QT 3.2 Released

Re:Mac version by Ranger+Rick · 2003-07-23 03:14 · Score: 5, Informative

yes it is... it's on the FTP site (qt-mac-free-3.2.0.sit)

--

WWJD? JWRTFM!!!

Splash Screen by Per+Wigren · 2003-07-23 03:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

* QSplashScreen (add splash screens to applications)

I really hope that one will be able to disable this by a standard Qt-argument (--no-splash) or by a env-variable because I'm afraid this will be abused.. :P

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.

Re:Splash Screen by Arandir · 2003-07-23 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative

The QSplash class is trivial. So trivial I wrote my own in an hour that turned out to 95% identical to Qt's before I knew that they were going to have one. It simply puts a pixmap widget on the screen, starts a timer, and waits for either a timeout or a mouseclick.

QSplash is not going to check the command line arguments. This is an instance where it is the programmer's job to determine if the user wants a splash screen or not. But don't worry too much, every instance of a splash screen in a Qt application I have ever seen (Kdevelop, Quanta, etc) allows you to turn it off. Using QSplash instead of a homegrown splash isn't going to change this.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Splash Screen by cyb97 · 2003-07-23 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative

It's probably gonna make more developers create splash screens as it's timesaving... While it's a waste spending about an hour programming a splash-class if your program lacks in other divisions; spending 5-6 minutes implementing this new class is more appropriate...
If lack of time is the reason it's implemented in the first place, I guess implementing a --no-splash is probably not in the .plan for some future ;-)
But I can't really see how more choice can be worse...
Re:Splash Screen by Arandir · 2003-07-23 10:00 · Score: 3, Informative

I guess implementing a --no-splash is probably not in the .plan for some future

Well, it's also goes against the Way of Doing Things. Standard Qt command line options should not modify the behavior of the software. So the command line options you see are stuff like fonts, colormaps and the like. You don't see stuff like "--cancel-button-left" because that's not Qt's job, it's the developer's.

KDE is another story, because part of the purpose of KDE is to provide a unifrom look and feel for the desktop. I can easily imagine a KSplash class that checks for a --no-splash option.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:GTK by addaon · 2003-07-23 04:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Is it "free"?

It "is".

--

I've had this sig for three days.

I don't understand... by TheSHAD0W · 2003-07-23 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Isn't Quicktime 4 already out? And who's Trolltech? I thought Apple made Quicktime...

Re:I don't understand... by WTFmonkey · 2003-07-23 07:27 · Score: 2, Funny

You obviously need to go dowload Sense of Humor 4.0 and ISF (Irony, Sarcasm, and Facetiousness) 2.0.
Re:I don't understand... by cyb97 · 2003-07-23 08:40 · Score: 2, Funny

According to SoftwareUpdate iHumour4 and iISF2 isn't available yet...
Guess you'll have to order the iPerson package straight from applestore... it comes on 7 DVDs ;-)

Re:GTK by oxygene2k2 · 2003-07-23 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

together with KDE e.V. (non-profit org) who made a contract with trolltech to ensure that Qt stays GPL'd.

Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. by computerme · 2003-07-23 05:28 · Score: 5, Informative

I'll bite too.

Why is there a free GPL version on their site for the Mac and Linux? The windows version was ceased cause too many (not naming names here) people refused to follow the rules of license.

QT Rocks!*

*Except for those that think "time != money" and "it !not take money to make money."

Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. by FroMan · 2003-07-23 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

$1550? That's nothing. Chump change.

If you are going to write software for a living, $1550 isn't even two weeks of pay. I can say easily where I work that I have more than $1550 of development software on my machine.

If you are starting your own business and writing for profit applications $1550 is a minor business expense compared to your time.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

Re:hogwash. by Kidbro · 2003-07-23 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

when you have *free* alternatives ... utterly *free*, suddenly that $1500 is a whole lot of money.

But you don't.
Seriously, what alternatives to QT do you suggest? If you need something with a configurable look, looks sort of like native Windows apps on Windows, is supported on Linux, OS X, Windows and Solaris, and is fairly mature and stable.

--
May we live long and die out

Re:font rednering by IamTheRealMike · 2003-07-23 06:28 · Score: 3, Informative

FreeType is cross platform though ;)

FreeType however does not do the relevant layout you need for all international scripts. GTK uses Pango for this purpose, TrollTech rolled their own. FreeType is just involved with rendering the glyphs, there is quite a bit more involved to completely display unicode text.

Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. by Keith+Russell · 2003-07-23 07:02 · Score: 4, Informative

$1550? That's nothing. Chump change.

The problem is not that QT/Win is not free-as-in-beer. The problem is that QT/Win is not Free-as-in-speech.

Trolltech released a Non-Commercial edition of QT/Win 2.3. The license basically said you couldn't make one thin dime off anything built with the Non-Comm edition, and since it was incompatible with the GPL, you had to add an exception to your license. Nobody took that license seriously, and Commercial license sales dropped. Trolltech was forced to end the line after that one release. (IMHO, had they gone GPL in the first place, they wouldn't have had that problem. The GPL gets respect.)

Not that you could find that out from their FAQs. You have to go digging through the QT-Interest mailing list archives. All the FAQ has is flippant sayings like "When Windows is completely Open Source...". Bah. Like Microsoft really cares about Trolltech. Windows-based developers are the only ones getting screwed.

In the end, Trolltech decided that "Windows compatible" and "Free/Open Source" are mutually exclusive. (Pay no attention to the cross-platform Open Source projects behind the curtain.)

But I'm not bitter.

--
This sig intentionally left blank.

Why moc? by dalleboy · 2003-07-23 07:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

When are they dumping the Meta Object Compiler (moc) and switch over to Boost.Signals?

Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. by Keith+Russell · 2003-07-23 08:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Take all the .h files from X gpl'd qt and port the c++ over to windows. Tada! You have your gpl'd qt. If you don't want to do it, don't complain when you cannot use it gpl'd.

Agreed. If I had the time, I would. In fact, somebody beat me to it.

My issue is that it is completely unnecessary to tear down the X11 version and reconstruct it for Windows when the finished product already exists. It is called QT/Win 3.2, it comes straight from the source at Trolltech, and the only thing keeping it out of the hacking public's hands is Trolltech's insistence on tilting at Microsoft's windmills, developers be damned.

I guess it's the attitude that honks me off. This passive-aggressive "We don't serve your kind" subtext that permeates the text of Trolltech's web site. Is that good evangelism for Open Source? I don't think so. It's little more than preaching to the choir. If anything, it's making things worse. Look at how well "You're either with us, or against us." worked for Dubya.

--
This sig intentionally left blank.

Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. by __past__ · 2003-07-23 08:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, we'll see how Trolltech will react when the GPLed Windows version starts to get real. Qt/X11 probably would not be under the GPL were it not for someone starting a free clean-room reimplementation during the great QPL flamefest (IIRC it was called Project Harmony. It was abandoned when Trolltech released the GPL version, unlike Gnome, which has the same origin).

I for one don't think that a free Windows version would kill Trolltech. The people using Qt/Win right now are unlikely to use it, and most will probably simply still paying for the commercial license.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.

Re:They have to make SOME money! by Keith+Russell · 2003-07-23 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

We don't disagree all that much. The Trolls have earned every kroner they've made from Commercial QT/Win. More power to 'em.

But the presence of a GPL'd QT/Win doesn't change the fact that closed source development requires the purchase of a Commercial license. Their existing customers either continue to pay up, or they have to open their own apps, which is probably not feasable for the licensee. And, unlike that half-assed Non-Commercial license, the GPL has real weight behind it. Trolltech should have an easier time sniffing out GPL violators with the weight of the FSF and thousands of rabid Open Source advocates behind them. Who would get more attention, some random Norwegian lawyer, or Bruce Perens? :-)

In fact, I've often wondered about Trolltech's understanding of the GPL. That QT-Interest archive I mentioned earlier is rather revealing. Here's their solution to the lack of Free QT/Win: Do all of your development on a platform supported by Free QT, like Linux, Mac OS X, or any ol' proprietary Unix you happen to have lying around the office. Once you've got something ready to ship, prepare the makefiles for the Windows build, then find somebody who has a legally purchased Commercial license of QT/Win, but has not contributed to your code, to do the build for you. Is it just me, or is that a really hazy interpretation of the linking clause of the GPL? Just because your Commercial-license-owning benefactor didn't contribute to the code, it's OK for him to link to a non-Free 3rd party library on your behalf?

He's fun to name-drop, but where is Bruce when you need him? :-)

--
This sig intentionally left blank.

19 of 95 comments (clear)