Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qt 5.7 released

blog.qt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#71

Post by Matthias247 »

zanny wrote: post #40
maheart wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (L)GPL3 disallows Tivoization[1]. Unfortunately, device manufacturers (including Apple) have avoided upgrading to the latest version of certain software (e.g. Bash, Samba, GCC) to avoid the (L)GPL3. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

So the LGPL is fulfilling its promise and doing its job by protecting its users from tonka toy hardware they can't control.

I don't see any help in protecting auser, if he can see some parts of code and (in case of [L]GPL3 exchange them) but not everything. The "malicous" parts (whatever that means in that context) can still be in the proprietary software parts.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#72

Post by pjmlp »

dman wrote: post #70
zerr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I think it will be a no-brainier to pay. So I think models such as "pay after your first 10K (or 100K) revenue" work.

Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.

I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools.

My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools.

Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms.

Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations.

So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling services or SaaS software no one pays them.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#73

Post by dman »

pjmlp wrote: post #72
dman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.

I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling se…

I strongly empathize with you on this. It seems that most of us want to believe that the only value add should happen at layer of the software stack we are working on, everything below and above should be a complete (free) commodity.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#74

Post by AceJohnny2 »

salicideblock wrote: post #68
Nokinside wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with paying for an extremely high quality GUI toolkit? Btw. It's very easy to comply LGPLv3 in proprietary project if you want. 1) If you don't modify the Qt library and link dynamically there is no problem whatsoever. 2) If you modify the Qt library or link statically, it's enough to provide modified version of the Qt library and combined object files that make it possible to relink the application to d…

You are forgetting that section 6 of GPLv3 still applies. That's the so-called "anti-Tivoization clause" that states that you must give the device owner "Installation information", allowing him to install and execute modified forms on this device. I understand why you would license your software under this if you want to give end users the SW freedoms developers enjoy. I also understand why many makers of safety-crit…

This is also the reason OS X ships with ancient versions of bash, make, and other common GNU tools: those were the last versions to be available under GPLv2.

(Why they ship many of the more optional ones at all instead of embracing external providers like Homebrew or Macport continues to mystify and frustrate me)

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#75

Post by volomike1 »

My understanding is that with Qt, you can keep your own Qt source compiled (and not shared) and use the open source license of Qt, but must dynamically link to the runtimes, list the open source license in your application directory, and list a URL where people can download the source of those Qt runtime DLLs that you are linking.

Also, I found the widgets sub-par to modern interfaces you see on the web today. Let me give you a good example. Do you know those "Check All" checkboxes at the top of grids to check all the checkboxes on the left column of a grid? Yeah, to do that with Qt widgets requires subclassing and intercepting paint events. To me, that's a kludge. So then there's QtQuick. When I compared what I could do in QtQuick compared to what I could do with Webkit/jQuery/CSS, I wondered why be hampered by the limitations of QtQuick when I could just get it all in Webkit/jQuery/CSS. So, I opted to build my stuff in Webkit/jQuery/CSS and use the C++/Webkit bridge that adds an object to the DOM that I can interface with jQuery. The other advantage is that I can hire a web designer (cheaper than a C++ coder (who, often have poor interface skills, anyway)) who knows a bit about jQuery/CSS to design the interfaces for me (they appear in the upper left corner of a web page). We make them web server-less -- they load with file:// handles. Then, I still have the option to IFRAME web content as well as use REST-like APIs (JSON or XML) via jQuery to interact with the web server, or let the C++ interact with the web server over REST-like APIs. The other great reason to use Webkit is because it has a vast library of freely explained techniques for great interface widgets.

There was also a mention about charts. I use Chartjs.org inside my Webkit interface.

