Slashdot Mirror

No need for a book.

Have a look at the Qt C++ GUI library from Trolltech. Qt is the basis of KDE development, and the library works 100% on Windows. doc.trolltech.com has a tutorial section with many example programs. Try making a few applications on Windows first, and then switch over to Linux. They recently released a non-commercial version of Qt/Windows, so check it out!

• Qt Designer
• KDevelop
• KDE Studio
• PyQt/PyKDE (Python bindings for Qt/KDE)
• KBasic

You'll want to start at the documentation supplied with the desktops.

For KDE/Qt, check out http://doc.trolltech.com/ and http://developer.kde.org/documentation.

You should take a look at Trolltech. They released their flagship product as GPL, and they're doing just dandy.

I definitly agree that Qt is an awesome product which the Windows opensource programming community definitly could use. Personally I think it's great that Trolltech has committed themselves to help keep software Free by releasing such a great tool to the community and helping gurantee that programs made with it go back to the community.

Of course, for companies to live, they have to make money, and this product is definitly worth more than the cost of a commercial development license. So if you're gonna make commercial software, it's only reasonable that you pay the company who gave you such a great start. As for Qt/Windows not being OpenSource:

"The GNU GPL and the Trolltech QPL are open-source, respectively Free Software licenses. Note the capital "F". We are not talking "free" as in "free beer", but "Free" as in "Free Speech". We released Qt/X11 under those licenses, because it runs as major component on totally Free operating systems, such as GNU/Linux and FreeBSD. Once Microsoft Windows is completely open source, we will reconsider." - FAQ

Well, that only applies to the Non-Commercial license, but if you purchase a Professional or Enterprise license, you do get the Qt source code with it.

Proof.

Greetings Pointwood

http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/gpl.html

Note the date: Sept. 2000

Is KDE free software?

Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, but all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL.

KDE uses the Qt C++ crossplatform toolkit, which is also released (since version 2.2) under the GPL.

It is absolutely legal to make KDE and Qt available on CD-ROM free of charge. No runtime fees of any kind are incurred.

The Qt Free Edition (version 2.2 and later) is released under the Open Source license QPL, and GPL. The Qt Free Edition may be freely copied and distributed, put on ftp-sites and CD-ROMs etc. Qt Free Edition is provided with no warranty and no support.

Should Trolltech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition for any reason including, but not limited to, a buyout of Trolltech, a merger or bankruptcy, the latest version of the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license.

Furthermore, should Trolltech cease continued development of Qt, as assessed by a majority of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, and not release a new version at least every 12 months, the Foundation has the right to release the Qt Free Edition under the BSD License.

Is KDE free software?

Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, but all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL.

KDE uses the Qt C++ crossplatform toolkit, which is also released (since version 2.2) under the GPL.

It is absolutely legal to make KDE and Qt available on CD-ROM free of charge. No runtime fees of any kind are incurred.

The Qt Free Edition (version 2.2 and later) is released under the Open Source license QPL, and GPL. The Qt Free Edition may be freely copied and distributed, put on ftp-sites and CD-ROMs etc. Qt Free Edition is provided with no warranty and no support.

Should Trolltech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition for any reason including, but not limited to, a buyout of Trolltech, a merger or bankruptcy, the latest version of the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license.

Furthermore, should Trolltech cease continued development of Qt, as assessed by a majority of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, and not release a new version at least every 12 months, the Foundation has the right to release the Qt Free Edition under the BSD License.

Is KDE free software?

Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, but all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL.

KDE uses the Qt C++ crossplatform toolkit, which is also released (since version 2.2) under the GPL.

It is absolutely legal to make KDE and Qt available on CD-ROM free of charge. No runtime fees of any kind are incurred.

The Qt Free Edition (version 2.2 and later) is released under the Open Source license QPL, and GPL. The Qt Free Edition may be freely copied and distributed, put on ftp-sites and CD-ROMs etc. Qt Free Edition is provided with no warranty and no support.

Should Trolltech ever discontinue the Qt Free Edition for any reason including, but not limited to, a buyout of Trolltech, a merger or bankruptcy, the latest version of the Qt Free Edition will be released under the BSD license.

Furthermore, should Trolltech cease continued development of Qt, as assessed by a majority of the KDE Free Qt Foundation, and not release a new version at least every 12 months, the Foundation has the right to release the Qt Free Edition under the BSD License.

The version of Qt that is licensed under the GPL is only the Unix/X11 portion. If you want the Windows version you have to pay for it.

From Trolltech's website (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faq/free.html) :

The Free Edition is the Qt for Unix/X11 toolkit, licensed for development of free/Open Source software.

..and...

Qt/Windows is only available as Professional/Enterprise Edition, not as Free Edition.

Sure, you could port it, but what's the point? There's other freely available toolkits that you could port without pissing off the original developers... or you could just use one that's free and cross-platform already.

Question 2: Have you ever read GPL?

Question 3: How many times does GPL mention Linux (or GNU/Linux)?

Yes and none =P.

That's why there is SDL. It uses DirectX on Windows and DRI on X (as well as many other graphics layers / OS's).

I think the problem with Windows developers in general is that they don't think of coding crossplatform in the first place. It's easy to understand why: they are taught DirectX and MFC, and Windows has a huge percent of the desktop market. Also, some games are coded so horribly (compare the duct-tape-that-is-EverQuest to any Blizzard product) that porting certain games look like they would be a nightmare.

On the other hand, I think Linux developers are more trained to code portably. With all the unix flavors out there, source portability is already a must. It also seems that these developers care about porting to Windows. Many apps for X are available on Windows (like a lot of the Gtk stuff), but not the other way around.

So Linux developers actually care about portability, but Windows developers do not. Maybe we can convince them to change their ways?

Surely the Windows developers out there don't thoroughly enjoy Windows-only programming, do they? I've used DirectX, and it was ludicrous. It isn't direct at all (Come on, DirectMusic? DirectPlay? Direct is just a buzzword..) and the classes are a mess. I haven't heard much good about MFC either, but I've heard only good about Qt (and I've used both).

Qt works on Windows. There's no reason to use MFC. Yes it does cost money, but aren't we talking about real game companies here? SDL works on Windows. There's no reason to use DirectX "directly" (whatever that means). You know how long it would take to port Windows apps/games to Linux that were all written in Qt and SDL? All of a recompile.

The Free Qt Foundation is an organisation dedicated to keeping Qt free and alive no matter what happens to Trolltech. Indeed, the agreement between Trolltech and the Free Qt Foundation specifically states that if Trolltech ever go under or stop development of Qt, then Qt will automatically be released under the BSD License - and you can't get much freer than that.

Nice try, but fortunately for KDE (and us), somebody thought of this (and fixed the problem) a long long time before you did.

Ironically enough, we already have exactly this situation with respect to KDE and GNOME, except that the relationships are reversed. KDE and GNOME are both under GPL; however, Qt is only avaiable for Win32 (native) under a proprietary, commercial license; the GPL applies only to the X11 version of Qt. Meanwhile, GTK+ for Win32 is available under the GPL. A theoretical port of KDE to Windows (using Qt) is not possible at this point, but a theoretical port of GNOME to Windows (using GTK+) might be, depending on the quality of the port.

However, Qt is still able to grab more mindshare than GTK+ or wxWindows for Windows development, despite the fact that it's not free. This is because Qt has a reputation as superior (easier-to-use, more goodies) toolkit for Linux development than the C++ port of GTK+, and because Trolltech is pushing Qt for educational use.

Meanwhile, wxWindows (which is LGPL except that you can distribute derived works any way you like) has almost no mindshare (relatively speaking), even though it's an equivalent toolkit to Qt and is more portable than GTK or Qt.

End result: developers are more likely to sell their employers on Qt for Windows than on wxWindows or GTK+, even though it's a commercial package. Corolary: Trolltech makes some (IMO) well-deserved money.

ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

It's already happening. You just have the parties reversed.

Qt/Windows and Free are inherently incompatible. Since the only version of Qt/Windows is non-Free, it can't be used to build Free software on Windows. In this case, Qt is a non-Free, third-party library. TrollTech leaves the cop out that you can use Qt/Free with X11 libraries and an X server for Windows. Why this is absurd is left as an exercise to the reader.

GTK+, on the other hand, is licensed under the LGPL. And that means all platforms, including proprietary ones, such as Windows, BeOS, and Mac OS X.

