Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qt Released For OS X

Posted by timothy on from the merging-venn-diagrams dept.

AxsDeny writes: "It looks like Macslash is also reporting this, but Trolltech is now offering Qt for OS X. Long live cross platform development." Doesn't look like there's a Free version, but there is a non-commerical license called the "Qt Academic License," which "Allows schools and universities to acquire and use Qt for free in relevant courses."

121 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Another good link by wiredog · · Score: 5, Informative

    To a good article at Kuro5hin.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  2. Qt non-free versions by No-op · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using the Win32 Qt 3.0 for a while, and I have to say that I've vastly enjoyed it. Trolltech earns my vote for one of the best companies I've worked with so far.

    Don't flame them too much for charging money for stuff- everyone has to earn a living somehow :P

    --
    EOM
    1. Re:Qt non-free versions by infiniti99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, they say it's because a GPL application cannot be linked to a closed source library. They say if you want to link your GPL app to Qt/Noncommercial, then you need to include an exception-clause in your license (this is similar to what Linus does to allow commercial dev on Linux. read the Linux license sometime, it's not pure GPL).

      And no, you can't get around this by using the commercial Qt. You aren't allowed to redistribute the source with that either.

      However, IMO this is a strange necessity. I've seen some MFC windows apps claiming to be GPL. After reading this thing about Qt though, I wonder if that is even possible. MFC is closed source. Hell, so is Windows. Does that mean that pure GPL applications on Windows are impossible? That any GPL Windows app is actually GPL-with-exception by default?

      Technicalities aside, if someone releases a GPL MFC app, you are _not_ allowed to make modifications unless you have a valid MSVC++ license. Granted, you can get MSVC loads cheaper than Qt, but it's the same principle.

      Anyway, all I'm saying is Qt on Windows is no less evil than MFC when it comes to GPL. It's just more expensive (but then, it's also way better).

    2. Re:Qt non-free versions by arglesnaf · · Score: 1

      MFC is closed source? Try looking in C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\MFC\SRC on your VC++ 6.0 installation.

      The MFC is not GPL'd, nor is the MFC free, but the source sure is available.

    3. Re:Qt non-free versions by infiniti99 · · Score: 2

      The source is only available if you have a MSVC++ license though, right? Qt works just like that too. I got full source code with my Qt/Windows license. However, since both sources are only available to license holders, they are effectively closed-source.

      I did not realize you get MFC source with MSVC++ though, so thank you for pointing it out (I just now verified). I had thought it was always closed, even for developers.

    4. Re:Qt non-free versions by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      I tried wxWindows for a while, but just found it really hard to use. I think perhaps the biggest problem was just that the documentation for wxWindows is no where near as good as Trolltech's documentation for Qt.

      That and nothing in wxWindows behaved the way I expected it too. And it all looks way too much like MFC with all those message map macros.

      In contrast, for whatever reason, Qt just works the way I expect it to. And whenever it doesn't it only takes a few seconds to bring up the appropriate page of documentation that explains where I went awry.

      But, yes, wxWindows has got Qt beat hands-down on the licensing front. I feel like I have to hire a lawyer just to use the darned Qt library.

    5. Re:Qt non-free versions by arglesnaf · · Score: 1
      Open source requires that you get the source with the binaries.

      Open source companies are not required to distribute source to people who do not own the app.

      Remember when Yellow Dog Linux last released?
      There was a huge discussion about that here.

    6. Re:Qt non-free versions by RPoet · · Score: 2
      "However, IMO this is a strange necessity. I've seen some MFC windows apps claiming to be GPL. After reading this thing about Qt though, I wonder if that is even possible. MFC is closed source. Hell, so is Windows. Does that mean that pure GPL applications on Windows are impossible? That any GPL Windows app is actually GPL-with-exception by default?"

      You didn't read the GPL, it already has an explicit built-in exception that basically says that software components normally regarded as integral parts of a runtime environment, does not have to be GPL compatible by themselves. This is what makes GPL applications under Windows/MFC possible, as well as GPL apps under Java/Swing/etc.

      From 3:

      However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
      form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
      itself accompanies the executable.
      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  3. This is good news. by Anton+Anatopopov · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Only purist 'license zealots' will worry about the terms of the license. This is great because it means a whole load of great apps can now be ported to run native on Macs.

    MacOS X really is the best of all worlds. You have the stability reliability and scalability of Unix/Mach with the familiar ease-of-use of the mac. Too bad the clunky old PC still seems to rule the roost with the general public :-(

    1. Re:This is good news. by BlowCat · · Score: 2, Flamebait
      Only purist 'license zealots' will worry about the terms of the license.
      Wrong. If you violate the license you are potentially in trouble. If you are a company in Europe or in the United States and you use Qt in violation of the license, your chances to be sued by Trolltech are very high (I would say above 50%).

      Of course, if you are in Russia (seems to be the case for you) or in North Korea or in Iraq, you may want to risk. However, please don't generalize. I'm not a license zealot, but I'm not going to violate their license (e.g. pretend to be a university professor).

    2. Re:This is good news. by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      Russia has the same copyright laws as anywhere else, so TrollTech can sue you there for violating the license just as easy as the US or EU.

    3. Re:This is good news. by geekgirl2k1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this isn't the spot for this comment, perhaps... but being cursed with the ability to make these hunks of plastic work, and having had my share of running down win98 horrors, why o why does MS Windows own the world? It literally sux. the things that must be done to maintain a self corrupting OS, the re-installs of an entire OS that users typically seem to not only put up with but expect as part of the overall experience of owning a computer. i am a mac bigot, love my iMac, and OS X runs quite nicely on this, thank you. And if i have to run a windows session to help my friends debug their Win95/98 problem of the day, its easy to do so. i am really excited to see a whole new group of developers seriously look at Apple and the Mac for the first time. Unix plus a huge set of apps, sounds good to me. And with the high prices Microsoft is charging for XP and XP Office, don't you think business should start looking at the Mac and Mac OS X again too? gg2k1

  4. QUICKTIME FOR OSX ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    QT == Quicktime !

    seems a bit stupid to call your project the same name esecially as its on a Mac too

    confusion reigns

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    Apple still putting the TOSH in Macs

    1. Re:QUICKTIME FOR OSX ? by vsync64 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      QT == Quicktime !

      seems a bit stupid to call your project the same name esecially as its on a Mac too

      It's not the same name. QT == QuickTime. Qt == TrollTech's widget set.

