely to switch to free platform. Most suits that I know still think the state of the linux DE is similar to fvwm or fluxbox, hand configuring and limited.

KDE wont use Qt4 until KDE4 which is at least a year off yet though.

Maybe now Lyx can add some good features (3, Insightful)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11596998)

since they have a large audience now that can take advantage of them maybe LyX will start accelerating development and adding in some nice features that will make document creation much more productive.(integrate a bib database for god sakes!!!)

Ahhh, such excellent news (4, Insightful)

Progoth (98669) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597001)

Goodbye, MFC.

Re:Ahhh, such excellent news (2, Funny)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597238)

Yeah right.

Even M$ has tried killing MFC off for years without success.

Like Roseanne, Hillary Clinton, the Bush clan, and the New England Patriots - the hideous visage of MFC will be with us for a long long time to come.

Just what the doctor ordered! (5, Insightful)

osho_gg (652984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597003)

This is exactly what has been requested by many Qt/KDE developers over many years. This will bring about a flourish of new applications being ported from linux to windows (whether you like that or not). This will heat up the Gtk vs. Qt arguments as a major argument against Qt no longer holds. This will also help push KDE Enterprise efforts as many enterprise concerns will be resolved by this move. Good move Trolltech!

Re:Just what the doctor ordered! (1)

cronius (813431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597217)

This will heat up the Gtk vs. Qt arguments as a major argument against Qt no longer holds.

Not only that, but I can now win countless discussions about the GPL being "useless in commercial software development" by pointing at Trolltech! They've just proved it isn't!

From TFA:
"With the GPL availability of Qt for Windows, Trolltech will offer dual licensing of Qt on all supported platforms."

Life is great!

Free? (1)

redivider (786620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597014)

So this means that the application itself is free (as in beer) as long as you release any software that you develop with it under the GPL? And for commercial software you have to buy a license?

Sorry if that's blindingly obvious to everyone, but I don't totally understand what this means.

Re:Free? (3, Informative)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597084)

That's it exactly. Basically their business model says here go play with out software/libraries for as long as you want...develop whatever you want. But if you sell the resulting code for profit then we also want some of the profit. Actually it is a little more complecated than this. You have to purchse the license before developing any of the code that will be used in a commercial product.

Re:Free? (1)

cronius (813431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597319)

But if you sell the resulting code for profit then we also want some of the profit.

Um no.. As others have stated, the GPL is just as valid as it has always been, and anoyone can make a GPL program out of Qt and sell it and become filthy rich in the process. However, if you want to sell your newly created program without open sourcing it (which violates the GPL) you can do just that by bying a commercial lisens from Trolltech.

You don't need the commercial lisens to sell your code or binares, but you need it to sell them closed source.

Re:Free? (1)

redivider (786620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597439)

That clears it up a lot. I think I was confused about the "commercial" distinction. I just figured it meant "for profit," which definitely confused the whole issue. Makes a lot more sense now, thanks.

Re:Free? (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597109)

It means that you can get and use the GPL version for GPL stuff, but if you want to use Qt and not inherit the requirement to distribute source, etc, you can license it commercially and not be required to provide anything but the app to your customers.

Re:Free? (1)

p80 (771195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597151)

check the faq here [trolltech.com] basically it means that qt is available under both a gpl license and proprietary one. If you chose the latter you need to pay a fee to trolltec and in return you can sell proprietary qt based apps. With the GPL version you don't need to pay a fee to trolltec but can't sell proprietary qt based apps. ain't that clear?

Re:Free? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597318)

Seems relatively cheap too for a commercial app (which is MySql's problem - they charge 300 euros per client - which is about 10 times the current projected cost of the app in my case).

$1420 per developer seems fair... that's only $14 per customer if you sell 100 copies.

Re:Free? (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597455)

GPL, not free-beer. Your application does NOT have to be a freebe.

Ease transition (2, Insightful)

isn't my name (514234) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597017)

This should increase the availability of quality F/OSS software on the windows platform, which can help ease the transition to Linux.

I only wish this were the case a few years ago. TORA (Toolkit for Oracle) [globecom.net] was a great, inexpensive cross-platform PL/SQL editor. I tried to get my boss to standardize on it so that we could use the same tools in Linux and Windows, but he was turned off by the need to charge for Windows support. (He interpreted that as Linux arrogance and was worried that the Windows support would be lacking. Even though I explained it was because of Trolltech licensing.)

Turns out the boss was right, though for different reasons. Tora got bought out by a windows pl/sql tools competitor and basically killed.

Re:Ease transition (2, Informative)

MerlinTheWizard (824941) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597210)

wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) is a rather nice cross-platform toolkit. And it doesn't have any weird license, that I know of.
If you're porting an existing Qt-based app, that's good news I guess, but if not, I think you should just use wxWidgets. The license for Qt is too restrictive, and well, their interpretation of GPL, as others have noticed here, is kind of absurd. It's GPL, but not really. Depends. Isn't that against what GPL is really all about?

