Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kry]

Oh good lord in heaven.

EARTH TO MULINEX. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. NEITHER WANTS EMULE.

[linuxfever]

Fell free to support already being implemented C# (.NET) remoge-GUI. EC is already ported, and GUI is being developed. Since it will work (hopefully) under mono, I see no reason to start with Qt.[/quote ]
Reason

C# will only "hopefully" work under mono. While WxWidgets and Qt are 100% supported and 100% free in freedom.

And both (unfortunately) completely fall behind "Visual C# basic edition". C# is standatd and free (as freedom) and "Visual C#" is also free (now as a beer).

Visual C# is just the ide, it doesn`t matter much what license is used.

Also interesting: to see the incompatibilities: http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/dotnet_portable_apps/. Also a not installed or not installable net framework will cause a lot new support requests and users switching to other clients. Also no more way to use this app on the go (usb).

And C# is not really free in freedom. Patent bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Standardization_and_licensing

[lfroen]

Fell free to support already being implemented C# (.NET) remoge-GUI. EC is already ported, and GUI is being developed. Since it will work (hopefully) under mono, I see no reason to start with Qt.[/quote ]
Reason

C# will only "hopefully" work under mono. While WxWidgets and Qt are 100% supported and 100% free in freedom.

One word: FUD. Qt is not exactly free and Wx is not exactly supported and not exactly works on Windows.

And both (unfortunately) completely fall behind "Visual C# basic edition". C# is standatd and free (as freedom) and "Visual C#" is also free (now as a beer).

Visual C# is just the ide, it doesn`t matter much what license is used.

Yea, it is just ide for C# and not for Wx/Qt. And this "just IDE" is a very reason to use C#. What was your point again?

Also interesting: to see the incompatibilities: http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/dotnet_portable_apps/. Also a not installed or not installable net framework will cause a lot new support requests and users switching to other clients. Also no more way to use this app on the go (usb).

And C# is not really free in freedom. Patent bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Standardization_and_licensing

Even more FUD. Search this forum for "amule crashed because of broken wx install" and stop the BS.
Patents are completely irrelevant here. First of all, we're not developing C# compiler. I'm using completely legal software any way you put it. Freely redistributed by MS and in compliance with their EULA. Let Mono people to deal with the issue, OK?

[linuxfever]

Why use Windows Forms for multi platform amule if not even Windows Forms are nearly finished in mono project?

One word: FUD. Qt is not exactly free and Wx is not exactly supported and not exactly works on Windows.

Qt is free in freedom. There is a gpl version you can use with all freedom given by gpl, you can even fork it, everything. Just if you want to keep your source closed you need to buy a commercial license. What`s not free about the gpl version?

Yea, it is just ide for C# and not for Wx/Qt. And this "just IDE" is a very reason to use C#. What was your point again?

The license of the ide doesn`t matter because anyone can build it even without ide or with alternative ide. But the license of buildtools does matter.

Even more FUD. Search this forum for "amule crashed because of broken wx install" and stop the BS.
Patents are completely irrelevant here. First of all, we're not developing C# compiler. I'm using completely legal software any way you put it. Freely redistributed by MS and in compliance with their EULA. Let Mono people to deal with the issue, OK?

Oh, just follow an eula. Which just forbids a bounce of  stupid things like posting speed tests without asking microsoft before. Isn`t really the idea of free software to support such things.

There are only 3 ways for microsoft to deal with a free in price version of mono running on other systems then windows.
1) them don`t care because to less people are using it (not the case)
2) accept it, be happy with it, not to sue it. That`s also not the case. If this would have been the case them could just put their netframework under an open source approved license and withdrawn their own patents on it. But them don`t even do so with the patents.
3) not accept it, sue it or try to get money out it
What way did them chose? It`s obvious.

At lawyer`s option the success of the mono project is questionable because of this license problems. Only novel has an pact with microsoft to use their technologies and not to sue their costumers, all other distributions don`t have.

Anyone who is really convinced about free software wouldn´t use anything from .net for free software projects.

You either care about free software and don`t use it, or you don`t care and use it. But dot net is currently definitely not compatible with free software.

[lfroen]

Why use Windows Forms for multi platform amule if not even Windows Forms are nearly finished in mono project?

It's finished enough for given purpose (yes, I tested it). Anyway, you have no real alternative - calling GTK# cross-platform is ridiculous.

Qt is free in freedom. There is a gpl version you can use with all freedom given by gpl, you can even fork it, everything. Just if you want to keep your source closed you need to buy a commercial license. What`s not free about the gpl version?

Qt is dual licensed. If tomorrow I want to sell aMule in any way (GPL does not prevent making money), you have to buy license. Not exactly free. I say it just for argument sake, it's not the reason I turned Qt down.

The license of the ide doesn`t matter because anyone can build it even without ide or with alternative ide. But the license of buildtools does matter.

Complete nonsense. It does not. I can publish code in ANY language, whatever I have compiler or not. I can publish code in let's say Matlab despite the fact, that language is not a standard, and need completely proprietary very expensive tool to run.

Oh, just follow an eula. Which just forbids a bounce of  stupid things like posting speed tests without asking Microsoft before. Isn't really the idea of free software to support such things.

You bring ideological discussion here? That's off topic. Really.

There are only 3 ways for microsoft to deal with a free in price version of mono running on other systems then windows.
<snip>
What way did them chose? It`s obvious.

Thank you, not interested.

At lawyer`s option <snip> . Only novel <snip>.

Are you lawyer?

Anyone who is really convinced about free software wouldn´t use anything from .net for free software projects.

Nobody force you. Let's leave alone one's beliefs for sake of technical discussion. I will choose my tools as I see fit, thanks.

You either care about free software and don`t use it, or you don`t care and use it.

I care. I use. Does it prohibit running some none-free software as well. Don't think so.

But dot net is currently definitely not compatible with free software.

Says who? You must be adding "IMHO" here.

As one can see, you clearly run out of technical arguments and shifted to very shaky one like "not care for free software". I choose Microsoft C# because it's better that alternatives.

[linuxfever]

You may sell programs which use Qt. You just need to publish the source code. No need to buy a commercial license. You just need a commercial license if you want to keep the source closed.

It`s also technically discussion. Disadvantages have already been discussed (Not portable as usb on windows, mono is still not ready with windows forms. The day paint.net will run on on mono it`s done but this will take some time.

But it`s also ideology. Sure, I could have add imho to every sentence.

Not only my opinion. If you want the option of someone important from the free software scene, then what about Richard Stallman. He also says we better don`t use it. Link (don`t worry, it`s english, if not click english on the top) [comparison: no one ever from fsf or gnu official said 'don`t use' or 'better don`t use' C++ or Qt]

[Vollstrecker]

Why this whole discussion? aMule is free software. If someone wants a feature, he can ask to get it implemented. If he gets a yes, all's fine. If he gets a no, he can discard the suggest, or implement it be himself. But trying to convince the devs shouldn't be an option.

[wuischke]

Anyone else getting tired of this?

mulinex: Switching to QT is not as easy as saying "Hey, this Cutey thingy is cool, let's switch over!" even if everyone else is doing this.

QT is nice and a couple of other developers are not against using QT at all, too, but there's no one willing to do the work necessary to switch to QT.
Because it means rewriting the whole application.

You'ld have to fscking pay someone (not me) if you want to see this happening anytime soon. Unless you have a couple of thousand euros lying around waiting to be spend for a coder's rent and food, stop requesting insane things, OK?

[Vollstrecker]

The main linux mail applications like fetchmail, sendmail, postfix or exim?

Or do you mean MUAs like mutt or pine?

[Kry]

Or Evolution. Or thunderbird.

[Kry]

I do like to speak with the users, but I do not like when they don't read the forum first to see if they were answered before, or even the responses in this very same thread.

We don't want serverless chat, bittorrent, or a integrated mediaplayer, or F2F downloads. We, as the team, don't want it. That's it. Nothing else to discuss.  aMule is a ed2k/Kad client to download and upload files. We don't want to bloat it. We don't want to change the toolkit. That's what it is, and that's what it will stay being, even if you don't like it.

You can have all the opinions in the world, but the development team (not me alone) make the decisions about what to include or not in the client. And you have to accept them.

QT is no better than wxWidgets, it is a pain in the ass to port, and it's not native. We won't change it. The end.

[mulinex]

ok thanks, that makes it more clear. for the corporate decision users then can accept this.
and for all others, we appreciate to adress again to you.
cu later. but still think, what makes amule a difference to emule on windows...

[lfroen]

It`s also technically discussion. Disadvantages have already been discussed (Not portable as usb on windows, mono is still not ready with windows forms. The day paint.net will run on on mono it`s done but this will take some time.

But it`s also ideology. Sure, I could have add imho to every sentence.

Not only my opinion. If you want the option of someone important from the free software scene, then what about Richard Stallman. He also says we better don`t use it. <> comparison: no one ever from fsf or gnu official said 'don`t use' or 'better don`t use' C++ or Qt

That's funny post.
Technical reasons you provide are null and void. (amule doesn't use USB and winforms are working good enough in mono). And I really don't interested in Stallman opinion. His ideas like "proprietary software is immoral" are ridiculous.

cu later. but still think, what makes amule a difference to emule on windows...

As you said: emule - on windows, amule - on linux. Good enough for me.

[wuischke]

Would amule join the QT-development, if imule starts?

I seriously doubt it. We (I) would probably support a remote GUI using QT, but aMule itself is very unlikely to switch.

[Kry]

Ditto.