Slashdot Mirror

It's called Qt and its found at TrollTech. I've used Delphi, VB (from versions 1 to 5) and Qt, I like Qt the best of all of them. Create your GUI graphically, define what signals and slots to hook up, write the functions and go. And you aren't stuck with BASIC or Pascal, two languages that should die.

Argh! Trolltech to Extend Dual Licensing to Qt for Windows.

Ahh... seems really pointless to go to all the effort of porting something if a better version of it is going to be out soon.

To some extent, certainly, but it's not entirely redundant, as QT 4 will not be 100% backwards compatible. In other words, many QT 3 applications will not necessarily compile with QT 4, and their authors will not necessarily want to update them immediately - or at all.

So there may in theory be some situations in which having access to a Win32 version of QT 3 will enable people to compile QT-based applications on Win32 without having to port them to QT 4 themselves.

Because QT IS NOT FREE.

Unless you pay TrollTech, you have to release the source code for your programs under the GPL. Not even MICROSOFT charges you to use their APIs - nor do they force a licence on you. If you write programs that you release under the GPL, let it be YOUR choice, not your toolkit's choice. If you ever want to close your codebase - you can't. Sorry, Trolltech won't let you. I honestly don't understand how insane someone would have to be to support Trolltech.

QT's restrictive licence is the REASON that libraries like GTK exist. Libraries like GTK are licenced under a variant of the GPL called L-GPL (library-GPL or lesser-GPL). This allows you to link your code with their libraries - and release your code under whatever licence you desire. You only have to release code if you modify the windowing library itself - which not many would do, but if you did - at least you wouldn't be providing free labor to Trolltech.

Read the headline of this press release from TrollTech's site:

Qt cross-platform development software will be available under the open source GPL license for open source development and a commercial license for commercial development

And their price for 2 platforms (the only reason you'd use a library in the first place is cross-platform development) - is $3000! PER SEAT!

Did you read that? Do you really want to pay HARD CASH to Trolltech for what is a WINDOWING LIBRARY. If you moved to Linux because of the cost of doing business on Microsoft Windows - re-examine the costs: Windows XP OEM is $149, has free downloadable development tools including the Visual C++ compiler, no royalties, no charge to use the API, release your code however you want. COME TO YOUR SENSES!

Please don't give me that "if you're a commercial software developer you can afford it" speech - it's untrue. I couldn't afford a new computer right now - and that would only set me back $1000 - let alone three times that for a library.

There are plenty of cross-platform alternatives that DO NOT require licencing fees to do whatever you want with your application. For example:

* wxWidgets
* Fox Toolkit

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid Qt like the obsolete plague that it is. Please, cross-platform developers - you really don't want to replace one Microsoft thorn in your side with the iron spike that is Trolltech.

Because QT IS NOT FREE.

Unless you pay TrollTech, you have to release the source code for your programs under the GPL. Not even MICROSOFT charges you to use their APIs - nor do they force a licence on you. If you write programs that you release under the GPL, let it be YOUR choice, not your toolkit's choice. If you ever want to close your codebase - you can't. Sorry, Trolltech won't let you. I honestly don't understand how insane someone would have to be to support Trolltech.

QT's restrictive licence is the REASON that libraries like GTK exist. Libraries like GTK are licenced under a variant of the GPL called L-GPL (library-GPL or lesser-GPL). This allows you to link your code with their libraries - and release your code under whatever licence you desire. You only have to release code if you modify the windowing library itself - which not many would do, but if you did - at least you wouldn't be providing free labor to Trolltech.

Read the headline of this press release from TrollTech's site:

Qt cross-platform development software will be available under the open source GPL license for open source development and a commercial license for commercial development

And their price for 2 platforms (the only reason you'd use a library in the first place is cross-platform development) - is $3000! PER SEAT!

Did you read that? Do you really want to pay HARD CASH to Trolltech for what is a WINDOWING LIBRARY. If you moved to Linux because of the cost of doing business on Microsoft Windows - re-examine the costs: Windows XP OEM is $149, has free downloadable development tools including the Visual C++ compiler, no royalties, no charge to use the API, release your code however you want. COME TO YOUR SENSES!

Please don't give me that "if you're a commercial software developer you can afford it" speech - it's untrue. I couldn't afford a new computer right now - and that would only set me back $1000 - let alone three times that for a library.

There are plenty of cross-platform alternatives that DO NOT require licencing fees to do whatever you want with your application. For example:

* wxWidgets
* Fox Toolkit

Please do yourselves a favor and avoid Qt like the obsolete plague that it is. Please, cross-platform developers - you really don't want to replace one Microsoft thorn in your side with the iron spike that is Trolltech.

I'm guessing a native port of KDE was impossible because Qt for Windows is not released under the GPL. Now, however, Trolltech will be releasing it under the GPL. Does this mean all the work of porting it was needless? Furthermore, does this mean we'll see an influx of Qt apps being ported to Windows now that they're free to use Qt on that platform?

1k or so for a Qt licence is a pittance for the added productivity over wxWidgets or GTK+ or somesuch.

Don't know where you're getting that price. According to their website, if you want to deploy your apps on Windows, Mac and X11, you're looking at a base cost PER DEVELOPER of 3840 USD plus 1190 USD per year after that for support.

That, btw, is for professional version. If you're interested in making apps that do high end stuff like, say, access a database or connect to the internet, you need enterprise edition. Bump that up to 5770 USD per developer plus 1790 USD per year after that for support.

The pricing list is here and the list of features in professional and enterprise are here

I don't care who the hell you are, at almost 6000 USD per developer QT is VERY expensive.

1k or so for a Qt licence is a pittance for the added productivity over wxWidgets or GTK+ or somesuch.

Don't know where you're getting that price. According to their website, if you want to deploy your apps on Windows, Mac and X11, you're looking at a base cost PER DEVELOPER of 3840 USD plus 1190 USD per year after that for support.

That, btw, is for professional version. If you're interested in making apps that do high end stuff like, say, access a database or connect to the internet, you need enterprise edition. Bump that up to 5770 USD per developer plus 1790 USD per year after that for support.

The pricing list is here and the list of features in professional and enterprise are here

I don't care who the hell you are, at almost 6000 USD per developer QT is VERY expensive.

Build software whose source code you wish to keep private.

The GPL allows you to keep your source code private as long as you do not _distribute_ the application. For example, where I work we could take the Linux kernel and make tons of changes to it and never have to give out those changes as long as we do not distribute those changes outside of our organization.

I am not an expert on the QT commercial license. Howerver to me it appears TrollTech is saying that if you want to keep your code private, even within your own company, you need a commercial license. That sounds as if it is going against the GPL.

Build software whose source code you wish to keep private.

The GPL allows you to keep your source code private as long as you do not _distribute_ the application. For example, where I work we could take the Linux kernel and make tons of changes to it and never have to give out those changes as long as we do not distribute those changes outside of our organization.

I am not an expert on the QT commercial license. Howerver to me it appears TrollTech is saying that if you want to keep your code private, even within your own company, you need a commercial license. That sounds as if it is going against the GPL.

Commercial database drivers

Eirik Chambe-Eng:

We have asked Canopy to divest since SCO turned against Linux. ... Canopy/SCO owns a very small share of Trolltech and has no control or influence whatsoever on the strategy and operations of Trolltech. Trolltech is controlled by it's employees.

Thank you for publicly stating this.

It is good to know, as is disclosed on your website, that SCO and Canopy control less than 6% of Trolltech's stock.

It would be nice to also have the information I requested last July about SCO's ongoing retention of SCO Chairman Ralph Yarro as a director:

• what percentage of the board of directors is controlled by Ralph Yarro;
• when the owners last elected him to that position and what percentage of the owners' vote he received;
• when his current term expires;
• what percentage of the owners would be required to dismiss Yarro from the board before the expiration of his term;
• and why, despite the owners' apparent powerlessness to make this change, we should still have confidence in the owners' power to steer the corporation in a direction other than the one taken by Caldera (which, not that long ago, was every bit as Linux-friendly as Trolltech).

according to the Qt Dual License FAQ: "the tools shipped with the GPL version support the popular GNU CC compiler. The C++ compilers from Microsoft, Intel and Borland are not supported by the tools in the GPL version."

Notice how the MinGW compiler is not explicitly mentioned - is this ommission by accident or by design? Do they only want GPL users to develop under Cygwin?

There is nothing weird about the Trolltech Open Source license. The Open Source edition of Qt uses the standard GPL. For further questions, please see our FAQ.

check the faq here basically it means that qt is available under both a gpl license and proprietary one. If you chose the latter you need to pay a fee to trolltec and in return you can sell proprietary qt based apps. With the GPL version you don't need to pay a fee to trolltec but can't sell proprietary qt based apps. ain't that clear?

Canopy is also a major stakeholder in the SCO group
[...]
Do a little research and you'll find that Trolltech is going to answer any questions you may have regarding their connection to the Canopy Group, their board of directors, and the connections between same with a bland "no comment."


Well, Trolltech is not really secretive about their investors. Do a little research and you'll find this site. Out of the 9 parties and groups listed there, Canopy is number 7 and SCO number 9, with a combined share of about 5%. Now if you want to call that major... To me it would seem that Trolltech is majorly owned by it's employes.

With a little more research you even might find for axample this interview with the Trolltech President, where he talks about the Canopy investment:
-----
PF: Somebody mentioned that the Canopy Group & SCO owns some parts of Trolltech.

ME: Sorry, we don't have any influence on them.

PF: Do they have any influence on you?

ME: Not really. They have a 5.7% stake in Trolltech. Historically Canopy became an investor because we cooperated with Caldera. As you might know we made and delivered the graphic install, which was the first graphical install for Linux, for Caldera Linux. The Canopy Group as the main investor in Caldera was so impressed by the work we had done that they wanted to invest in Trolltech, to make sure that Trolltech could become a solid company that could continue to deliver software to the Linux community. It's pretty ironic to see what has happened historically after that of course. But they don't have any influence on Trolltech. Trolltech is employee-owned, 65% of the shares are owned by the employees and we control the business so they have a small stake in us and that is it.

PF: You haven't talk about this complicated with SCO on Linux

EE: The patent issue or the corporate issue?

PF: The thing that SCO is asking and preparing to sue everybody about some code they pretend they own in Linux.

EE: I can tell you that we do not support these actions from SCO. Trolltech in many ways is dependent on the success of Linux. We think Linux is a Good Thing. We support Linux in many ways. On the other hand everybody has the right to bring his case to court. In this case it is very strange that they have not pinpointed exactly where in the code there is a problem and we feel that if they really had a problem with this, they could have acted very differently in presenting this to the community. So again we do not support these actions.
------------------

Seems to be a quite complicated way to say 'no comment'.

maybe they don't use QT....

although QT does support native wigets and the aqua stuff...

check it out - its pretty cool stuff.

http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/mac.html

The point is that if you use a BSD license, you are might as well call yourself an unpaid M$ employee: Chairman Gates can take your hard work and make millions selling it (of course, with the help of their legal hounds and rabid anti-open source public relations team).

If you want your code to accessible to the public FOREVER, license it under the GNU General Public License.

Secondly, you, the developer, CAN MAKE MONEY off using the GPL, by dual licensing your work (follow QT's example, the foundation of the KDE project).

If a big company does steal your work (e.g. inclused it in a proprietary, closed source product), sue their asses off and you may just become richer that you ever thought! You can't do that with the BSD license, now can you?

even slower than it's already glacial performance

Drop the apostrophe in "it's", unless you meant "slower than it is already glacial performance". That doesn't make any sense to me, but perhaps it does to you.

there aren't any CS departments that base their courses on Java, who cares about java

As horrible as the idea may be, there are a number of CS departments that made the Java switch during the big Java boom of the late 90s. My alma mater did the switch, though luckily I was always at least a semester ahead of Java changes.

Seriously, we really need a suite of JAVA tools, like word processors, spreadsheets, web browsers, etc... No more of this "well, it works on Windows, if you want it on Linux or Mac though we'll have to sit down and write it all over again, and probably introduce a ton of bugs....." stuff.

Just as soon as Java gets a good, cross-platform widget set, this can start happening. AWT and Swing aren't it. SWT is the right way to go, IMHO, but since it's not built into Java, it'll never have as much acceptance as AWT or Swing, and Java on the client will continue to be judged by those crappier toolkits.

What good is a program that depends on exact versions of 50 libraries (yeah, like I'll be able to reinstall that in 5 years and have even an outside shot at it working) and only works on a couple platforms, if you're lucky.

Java has the same problem. The Java base librraries are good, but there will always be something you want or need to do that the default set of libraries doesn't supply. What do you do? Well, just like a C programmer, you find a library that has already done what you need, and you use that. As for portability across platforms, you still have to worry about differences in the JRE for each environment and if you make any assumptions about a particular platform (paths, for instance). Java gives you the possibility of being portable, but it doesn't guarantee it.

when you make your own custom hacked windowing system to speed the process (Mozilla), it ends up being a slow RAM hog, even more so than it would be if it was written in JAVA, or another portable language to begin with.

