Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Businesses Apple IT Technology

Trolltech Plans GPL Release For Qt/Mac 110

Posted by timothy from the not-just-kde dept.
michae1m writes "Trolltech today announced that Qt/Mac will be released under the GPL (GNU General Public License) at Apple's World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC) 2003 in San Francisco on June 23rd (http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/0 0000129.html). For some screenshots check out dot.kde.org/1055852609. This means many X11 Qt apps will be easily rebuilt for OS X without requiring X11, very cool."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trolltech Plans GPL Release For Qt/Mac More

Trolltech Plans GPL Release For Qt/Mac

Comments Filter:

  • Not only is it good for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:13PM (#6229169) Homepage
    It's good for the projects. Free software gets introduced to an entirely new clientle, the kind of end user that is exactly what the OSS movement needs, one that is uber picky about UI, is very loud about it, and will nag and complain until the UI is fixed.

    *That's* what's been missing from Open Source and it's arriving not a moment too soon.

    • Good point, except that the ui for the mac and for linux are likely to still be a bit different. Things like the "master" menu bar, and the dock are unique to mac, and so the version a mac user uses will likely still be different than the x version...

      That said, things can only get better...

      • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The dock is, but KDE can do the 'master' (desktop) menu bar thing. It doesn't have the strict layout that MacOS X provides/requires, but it is available.

        • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:4, Interesting)

          by gnuadam ( 612852 ) * on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @11:15PM (#6229739) Journal

          ...and in apple, there are designated places where one expects to find things like "Quit", and "Preferences", that are likely different on other platforms. I think apple did this on purpose, but it makes writing cross-platorm gui apps annoying because the mac version will always be a bit different. I mean you might get around it with compiler directives, or something like that, but it has to be considered.

          • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mccoma ( 64578 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @11:45PM (#6229971)
            Apple has some very good reasons and research for the differences. Tog's book on interfaces gives some excellent insights into the process and reasons for the way things are on a mac. A lot of money was spent on the interface and the research did go to improve the user experience.

            In a lot of ways, I wonder why frameworks don't deal with a meta-structure and then arrange menus to fit the platform. Admitially, a lot of resources are unique to a platform (icons of different sizes), but everyone has "preferences", customize the toolbar, copy / paste, find, program specific, application level (quit), and file level (open, close, etc.). Assign location at a "higher level" and let the framework do it jobs for the machine.

            • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:4, Informative)

              by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @07:09AM (#6231866) Homepage
              I usually work more on the administrative side but I do code in RealBasic, a cross platform competitor to VB (let them know you'd be interested in a Linux port, they're thinking about it). They do exactly that, having explicit quit, preferences, and regular menuitems which change locations depending on which MacOS is being run.
            • True... and what a pity that Apple threw away so many babies with the bathwater in OS X.

              Not that OS X is terrible, but the UI is NOT as good as OS 7 through 9... for no obvious reason. (I suspect internal rivalry between traditional Apple factions and NeXT factions).

              The OS X finder feels clunky, and very much as if was designed by someone working from a marketing features list, someone who didn't really grok the traditional Mac user experience.

              Candy-colored buttons on the window that give you clue, othe

              • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

                by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @11:44AM (#6234524) Homepage
                What was transplanted into what *is* a distinct fight within Apple right now but each distinct body part (BSD, Java, Mac UI, NeXT UI, Applescript, etc) seems to be melding into a new, cohesive whole.

                An example, on Mac OS X hints I saw how to create a software airport bridge that turns on at logon. The fellow was a unix hacker and got stock libraries, recompiled them and tweaked until he was happy. I look at that and say, hmmm, why not just run a login applescript to do the same thing (even if the app is not normally scriptable, UI scripting is out and you can script just about anything now).

                I suspect that a lot of the features that were marked missing in 10.0 are no longer missing at 10.2. I expect the list to grow shorter as time goes on and 10.3 etc are released. At the same time I expect that UI advances like the services menu will improve and provide an overall *better* experience than classic MACOS. So where are we? I agree that we're overall better but even the down side isn't as gloomy as you paint. Apple has to wow with new product as it backfills bringing over old classic OS features it couldn't get to in time for 10.0. This slows the process down but it's a temporary price for an astounding OS transition.

          • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @12:22AM (#6230266)
            I think apple did this on purpose

            Yes, they did, but the short answer is that Apple has been doing it longer than anybody else. Any time somebody creates a new windows-and-mouse interface, you have to ask yourself, "Why did they choose to be different from the Mac way here?" Often the answer is, "To be like Windows," but that just raises the question of why did Microsoft choose to be different from the Mac?

          • Re:Not only is it good for Apple (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @02:07AM (#6230823)
            Speaking of preferences, let us not forget NSUserDefaults. Mac programs that fail to use NSUserDefaults (or the analogous CoreFoundation interfaces) are instantly one strike down. So what's the point of using QT to write your user interface if it's (1) not going to look like Mac users expect, and (2) not going to work like Mac users expect? If it did one of those two things, I'd say maybe, but since it can't have either without dropping into Cocoa or CoreFoundation... why bother?
            • Do you have a Mac/QT license? Have you looked at it to determine what it can and can't provide? I'd give the Trolltech people a little credit and give their product a whirl before you knock it as hopelessly inadequate. And if you're right, they're likely to hear from mac programmers soon enough so they can correct their errors.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Apple didn't do it on purpose. Apple did it first. Everyone else based their operating system on the Mac OS with their own changes some of them to try to lock in users to their platform, some of them because they thought they were better.
    • *That's* what's been missing from Open Source and it's arriving not a moment too soon

      It hasn't been missing, it's just been something Mac users wanted. Yes in that sense Open Source is missing a lot, but that is part of its advantage. When it is missing something and people want it, it gets written.

      However I will admit that it is exciting to see how things pan out when a creative Mac user brings a native GIMP port to the Mac. The lack of a Mac interface (whatever that is really meant to mean) by design s
      • MacGIMP was in development before this announcement.

        The mac community is the art critic of the computer world. It's not that something is not written and so you supply the service. It doesn't work that way. The OSS community is about having an itch and then scratching it. The mac community is about scratching it *in the right way* so that it's done quickly, efficiently, and with the minimum possibility of infection. It doesn't change your feature set so much as change every implementation of the feature se

  • How ironic... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:33PM (#6229396)
    Who else finds it amusing that both the 1.0 version of Safari (Apple's port of Konquerer, to oversimplify a bit), and the GPLed Qt (a framework to let you run plain old Konquerer on OSX with aqua widgets), are both likely going to be released at the same conference by different companies?

    • Re:How ironic... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:34PM (#6229409)
      Wild guess here...

      Nobody.

    • at one point, recently, SCO owned trolltech. they wrote off the organization but did they write off the IP? Might want to think about that before using Qt

      see this article [forbes.com] in Forbes. They point out that SCO's parent comapny has twice before bought small compaines (e.g. SCO) then sued larger ones for the IP. For example they sued Microsoft and won. They sued another company that settled. Now they are suing IBM and will probably win even if no one in the linux world can beleive it. They owned troll t

    • It's more amusing when you consider the size of KWQ, Apples mini-clone of Qt they wrote to port Konqueror.

      Still, they clearly didn't want to license Qt itself for whatever reason, and they don't want to make Safari free software, again for no real apparant reason, so this release of Qt means little for Safari anyway.

  • The reql question is... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    how big of a footprint does QT have on a machine and how long will it take to compile...

    Sorry... I have flashbacks of compling QT and had to come back the next day. That thing takes forever to compile.

    On a positive note, any sort of cross-platform libs are most definitely a plus. Maybe this will be a sign to other projects of mac support(native gtk for my lil Mac:-) I really hate loading up X11... especially since my problem with linux was X.

  • Yeah Baby! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by muonzoo ( 106581 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @11:34PM (#6229871)
    This truly is wonderful news! There are a large number of client applications that use Qt for display rendering that really aren't fundamentally X11 applications.

    Several of these [gimp.org] applications [ethereal.com] are used daily by our engineering team.

    Having a native (or at least X11-free) version of these tools is a real bonus for us; but in particular, it's a bonus for the less sophisticated users that would benefit from using applications as though they were OS/X native applications.

    Think about CEO or tech support people who don't (won't) want to run X11 just in order to look at that packet trace or 'jiggle that SNMP MIB'.

    I, for one, look forward to this, and will happily help port a few key applications to the Darwin / OS X platform.

    This, and portage all in one week! Good News For All!

  • What's more exciting... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dadragon ( 177695 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @12:03AM (#6230129) Homepage
    Is that KDE's KOffice suite has been ported to Mac OS X using QT/Mac. That means we have a free, good looking, and relatively feature full office suite on the Macintosh, and KDE may get even more help with the suite from Mac developers.

    On a side note, I've been waiting for a good C++ development library for Mac OS X. Cocoa is nice, but I'm not so good with Obj C yet, and QT may be just the thing I'm looking for. It'll work on Windows and Linux as well, so that's an added bonus. I'd also like to see Cocoa bindings for C++

    • Re:What's more exciting... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @12:29AM (#6230310)
      Cocoa is nice, but I'm not so good with Obj C yet

      Trust me. I speak the truth. You can become a freaking EXPERT in Objective C in a few days or a few hours, depending on how good at C you are. If you know C--the language, not all the fiddly little calls that make up the standard library--then you can be up to speed with Objective C in a matter of hours.

      The best part is that you can forget practically everything about the C standard library when you're programming with Cocoa. You simply don't need it. The worst, the absolute mother-loving worst, is socket programming. Casting structs to other kinds of structs, converting from host order to network order... ugh.

      Here's the code to establish a socket-based server in Cocoa:

      NSSocketPort* socketPort = [[NSSocketPort alloc] initWithTCPPort:SOMETHING];

      NSFileHandle* listeningSocket = [[NSFileHandle alloc] initWithFileDescriptor:[socketPort socket]];

      [[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] addObserver:self selector:@selector(acceptConnection:) name:NSFileHandleConnectionAcceptedNotification object:nil];

      [listeningSocket acceptConnectionInBackgroundAndNotify];
      That's it. And here's the extra code to advertise that service with Rendezvous:

      NSNetService* service = [[NSNetService alloc] initWithDomain:@"" type:@"_SOMETHING._tcp." name:@"SOMETHING" port:portNumber];

      [service setDelegate:self];

      [service publish];
      Woo.
      • When I say I'm not so good with Obj C, I mean I'm not so good with Cocoa, and also not very good with Obj C's inheritence and object declarations. The methods are easy enough, and I've made one or two Cocoa wrappers around apps that I'd already written to update a blog using PostgreSQL on a remote server.

        I'm still learning the Cocoa standard library for Mac OS X.
      • For comparison, here is the equivalent code in C using glib/gnet (which could be compared to a lower level version of the networking parts of cocoa).

        GTcpSocket *sock;
        sock = gnet_tcp_socket_server_new_with_port(A_PORT);

        v oid incoming(GTcpSocket *server, GTcpSocket *client, gpointer userdata) {
        /* do something here */
        }

        gnet_tcp_socket_server_accept_async(sock, &incoming, NULL);

        Note that this will use SOCKS if available, and integrate with your main loop.

        Personally, I find the C version far more r

    • Re:What's more exciting... (Score:5, Informative)

      by am 2k ( 217885 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @01:50AM (#6230758) Homepage
      I'd also like to see Cocoa bindings for C++
      That's technically not possible, because C++ doesn't support delegates or even object messaging (like in "calling a method using its name as a string").

      If you really want C++, you can also go for Carbon. It's possible to use Carbon Events and nibs for a semi-current development approach which utilizes Mac OS X's full capabilities.

      • Re:What's more exciting... (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I believe you can use this thing called Objective-C++. From what I understand, you can make Objective-C calls and use C++ to design your program. It might be a little faster than Obj-C, I guess.
        • Yes, but you still can't go C++-only in your app, because view elements' actions (see other postings for an explanation) can only be sent to Objective C-objects. You model can be in C++ though (which might be a good idea for cross platform apps). Speed isn't really an issue here, for Real Speed(tm) use C (which fits seamlessly into Objective C).
      • If you really want C++, you can also go for Carbon. It's possible to use Carbon Events and nibs for a semi-current development approach which utilizes Mac OS X's full capabilities.
        That's exactly what FLTK [fltk.org] does, BTW, and it is already more free than Qt (LGPL) and runs on multiple platforms.
    • Of course, you do realize that any language that uses "slot:" and "signal:" directives isn't C++.

      The C++ standard is big. Really big. I'm sure that had Qt's engineers thought about the problem, they would have been able to use templates in new and interesting ways to get the same effect.

    • If you want to use a multiplatform library that works superb in windows and makes standard C++ (without moc extensions) shine that's is.

      Qt may be good, but is native only in Linux, and in windows wx is way better (you have the source, it's not dual-licensed like qt).

      And the socket based server is a childs play in wxWindows too (event driven sockets). See the sockets sample.

  • This unifies OSX with Linux/BSD/Solaris (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @01:13AM (#6230597) Homepage
    Trolltech is a high-potential company with a bright future. The QT toolkit is the best thing around for clean fast and portable progamming. Trolltech is right to push QT to permeate across the world to reap its profits; they deserve it.

    QT has given Linux alot. KDE became so big that GNOME had to be created as a free alternative before QT/X11 became GPLed. Now the Apple port will not only help apple applications, they will help Linux applications giving them more weight. Theres suddenly another big reason to shift your entire software project to QT despite any costs.

    My only gripe is the really high license cost for a student. Ive built several applications in win32 but cant use them afer the 30 days. They relied heavily on printing so I couldnt port them to Linux. I even offered developers with the license to compile them for me for a small fee. I hope Trolltech sees this and if they really want to hide their code from pirates, provide a compilation service at a much lower cost for projects with low earning potential or value. I dont mind being the Toronto office manager of compilation services at all. Will even code for food(hey its 2003, not 1998)
    • Why not this version?

      http://www.trolltech.com/download/qt/noncomm.htm l

      • Re:This unifies OSX with Linux/BSD/Solaris (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gi-tux ( 309771 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @09:54AM (#6233425) Homepage
        Because it is version 2.30 and doesn't support so many of the things that would be nice. I was looking at doing a project that I wanted to do as OSS and use QT for it so that it would work on Linux and Windows. However, I needed database access into grids, etc. Great QT 3.x supports that with no problem. Ooops, only QT 2.3 for Windows.

        I sent TrollTech an email asking if the 3.x version of QT was going to be released for Non-Commercial use. The answer was basically no as that is how we make our money and we can't kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.

        Now that begs the question of will the shutdown non-commercial for Linux if it becomes a big player on the desktop? I know that they say that they won't do that, but they were big into the non-commercial license for MS-Windows when it released.

  • Qt apps on OS X behave exactly the same as Qt apps on any other platform. They behave like Win3.1 apps.

  • Apple and KDE (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @07:15AM (#6231891) Homepage
    Of course it's quite clear what we will see - some kind of marrying of KDE and Apple like we've all vaguely been trying to do with Fink/OpenDarwin and X11. Unsurprising, seeing as there's been all that Apple contribution to KHTML over the past few months.

    There will, of course, be X11 seamlessly integrated into the OS, and KDE apps will run, in beautiful native Aqua, just as any other Aqua app, with an icon in the dock (maybe blocky à la Classic, but still).

    Geeks will of course adore it, and as professed by Apple's marketing for OS X [apple.com], geeks are one of their target user bases.

    It will be very interesting to see what happens to GTK now. I was just really starting to love some of GNOME's eye candy, but QT/Mac has the edge, I feel.

    iqu

    • Re:Apple and KDE (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dadragon ( 177695 )
      It will be very interesting to see what happens to GTK now. I was just really starting to love some of GNOME's eye candy, but QT/Mac has the edge, I feel.

      GTK > QT for commercial development. The reason is cost. GTK is LGPL, so you can link commercial stuff to it without a problem. QT is GPL, so you need to get a licence to use it commercially.

      The Mac is a very commercial oriented platform, just like windows, so commercial development may well decide GTK is the way to go.

  • KOffice vs. MS Office v. X (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @08:16AM (#6232369) Journal
    I am just speculating here, but this does open a path of thought for me in that Apple might have encouraged this action by Trolltech (wider audience, more traction in corporations, more traction amongst consumers etc). Apple's use of KHTML in Safari may very well a sign of things to come in the other area where Apple has been dependant on Microsoft: Office.

    Quite a few people wondered why Apple went with KHTML instead of Gecko in developing a new browser and I think the answer was proabably because of the companies involved - Trolltech is not AOL/Netscape -, and that KHTML is much more lightweight than geckko could ever be, thereby giving Apple the same ability to offer developers the same HTML rendering API on the Mac as MS has done with IE on Windows. Apple could very well be considering doing the same thing with KOffice.

    KOffice is way behind OpenOffice in terms of maturity and features, but KHTML was also behind Gecko in terms of standards support until Apple developers started adding to it. I think Apple's developers would very well be capable of adding the features to KOffice that it lacked, including MS Office document support. They might do this in a manner similar to what they've done with KHTML and webcore: creating "Office" i.e. word processing, spreadsheet and presentation API's, giving these back to the community and creating a closed product ala Safari that would be based on them.

    This is wild speculation, but many people have wondered why Apple has done almost nothing Appleworks since OSX entered the scene. I don't think it was only fear of MS cutting off Office for the Mac that prompted this.

  • Arg! Arg! Arg! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @08:49AM (#6232682)
    I've spent the last 4 months porting a fair amount (> 15 kloc) of qt code to std c++ on the backend (removing *all* qt, and writing my own classes that map to qt's classes where needed) and rewriting the gui in native cocoa/objective-c.

    And now I discover it was completely unnecessary!

    Arg! :P

    ( on the other hand, it's been a good experience. cocoa is a beautiful API, and rewriting the backend in pure c++/stl has actually improved it, since the stl is really, *really* quite good. )

    • Re:Arg! Arg! Arg! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      after all that and we don't get a link to your project! :)

  • Jammin' (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) * <amphigory@EINSTE ... minus physicist> on Wednesday June 18, 2003 @09:59AM (#6233487)
    This is great news. For some time now, I've been hungering for some kind of structured document editor that ran under OS X's GUI. Now it looks like I will be able to easily get two: KWord (not sure how structured it lets you be, but it's supposed to be like Framemaker in many respects) and LyX (which has a native QT personality of late.) I will now die happy.

    One thing that bears thinking about, however, is whether this release will drive the world of free software to be more and more Mac driven, and at least somewhat less Linux driven. It's fairly apparent that Safari is the driving force behind KHTML now -- with this release, will OSX become the driving force behind other elements of KDE? What will this mean for Linux?

    • One thing that bears thinking about, however, is whether this release will drive the world of free software to be more and more Mac driven, and at least somewhat less Linux driven.

      The vast majority of free software is written on Linux and then ported to other platforms. If you think being able to run KDE/Qt on a Mac will change this, then I'd point you towards the presence of KDE on Windows - how many new developers did that bring to KDE? AFAIK none.

      It's fairly apparent that Safari is the driving forc

  • Can anyone tell me if this is over the top of Cocoa, so yo get the Cocoa services and the like for no extra code?
  • I could be wrong, but wasn't StarOffice at one point based on Qt? Could this be used to speed up the openoffice port? (This is such a wimpy question that I'm foregoing my +1 for it.)

  • Now I get it ! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MarkCollette ( 459340 )
    All along we've been hearing all these _rumors_ about the WWDC being so big because of the 970, but now we know the _truth_, which is that Qt/Mac will be released under the GPL. Now I'm going to get my plane tickets ASAP!

    I assume that OS X 1.3 will now be released under the GPL as well.
  • So guys I want to see a ported KOffice binary by Friday 27th! 5 Days should be good enough for everyone.

    I hope it will be as fast as it is on KDE... Who will want to have mac OpenOffice when you can have koffice? I do not really want to wait 5 mins for OpenOffice to launch. and it is soo ugly...
  • I wonder how long it'll be until trolltech gpl's the windows version and finishes the conversion from proprietory to opensource.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.

Close