Ubuntu Mobile Looks At Qt As GNOME Alternative

Derwent sends along a Computerworld piece which begins: "The Ubuntu Mobile operating system is undergoing its most radical change with a port to the ARM processor for Internet devices and netbooks, and may use Nokia's LGPL Qt development environment as an alternative to GNOME. During a presentation at this year's linux.conf.au conference, Canonical's David Mandala said Ubuntu Mobile has changed a lot over the past year... 'I worked on ARM devices for many years so a full Linux distribution on ARM is exciting,' Mandala said, adding one of the biggest challenges is reminding developers to write applications for 800 by 600 screen resolutions found in smaller devices. 'The standard [resolution] for GNOME [apps] is 800 by 600, but not all apps are. For this reason Ubuntu Mobile uses the GNOME Mobile (Hildon framework) instead of a full GNOME desktop, but since Nokia open sourced Qt under the LGPL it may consider this as an alternative.'"

Comments

Full 'nix for arm?

[serviscope_minor]

There's already a full 'nix for ARM complete with working packaging and so on, in the form of OpenBSD, just in case anyone has forgotten it. Also, the developers need to be reminded that screens are 640x480 on small devices, not 800x600. It would start if they got out of the habit of using excessively lavish button bars with enourmous, heavily padded buttons.

Anyway, it would be nice to see a proper "full" linux distribution. I'm not much of a fan of the special PDA ones since they're cut down. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of ubuntu either, but I appreciate that (say) Arch isn't to everyone's taste.

Re:Full 'nix for arm?

[Mprx]

Padding makes clicking on the buttons faster, as explained by Fitts's law. I don't want my usability compromised because some people are using impractically small screens.

Re:Full 'nix for arm?

[chromatic]

Keyboarding may be faster occasionally, but you'll be surprised how often mousing wins.

I use Vim all day, almost every day. Using a mouse and a word processor is very much not faster for me.

Re:Full 'nix for arm?

[Mprx]

Keyboard shortcuts are not amenable to muscle memory, as the muscle movement differs depending on the previous shortcut. Returning to the home position between each keypresses allows muscle memory, but I'd be very surprised if it were enough to compensate for the movement inefficiency. Consecutive strings of keyboard shortcuts can be memorized by muscle memory (as with typing whole words), but if you use a string of shortcuts frequently enough to memorize in this way it would be better consolidated to a single shortcut.

On the other hand, mouse gestures or pie menus require the exact same movement each time, so are highly amenable to muscle memory.

Re:Full 'nix for arm?

[Arker]

Keyboard shortcuts are not amenable to muscle memory, as the muscle movement differs depending on the previous shortcut. Returning to the home position between each keypresses allows muscle memory, but I'd be very surprised if it were enough to compensate for the movement inefficiency.

You're obviously not a touch typist. That's absurd. A practiced touch typist on a decent keyboard can select a paragraph for manipulation in about the time it takes you to get your hand from the keyboard to the mouse, let alone actually using the mouse to select the paragraph and THEN move the hand back into home position.

Re:Full 'nix for arm?

[gknoy]

My reflexive control-X control-S (when I'm /not/ in Emacs) would beg to differ. It's gotten so ingrained that I'll use those shortcuts in other things as well; similarly, shift-delete will delete a whole line in my Other Editor, which annoys the heck out of me, as i'm expecting to cut what I have highlighted. ;) So, I'm pretty sure muscle memory works quite well with keystrokes ... whereas when mousing, I am always looking at where it's going. Perhaps with a tablet it'd be easier.... but even then I had trouble and needed to look.

Why just netbooks?

[DeHackEd]

Sure the big blocky feel of pretty much every window manager out there sucks on my Eee, but this is one reason I stick with GTK+ 1.x. I don't have a 1280x1024 monitor just so I can see the same material I could see on an 800x600 10 years ago but with cleaner rounded edges.

And I have the bigger Eee. 1024x600 resolution, and some dialogs don't even fit on the screen.

Yah for the LGPL

[QuantumG]

For too many years the GPL has been killing adoption of Qt. That's a fact. Maybe it shouldn't have. Maybe people should be willing to be dictated to on what license they can use for their product because they dare to use the Qt framework. Maybe that's your opinion.

