jdow wrote: > I am complaining that it is outrageously expensive compared to the > cost it is equivalent in Windows. But basicly I am declaring why it > won't happen for the individual private developer. Your arguments/statements seems to shift like the wind. In an earlier message you said: "I am simply stating why *I* will not develop open source software unless somebody somewhere pays the full freight for my work time." You complain/whine about GPL licensing because you have to release your source code and can't just sell it. Seems like you can't deal with 2 concepts. Commercial v.s. Open Source. Now, it just seems to be a financial issue for you. You seem to want to develop Commercial Products....but buying an individual Qt development license is too expensive *for you*. But, is $3,300 too expensive to shell out to develop commercial products? Or, is your business model to simply develop one product of marginal use? If so, then don't develop Qt. Use something else. I know quite a few people that have MSDN subscriptions that plunk down a few $K/year. I think you can speak only for yourself. > I note that over the lifetime of XP I'd have paid more for an RHEL > license than for an XP license. Linux isn't free if you want support. > If you want to sponge, which I am more honest about than most here, > then it does cost less. Yes, you may have paid more for support of RHEL than XP. But, what applications come with XP? You've paid more for the OS....but RHEL includes OpenOffice. So, you need to add the cost of MS Office to your calculations. Do you need a C-compiler? Hummm....is that additional? >> That's fine.... We should all note that your email headers do show: >> >> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 >> >> So, we know where your heart is.... > > That is making a presumption that is not in evidence. That is where my > money is. I work by telecommuting. My chief customers want the software > developed for hardware which is in no way supported by Linux or even > MacOS. Since I email back and forth with the customer it's easier to > work from the OS on which I develop. As pointed out...Thunderbird is on Windows. Evolution is available and can even talk to Exchange Servers. I feel the smoke blowing. > (If I really had my druthers I'd be developing on what AmigaDOS might > have evolved into had Mehdi Ali and Irving Gould not been rapacious and > IMAO criminal. It had some features that 'ix and XP do not support in > any systematized manner. <shrug> That leaves me working on what is > convenient for my INCOME not my hobby. As a side point, I don't know > about you. But *I* have a few lines of Linux Kernal credit to my name. I don't know what is more appropriate in this case. "Woopie" or "BFD". > That was self defense. I needed to access some specific hardware. The > kernel tools for that access were broken. I wrote the software on the > Amiga. So I fixed the cooresponding code in the kernel. That is all in > accordance with the rule, "you get for free what someone else wants to > do. If that is not what you want - do it yourself. Don't bellyache." Is asking for features bellyaching? > >> But you are right about one thing. It is probably unfair to label you a >> Troll. Unfair to the Trolls that is.... > > Let's just say I got heartily tired of people around here whining about > their pet features not being part of this distribution. For God's sake > the ONLY pay most of the developers not on the staff of some large > company with a Linux stake to sell something OTHER than GNU/Linux get > is the fun of doing the work and the ego boost from hobby accomplishments > others applaud. So if a feature you want is not present - be a man and > put it in. Don't be a whiner. I'm simply trying to explain why I see > those who whine about this or that missing feature are losers. You seem to forget that not all users are developers. And you seem to think that all developers know everything about what features are needed and anyone that dares suggest otherwise is a loser. I wonder how many times you've looked to purchase commercial software only to find that product X has feature Y that you want and product A has feature B that you want....but you can't find product Z that has feature Y and B. So, what do you do? Could it be that you compromise and get the product that has the "best" fit? But now, of course, you can't hack the code to add in the missing features so you "bellyache" to the vendor. They then go off and do a cost analysis to see if anyone else is interested in that feature and if they will sell more product based on adding the feature. -- Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham
