Beta
×

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!

Nokia Engineers on KHTML

ScuttleMonkey posted about 9 years ago | from the embedded-devices-strong-with-the-force dept.

KDE 98

Rich writes "KDE could soon be making its way into your mobile phone. At aKademy in August David Carson and Deepika Chauhan from Nokia presented the work they've done in integrating KDE components into the latest version of the company's mobile phone software. Philip Rodrigues discusses this work with them on dot.kde.org."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lick it (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 9 years ago | (#13808024)

Teh Lunix users is da gheyz !
Go Ninnle !

KHTML (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808084)

Wouldn't they be better off with the standard IE HTML? That way they can run win ce on them.

Re:KHTML (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808110)

Yeah so? And pay MS taxes? Shyeah.

Warning (-1, Troll)

nighty5 (615965) | about 9 years ago | (#13808030)

Just don't call it Kokia!

Well, no... but how about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808066)

knock'ya ??.. ;) (and all its derivatives, kNokia, KNokia, kNockya... ad nauseum )

Re:Well, no... but how about (1)

Cynikal (513328) | about 9 years ago | (#13808180)

Ikon

Nokia backwards -> aikon, drop the a
sounds pretty good actually

Re:Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808080)

Seriously, they need to stop naming everything K-something, it's so incredibly lame.
How could anyone take them seriously?

Re:Warning (5, Funny)

mattjb0010 (724744) | about 9 years ago | (#13808101)

Seriously, they need to stop naming everything K-something, it's so incredibly lame.

iAgree.

Re:Warning (0)

Solder Fumes (797270) | about 9 years ago | (#13808141)

eXactly.

Re:Warning (5, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | about 9 years ago | (#13808145)

iDont.

Seriously. When new to linux, and browsing through the huge garbage pile that is the "available list" of the package manager, finding something with the destinctinve "K" is really helpful, because they usually work and at least partly follow the same usability conventions.

Case in point: i couldnt even EXIT that damn vi before reading 5 minutes into the damn man file without kill-9ing the PID, but luckily a "Kedit" in the corresponding cathegory was available, completely usable

Re:Warning (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 9 years ago | (#13808509)

Case in point: i couldnt even EXIT that damn vi before reading 5 minutes into the damn man file without kill-9ing the PID, but luckily a "Kedit" in the corresponding cathegory was available, completely usable

try using Kedit next time your X doesn't want to play...

Re:Warning (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | about 9 years ago | (#13808548)

nano/pico is the answer, clearly.

Re:Warning (1)

m50d (797211) | about 9 years ago | (#13808577)

try using Kedit next time your X doesn't want to play...

It actually works fine with qt/embedded. If you've managed to screw both your X and your framebuffer then yes, you're in trouble, but if you screw up your terminal badly enough you can make vim unusable too.

Re:Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808733)

You should have used Emacs.

Re:Warning (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13809181)

It's been a LONG time since my X didn't "want to play". But if we want to go down that route: try using Vi when you have no power! Maybe we should just use pen and paper?

Re:Warning (1)

KayosIII (655272) | about 9 years ago | (#13812822)

The KDE team is largely in agreeance with this. New components have dropped the K Monica. They have names like Oxygen, Plasma.

KHTML? (1, Insightful)

MaestroSartori (146297) | about 9 years ago | (#13808041)

I don't know for sure, but isn't WebCore a different thing to KHTML? I think it's based on KHTML, but is it not a separate project?

Re:KHTML? (1)

WillerZ (814133) | about 9 years ago | (#13808061)

WebCore is Apple's KHTML-derived HTML rendering component (used in Safari).

Re:KHTML? (5, Informative)

biehl (580274) | about 9 years ago | (#13808077)

Yes, WebCore [apple.com] is Apples fork of KHTML. Read here [osviews.com] for an explanation on how the collaboration between the projects works.

Re:KHTML? (5, Informative)

fdobbie (226067) | about 9 years ago | (#13808263)

Since that was written, the world has moved on. Apple launched the WebKit open-source project [opendarwin.org] as part of OpenDarwin. This means that WebKit bugs are now being tracked in bugzilla [opendarwin.org] (in addition to Apple's internal bug tracking system), and WebKit, WebCore and JavaScriptCore have moved to a publicly accessible CVS server [opendarwin.org] .

Re:KHTML? (2, Informative)

EntropyEngine (890880) | about 9 years ago | (#13808144)

As I understand it -- and have read elsewhere -- Nokia became interested through Apple's interest in kHTML [blogspot.com] .

After all, Apple have had some success with Quicktime on mobile devices and Nokia like that kind of stuff.

There's been all kinds of talk of Apple and Nokia gettin' all cozy on some smart phone stuff, but nothing has been confirmed, yet...

Re:KHTML? (1)

NickFitz (5849) | about 9 years ago | (#13808278)

nothing has been confirmed, yet...

From TFA:

We are using WebCore and JavaScriptCore components from Apple's Safari Browser which are based on KHTML and KJS components respectively that were developed by the KDE community.

Re:KHTML? (1)

EntropyEngine (890880) | about 9 years ago | (#13808332)

Looks like a whole new front has just opened up on the War of the Browsers -- the Battle of the Smartphones...

Re: KHTML (5, Informative)

g2devi (898503) | about 9 years ago | (#13808219)

There are two ports, one from Apple and one based off the work from Apple by Nokia. Here's the link I think you're referring to:
            http://gtk-webcore.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

From the page: "Gtk+ WebCore is a Linux/Gtk+ port of Apple Computer Inc.'s WebCore KHTML html rendering engine including a web component. A reference browser implementation is included in the project. Gtk+ WebCore is a standards compliant (X)HTML rendering engine, javascript interpreter and an embeddable web component. The purpose of the web component is to be a light-weight, easy-to-compile and embed, open source rendering component.

The project work is done at Nokia Research Center (NRC) as part of ongoing internet browser-related research activities. By releasing the source we hope to support in open source communities interested in using KHTML rendering engine component."
 

Re:KHTML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808267)

Why yes... yes it is. Not that you'd know it for the slashdot write-up which strongly implies that Nokia will putting KDE/Qt on their mobile phones, when in fact they specifically rejected Qt (and by extension KDE).

This is about WebCore -- all the work done by Apple to remove the Qt dependency from KHTML (and free it from the Trolltech licensing restrictions) and improve it to the point where it is more standards compliant than the old crufty dependency-ridden KHTML.

Re:KHTML? (1)

stilborne (85590) | about 9 years ago | (#13811780)

a) it was already pretty standards complaint. apple and nokia have done a lot of work, but they also built on the mountain of work that those that went before them did. so kudos to all.

b) khtml and kjs were both already designed in a way to make the dependencies on the underlying toolkit pretty irrelevant. current kjs in kde's devel branch has no qt requirement, even. apple simply proved that the design was sound by porting it to their own toolkit (introducing a different dependency; not removing dependencies). so kudos to all.

thanks for trying to paint a picture of good guys and bad guys though. meh.

Re:KHTML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13812118)

khtml and kjs were both already designed in a way to make the dependencies on the underlying toolkit pretty irrelevant.

Ummm... bullshit. You might try asking the Apple guys about that.

current kjs in kde's devel branch has no qt requirement,

*NOW* it doesn't, because the work by the Apple devs found its way back... you fucking spinning bastard.

In other news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808047)

Microsoft is going to buy Nokia.

Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (4, Interesting)

antivoid (751399) | about 9 years ago | (#13808048)

With any luck, there will be some innovation taking place rather than just shoving KDE onto a cellphone. A few things make me wonder:

1. Is this an appropriate GUI system to be using in such memory-deficient devices? I believe we we find out soon...

2. What bothers me about an X system is that it is targetted at client-server, and the resultant code bloat may prove hazardous to an embedded implementation. I do however that an open-source-based solution should be used (why re-invent the wheel).

3. What sort of licensing and commercial rights do a company possess, given the fact that they are using open-source commercially?

4. Can I still make phone calls of this phone? :)

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (2, Insightful)

WillerZ (814133) | about 9 years ago | (#13808067)

FFS RTFA, this is about WebCore (a KHTML-derived HTML rendering engine) being used in the Nokia web browser. They aren't porting all of KDE.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1, Funny)

puddpunk (629383) | about 9 years ago | (#13808071)

Remember folks... You heard it here first!

Knokia, Konqia, Kokia, KoNokia, Knoquerer...

I really should get back to work.

Kulius Kaeser (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808088)

keni, kidi, kinci

*kroan*

Re:Kulius Kaeser (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 9 years ago | (#13808125)

The Romans didn't use K, you insensitive clod! (Well, they did in a few Etrusan words, but that's it)

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 9 years ago | (#13808072)

4. Can I still make phone calls of this phone? :)

You'll make kphone kalls instead.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (0)

hachete (473378) | about 9 years ago | (#13808126)

Kapital!

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | about 9 years ago | (#13808096)

2. What bothers me about an X system is that it is targetted at client-server, and the resultant code bloat may prove hazardous to an embedded implementation.

Surely mobile phones are the definition of a client-server application? That aside, if the system is built according to a few simple OO principles the excess components will be easily removable.

Some corporate engineering decisions are sometimes taken for non-technical reasons, but I suspect there's no non-technical factor here other than cost. There's no salesman to convince management that their app just *needs* product X. Or is there?

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about 9 years ago | (#13808151)

surely they are NOT.
At least not in the x-server kind of thing.
Processing power is cheap, bandwith isnt.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

sco08y (615665) | about 9 years ago | (#13810112)

That aside, if the system is built according to a few simple OO principles the excess components will be easily removable.

The key OO principles of:

1. Wishful Thinking

2. Fairie Dust

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

Itchy Rich (818896) | about 9 years ago | (#13812964)

The key OO principles of: 1. Wishful Thinking 2. Fairie Dust

No, forward thinking and actual interest.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 years ago | (#13808124)

WebCore is not dependent on X. It uses a small Qt-like backend. On OS X, this translates drawing calls into Quatrz (PDF-like) drawing commands. On X11, they can be translated into X11 drawing calls. On a Series 60 phone they will be translated into the native GUI's API.

WebCore is LGPL. They have to make their changes available to people who buy their 'phones (they also have to allow their customers to use a different version of WebCore, which could be interesting). They do not have to contribute their changes directly back to Apple, but they probably will since it is usually much easier to contribute patches than maintain a fork (note that this didn't apply to Apple when they forked KHTML, since they were throwing more developer time at the codebase than KHTML had in total, so it was easier to fork).

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (4, Informative)

rdieter (112462) | about 9 years ago | (#13808676)


WebCore is LGPL. They have to make their changes available to people who buy their 'phones


True.