Of course, now that so many people are piling on-board to use Qt thanks to the license change, I wonder how many of them have actually bothered to read the LGPL. My favourite part is section 4.

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications,

Yeah, didn't see that did ya? Almost every boiler plate EULA includes a clause prohibiting reverse engineering and I wonder how many have not been updated to comply with the LGPL (thankfully a lot of us can just ignore these restrictions as the government in our part of the world recognizes reverse engineering as a right that cannot be contracted out of).

I'll be looking for violations.. just for shits and giggles.

Re:Yah for the LGPL

[QuantumG]

Note the words "reverse engineering". If you forbid reverse engineering, as typical EULAs do, for any purpose, then that is forbidding reverse engineering for debugging modifications to the library. So they at least need to modify their EULA to permit reverse engineering for this purpose. And it also means they can't put any anti-debugging tricks in the application, because it will interfere with that reverse engineering.

Re:Too big

[Arker]

I saw a MIPS based netbook for about US $150 a week or two ago. Trying to remember where.

It strikes me that the best way to improve usability of X apps might be to send these little babies off to as many developers as you can find - and then preferably putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to try and use their apps on them.

The gun to the head part, of course, is tongue in cheek - but wow! seldom is such a bad idea so tempting.

Re:Whiney complaints (send to /dev/null)

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to build from source you should be competent enough to figure out how to download it; it's really not hard. Otherwise, let your vendor do the packaging for you. Most Linux distributions make it so you don't have to care about building anything; and the BSDs make building easy anyhow.

Granted, if you are building from source, Qt's build method is mildly stupid compared to the (end-user) ease of autotools or CMake. But really, if you're just wanting to run programs, let your vendor take care of it all for you.

Re:Whiney complaints (send to /dev/null)

[tftp]

WTF? What is that all about to someone who just wants to run an application that uses Qt?

If you want only to run a Qt-based app then you do not need to do anything except to install the application. It should install the Qt runtime libraries for you.

Why the hell am I even looking at this when I just want to run an application?

A good question indeed :-)

If you want Qt widely used you need to make it easy to get and install.

If you are a developer then installation of Qt is the least of your worries. If you are an end user then, as I said, you should not install Qt at all.

AT LAST

[NekoXP]

Hoo-fucking-ray!

At last some common sense..

Qt outstrips GTK/GNOME just as a GUI toolkit and a bunch of middleware, even before you start thinking about stuff like KDE.

The only thing stopping it's use - at least in the strange mix of preinstalled Linux distributions on standard hardware - was that weird problem of having to have every one of your developers buy a license just to run their app - on a Dell for example - if their license was even slightly incompatible. That was a real turn-off if you were a hardware company wanting to take advantage of open source and build communities around open source software.

I'm glad that so soon after Nokia announced the LGPL relicensing, people are taking notice of what is quite obviously a far superior middleware solution than the GTK/GNOME nightmare, and considering developing solutions that work because of code quality and wealth of features, and not *just* because it's GPL.

Re:Whiney complaints (send to /dev/null)

[Draek]

I know my comment will be burried for saying this, but this kind of crap is what we all know is wrong with open source software. The front end delivery is done by geeks and bean counters who don't actually use the products as end users.

You may notice the fact that QT was originally developed by a commercial company, Trolltech. You may also notice the fact that since, until lately, they sold commercial licenses for the same software they licensed as GPL, practically all contributions to the 'main' branch of QT were done by Trolltech (and now Nokia) employees. Therefore, if anything, this proves the failings of cathedral-style development, of which closed-source is the biggest exponent.

Ohh and also, being a person unwilling to use pre-compiled packages to be able to use a library you do *not* plan to use as a developer puts you amongst the minority of a minority of a minority of users, therefore do not be surprised if Trolltech/Nokia doesn't care about you at all.

Nokia open sourced Qt under the LGPL

[John Hasler]

Qt was already Open Source, of course, under the GPL.

Qt is *NOT* Gnome alternative itself

[hubert.lepicki]

OK, Qt isn't even close to Gnome in terms of being a desktop environment. In fact, it isn't a desktop environment at all - so it can't be alternative to Gnome. It can be alternative to GTK, which is underlying library for Gnome. What I guess is the case - Ubuntu might look for KDE as an alternative to Gnome desktop, or create something new based on QT that'll fit more on small screens.