Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt Design Studio 1.0 Released As New Design/Development Environment

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

  • Qt Design Studio 1.0 Released As New Design/Development Environment

    Phoronix: Qt Design Studio 1.0 Released As New Design/Development Environment

    The Qt Company has announced the availability today of Qt Design Studio 1.0, a new program for user-interface design and development that can handle complex and scalable UIs...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...o-1.0-Released

  • #2
    Too bad for the commercial restriction... If KDE made use of such powerful editor it could easily become the Best Linux DE® off all times, thus kicking off the Year Of The Linux Desktop™ .... maybe sometimes along the road...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cape View Post
      Too bad for the commercial restriction... If KDE made use of such powerful editor it could easily become the Best Linux DE® off all times, thus kicking off the Year Of The Linux Desktop™ .... maybe sometimes along the road...
      Yeah I agree the licensing is really quite the shame, KDE could reach new heights with this stuff. That said though, I think a further perfected KDE wouldn't quite be sufficient to kick off the linux desktop, there are just too many under the hood problems with the kernel and also of course, the atrocious pulseaudio.

      The year of the linux desktop can only come when using a terminal is never necessary anymore, that is a long way off.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cape View Post
        Too bad for the commercial restriction... If KDE made use of such powerful editor it could easily become the Best Linux DE® off all times, thus kicking off the Year Of The Linux Desktop™ .... maybe sometimes along the road...
        That's not the case. KDE needs to create interfaces programmatically, so its developers can't use this. Additionally, if you watch the video, you'll notice that it's missing any semblance of common user interface controls. That's right--it's really only intended for the embedded Qt market.

        On the other hand, we already have Qt Creator, which is an excellent IDE and has a decent desktop UI designer. It can't help developers working on KDE's infrastructure, but it certainly can help you develop KDE or Qt apps, if you wanted to.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bearoso View Post
          That's not the case. KDE needs to create interfaces programmatically, so its developers can't use this. Additionally, if you watch the video, you'll notice that it's missing any semblance of common user interface controls. That's right--it's really only intended for the embedded Qt market.

          On the other hand, we already have Qt Creator, which is an excellent IDE and has a decent desktop UI designer. It can't help developers working on KDE's infrastructure, but it certainly can help you develop KDE or Qt apps, if you wanted to.
          I'm thinking about rewriting the whole kde UIs (apps included) to use only QtQuick. Maybe adopting a common theme to ease development and have a uniform look. Anyway, QtDesigner should be free for personal use so hopefully I will be able to play with it a little 😀

          One more thing I don't understand is how it works with distributing software developed with it and wether you need to include proprietary stuffs to compile.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rabcor View Post
            too many under the hood problems with the kernel and also of course, the atrocious pulseaudio.

            The year of the linux desktop can only come when using a terminal is never necessary anymore, that is a long way off.
            What's wrong with pulse? I had 0 problems with it since 8/9 years... It actually solved many of the problems that we had before and I personally think we are on par with windors in this regard.
            Also "under the hood problems with the kernel"?

            ​​​​​nah, the problem with Linux is the shittonne of money that M$ and AAPFK have available for marketing and UX. They made the average PC user a pussy

            Comment


            • #7
              The KDE Free Qt Foundation grants that in a year this "Qt Tool" will be fully open source.
              Sadly, this "grant" was not working to tools like Qt-Llite.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cape View Post
                I'm thinking about rewriting the whole kde UIs (apps included) to use only QtQuick. Maybe adopting a common theme to ease development and have a uniform look.
                KDE already does this. https://techbase.kde.org/Kirigami

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cape View Post

                  What's wrong with pulse? I had 0 problems with it since 8/9 years... It actually solved many of the problems that we had before and I personally think we are on par with windors in this regard.
                  Also "under the hood problems with the kernel"?

                  ​​​​​nah, the problem with Linux is the shittonne of money that M$ and AAPFK have available for marketing and UX. They made the average PC user a pussy
                  Off the top of my head: High latency, excessive cpu usage/overhead, common issues with crackling/popping audio for a huge amount of users. And I guess if I want to be a bit nitpicky, pulse has no proper gui configuration utility and generally needs to be tweaked via config files. The only issue I can actually solve this way is latency, and I can also reduce but not eliminate the crackling/popping issues.

                  Just because you had no issues with it for a decade on your decade old PC doesn't mean nobody else has issues with it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Really don't understand the Qt licensing situation.

                    This type of thing makes me a little frustrated. So... it's free but somehow anything you build with it is magically tainted to be LGPL-incompatible? How so? I guess it doesn't matter, I'm absolutely not paying anybody $500/year for something I can't use for open source work without some kind of legal/FUD storm-cloud looming over my head (to be fair, I don't do GUI design much these days and probably wouldn't pay them even if the above concerns were addressed, so I have very little skin in the game).

                    It almost smells, to me, like they might be hoping to trick people into paying for license packages they don't need by deliberately obfuscating the licensing. I can understand wanting to pay the bills, but subtly FUDing your own licensing seems like a dangerous business-model. Hopefully I'm wrong -- I have only made a very cursory investigation so I certainly could be.

                    Another curious thing, I've read the article here, the press release, and the landing page for the product and I still am not really sure what the fucking thing actually does. I'm not going to download some trialware just to find out... wish they would just spell it out, seeing as how it's unlikely to remain a secret for long.
                    Last edited by gmturner; 10-26-2018, 01:27 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X