The problem is not writing your own custom hacked windowing system (which XUL isn't -- it's a custom hacked widget set; the difference being that a widget set is the stuff inside the window, while a windowing system handles the windows themselves and doesn't much care what's inside), but writing your own custom hacked system stupidly. Mozilla's XUL is written stupidly, because it doesn't use native widgets (hey, sounds like Swing!). If the Mozilla developers would lose the ego, they would find that there are a number of good cross-platform widget sets (Qt, wxWindows (or wxWidgets, I guess they're calling it now), or even GTK+, though that would be my very last choice for a cross-platform widget set). Instead, the Mozilla team created Firefox when people complained about the weight of the Mozilla suite, yet they left XUL in place. At least there's Galeon, K-Meleon, and even Konqueror (since it can use Gecko as a rendering engine) available as native-widget web browsers.

Most Linux apps are QT-based or GTK-based

I can't speak for GTK+, but Qt 4 is already making improvements in this area.

Arthur, the new paint engine, has an innovative design that makes integrating with different pixel- and vector-based painting architectures straightforward. Quartz and QuickDraw under Mac OS X, Xlib under X11, GDI under Windows, as well as PostScript, SVG, and OpenGL, are examples of technologies that Qt 4 is expected to support---with the possibility of adding Cairo, GDI+, and PDF support later. Arthur's flexible multi-target design will make it possible to use the different paint devices' capabilities to their fullest extent---including hardware accelerated drawing operations, native transformations, and aliasing of lines and fonts. These benefits are applied automatically, making the best use of the underlying architecture.

Most Linux apps are QT-based or GTK-based

I can't speak for GTK+, but Qt 4 is already making improvements in this area.

Arthur, the new paint engine, has an innovative design that makes integrating with different pixel- and vector-based painting architectures straightforward. Quartz and QuickDraw under Mac OS X, Xlib under X11, GDI under Windows, as well as PostScript, SVG, and OpenGL, are examples of technologies that Qt 4 is expected to support---with the possibility of adding Cairo, GDI+, and PDF support later. Arthur's flexible multi-target design will make it possible to use the different paint devices' capabilities to their fullest extent---including hardware accelerated drawing operations, native transformations, and aliasing of lines and fonts. These benefits are applied automatically, making the best use of the underlying architecture.

But I thought I should point out that there is a beautifull platfrom for cross-platftorm RAD. This is PyQt, used in conjunction with Qt Designer. It combines the power of Qt as a GUI dev platform, with the power, extendability and simplicity of Python. I think that gambas aims at a simpler approach though, so I am not saying that it is useless. What I am saying is, if you need a very powerfull yet simple RAD with graphical capabilities, maybe you would like to consider QtDesinger + PyQt. It also has the advantage that is a really mature platform.

Cheers !

But I thought I should point out that there is a beautifull platfrom for cross-platftorm RAD. This is PyQt, used in conjunction with Qt Designer. It combines the power of Qt as a GUI dev platform, with the power, extendability and simplicity of Python. I think that gambas aims at a simpler approach though, so I am not saying that it is useless. What I am saying is, if you need a very powerfull yet simple RAD with graphical capabilities, maybe you would like to consider QtDesinger + PyQt. It also has the advantage that is a really mature platform.

Cheers !

The Siemens simpad can run linux, thanks to open simpad. I run Qtopia on mine, but it can also run Opie and X11 if you want that. This screen is an actual touchscreen, so I don't even need a stylus, I can use my finger.

Qt Educational License Qt Product Evaluation If you have a start up and a business plan which you think will earn you enough money within about a year you can also ask for a custom contract in which case Trolltech is willing to delay all payments until your business works.

Qt Educational License Qt Product Evaluation If you have a start up and a business plan which you think will earn you enough money within about a year you can also ask for a custom contract in which case Trolltech is willing to delay all payments until your business works.

Show me the money

I, for one, refuse to use anything that requires QT,

Newbies who might not read the heading properly or actually go to the link itself http://www.trolltech.com/products/index.html might think /. was in a timewarp, circa 1997, releasing the beta for Quicktime 4!!!!

a new paint engine

a new text rendering engine

new containers (which are lighter than the STL ones)

better support for multithreading

a new docking architecture

and last but not least better performance and smaller memory footprint.

