Kommander is a universal GUI scripting tool for KDE. It consists of a GUI editor based on a previous version of Qt Designer and an executor. It stores text and scripts in widgets and uses DCOP to communicate with widgets and other programs. It offers a wide variety of widgets, and can be extended with plugins like database and HTTP. Any scripting language can be used for the real work and multiple languages can be run from the same program. Kommander is primarily for dialog and wizard based mini apps, but MainWindow apps can be done too.
Re: Pitfalls ?
> % Actually, there has been a GPL
> % of QT available since 2000. See
> % the announcement. Both the embedded
> % X11 versions of QT are available
> % the GPL, and the windows port is
> % available gratis for non-commercial
> Actually that is the pitfall right
> there. The GPL. There's nothing wrong
> with it, but you need to be aware of it.
> *All* programs that are linked to
> qt/free must be GPL. Whereas GTK+, (or
> the GTKMM/libsigc++ bindings) are all
> LGPL which greatly enhances your freedom
> to use the libraries while still
> mainting the open-source nature of the
> libraries themselves. It's a good
> compromise between OSS/Freedom issues
> and proprietary concerns.
And here is the real pitfall... arguments about licenses
and commercial use. Originally QT was "evil" because it
was not GPL. Because Trolltech also makes money
selling QT under a commercial license they were initially
nervous about releasing it GPL. This commercial aspect
was considered "evil", in fact RMS issued the LGPL as a
concession to commercial interests. Now you will note
that instead of being too commercial QT is too GPL.
(Never mind that a year of MSN Developer network is
more than a QT license, forgetting .NET etc...)
If you are committed to free software then stick to the
technical questions so even handedly discussed in
previous posts. If you are interested in commercial
development then look at them even harder because
time is money. QT is a good choice on technical merit
for productive use... though I agree with comments that
the actual article leaves a something to be deisred.
Re: Bad Time to Lost Customers
> I *really* want to use Kylix. I've
> been pushing it at work
> and actually started making progress
> early this week. I
> was to download the software this
> weekend, learn it, and
> demo it to the development staff next
> That will not happen. I will not
> recommend Kylix knowing
> what I now know about Borland's
> voyeristic business
> practices. Can you imagine this: One
> day I get a call
> from the Borland Gestapo informing me
> that they will be
> at the office at 3PM to conduct an
> audit. I then have to
> tell my boss, and his boss, that a
> company that they've
> never heard of will be demanding
> access to our private,
> mission-critical computer systems.
> And due to
> incompetent boobery on my part we are
> *required* to
> assist them. I would be fired, and I
> would deserve it.
> No thanks, Source Navigator * (gcc +
> peace of mind) is
> working out nicely.
This is real horse apples! Show me a modern commercial license that doesn't have some form
of audit clause. It would be nice if Borland changed their wording but this is far better than
the most egregious licenses like the M$ license that allowed them access to all your files on
I'm wondering how many people have never heard the radio commercials for the group that
does the audits on software. I forget the name (probably from disgust) right now. I have
wondered how they are able to enter places of business and review this. I can only assume
they need such a license to extend their services. Supposedly the vast majority of audits
come from disgruntled employees reporting pirating.
No matter how distasteful you find the whole thing it's still a business and if you are buying
licenses you had better get used to it.
I have the developer version of Kylix and when I saw John Kastor in the Kylix road show
demoing it he said that Borland realisticly acepts that as much as 80% of their software
could be pirated but pricing is set accordingly. They also released a free version for the open
source community and have opened CLX and have it on sourceforge (freeclx).
I find the legalese in the license as offensive as the next guy and I'd be happy if they
changed it... but going so far as to say you would not recommend their products in a
commercial environment because of this truly lacks a great deal of rational thought. I
wonder if you've read the rest of your commercial licenses or if you can show me a vendor
more open source friendly.
It is one thing to be upset by the wording, and another to be irrational about it.