Quote: Original post by Promit
Yann --

Somebody brought up an interesting point with me today...will the IDE allow distributed compiling, and how will that work?

distcc can be used transparently by any IDE.

somebody please close this thread. It started out as flamebait and it's continued to be flames for eight pages. this is an embarassment to gdnet. Yann can start a new thread when there's something new to announce.

Quote: Original post by C-Junkie
somebody please close this thread. It started out as flamebait and it's continued to be flames for eight pages. this is an embarassment to gdnet. Yann can start a new thread when there's something new to announce.

I could always just prune the thread. That'd give everyone a fair chance to argue all over again ;).

In truth, I was actually hoping to leave moderation of this thread up to Yann, largely. I'm not sure if he felt out of place moderating the thread due to him being the original poster. Yann, feel free to do whatever you want with the thread :).

So...any news about the IDE?

Cheers,
Drag0n

Quote: We wanted to release it for free, but it would not be open source (since it uses a ton of inhouse RAD libraries). We thought, no problem, we ask our lawyer to draft a custom license, making it basically free for everything, but you won't get the source. Everything is fine, don't you think ?

Well, wrong. We contacted a few Linux groups we knew, since we needed some input, ideas for some a the more complex features, and maybe some help with the eye candy (icons, etc). I can't even describe you the flak we got.

Really - what flak did u get? Why not just posting it for ppl to use it & see what they say. There is so much other free apps just posted into the webspace for evaluation/reaction of users - if it doesn't work so it doesn't - who gives a s**t?

If you are asking some well-established distribution to make icons for your app and give it to you for free - why should they - u need them not the other way around. Sounds very stupid & childish to ask indeed. There are tons of "wannabe" toys and ide's - where would distributions be if they skinned all of them.

Why not making a webpage anouncing what u have, what u need and asking ppl to help? If anyone who releases app for free sends a cd to fedora or suse or insert_your_linux_group_you_konw and asks if they wanna help (make icons or whatever) how many apps we would have out? See what happened with iview - there is no sourcecode but it's loved by millions of users, literally.

And who said that "LINUX_GROUPS_YOU_KNOW" are standard for all linux users? Your gpl complain sounds like a childish quarell: "I wanted to give you a toy but I don't like you anymore - now u can't have it". Well grow up - instead of posting a flame war - post link to your app instead and let ppl evaluate it - if you ever had any such attention at all. All this sounds like some artificial construct in style: there are many bussinesses who would release free software but GPL is too restrictive, blah, blah, blah. M$ gives away free (as in bear) software, apple, macromedia, adobe, - irfan view is excelent example. GPL has nothing to do with your decision. So freaking lame to acuse GPL and "LINUX-GROUP-I-KNOW" saying .. ooo we would do that but they don't wanna play with oss ... :D How many ppl do skins for winamp - and there is no source with winamp - if you had something to release and ask ppl to make icons or such, they would probably do. But I think your primary purpose was to bash on gpl, and prove somethign you may believe in, so u started this thread. Sorry wouldn't like to be rude, but that's my 2 cents for this diskussion, I'm actually not too big fan of GPL, I just can't see how can GPL stop anybody from releasing any kind of app. Do I have to mention OpenOffice, Mozilla or Watcom compiler? How much RAD they had that couldn't be released .... I mean your standpoint is lame. (And I may be lame by saying this to a mod :) - let's see if I go on vacation).

I am pretty skeptical about this whole thing. Instead of forking anjuta or an existing IDE to add and change things that are amiss, the Not Invented Syndrome (either that, or they're getting paid by the hour) here has dictated that a new IDE must be created from scratch.

Supposedly, a couple of months is all it takes to duplicate work that took a team of engineers at Microsoft or Borland years. The makers are either programming gods, or naive about their own abilities.

If you can pull this off, creating a better ide than those that already exist for Linux, I will be sincerely impressed. I wish you good luck, you may need it.

I'd buy a copy.

I've been using Linux more and more lately, but I just love my Visual Studio too much to just get rid of it. If you have something comparable (or better) I would pay for it.

I have been planning on developing my game for Linux, but the whole GPL thing bugs me about the ability to try and sell it. GPL doesn't allow it, and GPL is good and all, but you should be able to sell closed software for Linux if you want to. I know it kind of defeats the purpose of Open Source Greatness, but I bet more users would go to Linux if there was a kick ass game for it, pay or no pay.

Quote: Original post by ChiefArmstrong
you should be able to sell closed software for Linux if you want to.

You can. You aren't required to release your product under GPL, and even if you do, you can still sell it.

Just out of curiosity - how easy is it to find enough non GPL libraries for graphics, io, etc under linux?

Easy enough. Many free libraries are released under the LGPL, which allows you to use libraries with closed-source code so long as you link dynamically to the library in question.

Alot of libraries are released under the LGPL (GNU lesser general public license). In fact the philosophy is that unless the software has a significant advantage over alternative closed-source solutions, then you should rather release it under LGPL. If, on the other hand, the software implements some new feature, as yet unavailable in any equivalent closed-source product, then it should be released under GPL. This means that anyone who would want to use or redistribute the source code, would also have to release it under GPL.

SDL, for example, is released under LPGL.