Kindows???? (3, Interesting)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597022)

QT is the base of KDE, no? So when do we get KDE for windows?

Re:Kindows???? (2, Interesting)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597053)

how awesome would it be to replace explorer.exe with KDE :-)

Re:Kindows???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597176)

I assume you meant konquerer... explorer is much better from a usability stand point, though konquerer has a couple features I like (like some sense of security) explorer is the overall better.

Re:Kindows???? (1, Informative)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597130)

Don't get your hopes up. KDE is a desktop environment (which is where the DE comes from), so it relies pretty heavily on an X Server. My advice: If you want KDE, use linux.

Re:Kindows???? (3, Informative)

IceFox (18179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597260)

Actually KDE doesn't rely on the X-Server that much. I ported KDE to native OS-X last Christmas and that was mostly cleaning up the few X-Server calls (i.e. the work is all done from the X-Server side of things).

-Benjamin Meyer

Re:Kindows???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597279)

That cannot be that difficult, because there is a X11-free version of KDE for Qt/Mac though it's still alpha.
http://kde.opendarwin.org/

Re:Kindows???? (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597400)

Yeah, I'll second that. Why pay the Microsoft software license (you do use your software legally don't you?) in order to run KDE that's free on Linux?

Shucks, you should work for microsoft marketing!

Slogan: "We support open source! We love linux! Use KDE with Windows XP2!"

No thanks.

Re:Kindows???? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597454)

This seems to be a pretty bad bit of engineering. Those sorts of dependencies should be abstracted away from the applications. What's the point of a framework as big as KDE or GNOME if you're still tied to a particular set of system software assumptions?

As much as X is despised, it would seem silly to marry yourself to it.

Re:Kindows???? (4, Informative)

JaxWeb (715417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597160)

Whenever you want? [sourceforge.net]

Re:Kindows???? (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597161)

You mean like http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/?

How do you mean? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597276)

Do you mean KDE that can be run in Windows, like for a POSIX layer? Well that already exists, as others have noted, it works in Cygwin, and probably could be made to work with a native POSIX layer like the one SFU installs.

Do you mean as in a replacement to explorer? Then no, likely not. KDE is all X based, and I just can't see a reasonable way of getting it to tie in to the Win32 enivronment. You have to remember that Windows doesn't have a distinct concept of a window manager. It has a shell that manages desktop interactions, that being explorer by default, and you can replace it. However all it does is handle the desktop. Windows management, fonts, etc are done by the OS itself. There isn't a discreet layer since Windows doesn't function without its GUI.

There's a fundimental design incompatiblity, as I see it. UNIX is such that you have a kernel, and on that you run an X server to handle graphics and fonts, on that you run a window manager to deal with client windows and more advanced GUI features, and so on, or rather with KDE you run a graphicsal toolkit (QT) on which you run the WM.

In Windows it's all part of the OS. Win32, the API in which Windows programs are written, already contains all the calls for window mamagement. The code is part of the OS and indeed, parts of the graphics code run in kernel mode (something many UNIX people heavily critize Windows for). There isn't any logical seperation of the layers, from the OS view. If the GUI goes down, the OS goes down with it, it doesn't drop to a shell because the GUI is treated as a necessary part of the OS.

Now maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see any way of reconsiling the way KDE works with this in a useful fashion. I suppose one could develop an explorer replacement that looked like KDE, but you'd probably have to do it in native Win32 code since you couldn't really run an X-server to do it.

Re:How do you mean? (1)

emidln (806452) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597408)

Actually this is no longer true. KDE has been building with the Native QT3 for the Mac for awhile now w/o X11. Using the same idea of targeting QT only, you should (theoretically) get a Win32 native build. This would kick ass if they get the stability of the X11-less build equal to the X11 version. Right now, the KDE for OS X project is alpha-ish at best, with random crashing and such, but at least some applications are usable (KOffice, most notably).

Opens Windows a little more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597023)

Especially for QT opensource software.
Sounds interesting.

Good news for portability (1)

Lauwenmark (763428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597026)

This is indeed a good news regarding the portability of GPL, QT-based applications; this decision brings QT on par with GTK in that respect.

Now, I just hope they'll not make us wait for too long for QT 4 !

=D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597027)

Here's for The Gimp!

a paramount achievement! (1)

nil5 (538942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597032)

This marks a glorious day for trolls like me to finally break into the open market and spread our trolldem to faraway lands through trollful globalization of the trolltech enterprise.

hip hip hurray!

Troll dem? (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597087)

A troll dem is a Democratic Party troll, like like this hot-head [pbs.org] . You probably mean to say trolldom

Re:Troll dem? (1)

computerme (655703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597298)

I see, so a troll-publican is a republican troll like this liar that has gotten 1600 americans killed for he and his neo-cons's obsession with iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Sounds like it. (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597344)

But at least Bush, unlike Dean, knows better than to give a political speech during a full moon.

Re:Troll dem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597402)

No, he has gotten 1600 Americans killed to keep retarded people like you safe.

