Slashdot Mirror


MiniGui, GPL'ed Qt/Embedded Alternative

joshmccormack writes "MiniGui, a GUI for embedded Linux devices that offers a GPL alternative to QT/Embedded and other embedded guis has become a 'stable, viable alternative,' according to a recent Linux Devices article. Lots of screenshots on their site, including PDA apps, a web browser and a virtual console."

105 comments

  1. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QT is no rocket science. BitKeeper neither. Just "make Larry McVoy STFU", is not a good reason to rewrite a free alternative. I know people who can do it in a month. It's good to see such stuff. Larry is a jackass and a troll.

    1. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people who can do it in just 2 weeks! Hah, now that's cool!

  2. Pdas by leperchen · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting delevopment in the linux-pda saga,
    will Pda's have linux preinstalled in a couple of years time? Probably not, but we can dream.

    1. Re:Pdas by rastakid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever heard about the Sharp Zaurus? The Zaurus series have Linux pre-installed. I own a SL-5500, and I'm really glad with it. I can do everything on it what I can do on PocketPC (including Word and Excell) + much and much more. Take a look at the Zaurus Software Index to see it for yourself.

      - rastakid

    2. Re:Pdas by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      will Pda's have linux preinstalled in a couple of years time? Probably not, but we can dream.

      wow, you must have lived in a cave for the past 3 years.

      I've had a linux PDA for 2 now... and yes when I opened the box it magically had linux on it...

      It's called a Sharp Zaurus 5500. and you can buy one for dirt ($199.00US) most anywhere now.. in fact a couple of guys at work got them from tiger direct lately...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Pdas by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      Please tell me where I can sell dirt for $200, I sense an easy way to make lots of money easily.

      *resists urge to turn this into a PROFIT!!! post*

    4. Re:Pdas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "easy way to make lots of money easily"

      D'oh, should've previewed :/. ...

      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 39 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment

      Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

    5. Re:Pdas by silversky · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I've got one. Pretty good toy. The lack of emulator for this device is somewhat annoying. One has to switch the environment in order to test and I can't seem to be able to get them the same.

    6. Re:Pdas by Spoing · · Score: 1
      It's called a Sharp Zaurus 5500. and you can buy one for dirt ($199.00US) most anywhere now.. in fact a couple of guys at work got them from tiger direct lately...

      Then they got a good deal...the cheapest price for any Zaurus (5500 or otherwise) is ~$250usd though the average price is over $300.

      AFAICT Tiger doesn't sell them anymore.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  3. What about wxWindows? by csirac · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:What about wxWindows? by csirac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oops, the wxWindows embedded link is:

      http://www.wxwindows.org/embedded.htm

    2. Re:What about wxWindows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, slashdot them too!

    3. Re:What about wxWindows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about it? Just another cross-platform
      toolkit that never quite looks and works
      like the underlying native windowing system.
      Hopefully one day soon this fad of cross-
      platform silliness will stop and people will
      realize that the only way to write good GUI
      apps is to write to the native GUI toolkit
      and/or windowing system.

    4. Re:What about wxWindows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does not have framebuffer support?
      it's just a layer on GUIs?
      it's not nearly as complete as qt/e?

    5. Re:What about wxWindows? by csirac · · Score: 1

      The whole point of wxWindows, as opposed to Qt is that it DOES look like the underlying OS... like when XP came out, wxApps took on the look of XP themes automagically, Qt apps still looked win95...

  4. Linking to the screenshots was cruel.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /.ed. Mirror anyone?

  5. Google Cache For Entire Artical by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Minigui a GUI for embedded Linux devices that offers a GPL alternative to QT/Embedded and other embedded guis has become a 'stable, viable alternative,' according to a recent Linux Devices article. Lots of screenshots on their site, including PDA apps, a web browser and a virtual console."

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Google Cache For Entire Artical by Karamchand · · Score: 1

      What a pity google caches doesn't cache images as well..!

  6. wow by spoonist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    www.minigui.org must be running on a uClinux-based web server! There are only four comments here and the site is already Slashdotted.

    Go here for the Google cached version.

  7. Slashdotted... by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 0

    Unfortunatly it seems that MiniGui was running on a MiniServer :o\

    Google cache here: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:kHpwvk7mvSgJ: www.minigui.org/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    --
    Beep beep.
  8. hmm, looks pretty by Dreadlord · · Score: 1

    I've managed to check the screenshots before the /. effect, and I can say that I'm impressed, this GUI looks pretty well, and I think it's easier to deal with than the current GUI in Linux based PDAs, I can't actually say more since I haven't tested it yet, but it looks promising nonetheless.

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
  9. Anyone remember Picogui? by Talez · · Score: 1

    It was featured a little while ago. It's a replacement for X, the window manager and the toolkit for today's lighter, more active PDA lifestyle.

    See here but it's currently down. Head on over to #picogui on irc.slashnet.org for more info until the site comes back up.

  10. GPL Alternative to Qt/Embeddded? by jryland · · Score: 3, Informative


    Is this to imply Qt/Embedded is not GPL?

    Shouldn't it say, "an alternative to Qt/Embedded that is also available under GPL terms" ?

    Qt/Embedded is dual licensed with the GPL being an avaiable way to license it. IMHO there is no need for an alternative that is an alternative just because it is GPL, Qt/Embedded is good enough.

    John

  11. Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What alternative? It has the same stupid license, I don't see where the "alternative" is.

  12. GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While QT/Embedded is also GPLed, it is avaiable under a more commercialy-friendly licence for a fee. So don't expect any PDAs with GUI based on MiniGUI. An LGPL licence would have been much more suitable for MiniGUI. Maybe even with an amendment to allow static linking - like the wxWindows license.

    1. Re:GPL by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So don't expect any PDAs with GUI based on MiniGUI. An LGPL licence would have been much more suitable for MiniGUI.

      are you a complete moron?

      Qt is NOT under the gpl. it's a modified gpl that will NOT allow me to make a commercial open source application without paying gobs of money to them.

      minigui allows me to make a completely open source commerical application. I can SELL it and make it open source... (OMG! what a CRAZY idea!)

      so YES it will be used. I can keep my device drivers closed and open source everything else thus making my linux based compu-toaster a hot selling product that sells for less because I dont have to pay lots of $$$ per toaster to Trolltech.

      and if some hacker makes his toaster into a mp3 player... who cares, he voided the warrenty.

      Only people that have no clue about embedded systems and making a real product would make comments like yours.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qt is NOT under the gpl. it's a modified gpl Qt is under the GPL. If you wish to pay gobs of money - you will get it under another license that has nothing to do with GPL (similar to some other dual-licensed libs, like GhostScript). I am all for GPLed applications, but for libraries that have many commercial and non-GPL OS alternatives - choosing GPL over, say LGPL is not a good choice. A few quotes from the GPL FAQ: "Sometimes, using the LGPL for a library might lead to wider use of that library, and thus to more improvement for it, wider support for free software, and so on. This could be good for free software if it happens to a large extent" ". There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."

    3. Re:GPL by chrisv · · Score: 2, Informative

      Qt is NOT under the gpl. it's a modified gpl that will NOT allow me to make a commercial open source application without paying gobs of money to them.

      QT is most definately under the GPL. (According to the Free Edition of QT/Embedded 2.3.7, it IS GPL'd, and the GPL doesn't prevent commercial software -- it requires that you provide the source to said software and distribute it to those requesting the software:

      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
      a) Accompany with it the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
      b) Accompany with it a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge of no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; ...
      -- quoted verbatim from the GPL.) It isn't under the LGPL, which allows for the linking of software that isn't under a GPL-compatible license with it (which includes commercial software). And, considering that a "commercial open-source application" can still be under an open-source type license in the first place (such as the GPL), there isn't a single thing preventing you from actually writing software for a device that uses QT/Embedded and Qtopia as it's GUI platform, provided all of it's software is released under a GPL-compatible license.

