In some area's, Konqueror is a better file manager than Windows Explorer. For example, whenever I use explorer, I itch to have the menu that Konqueror pops up when moving around files. It's incredibly useful.
On the other hand, Windows Explorer beats the shit out of all X11 in terms of speed, esp. Nautilus, and Konqueror to less off a degree. And no, I'm not counting ROX because it's not in the same field as Explorer in terms of features.
> I wonder if it would not be more effective (or possible?) to port Kde as a litestep style shell replacement.
I think they'd have to port Qt to windows natively. This, fortunatly, wouldn't be hard for an experienced programmer who knows the Windows API AND xlib. Most of the platform specific code of Qt is pretty well split off from the rest of the code. They are in the QXXX_x11.cpp files. There are only about 20 of these files, and KDE doesn't even use/require all of them (like QSound).
Sure you can. Qt/X11 is gpl'd without any other restrictions other than what the GPL has. So you can port it to whatever you want, including distribute binaries of said Qt port.
Afaik, these guys are using Cygwin, which has a X11 server anyways, so not even that applies here.
Nice, I'd be great to run a few KDE apps on Windows. However, IMHO, many of the same Windows equivalents would be better to use, as they are native. I'd take IE over Konqueror, for example.
And what about KDE 2.2.2? Any plans to port that or are they just going to KDE 3?
Re:licensing Qt == dangerous
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
1). It's not in the FAQ in their souce code.
2). It's not enforced. I know of several apps that this case has happened with. For example, Quanta Plus->Quanta Gold, KDE Studio->KDE Studio Gold, Pixie->Pixie Plus.
So, I think that this is probably an honest mistake on their part for leaving it up in their general FAQ (it belongs in their academic licenseing FAQ).
Kai was not doing anything malicious. He wasn't try to compete with Infogames, trying to hurt their profits, or even trying to make a profit from himself.
Instead, he was trying to help his fellow German gamers with localization. Infogames should have overlooked the fact that his might have been copyright infringiment.
In the end, it is horrible for their PR, if nothing else.
Re:licensing Qt == dangerous
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
> They have really changed the way I surf the web. I middle-click on everything that looks interesting, and it loads in the background while I continue reading the page.
Opera users have been doing this for a few years now:)
> What if they go belly up or change the licensing?
Then Qt would automatically be released under the BSD License.
Re:Gtk+ on Win32 is NOT a one-man job
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
Uhm, does GTK-- run on Win32? Last time I checked it didn't.
Re:Qt if you need Win32
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
However, your point is rather moot because TrollTech quickly updates Qt whenever there are new Windows versions. For example, with win2k, they updated Qt before win2k was out to have the new fading animations, etc..
And awt was slower/had less features on some platforms than others. I distinctly remember awt on MacOS being much slower than on windows, and not even using the System8 Toolbox calls, but rather using very antiquated calls.
> Just as many people have the exact oposite opinion, QT is a piece of trash on MY system, while Gtk runs really snappy.
Both run pretty snappy here. People who say "GTK is faster than Qt" and "Qt is faster than GTK" are pretty much trolls. Both are about the same speed.
> Anjuta DevTools is easily as featureful as nice as KDevelop. http://anjuta.sourceforge.net/ Glade is a terrific GUI builder.
Anjunta's cvs version isn't as advanced as KDevelop's cvs version. Although Anjunta's cvs version seems to be less broken at this time than KDevelop's (I've tried both within the last month).
You might want to try Qt Designer as well. It's the Qt equivalent of Glade, but has a pretty nice code editor in version 3:).
Re:So Qt tries to become QT?
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
> Does it handle sound?
Yes it does.
> Yes, I'm getting into the domain of Allegro or SDL, but only to show that Qt isn't the be-all and end-all of application toolkits.
Allegro and SDL aren't application toolkits.
Re:QT forces non standard c++ use
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
std::wstring is missing in some C++ implementations, particulaily a few commercial UNIXes
Re:Some points from using Qt.
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
> Sockets, files, strings, even lists.
You can use those with Qt as well.
> Threads
You can't with most toolkits (with the nature of event queues).
> QFileDialog
What's so wrong with QFileDialog? It's a pretty good example of OO-design. It inherits a QDialog which inherits a QWidget which inherits a QObject. That's all very clear and easy to understand. What's so wrong with it?
I don't think so. I find wxWindows much more mfc-ish.
But I agree with the rest of your post, use Gtk+ if you like C and Qt if you like C++. gtk-- is a rather poor hack. hopefully inti will be much better:)
> Being locked in like that tends to negate the whole reason for going with Linux in the first place.
You're neglecting the fact that he's not just working with Linux/X11, but rather a variety of platforms.
> which is completely open source (LGPL)
RMS himself considers the LGPL to be less open sourceed than the GPL. In fact, he really discourages use. Qt is more pure open sourced in X11.
Re:wxWindows (slightly OT)
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
It depends on if you want to release it.
You can always use Qt non commercial on Windows for free without spending the megabucks.
I've used FLTK, but it's a bit too light for my tasts.
So, I think either wxWindows or Qt is your best bet.
Qt does docking windows. Both Qt and wxWindows have good toolbar classes.
Re:licensing Qt == dangerous
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
That's complete bullshit. Qt's commercial license has no clause like that. Only Qt's educational program has something like that, and no one is talking about that here.
> Qt has a very infectious license where if you at any time use a free version of Qt on your project, then you can never release your project commercially.
Huh, what FUD. Qt has nothing of the sort.
> And Trolltech dismisses shareware completely. They consider it to not be a viable approach, and so Qt can't be used for it.
No they don't. If you have a commercial license, you can sell as much properitary, close source shareware as you want. If you use free Qt, you can sell as much of open sourced shareware as you want.
Slashdot Mirror
In some area's, Konqueror is a better file manager than Windows Explorer. For example, whenever I use explorer, I itch to have the menu that Konqueror pops up when moving around files. It's incredibly useful.
On the other hand, Windows Explorer beats the shit out of all X11 in terms of speed, esp. Nautilus, and Konqueror to less off a degree. And no, I'm not counting ROX because it's not in the same field as Explorer in terms of features.
> I wonder if it would not be more effective (or possible?) to port Kde as a litestep style shell replacement.
I think they'd have to port Qt to windows natively. This, fortunatly, wouldn't be hard for an experienced programmer who knows the Windows API AND xlib. Most of the platform specific code of Qt is pretty well split off from the rest of the code. They are in the QXXX_x11.cpp files. There are only about 20 of these files, and KDE doesn't even use/require all of them (like QSound).
Sure you can. Qt/X11 is gpl'd without any other restrictions other than what the GPL has. So you can port it to whatever you want, including distribute binaries of said Qt port.
Afaik, these guys are using Cygwin, which has a X11 server anyways, so not even that applies here.
Nice, I'd be great to run a few KDE apps on Windows. However, IMHO, many of the same Windows equivalents would be better to use, as they are native. I'd take IE over Konqueror, for example.
And what about KDE 2.2.2? Any plans to port that or are they just going to KDE 3?
1). It's not in the FAQ in their souce code.
2). It's not enforced. I know of several apps that this case has happened with. For example, Quanta Plus->Quanta Gold, KDE Studio->KDE Studio Gold, Pixie->Pixie Plus.
So, I think that this is probably an honest mistake on their part for leaving it up in their general FAQ (it belongs in their academic licenseing FAQ).
free as in speech software
> But seeing as how Infogrames Germany doesn't make money off the US version
Uhm? Are you sure about that?
Kai was not doing anything malicious. He wasn't try to compete with Infogames, trying to hurt their profits, or even trying to make a profit from himself.
Instead, he was trying to help his fellow German gamers with localization. Infogames should have overlooked the fact that his might have been copyright infringiment.
In the end, it is horrible for their PR, if nothing else.
uhh, that was valid a few years ago, but not now.
> They have really changed the way I surf the web. I middle-click on everything that looks interesting, and it loads in the background while I continue reading the page.
:)
Opera users have been doing this for a few years now
> What if they go belly up or change the licensing?
Then Qt would automatically be released under the BSD License.
Uhm, does GTK-- run on Win32? Last time I checked it didn't.
However, your point is rather moot because TrollTech quickly updates Qt whenever there are new Windows versions. For example, with win2k, they updated Qt before win2k was out to have the new fading animations, etc..
No that's not true.
Heard of Qt non-commercial on windows?
And awt was slower/had less features on some platforms than others. I distinctly remember awt on MacOS being much slower than on windows, and not even using the System8 Toolbox calls, but rather using very antiquated calls.
> Name one.
:).
Uhm, gtk--?
> Just as many people have the exact oposite opinion, QT is a piece of trash on MY system, while Gtk runs really snappy.
Both run pretty snappy here. People who say "GTK is faster than Qt" and "Qt is faster than GTK" are pretty much trolls. Both are about the same speed.
> Anjuta DevTools is easily as featureful as nice as KDevelop. http://anjuta.sourceforge.net/ Glade is a terrific GUI builder.
Anjunta's cvs version isn't as advanced as KDevelop's cvs version. Although Anjunta's cvs version seems to be less broken at this time than KDevelop's (I've tried both within the last month).
You might want to try Qt Designer as well. It's the Qt equivalent of Glade, but has a pretty nice code editor in version 3
> Does it handle sound?
Yes it does.
> Yes, I'm getting into the domain of Allegro or SDL, but only to show that Qt isn't the be-all and end-all of application toolkits.
Allegro and SDL aren't application toolkits.
std::wstring is missing in some C++ implementations, particulaily a few commercial UNIXes
> Sockets, files, strings, even lists.
You can use those with Qt as well.
> Threads
You can't with most toolkits (with the nature of event queues).
> QFileDialog
What's so wrong with QFileDialog? It's a pretty good example of OO-design. It inherits a QDialog which inherits a QWidget which inherits a QObject. That's all very clear and easy to understand. What's so wrong with it?
> QT is nearing version 3
:0
:)
Qt3 was already released over a month ago
> Qt is mfcish
I don't think so. I find wxWindows much more mfc-ish.
But I agree with the rest of your post, use Gtk+ if you like C and Qt if you like C++. gtk-- is a rather poor hack. hopefully inti will be much better
no, I said that the diffence in speed between Swing and AWT can't be felt anymore.
> Being locked in like that tends to negate the whole reason for going with Linux in the first place.
You're neglecting the fact that he's not just working with Linux/X11, but rather a variety of platforms.
> which is completely open source (LGPL)
RMS himself considers the LGPL to be less open sourceed than the GPL. In fact, he really discourages use. Qt is more pure open sourced in X11.
It depends on if you want to release it.
You can always use Qt non commercial on Windows for free without spending the megabucks.
I've used FLTK, but it's a bit too light for my tasts.
So, I think either wxWindows or Qt is your best bet.
Qt does docking windows. Both Qt and wxWindows have good toolbar classes.
That's complete bullshit. Qt's commercial license has no clause like that. Only Qt's educational program has something like that, and no one is talking about that here.
Go away, troll.
> Qt has a very infectious license where if you at any time use a free version of Qt on your project, then you can never release your project commercially.
Huh, what FUD. Qt has nothing of the sort.
> And Trolltech dismisses shareware completely. They consider it to not be a viable approach, and so Qt can't be used for it.
No they don't. If you have a commercial license, you can sell as much properitary, close source shareware as you want. If you use free Qt, you can sell as much of open sourced shareware as you want.