[CS-FSLUG] Re: [Foss-cafe] NI: OfB.biz: I GNU It!

[Nathan T.]

Tim for what it's worth I can see some of your points about Qt, but I
can't help but feel that you're biased in favour of GTK and you're
taking some cheap shots for all they're worth.

Qt licensing issues as far as how they pertain to KDE are addressed
with the KDE Qt Free Foundation
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php and because it's
GPLed anyway there is nothing stopping people from forking Qt.

I'm no happier than the next person about the price of Qt license, but
right now it seems to be the best toolkit out there for me. I've
looked at wxWidgets and GTK+ and so far Qt has had the advantage every
time because of its design.

With the release of Qt 4 having thrown me back to square 1 (ie:
looking for a book on the thing) as far as learning it goes, I'm not
too happy. In my opinion Trolltech didn't try hard enough to maintain
backwards compatibility but then part of the reason I want to use Qt
is to my programs will look nice in KDE. Right now I'd be willing to
consider GTK+ if only it were improved upon where it's obviously
needed it for years.

Currently there is just so much I can't stand about GTK and Gnome and
yet you defend it as if it were normal, but when you do that it seems
completely out of character. If  the roles were reversed and KDE had
made the bad design ideas today I'm sure you would be all over it like
the rest of us wondering who's been smoking funny herbs. Instead I'm
shocked to see you defending things like the regedit inspired
configuration tool and the fact that there is so little control over
the user interface, or the fact that GTK applications make brand new
hardware feel like it's already years old.

I'm wondering whether we're even talking about the same Gnome and GTK
any more, I've tried a few Gnome desktops recently, including FC2 and
I couldn't get back to KDE fast enough.