      It would also appear that MiniGUI is licensed under the GPL as well. The implications are the same as what you mentioned regarding QT, so I fail to see how MiniGUI is going to benefit you in any way more than QT/Embedded would. The parent poster is correct in this instance, in that the LGPL would have been more suitable for the software, but the licensing of the software is the prerogative of the author, and I'm rather indifferent to the whole thing anyway.

      Basically, regarding both QT/Embedded and MiniGUI, as long as you follow the license agreement (in this case, QT/Embedded Free Edition and MiniGUI are both GPL'd), you are free to do as you please with them, including write for-profit software -- with the caveat that the GPL isn't much of a license agreement for purely for-profit software in the first place.

      --

      Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)

    4. Re:GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Qt is NOT under the gpl. it's a modified gpl that will NOT allow me to make a commercial open source application without paying gobs of money to them.

      You're a moron. Download Qt/Embedded and do a freaking diff.
      $ tar -xjf qt-embedded-free-3.2.1.tar.bz2
      $ cd qt-embedded-free-3.2.1
      $ diff LICENSE.GPL /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-2
      1,8d0
      < The Qt GUI Toolkit is Copyright (C) 1994-2003 Trolltech AS.
      < You may use, distribute and copy the Qt GUI Toolkit under the terms of
      < GNU General Public License version 2, which is displayed below.
      316c308,309
      < Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA &#160;02111-1307, USA.
      ---
      > Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
      I had to remove some meaningless whitespace-change pieces of the diff so the lameness filter won't freak out.

      Nevermind the fact that the GPL itself is a copyrighted document, and text within the GPL makes it explicitly clear that companies cannot modify the text of the GPL (with certain very limited exceptions) without violating the FSF's copyright on it. In other words, bastardized GPL licences are illegal, and if you ever find one, 1) make sure you aren't a moron, and 2) report it to the FSF.
  13. Critical mass and absence thereof by demachina · · Score: 1

    I don't think its wise to keep creating one embedded GUI after another. There is already Qte, NanoX, NanoGTK, DirectFB, and wxWindows that I can think of off the top of my head. I know people are going to reply to this about how great it is to have choices. But in this area as in desktops it would be wise to settle on one project, put everyone's effort behind, get good hardware support and a develop a full set of consistent apps, in other words do it well instead of having a dozen half baked efforts none of which achieve critical mass.

    It seems to be a trait of open source development that too many people want to be a lead developer doing their own thing rather than learn to work together on one project.

    --
    @de_machina
    1. Re:Critical mass and absence thereof by JanneM · · Score: 1

      And you suggest enforcing this how, exactly?

      It's always the same thing: "We all need to get behind _one_ XYZ, lest users get confused and developers split their work". But never a thought on how to decide which XYZ to get behind, and how to enforce the ban on rival XYZ:s.

      Some will refuse to use Qt, since they feel the license is not open enough, or not enough good language bindings exist. Others will balk at anything based on GTK, since they feel those people are mutant commie traitors for refusing to back Qt and KDE in the first place. And a bunsh of people will want to develop and use whatever is not the standard, simply because they like being different, going their own way, or simply because they think they can do a better job and have fun doing it. And so on and so forth no matter which toolkit or display system you would propose.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Critical mass and absence thereof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? Are you going to force people to work particular projects? As long as people program for free then they program what they will, not what you want.

    3. Re:Critical mass and absence thereof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because different 'desktops' didn't work for Palm, Windows and Treo?

    4. Re:Critical mass and absence thereof by alext · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he was assuming that the rationalisation effort would be rational?

      E.g. a set of requirements gathered based on usage scenarios then prioritized based on popularity and a solution meeting as many of those requirements as possible designed and implemented.

      Irrational developers can have their own project - I hear Mono could use more help ;-)

    5. Re:Critical mass and absence thereof by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things are totally different in the embedded world. Most embedded companies want to standout by doing their own thing. As far as hardware support goes, embedded devices generally have a fixed set of hardware and often the devleopers write their own drivers. Also, we are not talking about Joe Home user here, these are developers and *should* have enough knowledge to look at all the options and choose which one is best for *THEM*. Why would the embedded market want what toolkits they use dictated to them? On the desktop I agree, picking one or two toolkits (QT, GTK+) and sticking with them is the best option. This pretty much what desktop Linux is doing. Sure there are other choices out there, but the majority of apps are GTK+ or QT. There is no problem with having tons of choices in the embedded world. It will only make it stronger and the embedded developers that can differentiate their products most should get the best sales.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  14. The screenshots are slashdotted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So can some one answer the following question.