Canopy's investment in Trolltech is absolutely tiny. As far as I am aware nothing that could possibly happen to Canopy would affect Trolltech at all.

I need a legal copy of MSVC++?? How they dare...

Seriously, you're free to develop open source software with Qt on MacOS X and UNIX/UNIX-like OSes. So, no, you don't need a special license nor a copy of MSVC++ to use Qt

If you want to develop proprietary software or develop software for Windows you have to buy a commercial license of course. And that is not more evil than you wanting to write proprietary software/for Windows.

I need a legal copy of MSVC++?? How they dare...

Seriously, you're free to develop open source software with Qt on MacOS X and UNIX/UNIX-like OSes. So, no, you don't need a special license nor a copy of MSVC++ to use Qt

If you want to develop proprietary software or develop software for Windows you have to buy a commercial license of course. And that is not more evil than you wanting to write proprietary software/for Windows.

If you want a Windows version of Rosegarden so badly, I'm sure you could find ten of your Windows-loving friends and family, get together and each pay $150 towards the $1500 Qt licence fee. That's what it will cost to get you your Windows version of Rosegarden.

Try Qt Designer. It allows you to drag and drop widgets onto a form, set up layouts in an easy way, and has an INCREDIBLY easy way of setting the tab order (you click the "Tab Order" button, then click on every widget in order).

It also has a built-in code editor, which will create form init events for you, and a graphical signal-slot editor which will create the slot shells for you as well.

Best of all, it Qt comes with extensive documentation and there's an excellent online book called C++ GUI Design in Qt introducing you to the toolkit

In addition to QtDesigner though, there's also the graphical Qt tool for translating your programs as well. It's actually one of the most sophisticated RAD suites out there. In terms of translation and layout management it's miles ahead of the Borland and MS tools (speaking as a guy who uses Delphi at work).

The Qt Designer code editor is a bit shakey, but it's possible to use KDevelop in conjunction with the Qt tools, in which case you get the best of both worlds.

Note, this is not to denegrate the great work performed by the GTK+ folks, but for RAD application developement, Qt has the better tools and for most modern programmers taught OOP from the get-go in Java or C++, it's easier to get to grips with.

Hmm, sounds like an Aqua/GTK and Aqua/QT wrapper would be a pretty significant thing. (Emphasis mine.)

###########
Use the Qt Commercial License to:
Build commercial software.
Build software whose source code you wish to keep private.

Two qualities of the Qt Commercial License should be emphasized:
It is a development license.

You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Trolltech or from any of its authorized resellers before you start developing.

For desktop applications, there are no royalties, runtime licenses, or other additional costs.
It is a per-developer license.

It is assigned to an individual. It may be transferred, but only every six months and within the same organization. To transfer a license contact sales@trolltech.com.
#############

This version of PalmOS is not really an OS but the GUI layer.

This puts PalmSource on a collision cource with Trolltech and their QTopia Phone Edition Qt port.

I think Motorola and a few other phone people have signed up to QTopia. Plus you have the Japanese carrier DoCoMo declaring that the only platforms they will use are Linux and PalmOS so this really looks like QTopia and the PalmOS GUI stack in the ring.

Plus Qtopia is available inder a GPL IIRC.

Your assumption that there are plenty of other profitable open source companies is wrong.

Timesys. MontaVista Software. Trolltech. SuSE. IBM's Linux ventures.

My current employer uses and contributes to open source software, although we're a proprietary software company -- using OSS tools for infrastructure functions saves us money, and contributing back reduces our software maintenance costs. My last employer is a member of the above list. They survived the bust, and I've heard rumors that they've started turning a profit.

Coming from this background, I didn't find this article suprising at all. There's plenty of money in OSS, as long as you're smart about making it.

Can someone please tell me what the advantage of Ruby+Qt is? I'm not knocking open source. I can see lots of use for commodity/infrastructure software. In fact I plan to open source a CRUD tool I needed to build for a project. But to pay the bills, I need to develop vertical. $1550+ seems a little steep just to maintain my intelectual advantage. Especially when I can do it for $379.

As a matter of fact, QT open source licensing only applies to Linux, UNIX and MacOS X. The Windows version of QT is not available under a free license.

That may be sufficient for RMS as he is only targeting GPLed platforms anyways, for Windows or cross platform developers this is an altogether different thing.

QT is not free software.

