Bani: i get the impression that you haven't read Yann's initial few posts.

As he stated he'd like to open source the project but cannot due to licensing issues.

IF once the project is done he does open source it by removing or working around those issues then great, but if not, it doesn't matter as long as the end product works as advertised.

It might be nice for you to get something for free that has been carefully designed and engineered by a professional software engineer, but to then expect even to demand that they open source their code just because you want it is rude.

So i've rated you down for trolling on an otherwise interesting and reasonable discussion about the GPL, LGPL, and closed vs open source development.

YannL: when you do release a demo please could you put it on the Announcements boards or somewhere else suitably visible.

I suggest locking this thread, and when there's more to show us, starting a new one with a disclaimer at the bottom saying "licensing discussion is banned in this thread everything has been said in this other thread (link)"

This is why I like Windows. In Linux, I have to worry about all this stuff, and if something is broken, I should fix it, whereas for $15 I got a book of Amazon teaching me MSVC++ 2002, with a full Standard Edition Copy. I just strap that onto the 2003 Professional Compiler, and for $15 dollars, I got a nice IDE and Compiler. And if something is wrong(which is rare), I can ususally trust that there is a service pack for it. I don't have time to go and fix this stuff. I want to think of it as a black box. I code, it compiles. Done.

Quote: Original post by Shadowdancer
A thread with the current topic is just too good a flamebait to pass on.

glad i wasnt the only one to notice the topic was flamebait.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
Do you have the slightest idea about how a product development cycle works ? Hint: if you don't want a feature freeze, then look at Duke Nukem Forever...

Well, to be fair your schedule can be very granular and you can release a new version after adding only a few new features as opposed to hundreds (or thousands). That's how the company I work for releases their product: the timeline between the versions is only one and a half to two months. A small set of features is added, the software is QAd and pushed to the clients using auto-update. This isn't a retail application though (it's a trading system, we push the client app to our customers and update the servers on our end) but development cycles do have fast turnaround time. Of course our features are determined by business analysis, not by random contributors and the product is tested by a large QA team, not the end users (which really are corporations) so I don't know if it's a good idea to compare it to most retail products but I thought it's worth pointing this out.

We can not get a hold on changes thus most of all software is evolutionary and contain feature locks. That's how mine will be as well. Version 1 then version 2, etc. It's not manageable without it because of outside influences. Look at Duke Nukem Forever. They changed engines more than I changed my socks :)

Bani, you and Yann both have good points. Linux needs to welcome both closed source and open source people. Give us a choice and don't force GPL onto us. This compiling from sources nonsense has to die off and it's why commercial linux distros like xandros, linspire, lycoris, mandrake, novell, redhat are all having their own proprietary repository. It's much quicker solution then to try to get everyone onto the same frequency so to speak. However I do pray that the new linux standards will make this practice obsolete and we adopt window's sw installation thru an installer and dump packaged onto app devs themselves rather than distro makers. Read the autopackage guy's thoughts on this as he has good points.

I would pay for sw if it was either price competitive with MS offerings, or pay more for a better product. I also like free sw, who doesn't? Some of it is good quality in linux but any significant project I saw was backed up by money. Either by lindows, IBM, or government institutions. There is a point where you will have to make development full time work and coordinate it by being there isntead over the internet.

Quote: Original post by Sagar_Indurkhya
This is why I like Windows. In Linux, I have to worry about all this stuff

And did you read the EULAs for MSVC++ 2002, the 2003 Professional Compiler, and those service packs? You have stuff to worry about, it's just different stuff.

Quote: Yann L
If it forces you to give everything back, then yes, this is abuse.

It doesn't force you to do anything. You choose whether or not you use someone else's code. They choose under what conditions they'll allow you to use their code. If you don't like their conditions they have every right to tell you to FO.

You are quite correct in suggesting that many underlying libraries in Linux are GPL and thus don't coexist well with closed source software. Of course, this is the very reason open-source Linux software has expanded so massively.

You're right: The lack of non-GPL base libs in Linux is hampering closed-source development. It's a problem. The unfortunate thing for closed-source devs is that for the most of the people who have the technical know-how to actually create these base libs, for various reasons, don't care.

What real advantage is there for anyone to create a common set of non-GPL base libs? A company would not be able to retain any sort of competitive advantage if it released its non-GPL base libs. The "Linux community" can generally see little point in it. You might say the point would be to encourage closed-source development on Linux. But then the question becomes, "Why do we want that?"

As a reply to the last post here, how does this work on windows? I would assume the same problems existe there: a lack of free libs for use with closed source software. Isn't this the case?

And if there are indeed such free libraries on windows, then why wouldn't they be made for Linux also?

YannL: I'd also like to try the IDE when you're ready to release. The only thing that is preventing me from switching to Linux as my main OS is the lack of an IDE I like.

Quote: Original post by JD
However I do pray that the new linux standards will make this practice obsolete and we adopt window's sw installation thru an installer and dump packaged onto app devs themselves rather than distro makers.

I don't think I could disagree more... I want my installations to be uniform, via a standard package manager. Obviously developers would have to roll their own packages on occasion but they should conform to the distro's standard (which hopefully will converge more in the future).

Quote: Some of it is good quality in linux but any significant project I saw was backed up by money. Either by lindows, IBM, or government institutions.

That's a chicken and egg argument though. It might well be true to say that 'all the good stuff is corporately funded' but that doesn't mean it required that funding to get that good. It can also mean that big business spots the best software and sponsors it to make sure it lives up to its potential. And the 'so much open source is crap' argument also ignores the fact that it's quite possible that an equal amount of closed-source is crap; it just happens that crap closed-source software tends to disappear much more quickly. It doesn't necessarily mean that paid programmers produce better software.

Yann

I havent read trough all the pages of this thread, because I have to go to work. I just had to reply to your thread since I've have been using linux almost exclusively at home for two years now (only dualboot for games).
I would LOVE to try your software and I don't care whether it is opensource or not. I haven't got a problem with commercial software on linux either. Working with software development myself I don't have anything against being paid.
I'm sick and tired of zealots. The reason why I use linux as my OS of choice is that I simply prefer the way it is working/is organized.
I have only one thing to say to people bitching about everything not being OSS: grow up!.
OSS is great but there is no reason to be a purist.

I do most of my development at home with Kate (KDE texteditor) and a makefile. But I would like to check (and use - if I like it) your IDE.

Please keep up the good work and don't let religious dickheads make you quit linux development :)