    Does it have a decent file dialog?

  15. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Karamchand · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Absolutely right! Hang him high!

  16. not under GPL for commercial developers by ChipMonk · · Score: 1, Insightful
    From the QT/Embedded Licensing page:

    "Restrictions:

    --Software created with Qt Free Editions is governed by the terms of the GPL and QPL.

    --The Free Edition licenses do not allow the development or distribution of commercial software."

    The LGPL allows you to use libraries, as long as you supply the code for those libraries, but your own code can remain closed. There is no such option for the GPL/QPL versions of QT.

    1. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by listen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trolltech are mistaken in that statement. They have released QT/E under the GPL, which means an aggregate product can be commercial, as long as it is distributed under the GPL as well.

      IE, you can't make proprietary software without paying Trolltech. Commercial software is fine.

    2. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a nonsense... When they release something under GPL (QT and QT/E for Linux) it is under GPL, full stop. They are not adding any restriction, they just offer alternate licensing for cloed-source version, like any developper could do with his own GPL creations.

    3. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 1

      However, being part owned by SCO,

      Wrong.

    4. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >IE, you can't make proprietary software without paying Trolltech. Commercial software is fine.

      And you cant make proprietaty software to MiniGui because its only license is GPL.

    5. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true I'm afraid... shill-boy. I realise you KDE zealots don't like to hear it, but good old Darl is one of the guys who controls the code that your desktop is totally reliant upon.

    6. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read TrollTech's claims about what you can and cannot do with their Unix GPL version of Qt? Perhaps you should... you're in for a surprise.

    7. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A link please ? Yes you cannot make a proprietary program with it. What a surprise ! This is the case with any GPL code.
      Moreover I really do not care about what they can say. They released under GPL, I have just to follow the GPL terms.

    8. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, perhaps you should find out just how much of screw job TollTake is working on you losers.

      If you start out working privately on a program intending to release it as a proprietary program... you *must* (according to Trolltech) buy a Qt license for all your developers there and then. This is an additional restriction. The GPL only comes into it when you distribute it. You are not allowed to work on something "on the quiet"... you must pony up the hugely expensive fees to greedy TrollTech right away.

    9. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a complete moron. Of course you cannot do a proprietary software with Qt GPL, because it IS GPL !! It is the case with ANY GPL software. Now the offer a double licensing scheme, good for them. But it is another proprietary licence, and it is not a restriction on GPL... GPL gives you the right to make a commercial software, but not proprietary from the start. Trolltech does not put any aditive restriction.
      Do some homework : read carefully the GPL, learn what the double licensing is, and then you may open your big mouth.

    10. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't got a fucking clue, have you? Qt are holding the KDE desktop to ransom for anyone but GPL software. Try fucking reading, stupid. They control the desktop, and are owned by SCO. *And* they, as I've already described, add additional restrictions. Jesus, KDE freaks... you can't even face the truth.

    11. Re:not under GPL for commercial developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too funny. You should do some circus, as a clown. Better : as a donkey.

  17. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by JanneM · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There, there, don't cry now. /me gives whiny kid a lollipop.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  18. MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For spelling Article as Artical.

    And being so lame in posting a MOD PARENT DOWN comment on someone's google cache attempt posting below. :P

    Kids.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

      Do us a favor:

      Try meta-moderate(1), if not try CmdrTaco(1), if not abuse-contact(1). Should all fail, try laywer(1) and pipe output to lawsuit(1) instead of stdin.

  19. Stable, viable alternative by scherbis · · Score: 1

    It seems the author of the review is also the person who started the project. Saying that Embedded Linux called it a "stable, viable alternative" is misleading. It should read that the programmer thinks it is an alternative.

