Bootstrap has been updated to 2.1.0!

What is Bootstrap?

For those web developers who don’t know Bootstrap, you should check it out.

The project is a HTML5/CSS3/JS framework that allows you to hit the ground running with adaptive/responsive columns (like 960.gs, but responsive); typography, table, button and message formatting, featuring glyphicons; every component you could dream of, like buttons for pagination, buttons for WYSIWYG widgets, modals, breadcrumbs, progress bars, content tabs, navbars, etc. Can I just say everything yet?

Best of all, it is stunning in webkit-based browsers, free and open source and you’re able to use it in commercial projects thanks to the Apache license.

It builds with NPM (of Node.js fame) and uses LESS if you download the uncompiled version. Using LESS means you can change branding colours, padding, rounded corners, drop shadows, etc. with one variable change and it will effect the whole project.

The 2.1.0 Update

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, it did. Bootstrap was updated to 2.1.0 and is available for download immediately.

The update features

  • completely revised and easier to read docs
  • the “affix” top-bar that follows users as they scroll
  • new submenu drop-down support
  • larger font-sizing and line-spacing for increased readability
Best of all, any and all of the features and changes in Bootstrap are optional. You can use one feature of Bootstrap, pick and choose, or use them all.
For the nerds reading this article, I found comparing the v2.0.4 and v2.1.0 tags quick useful.
Enjoy!
  • http://www.jorgecastro.org/ Jorge Castro

    I <3 bootstrap. There's a great ubuntu-like theme for it here: http://bootswatch.com/united/ which we use on jujucharms.com

    • brettalton

      That’s a great theme. Thanks for showing me! And thanks for showing me bootswatch.com. Looks useful too.

  • Martin Owens

    “You’ll be able to use it in proprietary software” not commercial software. Please stop educating readers that commercial software must always be proprietary or that indeed using GPL in this case would even effect commercial users with proprietary back ends.

    Seriously aggravating lack of understanding about free and open source from community members.

    • brettalton

      I guess I could have clarified by stating, “If your company doesn’t have an open source policy on maintaining GPLed code and you don’t want to get sued for making modifications of the code without redistributing, the Apache license allows the product to be integrated without a hitch.”

    • doctormo

      It could also be said that using Apache means the code is likely to fragment and doesn’t have any protection from abuse. But that would be biased commentary.

      The above comment implies that Apache licenses protect you from being sued, it’s so rotten in bias against copyleft.

    • brettalton

      Yes, using an Apache license does allow for easier fragmentation, but it also allows for greater collaboration, because it doesn’t restrict what code you use it with. GPL doesn’t allow you to work without also using non-GPLed code, so it doesn’t play well with other code if it’s a library.

      As Theo de Raadt noted, once code is GPLed, it you can’t use it with MIT or Apache licensed code.

      I’m going to post the differences in licenses in a new post so we can continue the discussion there.

    • https://launchpad.net/~flimm Flimm

      “once code is GPLed, it you can’t use it with MIT or Apache licensed code.” unless it’s dual-licensed with a more permissive license.

    • Martin Owens

      @brettalton:disqus If Apache or MIT licensed works can’t be blended into a GPL work, then that’s a problem with the compatibility of those licenses. Unless of course you mean to say: “Someone can’t take a GPL work and remove restrictions by including it in an MIT/Apache licensed work” then I agree, and I find very strongly that that is a feature of the GPL, not a problem of it.