Really? (4, Informative)

LilMikey (615759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597098)

I was under the impression that Trolltech did have a GPLed version of Qt for Windows. I thought it was the one included in their GUI programming book (the book is at home so I can't look it up myself). I also seem to recall at least a few projects stating that if you contacted Trolltech and notified them that you were working on an open source project and would like Qt for Windows, they'd give it to you for free (although maybe under a different license?).

Re:Really? (1)

oxygene2k2 (615758) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597180)

that was back in qt-2.3 times - ie. ancient stuff

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597230)

There was a QT Non-Commercial version, but it wasn't GPL, and there were some annoyances like a message in the title bar ([Non-Commercial] or something like that).

Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597226)

Now the KDE fanboys will talk about how good GPL for windows is instead of +5 score uping each other for criticizing those who questioned Trolltech's licensing.

At least now they "get it".

I wish trolltech was associated with canopy (-1, Troll)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597228)

Canopy of course is the parent company of scox. Recently Canopy's CEO (Yarrro) and CFO (Mott) were both fired, and Noorda Family trust, which owns canopy is suing Yarro for stealling over $20MM.

Canopy is an absolutely filthy organization. But, trolltech refuses to disassociate from canopy or scox. Trolltech will tell you that they don't approve of scox, but trolltech refuses to ask canopy to divest; and trolltech will not sell their own investment in canopy companies.

You will get scored down promptyl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597296)

The KDE fanboys use their mod points as a weapon ... so beware.

It does look like trolltech got into bed with SCO/Canopy without fully appereaciating what they were getting into. Canopy has rights to put a representative on the Trolltech board. Fortuneatly, it's only one vote and can't veto marjority board decsions (I think, at least the Trolltech president said so in a long ago slashdot post).

It does look like TT is stuck with them but were smart enough not to sign over their souls to them. Hopefully they can just ignore the Canopy board member and conduct business as they see fit.

I'm sorry that the KDEers don't see this as a legitimate issue.

It is. They better off facing reality and admitting there is a wart on Trolltech.

QT is a fine product otherwise.

Re:I wish trolltech was associated with canopy (2, Informative)

Nighttime (231023) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597494)

Nice troll [urbanlizard.com] there.

WinForms (1)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597232)

I guess it's much too late, WinForms is just as nice; if not a lot nicer; and puts no restrictions on the product.

Re:WinForms (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597323)

No resitrictions aside from the fact that your app will only run on Windows.

(Oh yeah, right, Wine. Please.)

Yea! (5, Interesting)

LoveTheIRS (726310) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597262)

Yea! Hopefully, now since cross platform OSS programs can now use QT, the GTK will die an awful awful death. No more hassle making custom widgets in C. Thank the lord. I hope that there is at least some very good competition between QT and GTK now. They are now fighting on relatively equal licensing ground now.

Qt/mac is GPLed (1)

BibelBiber (557179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597301)

the mac version has been gpled on the os X platform I think in 2003. Go and see some cool project http://ranger.befunk.com/blog [befunk.com] where they try to port KDE to OS X natively.

Kudos to Trolltech (1)

acidblood (247709) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597336)

This is the best news of the year, for me at least. No longer will I (and many other developers) need to compromise when writing multiplatform C++ code -- Qt is just the natural choice for this task, and I'm very glad they decided to release Qt again under the GPL.

Again, kudos to Trolltech -- great companies like them are pretty much the exception these days.

hahaha end of GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11597375)

Bye bye GNOME. This is the final endhit and endgame for those who fucked the once so cool GNOME desktop up the ass.

Fantastic News (2, Insightful)

zemoo (582445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597381)

This is fantastic news!
Opensource projects won't have to choose between Java Swing (and all the baggage that comes with Java), a heavyweight wrapper like wxWidgets (and BitTorrent, written in wxWidgets, isn't the prettiest app), or a fairly ugly port of GTK, which I've been forced to use.

Does this mean we'll see a port of KHTML (Konqueror/Safari) to Windows?

Move over Firefox, this is going to become a 3-way!

How to compile it? (1)

oever (233119) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597450)


Commercial compiler support - the tools shipped with the GPL version support the popular GNU CC compiler. The C++ compilers from Microsoft, Intel and Borland are not supported by the tools in the GPL version.


How would you compile it under Windows without needing cygwin? I guess we'll have to wait for Qt 4.0.0 when the first version for Windows with GPL is released.

By the way, what's up with gcc.gnu.org? It's been unreachable for days!

Cool. Even for Mac Users (1)

KAMiKAZOW (455500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11597482)

You may know that there's a project to port KDE and its apps to Mac OS X using Qt/Mac.
The developer(s) of this port replaced some X11 functions with Qt funktions, but the KDE project didn't accept them, because they caused some (AFAIK minor) problems. Now with the upcoming release of Qt/Win32, I hope that there will be some more pressure toward the KDE developers to accept those patches and work out the (minor) problems. If KDE won't depend that much on X11 any more, other plattforms may get working versions of Scribus, KOffice and Co. :)
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...