  20. slashdoted by floydman · · Score: 1

    Looks like they are running their website on a PDA

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  21. Screenshot mirror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think we /.ers can easily manage to get Google cache for some page when we want
    Really?

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
  23. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Um, nope, wasn't me that posted that. And yes, I'm aware that I fucked up the HTML for the link, but you can't go back and edit posts you know.

    I was posting a lame joke, and decided to (try and) be helpful and put in the google cache link as well for the lazy. Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    Beep beep.
  24. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess someone whipped their wand of Offtopic out :D

  25. MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...for responding to a MOD PARENT DOWN! post with a MOD PARENT DOWN! post, and acting like it's different from a MOD PARENT DOWN! post.

    ...oh and don't mod me down :P

  26. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sir Haxalot is a known troll and if any more of the posts pointing this fact out are censored by moderators, a swift and fast attack with Shitstorm will occur on this thread until you people get the point.

  27. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Sir Haxalot is a known troll

    So what? Why should the people care?

  28. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MUHAHAHA, Sir Haxalot lost loads of karma because of this, stupid karma whore >:)

  29. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MUHAHAHA, Sir Haxalot lost loads of karma because of this, stupid karma whore >:)
    I lost 5 points, big deal.

  30. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not flamebait, its an opinion. If you disagree reply, not hide!

    Yet another group of people who think "we can beat trolltech". Well youre wrong! Trolltech, along with KDE and Qtopia/Opie are an unbeatable.

    GTK, Motif, Athena ALL suck! They don't have a decent file dialog, nor LCD widgets, database intergration, SPEED!

    GTK is still trying to catch up with Qt version 2! Who had antialised fonts first? IT WAS QT! Who had a decent file dialog? QT! What powers the most popular linux desktop? QT! QT! QT! QT is the Industry standard! SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, Gentoo, Knoppix ALL use KDE as their default desktop. How many gnome ones can you mention? Debian (oops thats gnome 1.4), Redhat? Nope redhat isn't popular on the desktop, its designed for servers? Sun? Nope, its just a way to force slow java technology down our throats!

    Trolltech's licencing policies are right! You either give away youre source or you pay!

    Novell has now taken over Ximian inc and THEY WILL abuse the LGPL for their benifet! Want a Groupware compatible Evolution? Pay up! Want a version of OpenOffice that can work with the XDF (Ximian Document format?) Thats another $200! Want a decent file dialog? Then pay $300 for our propeitery fork of GTK! All legal because of the LGPL! Qt is GPL, and if you don't want to pay the nominal (in terms of programming costs) fee to trolltech. Once they break binary compatibillity with the main tree, VENDOR LOCK IN!

    GTK sucks, so does this! Get it around your heads that the point of opensource is that you got to give back, not leach!

    So While Novell and Sun fork and propeirterize their gnome desktops, KDE will be free and rule the day! KDE 3.2 will put the final nail in gnomes coffin.

    1. Re:Why? by csirac · · Score: 1
      How many gnome ones can you mention? Debian (oops thats gnome 1.4), Redhat? Nope redhat isn't popular on the desktop, its designed for servers? Sun? Nope, its just a way to force slow java technology down our throats!


      You should take up comedy :-)

      Seriously though, I have said this before, wxWindows certainly gives Qt a run for its money.

      - Paul
  31. WHAT IS WRONG WITH X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH X/XLIB AS A PROTOCOL/API ?
    WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER GUI API?
    X SCALES WELL TO EMBEDDED SYSTEMS!

    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. ........... THATS BECAUSE I AM YELLING YOU DUMB MOTHERFACKER!
    <random lower case to flumox lamness filter>
    sdf sd fsdfn kolmlkrgn rtkg gk egiewf ifewfiuwb efuiwebfew ufv wefwenf wfb weifniwefiwefb iwef bfiwebuwebuf wfbweiu oijn ijn ikbyfcre wea rexd red red 5ed oij pok pk ok 0jk yug resd4w s iuho ji uhytf ty o ij p k oi m pl kl poiuj uy ftr se 4ws e4 okm olkmn lkm lkm
    </random lower case to flumox lamness filter>

  32. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Soviet Russia Rush Prog Rock Cap'n Kangaroo Colt 45 Magnum 40

  33. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its not a big deal, why are you posting AC now?

  34. Code looks ugly by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1
    hdc = BeginPaint (hWnd);
    TextOut (hdc, 100, 100, "Hello world!");
    EndPaint (hWnd, hdc);

    Feh. If I wanted to write that kind of JanglyCaps'd verbiage I'd just use Windows. If you are making a pretty and tasteful GUI, why spoil it by making the code ugly?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Code looks ugly by zBoD · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is ugly in this?

      BoD

      --
      BoD
    2. Re:Code looks ugly by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Given your Slashdot username, it's likely you don't see any problem with such identifiers ;-).

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    3. Re:Code looks ugly by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to write that kind of JanglyCaps'd verbiage I'd just use Windows. If you are making a pretty and tasteful GUI, why spoil it by making the code ugly?

      You haven't looked at many open source projects, have you? There are a wide variety of notation styles to be seen, of which this is not even an extreme example. Too bad about the hungarian variables, but oh well. Such things are only superficial.

      When you join a project, you use whatever coding style the leaders have decreed and get on with it.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    4. Re:Code looks ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they decided variable names like "Counterthatincrementstheinternalrepaintlooptoredr awthechangedcanvasarea"
      wastes too much space on a device with a 3" screen...

    5. Re:Code looks ugly by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      That doesn't look like any kind of Qt code. It looks like Win32 code. Actually, it IS Win32 code.

    6. Re:Code looks ugly by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      I have no idea if that's what this GUI API looks like.. but looks vaguely like the "good ole" pre-MFC Windows GUI API? (vaguely as it's been a while since I used that API)... but if it is, perhaps it is to make it easier for Windows coders to use this new thingy? I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing to do, just that that would be one logical reasoning.

      And like someone else already pointed out; well, there are n+1 coding styles for Open Source projects, and trust me, there are much much worse examples out there. :-)

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  35. embedded devices need dedicated widget sets by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Preferrably ones which reduce interaction to just tapping, and possibly simple / small gestures.

    dragging should be kept to an absolute minimum, and there should be (almost) no need to double-click/tap.

    Unfortunately, with the demise of PenPoint, dedicated pen UIs have become almost non-existent AFAICT---this project sounds interesting. Anyone able to contrast it w/ Berkeley's Graphical User Interface Research Projects (GUIR) which touch upon pen-enabled UI? (i.e., SATIN, SILK &c.).

    This project is a case in point---why does an app on a pen-system need a window title bar? You're not going to be moving it, and surely you're not going to be forgetting what you've just launched, right?

    Menus at the top which drop-down are also bad on pen-devices---click w/ the pen, and they appear under your hand, you then need to move away, look, find where to click and move back---this is one of the things which I hate about Windows for Pen Computing.

    One UI which I think merits development is LCARS (Library Computer Access and Retrieval System), the ``Okudagrams'' from Star Trek: The Next Generation and later. While there are some programs out there modelled on this (including some commercial products licensed by Paramount), all-too-often it devolves to mere ``eye-candy'' (Berkeley Systems' StarDate anyone?).

    Here's hoping someone adds a suitable widget set to this project.

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:embedded devices need dedicated widget sets by PiGuy · · Score: 1

      More complaints about PDA GUIs:

      Scroll bars for these things are retarded. Especially when viewing web pages that require horizontal scrolling. It is no fun at all to have to use a pen to point at a teeny scroll bar at the bottom and drag it back and forth to read a couple of sentences, and then move the pen to a teeny scroll bar on the right to have to move to the next sentence. PDA web browsers/document viewers should take a hint from GhostView and allow a pen click & drag anywhere on the screen drag the page around. Targets should also be large enough such that you can use your index finger to accurately touch them.

      As to "GPLed QT alternatives", there's also Opie.

    2. Re:embedded devices need dedicated widget sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly's what's so fscking great about Okudagrams?

    3. Re:embedded devices need dedicated widget sets by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      I've found some LCARS programs written for Windows to be useful, 'cause the UI provides large, clear buttons, and for the most part, doesn't require dragging or multiple precise clicks to accomplish individual tasks.

