KDE Integration mailing-list and module

[Leo Savernik]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Dienstag, 20. Januar 2004 10:15 schrieb Philippe Fremy:
[...]
> I would put this argument along with the "Qt is too expensive to be used by
> ISP". Yes, Qt is a lot more expensive to buy in comparison to the free-beer
> gtk. But when digging with the UserLinux thing, we found a lot of ISV
> developing Qt programs.
>
> So the answer, as far as commercial vendors are concerned is: choosing a
> toolkit is more than choosing a price and integration capability. They will
> first look at available support, speed development, suitability of the
> toolkit to the task, quality of the documentation. Qt beats Gtk in all
> these aerea.

Yes, that's fully true. I only hope that enough companies have learnt from the 
past when they dumped their expensive but rock-stable Unix servers/mainframes 
for the cheap but feeble Wind*ws NT, that the cheapest solution (wrt 
licensing costs) may not always be the best solution.

The facts you mention give me more confidence that the potential problem I 
outlined will never strike. If corporate deployment of KDE becomes more 
widespread, the momentum to develop for Qt/KDE rises. In this case, any 
integrative efforts should effectively accellerate KDE's deployment.
>
> Moreover, the integration process will probably goes in both direction in
> the future. Integrating gtk and qt 's event loop means that a Qt appliation
> can use gtk dialogs too.
>
> Anyway, I don't think your argument is strong enough to stop us trying to
> improve officially the integration of foreign apps in KDE. There is more to
> gain than to lose. With this, we cultivate our image of a [more] advanced
> desktop.

If my post sounded like I demanded the integration movement to be halted, I 
must apologize. I have *never* intended to disrupt gtk/gnome integration, but 
I simply had to point out some continuative thoughts which have not been 
mentioned yet in this context.
>
[...]

mfg
	Leo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFADSXij5jssenUYTsRApY7AKCVxljKKrkrTjI78MoLTBqpuIUNQwCgr8Se
nFBaH3Kcr4f7LXoPCWn9cNs=
=0Crk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----