That killer app you speak of will get here, but as a Gnome app, not KDE.

We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead

But that's about to change. OS X is forcing Adobe, Macromedia and who knows who else to port their apps to Unix (more or less).

• MacOS X is rapidly accumulating many ports of the open source/GNU/Linus userland world for non-GUI apps.
• The Mac software vendors are porting to Carbon, not Qt or GTK. If they're looking at anything else, it's Cocoa.
• As submitted earlier, Qt has been announced for OS X. Can GTK be far behind ?

If not anything else, initially, KDE made contributions in lots of bug reports and feature requests; those are enormously valuable, in particular for a company with a new product and little resources for testing.

Because KDE made bug reports to trolltech, you paint the picture of trolltech being a greedy company, taking their bug reports and using them to fix their product. And because of this, trolltech now owes something to the world, as if GPL'ing their main product is not enough? Would anyone dare to make this accusation of mozilla, which also relies to a degree on outside users for bug reports? Does mozilla owe us anything, instead of the other way around? The hypocrisy is unbelievable!

And you think trolltech getting back a few patches is somehow "getting more out of" the deal than by KDE having a whole toolkit for their use?

If you want to argue that Qt is "more featureful" or "more mature", forget it. Each of those toolkits has advantages and disadvantages compared to other toolkits, and Qt isn't a clear winner.

We can't compare toolkits based on features and maturity of design? Why the hell not? (Side note: Motif?? Tcl/Tk??? Are you being serious, or did you just type "gui toolkit" into google?)

I think the KDE developers didn't look hard enough and got snookered by a company with an agenda.

Agenda of what? Aside from bug reports, what have they gained out of this? I bunch of ungrateful OSS zealots, pretty much forcing them to GPL their main source of income?

You're as much a babe in the woods when it comes to flaming as when it comes to trusting software vendors.

Trusting software vendors? That statement has undertones of open-source zealotry, which would explain a LOT of your arguments. Doesn't anyone who buys or uses a product from a software company "trust" them?

But let's get to substantiation: maybe you can get TrollTech to remove their false and misleading information about the GPL from their site.

Didn't find anything misleading, sorry. But if you do, by all means point it out to them: info@trolltech.com

---

If not anything else, initially, KDE made contributions in lots of bug reports and feature requests; those are enormously valuable, in particular for a company with a new product and little resources for testing. Later, people in the KDE project also started donating code back to TrollTech, although I don't know whether that was before the GPL release or after (not that it matters).

It seems AT&T, NASA, Ford, IBM, and Intel, among others, disagree with you.

I have worked at three of those companies listed as references, and I have never heard of any products developed with Qt there. Often, we'd get listed by vendors if anybody ordered a copy to play around with. I think in that kind of list, even Tcl/Tk would win hands down in terms of customers and commercial products released.

[10 years ago, a C++ cross platform GUI library may have been a big deal, these days, they are a dime a dozen.] Please, complete the following, with toolkits that are as featureful and mature as Qt:

For cross platform development, depending on your requirements, wxWindows, FLTK, MFC/Win32 (with compatibility libraries on some platforms), Interviews, Gtk, Motif (with compatibility libraries on some platforms), Tcl/Tk, Swing, and Fox are all reasonable choices. If you want to argue that Qt is "more featureful" or "more mature", forget it. Each of those toolkits has advantages and disadvantages compared to other toolkits, and Qt isn't a clear winner.

[I also think it was a poor choice for the KDE project] Is there an argument behind this, or just the claim? Can this argument even be defended? Do you know if the requirements of the KDE project could be met by anyone else?

As the "I think" indicates, it's my opinion. Since I had more than a decade of GUI development under my belt around the time the KDE project started, I think I had a pretty good idea of what was out there at the time. I think the KDE developers didn't look hard enough and got snookered by a company with an agenda. Your opinion may be different, of course.

(I'm sorry if the flamethrower was on full-blast, but one thing I can't stand is groundless, unsubstantiated claims by zealots.)

You're as much a babe in the woods when it comes to flaming as when it comes to trusting software vendors. But let's get to substantiation: maybe you can get TrollTech to remove their false and misleading information about the GPL from their site.

Well, for one thing, they could stop misleading people about the meaning of the GPL. It is, in fact, perfectly fine to develop commercial/closed source software with a GPL'ed library under a number of circumstances, yet TrollTech keeps claiming otherwise.

I'd say the community has gained more than Trolltech has gained, however it's silly to argue about who had the greater benefit. In this case, everyone has won.

I think if a GUI library takes hold on Linux that requires payment to some vendor for any kind of commercial software development, as TrollTech claims for Qt, then Linux becomes a pretty unattractive platform for commercial developers. It also becomes an unattractive platform for people like IBM and Sun to support. Altogether, I think that would be a big loss for Linux: that situation would be worse than the situation we had with Motif on UNIX.

In any case, technically, I don't think Qt is where Linux GUIs should be going anyway. Qt is merely redoing in a slightly cleaner way where Microsoft was 5 years ago, and that style of GUI programming was outdated and cumbersome even back then.

An 1 year MSDN subscription is cheaper than a Qt developer license, and you get a lot more for your money in terms of tools, documentation, libraries, compilers, etc.

Consider the source! Microsoft has made a habit of bundling software at a lower cost. Do you think MSDN is a better value because it was designed to be so, or because it's got Microsoft's billions behind it (meaning, it's OK if it loses money, whereas Trolltech has to make money on it's only real product). Secondly, I don't remember if MSDN tools run/build on *nix and now the Mac, so maybe you can get back to me on that.

In fact, as far as I am concerned, the only reason Qt is as nice as it is is because of the enormous contributions of the KDE project

What contributions are those? I don't recall any examples of KDE code (which would be GPL) getting back into the early Qt (which were not GPL). This is slashdot, you have to support your claims.

10 years ago, a C++ cross platform GUI library may have been a big deal, these days, they are a dime a dozen.

Please, complete the following, with toolkits that are as featureful and mature as Qt:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Altogether, I don't think Qt is a good value for commercial projects.

http://www.trolltech.com/references/customers/. It seems AT&T, NASA, Ford, IBM, and Intel, among others, disagree with you.

I also think it was a poor choice for the KDE project

Is there an argument behind this, or just the claim? Can this argument even be defended? Do you know if the requirements of the KDE project could be met by anyone else?

(I'm sorry if the flamethrower was on full-blast, but one thing I can't stand is groundless, unsubstantiated claims by zealots.)


---

Rather than moderating this discussion, I thought it would be a good idea to clarify that what you get is one year of free upgrades and email support, not a time-limited license.

Nothing on Trolltech's pricing page indicates that you are limited to using the copy for one year. Rather, each copy is limited to one developer.

To some the prices might seem "high", but having worked with cross-platform products from other companies ($10,000.00, plus runtime license fees), I can tell you that Trolltech's prices are very reasonable.

I think Trolltech is being extremely reasonable in allowing free use for freely distributed software, while requiring pay-for products to pony up for platform licenses.

If roughly $3000.00 USD for both *nix and WinXX is "too much" for your product's UI, I really have to question the business plan behind the product. Assuming a comparable price differential to add Mac, that would bring it up to about $4500.00 for an enterprise edition for one developer across all three platforms. Even if you're only charging $50.00 for your product, that's only 90 copies to pay for the setup costs. If you can't count on selling a few thousand copies, why do you think anyone would pay for your product?

Now, if a better programmer than me could perhaps make an XML parser that could translate this into classes for an interpreted language like Python you would have all the advantages of Visual Basic without the disadvantages.

------
C'mon, flame me!

Is the Qt Public License (better known as the QPL really GPL-incompatible?

Bzzzt. WRONG. If you are the author you're perfectly free to relicense the same software under a non-GPL license and demand $$$ in return. Trolltech does that with Qt.

This "you can't reuse your own software" nonsense is the kind of bald-faced LIE M$ will be feeding upon the PHB's of the world. We need to be around to give them the Truth instead.

Qt's power comes from inheritance. The entire toolkit was designed in C++ for a reason. This makes creation of widgets super-easy. You cannot get this level of control by just wrapping a C library in C++. Also, Trolltech has to worry about crossplatform portability. This puts Qt in a class by itself.

Here is a link to Trolltech's page about why you should use Qt. After reading this, why would you use anything else?

-Justin

no its not... http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricing .html

Still, why use X when there's probably a zero possibility of these PDA's ever using it remotely?

We already know that for the average user, X is overkill. There is a small minority that use its remote capability (myself included), and that's really the only reason to keep it around on the desktop.

But a Linux PDA? Qt/Embedded is clearly the way to go. Lovely screenshots can be found here.

Now if only I could compile Qt on my XFree/Cygwin setup I could get these working with KDE on my Windows box.

I wasn't whining in the slightest. I was merely commenting on the fact that KDE/Qt is more stable (it really is), but Gnome has a larger *gee-whiz* factor (to me, it seems "cooler" than KDE).

As a matter of fact, I really think you missed both my and the original poster's points. It's not that we were pining for Windows, it's that we both felt KDE has a certain Window-esque quality about it that can make it feel more cold and impersonal. We felt that Gnome had more originality and uniqueness (and that originality and uniqueness were very good things).

If all you heard was "Whine, Whine, etc., etc." from these posts, then I think perhaps you should go back and re-read them, because you undoubtedly misunderstood.

(And with respect to me "doing" something about the code... well... Qt is not the most open-source project in the world... If you check out Trolltech's Qt Page you'll discover it has proprietary extensions called "Qt Professional/Enterprise" editions which you must license. So, no, I can't really just go in an do something about Qt looking too much like Windows... can I?)

Are available on their FTP site. Enjoy!

The only BSD that matters now is MacOSX

BSD operating systems have a history of being licensed under free software terms. Mac OS X is not free software; on the contrary, it's proprietary software that runs on proprietary hardware, and you don't know how much copy "protection" is in the hardware and software.

It takes a visionary company like Apple to wash and scrub an awful GUI like X away.

X is only a network-transparent graphics subsystem. The GUI is provided by X toolkits and clients such as GTK+ apps and Qt apps. (The Qt (not QT) logo looks too much like a hammer and sickle.) I agree that the GNOME people have a lot to learn from Apple, and vice versa.

Isnt this *exactly* what the GPL does? The exception in the GPL that allows it to be linked to proprietary OS components was only needed because there wasnt a Free operating system at that time. It seems to me that Qt is more free (in the RMS sense) than GTK+, since it activly encourages Free development on Free platforms while GTK+ can legally be used to develop proprietary apps on nonfree OSes. It would seem that the Qt licenses is closer to the goals of the FSF than GTK+ is. (See Why you shouldnt use the LGPL for your next library ) It seems to me Qt is doing the right thing while GTK is encouraging proprietary platforms (ironic, isnt it?)

Meanwhile, the GTK team is actively encouraging the development of Win32 and BeOS ports. In their eyes, no operating systems are more equal than others. And that is why they will win.

So small technicalities like Qts superior documentation or easy to use signal model, or a nice interface builder (ok, gtk has this too), and a nice, easy to use, consistant API doesnt matter? Unless you're hellbent on using C, I personally think Qt is a better choice in most cases.

And like you said.. nobody is stopping you from forking Qt and porting it to Win32. Why would you need the support of the Trolls for that? (Remember that Qt is their only product)

And i cant belive i'm replying to the obvious troll above.. the licensing wars *should* have gone away a long time ago.

-henrik

Hence gtk embedded, which I predict will take off. Then all of a sudden, suspicious thing happens. QT-embedded becomes dual licensed GPL and qt-proprietary

Either we have a non-causal system here, or you're an idiot. My guess is the latter.

Of course GtkFB has limitations too. The main limitation is the single-process model. All code in the system must be in the same binary and run in the same process. This means you can't use processes to separate and protect different parts of the system from each other. It also makes it harder to design larger systems.

Of course GtkFB has limitations too. The main limitation is the single-process model. All code in the system must be in the same binary and run in the same process. This means you can't use processes to separate and protect different parts of the system from each other. It also makes it harder to design larger systems.

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

video codec ... Sorensen ... Apple

You're thinking of QuickTime, rather than the communist-looking Qt toolkit used as KDE's widget set.

textual display information imbedded into movies now?

<OT>This has been in quicktime for a while (since at least 3.0).</OT>

Back on topic: will qt free edition (or xfree86) ever be ported to windows 9x?

This is the first version of a GUI toolkit that has it's own song as mp3. Very nice cover indeed and a funny idea.

Never mind, just found the reference to Free Edition. Just what I was looking for...

The official announcement is here: http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/qt-230.h tml

Check out Qt/Embedded at Trolltech's home page.

It's a version of Qt built to use the Linux framebuffer.

Anything that compiles on the normal Qt X11 will compile on this. Awhile back, someone even ported Konqueror to it. Qt is very much a standard in the Linux world, and this extreme portability to an embedded platform is amazing. Trolltech also has a window manager / environment program to launch and manage applications with. Looks a bit like WinCE, at least the coloring. :)

I don't know of any handhelds currently that are using this (or that might use it), but it seems like a very good choice for a standardized X-less handheld.

-Justin

Besides, show me a Compaq iPac with Linux installed that can play MP3's. I rest my case.

Win2k on a handheld?!?! What is it powered with, a car battery?

Here is a screenshot of an iPaq running pocketlinux, playing an MP3. Here is another -- this one of QPE, including screenshots that show its support for alternate input methods.

- - - - -

The biggest memory-sucker in KDE is a misconfigured QT. Many distros compile QT with exceptions enabled, which almost doubles the size of the library. To fix this, get the latest QT from TrollTech and use "-no-g++-exceptions" to the ./configure command. Then run "make symlinks sub-src sub-tools" to compile the stuff that you need and not the examples or tutorials you don't need. The file libqt.so.2.2.4 should be around 5.5 MB. Adjust the symlinks to point to the new QT and start KDE. I personally find KDE nice and zippy.

Another thing that might get in the way is if debug code has been compiled into KDE, and that can only be fixed by recompiling the whole shebang, adding "--disable-debug" to the ./configure command.

Stability is not the only reason to choose Linux. What about the open design? Isn't it comforting knowing that Linux doesn't try to lock you into something? Or hide some specifics from you? When I hear things like Microsoft embedding media security into Windows, I cringe.

The apps available on Linux are quite good. I'd much rather use Konqueror than IE. In fact, KDE2 as a whole is fantastic. I'm never wishing I had this-or-that from Windows. In fact, it's usually the other way around.

Here's an interesting story. I work in a small company (see my url) developing games. Our next project (a Gameboy Advance game) will be entirely developed on Linux. Why? I just like it better. I like the "Unix way." You'll have a hard time convincing me to develop on another platform.

For application development we'll be using Qt. This has the added benefit of easing migration, since our apps would run on Windows as well.

It's good that Windows is now more stable than before, but frankly that isn't a good enough reason to switch OS's. In fact, that's probably why so many people still use Windows 98.

-Justin

I just observed in the comments that most people lumped Qt in with Gtk, etc as part of the non-professional alternatives to Motif.

Excuse me? Gtk is a typical open source project where developers get to it when they can get to it. Qt on the other hand, is a professional toolkit. It is created by a company that spends all of their time working on it. The Unix version also happens to be GPL.

IMO this makes Qt an extremely viable alternative to Motif. In fact, Borland thought so too: just look at Kylix. Qt is not "just another toolkit."

Has everyone forgotten that?

-Justin

QT has known about the need for mulitple monitor support for several years now. I have requested it to be added, but just got the standard "We'll evaluate your request" form letter. I talked with one of the KDE developers and he had worked on a hack to get it to work, but it was just that, a hack.

I know we have a lot of zealotry and a lot of 'we must have *this*' for linux to be successful rants. But, for a window manager not to be able to support varying desktop configurations - that's unacceptable. In fact I use dual head everyday (on Irix) and I feel that this way of using your computer is going to become more mainstream than QT is anticipating. It's very nice. And with the price of a 19 inch and a GeForceMX so cheap, it's hard not to deny the urge and upgrade your standard linux box.

I don't know if it's a QT backwards compatibility issue, or what. But *please*, everyone who deems multi-monitor support important (especially in KDE), drop an email to Trolltech (the QT guys) and let them know.

That's a bargain. A QT development license is $1550. I wonder how much of a cut Borland is getting of that $999.

http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricing .html

lookie here

QT/Embedded already supports anti-aliasing and alpha compositing. Look pretty sweet on my iPaq. (mirror of QPE)

I wonder if the QT/X that KDE uses already includes support. If not, I don't imagine it would be too hard to move it over from QT/E.

________________________________________