      Caps matter!

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    2. Re:QUICKTIME FOR OSX ? by shrdlu · · Score: 1

      Moderators, I'd have given this post higher than 0, even if it is an AC post. Until I read the WHOLE article, I didn't know that it wasn't quicktime they were selling. Hey, I'm not a mac user, but I've heard of quicktime. Why didn't they use something a little more unique (or else why wasn't there mention in the macslash or slashdot reports that it wasn't quicktime)?

      I dunno. I'd have been more excited if it had been quicktime, myself.

      --
      The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. (Mark Twain)
    3. Re:QUICKTIME FOR OSX ? by TheMidget · · Score: 1

      But will it support the Sorenson Codec?

  5. Cross platform is definately good... by Ace905 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've always been impressed with cross-platform initiatives. Especially the ECAs big project to get Eggplant code on every system available. Including embedded devices!

    Eggplants!

    --

    Ace
    1. Re:Cross platform is definately good... by luserSPAZ · · Score: 1

      I'm quite impressed by this cross-platform development. Even more impressed that the moderators didn't bother to look at the link, or even think about what the link said.

      Bravo.
      -Ted

    2. Re:Cross platform is definately good... by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      I went to eggforge.net and wasted about 5 minutes clicking around and reading things in a vain attempt to figure out what on earth Eggplant is, other than a vegetable that tastes good parmesian style. I still haven't a clue. All I did find was a comment posted by the same Ace905. Apparently she or he is somewhat involved in this eggplant thing, and trying to use slashdot to let us know how impressed he is with himself.

      Well, here's some advice: if you're going to go posting your url all over the place, try to put some information up that actually explains what the damn project is about.

    3. Re:Cross platform is definately good... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      It's a joke, and a pretty good one at that.

      Although I'm surprised anyone would have difficulty understanding that - the descriptive material and code exampes made it quite clear what an eggplant is and that the site is satire.

      I'd eat an eggplant to celebrate their achievement if I could stand to do so.

      D

    4. Re:Cross platform is definately good... by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      Oh oh! I found the FAQ. Ok. I get it now.

      I must have thought that that FAQ link was to an external site when I first looked because it appears in the "Other Options" section after "AvantGo". Not where I would expect to find the only information on what the site is about. How about making an "About Us" link like 2nd in the main menu? Geez, they spend all that time making a slick looking site, you'd think they could organize the actual information a little better.

  6. Good idea by Green+Aardvark+House · · Score: 1

    Qt Academic License," which "Allows schools and universities to acquire and use Qt for free in relevant courses.

    It's refreshing to see that a company is offering proprietary software for free to schools and universities.

    Microsoft, take note!

  7. Lets not forget the other big news... by toupsie · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...No not about the mystery press conference tomorrow where Steve Jobs will turn on the Reality Distortion Field and shock us with his "pssst, It's not a Mac" new product. No, I am talking about the native port of Tcl/Tk applications on Mac OS X!!!

    You know I am going to end up with whatever Steve Jobs shows off tomorrow. I already have a closet full of Netwons, QuickTake Digital Cameras, Power CDs and exploding PowerBook 5300 batteries for home defense.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Lets not forget the other big news... by Snocone · · Score: 2

      I already have a closet full of ...

      Yeah, well *I* have a PIPPIN, pose-boy. Top THAT.

    2. Re:Lets not forget the other big news... by mr100percent · · Score: 2

      How many megapixels or CCDs is the quicktake? does it work in OS 9?

    3. Re:Lets not forget the other big news... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      It's a dinky old 640x480 (iirc) camera with a proprietary serial interface. One of the Kodal DC cameras was the same device in a different box. If you have the QuickTake software, it probably will work fine in OS 9.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    4. Re:Lets not forget the other big news... by toupsie · · Score: 2

      Okay, okay! You got me beat. I hadn't lost that much of my common sense!!! :)

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  8. Qt by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just have to point out that Qt really is the most excellent toolkit I've ever used, for any platform (and the fact that it runs on all major platforms is a huge bonus). It's sanely designed and it really is a pleasure to use. I'm not a big fan of C++, generally preferring C for most stuff, but Qt makes using C++ more than worth it.

    I just can't comprehend why anybody uses GTK these days :)

    1. Re:Qt by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could it be that some people actually prefer C?

      Dude, did you read my comment? *I* prefer C. But Qt's API is so far above and beyond GTK's that, in my opinion, using GTK is just silly. The API makes my head hurt.

      Anyway, I wasn't trying to start a flamewar, just pointing out my opinion.

    2. Re:Qt by captaineo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that Qt is quite well put-together, but after working with it for a little while (I'm mostly a GTK/PyGTK fan) I've found it has an annoying flaw that really prevents me from using it effectively: its memory-management system is restrictive, and it only works in C++.

      The "restrictive" part is due to the fact that Qt takes a simplistic hierarchical view of resource ownership - parent objects own their children, and delete them when they are deleted. This forces you to implement most of your own code as subclasses of Qt toolkit classes. Aside from being aesthetically icky, this can get you into trouble when the rest of your own code has different ideas about object ownership and lifetimes. At the very least you need to write extra adaptor code or invent weak references for Qt objects.

      The other problem of course is that Qt "only works from" C++. I've long since left static languages behind for GUI development; Python and friends are the way of the future. Sure there are bindings like PyQt, but PyQt has some serious memory management problems (since Python objects are reference counted, and can't easily mesh with Qt's object hierarchy). The result is segfaults and/or memory leaks even for simple PyQt programs.

      Using Qt was an interesting and worthwhile experiment, but I much prefer Gtk's more reasonable resource management scheme (which has been designed from the ground up to cooperate with scripting language bindings).

    3. Re:Qt by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 2

      I agree that Qt is quite well put-together, but after working with it for a little while (I'm mostly a GTK/PyGTK fan) I've found it has an annoying flaw that really prevents me from using it effectively: its memory-management system is restrictive, and it only works in C++.

      True, it only works in C++, but then again that's what the language was designed for, and using it in another language isn't how it was intended to be used. That said, its memory management is very nice... you don't have to delete stuff yourself! How is that bad? If you create a dialog box with lots of widgets, do you really want to have to delete each and every widget, or would you rather just be able to delete the dialog itself and have it automatically take care of deleting its children?

