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.'"
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You mean. for example, Debian GNU/Linux on ARM ?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
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.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Ok, I'll bite.
Top 10 Reasons GNOME isn't going anywhere:
10. Firefox and Thunderbird are GTK+
9. Konqueror and KHTML, without WebKit, is hobbled by severe rendering and JavaScript bugs
8. GIMP is GTK+
7. The OOo KDE integration, last I checked anyway, was nowhere near as good as the GNOME integration.
6. Pidgin is GTK+ and Kopete is still very immature compared to it.
5. Inkscape is a GTK+/GNOME app.
4. Audacity is GTK+
3. Most of the popular major distros have GNOME as the default desktop (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian, etc.)
2. GNOME is easier to use than KDE
and the number one reason GNOME isn't going anywhere:
1. Germans just love David Hasselhoff!
My blog
If you want Qt widely used you need to make it easy to get and install.
They (Qt Software) make it easy to use and install for their intended user-base. Namely: developers
As an end-user you have no business going there.
The applications you are trying to install should be installed using apt-get which will install the needed Qt libs. .deb for the requested app, apt-get ubuntu's libqt4-dev, download the source, go to the source directory where the .pro (project) file is located. run qmake-qt4 in that directory and then run a normal make.
If there's no
It's not that hard, even from sources. Sure, some problems might arise if the app is using features of a newer Qt version than the 1 bundled with your distro. Even that is easy to solve if you are a developer and if you're not, go complain to the author of the app...
Folks, I propose we take this good fellow as the perfect example of a non-biased and uncharged commentator.
Kudos to you on your stellar objectivity!
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
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.