The problem is that this would not work, according to Trolltech.

is free even on Windows

Are you sure about that?

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gp l.html#q17

Beat that.

AFAIK, all the linux PDAs and phones on the market use Qtopia , which is as standardized as PalmOS or PocketPC, when it comes to running programs on multiple devices.

Assuming the Zaurus continues to be based on Trolltech's Qtopia, the process of converting a Zaurus to English should still be just as easy as changing a few configuration files. :-)

As for an OSX handheld, "I heartily endorse this event or product!"

QT does not support OpenGL widgits.

let me say this again for clarity:
QT is a great library. I also happens to support cross platform development in a very clean manner ( very few #IFDEFs ). As a bonus they have a nice license that allow you to play with if for free on linux. It supports OpenGL In the sence that they have a QGLWidget that allows you to do windowed OpenGL. It does not have any Graphical User Interface elements that display in its QGLWidget.

Considering how clean the QT code is I am sure there GUI could be 'ported' to OpenGL as a 'platform'. There is a package called SoQT that looks close to what I am describing. ( at least the beginning).

You say most of your development is on ix86 machines. Glad to know you don't use AMD chips. So anyhow what systems is the rest of your development on?

Do you honestly think that an emulated processor and random PC hardware are going to provide a reliable setup for testing OS X apps?

And what are you just going to suddenly decide to dable in OS X development and suddenly create some app that people are going to want?

And trust me the eMac will be faster than any emulation you are going to be doing!

I mean god man what would you be writing that would run slowly on a 1.25Ghz G4 anyhow?? What kind of software do you write? Nevermind I don't think I want to know.

You mean GPL? An evil license to be sure ;-) All my microsoft friends tell me it's a viral license that must be eradicated!

source

Seriously QT is great for *nux with a perfect license for "really free software" from the R. Stallman school. If you want "less free", ie. usable by non-free projects, or free crossplatform, you should use GTK.

Any real shop would find it a bargin comparing the quality of the documentation alone.

It's NOTHING MORE than a god-forsaken GUI API. If I need excessive documentation, IT IS BROKEN and OVERCOMPLICATED. "Quality of documentation" means absolutely Jack Shit. I can get free quality documentation about the Windows API from Microsoft. It's not a reason to switch. Platforms will be chosen based on what most customers are running. Right now that's Windows, and there's no way in hell that anybody will switch to QT simply to provide a Linux version to the minority of their customers.

You might have some other legitimate reason for preferring Gtk, like for example your coders don't know C++, but blaming license cost is a joke.

Are you BRUTALLY RETARDED, or just a Trolltech employee? Once you have the hardware and OS:

Cost of developing on Windows: $0 (the Visual C++ compiler is free).
Cost of developing on Linux: $0.
Cost of developing with GTK: $0.
Cost of developing with QT: $7,480 PER FUCKING SEAT.

Imagine a development shop that has, say, 10 programmers. Are you going to tell me that $74,800 in licence costs is nothing? They could hire at least one more programmer as well as an intern - AND buy top-of-the-line hardware for everybody in the company for that! (FYI, sticking with one platform, Microsoft's compiler and development tools and API documentation are COMPLETELY free).

THE COST OF QT MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM TO YOU. BUT IT IS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY, INCLUDING ME.

If you expect Linux desktop applications to be written, stop trying to let Trolltech ass-rape potential developers with excessive tool costs. The tools should cost NOTHING. Linux development is supposed to be an inexpensive solution.. with QT it is not. Even Microsoft treats their developers with more respect and gives them more freedom to use the API than Trolltech does.

And so, I come to the conclusion that Trolltech Hates Linux. There can be no other reason for them to want to restrict and try to KILL LINUX DEVELOPMENT so much.

(A wxWidgets fan, who codes raw Win32 & MFC user interfaces for a living...)

Since Adium (can't speak for Fire & Proteus) is nothing but a nicely done GAIM port, for me it IS GAIM on OS X.

What would be interesting, now, would be to get Adium ported to Linux (and, why not, Windows), using Qt, for instance.

GAIM has a real problem of being ugly, has usuability issues, and lacks the general polish you get with Adium. The Kopete project looks interesting, but it's not there yet : missing buddy icons and file transfers in everything but MSN Messenger - and even there, it has issues with NATs and can't display a MSN picture full size (yes, real people want that).

Has anyone experience in porting Cocoa (Obj-C) apps to Qt?