      Granted, in some limited situations it would be nice to be able to turn this off, but for the most part it's very nice.

    4. Re:Qt by fault0 · · Score: 1

      i've worked with a lot of C++ apis, and I think that it's the best way to implement that.

      lets see the alternatives:

      libsig++ - horribly importable (many compilers/linkers do not have the capaiblity to do this)

      mfc/wxwindows - using large MACRO EVENT TABLES. Not really that elegant. Also not as versitile (cannot disconnect/stop/pause signals).

      powerplant (for macos) - have to reimplment even trivial classes :/

      beos- bmessages is interesting, but may not be the easiest for the programmer (often have to write large event receiving functions).

    5. Re:Qt by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 2

      didn't you write powershell?

      Yep. Haven't updated it in a year and a half, though... I just can't deal with GTK+ anymore :)

    6. Re:Qt by paulbd · · Score: 2

      gtkmm, the C++ wrapper for GTK+, allows you to choose how your widgets are managed. you can opt for "deleted by parent", "parent does nothing" and others. sometimes i want a dialog to leave one or more of its children alone. you can't do that in Qt. furthermore, gtkmm offers full STL compatibility, which Qt does not, and it also draws the line between a GUI toolkit (like GTK+) and a desktop/programming environment kit (like GNOME or KDE).

    7. Re:Qt by Guillaume+Laurent · · Score: 1

      > sometimes i want a dialog to leave one or more of its children alone. you can't do that in Qt.

      I think you can. Set 0 as the parent. But on the other hand why would you want to do that ? If it's because the widget creation is slow, then it's not a problem with Qt : closing a dialog doesn't destroy the widget (unless you specify so), it just unmaps them.

      > gtkmm offers full STL compatibility, which Qt does not

      Yes it does. Qt3's iterator are STL compatible.

  9. COOL! by Zo0ok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fully carbonized! That means (?) you can develop a program in a mixed Linux/OS X environment, and get Aqua look and feel in OS X. I think it is time to learn Qt ;)

  10. Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by pi_rules · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article kind of glazed over the technical details here... but is this a port of Qt that just wraps around the native MacOSX widgets or does it re-implement everything with an aqua-ish look and feel? Didn't Apple object to the Mozilla port which had an aqua-like but not true Aqua interface?

    1. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Given how touchy Apple is about people writing Aqua themes, I would imagine it uses native widgets.

    2. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by AxsDeny · · Score: 3, Informative

      yeah, if you read through it says that it uses the native Aqua interfaces as well as sets apps up to use the Aqua interface.

      --

      zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
      283 files eaten by a grue
    3. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by Webmonger · · Score: 2

      I read it through and didn't see that. I see that it's a native app, and that it has the Aqua look and feel. And that it's carbon-based.
      I don't see anything saying that it uses native widgets. I don't think this press release is meant for the Slashdot crowd.

    4. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by Pitchfork · · Score: 1

      From interviews with Trolltech and my understanding of the design principles of QT I am betting, that they reimplemented the widgets with the Aqua Look and Feel. The whole design of QT is about not using native widgets and they have some nice whitepapers about the reasons for this.
      They worked together with Apple in developing QT/Mac and I think they reimplemented the widgets and signed agreements not to ship these widgets for the other platforms.

      Just my $0.02.

    5. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by AxsDeny · · Score: 1

      pf,
      do you have any links for this info? i'd be interested in pursuing this information...

      --

      zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
      283 files eaten by a grue
    6. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by spitzak · · Score: 2
      They are not using native widgets. They are emulating the Aqua look-n-feel as a Qt theme.

      Anybody who thinks you can make a portable toolit using native widgets has not tried to write one.

      As I understand it, the Aqua look-n-feel could easily be ported to other platforms, but Apple is not allowing that. It is also possible it uses OSX calls to draw some parts of the look-n-feel, this sounds like a reasonable idea since it is not supposed to run on other platforms. However I expect these calls are on the level of "draw a rounded translucent shape this big here", ie much lower than any toolkit interface.

    7. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Apple objected because if the widgets weren't true aqua, they'd be crummy and bad for newbies, as well as work as a theme for other platforms.

    8. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by fault0 · · Score: 1

      apple and trolltech worked on it together (using the aqua look and feel).

    9. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by damiam · · Score: 1
      Anybody who thinks you can make a portable toolit using native widgets has not tried to write one.

      So what about wxWindows? It uses GTK on Linux and native widgets on Windows and Mac. It also has bindings for Python, Perl, and wxBasic, along with its native C++.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    10. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      Anybody who thinks you can make a portable toolit using native widgets has not tried to write one.


      Not true. You just don't get precise control over exactly how things are rendered. It's like writing HTML 1.0.


      Cryptnotic

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  11. Unix Toolkits for MacOS X by BoarderPhreak · · Score: 2
    I think this is great - it's always good to have the toolkits that we all know and love on MacOS X.


    While this is good for porting, unless it's ported as a true "localized toolkit" then it's not of much use. Take for example, GTK+ which works under MacOS X. Without an X server running to display everything on, it won't do much good.


    What would really be icing on the cake is a translator of sorts, or porting the toolkit directly to MacOS X so that the same functions, etc. would transparently call MacOS X/Quartz functions.


    Remember, Quartz/Aqua isn't X.

    1. Re:Unix Toolkits for MacOS X by tarks · · Score: 1

      I dunno if how they did it for MacOS but on the other platforms the used as much of the unerlaying system as possible, only reinventing things that aren't provided natively (At least they say so in the docs)

    2. Re:Unix Toolkits for MacOS X by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      Even some of the header files are remarkably analogous to what is found with the X Window System.


      You could say the same thing about Microsoft Windows.


      All generic heirarchical windowing systems are similar in implementation because they're similar in theory.



      Cryptnotic

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  12. Carbonized? by BoarderPhreak · · Score: 2
    If QT is C++ in origin, then why isn't it COCOAized?


    Remember, Carbon is for porting old OS 9 apps easily to OS X. It is based on C. Cocoa is the "real deal" for OS X, and is based on C++. It just seems more logical that they would port QT to Cocoa, not Carbon.

