| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sts wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
Actually, it is just because Gnome is the "default" DE. Look at Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RedHat, SuSE, etc. all use Gnome by default. That doesn't mean it is better, just that it makes sense for devs to focus on GTK. |
Well, yeah - they all use GNOME because it's supposed to be easy. The key word there being ``supposed''.
| Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: |
Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
Not really, the only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library was because of the BS licence that qt was under.
Rememeber it was not that long ago that qt (and only with qt4) that you could use it on windows without a licence
So ppl who wanted linux and windows apps were forced into using gtk. Now that qt is more open are they suddenly just gonna re-code their apps? dont be stupid
gtk works for them, qt works for others |
Oh come on, that was like 10 years ago. The whole licensing thing ended a long time ago. Now Qt is under the GPL, whereas GTK is under the LGPL, which is less open.
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3882
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | Oh come on, that was like 10 years ago. The whole licensing thing ended a long time ago. Now Qt is under the GPL, whereas GTK is under the LGPL, which is less open. |
nop only 3years ago...
| srunni wrote: | | sts wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
Actually, it is just because Gnome is the "default" DE. Look at Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RedHat, SuSE, etc. all use Gnome by default. That doesn't mean it is better, just that it makes sense for devs to focus on GTK. |
Well, yeah - they all use GNOME because it's supposed to be easy. The key word there being ``supposed''.
. |
and again teh toolkit in use has nothing todo with a DM usability. Your misquoted thread is proof of that
GNOME using qt4 would still feel the same
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years
Last edited by Naib on Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Oh come on, that was like 10 years ago. The whole licensing thing ended a long time ago. Now Qt is under the GPL, whereas GTK is under the LGPL, which is less open. |
nop only 3years ago... |
What's the difference? Linux adoption hasn't really taken off until the last 1 or 2 years.
| Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Oh come on, that was like 10 years ago. The whole licensing thing ended a long time ago. Now Qt is under the GPL, whereas GTK is under the LGPL, which is less open. |
nop only 3years ago...
| srunni wrote: | | sts wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
Actually, it is just because Gnome is the "default" DE. Look at Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RedHat, SuSE, etc. all use Gnome by default. That doesn't mean it is better, just that it makes sense for devs to focus on GTK. |
Well, yeah - they all use GNOME because it's supposed to be easy. The key word there being ``supposed''.
. |
and again teh toolkit in use has nothing todo with a DM usability. Your misquoted thread is proof of that
GNOME using qt4 would still feel the same |
I never said the toolkit influenced DM usability. All those distros think GNOME is the most usable, and it happens to use GTK. And since Gnomies don't like using multiple widget toolkits, everyone started coding apps in GTK.
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
Last edited by srunni on Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:49 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3882
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Oh come on, that was like 10 years ago. The whole licensing thing ended a long time ago. Now Qt is under the GPL, whereas GTK is under the LGPL, which is less open. |
nop only 3years ago... |
What's the difference? Linux adoption hasn't really taken off until the last 1 or 2 years. |
difference is
1) you were talking BS again and just pulling numbers out of yr arse
2) you get projects like GIMP, cross platform they started >3 years ago
projects like gaim/pidgin that started >3years ago..
...
all are cross platform and why? because GTK was a cross platform toolkit
project that are <3years old yer sure you start seeing qt app's like Mumble because now the dev's are not forced to use one toolkit that they may not like
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3882
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the ironic thing abt where this thread has drifted...
Chrome isn't using either qt or gtk
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Oh come on, that was like 10 years ago. The whole licensing thing ended a long time ago. Now Qt is under the GPL, whereas GTK is under the LGPL, which is less open. |
nop only 3years ago... |
What's the difference? Linux adoption hasn't really taken off until the last 1 or 2 years. |
difference is
1) you were talking BS again and just pulling numbers out of yr arse
2) you get projects like GIMP, cross platform they started >3 years ago
projects like gaim/pidgin that started >3years ago..
...
all are cross platform and why? because GTK was a cross platform toolkit
project that are <3years old yer sure you start seeing qt app's like Mumble because now the dev's are not forced to use one toolkit that they may not like |
Notice that we are talking here about which toolkit Google Chrome should use. Seeing as Google Chrome is a new project, the licensing issues of yore shouldn't matter, correct?
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
square_
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djlosch wrote: | | square_ wrote: | | poly_poly-man wrote: | so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior. |
no its not. at least not since qt4. its really easy to program, thats the reason why it spreads more now. VLC switched to qt for example. |
because when i think of attractive, powerful UIs, VLC is the first thing to come to mind ::facepalm:: |
its ugly as hell. and the new qt4 gui is twice as ugly as the old gtk+ variant, but its a perfect example. the guys even wrote on their blog that they switched, simply because qt4 is simple and simple to maintain and the toolkit fanboys can f*** off! 
btw, yeah its probably a preference issue, between c and c++, but for me as complete programmer noob ... lets just say, i was able to write simple qt4 guis, in gtk+ i have no chance at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
square_
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
teh pp man is 15, whats your excuse? stop that bullshit already, we went over it 999999999999999999999999999999999999999 times already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3882
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | Notice that we are talking here about which toolkit Google Chrome should use. Seeing as Google Chrome is a new project, the licensing issues of yore shouldn't matter, correct? |
Yes I do notice and as I posted earlier... they are using their own toolkit...
So they should port that to linux and mac and use that. THEN they know it will look and behave exactly the same way - since qt4 works on win,lin,mac IF they were gonna use qt4 for linux they would of used it for the windows client (which they havn't) otherwise they are making their jobs harder
Their toolkit doesn't have to be the fullblow gtk/qt type of toolkit, they just need it to wrap around webkit and what they have made for the windows client looks and feels good
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh cool, it is like Safari where you can resize text boxes. I am really liking this thing.
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zepp
Veteran
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daaaaamn this biatch is fast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freelight
Apprentice
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 295
Location: NYC, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just tried it in non-VM Windows. Wow. This is fast, and surprisingly stable for a beta release. Give me Adblock and I will bow down to Google as my one true God.
_________________
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?" --Thomas Jefferson
"Let the gremlins eat your soul... it's invigorating." --LD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaTiger
l33t
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 603
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I want adblock+, side tab, delieous and linux version  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zepp
Veteran
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i wouldn't mind a search only URLs feature like in firefox (the ' key) but I can deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | Notice that we are talking here about which toolkit Google Chrome should use. Seeing as Google Chrome is a new project, the licensing issues of yore shouldn't matter, correct? |
Yes I do notice and as I posted earlier... they are using their own toolkit...
So they should port that to linux and mac and use that. THEN they know it will look and behave exactly the same way - since qt4 works on win,lin,mac IF they were gonna use qt4 for linux they would of used it for the windows client (which they havn't) otherwise they are making their jobs harder
Their toolkit doesn't have to be the fullblow gtk/qt type of toolkit, they just need it to wrap around webkit and what they have made for the windows client looks and feels good |
I've seen the toolkits companies use on their Linux products, and they all look different. I would even prefer that they all use GTK to each one using something different. A notable exception to this is VirtualBox, which uses Qt.
| drizek wrote: | | Oh cool, it is like Safari where you can resize text boxes. |
There's a Firefox extension that does that btw.
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poly_poly-man
Advocate
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 2477
Location: RIT, NY, US
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
you're all saying how fast it is, but you're all firefox users...
how fast is it compared to good browsers, like konqueror?
_________________
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAA
avatar: new version of logo - see topic 838248. Potentially still a WiP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| poly_poly-man wrote: | you're all saying how fast it is, but you're all firefox users...
how fast is it compared to good browsers, like konqueror? |
I think you need to try using Firefox before commenting on its speed. I've used Konqueror, and it's not noticeably faster than Firefox for me.
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phenax
l33t
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 972
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using Chrome right now; I may stay with it.
Oddly enough, the thing I miss the most is mouse3 scrolling anchor-mabobber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abaelinor
n00b
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
holy shit... DO NOT use chrome
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks
| Quote: | Check out the Chrome Terms of Service:
| Quote: | 11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license. |
In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. They can go and edit it all they want. Even further, you're claiming that you have the power to grant these rights. So if you work for Wired, TechCrunch, Arstechnica, any of the other big web publishers, or a university where you're posting a research paper, you CANNOT agree to the Chrome ToS because you most likely don't have the right to give a license to your IP that you produce for your company/university.
And unlike all these people who "are not a lawyer", I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute an attorney-client relationship, but Chrome's ToS are ridiculous. Until Google scales this back, I will NOT be using Chrome. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh fuck, now I won't get royalties for all my excellent OTW posts.
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
square_
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djlosch wrote: | | 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license. |
haha, awesome.
how is this legal, mr. lawyer, but not my lawyer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djlosch wrote: | holy shit... DO NOT use chrome
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks
| Quote: | Check out the Chrome Terms of Service:
| Quote: | 11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license. |
In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. They can go and edit it all they want. Even further, you're claiming that you have the power to grant these rights. So if you work for Wired, TechCrunch, Arstechnica, any of the other big web publishers, or a university where you're posting a research paper, you CANNOT agree to the Chrome ToS because you most likely don't have the right to give a license to your IP that you produce for your company/university.
And unlike all these people who "are not a lawyer", I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute an attorney-client relationship, but Chrome's ToS are ridiculous. Until Google scales this back, I will NOT be using Chrome. |
|
But it was released under the BSD license - does this also apply to forks/rebrands?
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
afrodocter1
n00b
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 49
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zepp
Veteran
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| drizek wrote: | | Oh fuck, now I won't get royalties for all my excellent OTW posts. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djlosch wrote: | holy shit... DO NOT use chrome
<EULA crap>
|
I already solved this problem (for linux, anyways):
| sts wrote: | | I think when it is finished we should patch it to remove the EULA and google updater. Of course, we will have to re-brand it and remove google artwork to do so. |
All the components are open source:
http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html
Fedora used to do this EULA crap, too, and I think Firefox still does. Putting a EULA in open-source software is moronic since it can just be stripped out.
Google also requires you to sign an agreement before your code will be accepted into Chrome, too.
| square_ wrote: | | djlosch wrote: | | 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license. |
haha, awesome.
how is this legal, mr. lawyer, but not my lawyer? |
I'm not a lawyer but that doesn't stop me from making stuff up. Companies can put anything they want in EULAs since they haven't really been tested in court.
Also, did you guys find the about:<stuff> pages? Here's what I know of:
| Code: | about:network
about:stats
about:cache
about:histograms
about:plugins
about:dns
about:version |
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
