Re: Too late! Window hasta la vista 5308 is now fully operational.

[M]

Ian Hilliard wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:01:43 -0800, Rex Ballard wrote:
> 
>> The irony is that Linux actually had easier to use tools.  Tools like
>> Python, Perl/TK, GTK, and Java AWT made it really easy to create really
>> simple and effective GUI interfaces to Linux applications.  On the
>> other hand, coding GUI interfaces in C or C++ with core toolkits was a
>> bit more challenging.  Microsoft was also really promoting the
>> dailights out of Visual Basic as the primary interface - partly to make
>> sure that applications could not be easily ported to Linux.
> 
> Back in the mid-90's, Unix had X11 and Motif. There was a clone of Motif
> for Linux, but it was on very shakey ground. It was expected to be banned,
> as an illegal copy, at any time. Programming X11 directly was a great
> recipe for insanity. Motif was a little better, but not much.
> 
> Microsoft came out with Visual Studio, where it was possible for a
> programmer, who didn't really understand about programming graphics, to
> produce reasonable looking GUIs. That sold Windows to the developers.
>

There may be some truth in what you say if you are talking about Dialog/Form
based projects using standard CWnd based objects (others call widgets), but
if you are intending to produce something which is rather more
sophisticated then you arn't going to get very far unless you do understand
about programming graphics.
 
> Unfortunately, Linux still lacks a tool like Visual Studio, which makes
> the development of GUI software a matter of putting the bits where you
> want them and then compile, all in the same IDE. I know Borland had Kylix,
> which was supposed to do this, but it seems to have been still born. To
> that, QT has quite a high seat cost, if you want to produce commercial
> software. WxWidgets seem to insist on including GTK, which instantly makes
> it GPL.

What about kdevelop3? I have never used it myself, but having scanned the
documentation and seen the screenshots, it looks reasonable capable.

> 
> The managers of most software houses will not release their software under
> GPL, as this would permit the competition, which had not gone GPL to steal
> all their know-how and gain a competitive advantage. If Linux wants to
> become main-stream, this is an issue which needs to be settled, rather
> sooner than later.
>

As I understand there is nothing to stop Software Houses from producing
proprietary software for linux. If there are customers willing to pay for
the software, I am sure the software houses will be willing write and sell
it. If all they are writting is me-to software equivalents of OSS software
that already exists, then I guess they will have a harder time sellling it.

Regards,

M