      At one point in time there was an active effort to codify / describe the UI, but I think that's stalled. Need to re-visit that.

      Some possible advantages:

      - ``chording'' (where one presses multiple buttons to achieve an effect---probably requires direct digitizer support though, so not achievable in the near-term).

      - direct support for multiple virtual screens (assign an area in the UI for switching screens)

      - two-handed use (though this isn't an advantage for a pen slate which is being cradled in an arm) - use one hand to activate commands, the other for selections / choices.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  36. Palm ARM Version? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    I wish someone would come out with a Linux port that would run on the new Palm OS 5 devices. With the expanded RAM and ARM CPU, these things should handle Linux as well as the Sharp and iPaq devices.

  37. Who ported WindowsCE? by strredwolf · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Who ported WinCE? This GUI looks inside and out like Windows. Even the use of Hungarian notion is appalling.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:Who ported WindowsCE? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are trying to attract that market? I am not saying that is a good or bad thing, though I cannot stand Hungarian notation. But then again, anything that can take some market share from MS is a good thing(TM) to me : )

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  38. This is bullshit by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    QT and QT/E are BOTH under the REAL GPL. YOu can make a GPL app and sell it all you fscking want. They are just also under the QPL which means that, if you *WANT* to make a closed source app and sell it then you have to PAY TrollTech.

    Basically Open Sourc e== Free, Closed SOurce == Pay.

    This MiniGUI is *ONLY* GPL so you can't make a closed source app with it *AT ALL*.

    Now stop spouting your BS.

  39. embedded gooeys by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    i'm interested in mobile device development for the education market--think emate/mobile device or the current netbook pro. i agree with your assessment of what a specific mobile device does not need, so long as this mobile device is a palmtop with a pen interface. but, as mobile device proliferate perhaps what is required are categories of widget sets for the various tyoes of devices people use. the problem for getting content to be mobile is a much larger concern, and to solve this better standards for mobile java, xml, xhtml need to be adhered to and match the capabilities of the devices being used.

    i agree with your opinion of windows for tablet pc, but does anybody really expect that microsoft is going to create the next generation of gui's?

  40. Not the solution for all needs. by caseih · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've said this everytime an article on yet another embedded framebuffer attempt is posted. While embedded solutions like MiniGUI and QT/Embedded seem like great ideas, they both suffer from the same problems. First off, all though I love the GPL and wish that everything were GPL'd, in the case of the windowing system/widget set, the GPL is not appropriate. LGPL is more appropriate. Because the widget set is part of the windowing envirnoment, you can't write code under any other license for the environment, because it's GPL'd. This right away will limit MiniGUI's viability, because for most embedded developes, it will not be an option. QT/Embedded, of course can be purchased to avoid this issue.

    Secondly, like all embedded framebuffer attempts, this one yet again reinvents the wheel, defining a windowing system, event-handling, input-handling and so forth. And of course only programs using that exact API can run on this environment. This is a significant restriction that I find rather suffocating when I am using OPIE on my Zaurus.

    For many devices, including handhelds, the best solution is still venerable X11. Keith Packard's KDrive server is completely self-contained (font support, XRender support) and weighs in at just 700 kb. Run a lightweight environment such as matchbox on top of that (wonderful window manager designed for handhelds) with a nice light widget set, and you have all the same features as this MiniGUI without the restrictions it imposes. See what the gpe people have done with this. It's impressive. In such an X11-based environment, MiniGUI could be viable because it wouldn't exclude any other toolkits or APIs from being used.

    The final problem I see with MiniGUI is that code appears more complicated and MS-ish than QT or GTK. Clearly the developers come from a win32 background, as MiniGUI code is full of win32-isms, which I find harder to program and less elegant than the Signal/Slot mechanisms of QT and GTK.

    Clearly, with or without X11 you need to change the widget look and behavior from that on a desktop. The idea of "windows" becomes less important as full-screen is the only desirable mode. Modifying the input mechanism is also important. Things that we take for granted on desktops such as right-clicking don't translate well to a handheld. QT/E and gpe solve this by having the user hold his stylus on the widget for a couple of seconds to emulate the right-mouse-button-click.

