-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, good discussion everyone, a pleasure to read it.
The lacks of weel integrated GUI tools in X is volunteers but who knows a
Windows System that run on most Unix System (including Linux, A/UX,
FreeBSD, AIX, Sun, WindowsNT) and are distributed (a very painf
>
>
> > Personally having looked at Qt and KDE I am waiting to see what comes
> > out of the Hyperion project.
> >
> > For those who haven't heard of it, it is a multi platform development
> > system written at the NCSA as is going to be used in the latest version
> > of Xmosaic among other th
> "Larry" == Larry 'Daffy' Daffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Larry> Martin Konold writes:
-> In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO.
Larry> Buzzword bingo. Just because it's written in C++ doesn't
Larry> mean it's better.
-> Qt comes with source.
Larry> My mistake.
>
> > Qt forbids anybody from modifying their source code. So what
> > if they changed their license when they've gained enough momentum?
>
> As far as I understand it, you can release code with a new licence, but
> you cannot change the licence on released code. Thus, if they changed
> their l
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>--==_Exmh_2037100310P
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]
>
>"Larry 'Daffy' Daffner":
>> I still haven't seen a valid reason to support KDE/Qt.
>
>It looks better than Athena
> Qt forbids anybody from modifying their source code. So what
> if they changed their license when they've gained enough momentum?
As far as I understand it, you can release code with a new licence, but
you cannot change the licence on released code. Thus, if they changed
their licence we would
[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]
"Larry 'Daffy' Daffner":
> I still haven't seen a valid reason to support KDE/Qt.
It looks better than Athena widgets. :-)
(I use xaw95 myself. I haven't tried Qt or KDE, nor am I interested
in with the current copyrights.)
Martin Konold writes:
-> In contrast to motif Qt is fully C++ OO.
Buzzword bingo. Just because it's written in C++ doesn't mean it's
better.
-> Qt comes with source.
My mistake. I was under the impression that Qt was
binary-only. Sorry. But the source distribution is a sham, since you
can not d
Martin Konold wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Larry 'Daffy' Daffner wrote:
>
> > -> Have look at the kde project.
> > [ Stuff snipped ]
> >
> > I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on
> > Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is
> > delivere
> > I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on
> > Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is
> > delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a
> > significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will
> > keep t
[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ]
Martin Konold:
> So [Qt] is really free and can be well used for gpled sw.
Well, yes, for some definitions of the word free. Free is one
of those words that everyone likes to define for themselves. For
Debian, the relevant que
> > I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on
> > Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is
> > delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I don't see that as a
> > significant difference. It's still a proprietary toolkit, which will
> > keep
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Larry 'Daffy' Daffner wrote:
> -> Have look at the kde project.
> [ Stuff snipped ]
>
> I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on
> Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is
> delivered 'free for noncommercial use', but I d
Martin Konold writes:
->!! There is a solution up and coming !!
->
-> Have look at the kde project.
[ Stuff snipped ]
I strongly doubt that KDE has the momentum to succeed. It's based on
Qt, which is a proprietary standard. Granted the implementation is
delivered 'free for noncommercial us
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, CoB SysAdmin wrote:
> > > I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is
> > > still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface.
> > This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated
> > from the stadart toolkit Mot
>
> > I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is
> > still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface.
>
> This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated
> from the stadart toolkit Motif (which is payware)
Well, you have to und
>
> > I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is
> > still such a completely inconsistent and painful user interface.
>
> This is a true problem which last from the fact that X11 is seperated
> from the stadart toolkit Motif (which is payware)
Well, you have to und
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Rick Macdonald wrote:
> Martin Konold wrote:
> > There is a nice screenshot of an already working kde (kool desktop
> > environment)
> > http://fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de/kde/demos/kdescreenshot1.jpg.gz
>
> This link doesn't seem to exist. What should it be?
Sorry! This
Hi there,
This message was definetelly not appropriate for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I even do not know if it is for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there still a debian-talk list?
> I cannot believe that after HOW MANY years of development, X windows is
> still such a completely inconsistent and painful user
19 matches
Mail list logo
