Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 18 September 2007 20:47, Ted Lemon wrote: > > Also, announcements aside, I don't see a link to the source code on > the Qtopia/Neo page, so not all promises have yet been kept. Just because you haven't found the links to the source code doesn't mean that Trolltech haven't kept their pr

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Lorn Potter wrote: Not by the operating system, or the LGPL, but by the culture surrounding it. How many commercial closed source applications are available for Linux? Hi Lorn, Couldn't let that go, they are increasing rapidly - here are just a few that are used in the U

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

I also prefer GTK+ and have invested some time developing an application on my Neo with it. I find it very easy to develop and test on my GNOME based desktop (Ubuntu) and re-compile for the Neo. I hope OpenMoko continues down the same route. John (putting a vote in for GTK+) Joshua Layne wrot

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Hi Sharing contacts, dates, etc is complicated enough that you should push for openmoko and qtopia to support a standards-based sync with an external server. Then it becomes a more generic problem of interoperability instead of an obscure feature request. Brad ___

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Jonathon Suggs wrote: Tim Newsom wrote: the data interfaces should be the same... If I open up qtopia phone >> edition and look at my contacts or maybe even edit them and then >> close it down and open up my OM interface and look at them, they >> should be the same. All edit are visible.. No do

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Tim Newsom wrote: I guess my only comment is that while I don't really care which interface people use on their phones, it seems like the data interfaces should be the same... If I open up qtopia phone edition and look at my contacts or maybe even edit them and then close it down and open up m

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 8:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I'm concerned, this should have ended last week. The original question asked was "why continue with OpenMoko development when Qtopia is available, faster, more complete and stable?". It was debated and some pretty conclusive reason

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>Can we please end this back and forth C vs. C++, Qt vs. Gtk, X11 vs >no-X11, Openmoko vs Qtopia. I think most of us have seen plenty of these >debates over the years and nothing constructive ever comes of them. As far as I'm concerned, this should have ended last week. The original question as

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

I think there is a place for both Openmoko and Qtopia. Useful features and possibly even entire applications can be cloned/ported back and forth between the platforms. Artwork, sounds, etc can easily be shared. There is even place for more options to discuss. E.g. Objective-C + GNUstep + X

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

AVee wrote: C++ compiler needs to be improved. You do realize that C++ was explicitly designed with embedded software in mind? I'm curious where you got the idea that "C++ was explicitly designed with embedded software in mind"? Anyways... I don't know why the Qtopia vs. Openmoko thing has

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 25/9/07 4:41 pm, "john" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have built an ipk of the Chicken Scheme system if anybody is tempted > to the dark side? ;) > Personally I'd like a fully reflective on-board IDE/squeak-like environment (where there is no separation from applications and programm

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I can echo these views. > > I personally like a C based framework as I develop on my Neo in > Scheme. I use a Scheme-to-C compiler called Chicken which happens to > work extremely nicely with GTK+. I can develop much more > efficiently/easily in Scheme than I can

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

AVee wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 10:32, Dani Anon wrote: >> On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> I thing gp is right, c might be better than c++ for small devices and >> certainly you need to code in c++ to take advantage of qtopia >> components. > > Why whould plai

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 20:36:53 Lorn Potter wrote: > > Yep, but there's this undeniable fact that having 0 entry cost invites > > a whole new class of developers that you wouldn't have otherwise. I > > think we could perfectly choose QTopia and just handicap commercial > > developers, either

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Carlo E. Prelz wrote: N. I just say that Qt has no C api. And this makes it unusable. For me. No mention of it being bad. The personal reason you've given for why you prefer Gtk to Qt is valid, for you. However, most of what you said had nothing to do wit

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 20:14:36 Carlo E. Prelz wrote: > properly express my mental patterns. C++ did not cut my cake. No need > to repeat the experience. I already know how to write what little user > interface code I need to write, either in C or in Ruby, with > GTK. Luckily I do not need t

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How many commercial closed source applications are available for > Linux? How many have you bought? Have you paid attention to what people > say when someone releases closed source for Linux? How often have nvidia > and ATI been harassed abou

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 17:51, Dani Anon wrote: > On 9/25/07, AVee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'll use commercial app if they are worth the money. But i really don't > > see how someone developing a non-free (both in speech as in beer) should > > get their toolkit for free. When you ex

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Dani Anon wrote: On 9/25/07, Steven Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:32:46 +0200, "Dani Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Carlo E. Prelz wrote: Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Ne

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: Am 25.09.2007 um 17:20 schrieb Dani Anon: But hey I like how you conveniently left unanswered my comment about how the FBUI and DirectFB projects exist solely to remove the X server overhead. Can you explain to me and them why they are wrong and how they have

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Dani Anon wrote: Yep, but there's this undeniable fact that having 0 entry cost invites a whole new class of developers that you wouldn't have otherwise. I think we could perfectly choose QTopia and just handicap commercial developers, either of the options is better than having two options.

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 Date: mar 25 set 07 09:42:36 -0700 Quoting Ted Lemon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > So when you say Qt is bad because there's no C API, N. I just say that Qt has no C api. And this makes it unusable. For me. No mention of it being ba

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>> Also, Qtopia, by having no X server running in the background, makes >> it much more difficult for the average developer to bring his/her own >> window to the screen of the phone. > > not really. In fact, coding with Qt is much faster than gtk. Ask > people that have done both. As much as I

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Carlo E. Prelz wrote: As far as I can perceive, making a c wrapper of a c++ library (and I do not mean c-looking code that compiles under c++ - I mean a library that makes heavy use of those ungodly quirks that c++ is burdened with) is a task that no sane individual m

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

he long run it might not matter. Some of us with go down one route and will be looking hard to find people to trade films with :) I have built an ipk of the Chicken Scheme system if anybody is tempted to the dark side? ;) John. Carlo E. Prelz wrote: Subject: Re: Qtopi

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:48:21 +0200, Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 14:23:24 Steven Le Roux wrote: > >> Ok, I am not a developper, but, I think the accelorometer has the goal > to >> provide a good video rendering. > > Nitpick: An accelerometer measures p

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/25/07, AVee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 10:32, Dani Anon wrote: > > On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Carlo E. Prelz wrote: > > > > Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > >> - But QT is not free (as in beer) for commercial usage > > >

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Am 25.09.2007 um 17:20 schrieb Dani Anon: But hey I like how you conveniently left unanswered my comment about how the FBUI and DirectFB projects exist solely to remove the X server overhead. Can you explain to me and them why they are wrong and how they have wasted all those months of developm

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

ipk of the Chicken Scheme system if anybody is tempted to the dark side? ;) John. Carlo E. Prelz wrote: Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 Date: mar 25 set 07 01:23:37 -0700 Quoting Ted Lemon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): This is an utterly pathetic excuse not to try something

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

> I think you are misrepresenting the difference. I would write that as: > > 1. Application asks X to draw a line, then gets on with other stuff, or > makes other calls while it waits. X calls the device driver which talks > to the hardware GPU (using around 20 bytes of API call) which uses > accel

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 10:32, Dani Anon wrote: > On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Carlo E. Prelz wrote: > > > Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > >> - But QT is not free (as in beer) for commercial usage > > > > > > This is not the only reason why Qtopia is sub-op

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, September 25, 2007 3:14 pm, Dani Anon wrote: > It's either one of the following: > > 1) Application asks to draw a line and waits. X sees that request and > uses a driver to draw the line, then sends confirmation. Now the > application waits and when the confirmation is received it's ready

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/25/07, Steven Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:32:46 +0200, "Dani Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Carlo E. Prelz wrote:

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 Date: mar 25 set 07 01:23:37 -0700 Quoting Ted Lemon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > This is an utterly pathetic excuse not to try something. It would have been, had I never attempted to get familiar with that language. But I have, a handful

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 14:23:24 Steven Le Roux wrote: > Ok, I am not a developper, but, I think the accelorometer has the goal to > provide a good video rendering. Nitpick: An accelerometer measures physical acceleration and enables things like the Wiimote. What you're thinking of is a (gr

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:32:46 +0200, "Dani Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Carlo E. Prelz wrote: >> > Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 >> > Date: mar

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 11:18:39 Dani Anon wrote: > Just for the record, those are tablets, that weight more (i.e: they > have more battery life thus power) that can take such overhead. N800 > doesn't even have phone functions! Do you know about any linuxphone > with X? > According to Wikiped

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:18:39 +0200, Dani Anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Most of Linux powered extramobile devices that I know of (please correct me if I'm wrong) have some kind of framebuffer environment in which you can directly draw stuff on screen with little overhead. Just for the record

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Just for the record, those are tablets, that weight more (i.e: they have more battery life thus power) that can take such overhead. N800 Why do you assume that X is overhead that needs more weight and battery capacity? X11 is also using the same framebuffer as others are using. It is just a

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 10:32:46 Dani Anon wrote: > I thing gp is right, c might be better than c++ for small devices and > certainly you need to code in c++ to take advantage of qtopia > components. If we lived through Java on mobile devices (which actually is quite virile even today), and

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Just for the record, those are tablets, that weight more (i.e: they have more battery life thus power) that can take such overhead. N800 doesn't even have phone functions! Do you know about any linuxphone with X? Consider that QT had a X port already, why waste time removing the X dependence for Q

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:32:46 +0200, Dani Anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: strongly agree with all these points. With mobile devices, direct access to the hardware is everything because it might mean an extra hour of battery. the main problem right now is I'm not sure about the future of openmoko

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 09:51:42 Lorn Potter wrote: > > but I have reasons to believe that a) I should have > > to learn to code in a totally different environment, and b) that > > environment would require coding in C++. Both things are not desirable > > for me. > fair enough reasons here. W

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Carlo E. Prelz wrote: > > Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 > > Date: mar 25 set 07 08:18:31 +0200 > > > > Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > >> - But QT is n

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Sep 24, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Carlo E. Prelz wrote: QT is bound to C++. With GTK you can choose to program in C, or, if you really want to, in C++. With QT there is no way you can write your code in C. This is an utterly pathetic excuse not to try something. You don't have to become a C++ e

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Carlo E. Prelz wrote: Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 Date: mar 25 set 07 08:18:31 +0200 Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): - But QT is not free (as in beer) for commercial usage This is not the only reason why Qtopia is sub-optimal. It's not a reason a

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Dani Anon wrote: thomas.cooksey at bt.com wrote: Fantastic news! What works? Looking at the youtube videos, it appears that the phone, SMS, bluetooth & power management are all working? Can you actually place and recieve calls? pm needs work. - I've worked with QT and it's clearly superi

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 Date: mar 25 set 07 08:18:31 +0200 Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > - But QT is not free (as in beer) for commercial usage This is not the only reason why Qtopia is sub-optimal. QT is bound to C++. With GTK you can choose

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

thomas.cooksey at bt.com wrote: >Fantastic news! What works? Looking at the youtube videos, it appears that the phone, SMS, bluetooth & power management are all working? Can you actually place and recieve calls? > >I'm sure OpenMoko development will continue, but a good question is why? I don't rea

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>After the docs come out, it should be possible to write a Mesa driver >right? My impression is OpenGL ES is just a subset of regular OpenGL; >it's not so different that Mesa APIs would not work. Then the whole >X/GLX/Mesa/driver/DRI stack could be used. Writing a 3D graphics driver is a big pro

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>And there are already plans for someone to do the necessary XRender >coding to support GTA02. That's fantastic news! Why on earth did Harold say that the fact that an accelerated kdrive was being written couldn't be disclosed? What's the problem in telling the community? Not that it matters rea

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (with the wrong kind of word-wrap, unfortunately): > X is client server architecture which uses sockets. The server draws things > on behalf of the clients. Rather than clients having to understand the X > protocol, Xlib was developed to pr

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > X does not however provide an OpenGL ES API, neither does GDK. Qtopia on > the other hand does allow OpenGL ES integration. ... > I suspect this is a moot point anyway as I doubt we'll ever see an OpenGL ES > library/driver for the SMedia.

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Thomas Wood wrote: All in all, the great thing about OpenMoko and the Neo1973 is that you're free to choose whatever path you wish to take. If you want to use Qtopia on your Neo1973 then you are more than welcome to do so! There are many many different Linux distributions and probably almost as m

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 20:57 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [...] I mentioned earlier that cairo uses Xrender to copy & compose > rasterized graphics onto the screen. Some graphics hardware can > accelerate some of the XRender operations, however, in X.org it seems > the current driver model mak

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>X provides an OpenGL API. So if you want to do fancy stuff like >Compiz, you do it with OpenGL. X does not however provide an OpenGL ES API, neither does GDK. Qtopia on the other hand does allow OpenGL ES integration. In fact Beryl/Compiz-type effects and composition is already avaliable on

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've spent a lot of time trying to understand how Linux graphics > stacks work. ... I will now try and explain how I understand it > works and please, PLEASE correct me where I'm wrong! :-) That is the most concise, clear and understandable explanation I have ever seen a

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>> >Firstly, Sato is not a mobile phone framework in any sense at all. It >> >does not include any applications or services that would make a mobile >> >phone useful. Sato is simply a visual style. >> >> >> Strange, the description on http://www.pokylinux.org/ says: >> >> "Sato is our experiment

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 20:59 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Firstly, Sato is not a mobile phone framework in any sense at all. It > >does not include any applications or services that would make a mobile > >phone useful. Sato is simply a visual style. > > > Strange, the description on http://w

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

X provides an OpenGL API. So if you want to do fancy stuff like Compiz, you do it with OpenGL. The main advantage to X over a direct-to-framebuffer system is that you can connect over the network. X also has a well-though-out virtualization of the framebuffer, which is a wheel you'd hav

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>Firstly, Sato is not a mobile phone framework in any sense at all. It >does not include any applications or services that would make a mobile >phone useful. Sato is simply a visual style. Strange, the description on http://www.pokylinux.org/ says: "Sato is our experimental reference/example GTK

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>As long as X11 renders to FB, that's true. However, with the GPU in GTA02 that >may not be true at all as in fact, Mickey mentioned on IRC yesterday that fb >operations may well be *slower* on GTA02 than on GTA01. > >I don't know enough about the differences between Qt and Qtopia (aside of the

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Gabriel Ambuehl wrote: On Tuesday 18 September 2007 22:58:00 Lorn Potter wrote: Not X11 like all other systems. This has better performance and is in my eyes the perfect solution for embedded devices. There is no great performance difference between x11 and fb. As long as X11 renders to FB,

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is something someone else touched on. If you're writing an application, abstract all the complicated stuff away from the UI code, then you can make whatever kind of UI you want. NetworkManager I think is a perfect example of this. It would be good to have a defin

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 14:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > > This is something someone else touched on. If you're writing an > application, abstract all the complicated stuff away from the UI code, > then you can make whatever kind of UI you want. NetworkManager I think > is a perfect exa

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 20:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you really say either gnome or is wasted effort and should be discontinued? Or vim/gnome,linux/bsd,gecko/webkit/mysql/postgres... Yes, it's my personal belief that these projects all represent wasted effort >>and that if they co

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Calls for more collaboration are quite common, but I can't help but feel that people assume it is easier than it actually is. There is the GMAE effort which tries do achieve exactly what is mentioned here, which is further codesharing between all these efforts. Whats holding up collaboration is r

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 18 September 2007 22:58:00 Lorn Potter wrote: > > Not X11 like all other systems. This has better performance and is in my > > eyes the perfect solution for embedded devices. > There is no great performance difference between x11 and fb. > As long as X11 renders to FB, that's true. Howev

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>My thoughts that competition has it's advantages and both of the >technologies will find their fans. But Trolltech and Openmoko should >cooperate with each other first of all in terms of integration of PIM >data. Do you really need dual-booting (or other possibility to start >either Qtopia or Open

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Thomas Wood wrote: On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 20:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you really say either gnome or is wasted effort and should be discontinued? Or vim/gnome,linux/bsd,gecko/webkit/mysql/postgres... Yes, it's my personal belief that these pro

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Wednesday 19 September 2007 10:28:55 Jonathan Spooner wrote: > I didn't realise Qtopia was */proprietary/* It's no longer, it's fully GPL now. > comments on preferring QT for the quality docs and IDE. I'd rath

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 18 September 2007 18:00:51 Giles Jones wrote: > Typically the argument for QT is ease of programming, there's a good IDE > called KDevelop. GTK's argument typically is that it's GPL and faster. Except Qt nowadays actually is GPL (GTK+ being only LGPL), to be more precise :) __

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Thomas Wood wrote: On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 20:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you really say either gnome or is wasted effort and should be discontinued? Or vim/gnome,linux/bsd,gecko/webkit/mysql/postgres... Yes, it's my personal belief that these projects all represent wasted

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 20:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Would you really say either gnome or is wasted effort and should be > >discontinued? Or vim/gnome,linux/bsd,gecko/webkit/mysql/postgres... > > Yes, it's my personal belief that these projects all represent wasted effort > and that if

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973 (third, not second, Linux GPL'd phone stack).

Please remember that this is the third, not the second, Linux-based phone stack for the Neo1973. Sun, at JavaOne in May, showed a working prototype of a Linux-based Java phone stack running on the Neo1973. There are many pictures of this on the web (look in the Press page on the OpenMoko wiki)

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Lorn Potter wrote: Try ftp.trolltech.com/qtopia/tech-preview/ Sweet, thanks! ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 18/09/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone seen these benchmarks: > http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2006/10/benchmarks.html > > It compares Cairo (what GTK+ uses) against QT. When it comes to rendering, I > believe Qtopia & QT use the same code. So ignoring X, > > "Qt was

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Tilman Baumann wrote: Alexey Feldgendler wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:45:51 +0200, Mauro Iazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hate to say it but in my experience at least, its a dream developing apps using QT esp given the nice IDE in comparison to using GTK. QT just has the docs and organi

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 18 Sep 2007, at 21:39, Lorn Potter wrote: That greenphone guy was me. and if you read that actual post, I made no 'slagging' remarks about OpenMoko or their project. Some of my friends and colleagues, whom are very great engineers work for OpenMoko. The point I was making about that p

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

I think that the GTK front end for the Neo has a lot of potential that the Qtopia front end may miss, so a strategy that borrows from both systems would be good for us early adopters. Er, the dev kit appears to be missing openssl, which could be a problem. Also, announcements aside, I don't se

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Michael Schmidt wrote: Thanks, but why is the Neo phone not a small laptop? that all can be installed, at least for the needed libraries. So a GTK gui still makes sense... Greenphone then can as well join OPENMOKO platform, and if greenphone uses only QT, is then the GTK application working? -

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Giles Jones wrote: Mauro Iazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : before someone beats me to it. http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2007-09-17.9260755578 Ironic given one of their Greenphone guys was slagging the OpenMoko project a while back. That greenphone guy was me

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

A couple other differences, QT is C++ based, whereas GTK is C based, so depending on what your preferences are... Also, isn't GTK licenesed as LGPL, whereas QT is GPL? So commercial developers will need to pay for a seperate license for QT if they make non-GPL apps, whereas GTK's license is more

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Scott Rushforth wrote: Phone calling works, for both incoming and outgoing calls, the only hitch was that I had to manually set the alsa levels using gsmhandset.state. That's a helpful hint. It appears to be the case that audio doesn't work for other apps as

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>Would you really say either gnome or is wasted effort and should be >discontinued? Or vim/gnome,linux/bsd,gecko/webkit/mysql/postgres... Yes, it's my personal belief that these projects all represent wasted effort and that if they cooperated they'd achieve more. I always get a nice warm fuzzy

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tuesday 18 September 2007 18:00:51 Giles Jones wrote: > Typically the argument for QT is ease of programming, there's a good IDE > called KDevelop. GTK's argument typically is that it's GPL and faster. Actually. GTK's argument is that it is LGPL and thus free for use by commercial apps whereas

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 19:13 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Has anyone seen these benchmarks: > http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2006/10/benchmarks.html > > It compares Cairo (what GTK+ uses) against QT. When it comes to rendering, I > believe Qtopia & QT use the same code. So ignoring X, > > "Qt w

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very simple, i would think it is about compatibility of code. With openmoko, it is a small difficulty to port a normal linux application to openmoko. With Qtopia, it would probably involve a rewrite of major sections of the code. Also, one possible solution to this wo

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 18/09/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Very simple, i would think it is about compatibility of code. With > >openmoko, it is a small difficulty to port a normal linux application > >to openmoko. With Qtopia, it would probably involve a rewrite of > >major sections of the

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very simple, i would think it is about compatibility of code. With openmoko, it is a small difficulty to port a normal linux application to openmoko. With Qtopia, it would probably involve a rewrite of major sections of the code. So you're saying Qtopia makes it harde

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>Very simple, i would think it is about compatibility of code. With >openmoko, it is a small difficulty to port a normal linux application >to openmoko. With Qtopia, it would probably involve a rewrite of >major sections of the code. Also, one possible solution to this would be to run an x serve

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone seen these benchmarks: http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2006/10/benchmarks.html It compares Cairo (what GTK+ uses) against QT. When it comes to rendering, I believe Qtopia & QT use the same code. So ignoring X, "Qt was respectively 7, 5 and 6 times faster. Than

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

> Can someone _please_ give me a technical reason why they believe GTK+ is > "better"? The only arguments I've seen on this list are philosophical ones. > The > only technical argument has been that you can run applications on the phone > and > have them appear on your desktop thanks to X. Surely

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

>Very simple, i would think it is about compatibility of code. With >openmoko, it is a small difficulty to port a normal linux application >to openmoko. With Qtopia, it would probably involve a rewrite of >major sections of the code. So you're saying Qtopia makes it harder to port desktop applic

RE: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Has anyone seen these benchmarks: http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2006/10/benchmarks.html It compares Cairo (what GTK+ uses) against QT. When it comes to rendering, I believe Qtopia & QT use the same code. So ignoring X, "Qt was respectively 7, 5 and 6 times faster. Than Cairo in those plain tests."

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On 9/18/07, john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also prefer GTK+ and have invested some time developing an application > on my Neo with it. I find it very easy to develop and test on my GNOME > based desktop (Ubuntu) and re-compile for the Neo. I hope OpenMoko > continues down the same route. > > J

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Tilman Baumann wrote: But thats how it is. Opensource is just about freedom to choose. The more choices the better... My big question about Qtopia for Neo is whether or not Trolltech will be willing to take back changes. I've had some challenges in the past g

Re: Dual-boot? (was Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973)

please not another gnome/kde parallel world system both libraries ( and I guess GTK embedded into QT) should be installed and work. and for the Main window: I guess soon it is QT. But please not a double boot option! read the QT-Experience report from one user on the list. QT is great ! that does

Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973

Alexey Feldgendler wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:45:51 +0200, Mauro Iazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hate to say it but in my experience at least, its a dream developing apps using QT esp given the nice IDE in comparison to using GTK. QT just has the docs and organised feel which makes it e

Re: Dual-boot? (was Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973)

On 9/18/07, Ryan Prior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a bootloader option for the Neo that could let developers decide > whether to boot into OpenMoko or QTopia? If so, it could provide a > convenient fallback option in case tinkering with one of the systems caused > it to stop working. You

  1   2   >