From: Shane Dempsey (sdempsey at domain tssg.wit.ie)
Date: Wed 08 Sep 1999 - 16:35:36 IST
I would imagine that in the past they would have gone the
dynamic linking route as the QTtoolkit wasn't free and
they would have ended up having to charge
people for statically linked qt libs in binary upgrades. ( I think )
This is OK if you have bough a newer version distro and
are upgrading but a pain in the ass if you just want to get a new app.
I don't think that QT has been updates quite so much .
I am sure that I will be corrected there ...
What motivated my rant this morning was reading a
programming journal form earlier in the year ( Software magazine ) where
several key industry figures ( some of them employed by Microsoft)
were asked what they thought of linux. To a man ( / woman ) they
said that they felt that while the kernel was brilliant and regained unity
because of the tight and brilliant team that develop it, the rest of the OS
( GUIs in particular ) were worryingly fragmented. Microsoft
developers definitely know a thing or two about fragmentation >:-P
and I reckon that the point still stands... I don't think that the lack of
unity in window managers , libs , widget libs etc . can be a good thing.
Anything that makes it more likely that people will buy / download a top
quality , reliable piece of software like linux is good news and if that
means hard work , dealing with backward compatability issues et al then lets
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin Mason <jm at domain netnoteinc.com>
To: Irish LUG list <ilug at domain linux.ie>
Sent: 08 September 1999 16:52
Subject: Re: [ILUG] .so hell
> I guess what's needed there is a bit of developer education on "why static
> libs are useful sometimes".
> BTW: I don't know what KDE's position on this is, it could be the same, I
> haven't really used it that much ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:32 GMT