(they also have to allow their customers to use a different version of WebCore, which could be interesting).


That's an interesting but (IMO) false interpretation of the LGPL.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (2, Informative)

molnarcs (675885) | about 9 years ago | (#13808128)

1. Is this an appropriate GUI system to be using in such memory-deficient devices? I believe we we find out soon...

Yes. If you think specifically of KDE/QT - check out what runs on zaurus, ipaq, and whatnot [handhelds.org] , but you have to remember that this is Qtopia, not the same thing you have as a kde desktop, although resourcewise, KDE is becoming lighter and lighter...

Also, they speak about a rendering engine, not a GUI/OS solution (and afaik Nokia did a browser using khtml but with GTK UI).

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13813835)

although resourcewise, KDE is becoming lighter and lighter...

Yeah. First it would fit on a HD, then a Zip disk, and now just a DVD! It's obviously weighing less now!

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (4, Informative)

RossyB (28685) | about 9 years ago | (#13808147)

2. What bothers me about an X system is that it is targetted at client-server, and the resultant code bloat may prove hazardous to an embedded implementation. I do however that an open-source-based solution should be used (why re-invent the wheel).

Sigh, this again. In X when the client and the server are on the same machine, communication is by local Unix sockets, which are the fastest form of IPC on Linux. Keith Packard wrote a new X server (kdrive) to demonstrate that X doesn't have to be slow, and he was right: the "overhead" of the client/server communication is nothing compared to the time it takes smaller systems to draw.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808316)

Sigh, this again. In X when the client and the server are on the same machine, communication is by local Unix sockets, which are the fastest form of IPC on Linux. 1. Why do you need IPC? Because the X drwaing code is in a diferent process. This is not the case in many embedded platforms, where the drawing code is in the OS kernel or the application itself. In such situations, the overhead of local Unix sockets is rather significat (and most of the time unacceptable). 2. Because you have to deal with the case where the client and the server are not in the same machine with the same code, code for X that uses bitmaps tends to store both "local" and "server" copys of images, thus doubling memory usage.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

RossyB (28685) | about 9 years ago | (#13808358)

Are you seriously suggesting that we put drawing code into the kernel? Yes, it's in another process, and yes generally that's a good thing. There are plenty of Linux handheld devices out there which run X (our stand at LinuxWorld had 5 devices on, all running kdrive) and the IPC isn't a performance problem. Bad algorithms which result in register thrashing on ARM cores is a more serious problem, honestly!

As for your other arguments, the transports in X are compile-time pluggable. As you'd expect a kdrive X server designed for a handheld device doesn't have TCP connections built in, the only way to connect is via Unix sockets.

And an application that store copies of bitmaps on both client and server side is buggy, period. Once the server-side image is created the client copy can be destroyed.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (2, Insightful)

MenTaLguY (5483) | about 9 years ago | (#13809833)

1. in most cases drawing still dominates, rather than IPC overhead

2. This is why the standard MIT SHM extension exists. When the client and server are on the same machine, the bitmap memory can be shared between client and server

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (3, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | about 9 years ago | (#13808159)

Is this an appropriate GUI system to be using in such memory-deficient devices?

RTFA:

We started investigating the available open-source solutions and decided to go with a KDE-based solution for primarily 3 reasons:

1. Series 60 devices are constrained by ROM/RAM. WebCore/KHTML and JavaScriptCore/KJS provide rendering engines that use very small RAM/ROM footprint. That was really a clincher for us.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | about 9 years ago | (#13808162)

This ain't about X and qt and such (rather one small non-UI component of KDE), but qt, and gtk for that matter, can exist without X. Gtk and so forth have been ported to use DirectFB primitives rather than X ones, and the Qtopia system is a qt based palmtop environment. In some ways, that's the cool thing about layers.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

m50d (797211) | about 9 years ago | (#13808559)

1. Is this an appropriate GUI system to be using in such memory-deficient devices? I believe we we find out soon...

If you're talking about qt, it's where trolltech makes a lot of their money, so they must be doing something right. If you mean khtml, they say in TFA that the reason they chose it over (for example) gecko is its low memory requirements.

Re:Cool... BUT (there's always a BUT) (1)

Arandir (19206) | about 9 years ago | (#13811345)

They're not "shoving KDE onto a cellphone", they'e using a single component, KHTML. They're not using X, they're using Qt/Embedded. And KHTML is under the LGPL license, so as long as they make their KHTML modifications available, they don't need to open their browsing application that uses it.

Can I still make phone calls of this phone?

A cell phone that let's you make phone calls. How quaint...

KPhone? (0, Troll)

mahesh_gharat (633793) | about 9 years ago | (#13808127)

Checking their product names in recent history they will name it as KPhone.

What of the 770? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808132)

don't they already have their own GTK+ based gui and Webcore based browser? I seem to recall them releasing the sources some time ago.

Re:What of the 770? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808320)

They did a port of KHTML, but never used it. The 770 runs a customized build of Opera.

Small RAM footprint (3, Interesting)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | about 9 years ago | (#13808136)

Was anyone else surprised that the key reason for using KDE components was the small footprint of the rendering engine? I had not considered KDE terrible in this regard, but I am shocked that it is considered superior to the alternatives.

Re:Small RAM footprint (4, Informative)

Jessta (666101) | about 9 years ago | (#13808148)

it's not KDE. It's KHTML.
KHTML has a far lower footprint than something like GECKO(mozilla firefox).
 

Re:Small RAM footprint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808149)

Note that when they are talking about a small RAM/ROM footprint, they are talking about the KJS and KHTML components only, not a whole desktop environment.

Re:Small RAM footprint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808466)

Yep, OSS really sucks.

Re:Small RAM footprint (2)

m50d (797211) | about 9 years ago | (#13808640)

Was anyone else surprised that the key reason for using KDE components was the small footprint of the rendering engine? I had not considered KDE terrible in this regard, but I am shocked that it is considered superior to the alternatives.

The kde javascript engine is incredibly slow (straight rendering is faster than anything OSS, but once you hit heavy javascript it slows to a crawl), so I'm glad there's something it's good at in compensation.

Re:Small RAM footprint (1)

zootm (850416) | about 9 years ago | (#13809552)

This is KHTML, as I think a sibling post to this one pointed out. And is there really a lighter-weight alternative around, on an open source licence?

Another feature to run down the battery... (2, Insightful)

verbnoun (920657) | about 9 years ago | (#13808143)

Back when I had my first phone, a Nokia 3210, it could go for almost a week without charging. Now, I have a phone with all the features it lasts little more than a day. Personally, if I want to use KHTML while I'm travelling around I'd rather take a laptop and have a phone that lasts a reasonable amount of time.

Re:Another feature to run down the battery... (2, Informative)

Chicane-UK (455253) | about 9 years ago | (#13808265)

What the hell phone do you have that goes flat after 1 day?!

I run a Microsoft / Orange SPV C500 and its loaded with features.. MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer, Media Player, etc - I use it heavily for SMS texting (250/month roughly) and make about 2 or 3 calls a week on average and it usually lasts me about 5 days between charging. Its small too!

Re:Another feature to run down the battery... (1)

djdavetrouble (442175) | about 9 years ago | (#13809375)

make about 2 or 3 calls a week on average and it usually lasts me about 5 days between charging. Its small too!

isn't talk time what uses the most battery?

Re:Another feature to run down the battery... (2, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13809157)

I have Nokia 9300 Communicator. It has a GPRS-connection on all the time, so new emails are pushed to it instantly. I also make several phone-calls every day and use the PDA-functionality extensively. And the battery lasts for several days before needing a recharge.

So I call bullshit on your comment.

Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1, Troll)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13808150)

The way the Qt/KDE relationship is structured, all this work porting KDE components to Troll Tech's platforms adds value primarily to the product from one company: Troll Tech.

Assume Troll Tech's products are as good as people working with them say they are and that they should take over the world. What would we end up with? A single company monopolizing the commercial GUI development space, plus lots of people contributing free labor. How is that different from what we get with Microsoft? As far as I'm concerned, dual licenses are bad because they inhibit competition. All contributors to an open source project should work on equal footing.

Fortunately, enough people seem to have figured this out so that there are plenty of alternatives and that Troll Tech isn't taking over the world. But people who do contribute free labor to Troll Tech should reflect on what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808178)

Trolltech get a whole bunch of free developer time. I'm sure they appreciate it.

I get a free package that handles all that nasty windowing stuff without too much trouble. If it wasn't free, I wouldn't be able to use it. I'm a university researcher - we have money for 'core' equipment, but adding nice GUIs don't fall into that category. I write software tools, most of which are never used by anyone but me. Trolltech make my life easier. I'm happy with that.

BTW - these slashdot pictograms - how do they predict what I'm writing about. This one says 'luxuries'. The past four or five have been equally relevant. They're starting to freak me out a little...

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | about 9 years ago | (#13808182)

The way the Qt/KDE relationship is structured, all this work porting KDE components to Troll Tech's platforms adds value primarily to the product from one company: Troll Tech.

Um, what? Porting KDE components to TrollTech's platforms? KDE has always been based on TrollTech's Qt toolkit.

Furthermore, it clearly adds value to KDE; the quality of the Qt toolkit really shows. Compare the quality of KHTML and Gecko sometime. KHTML's faster, uses less resources, and implements the W3C specifications better (it passes the Acid2 test, implements things like DOM2 mutation events, etc, some of which are a *long* way off in Gecko - Acid2 fixes aren't even planned yet). And yet the KHTML developers have accomplished this with a fraction of the resources available to Mozilla.org. Much the same comparisons can be made between KOffice and OpenOffice.

Assume Troll Tech's products are as good as people working with them say they are and that they should take over the world. What would we end up with? A single company monopolizing the commercial GUI development space, plus lots of people contributing free labor. How is that different from what we get with Microsoft?

The difference is that Qt is GPLed, so all the proprietary license fees would be paying for development of Free Software, and would directly benefit Free Software like KDE.

As far as I'm concerned, dual licenses are bad because they inhibit competition.

You can fork Qt whenever you want.

All contributors to an open source project should work on equal footing.

All contributors to Qt have all the freedoms granted by the GPL.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13808795)

You can fork Qt whenever you want.

Yes, just not under the same conditions as Troll Tech. So, if I try to build an (open source) business around my forked version of Qt and try to compete with Troll Tech, I'll be at a grave disadvantage compared to Troll Tech.

All contributors to Qt have all the freedoms granted by the GPL.

True. But Troll Tech has additional freedoms and additional rights, and that's a problem.

One of the consequences of this is that Troll Tech has managed to take over the user interface of several Linux-based PDAs, excluding other toolkits from those devices. You cannot realistically run a Gtk+ or FLTK-based application on a Qtopia-based handheld. And because Troll Tech makes money with that kind of software, they have a strong incentive not to make their systems interoperable and open to other toolkits. That sort of thing hurts open source, and it also hurts Linux, because Qtopia just isn't very good (it suffers from many of the same problems as Pocket PC, and it is also dreadfully inefficient).

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

Bogtha (906264) | about 9 years ago | (#13808971)

Yes, just not under the same conditions as Troll Tech. So, if I try to build an (open source) business around my forked version of Qt and try to compete with Troll Tech, I'll be at a grave disadvantage compared to Troll Tech.

The advantage TrollTech has is the ability to license Qt for closed-source applications. Don't try and spin this as some sort of disadvantage for open-source companies because if anything, the opposite is true.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

49152 (690909) | about 9 years ago | (#13809712)

Aha, finally you show your true colors!

This is not about open source after all but about whining how you cannot make money on code other people wrote, though on you.

Also your arguments about Trolltech excluding other toolkits show your lack of understanding how widget toolkits work and how they communicate with the underlaying hardware.

Trolltech does not in any way prevent you from running another widget toolkit on linux based equipment, the only thing that prevent you from using Gtk+ or anything else is the need to run directly on a framebuffer without X11. Trolltech has made a QT version that have this capabillity, Gtk+/FLTK has not.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

Capt. Beyond (179592) | about 9 years ago | (#13814218)

and the gtk based handhelds interface suffers from the same thing as gnome. It's slow, bloated and inefficient.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13812238)

KHTML is also chasing Gecko's taillights in some regards like mathml support. KDE / Apple are working on SVG, I'm typing this into a safari version with experimental SVG support (doesn't do text yet:( ). On my Mac SVG in Webkit/safari is already quicker (quite a bit) than in the seamonkey prerelease version I have.

So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

Burz (138833) | about 9 years ago | (#13808228)


I don't get it.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13808820)

Firefox on Windows is good because it weans people off a proprietary solution (IE); that benefit outweighs the concern that the presence of Firefox contributes to the value of a proprietary solution (Windows).

However, KDE additions to Troll Tech's platform don't wean people off any proprietary solution, they only strengthen it.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13809195)

However, KDE additions to Troll Tech's platform don't wean people off any proprietary solution, they only strengthen it.


Since Qt is licensed under the GPL, I would REALLY like to know what makes you think that it's a "proprietary solution"? Or is free software, licenced under the GPL as written by the Free Software Foundation really "proprietary software"? if GPL'ed software is in reality "proprietary", what, pray tell, is free software?

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

Burz (138833) | about 9 years ago | (#13813071)

Don't hold your breath, because you won't get an answer.

Its odd that we had a significant free project (XFree86) change the license on its product, and the whole community easily forked to X.org in response...... yet supposedly if Trolltech did the same with their licensing it would be a disaster and mass slavery would ensue.

That Ximian or similar companies could try the same thing seems to be of no concern to the Gnome flamebaiters.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13815740)

Its odd that we had a significant free project (XFree86) change the license on its product, and the whole community easily forked to X.org in response...... yet supposedly if Trolltech did the same with their licensing it would be a disaster and mass slavery would ensue.

That analogy doesn't work. Forks and license changes aren't inherently bad. The X.org fork resulted in a better license. The adoption by Troll Tech of the GPL as part of their dual licensing scheme was an improvement on what they had before.

That Ximian or similar companies could try the same thing seems to be of no concern to the Gnome flamebaiters.

It is impossible for Ximian to adopt the kind of dual-licensing scheme that Troll Tech has because Ximian doesn't own all the copyrights on the code. For Gtk+, all users, commercial and otherwise, have the same rights and obligations. For Qt, however, Troll Tech has retained full commercial rights to the Qt codebase, and that's a problem, because it means that Troll Tech's commercial interests enter in the direction of Qt's development; one consequence of this is, for example, that embedded Linux devices based on Qt/Embedded do not permit you to use any other toolkit.

KDE already screwed up big time when they picked Qt under the original license and was bailed out only because Troll Tech changed its license. That alone is evidence that the KDE developers simply aren't particularly smart when it comes to licenses. That's a shame, because technically, they are doing good work and technically, KDE is better at this point than Gnome.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13815782)

Since Qt is licensed under the GPL, I would REALLY like to know what makes you think that it's a "proprietary solution"? Or is free software, licenced under the GPL as written by the Free Software Foundation really "proprietary software"? if GPL'ed software is in reality "proprietary", what, pray tell, is free software?

Qt is "free software" in the narrow sense of conforming to the free software license. It is also "proprietary software" in the sense that it is wholly owned and controlled by a single entity. The two terms are not always mutually exclusive.

But I'd suggest we don't get hung up on terminology. What matters is that Qt development is essentially different from that of most other open source projects because a commercial entity both owns the entire codebase and drives the development. That does have consequences for the direction the project is taking. To maintain ownership and dual-license status, for example, Troll Tech cannot simply accept code contributions under the GPL, like a normal GPL'ed software project can; for a long time, the Windows and Macintosh versions were only available commercially; and, Qt/Embedded and Qtopia exclude other toolkits from the devices it runs and Troll Tech makes no efforts to fix that.

Finally, just because something is under a free software license doesn't mean it's under the correct free software license. The GNU project, for example, deliberately does not use the pure GPL for things like the standard C library because it would limit commercial adoption of GNU, while Troll Tech deliberately chose the GPL for their no-pay version for just that reason.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13816777)

Qt is "free software" in the narrow sense of conforming to the free software license.


If it's licensed under the GPL, then it is free software, without quotes. It is 100% free software. as defined by the Free Software Foundation.

It is also "proprietary software" in the sense that it is wholly owned and controlled by a single entity.


GTK+ is controlled by the GTK+ team. GNOME is controlled by the GNOME-team. Mozilla and Firefox are controlled by the Mozilla Foundation. So why exactly are you singling out TrollTech and Qt here? And in case you feel uncomfortable with TrollTech being in "control" of Qt: Go right ahead and fork it. You could do it right now if you wanted to. You are not in any way "controlled" by TT, since you could take their ball, and walk away with it right now if you wanted to.

Finally, just because something is under a free software license doesn't mean it's under the correct free software license.


Who decides what is "correct" and what is not? you? As Linus said: "He who writes the code, decides". TT wrote the code, therefore they get to choose the license. If you find their license unacceptable (if you do, I guess you just want to use Qt to write proprietary software, right? Oh, what a big supporter of free software you are!), use something else, and quit your whining! If someone decides to use Qt, it's their decision, and it does not concern you in any shape or form.

The GNU project, for example, deliberately does not use the pure GPL for things like the standard C library because it would limit commercial adoption of GNU, while Troll Tech deliberately chose the GPL for their no-pay version for just that reason.


Oh I see. the whole point of creating free software is to suck up to creators of proprietary software! I never realized that that was Stallmans vision in the early eighties, thanks for enlightening me!

Seriously, I find the hypocrisy appaling. We have great software that is licensed as free software. And now people are whining because the license prevents them from closing the source and earning $$$$ from it, while giving other jack shit in return! Want to earn money from Qt? Pay for the license! Don't want to pay? Then release your code under the GPL. You are basically demanding that you must have the right to earn money from Qt for free, but you want to deny TrollTech (the creators of Qt) that same right! "Do as I say! Not as I do!".

Seriously: since when did free software turn from creating kick-ass free software in to "we must satisfy the whims of corporations who want to develop proprietary software!"?

I heard that Microsoft is hiring. People like you would fit right in there!

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13824644)

GTK+ is controlled by the GTK+ team. GNOME is controlled by the GNOME-team. Mozilla and Firefox are controlled by the Mozilla Foundation. So why exactly are you singling out TrollTech and Qt here?

The Gtk+ team or Gnome foundation doesn't have any special rights over the Gtk+ code base--they can't make a commercial version. Troll Tech, however, has special rights over the Qt code base, they can make a commercial version, and they have. Troll Tech is using an open source license to promote their proprietary software.

Oh I see. the whole point of creating free software is to suck up to creators of proprietary software!

Apparently, that is what you believe, because that is exactly what proponents of Qt are doing: they are using an open source licensing gimmick to promote Troll Tech's business and help them make and sell proprietary software.

I heard that Microsoft is hiring. People like you would fit right in there!

Actually, it is your and Troll Tech's mindset that is disturbingly close to Microsoft's; you are promoting proprietary software, you are simply using open source to do it. I heard that Microsoft is hiring--why don't you apply yourself? You apparently put expediency and the appearance of freedom ahead of actual freedom and open source principles, so you should fit right in at Microsoft.

TT wrote the code, therefore they get to choose the license. If you find their license unacceptable [...] use something else, and quit your whining!

The fact that Troll Tech may choose whatever license they like doesn't place them above criticism: their policies are a threat to free software and open source software, and, of course, I am going to continue to criticise them for them.

And, of course, I'm using something else. In fact, I'm contributing to open source desktop and toolkit projects. Troll Tech must not be allowed to succeed.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13825006)

The Gtk+ team or Gnome foundation doesn't have any special rights over the Gtk+ code base--they can't make a commercial version. Troll Tech, however, has special rights over the Qt code base, they can make a commercial version, and they have. Troll Tech is using an open source license to promote their proprietary software.


*sigh*^.... Again: Qt is licensed under the GPL. So how exactyly is it "proprietary software"? And all the money they receive from sales of Qt is funneled to the developement of Qt. And that benefits free software since Qt is free software and many free software apps and projects use it.

And so what if there's a commercial version available? Are you forced to use it? Are you somehow prevented from forking Qt?

Apparently, that is what you believe, because that is exactly what proponents of Qt are doing: they are using an open source licensing gimmick to promote Troll Tech's business and help them make and sell proprietary software.


are you a retard? Qt is licensed under the GPL, period. True, there is a "commercial" license available as well, but the codebase is 100% identical.

Actually, it is your and Troll Tech's mindset that is disturbingly close to Microsoft's

Microsoft hates free software. TrollTech has licensed their primary product under the GPL and they actively promote and develop it. If you seriously believe that TT is like Microsoft, you have some SERIOUS issues.

You apparently put expediency and the appearance of freedom ahead of actual freedom and open source principles, so you should fit right in at Microsoft.


You hate Qt because it's licensed under the GPL. I applaud TT for licensing Qt under the GPL. Microsoft hates the GPL. Yet you claim that I have similar mindset as Microsoft does?

The fact that Troll Tech may choose whatever license they like doesn't place them above criticism: their policies are a threat to free software and open source software, and, of course, I am going to continue to criticise them for them.


Yeah, releasing kick-ass software under the GPL is a clear threat to Free Software. Seriously: are you a retard?

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13828801)

Yeah, releasing kick-ass software under the GPL is a clear threat to Free Software. Seriously: are you a retard?

So, your claim rests on your assumption that it's self-evident that dual licensing is good for free software. But it isn't self-evident to me, nor is it to lots of other developers. In fact, I think Troll Tech's licensing scheme is harmful for free software, and I have given you some reasons for that.

Your insults and flames don't substantiate your arguments. And given that the KDE project was running for a couple of years without even noticing that the GPL and QPL were incompatible and only avoided shut-down because Troll Tech finally gave in and changed their license, KDE proponents like you have no credibility when it comes to judging licensing issues--you got it badly wrong before, and it's pretty clear you are still getting it wrong this time around.

And if you hope that this issue will just go away, that people like me will just shut up and develop for Qt if you only insult us enough, and that and KDE will take over the world, well, just keep on hoping.

Re:So then Firefox on Windows is a bad thing? (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13833472)

So, your claim rests on your assumption that it's self-evident that dual licensing is good for free software.


I claim that releasing software under the GPL is a good thing for free software. I guess you would quit your whining if Qt was NOT released as free software? I guess things would be a lot better then, huh? Because free software movement would be a lot better off if we didn't have kick-ass toolkit in our disposal?

But it isn't self-evident to me, nor is it to lots of other developers. In fact, I think Troll Tech's licensing scheme is harmful for free software, and I have given you some reasons for that.

Yes, in your other message you said that the problem with Qt is that it's too easy to write proprietary sogftware using Qt. But since it's even easier to write proprietary software using GTK+ (you don't have to pay anyone, unlike with Qt), and you still only whine about Qt, I can only assume that you are hypocritical and that you have double-standards.

The other claim against Qt is that it's too _hard_ to write proprietary software using Qt, since you have to pay TrollTech (unlike with GTK+). To that I say: tough! As a supporter of free software, I don't give a flying fuck if pushers of proprietary software have to pay for Qt! If anything, TT and Qt make it MORE appealing to write free software. Either you write proprietary software and pay for the privilege. Or you write free software and don't pay a thing.

Your insults and flames don't substantiate your arguments.


I get riled up when someone makes stupid claims like "releasing GPL'ed software harms free software". That whole comment is the stupidest thing I have ever heard!

KDE proponents like you have no credibility when it comes to judging licensing issues--you got it badly wrong before, and it's pretty clear you are still getting it wrong this time around.


I claim that releasing GPL'ed software is a good thing for free software. You claim that it harms free software. Seriously: which of us is right?

And if you hope that this issue will just go away


I don't see any "issue". I see a kick-ass GPL'ed toolkit, and a bunch of hypocritical whiners complaining about some moronic "issues".

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (2, Insightful)

49152 (690909) | about 9 years ago | (#13808297)

Oh no, not again!

This horse has been beaten to death several times before, either you are trolling or simply very ignorant.

QT is GPL'd you are free to fork at any time, if you dont believe me go read the f***ng license yourself.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (0, Troll)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13808746)

QT is GPL'd you are free to fork at any time,

Yes, but not under the same conditions as Troll Tech; Troll Tech still retains the right to sell it under non-GPL'ed licenses.

This horse has been beaten to death several times before, either you are trolling or simply very ignorant.

All the more sad that people like you still don't get it.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

49152 (690909) | about 9 years ago | (#13809644)

>Yes, but not under the same conditions as Troll Tech; Troll Tech still retains the right to sell it under non-GPL'ed licenses.

And exactly _how_ is this is negative for open source? Care to give some examples?

BTW: This limitation is no different than all other GPL software, if you fork you have to stay GPL.

You do realise that the dual license means you can have both GPL *AND* commercial software running on QT. This would not be possible if QT was licensed as GPL only.

The only loss is for other commercial companies that are not able to grab the code and go commercial with it themself. Perhaps you work for such a company?

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

Klivian (850755) | about 9 years ago | (#13809655)

Yes, but not under the same conditions as Troll Tech; Troll Tech still retains the right to sell it under non-GPL'ed licenses.

Yes and they created it from scratch, nearly every line of code in Qt are paid for by Troll Tech. Usually they don't accept larger patches from the outside, they usually develop their own versions. So it's their property, they even give it all away under the GPL. And since you are talking about Free software, it does not really matter if they can sell it or not under a non-GPL license. Anyway you will most likely always be at an disadvantage trying to compete with Troll Tech on Qt, to even matter you'd need to have something in the land of 50-60 people full time doing development, documentation, QA and support. To simply match what they are doing, and to really compet you would have to do even better.

But if you want to compete with Troll Tech perhas you should start a toolkit from scratch, develop it over 10 years or so. Paying something like 50-60 full time employees to do the development, documentation and QA. Then you can come back and discuss giving your property away, or perhaps you have "got it" by then. BTW not even Linus and the Kernel hacker does that.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (4, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13809136)

I don't get it. I really don't. A company releases their prodcut (a very good product in fact!) under the GPL. And when they do that, some people start to whine that "Don't do that! You are hurting the free software movement!". So releasing software as free sofware is a bad thing?

What is the problem here? TrollTech offers their product under the GPL. They also offer it under a proprietary license. They don't force anyone to use their toolkit, and you are free to fork the toolkit anytime you want to. So what is the problem here? Why is it bad to offer software under the GPL?

Assume Troll Tech's products are as good as people working with them say they are and that they should take over the world. What would we end up with? A single company monopolizing the commercial GUI development space, plus lots of people contributing free labor.


Qt is licensed under the GPL. I really fail to see how they could "monopolize" anything. or are you worried what would happen if Linux "monopolized" the OS-market? or if Red Hat "monopolized" Linux-market? Since the product (Qt, Linux or Red Hat) are GPL'ed, there will be no "monopolization" in the sense as would happen with Microsoft for example.

But people who do contribute free labor to Troll Tech should reflect on what they are doing and why they are doing it.


So I shouldn't offer any bug-reports to the kernel-folks, because that might make the product a bit better, and some company might earn some money through it?

Seriously, am I in the Twilight Zone or something? People are complaining when some company offerws kick-ass software under the GPL?

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

idlake (850372) | about 9 years ago | (#13824675)

What is the problem here? TrollTech offers their product under the GPL. They also offer it under a proprietary license. They don't force anyone to use their toolkit,

It's good that you recognize that you aren't forced to use it. So, I'm suggesting to you: don't use it.

Qt is licensed under the GPL. I really fail to see how they could "monopolize" anything. or are you worried what would happen if Linux "monopolized" the OS-market?

Software built on Linux doesn't need to fall under the GPL, but software built on Qt does.

And if Linux were dual licensed, I would be worried about it monopolizing the market. But Linux is covered only by the GPL, and that makes it OK.

So I shouldn't offer any bug-reports to the kernel-folks, because that might make the product a bit better, and some company might earn some money through it?

You should offer bug reports to the Linux kernel folks; the Linux kernel project is not dual-licensed. All contributors and all users of the Linux kernel use it under the same conditions.

People are complaining when some company offerws kick-ass software under the GPL?

Yes, people are complaining about that, and rightfully so. Not everything that is offered "free" (even "free-as-in-speech") is a good thing.

For example, Joe might give you free cocaine, and you might enjoy it, but that wouldn't make it a good thing. And Joe would give you free cocaine because he knows that there is a good chance that you get addicted to it and have to come back to him later and pay lots of money for it. That's roughly the kind of strategy Troll Tech uses with Qt.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 9 years ago | (#13834845)

So, I'm suggesting to you: don't use it.


I'm not a developer. But I do use several apps built on Qt. And what are you going to do about it? Beat me up, untill I use some crappy GTK+-apps instead?

Software built on Linux doesn't need to fall under the GPL, but software built on Qt does.


and that's a problem because....? Because it makes things too difficult for creators of proprietary software? Funny, here [slashdot.org] you whined that it's too easy to write proprietary apps with Qt. And now you whine that it's too HARD to write proprietary apps with Qt! Suggestion: try to make up your mind, OK?

You should offer bug reports to the Linux kernel folks; the Linux kernel project is not dual-licensed. All contributors and all users of the Linux kernel use it under the same conditions.


And all people can use Qt, as mandated by the GPL. Nobody is forced to buy the commercial-license, but they can do so if they want to.

For example, Joe might give you free cocaine, and you might enjoy it, but that wouldn't make it a good thing. And Joe would give you free cocaine because he knows that there is a good chance that you get addicted to it and have to come back to him later and pay lots of money for it. That's roughly the kind of strategy Troll Tech uses with Qt.


That is a bunch of bullshit and you know it! What exactly makes you think that you are required to pay money for Qt? In case you are a retard: IT'S LICENSED UNDER THE GPL! Oh, you want to write proprietary apps with it, without giving anything in return to anyone? Now, that's pure greed and selfishness, and you know it! And I don't give a shit if some pusher of proprietary crap has to pay for Qt. Really, I don't.

I guess the REAL problem you have with Qt is that it's stealing thunder from your own pet-project (I assume it's GTK+). In that case: Cry me a fucking river.

Re:Why do all this free work for ONE company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13814149)

hey fudrucker!
Its spelled "Trolltech", not "Troll Tech". Get it right before you spew more FUD around.
Can you say, GPL? I knew you could.

You would rather put free work into a group of companies the likes of Sun?

Nokia are software patent supporting facists (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808198)

Strange bed-fellows, avoid their products if possible.

Re:Nokia are software patent supporting facists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808378)

Time for the mods here to get a clue.

Software Patents (0, Offtopic)

rollonet (882269) | about 9 years ago | (#13808229)

Why does everyone forget that Nokia supports software patents? Is it becuase they seem like they are the good guys, because they are showing Linux off a little bit? I mean, wasn't the Nokia Maemo tablet computer meant to be released by now? Maybe its the sequel to Duke Nukem Forever...

--such a pleasure (1)

jkind (922585) | about 9 years ago | (#13808496)

It's such a pleasure developing for KDE.. I hope this gives the developers a boost in visibility and confidence if nothing else.

Embedded Gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13808581)

There's also been some work recently on stripping down Gnome to a size more suitable for embedded environments. Apparently the latest version is almost small enough to run on a 3GHz/512 MB desktop PC.

nokia and kde (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13812992)

If they like KDE so much, maybe they should start using it for their interface, instead of the gtk Maemo crap stuff.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?