    1. Re:Carbonized? by mcfiddish · · Score: 3, Informative
      Cocoa is the "real deal" for OS X, and is based on C++.

      Actually Cocoa is based on Objective C, which is an object oriented language based on C, but is significantly different than C++. There's also Objective C++, but I don't know anything about it.

    2. Re:Carbonized? by erikdalen · · Score: 1

      objective c++ is objective c and c++ code mixed in the same source.

      /Erik

      --
      Erik Dalén
    3. Re:Carbonized? by BoarderPhreak · · Score: 2
      What?


      Cocoa and Carbon will run at the same speed, regardless. They both run under MacOS X. However Cocoa does not run under MacOS 9...

    4. Re:Carbonized? by statusbar · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately there IS no Objective C++ available anymore. Something about a patent violation, seriously. This severely limits my usage of Cocoa. This is why libQT for MacOSX is so good. Without it, everybody wanting to use C++ on MacOSX would have to thunk to C to call Objective C Cocoa libs, or use C++ with the crappy Carbon libs.

      --jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    5. Re:Carbonized? by antijava · · Score: 1

      Actually there is Objective-C++. It was reintroduced in the 10.1 update. Unfortunately, it seems to be pretty buggy.

    6. Re:Carbonized? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Tried OS X 10.1 yet? fast

    7. Re:Carbonized? by fault0 · · Score: 1

      Sigh, you'd be incorrect in saying that C++ is a "lot" slower than C. It is a "little" bit slower than C, but not by much.

      It also depends on a number of things.

      The implementation - a good C++ implementation can be much faster than a bad C implementation

      The code - fast C++ code can be much faster than slow or medium speed C code.

      And Qt is good C++ code :).

    8. Re:Carbonized? by erikdalen · · Score: 1

      there is objective c++ now. one problem is that gcc doesn't support it. But I suppose that would mostly be a problem for porting macosx objective c++ apps to GNUStep.

      /Erik

      --
      Erik Dalén
    9. Re:Carbonized? by alannon · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is completely untrue. Objective C++ was included in MacOS 10.1. I'm using it as we speak. It allows you to mix Objective-C and C++ code freely in a single source code file. It works just as it should. It takes much longer to compile, though. Something about pre-processed headers, I think.

    10. Re:Carbonized? by statusbar · · Score: 2

      heh! Well I guess I should upgrade to 10.1 then! I know it wasn't available for the entire last year. I think HP or someone like that had a patent on the 'thunking' technology used in Objective C++.

      I'm glad it is at least available now! Thanks!

      --jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
  13. I don't mind them charging ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... I just wish they didn't charge so _much_. Never having been a free software zealot, I don't mind paying for software that's truly useful, as this certainly is. But as a starving student, I just can't pay the kind of prices they're charging. I didn't see anything in their academic license section about prices available to individual students. The excellent student prices available on Metrowerks products are one of the main reasons I've stuck with CodeWarrior as my primary dev environment for so long, even though I haven't been wild about their more recent releases in a number of other ways.

    It would be great if TrollTech learned this lesson. Remember, today's poor CS students are tomorrow's pro developers ...

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:I don't mind them charging ... by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Further, TrollTech is activly hostile to the idea of shareware. A method that students and graduates often use to earn a little extra money. Having had a shareware program of my own keep me in computer parts for 8 years and wanting to port to mac/linux I looked into Troll and was agast at the prices they charge for "commercial" software and even more agast at the fact that they specifically call out "Shareware" as a totally unworkable software model, which they will never support.

      wxWindows is not quite as professional as QT and last time I tried the mac port it was severely trailing the windows/linux port (About a year ago). But at least there's hope for people that both don't want to be starving for the rest of their life or have to be MS itself to afford their commercial lisence fees.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    2. Re:I don't mind them charging ... by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      I agree with your comment on charging. I am trying to build some shareware products (49 dollars) and 1500 USD is not something I can swallow. And like yourself I use wxWindows. wxWindows is cool and works well.

      But I disagree with wxWindows not as professional. I have used many GUI toolkits and wxWindows seems really good. What I really love about wxWindows is their attention to printing and multiple languages. Something that is essential in any shareware.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:I don't mind them charging ... by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      Let's see: you could borrow $1950 at say 10% to buy the full Qt Enterprise license. That loan would cost you $200/year to maintain.

      By using Qt, your shareware will be better quality, so you'll get more sales. Surely at least $200 worth of sales per year?

      If your shareware isn't making far more than $200/year, then you should consider either releasing it as freeware (and living off the adoration from users), or if you really believe in it's commercial value, investing more to commercializing it (eg. advertise, contact publishers, distributors, etc., etc.)

      I produced shareware at first (find STrabble for example), and made a little money from it. When I did work on NetHack its licensing meant I had to switch to freeware. In the end I was very happy (especially after Trolltech had seen my code and given me a call).

      Releasing freeware or buying Qt are different ways to invest in your future, and Trolltech supports both of those ways as best we can.

      --
      Warwick

  14. Yes, but you're breaking the law by yerricde · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is great because it means a whole load of great apps can now be ported to run native on Macs.

    Technically yes, but legally no. Many common apps that use Qt are under the GNU GPL and may not be linked with non-free libraries nor compiled with non-free headers.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Yes, but you're breaking the law by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative
      That is absolutely not the case.


      You can write a GPL app and link it to non-free applications. What you cannot do is link to a GLPed library and release it with a non-free (well, non GPL) license. If the library is written under the LGPL you -can- link a non-GPL application to the LGPL library though.


      If your above stated take on the license was true it would be impossible to write a GPLed application for any OS which isn't GPLed from the ground up. You can write a GPL app for Win32 or Solaris, right? Last I checked their standard C library wasn't GPL.

    2. Re:Yes, but you're breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You need to do more research, man. You can link GPLed applications to non-free libraries, that ship with particular OS (e.g. to Cocoa.framework or Carbon.framework in MacOS X case, or to some dll in Win32). You can't link to arbitraty non-free library. Read the GPL license, ok?

    3. Re:Yes, but you're breaking the law by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      Read the fine license!!! The GPL says

      "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
      form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."

      There's a big difference between QT/OSX and the standard C library of a system in terms of GPL compatibility.

    4. Re:Yes, but you're breaking the law by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you're going to use other people's code ('basic system routines'), then you can follow the writer's rules. Don't like it? Then write your own code.

      "What do you earn your money with?"

      Not by using other people's code and selling it off.

  15. Trolltech should be called on to make QT liscense by andy_from_nc · · Score: 1

    Trolltech should be called on to make QT liscense open on a crossplatform basis. While KDE is not my bag, there are alot of great apps in it. So far the straddling the fence on liscensing on their part has done more for gnome then trolltech. I'd have to say it would be alot more compelling if they made these free. They could make money by selling services like everyone else in this field. The era of software product royalties is nearly over. Trolltech needs to innovate.

  16. Cocoa is for Objective-C by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Cocoa is the "real deal" for OS X, and is based on C++.

    No, Cocoa is based on Objective-C, the NeXTstep language. Objective-C is not C++, and C++ is not Objective-C. (Yes, the fact that the names of things in ObjC start with NS (NeXTstep) makes it confusing to read Mozilla C++ code, where things also start with NS (Netscape).)

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  17. Re:Let me get this straight... by AxsDeny · · Score: 1

    of course I read the story dumbass... check the name. I'm the one who had it posted.

    --

    zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
    283 files eaten by a grue
  18. Hmmm... by BoarderPhreak · · Score: 2

    Yeah, my bad... It is Objective C, not C++

  19. Paving the way for a Kylix port? by headkick · · Score: 1

    Borland has already hinted that other OS/platforms would be supported in the future.

    1. Re:Paving the way for a Kylix port? by fault0 · · Score: 1

      That's a interesting idea-- they could add the remaining features missing from Kylix, Do a relativly trivial porting of Kylix from Qt2 to Qt3, and then market Kylix for not only Linux, but also Windows and MacOSX as well. *

    2. Re:Paving the way for a Kylix port? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Sure, Kylix, but how about C++ Builder?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  20. wxWindows also works on OSX by ClarkEvans · · Score: 2, Informative

    The wxWindows folks also have a Macintosh port that I believe also uses CARBON. From what I understand they are doing a great job. For python people, wxPython is just fantastic.

    1. Re:wxWindows also works on OSX by bleedingedge · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to testing and comparing Qt/PyQT vs. WxWindows/WxPython.

      However, Qt/PyQT includes a visual form designer and complete GUI. WxPython has Boa, but it is incomplete and buggy (though impressive none the less).

      We'll see if either of them is really complete, though.

  21. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I may be a troll, but I am not making this stuff up !!!! Any problem you have with this is a problem with reality, son.

    Once again Rob, thanks for making your posters look like socially-stunted Lego fetishistic idiots! But then again, coming up with an anecdote portraying /.-er's as occasionally empathic and caring contrary to the "Nerd" stereotype would be trite.

    Damn glad I've slipped over to the troll side, and consequently, nothing I say can be taken at face value. If I was a legitimate poster who actually cared about /., an assinine soundbite liek that would cut deep!

  22. Just be careful by mughi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I looked into their licensing in general (for possible work use) I noticed that if any project was ever touched by any free version of Qt, it could never be later realeased commercially by purchasing a Qt license at a later date.

    This one limitation might be a severe one for those who care about complying with licenses. Read the whole thing carefully before proceding. And get your lawyer to check things for you.

    1. Re:Just be careful by mughi · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find their details off-hand (eating up my bandwidth getting Enigma), however their one page does mention:

      The limitations are that the product may only be used for educational purposes on school hardware, and on the schools premises.

      EEEEK! If that meshes with their previous licenses and FAQ's, extreme caution might be warranted. Their whole "once touched, forever tainted" doctrine makes things very dicey

      Just read their FAQs and such. It be an issue for some, but no problem for others. Just be informed so you can make informed decisions.

    2. Re:Just be careful by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Where is the business sense in that? I'd like to tinker around, get the cross platform product fully pimped out, and then pay for licensing just prior to roll-out. Such an approach would mitigate financial risk on my end, without effect on the Troll Tech revenue stream. Troll Tech, indeed.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  23. Time to move? by Cardbox · · Score: 1
    Is this the escape route from Microsoft domination that we've been waiting for?

    I've got a biggish Win32 program and wonder about moving it to Qt. How big an effort? Any performance hits / gotchas? Any features that we'll lose?

    Want to stop being dependent on MS before they collapse!

    1. Re:Time to move? by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've got a biggish Win32 program and wonder about moving it to Qt. How big an effort?

      Qt is quite a bit different from MFC, and I think porting would be more effort than simply rewriting it in Qt.

      Any performance hits / gotchas?

      Not really... don't pay any attention to the AC trolls who bitch and moan about moc (Qt's preprocessor)... it lets you do some really neat stuff that you simply can't do with normal callbacks. As for performance, I haven't noticed any speed hits using Qt as opposed to MFC.

      Any features that we'll lose?

      Nope. Anything that Qt doesn't support is EXTREMELY easy to add yourself... Qt is designed in such a way that subclassing a widget to add new features is a breeze, so you can make any widget do anything you want.

      Qt also provides tons of utility classes, which make it simple to do stuff like asynchronous socket/file i/o and so on. It rocks.

      Want to stop being dependent on MS before they collapse!

      Heheh. Good plan :)

    2. Re:Time to move? by Cardbox · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the insights: I'll have to look further into it!

      By the way, this is genuine Win32, not MFC. Our policy is to include nothing from unreliable third parties in our systems. If a user says "it doesn't work", we can't reasonably pass the buck..... we have to fix it all ourselves.

  24. Trolltech says.. (from the FAQ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Can I make software with the Qt Free Edition and release it under the GPL, BSD, or Artistic license?

    Yes. Since Qt Free Edition is provided under both QPL and GPL, all license conflicts are avoided.

    Is software based on the Qt Free Edition really free? Does it carry Trolltech license restrictions?

    Yes, it is really free. No, there are no special Trolltech license restrictions on free software produced using the Free Edition. In fact, the opposite is true: The Qt Free Edition licensing demands that the software must be free. The receivers must have the rights to obtain the source code, change it, and redistribute it.

    BUT!

    Qt non-commercial edition and the GNU GPL
    The GNU General Public License (GPL) is a popular free software license widely used in the Unix/Linux world. The GPL is published by the Free Software Foundation (see http://www.fsf.org ). One of the key features of the license is that it does not permit the distribution of software linked to non-system libraries that are distributed under different licensing terms. Although Qt non-commercial edition is available free of charge this prohibition nonetheless applies to it.

    If you wish to port one of the many GPL'd Qt-based Unix applications to another operating system using the Qt non-commercial edition, you need to get that application's copyright holders to add an exception to its license. Similarly, if you develop a new application with the Qt non-commercial edition and wish to license it under the GPL you may wish to add such an exception to your license. The Free Software Foundation has provided the following wording for such exceptions:

    As a special exception, gives permission to link this program with Qt non-commercial edition, and distribute the resulting executable, without including the source code for the Qt non-commercial edition in the source distribution.

    Note that such an exception is not required for code released under other free software licenses like the GNU LGPL and BSD-style licenses.

    AND!

    The Qt Non Commercial Edition for Microsoft Windows is a binary only distribution requiring Microsoft Visual Studio version 6.

  25. Pricing - ouch by TomatoMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know when you have to dig this deep into the site to find the pricing information, it's going to hurt when you get there.

    http://www.trolltech.com/purchase/qtpricing.html

    US$1550 for one professional license, US$1950 for one enterprise license?

    I believe all the people that say QT3 is the bees' knees, but yikes. Guess I won't be experiencing that coolness for myself.

    (Wistfully remembering the days when Think C was $99, and the early CodeWarriors were around $199)

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
    1. Re:Pricing - ouch by furiousgeorge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you checked out the prices of cars lately? Some of them can go up to even $30,000!!!! Ouch!!

      Not everything is for everybody. The thing is - Qt has developers that actually eat and pay the rent and need a paycheck. And guess what - they deserve it. Qt is KILLER. I work for a small company and we pay for 5 Qt licenses (thats pushing $10,000 a year) - and you know what........ worth every freaking penny. Working with MFC was painful at best, and gtk made me want to go out and kick cars in the parking lot. The increased quality that Qt brings, plus the development time savings is worth the price ten times over. It's a beautiful toolkit.

      It's always so sad whenever something is brought up on slashdot, all people do is bitch and whine because it's not free. Well, welcome to the real world. If you want everything to be free, then you lose the right to complain about the quality of what you get.

      JWZ got it right - and it proves itself every day:
      "linux is free if your time is worthless".

      For those of us who's time isn't worthless, finding the tradeoff point is important. And anybody who can improve that deserves their money.

      Now excuse me, i need to go start a linux system build of our project - it takes SIX @#$(*#&$ hours using GCC - gee, it's the 21st century, you think they'd discover precompiled headers. Once that build is running i'll go back to my MSDEV machine and get some real work done.

      (and debugging with DDD ---------- eeeeshhhhhhh..... god help us all........ yet another way MSDEV kicks serious ass).

      j

    2. Re:Pricing - ouch by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      There is free and then there is way too much in cost. And this product is definitely in the ballpark of being way tooo expensive. Seriously it is ONLY a GUI toolkit. I looked at their library of supported widgets and thought, too much for too little....

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:Pricing - ouch by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 2

      Seriously it is ONLY a GUI toolkit.

      No it's certainly not - it is a complete application toolkit. The GUI portion is just a part of it (granted, it's a rather large part). It also provides beautiful asynchronous socket support, database connectivity, better-than-STL STL-like functionality (linked lists, hashes, and so on), settings management (uses the registry on windows, dotfiles on Unix), internationalization, threading functionality, process control, an XML parser, really good file I/O routines, printer support, and more. And all of it works perfectly, on any platform that Qt supports. Name me ONE other toolkit that even comes close to this.

      I'm a professional developer and I use Qt, and like the previous poster said, it's worth every penny.

    4. Re:Pricing - ouch by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      >better-than-STL STL-like functionality (linked > lists, hashes, and so on)
      I haven't actually coded against Qt. My efforts at getting KDevelop installed have been... educational, but I hope to get there.
      My experience coding against VCL in C++ Builder has been that platform-specific widget sets can be an annoyance. It seems a good practice to bias tool choice towards the Standard Library. This buys hope of portability and decreases time spent trying to learn Yet Another String Implementation.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  26. Qt rocks by infiniti99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a complete shameless plug for my application, but it is also a great example of how good of a crossplatform library Qt is.

    Check out JabberCentral and you will see my client, "Psi", has both a Windows and Linux version. The programs are identical (all features are the same). By use of QSettings, application settings are stored in the registry on Windows and in a "dot" file on *nix. And the look&feel matches the OS.

    The best part? All it took was a simple recompile. One source tree sure makes life easy.

    -Justin

  27. Idiot gen-xer on NPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Always happy to throw fat on the fire. This was this morning's "Morning Edition" on NPR, I don't think they have the transcripts up yet. The Real Audio is here on this page.

  28. Hello? by BoarderPhreak · · Score: 2
    I'm talking about things like GTK+ which on MacOS X right now, requires an X server.


    Dumbass. How about YOU get a clue?

    1. Re:Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://www.sf.net/projects/gtk-quartz

      Won't do much until the unstable branch is building on Darwin.

  29. Re:Qt non-commercial license by baxissimo · · Score: 1

    What's your source? I've been in search of some confirmation that the Trolls will be releasing a 3.0 NonCommercial version for Windows for a while, with no luck.

  30. academic licenses by mj6798 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    but there is a non-commerical license called the "Qt Academic License,"

    Reminds me of "Hey, the first one is on me, buddy." Seriously, working in the commercial world, these academic licenses are really tiring: companies get students hooked on some piece of software in the hope that they will then enter the workforce and demand that their employers buy their overpriced commercial software, even when good open source alternatives are available. I hope more and more employers will refuse to fall into this trap: someone who has experience with a costly commercial package where a free alternative is available simply lacks the relevant experience for the job and needs to be retrained.

    Matlab is a huge offender in the engineering world (almost free for students, thousands of dollars in the real world). Qt doesn't seem much different.

    My message to universities (as well as open source developers): if you want a cross-platform C++ toolkit, use wxWindows or FLTK; they are good enough. And if you think it needs improvements, make those improvements student projects and contribute them.

    1. Re:academic licenses by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of "Hey, the first one is on me, buddy." Seriously, working in the commercial world, these academic licenses are really tiring: companies get students hooked on some piece of software in the hope that they will then enter the workforce and demand that their employers buy their overpriced commercial software, even when good open source alternatives are available.

      Then this is strangely appropriate for MacOSX. For comparison, examine Apple's attempts to get students hooked on Macs in school by offering them loans and discounts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. What about Java? by /^Neil/ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I heard from an apple rep that OS X has one of the fastest JVMs available and offers OS X Look and Feel. New machines also come with Java Web Start. Is Java on a new OS X machine fast enough to replace C or C++? If not, it must be getting pretty close.

    1. Re:What about Java? by Pengo · · Score: 2

      I ran the volano benchmark on my G4 466 and it ran 20% faster than the IBM JDK running on my Dual CPU PIII 800.

      I have found java on OSX to be outstanding. I am a java programmer and use it for dev all day, though we deploy to linux boxes.

  32. But they're using QuickDraw... by melatonin · · Score: 1
    For some reason, they're using QuickDraw to do the rendering, not Quartz 2D. As mentioned here, QuickDraw is fine if you want to be compatible with OS 9, but if you're targeting OS X, duh.

    Perhaps it makes the port of their Qt/Mac easier to maintain. But if you are really targeting OS X, use the OS X APIs...

    --
    Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
    1. Re:But they're using QuickDraw... by fault0 · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, QuickDraw DOES use Quartz internally in OSX.

      So it's all the same.
      When the most mac users move to OSX, and application developers quit targetting Classic MacOS, I bet they'll switch.

    2. Re:But they're using QuickDraw... by melatonin · · Score: 1
      If I'm not mistaken, QuickDraw DOES use Quartz internally in OSX.

      No, it's not the same :/

      QuickDraw ports are limited to the QuickDraw type manager and QuickDraw manipulations. It's possible to make one pixmap and use it as both a Quartz 2D port and a QD port (which is something Apple hasn't really documented), but they're using QuickDraw operations on their pixmaps (and on the window ports).

      That's why QuickDraw anti-aliasing looks like crap and CoreGraphics anti-aliasing doesn't. They're using different rendering algorithms. One's QuickDraw type (duh), the other is the funky new stuff.

      Qt isn't using the funky new stuff.

      --
      Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
  33. rubbish !! by Macka · · Score: 1


    I'm really starting to get hacked off by this argument. $1500 is NOT overpriced in a commercial software development setting. It's peanuts, pocket change, it's nothing!!

    I just finished doing a job where the development group were paying more than that for a consultant from Oracle to do development work on site, per DAY !!

    1. Re:rubbish !! by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      Hellooo? Who is it complaining about the $1500 fee? I think you'll find that it's not people in a commercial software development setting. It's hobbyists, academics, and small-time shareware authors. We want a license that makes sense for us. I can't afford to pay for a Qt licence, so I'm very grateful for the current free licensing schemes they've added, but they've got some problems.

      Namely, I would really appreciate it if I were at least allowed to work on my own apps under the non-commercial licencse, and then later -- if they turn out to be commercializable -- switch to the commercial license.

      But check out this language from Trolltech.com's FAQ:

      Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?
      No. The Free Edition license applies to the development phase - anything developed without Professional or Enterprise Edition licenses must be released as free/open source software


      Frankly, I'm dubious as to whether they can even make that restriction, legally. Does that apply to ALL the code I write as part of a Qt non-commercial application? What if some particular source_file.cpp I write has *nothing* to do with Qt? I.e. includes no Qt headers and uses no Qt classes. I try to keep my UI code separate from my app code, so that situation is not uncommon. What about source files in libraries I wrote before I even started using Qt? I didn't have a Professional License when I wrote it, so does using those files in my current Qt project suddenly make them ineligible for inclusion in a commercial Qt app for all time? Everyone has their own little set of utility libraries they reuse from project to project. You hardly ever start completely from scratch. Surely those would have to be exempt from the above. I think the terms above are way too ambiguous to be binding.

      I can certainly understand why they want this clause -- too many software companies go belly up before actually shipping product, so you have to get them to pay for the commercial license up front. But what about the lone coder working on something (again in an academic setting, or as a hobby) that turns out to be sellable. That guy shouldn't be prevented from buying a commercial Qt license and selling his code, just because he started out using the free version of Qt. That seems like bad strategy on Trolltech's part. If they can turn a free user into a paying user, they should be excited about that. Instead they've set up what amounts to a disincentive to use the library for users just tinkering around, but with vague commercial aspirations.

      I guess my point is that I don't have any plans to write commercial apps, but I *am* doing development. If something turns out to be worth commercializing, Trolltech is telling me that they won't just sell me a commercial license to release the program under, instead they want me to buy the license and then *rewrite* everything.

  34. So KDE and X are bit players ... by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

    ... where the toolkit can be "free" ... but on the "real" platforms (OS/X and NT) developping apps costs money. Blah lbah blah it's well designed etc. etc. So was NeXT and it's developper workstation and license was $uper expen$ive too ...

  35. rubbish !! by Macka · · Score: 1


    Do you actually know how much it costs to buy hardware, software and licenses in commercial organizations these days? It's outrageous! $1500 as a one off cost per development seat is nothing!

    you obviously don't work in commercial software development or you wouldn't have this opinion. and if you do, then go talk to your boss about costs and how much his budget is .. you'll get a shock.

  36. Re:Let me get this straight... by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    So you would rather there be no communication of any technical / hobby / fun nature until this entire global issue is resolved?

    While I think our lives do deserve a bit of a refocusing on what are genuine priorities, I don't think our avocations or vocations should be excluded from our life until such time is reached.

    That is what balancing life's activities is all about. Try it. A balanced life is usually more rewarding, and yes . . . .even fun. I plan to follow the news regularly, read & post to /. , write my representatives regarding propossed "anti-terror" legislation, follow my vocation intently, and log online at night and play a few games of Tribes2 to have fun. Has my life changes since 11Sep . . . yes. Will I exclude all other activities . . . no.

    robi

  37. Re:Let me get this straight... by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    hehehe whoever modded this had fun modding down CmdrTaco.

    I try to get a few posts above 3 every once and a while, but my smart ass side just has to quip in a few times a week with Score: 1 comments. Oh well. Karma isn't exchangable for US$, soI can spend it freely.

    robi

  38. Re:Trolltech should be called on to make QT liscen by Macka · · Score: 1


    Right on! Giving away the goodies for free and making money off the services isn't working for anyone. Those open source development companies that are making money are the ones who are using split licensing to split their product into bits that you pay for and bits you don't.

    theKompany is a good example of this. You get most of their basic products for free, but if you want the extra bells and whistles that you need to be really productive, then you pay for the extras. Kivo's templates are a good example of this.

  39. Re:Trolltech should be called on to make QT liscen by Keith+Russell · · Score: 2
    Um, no. Selling commercial licenses to commercial developers for commercial products is a pretty good way to keep a revenue stream flowing. How much money do you think the GTK team would make if they incorporated?

    I think it's fine for Trolltech to straddle the fence:
    • Free edition for Free software
    • Commercial edition for commercial software

    Simple, right? Wrong. Add operating systems to the equation. Now it's:
    • Commercial edition for commercial software on any OS
    • Free edition for Free software on Open Source OSs (and a few architecturally similar closed OSs)
    • Non-Commercial edition for "non-commercial" software, or Free software, if you get permission from the people who manage it, or Open Source software, if that particular flavor of license allows it, for two particular closed OSs that cover all but a sliver of the desktop OS market.


    Trolltech could make everyone's lives easier if they'd just forget about the operating system. Would I like to see Windows go Open Source? Sure. Would I like to see Apple open more of OS X than Darwin? Certainly. Is it going to happen? Not bloody likely. Are Trolltech's licensing terms going to change anything? Not bloody likely.

    I just feel like Trolltech is robbing Peter to pay Paul. They're trying very hard to encourage adoption of Open Source operating systems. Unfortunately, their choice of licensing terms actively discourages cross-platform Open Source applications.
    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  40. Native GTK+ Port to Quartz/Aqua/Whatever by fdobbie · · Score: 1

    I am attempting to head a project to port GTK+ to use Quartz and run natively on OS X, but I'm not getting terribly far (mainly because the unstable branch isn't building yet because libtool and Darwin's linker are a mess). Anyway, if you are interested or think you can help, please go to the project page and sign up for the mailing list.

  41. Qt/Mac may indirectly bring us Linux apps by infiniti99 · · Score: 2

    We might see that happening in the near future now that Qt is available for Mac.

    Qt has always worked between Windows/Unix, but big application companies (like say, Adobe) care more about Windows/Mac. AFAIK, Photoshop has two codebases, one for Windows and one for Mac. With Qt 3.0 they could reduce it to just one. Even though their original intention might be to just have Windows/Mac versions, this would place them "one compile away" from having a Linux version. They may or may not go the Linux route at first, but the option would be obviously there.

    Who knows, maybe this will actually happen.

    1. Re:Qt/Mac may indirectly bring us Linux apps by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      It might lead us to the promised land where the application is what matters, not the OS, and the lame incompatibilities introduced by some companies in an anti-competitive spirit will bite them where they deserve it.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  42. LIcensing by Muad · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Academic License and the Non-Commercial edition are two different things. academic -> for schools, universities, etc. free as in beer, NCE -> no-warranty, no-support license for developing windows apps. It is called "non-commercial" because it can only be legally used to produce non-commercial apps (Doh!). http://www.trolltech.com/developer/download/qt-win -noncomm.html I would expect the mac version to become NCE available sometime. However, I must note that it was not an immediate thing for windows, so it might take some time.

    --
    --- "I didn't think anyone would understand it" -Prof. Bob Muller
  43. Re:Qt [multiple language bindings] by LeninZhiv · · Score: 1

    Although the point should be made that although those who prefer C can still justify making an exception in order to have the cleaner API of QT, others cannot: GTK has bindings for an ever-increasing number of languages, QT is C++ only (for any practical purpose, there may be some hacks out there.)

    I for example am most familiar with guile-gtk; it would be much harder for me to justify switching my toolkit to QT, since everything else would radically be changed as well with the switch from scheme to C++. But C users don't face this dilemna.

    (Not my intent to contribute to a flamewar either, if there was a scheme, or better yet Common Lisp, binding to QT I'd have good reason to prefer it too, but multiple-language support is definately one of GTK's advantages.)

  44. More on the OS Loophole by yerricde · · Score: 2

    However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include ... the operating system"

    I have written more about this operating system loophole in the GNU GPL. Some software publishers might claim, and some courts would believe, that Qt qualifies as an "operating system" under which other applications can run. It certainly is a "platform."

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:More on the OS Loophole by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      Publishers might claim anything, and you can always find a court that will agree with pretty much any piece of junk you want to put out. But QT is not an operating system, any more than it's a CPU (an OS always includes a kernel, in every definition and example I've ever seen.) And GNU/Linux plus foo does not make foo a part of the operating system, any more than GNU/Linux plus a i386 makes the i386 part of the operating system.

      It's possible you could argue that QT was part of SuSE and some other Linux operating systems, but that still doesn't give you the right to distribute binaries linked against QT for Solaris, as that's clearly not part of the OS.

  45. Getting an exception for all modules your app uses by yerricde · · Score: 1

    There's nothing stopping an author from making a modification to the GPL (as documented on the TrollTech site) allowing for linking to non-GPL libraries.

    However, if your project contains any code written by other people, it may be difficult to get permission from them to link their code to Qt. For instance, if your program uses both GNU readline and Qt, or some other GPL library and Qt, tough luck.

    That is, unless you take advantage of the GPL's OS loophole.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  46. Re:Qt [multiple language bindings] by LeninZhiv · · Score: 1

    Sorry, poor choice of words on my part; my main point though was only that GTK currently has more languages supported even though I wish there WERE more projects like PyQT. And that this might be an additional reason why some people will keep using GTK instead of QT, which was the original discussion of the thread. But I am glad to hear that Python users are not in this group thanks to PyQT (and the same for whatever other languages do indeed have bindings, java for instance, but there are still more left over with bindings only in GTK--and hopefully not for ever.)

    (I was thinking of language bindings for QT the same way I look at, say, Cygwin on NT; "hack" isn't the right word, but in both cases through the developpers' wonderful efforts they are achieving something that the vendor is not really interested in supporting.)

    For an incomplete list of GTK's minority language support see the Language bindings for GNOME Matrix.