Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

TrollTech Releases Embedded Qt PDA environment 93

Posted by CmdrTaco from the is-that-a-troll-in-your-pocket? dept.
Justin Davies writes: "TrollTech will be making the embedded Qt environment for PDA systems on Monday available under a commercial and GPL license on monday. The environment will contain an application launcher, window manager and input methods including a virtual keyboard. This provides the first common Linux enironment for PDA systems allowing an easy porting system from the desktop to the PDA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TrollTech releases Embedded Qt PDA environment More

TrollTech releases Embedded Qt PDA environment

Comments Filter:
  • If Qt/embedded works with the frame buffer, it means it doesn't use hardware acceleration.

    Why does it mean that? I have hardware acceleration in my framebuffers on linux (ATI RagePro and MAtrox G400)

    Are you sure about this?

  • If Qt is as portable as they claim (and the number of variants indicates) the best solution wouldn't be Qt/Embedded, but another Qt wrapped around something lighter than X, but more powerful than embedded. Qt/Berlin?
  • Where is the QPL for QtEmbedded? Why is it now legal to write a BSD program in Qt-X11, but illegal for the very same program to use the very same interface on an embedded device? I really like Trolltech, but I think they have painted themselves into a corner trying to please the FSF.

    From the Qt/Embedded FAQ: "t has been almost two months since we released Qt/X11 under the GPL, and no adverse effects have occurred because of it, therefore we felt it was safe to proceed with the GPL version of Qt/E." Well, to play devils advocate, it has been almost two months since they released a dual-licensed GPL/QPL Qt/X11, and no adverse effects have occured because of it. Therefore it is safe to proceed with a dual-licensed Qt/Embedded.

    I would hate to have to buy a proprietary commercial license to write non-proprietary and non-commercial software.

  • Mods Crack out the Crack; Film @ 11 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    C'mon. The parent of this post is funny. Lighten up, please.
  • I'll be interested to see how their windowmanager looks and functions. Earlier this year, the lead developer of Blackbox [alug.org] moved to Norway to work for TrollTech. Blackbox is a nice lightweight wm and I think it will be interesting to see if this new windowmanager bears any resemblance to blackbox.
  • In English, at least nouns and verbs are separate words. Your C syntax combines them. If we did that in English, the number of words would be approximately squared. Now of course, there could be conventions for how to do this (just like the conventions for subject-verb agreement in languages that use endings, like Latin or Russian), and you are doing that... your convention is to use an underscore. But still, every useful combination of verb/noun must be _implemented_ separately, whereas in OO languages you have polymorphism and inheritance to cut down some of the work; lines of code get re-used more.

    I'm presently working on a project this way (using C for some semi-OO stuff) but only because performance is more important than anything (it's a Postscript interpreter; the high-level language is Postscript, and I intend to minimize my use of C as much as possible, and implement parts of the interpreter in Postscript). And I don't really like C++ syntax very much. But I wouldn't write largish GUI desktop applications (like a lot of the GTK apps out there intend to be) with OO-C. It's just too verbose and confusing, and typical non-trivial GUI apps really depend on the OO abstraction.
  • Isn't the Palm successful because of the OS it originally runs ? The plethora of free or very low cost software ? Granted, we can hack it because we can, but in this instance, I'll keep mine running the way it's supposed to.
  • It never crashes. This guy has neer tried it let alone even looked at it.

    I run Linux on an Ipaq (gladly nuked windows foo it for good!) and the casseopia. both are as stable as the origional os on it.

  • From everything in the article it sounds like this only works right now with embedded Linux. I love Linux, but my PDA doesn't run it--it uses PalmOS (I have a Visor, from Handspring).

    I know that QT is a very modular language, and shouldn't depend on any underlying drawing system. Does anyone know how difficult it would be to use QT/embedded as a GUI framework for PalmOS applications?

  • Framebuffers and hardware acceleration aren't mutually exclusive: Look at the way Sun does framebuffers for the right way (and the way the Linux framebuffer will do it if the developers have the sense God gave geese.)
  • I don't have an iPaq, but I think I should mention a few links because I have not seen them in any other comment yet. =)

    href="http://www.handhelds.org">www.handhelds.org There is a lot of work under way on modifying X-Windows down to handheld computers. The server has been seriously slimmed down to use a simplified and more powerful rendering model. There is also Clear Type-like font renderer in the works as well as an extension for flipping the aspect (vertical vs. horizontal.) I am not sure as to what who is doing what, but I know that Jim Gettys is involved (he is one of the original authors of X-windows btw.) If you want something that is even slimmer, check out the MicroWindows [microwindows.org] project, which provides both a win32-like and a NanoX-like interface on top of a slim graphics library.

    There is also the Pocket Linux [pocketlinux.org] project that is producing a set of applications for handheld Linux.

  • Um (Score:1)

    by Enahs ( 1606 )
    But you're the GNOME troll, right?

    Think about it. Troll Tech is a commercial venture. QT is either GPL or QPL (your pick) if you write open software. If you use the QPL version you should be able to use more licenses.

    If Troll Tech released QT under the LGPL then they'd just have to go out of business. I can see why that sounds great to an ungrateful student, but to someone who's actually worked for a living, QT sounds like a sweet deal (unless you actually have to pay for it ;-)

    What's your preference of software license? If you say "LGPL" I'll club you over the head because, despite the fact that the "L" stands for Lesser rather than Library, it's still so restricted that you can only release libraries under it (yeah, I read the license.)
  • Okay, I get #1, but how can you hold someone responsible for PUBLIC PROPERTY? When people release something into the public domain, how can they be held responsible for something they no longer control?
    --------
    Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
  • reading articles helps; this isn't X based.

    FYI, Motif used to be used on palmtops too, and with lower memory requirements. "But why run X11 on a palmtop?" It didn't use X11 either...the API was just the same.

  • Hrm. (Score:1)

    by Enahs ( 1606 )
    Serious programmers only write closed-source software for Windows. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. =P
  • Surprisingly enough, this should be doable (port GDK to the framebuffer); GNOME would be a problem (extra X11 dependencies) but it could be done too.

  • Re:RMS (Score:1)

    by Enahs ( 1606 )
    I agree. The GPL is far too restrictive. Damn the GPL, it traps us into writing free software.
  • And in the bargain, you become a marketing tool for Troll Tech. Your bug fixes and suggestions become help improve their commercial software. The add-ons you produce enhance the value of their commercial product through network effects. We both may not like the possibility that commercial vendors take advantage of free software efforts, but with Troll Tech, it's not a possibility, it's a certainty.

    If Troll Tech were to become the predominant GUI platform for handheld Linux devices, development for those devices would become more expensive than even proprietary systems like Windows CE. In fact, with their handheld architecture, their software will not live side-by-side with alternative, free toolkits. That kind of "charity" by commercial vendors will kill free software, not support it.

    Troll Tech is free to license their software whichever way they want. But I think people who buy into the bargain are foolish, in particular if they think that this kind of marketing gimmick has anything to do with free software.

  • Rubbish. I did the Qt Palmtop Environment build for the iPAQ, and it only crashed on MY bugs. Fortunately, my iPAQ has gdb on it, so that was easily fixed. -- Warwick
  • PalmOS devices are toys, whereas the iPaq is a useful computer :-)
    Really, C++ has got nothing to do with why the iPaq is so powerful. Moore's Law has everything to do with it.
  • But, it's not just about speed. There's a bit of consideration for memory, and quite a lot for screen space. But who says desktop apps have to be slower just because they have a bigger CPU to work with? Just think how much farther desktops could go if you ran PDA software on them :)
  • I worked on the PalmOS version of Eudora as my first PalmOS experience. They gave me a Palm V to play with, and I enjoy the OS. If you get your hands on EIS suite version 2.0, check out the edit signatures function, I wrote that :) Ever since I started working with the PalmOS, I have been thinking about cool things I could write. I want to do something with the Visor's 16 bit graphics. Maybe I'll do a psychedelic paint program that doubles as a whiteboard, once I learn PalmOS networking. Hopefully it'll be fast.
  • If you BSD license an application that uses a GPL'd library...

    Can't do it. It's illegal. I would be sued by Trolltech. You see, the GPL considers mere linkage to be derivation, and requires any application that merely has an "#include <qt.h>" line to be licensed under the GPL. If you use a GPL library, your own code MUST be GPL.

    That's why.

    But under the QPL, you have a copylefted library that allows *any* Free or Open Source Software application to link to it.

    ...anyone can still take your BSD code and use it in a closed source application.

    Yes, and that's okay with me for my own code. My BSD license gives the user ZERO rights to any applications it links to. The Qt library is still safe under either the GPL or the QPL. But the QPL Qt is safe without dictating to me what kind of house I can build with their hammer.

  • I want this on my desktop. (Score:3)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @10:25AM (#628931)
    Getting a port of this to the desktop would be seriously cool. Finally, you can mate the selvte Linux kernel to the svelte embedded Qt library instead of X + Qt +KDE and not end up with an ugly bastard child. However, one thing bothers me. If Qt/embedded works with the frame buffer, it means it doesn't use hardware acceleration. That's a travasty! I mean with a little work, this could be so much better (since KDE apps are enough to make a decent system) (for many users) than the system we have today. Are there any plans to allow a hardware acceleration architecture here? I mean QNX Photon does hardware acceleration on a lot of graphics cards, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of embedded systems contain some form of acceleration in their video chips.

  • Re:But why? (Score:3)

    by SilverSun ( 114725 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @10:26AM (#628932) Homepage
    Have you actually spend a second and read the article?
    But the Qt Palmtop Environment uses Qt/Embedded, so there is no need for an X11 server, no extra client libraries, no separate window manager, no layer-upon-layer of toolkits -- Qt/Embedded works directly with the Linux framebuffer.
  • i think you'll find a palm v runs at 16MHz and a vx runs at 20MHz ; see here [mot-sps.com]
  • Preferring one license over another is not paranoia. If you don't like my preference, tough. All I am doing is expressing my opinion that Trolltech should license their embedded tool the same as their X11 tool. It's supposed to be "free" software, so stop trying to make it a one party system. No Florida jokes, please.
  • icewm is one example of an application that is under LGPL. Of course to take advantage of the clauses that would allow you to link icewm to a prorietary app you would need to turn it (or parts of it) into a library, but there is still noting stopping you licencing applications under the LGPL.

  • yep... actually a colleague of mine installed Linux on his iPaq recently... including access to a wireless lan...
  • Because then it would involve work, and we would have nothing left to complain about.

  • This is an example of GPL "virality" used right (Score:4)

    by kinkie ( 15482 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @10:58AM (#628938) Homepage
    Their dual-licensing terms are great imo.

    You want to develop some GPL software? Sure you can, great. You'll use a great library and toolkit and you'll benefit the world at large, not just your pockets. You want proprietary? Sure, here's the means and here's the fee. Want to try it out? Sure, as long as you don't distribute what you do with it...

    Many times GPL's "virality" has been cited as an obstacle against the adoption of Free Software concept and its results (calling them products would not make them any justice). But I think that the path TT took is the classic "Columbus' egg" which can satisfy everybody.

    Way to go, TT!
  • OK, so you restrict yourself to using the not "obscure aspects" of C++. Why not just keep using C?

    Because there are a number of problems for which object-orienting is the most natural solution, and it makes sense to use a language that has native OO support to implement that solution.

    Use C++ where it makes sense to do so. Forcing everyone to use ANSI C is just as silly as claiming that *everything* should be OO. Each has a problem domain to which it is suited, and widget toolkits just happen to lend themselves to an OO implementation.

    Yes, you could use function pointers a la GTK, but that gets messy and annoying to maintain as your project changes and grows. I've been there.

    Where is the problem with using C++ for an OO task?
  • Oh sorry, didn't realize that there was a requirement on slashdot to only post articles about shipping products. As a matter of fact, I'm glad there isn't, because then slashdot would become pretty lame...

    Have you even used GNOME? It's very nice -- runs fast, never crashes, and is very flexible. It's about ten times better than that Windows 2000 box you used to type that comment on.

    Now back to playing with your lame stack of cellphones. What exactly can the internet on my phone do for me?
  • wrong answer. These decrease your freedom as a programmer. The LGPL is superior for technologies like this. With the LGPL you don't have to use the GPL for your code. You can make it commercial, artistic or BSD. QT's licensing is just TroolTech's scam for making lots of bucks off of Linux programmer when they start making commercial apps.
  • X servers are quite "svelte" in principle. For years, I was using a hardware accelerated X11 server on a 20MHz 386 running UNIX with 4Mbytes of memory. And PDA-based X11 servers are trying to get back to their frugal beginnings.

    The reason why X servers these days take much more space on your desktop is because they are configured that way, because the screen memory often counts against them, and because clients (including Gtk and Qt-based ones) aren't written to conserve server side memory.

  • Re:But why? (Score:5)

    by Ex Machina ( 10710 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [smailliw.nahtanoj]> on Sunday November 12, 2000 @09:48AM (#628943) Homepage
    This actually doesn't use X. Widgets like QT or GTK are not inherently linked to X. Its just that the Linux versiosn use X for the underlying layer. The win32 versions use win32 APIs.
  • did they somehow use the ditributed computing power of trolls to come up with this new OS for PDA's?
  • I had heard that GTK (the widget set powering GNOME) was a little beefy to run on a PDA (due to CORBA). Personally, I don't think QT or GTK is really suitable for PDA's / Embedded Systems.... But who knows with Moore's law :)
  • I'm confused, why would the QPL be preferable over the GPL? If you BSD license an application that uses a GPL'd library, anyone can still take your BSD code and use it in a closed source application. It's just that the closed source developer can't use the GPL'd library. But that's the same with the QPL. No closed source developer can use a QPL'd qt, they'd need to buy the commercial license. Whether Qt/X11 or Qt/Embedded is QPL'd or GPL'd, the closed source vender has to pay for the commercial license. I see no difference from the aspect of the BSD-licensed application. Both QPL and GPL restrict usage equally.
  • OK, Qt is all well and good. But why? X Windows programming, via any system, is already a big, convoluted mess, whether you use GNOME, Qt, or whatever. Why bring any of that to the palmtop? You have a tiny memory space, a tiny processor, and very limited screen space. 99.9% of the Qt programs out there wouldn't be able to port to the PDA form factor anyway, regardless of what code support there is. Maybe X Bill, but that's about it.

    Please, we need to stop thinking of the Palmtop as just a PC with a small screen. It is a completely different way of thinking. Take 95% of what you know about desktop programming and design and throw it out the window. Now you can start designing for the PDA. Microsoft forgot to do that, and guess what? 3rd time, and it's still not charmed.

    --GrouchoMarx
    My other account is CmdrTaco

  • "800kb to 3Mb" isn't any better than a tuned implementation of X11 with FLTK as a toolkit; in fact, it's worse.

    Of course, it's better for Troll Tech, because by taking over the screenbuffer, you cannot use any other toolkit besides theirs. If their software catches on for the basic, open source software on Linux-based PDAs, all commercial developers will be forced to license their software, no matter what their competitors offer. KDE's use of Qt isn't quite as harmful to competition because non-Qt applications can live side-by-side with it, but with Qt/Embedded the takeover of the UI for the purpose of commercial tie-ins is complete.

    I hope the free software community is smarter than to be taken advantage of in this way.

  • Yeah, it was early in the morning when I submitted the news, I missed my own stupidity :)

    -- "Hey Bob, come look! I've never seen a penguin so small!"

  • Whatever happened to the port of GNOME to PDAs? I remember reading about it here awhile ago but haven't heard anything lately. Personally, I think both groups have a ton of work to do trimming stuff down so it's usable on a 30MHz processor with little RAM. I just can't wait until we start having GNOME vs. KDE flamewars on an iPaq!
  • Now we can see a true test of programming popularity.

    Here is somewhere that Gnome ISNT, and where Qt IS. I am curious to see if their dual-licensing slows down the vast numbers of programmers from linux/unix that want to code for embedded devices..

    Or to see if the license really IS 'good enough'.

    Or if we can code as well on embedded devices..

    Lots to see here!
  • Please, we need to stop thinking of the Palmtop as just a PC with a small screen. It is a completely different way of thinking.

    Exactly! Just take a look at the Palm computers vs a M$ "Handheld PC". M$ tries to make it easy for developers to transition, but this just brings along all the memory leaks, bad code, and screen-cluttering UIs that the desktop has.

    Now imagine PalmOS with a fully configurable client/server GUI, multitasking, and a Linux kernel. That's what I've been trying to do for the past seven months or so with PicoGUI [sourceforge.net].

  • What they really ought to do is release a GPL'ed version of Qt for Windows. This would allow the free software community to write cross-platform applications. It would expand the market for such applications, and TrollTech would be able to sell commercial Qt licenses for the inevitable closed source apps that would emerge.

    I really can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't do this. Are you reading this, Haavard? The market for cross-platform apps is going to explode when Linux surfaces on the desktop. Qt can be a part of this. Please give it some consideration.
    --

  • But... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...no one cares. Oh well.
  • I think thats their stategy. If you want to GPL everything, then you can. Its good for Trolltech because it gets KDE on a lot of systems. If people want to write closed source apps for it then they have to pay for the libs. The benefit is that the software plays nicely with KDE.

    This is a problem for people who want to use a different free licence,
  • But QT/Embedded doesn't rely on X!!! The embedded version uses in fact accesses directly the video framebuffer.

    I cite from trolltech:
    "Since Qt/Embedded is not based on X11 it has substantially lower memory requirements than X11. By picking and choosing features, the memory demands of Qt/Embedded can be tuned from 800 Kb to 3 Mb in ROM"

    BYE - Vajsvarana

  • Re:But why? (Score:3)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @10:29AM (#628957)
    What's wrong with C++. It's not like Qt is based on multiple inherited, RTTI & exception-using, virtual iterators. A lot of it is just like C with looser variable declaration rules and structures that contain functions. There is nothing inherntly bloated about C++, its all a matter of what your application uses. Ideally, the development platform for this would use a subset of C++, with STL, RTTI, and exceptions disabled. By getting rid of some of the obscure aspects of the language (which you shouldn't be using anyway unless you have a damn good reason) you can get something more structured than C, without the bloat often found in C++.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • "800kb to 3Mb" isn't any better than a tuned implementation of X11 1) read
    2) think
    3) post
    QT/Embedded includes a big bunch of applications from addressbook over wordprocessor to MPEG (+mp3) player and games. all that fits into 2MB. That is much better then X11 and any other toolkit.
  • A week ago version 6 of the Epoc SDK was released, so I guess now would be a good time to port Qt/Palmtop to that OS as well. The size of Palm machines are nice, but I'm addicted to the keyboard.
  • RMS warned about more license traps trying to invade the freesoftware world... I guess he was right...
    let's hope not too many developers fall in this trap again.

  • Re:WOW.. (Score:1)

    by pen ( 7191 )
    WOW.. now *that* is a cool uid.

    --
    Can you even play MP3s on that thing?

  • As mentioned in other articles, Emb Qt doesn't use X. The X is not only the server but also the communication protocol between the applications (clients) and the the server. It's not only the X server which imposes large overheads, but also the protocol management and delays.

    OTH, I really believe that PDA will/need get closer to PCs, not only in the UI but also in the API and programming strategies. 30 years of evolution in UI programming, which was a big success in home computing, cannot be forgotten or changed so easily.

    And the success of PDA is based on their similar look to standard PCs and the new applications that allow to do on a PDA similar tasks as those you can do in your PCs, speciallly Internet browsing, emails and personal information management.

    --ricardo

  • Take a look at this: GNOME on PDA article on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. So yes, it did happen, and while it may be a "bloated ball of shit," it does run on a "reasonable PDA."

    So why don't in the future you refrain from opening your mouth without knowing what you talk about...

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @11:06AM (#628965)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Re:Object oriented code with C?! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I know this is a troll, but I've seen the same idea spouted by people who obviously believe it.

    C++:
    mybutton.setVisible(true);

    C:
    button_setVisible(mybutton, true);

    in english:
    C++:
    noun verb
    C:
    verb noun

    if the difference presents you with serious problems, I'm quite happy not using anything you write.

    OO is a mental abstraction, not a language. C is flexible enough to provide the primitives for easy translation of OO concepts into code, as does C++. Its just that C compilers are much much more portable and solid than C++ compilers (at the moment, at least), and the GNOMErs want to run everywhere.

    As a related rant:
    If you call yourself a programmer, you NEED to be well versed in at least 3 or 4 languages (different languages, not C++ and Java, or LISP and Scheme). Preferably with very divergent conceptual foundations. People who just learn one language let that language color their approach to solving problems. Knowing many languages allows you to think in terms of abstractions, and simply translate that down to whatever language you're using. And it allows you to see past these trivial language wars.
  • Because... C isnt nearly as compiler dependent as C++, because you can actually link object code from different C compilers together, and generally because C++ code is a PITA to get to compile correctly in a crossplatform manner? Of course, that's just 10 years of experience compiling things, so maybe I've just had a bad luck streak.

  • >Getting a port of this to the desktop would be seriously cool

    It *is* available for the Desktop, no need to run X Windows - but only with QT/embedded...
  • If you're going to restrict other people's freedom, it's only fair that Trolltech restrict yours. Besides, I don't know how the LGPL would change anything, since the only code sealed off from the copyleft is the toolkit itself.
  • As I recall, I was asking on the status of the project, which would seem to imply that we're pursuing the same bit of information. At least I looked up the link instead of just blindly replying that it "doesn't exist."

    As for "calling someone who cares," shouldn't you follow your own advice? After all, why do you continue to post about GNOME if you think it's such a bad thing? Why did you even read this article, anyway?
  • Where is the QPL for QtEmbedded?

    From the press release [trolltech.com]:
    Trolltech, creator of the Qt cross-platform graphical user interface (GUI) toolkit, today announced that the current version of Qt/Embedded will be licensed under both a commercial license and an open source license; the GNU General Public License (GPL).

    M.

  • The palm OS has prospered simply because of it's efficiency, and small application size, now they want to release an application that will affect this in a most surely negative way, and their hopes of success are based upon what? -- The popularity of Linux. I do not deny the fact that Linux is superior in every way over Windows, but I have my *serious* doubts of it's superiority over Palm OS. I'm putting my bets on a complete flop.
  • Could you explain to me the difference between the BSD license and the public domain, and why people tend to use the former, rather than the latter?
    --------
    Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
  • I would hate to have to buy a proprietary commercial license to write non-proprietary and non-commercial software.

    So get over your FSF paranoia and GPL your code. Trolltech has: "We have experienced tremendous success with our GPL licensing of Qt for the Unix desktop," said Eirik Eng, president of Trolltech.

  • The GPL only restricts your freedom to restrict others' freedom.
    --------
    Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • PDA (Score:4)

    by Mr_Icon ( 124425 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @10:08AM (#628977) Homepage

    I don't think calling someone a "Cutie" qualifies as a Public Display of Affection. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of all those sexual harrassment laws...

  • See lots of nice screenshots and download it here:

    http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/embedded/qpe. html [trolltech.com]
  • Also try out the cool demo bootable disks here [trolltech.com]. --- John
  • What is stopping gtk from doing the same thing. A programmer willing to do it. If people are complaining about then let them do something about it. But I can not program is a common response THEN LEARN I say or find some who can pay them or convince them it is the thing to do.
  • have a look in make menuconfig. there is acceleration for certain matrox cards in 2.2, might be more in 2.4 would have been nice if they'd used ggi rather than straight framebuffer tho
  • Who ever moderated this up as 'insightful' should be shot.

    Funny, perhaps... but insightful? Somebody needs to lay off the crack.
  • on a somewhat related note..

    I was thinking about getting an iPAQ w/in the next few months (holidays), and was wondering whether or not it was really viable to run Linux on it.

    Anyone using Linux only on their iPAQ to do what it was originally intended to?
  • Funnily enough, "Cutie" was the name of one of the original PDAs, Sam Slade in the 2000AD comic strip "Robohunter" had a little spherical yellow belt-mounted computer called Cutie.
  • Instead of asking "Why are we bringing X to the PDA", shouldn't we be asking, "Why aren't we bringing PDA technology to the desktop"? I mean really---Why does a PC have to be more difficult to use than a PDA? Why do we have to worry about 'shutting down properly'? When I want to shut my Palm OS device down, I just hit the power button. When I want to turn it back on, I hit the power button again, and it comes back exactly as it was before. PDAs are fast, stable and do their job well, all on extremely limited resources. (I only have experience w/ Palm OS devices) Why can't our desktops do the same?
  • Try the Agenda [agendacomputing.com]!

    Runs linux, fltk (16 shade greyscale), full tcp/ip stack, serial port, and should be able to load qt... in theory. I haven't gotten mine yet but the developer version is only ~$180, Flashable, and ships Real Soon Now(Tm)

    I'm gonna try to get Qt on it as soon as I get it.

    have fun!
    -pos

    The truth is more important than the facts.
  • http://webrunner.keenspace.com/
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057
  • A) C++ is only inherently more bloated because the standard library is bigger. It is slower because of language features like virtual functions. Otherwise, similar C an C++ code are about the same in performance.

    B) When was the last time you saw a compiler that did only C?

    C) The debugging arguement is iffy. If you do it right, C++ is only marginally harder to debug than C.

    D) An idiot coder will shot himself in the foot whether you give them a 9mm pistol (C) or an Uzi (C++)

    E) You forget to mention some of the advantages C++ has. It is a good deal more structured, and some of the automatic stuff is very useful. For example, I'm messing around with a USB joystick driver. I needed a structure to keep track of information for non-linier joysticks (MS Sidewinder) If I had been able to use C++, I could just edit the contructor to set my pointer to NULL, and edit the destructor to free the corrections structure. Instead, I had to look through the whole code for everywhere the structure was destroyed and fix it manually.
  • Well it does in linux 2.4-test10 for Matrox cards. It is still experimental. So if it is possible for Matrox, it is very well possible for the creator of IPAQ or any Handheld to program an accelerated framebuffer for their display device. No problem at all.

    I have been using linux exclusively as desktop OS since 1997.

    I have never used Windows 95+ for extended periods of time and I have converted about a dozen PCs to linux.

  • We have different views.

    The point I am trying to make is not giving the developer absolute freedom. For that kind of licensing BSD-like terms are of course the best choice.

    What TT's choice did is try to satisfy three very different groups of users-developers:
    - those who write Free Software. Those people would already use some free license, and among the free licenses the GPL has a very important role.
    - those who write Commercial software. To them, the big cost is in paying developers' wages. A few thousand dollars spent in licenses are usually not even noticeable in their cash flows.
    - Troll Tech: they need the money just like anybody else. But Free Software programmers just can't shell that kind of money usually. They'd just move to something else. Those who can, will pay. Those who likely could (and would) not, will not.

    Besides, it's in everybody's best interests to get software developed for a platform. If you get a programmer experienced in it, when s/he goes commercial s/he'll gladly shell a few bucks for it. If s/he isn't willing to, s/he can use another toolkit, no problem there. Hell, even Microsoft gives huge discounts to students...

    Also, the LGPL is all but deprecated by the FSF AFAIK. Maybe Stallman's stance might not matter to a pragmatist, but it's not something to be discounted that easily. I met him a couple of weeks ago, he was very obviously happy over GPL'ed QT and OpenOffice. The only weak point for the Free Software community is that a software using the QT can't be licensed under BSD or Artistic or whatever different license. Too bad.
  • "If you use a GPL library, your code MUST be GPL."

    But wait, how is using a GPL'd library different from using GPL'd code? Linux, for example shares some code with FreeBSD. That shared code is still BSD licensed. The GPL requires that the code linked in to be GPL compatible-only, not GPL'd itself. But the sum total of the code is now GPL'd. As long as your code is less restrictive in all ways in comparison to the GPL (like the BSD license) it is GPL compatible. The QPL requires that the library can only be used to develop "open source software". They're not explicitly saying linkage is derivation, but they're still restricting what you can link to it. The code has to be "open source" for you to use the QPL. The only difference I see is that the QPL's requirements for open source differ from the requirements for GPL-compatibility.
  • QT/Embedded includes a big bunch of applications [...] That is much better then X11 and any other toolkit.

    Without tuning and with support for multiple graphics cards and lots of extensions compiled in, the X server is about 2.2M and the FLTK toolkit is about 0.5M. With tuning and adaptation to PDA hardware, you can easily cut those in half. That leaves plenty of room for applications like an address book, word processor, and MPEG player and still stay under 2-3M, the size claimed for Qt/Embedded.

    We are down to arguing differences in the few 100k range. Even if those were in favor of Qt/Embedded, they would be insignificant. But the disadvantages of Qt/Embedded, tying yourself to a single vendor and toolkit and giving up network transparent access, are huge.

  • I wonder how hard it would be to port.

  • Yes!!! Although people talk about the Gnome/GTK and the KDE/QT being just a bunch of duplicated effort, this is just one instance of the many reasons why having two groups doing similar work is better. They BOTH push the opensource movement to new and exciting places.

    It's competition like this that drives us to achieve great things!

    Cuddles,
    the Roid

  • TrollTech will be making the embedded Qt environment for PDA systems on Monday available under a commercial and GPL license on monday.

    Sounds like something from the department of redundancy department. :-)

    -----
    "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
  • The problem is that derivation has a distinct direction.

    It's perfectly acceptable for a GPL application to include BSD code (as in the Linux kernel) or link to a BSD application, since the BSD license is compatible with the GPL. However, the opposite direction is not allowed. You may not dynamically link an application to a GPL library and release the application under anything but the GPL, because the resulting executable is considered to be a derivative (in the copyright sense) of the library. And the GPL clearly says that the Program, and any work based on the program, must use the same license.

    Section 1 of the GPL requires that the original work always and forever be under the GPL. Section 2 pertains to derivative and collective works. However, section three requires all linking code to follow section 1 AND section 2. So even if I could successfully argue that my BSD program is an "independent and separate" work, and it would easy to do so, I would still have to follow section 1 if I distributed a binary executable even though it is clearly not a verbatum copy of the library.

    There are many ways to interpret the GPL, and I personally do not feel that dynamic linkage results is derivation. But the above is how RMS and the majority of GPL developers interpret it.
  • What about Objective C? Don't laugh!
  • 1. Make it fast

    So true! Reminds me of this very relevant excerpt from the PalmOS developer docs [netmeister.org]:

    Speed is therefore a critical design objective for hand-held organizers and is not limited to execution speed of the code. The total time needed to navigate, select, and execute commands can have a big impact on overall efficiency. (Also consider that the Palm OS does not provide a wait cursor.)

    A philosophy I can live with! All MS had to do was banish the hourglass and they'd have dominated.

  • But you need applications. PalmOS is in the hotseat, but the hardware is very expensive for the extremely low power (an iPAQ is a 200MHz processor, while the Palm V's is 32MHz). With Qt/Embedded, the costs (in salaries or your own personal time) of writing applications for a handheld is greatly reduced, since you can develop, run, and RELEASE the code on X11 or Windows too. -- Warwick
  • You can see the windowmanager in the screenshots (see the decorations on the fullscreen windows and on the calcultor and clock).

    It's easy to subclass the windowmanager to provide customer look-and-feel on a per-client basis, or change the library default to get a system-wide change.

    The "launcher" that consists of the background, taskbar/startbutton/inputmethods/clock is just another application.

    Grab the binaries to get a quick look.

    --
    Warwick

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close