    There is no perfect system, and MiniGUI appears to be yet another attempt and I'm sure has a valid niche to fill. I wish them well.

  41. pointless by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    X11 worked fine on 20MHz 68k workstations with 4Mbytes of RAM. In the days of 400MHz PDAs with 64M+ of RAM, there really is no need to "replace" X11, in particular given their stamp-sized screens. And because X11 is neutral on policy, unlike other window systems, you can build a great handheld or embedded environment on top of it. In practice, of course, X11 is already more efficient in both memory and speed than either Qt/Embedded or the Windows GDI, so it is also hard to see why people think they can do better.

    Besides, there is another problem with GPL'ed toolkits: the competition lets commercial developers develop for free. GPL'ed toolkits and window systems are no good: any Linux-based PDA is only going to succeed widely if commercial developers can develop for it for free. That's a bargain free software has always been making (e.g., you can develop commercial software with gcc for Linux and not open source it). Toolkits need to have licenses like LGPL, X11, or BSD.

    So, please forget about all this "GPL'ed embedded toolkit" nonsense. Use X11 and one of several embedded toolkits for handheld development: wxWindows, FLTK, or GPE.

    The default XFree86 port to handhelds, of course, has a lot of useless overhead in it because it is just a recompilation of a desktop server. That can be reduced, but you don't need to invent a new, incompatible window system to do it. An embedded X11 server can probably be stripped down to 100-200k. That is where the effort of people looking to create "efficient" embedded servers should be directed.

    1. Re:pointless by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      has a lot of useless overhead in it because it is just a recompilation of a desktop server

      Perhaps if someone would release a similar slimmed-down version for desktops, then people would quit bitching about it. Seriously, for a single home-use desktop, how much of the extra stuff is absolutely necessary?

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    2. Re:pointless by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, for a single home-use desktop, how much of the extra stuff is absolutely necessary?

      Most of it. That "extra stuff" isn't functionality, it's all the infrastructure for making X11 run fast on modern desktop machines with large screens and lots of windows.

      Perhaps if someone would release a similar slimmed-down version for desktops, then people would quit bitching about it.

      The functionality is in X11 because people want it in their desktops. And why slim it down when X11 is already slimmer and faster than Windows or MacOS?

  42. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, good one :))

    Actually his karma dropped to good and he lost the Karma bonus.

  43. requirements, reason, and missing the point by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

    Wait a minute... You want open-source developers to sit though months of requirements and design meetings that go nowhere before writing any code, work on projects they don't like, which are led by people they don't like, for a platform they don't care about, all while neglecting their pet projects they think would be more fun? I hope they're getting paid for this, because it sounds a lot like work! Open-source isn't about making software that's useful for other people, that's just a side benefit. It's about doing something interesting. If you want people to work on projects that bore and frustrate them, you should be willing to pay for it.

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
    1. Re:requirements, reason, and missing the point by alext · · Score: 1

      Your little rant has at best a tenuous connection with what I wrote.

      I suggest that people will cooperate if it is in their interest to do so. If the idea of organizing the activities of a group repels you then you are probably best suited to a project small enough for you to accomplish on your own.

  44. screenshots! by breman · · Score: 2, Interesting
  45. Qt advantage by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    I have worked with a commercial version of Qt, and I can recommend buying a license to every professional. The thing is, their support is divine. I don't see any competition from any GPL alternative.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  46. Whats wrong with QT/E? by Jondo · · Score: 1

    Switch from a widely used IMHO excellent toolkit to one written in c?

    No thanks, I'll stick with my beloved QT :-)

  47. anybody actually try dl-ing the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, how many damn hoops do you have to jump through? I got tired of all the javascript popups and registration crap. Not *that* interested, TYVM.

  48. Slash - late - dot ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    The minigui thingy really isn't new .

    If you take a look at FRESHMEAT's minigui page you will see that it was dated way back in 2001.

    Hmmm ....

    Could it be that minigui is from China, and /. usually has no clue of what's going on in China ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !