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."
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.
wxwindows
"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?
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.
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.
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
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
"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.
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.
Looks like they are running their website on a PDA
The lunatic is in my head
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.
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
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.
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.
You should take up comedy
Seriously though, I have said this before, wxWindows certainly gives Qt a run for its money.
- Paul
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:
-- 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)
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.
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";
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
screenshots here
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
Switch from a widely used IMHO excellent toolkit to one written in c?
:-)
No thanks, I'll stick with my beloved QT
The minigui thingy really isn't new .
....
/. usually has no clue of what's going on in China ?
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
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !