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-optimal. > > > > It's not a reason at all. Neo is a "free" phone! If I wanted commercial > > applications, I could easily use any other phone out there. The reason > > why we are all here, is because the Neo is 'free software'. Would the > > Neo interest you as much if it wasn't as 'free'? > > Tell that to all the people using Wine under Linux.
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 expect people to pay for *your* software you should not be suprised when you have to pay for a toolkit yourself. The SDK appears to cost 146 euro, that should be an affordable investment for any commercial developer. > 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 plain C be better, what matters in the and is the binary that is spit out by the compiler. I don't see why a C++ compiler should produce a binary that is somehow less suitable for small devices. Theoretically two programs written it two totally different languages could still compile to identical binaries providing identical functionality. If your C program is indeed more suitable for small devices it just means your C++ compiler needs to be improved. You do realize that C++ was explicitly designed with embedded software in mind? > > > 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. <qt-rant>In fact, coding with Qt is much faster than gtk. > > Ask people that have done both.</qt-rant> > > agree, anybody that has tried both knows it's like night and day, qt > is miles ahead in ease of development. And if I where developing a pure basic phone, I'd drop the X server right away. But for a device like the Neo 1973 i'm not that sure. There are quit some existing applications I'd like to run on that thing and most of them are X applications. Losing X is good thing,not being able to use all that code out there is not. I'm not totaly convinced of either approach yet, I guess both have their place. AVee -- When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. _______________________________________________ OpenMoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
