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
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
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
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 +
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
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 reasons
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
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 double
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
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 really
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 to program
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 at all
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++
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 not free (as in beer) for commercial usage
This is not the only reason
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.
Which
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
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
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
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
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,
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 Wikipedia,
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 25 set 07 08:18:31 +0200
Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
- But QT
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
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
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
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
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
an 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
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
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
This is not the
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 physical
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: 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.
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
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 Neo1973
Date: mar 25 set 07 08:18
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 expect
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 about their
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 to
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
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 of the
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 plain C be better,
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 in C.
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 programming
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
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
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
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 :)
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.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=ensa=Xoi=spellresnum=0ct=resultcd=1
comments on preferring QT for the quality docs and IDE. I'd rather
plug
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
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
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
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 example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
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
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,
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
fact
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
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
[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
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
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 makes
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
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. I
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
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
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 08:18, Mauro Iazzi wrote:
before someone beats me to it.
http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2007-09-17.926075
5578
and
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5429713730.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW5q8SpY7t4
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.
---
G O Jones
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 easy.
Regards,
Jon
Mauro Iazzi wrote:
before someone beats me to it.
Hi, great news, but what does this mean?
We need a posting of the projekt management, will Neo s Menue switch to QT?
This means a GTK application will not work?
Or: Any QT-Applicaiton will work now automatically?
We need this info, for a decision, to stick to the library either a
GTK-Gui or the
Michael Schmidt wrote:
Hi, great news, but what does this mean?
We need a posting of the projekt management, will Neo s Menue switch to QT?
This means a GTK application will not work?
Or: Any QT-Applicaiton will work now automatically?
We need this info, for a decision, to stick to the library
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 could boot into QTopia to surf the net and debug the
In short: Qtopia is going to be fully GPL'd (telephony applications
included, which weren't) and is being ported to Neo1973.
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
On 18/09/2007, Jonathan Spooner [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 easy.
Regards,
Jon
with the drawback
On 18/09/2007, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
I've enjoyed watching the openmoko project grow - and I think it's a massive
boost to the philosophy behind the project (and possibly to the perceived
sustainability of the project) that another company is able to take the
hardware specs and port their applications to the neo1973. I think it's
On 18/09/2007, Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
Hi, great news, but what does this mean?
We need a posting of the projekt management, will Neo s Menue switch to QT?
This means a GTK application will not work?
Or: Any QT-Applicaiton will work now automatically?
Quite simply if you have an X server
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 easy.
with the drawback
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? - no, if the
GTK-Library is
On 9/18/07, Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what is the difference of openmoko and neo?
Thought neo is the phone and openmoko the project running it.
So a GTK gui would work even with QTopia phone?
Ok then there is a development interest for GTK...
OpenMoko is an open-source GTK
On Tuesday 18 September 2007, Michael Schmidt wrote:
what is the difference of openmoko and neo?
Thought neo is the phone and openmoko the project running it.
The Neo1973 is the phone hardware FIC are making.
OpenMoko is an open platform for phones and other similar hardware, and builds
on the
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 could
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
OpenMoko should stick to what it is doing already.
I second this.
QT is nice, but OpenMoko can contain the nice QT too!
I'm looking forward for OM!
Simon
___
OpenMoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
fwiw --
I just installed the qtopia images, and am _very_ impressed.
On bootup my phone told me I had new text messages, and displayed them
very easily. I even sent a text without issue.
Phone calling works, for both incoming and outgoing calls, the only
hitch was that I had to manually
On 9/18/07, Giles Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
Quite simply if you have an X server running and you launch an app using QT
it will read the libraries and launch. Same with a GTK app.
Of course there may not be room in the ROM for both, but it's
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
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
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.
John
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.
[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
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 there
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
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 code.
[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
[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
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 server
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 was
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
