PureBasic Forums - English

Little John wrote:

Saki wrote:The interest in it is also simply too small to make a lot of effort.

If this is true, then there is still the question: "What is the chicken, and what is the egg?"
Maybe there is only so little interest in PB for Linux, because it has so many bugs?

I totally agree with you.

Little John wrote:... because it has so many bugs? ...

We don't know anything about mistakes because we don't have the actual instructions for setting up the environment and its requirements for many years. There is no official information about which distribution to wait for 100% performance and for which distribution "how lucky".
It is necessary to start with the official announcement of system requirements at which the next release was going to take place. Interested people should test it on it. Make sure it works correctly and then think about how successfully it can be transferred to other distributions.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

useful wrote:Interested people should test it on it. Make sure it works correctly ...

This would require a comprehensive set of thorough tests.

Little John wrote:

useful wrote:Interested people should test it on it. Make sure it works correctly ...

This would require a comprehensive set of thorough tests.

Of course. But there is no other way.

OK. And who is going to write that test code?

All bugs I found, I found by trying the demo codes in GFX_Wizzard_BF.
And I have found some.
These codes are simply very good
to make many bugs visible and at least we can quickly locate and report them
This is simply a fact.
There are about 250 relevant and different working codes.
It takes me maybe 20 to 30 minutes per OS.
Under QT, after localization and bypassing some
it doesn't make furter sense to fill the codes with workarounds.

Little John wrote:OK. And who is going to write that test code?

I am talking about manual testing.
And the main problem for me is that it makes no sense to test anywhere. I have several dozens of different iso distributions at hand. But I still don't know in which environment pb 5.73 is going to be built. There is no current checkinstall.sh What is the point of what I write about bugs in one of my distributions? It makes sense to write a bug report which can be checked by the developer, we must have the same environment for that. And then one day maybe we will start replicating and testing in other environments.

Without publishing 5.73 as I wrote in the IUP example ( viewtopic.php?p=561744#p561744 ), it turns out the testing is unknown what unknown where.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

useful wrote:I am talking about manual testing.

You seem to have a lot of free time. I wish you much fun then.

In fact, many things have to be checked manually.
For this you need a lot of small codes which cover a certain topic.
Since the obviously existing automated methods, as you can see, cannot do this !

mestnyi wrote:

Little John wrote:

Saki wrote:The interest in it is also simply too small to make a lot of effort.

If this is true, then there is still the question: "What is the chicken, and what is the egg?"
Maybe there is only so little interest in PB for Linux, because it has so many bugs?

I totally agree with you.

There is also much to do with Linux itself.
They say: "Too many cooks spoil the broth".
Linux for Desktop probably has so no future.

infratec wrote:I use PB also to write programs for customers.
If you read the license of Qt you will notice that you have to buy it in this case, and it is really really expensive
to use Qt for a commercial program.
Even if you use it only with external libraries of Qt you have to buy it.
That's the reason why I will never use Qt.

We noticed this a few years ago when we wrote an app for smartphones an PCs with Qt.
And the license did not change in the meantime.

Do I understand this right? When I write a programm with PB I'm not allowed to sell the Linux version without buying a Qt license? Is that really true?

@Fred and team: Can you confirm or clarify this, please?

freak wrote:License:
The license is LGPL and we are not statically linking (the binaries provided with the Linux distribution are used). So the license situation is the same as with Gtk. Commercial use should be no problem.

full post:
viewtopic.php?p=522895#p522895

Again, @Fred and freak: How reliable is this information?

edit:
Sorry, don't want to bother, but this issue might affect one of my current contracts in a drastic way. The users infratec and Saki have apparently other opinions about the license situation than freak. Also, I'm german and though my english used to be good enough for conversations like here in the forums, I don't trust it when it comes to those legal texts. That's painful enough in my own language... Maybe a native speaker or an expert about this could help here?

I have these questions:

• Can I sell my PB Programm (closed source, compiled for Linux with Qt subsystem) without having to buy any other license - yes or no?
• What is the official statement from Fantaisie Software about this?
• Why there's nothing written in the manual about this?

Thank you!

Thank you, Fred, for keeping PB ever progressive. Much appreciated.
And how about that long promised compiler constant that verifies whether the compiler's DPi aware flag is checked ?
A few versions back, you said that you had just forgotten to write it in but that it would appear in the next one...
Could you remember it, this time, for the final release of PB 5.73 ?

Remember this ? viewtopic.php?p=534376#p534376

Fred wrote:I will add a compiler constant to detected this easily.

Karellen wrote: Can I sell my PB Programm (closed source, compiled for Linux with Qt subsystem) without having to buy any other license - yes or no?

In general yes, but ...

your program and code have to fullfill the

GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 3

This also effects the manual / installer of your program.
The user needs to be informed that your program uses this license and he have to agree this license
...