[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Qt and other



On Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 03:51:51PM -0600, Merlin T.J. Duchene wrote:
> You misunderstand me.  I know all of those things.  I was simply making an
> observation as to ease of installing concerning redhat.  
[..]

But on the same token, Redhat only installs easily on hardware it knows
about.  Debian does better on systems that aren't so cookie-cutter designed. 
Redhat is really easy often but an absolute pain in the arse if it doesn't
immediately know everything about your system it wants to know which can be
caused by any number of things.  Debian is not the easiest, but it's at
least consistant about being easy-after-you-know-what-its-doing.


> As for Qt, I think that Harmony will be a better choice than Qt.  At
> least, that is what I meant.

I have to disagree.  Once the license issues are settled, all that will be
missing from Qt is the right for people to use it freely to make non-free
code.  BSD people like that, even though the realize the freedom they ask
for is something they don't use but others take advantage of.  The only real
difference between the LGPL and a BSDish license is the freedom to exploit,
and in the case of Troll Tech's profits that's exactly what Harmony will be
trying to do:  Give people the freedom to exploit Qt..  Develop it with
Harmony and they've gotten around paying for Qt for their non-free stuff.  I
must admit that prospect isn't pleasant to me.


> As to others' remark about my perhaps 'premature' critcism of discussing
> Qt, I think I have been misuderstood also.  I think that talking is good,
> but let's do more than talk.

It's being done.  The people doing it are doing it quietly, taking notes
from the discussion.  We're waiting for the bugs to be found so when we go
about suggesting they be fixed we make the right suggestions.

-- 
Show me the code or get out of my way.

Attachment: pgpr5VurNnS1F.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: