nanogui: Thread: QT Port?

Hi guys,

    Is someone working on a QT port for microwindows/nanox? I've seen this
on the QT homepage:

>Qt/Embedded does not require the X Window System, which traditionally has
provided the low->evel GUI functionality on Linux systems. This means that a
>Qt/Embedded based system will have substantially lower memory requirements.
Qt/Embedded will >also provide functionality not found in the X Window
System,
>such as anti-aliased text rendering and alpha-blending of images. For
increased performance, >Qt/Embedded can utilize hardware graphics
acceleration and it is well
>suited for multimedia and web applications.

Simon

:     Is someone working on a QT port for microwindows/nanox? I've seen this
: on the QT homepage:

Not yet.  TrollTech has decided to build their own, non-free, non-open source
framebuffer
version of QT called Qt/Embedded.  It has a similar feature set to Microwindows,
but isn't, aparently.

Regards,

Greg



:
: >Qt/Embedded does not require the X Window System, which traditionally has
: provided the low->evel GUI functionality on Linux systems. This means that a
: >Qt/Embedded based system will have substantially lower memory requirements.
: Qt/Embedded will >also provide functionality not found in the X Window
: System,
: >such as anti-aliased text rendering and alpha-blending of images. For
: increased performance, >Qt/Embedded can utilize hardware graphics
: acceleration and it is well
: >suited for multimedia and web applications.
:
: Simon
:
:
:
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
: For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
:
:

> Not yet.  TrollTech has decided to build their own, non-free, non-open
source
> framebuffer
> version of QT called Qt/Embedded.  It has a similar feature set to
Microwindows,
> but isn't, aparently.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg

    How hard would it be to port QT to nanox? Has someone looked into it?

    Simon

>
> > Not yet.  TrollTech has decided to build their own, non-free, non-open
> source
> > framebuffer
> > version of QT called Qt/Embedded.  It has a similar feature set to
> Microwindows,
> > but isn't, aparently.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Greg
>
>     How hard would it be to port QT to nanox? Has someone looked into it?
>
>     Simon

Roberto Alsina and myself have been starting a bit of work on this, but
progess is slow (Roberto's 1st version got lost in HD crash..) If anyone
wants to help out any, feel free to get in contact...


Rob Taylor

Guys,
how about helping Greg with the GTK/GDK Port ?
Somehow, my self, I feel better with an open source stuff then with a product
owned by a Company.
Who guarantee, when some embedded product (using Qt) have success on the
market, then you have to pay extra for Qt?

I don't know how about others, but somehow gtk may be a better way to go.


regards
roman pollak




Rob Taylor wrote:

> >
> > > Not yet.  TrollTech has decided to build their own, non-free, non-open
> > source
> > > framebuffer
> > > version of QT called Qt/Embedded.  It has a similar feature set to
> > Microwindows,
> > > but isn't, aparently.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Greg
> >
> >     How hard would it be to port QT to nanox? Has someone looked into it?
> >
> >     Simon
>
> Roberto Alsina and myself have been starting a bit of work on this, but
> progess is slow (Roberto's 1st version got lost in HD crash..) If anyone
> wants to help out any, feel free to get in contact...
>
> Rob Taylor
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####

> 
> Guys,
> how about helping Greg with the GTK/GDK Port ?
> Somehow, my self, I feel better with an open source stuff 
> then with a product
> owned by a Company.
> Who guarantee, when some embedded product (using Qt) have 
> success on the
> market, then you have to pay extra for Qt?
> 

My thouhgts are:
QT is COMPLETELY open-source (the X11 version). Event if Troll wants to,
they CAN'T retain rights on it. QT will never be closed-sourced because they
simply can't under the license they choose (QPL). That's why redhat
introduced KDE in their distibution. (No closed-source product in RedHat)
Secondly, C++ is much better for GUI building than C. So, building GUI with
Qt is much easier than with GTK. GTK is object oriented but all the objects
concepts are made "artificially" with struct of pointers on methods while QT
is truly object oriented with C++ stuff. The compiler holds all the pointer
on methods stuff in the virtual table of objects.

Don't forget that KDE is the leading desktop on Linux. So, having Qt is a
non-negligeable gain.

-jec

On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Agarwal wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
>     Is someone working on a QT port for microwindows/nanox? I've seen this
> on the QT homepage:

Yes, I am. But it is a bit virtual at the time, because the moving
company basically destroyed my computer and I cant work in the office
ones yetr :-P

> 
> >Qt/Embedded does not require the X Window System, which traditionally has
> provided the low->evel GUI functionality on Linux systems. This means that a
> >Qt/Embedded based system will have substantially lower memory requirements.
> Qt/Embedded will >also provide functionality not found in the X Window
> System,
> >such as anti-aliased text rendering and alpha-blending of images. For
> increased performance, >Qt/Embedded can utilize hardware graphics
> acceleration and it is well
> >suited for multimedia and web applications.
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
> 

 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ####@####.####
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   Centro de Telematica
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'           Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Santa Fe - Argentina
                                KDE Developer (MFCH)
The stone age didn't end for a lack of stone" Firoz Rasul

On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Roman Pollak wrote:

> Guys,
> how about helping Greg with the GTK/GDK Port ?
> Somehow, my self, I feel better with an open source stuff then with a product
> owned by a Company.
> Who guarantee, when some embedded product (using Qt) have success on the
> market, then you have to pay extra for Qt?

I don´t want to have a licensing argument here, so I will just say my
stuff and not argue :-)

a) If you develop free software, Qt is free, and it will always be free
(read the QPL, and read the KDE-Free Qt foundation papers, all in
www.troll.no, I am the guy that signed the statutes at the bottom right,
last page ;-)

b) If you develop commercial software and you release the sources for
your software, it´s the same as a)

c) If you develop anything and not provide source, it will cost you. If
you have one guy doing the UI (and with Qt, you rarely need more), it
will cost you $1500. If using Qt saves you 3 man-weeks, Qt paid itself,
IMHO.

> 
> I don't know how about others, but somehow gtk may be a better way to go.


Then by all means, work on gtk.

> 
> 
> Rob Taylor wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > > Not yet.  TrollTech has decided to build their own, non-free, non-open
> > > source
> > > > framebuffer
> > > > version of QT called Qt/Embedded.  It has a similar feature set to
> > > Microwindows,
> > > > but isn't, aparently.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > >
> > >     How hard would it be to port QT to nanox? Has someone looked into it?
> > >
> > >     Simon
> >
> > Roberto Alsina and myself have been starting a bit of work on this, but
> > progess is slow (Roberto's 1st version got lost in HD crash..) If anyone
> > wants to help out any, feel free to get in contact...
> >
> > Rob Taylor
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 
> 

 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ####@####.####
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   Centro de Telematica
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'           Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Santa Fe - Argentina
                                KDE Developer (MFCH)
The stone age didn't end for a lack of stone" Firoz Rasul

Jean-Eric Cuendet wrote:
> 
> >
> > Guys,
> > how about helping Greg with the GTK/GDK Port ?
> > Somehow, my self, I feel better with an open source stuff
> > then with a product
> > owned by a Company.
> > Who guarantee, when some embedded product (using Qt) have
> > success on the
> > market, then you have to pay extra for Qt?
> >
> 
> My thouhgts are:
> QT is COMPLETELY open-source (the X11 version). Event if Troll wants to,
No it isn't , you are not allowed to backport it to Windows! what does
this mean for a Win32 like API ????

> they CAN'T retain rights on it. QT will never be closed-sourced because they
> simply can't under the license they choose (QPL). That's why redhat
> introduced KDE in their distibution. (No closed-source product in RedHat)
> Secondly, C++ is much better for GUI building than C. So, building GUI with
> Qt is much easier than with GTK. GTK is object oriented but all the objects
> concepts are made "artificially" with struct of pointers on methods while QT
OO concepts have nothing to do with the language, altough i must agree i
like
C++ more too , but the GTK ppl have some good resons why they use C and
not C++.

> is truly object oriented with C++ stuff. The compiler holds all the pointer
> on methods stuff in the virtual table of objects.
> 
> Don't forget that KDE is the leading desktop on Linux. So, having Qt is a
> non-negligeable gain.
Yes and even if it is true , your point is ? you already say it yourself
leading _desktop_ , what has this to do with embedded systems ? Look at
WinCE
looks creat eh that _desktop_ on a 180x100 pixel screen. 


And an other point QT uses a meta compiler, which most ppl very much
dislike.
(like losts of C++ programmer dislike the addition in C++Builder for
example)

If you want C++ why not look at GTK-- a very nice C++ version of GTK+.
And you get it under GPL, and it should runn with out to much problems
when
GTK+ runs on yer system.


- Erwin
 
> 
> -jec
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####

-- 
        Q - S O F T - E N G I N E E R I N G 
     Rodachtalweg 11, 81549 Muenchen, Germany

Erwin Rol (Software Engineer)     phone: +49-89-68050051
####@####.####  fax  : +49-89-68050052

> > > Guys,
> > > how about helping Greg with the GTK/GDK Port ?
> > > Somehow, my self, I feel better with an open source stuff
> > > then with a product
> > > owned by a Company.
> > > Who guarantee, when some embedded product (using Qt) have
> > > success on the
> > > market, then you have to pay extra for Qt?
> > >
> >
> > My thouhgts are:
> > QT is COMPLETELY open-source (the X11 version). Event if Troll wants to,
> No it isn't , you are not allowed to backport it to Windows! what does
> this mean for a Win32 like API ????

no. just their win32 backend cost's money. If you *Really*( wnat ed to write
your own, it's entirely up to you.

Bla.

Rob