Qt 6.9 Toolkit Beta 2 Now Available For Testing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • phoronix
    Administrator
    • Jan 2007
    • 67332

    Qt 6.9 Toolkit Beta 2 Now Available For Testing

    Phoronix: Qt 6.9 Toolkit Beta 2 Now Available For Testing

    The second of three planned betas for the Qt 6.9 cross-platform UI toolkit is now available for testing ahead of the planned stable release in March...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
  • ssokolow
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2013
    • 5098

    #2
    Qt 6.9 on Linux under Wayland now allows supporting the xdg-toplevel-icon-v1 protocol
    Looks like I now have a reason to either find or start building up a PyQt5/PyQt6 equivalent to AnyQt for the projects I'm keeping on PyQt 5 for compatibility with the machine I'm keeping on Windows 7.

    (I probably won't extend it back to whatever PyQt I need for my Windows XP machines though. Python 3.4 is the last XP-compatible version as I remember, and it was a bit annoying with where you had to use specially formatted comments because the support for type annotations was incomplete.)
    Last edited by ssokolow; 22 January 2025, 08:03 AM.

    Comment

    • fkoehler
      Phoronix Member
      • Feb 2019
      • 51

      #3
      Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
      (I probably won't extend it back to whatever PyQt I need for my Windows XP machines though. Python 3.4 is the last XP-compatible version as I remember, and it was a bit annoying with where you had to use specially formatted comments because the support for type annotations was incomplete.)
      You got me curious: what kind of legacy XP machines are you using, that you still update the codebase for on a regular basis? I mean, we do have XP and even old DOS machines that control validated old machinery for validated processes. But they are air gapped and the whole point is, that you can't update the codebase, because it's third party closed source or prohibitively expensive. If you are in control of the code base, why bother with obsolete and not network capable systems?

      Comment

      • ssokolow
        Senior Member
        • Nov 2013
        • 5098

        #4
        Originally posted by fkoehler View Post

        You got me curious: what kind of legacy XP machines are you using, that you still update the codebase for on a regular basis? I mean, we do have XP and even old DOS machines that control validated old machinery for validated processes. But they are air gapped and the whole point is, that you can't update the codebase, because it's third party closed source or prohibitively expensive. If you are in control of the code base, why bother with obsolete and not network capable systems?
        I'm a retrocomputing hobbyist. I've got machines running DOS (MS-DOS 6.22 currently, but I've got boxed copies of DR-DOS 6.0 and Novell DOS 7 waiting to be played with), Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, Windows 98SE, Windows XP, Windows 7, Mac OS 9 (multi-booting to 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5 via an IDE-to-SD-card adapter but I rarely use those OSes), Mac OS 10.6/10.13 dual-boot, and, once I've got practiced with the desoldering pump I'm about to order and possibly added some hot tweezers, I want to add something capable of running Macintosh System 7 to the mix.

        The "codebase" is utilities I write to make things more convenient, where, when they're applicable to both situations, I prefer to be able to use the same thing that I use on modern Linux on the hobby machines.

        (If they're only applicable to the retro side, then they're on my TODO list of practice projects for Open Watcom C/C++ and either CodeWarrior or Retro68k.)
        Last edited by ssokolow; 22 January 2025, 09:19 AM.

        Comment

        • Anon'ym'
          Phoronix Member
          • Jul 2021
          • 55

          #5
          It seams its time to stop fixing KDE 6 bugs and start writing KDE7 ones.

          Comment

          • anda_skoa
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2013
            • 1195

            #6
            Originally posted by Anon'ym' View Post
            It seams its time to stop fixing KDE 6 bugs and start writing KDE7 ones.
            I guess you meant to write Qt instead of KDE but in either case you are mistaking the period character between 6 and 9 as a decimal point.
            It is not.

            In a version number this is simply a separator between two independent numbers.
            Here is separates the so-called major and minor versions.
            Each can have any value, to the version after 6.9 will simply be 6.10

            Given that the major version 5 cycle of Qt got up to minor version 15 I would not expect any work on major version 7 any time soon

            Comment

            • remenic
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2007
              • 120

              #7
              Originally posted by Anon'ym' View Post
              It seams its time to stop fixing KDE 6 bugs and start writing KDE7 ones.
              Start writing bugs? As a goal of some sorts?

              Comment

              • Anon'ym'
                Phoronix Member
                • Jul 2021
                • 55

                #8
                It makes sense.
                But it feels like qt6 is already to old.
                I think it will be good idea to make .9 last version.
                I can ask but qt management must be thinking the same.

                Comment

                • Anon'ym'
                  Phoronix Member
                  • Jul 2021
                  • 55

                  #9
                  Originally posted by remenic View Post

                  Start writing bugs? As a goal of some sorts?
                  KDE Plasma goal...

                  Comment

                  • anda_skoa
                    Senior Member
                    • Nov 2013
                    • 1195

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Anon'ym' View Post
                    But it feels like qt6 is already to old.
                    Ah, maybe because 6.8 was an LTS release and thus had fewer new features.
                    6.9 has, among other things, a major overhaul of Web authentication capability.

                    Originally posted by Anon'ym' View Post
                    I think it will be good idea to make .9 last version.
                    I can ask but qt management must be thinking the same.
                    Please do but I doubt they would end a major serious without having any pressing reason to break API/ABI compatibility.
                    And even then they would almost certainly end on an LTS minor, not just right after.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X