QT 3.2 Released 95
GlennZ writes "Today, Trolltech has released version 3.2 of QT. This release includes a completely rewritten, faster font-rendering engine and a lot more.
Go download it today!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
QT 3.2 Released
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Your own mileage may vary.
Mac version (Score:2)
Re:Mac version (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mac version (Score:2)
font rednering (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:font rednering (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:font rednering (Score:4, Informative)
FreeType however does not do the relevant layout you need for all international scripts. GTK uses Pango for this purpose, TrollTech rolled their own. FreeType is just involved with rendering the glyphs, there is quite a bit more involved to completely display unicode text.
also Licencing is an issue (Score:1)
QT is available under multilpe licences..
Splash Screen (Score:4, Insightful)
I really hope that one will be able to disable this by a standard Qt-argument (--no-splash) or by a env-variable because I'm afraid this will be abused..
Re:Splash Screen (Score:4, Informative)
QSplash is not going to check the command line arguments. This is an instance where it is the programmer's job to determine if the user wants a splash screen or not. But don't worry too much, every instance of a splash screen in a Qt application I have ever seen (Kdevelop, Quanta, etc) allows you to turn it off. Using QSplash instead of a homegrown splash isn't going to change this.
Re:Splash Screen (Score:4, Informative)
If lack of time is the reason it's implemented in the first place, I guess implementing a --no-splash is probably not in the
But I can't really see how more choice can be worse...
Re:Splash Screen (Score:4, Informative)
Well, it's also goes against the Way of Doing Things. Standard Qt command line options should not modify the behavior of the software. So the command line options you see are stuff like fonts, colormaps and the like. You don't see stuff like "--cancel-button-left" because that's not Qt's job, it's the developer's.
KDE is another story, because part of the purpose of KDE is to provide a unifrom look and feel for the desktop. I can easily imagine a KSplash class that checks for a --no-splash option.
Re:GTK (Score:3, Funny)
It "is".
Re:GTK (Score:1)
Re:GTK (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GTK (Score:1)
Qt is better, IMHO, but the licence of GTK is better.
Re:GTK (Score:1)
How is that relavent to my post? The original poster said that GPL was better than GPL.
b) Qt already *is* "completely GPL"
I know, I didn't say otherwise.
c) Qt is also licensed under the QPL, which allows you to use other licenses than the GPL for your software
It isn't on the Macintosh or Windows, so for cross platform coding, it may as well be just GPL.
d) The GPL allows you to use some other licenses for your software, too
It doesn't allow
Re:GTK (Score:2)
Qt (for x11 and osx) is already completely GPL'd.
I don't understand... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Funny)
Guess you'll have to order the iPerson package straight from applestore... it comes on 7 DVDs ;-)
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
How is Visual Studio.Net an alternative for those wishing to develop for Linux, Mac OSX and Windows?
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
Why is there a free GPL version on their site for the Mac and Linux? The windows version was ceased cause too many (not naming names here) people refused to follow the rules of license.
QT Rocks!*
*Except for those that think "time != money" and "it !not take money to make money."
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
i prefer to think of it as like momentum and energy and the way they are related under relativity... momentum doesnt equal energy, and time doesnt equal money, but if your willing to wait you might get a better deal (might) and your patience has a relationship to betterness of the better deal.. but there are alot of implied beliefs and values between that and the adoption of clear cut chargeable interest = futurevalue - presentvalue
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are going to write software for a living, $1550 isn't even two weeks of pay. I can say easily where I work that I have more than $1550 of development software on my machine.
If you are starting your own business and writing for profit applications $1550 is a minor business expense compared to your time.
hogwash. (Score:1, Informative)
you say you have "more than $1550 of development software on my machine"
instead of buying qt, use a free toolket and buy yourself whole other build machine and a KVM switch and watch your productivity rise.
this whole "$1500 is nothing" argument is doublethink to the Nth degree.
Re:hogwash. (Score:5, Interesting)
But you don't.
Seriously, what alternatives to QT do you suggest? If you need something with a configurable look, looks sort of like native Windows apps on Windows, is supported on Linux, OS X, Windows and Solaris, and is fairly mature and stable.
Re:hogwash. (Score:1, Insightful)
http://gtk-wimp.sourceforge.net/screenshots/
speaking of solaris, you do realise that sun is full thrown themselves behind gtk+ right? solaris uses gnome (not default right now i think, but in the future it will be), Java 1.4.2 adapts its look and feel to gtk+, so does openoffice. so on solaris gtk+ is the clear choice.
i dont know much about osX, but i do know that people are working on
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
wxWindows [wxwindows.org] is better than Qt because it uses native widgets on all platforms, not emulated native widgets like Qt. It is mature and entirely free. There is also wxPython [wxpython.org], letting you use wxWindows in Python.
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
The difference is that on Windows a wxWindows application feels exactly like other native apps, because it _is_ a native app. A Qt app will look almost like a Windows app, but it will be noticable that it isn't using native widgets. This is probably also true on OS X.
W
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
Obviously you haven't used Qt in a while...
1. On OSX (and previously on classic MacOS), Qt uses the Apple Appearance Manager.. it feels exactly like Carbon or Cocoa-written apps...
2. On WinXP, Qt uses Visual Styles.. it feels exactly lik
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
Actually, Psi is my reference application. I use it daily under Windows 2000. It feels almost, but not quite, like a native application.
Drop down boxes are different, for example. Check boxes and radio buttons are different too. The visual appearance and selection behavior of push buttons is different.
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
This is not an advantage for wxWindows, as Qt has PyQt [riverbankcomputing.co.uk], letting you use Qt in Python.
Re:hogwash. (Score:1)
wxWindows is cool but it's not intended for the same market. wxWindows lacks many things (it has a very weak unicode support for example) that make it inappropriate for serious development.
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72165&cid=652
Re:hogwash. (Score:1)
I did change the icons, so they're not standard. I used it, but dammit they were ugly! But the controls are indistinguishable from Windows controls.
Re:hogwash. (Score:2)
Re:hogwash. (Score:1)
thats not what i said. (Score:1, Informative)
i never said: "becasue others are free they must be better." what i said was: "stop the idiot idea that $1500 doesnt matter." its a stupid suggestion. $1500 is a lot of money, especially when there *ARE* free alternatives that compete.
Re:thats not what i said. (Score:1)
You still don't seem to get it. $1500 for a product that increases your productivity that pays for itself is chump change.
The same arguments come up all the time in linux/windows TOC (I'm not taking sides here, just simpley another
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is not that QT/Win is not free-as-in-beer. The problem is that QT/Win is not Free-as-in-speech.
Trolltech released a Non-Commercial edition of QT/Win 2.3. The license basically said you couldn't make one thin dime off anything built with the Non-Comm edition, and since it was incompatible with the GPL, you had to add an exception to your license. Nobody took that license seriously, and Commercial license sales dropped. Trolltech was forced to end the line after that one release. (IMHO, had they gone GPL in the first place, they wouldn't have had that problem. The GPL gets respect.)
Not that you could find that out from their FAQs. You have to go digging through the QT-Interest mailing list archives. All the FAQ has is flippant sayings like "When Windows is completely Open Source...". Bah. Like Microsoft really cares about Trolltech. Windows-based developers are the only ones getting screwed.
In the end, Trolltech decided that "Windows compatible" and "Free/Open Source" are mutually exclusive. (Pay no attention to the cross-platform [mozilla.org] Open Source [openoffice.org] projects [apache.org] behind the curtain.)
But I'm not bitter.
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
Now, one thing that you do have the option to do is this:
Take all the
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. If I had the time, I would. In fact, somebody beat me to it. [sourceforge.net]
My issue is that it is completely unnecessary to tear down the X11 version and reconstruct it for Windows when the finished product already exists. It is called QT/Win 3.2, it comes straight from the source at Trolltech, and the only thing keeping it out of the h
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:3, Informative)
I for one don't think that a free Windows version would kill Trolltech. The people using Qt/Win right now are unlikely to use it, and most w
They have to make SOME money! (Score:1)
They know what they have to do to keep the money rolling in so that they can continue to release new versions of Qt. I can only assume you have your attitude because you don't trust them, you feel they are swindling you.
I
Re:They have to make SOME money! (Score:1)
It's naiive to assume that people always publicly release their software.
Re:They have to make SOME money! (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't disagree all that much. The Trolls have earned every kroner they've made from Commercial QT/Win. More power to 'em.
