Other than native controls and the potential DOM lag of a webkit interface, is there any particular reason why someone programming in Go, Python, Ruby, etc. would want to engage Qt; assuming a stable, working library?
Actually, Qt suffers from this as well compared to native Cocoa, because of both small issues with reimplemented controls (as of recently, anyway) and, more importantly, generally Windows-focused UI paradigms. But it's not as bad as HTML.
It is possible that Webkit will eventually become the UI container/framework of choice, however, and I'm sure at that point Qt will adapt. I'm still torn between them choosing QML (which is great!) vs HTML/CSS/JS purely for popularity reasons. I would wish for QML to win because it is a dream to work with.
http://www.propublica.org/article/meet-the-online-tracking-d...
Genuinely curious as all I use is an ad blocker and have no experience with noScript.
It has shortcomings, but to the point it's unusable?
Other than writing native for each platform, which I don't have time to do, I haven't seen any good alternatives to Qt. And I'm not going back to MFC.
There's actually a lot of closed-source software you know of that uses Qt in some form: Autodesk Maya, Google Earth, Skype, and Spotify are just a few.
I'm not sure whether all of these teams use the commercial version (some may use e.g. the LGPL version) but it's probably not zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software)#Software_using_Qt
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/licensing.html
http://qt-project.org/legal.htmlI understand I can't give it to my friends? That's would be a restriction that free software/open source doesn't have.
http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.p...
> The Foundation has a license agreement with Digia and Nokia. This agreement ensures that the Qt will continue to be available under both the LGPL 2.1 and the GPL 3. Should Digia discontinue the development of the Qt Free Edition under these licenses, then the Foundation has the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license or under other open source licenses. The agreement stays valid in case of a buy-out, a merger or bankruptcy.
> The unified web page will give a broad overview of the Qt technology, both enterprise and open-source, from a technical, business and messaging perspective.
So, the new web page will still have to be fragmented, because it has to serve open source and business visitors. Who speak a completely different language and look for different information.
Might be a good thing if it leads to a better website, might reflect good changes, but that alone sounds rather complicated. In my eyes it is not bad to have a fragmentation between sites targeting business users and those who do not, and it seems sound to have the one for business users in the reign of the company.
The new company seems to be the real news (at least it was new to me), that Qt will be managed by a company focussing solely on Qt.
So basically this is a nice move from Digia to consolidate its ownership and leadership of Qt.
I guess its similar to what Google does.
Or maybe it's a way to insulate Digia from losses resulting from QT operations, who knows?
I have to say I'm happy they'll review the installer though; ever since they started packing their own compiler, I got the feeling things became a bit more chaotic than they were.
I tried installing the Qt version of wireshark using exherbo (one of the most minimal Linux distros) and it wanted MySQL as a dependency! For me, if you cannot build a well focused tool with a GUI toolkit it's not worth using.
1 (sure different Unices have different options, but that is more historical)
How is Wireshark not well focused? It probably uses a mysql database for its activity history (note: I didn't look, its just a common design pattern). I mean, it seems like a program like Wireshark would be better suited by a simpler sqlite database, but its really up to the project lead on these things.
Hm. top and htop do mostly the same thing. So do more, less and most, as examples of multiple tools for the same job. awk behaves slightly different on MacOS X. Bash is stuck at version 3.x there, too, for examples of different tools on different platforms. Some Linux distributions come with dash as /bin/sh, whereas others still use bash there. Which version of gcc you get in a given distribution seems mostly down to luck, as examples of fragmentation even within one operating system.
I wouldn’t say that there is no fragmentation of command-line tools, but maybe the individual fragments are smaller (as opposed to the two to four larger “fragments” GTK, Qt, MacOS X and Windows).
If the distro is not taking care of splitting the packages in "dev" (headers and .a files), "client" (.so files), "server", etc. then it'll have such problems.
I doubt having few extra kb of client is such a big deal, especially if you decide to use Qt.
Also in debian (I think) the Qt sql part is also optional.
As I see it, leaving Qt entirely at the mercy of it's licensing revenue stream and not supplemented by Digia's consulting revenue stream means 1) Qt needs to sell more licenses going ahead or 2) Qt needs to charge more per license. The cost of doing business or paying developers will not be going down any time soon. It can only be flat or, more likely, up. And I don't see Qt license numbers making a radical change upward in the near future.
That being said, if a Qt 3-type spin-off were desired and had enough support, I do not see the current developers of Qt (both Digia and outside of Digia) as spending a lot of time on it, since most of the focus is specifically on the features you would want to avoid.
My suggestion would be that if you want a widgets-only version of Qt, you could gather a group to create an LGPL spin-off of Qt 4 or Qt 5 using the specific modules you want as a starting base. (I may be wrong, but I think Qt3 still has messy licensing from the Trolltech days).
If you don't need QtQuick or QtWebKit, you can actually drop quite a few of the packages.