Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 5.1 Finally Released With Lots Of Good Features

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    GTK is a steaming pile of s***. Not to discredit the hard work that the devs put into it, but after kindergarten you don't get an A for effort.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ShadowBane View Post
      The main 'technical merit' that I have seen in favor of GTK is that it is written in C and a bunch of Gnome devs are irrationally afraid of C++. Unfortunately this makes it more difficult to use and less feature rich than Qt. Honestly, I have never understood GTK.
      well gtk is a bit more memory aware, it support web integration[very cool feature], used to work better than Qt with software rendering, widgets are actually double buffered since while ago and i think their theme engine was very well thought[gtk2 times].

      i do consider gtk API insane too and sometimes C is just too low and make their code look really intimidating.

      but the fact is, they are good developers with experience in this area, so maybe is not a good idea to port actual code but use their experience to bring more ideas to Qt and make GTK dissapear for good[which that alone is a huge win in the not-reinvent-the-wheel-again department] which i assume will translate in many duplicated project to modularize or join efforts[openshot and kdenlive would be nice candidates or amarok and banshee or brasero and k3b, etc]

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Honton View Post
        KDE can not relicense Qt. KDE can relicense Qt Free Edition. This is very important to understand. Threatening Digia to keep doing Qt Free Edition releases by keeping the license is not very powerfull KDE can only threat Digia by releaseing a non-free but liberal licensed version of Qt Free edition.

        So if Digia goes non-free so kan KDE. How can this not be seen as holding to guns against freedom?
        You make no sense AT ALL.

        Did you even read my comment?

        There are not editions of Qt, it is all the same source code, just available under different licenses. LGPL/GPL (free), or if you pay money, you get a commercial license without the GPL/LGPL restricitons and get paid support.
        The Qt free agreement garuntees the free licensing option of Qt will always exist. If that option were to be removed tomorrow, KDE automatically get's to relicense Qt under any open source license they choose, (be it BSD, LGPL, ect.).

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Honton View Post
          Please dont use such language. Let us get clear about the facts.


          A)Digias contributor agreement gives the right to relicense free to non-free versions. Agree?

          B) KDE Free foundation has a conditional right to relicense free to non-free versions. Agree?
          please this is not a WoW forum, if you wanna troll at least freaking read the thing you wanna troll first and find a gray area worth trolling[Q we need you back], really just troll an public document that have been checked by every FSF lawyer/qt developer/Kde developer and actual good trolls before you has found no actual way to do this.

          beside the agreement actually state in bold free licences only[i mean is hard to miss, you dislexic?]

          btw the agreement is free to read men and is even in wikipedia and 100% public for everyone to read, maybe you could have more luck if it were secret but you not even failed at trolling or googlefu you even epic failed in reading.

          im not joking unban Q, between honton/boss and ubutroll, the trolling is hitting sad low

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
            please this is not a WoW forum, if you wanna troll at least freaking read the thing you wanna troll first and find a gray area worth trolling[Q we need you back], really just troll an public document that have been checked by every FSF lawyer/qt developer/Kde developer and actual good trolls before you has found no actual way to do this.

            beside the agreement actually state in bold free licences only[i mean is hard to miss, you dislexic?]

            btw the agreement is free to read men and is even in wikipedia and 100% public for everyone to read, maybe you could have more luck if it were secret but you not even failed at trolling or googlefu you even epic failed in reading.

            im not joking unban Q, between honton/boss and ubutroll, the trolling is hitting sad low
            I think Honton is the new funkSTAR.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by n3wu53r View Post
              You make no sense AT ALL.

              Did you even read my comment?

              There are not editions of Qt, it is all the same source code, just available under different licenses. LGPL/GPL (free), or if you pay money, you get a commercial license without the GPL/LGPL restricitons and get paid support.
              The Qt free agreement garuntees the free licensing option of Qt will always exist. If that option were to be removed tomorrow, KDE automatically get's to relicense Qt under any open source license they choose, (be it BSD, LGPL, ect.).
              dont bother he is like bo$$ that choose to not read the part of the post/evidence/links/etc that prove him wrong and make it look like an idiot to sadly trying to keep the troll active

              Comment


              • #22
                and either way if this guy is actually a master lawyer genius and saw an actual defect that thousand of eyes missed, who in this universe imagine aaron seijo the guy who have put in hold the vivaldi tablet project until he could find open source friendly hardware providers in the ARM sector that has never even made a closed source KDE application and actually put a lot of weight for trolltech to release Qt as GPL back in the day that actually runs the KDE foundation which is the holder and a non-profit organization, will freaking make Qt closed source again? LOL richard stallman will make the GNU stack propietary and sell it to Apple for sandwiches first

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by n3wu53r View Post
                  I think Honton is the new funkSTAR.
                  Yeah that's the vibe I get.

                  Not that it is likely to affect me, but how far is Qt from reaching stable, mainstream distro support? Or is it mostly Kwin work to do now?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                    Gtk has many technical merits and Qt has many nice cool features, what i mean if you merge the good in both into 1 badass toolkit would remove a lot of duplication that exist this day. i mean you can always find an application in gtk that do the same than an Qt one and it exist just because one is gtk and the other is Qt.

                    this would remove all the duplication and efforts wasted in make gtk apps look like Qt one or viceversa that if you ask me will help a freaking lot to keep experience among different desktop a lot more cleaner.
                    Eh, not entirely. The whole GTK/Qt divide isn't that big of a deal (well, aside from theming problems and GTK's silly Open dialogue). The bigger reason for effort duplication is integration with the desktop environment itself (so using libgnome/libkde*). That integration can be quite important to the application itself, too (like Kraft, which absolutely needs Akonadi and KDE PIM in order to function).

                    Originally posted by ShadowBane View Post
                    The main 'technical merit' that I have seen in favor of GTK is that it is written in C and a bunch of Gnome devs are irrationally afraid of C++. Unfortunately this makes it more difficult to use and less feature rich than Qt. Honestly, I have never understood GTK.
                    I wish there were Qt bindings for C. That way you could use Qt with code written in C easily. But alas that's not the case.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                      well gtk is a bit more memory aware, it support web integration[very cool feature], used to work better than Qt with software rendering, widgets are actually double buffered since while ago and i think their theme engine was very well thought[gtk2 times].
                      I have to wonder how GTK is more memory aware when Qt manages the memory of its objects and everything is implicitly shared (copy on write everywhere.) A web backend should be pretty easy to write for Qt5 (because of lighthouse) but isn't really important, so it hasn't been a priority. (There was a demo that rendered using ascii though.)

                      The theming in Qt could be easier, I will give it that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The Agreement was written before Qt was handed over to the community. There is only one qt-project.org, actually. So if they mention "Free Edition", it's due to historical reasons.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Honton View Post
                          This is not true. Digia differs very mich between Qt Free editon and Qt.
                          The difference between the GPL version of Qt and the licensed version is the lisence. There actually isn't another difference ( I guess level of support, but that isn't really a difference in the code. )

                          Diga does have a module or two that they wrote from scratch that they sell, but these components are licensed seperately form commercial Qt and there is nothing about this practice that is different than anything any other company could do.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Honton View Post
                            This is not true. Digia differs very mich between Qt Free editon and Qt.
                            So why do they never mention that difference on their website? Every single announcement they made only talks about "Qt". If you should stumble across it you for sure read an old announcement they inherited from nokia/trolltech.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                              I deliberately wrote that sentence about GIMP.

                              Thing is, despite all that trolling about how evil Qt supposedly is, it's the best toolkit under a free license. If Qt was so very evil, why is GTK so bad? One would think everybody would flock to it to make it better…
                              Xfce is the last mainstream Linux shell that's written using GTK.
                              GNOME Shell is written with Clutter. So is Cinnamon.
                              Plasma Workspaces never were written in GTK, Unity uses Nux and will switch to Qt, and now LXDE has been ported to Qt. (OK, maybe you can count MATE as major shell.)
                              And while I'm aware of GIMP’s roadmap, the GIMP team hasn't really been in a hurry to make the jump to GTK3.
                              Firstly, from what I gather, LXDE at this point has an optional, experimental Qt backend. They haven't said anywhere that they're andoning or stopping development of the GTK backend. It's a bit premature to say "LXDE has moved to Qt".

                              Most desktops probably will move away from GTK+2 and Qt4, and towards GTK+3, Clutter and Qt5 when Wayland arrives. Xfce, I believe, is planning on being ported to GTK+3, not sure about MATE but I think they want to do the same. Beside that, there's still plenty of other applications running on GTK+2 (Firefox, GIMP, etc.) and plenty of them running on GTK+3 as well.

                              As for GIMP, well, it's a bit unfair to say they're "not in a hurry" to do something - they have been busy implementing other stuff (all the major, MAJOR features that came with 2.8, and currently: doing some major plumbing work to port the entire software to GEGL in order to take advantage of GPU, among other things) and are very short on manpower and resources, so the development speed is as good as it can be... From what I remember, GIMP is still planning to port to GTK+3 for 3.0.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Honton View Post
                                I suggest you go read the announcement of Qt 5.1. People looking for Qt Free edition are sent of to another page. So yes the difference are right in front of you. Now it is up to you to accept this.
                                I suggest you go read the announcement of Qt 5.1 yourself.
                                http://qt.digia.com/Product/Whats-New/Qt-51/
                                http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/0...-5-1-released/
                                Search the page for "free" or "edition", you won't find both words. The second link offers you to download the "Qt Enterprise commercial version" or the "open source version". The first one contains support, the second one is what everyone else will use - it's a link to the download from the community-driven "qt-project.org".
                                The difference was discussed enough, I think.

                                But this discussion is useless. I only mentioned that the term "free edition" is outdated. YOU have to accept that. And now I will stop feeding you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X