The only drawback about going with this Webkit technique is that it does increase the size of your project considerably. On Windows, there's no getting around this. However, on the Mac, the way I got around it was to take my Webkit interface and port it to Objective C/C++ (and try to keep most of it in C++ because I find ObjC quite messy and bizarre, and because I can wrap ObjC stuff in C++). I use a Webkit widget on a form, and it uses the native webkit that comes with the Mac. Therefore, the installer download is tremendously smaller. I then ported the Qt/C++ code into ObjC/C++ -- that wasn't easy, but was manageable for any trained C++ coder.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#76

Post by salicideblock »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #74
salicideblock wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting that section 6 of GPLv3 still applies. That's the so-called "anti-Tivoization clause" that states that you must give the device owner "Installation information", allowing him to install and execute modified forms on this device. I understand why you would license your software under this if you want to give end users the SW freedoms developers enjoy. I also understand why many makers of safety-crit…

This is also the reason OS X ships with ancient versions of bash, make, and other common GNU tools: those were the last versions to be available under GPLv2. (Why they ship many of the more optional ones at all instead of embracing external providers like Homebrew or Macport continues to mystify and frustrate me)

Is it the same reason? Doesn't OS X allow you to replace the system bash?

If someone breaks their init with this replacement, Apple can always say "reinstall the OS". But if you're talking about a car that has crashed that's a different PR problem...

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#77

Post by steaminghacker »

Ive been using QtQuick for a while now and the last two weeks i've battled with 5.7RC. So, time to dl the proper release and see if it works any better.

My conclusions are that it's fantastic for desktop apps, but I'm having a lot less success with mobile, specifically Android.

Originally, my plan was to reserve QT for desktop and write the mobile versions separately, whilst sharing the same C++ backend. However, i got tempted to try cross compiling my desktop version for Android.

After a massive battle, it works - a bit. But there's enough that doesn't work that prevents me from making a release just yet (cut & paste is missing!). Looks like I'll have to fill in the blanks myself.

Then Android is always a pig. I'm chewing over whether to recompile QT from source and start hacking it about for Android. This is what Ive had to do with pretty much all the cross platform systems. Android support is always poor and buggy.

On LGPL, I'm fine with it. If you want my QML source code, sure. But for now, I'll keep the backend DLL/.so closed (although I'd like to open that too, when ready). If you want to be able to change the front end and rebuild, I'm ok with that too. in fact, I'll happily document the backend interface for you.

Can we have more Controls.2 QML examples please (most are recycled v1 examples). QtQuick lacks in the tutorial department, although the online docs are good, once you know what you're looking for.

qmake is great, but qtcreator sucks, sorry. Qt widgets is obsolete, QtQuick is the way, once you get over QML.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#78

Post by sangnoir »

pjmlp wrote: post #72
dman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.

I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling se…

> So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free

I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millennials.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#79

Post by Avshalom »

zerr wrote: post #61
pjmlp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many developers feel entitled to get their tools for free, but expect to be able to charge for their stuff, it seems. This is what made RoboVM go comercial AFAIK, as they could hardly make a living from contributions.

Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I think it will be a no-brainier to pay. So I think models such as "pay after your first 10K (or 100K) revenue" work.

Well then Qt is great because it's free, you can ship your app using Qt with out paying a nickel and it keeps being free no matter what your revenue. It only costs money if you want to ship your app with different legal terms.

Re: Qt 5.7 released

#80

Post by zem »

vram22 wrote: post #43
feiss wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wondered why, after all these years, the only alternatives that remain are wxWidgets and Qt. It's a very common pattern, multiplatform gui programming! and after all this time, we only have 2 choices..

There are a few other choices for multi-platform GUI programming. Just not too many, and the ones other than wxWidgets and Qt are not so well known a.k.a. mentioned so often on the net. But they exist. There's a Wikipedia page with a list of GUI toolkits. I've tried a few of them briefly, earlier. FLTK (Fast Light Tool Kit) and Fox toolkit are two. Some of them are in C/C++ but some of those have bindings for Python,…

IUP has pretty good chicken scheme bindings too. http://wiki.call-cc.org/iup-tutor
Post reply on HN