But the presence of a GPL'd QT/Win doesn't change the fact that closed source development requires the purchase of a Commercial license. Their existing customers either continue to pay up, or they have to open their own apps, which is probably not feasable for the licensee. And, unlike that half-assed Non-Commercial license, the GPL has real weight behind it. Trolltech should have an
Re:They have to make SOME money! (Score:2)
No, wrong. Most of the license sales are for internal cross-platform tools. At work we can use all of the GPL'ed libraries in the world so long as the binaries aren't ever released externally. If Qt for Windows was GPL'ed it would be perfectly legal for companies to use GPL'ed Qt for Windows in their in-house applications -- Trolltech's bread and butter.
Re:They have to make SOME money! (Score:1)
No, wrong. Most of the license sales are for internal cross-platform tools. At work we can use all of the GPL'ed libraries in the world so long as the binaries aren't ever released externally. If Qt for Windows was GPL'ed it would be perfectly legal for companies to use GPL'ed Qt for Windows in their in-house applications -- Trolltech's bread and butter.
This is not my understanding of it. I develop in-house Qt apps (win and unix), and hold a dual licence - ie both platforms. I'm pretty sure the Trolls
Huh? (Score:2)
Re:They have to make SOME money! (Score:2)
A writes library X and distributes it under the GPL
B takes A's library and creates program Y which requires the library X to do anything. Thus Y is a derived work of X and hence also under the GPL
C has licenses to library X which are commercial
B gives Y to C, but since Y is under the GPL even after C compiles it with X; you have a new product X+Y which cannot be legally distributed.
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:2)
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:2)
Hmm...looks like a month's pay to me. Try to avoid false generalizations.
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
I am not on the high end of pay scale and only a few years out of school, but I could easily pick up a copy.
If you are going be using it to make money, you are doing pretty poorly. Infact, you are making less than 19k a year. That would probably put you in line for some goverment aid.
So, either you are lying or you aren't very good at what you do.
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
Re:what about small shareware coders? (Score:1)
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
If you're using QT, you're doing multiplatform, or WTF are you using it for? If you want Windows, Linux and MacOS licenses you're in for $4660 + $1450/yr for support. That's NOT chump change.
If I could pay under a grand for commercial access to all versions, I'd buy it. $4660+ is just too much money.
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
And after that you'll have to pay $1450 (a bit less if you're many) per developer and year if you want any maintenance and support.
Ain't that cheap?
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:2)
TrollTech wants to make money. Go
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:1)
Re:$1550 just to use it? No thanks. (Score:2)
I think that this is quite possibly the first time I've ever seen you post something that I agree with, 100%.
And I never thought I'd see the day!
Why moc? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why moc? (Score:2)
Re:Why moc? (Score:2)
One thing I always check for when someone says they have a better solution, is how they handle "dangling callbacks." Boost doesn't. If you have a signal connected to a slot, and the object the slot is in gets destroyed, and then you emit the signal, WHAMMO!
I wrote a template-based signal/slot mechanism once, and taking care of dangling callbacks wasn't that terribly difficult. But the last time I used Boost.Signals, about six months ago,
Re:Why moc? (Score:1, Informative)
One thing I always check for when someone says they have a better solution, is how they handle "dangling callbacks." Boost doesn't. If you have a signal connected to a slot, and the object the slot is in gets destroyed, and then you emit the signal, WHAMMO!
If your signal-receiving objects derive from boost::signals::trackable, Boost does automatic connection management. Just like QObject, except it doesn't pull in a lot of extra stuff and works well with MI.
Re:Why moc? (Score:1)
Also, boost signals aren't exactly the same as Qt signals (e.g. in Qt you can connect an X(int) to a X(void) slot, and there are some automatic conversions as well). Changing to boost would impact existing Qt applications, and the Trolls are quite proud of their binary and source compatibility.
As pointed out by other posters, some of th
Syntax (Score:1)
// Boost.Signals usage:
class boost_signal_holder
{
public:
void send_signal(int i)
{
boost_signal(i);
}
void connect_slot(const boost_signal_type::slot_type& slot)
{
boost_signal.connect(slot);
}
typedef boost::signal<void (int)> boost_signal_type;
boost_signal_type boost_signal;
} boost_signal_holder_object;
class boost_slot_holder : public b
the guys that own Trolltech own SCO too (Score:1)
Trolltech is 64.7% employee-owned (Score:1)
For the full list of investors, see
http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html [trolltech.com]