Dominique Michel wrote:
Le Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:41:08 +0100,
Another problem with Qt/KDE is dcop. It work well inside KDE but produce more
warning or error messages in the logs as useful effects on another wm's as kde.
Again, it is not what I call "professional".
(please don't consider this as an attack on your person, it's intended
as an expression of a general feeling towards some common expectations)
Please give it all some credit...
DCOP does have advantages, and though it has some issues, it does do the
job. It's been around for a while, and newer & better (hopefully) is
coming. AFAIK it was rather high-tech back when it was introduced.
Qt is a really nice toolkit, and though it also has it disadvantages, I
found it very clean when compared to some others (personal opinion). I
have to admit that it has been a while since I've looked at the
'professional' MFC, but back then I certainly preferred QT. (haven't
looked back since).
I personally have an issue with this "professional" requirement,
especially if it is about these 'details'. If you want "professional"
stuff, pay for it (and see if you get it). This is not a plea for
unprofessionality on our side at all. I personally try and be as
professional as possible for my code. I am not a 'professional'
programmer, in the first place because I'm not paid for it, and in the
second place because I get paid for doing something else than programming.
Eliminating the warning messages from DCOP/KDE won't be that hard, so
you could do it yourself if they bother you. You have the source.
And how about the "professionalism" of FVWM: why doesn't it seem to
support the freedesktop system tray spec correctly? that would solve
your problem with QJackCtl, and many other programs. Note that it could
equally well be an issue with Rui's implementation, but don't call that
unprofessional. Call it a bug.
What I'm trying to say here is that when using free/OSS software, you
have a choice, and with that choice you have to take the consequences.
You win some, you lose some, and in the end I think you win more than
you lose. And for the area's you lose on, you have the opportunity (i.e.
source code) to cut your losses.
What I'm not trying to say is that you shouldn't indicate problems with
certain programs or general issues. Just don't make this an issue of
"professionalism". There are plenty of arguments to say that the only
thing professional about windows is that it is a million dollar
business. If you compare some Linux stuff to the stuff created by some
'professionals' I certainly conclude that these pro's should be ashamed.
I do agree on the fact that Linux software does seem to have troubles
with 'the last mile'. Probably because it is often the least interesting
part, and is often considered as lower priority than implementing that
other missing functionality (I'd call this the version 0.99.754
phenomenon). You could call that 'unprofessional' if you wanted to...
Greets,
Pieter
