That's because most of the native Qt widgets that aren't KDE-specific are proprietary and used primarily in M$ WinBloze apps.

If you want something genuinely FOSS your best bet is GTK+.

Also: GTK+ absolutely must not depend entirely on GNOME, as the latest releases of Xfce also are based on GTK+ code.

0 members found this post helpful.

That is absolutely false.

It amazes me that you would make up misinformation like that.

For one thing, none of Qt's widgets are KDE-specific. KDE's widgets are contained in the separate kdeui library, and all of them are subclassed from Qt's widgets. Which means they're obviously not any more "proprietary" than their superclasses. And to talk about "native" Qt widgets is meaningless.

Where from did you take that info ?

<removed>

0 members found this post helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)

Offering the option of a commercial license, as an alternative to the two open source licenses also offered, does not make Qt proprietary.

You should have looked into why Nokia offers that option, what the terms are, and why someone might want to pay for it.

http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing

Needless to say, no part of Qt is proprietary.

Ummmm ... that article doesn't mention anything like
your statement above; where on earth did you learn to
make citations or quotes?


Cheers,
Tink

I think you have serious problems with understanding what LGPL and/or English in general.

Specifically, recheck you understanding of what "widget" means in GUI toolkit context.

I know what 'widget' means. It's a visual piece of a GUI (such as a window, bar, or panel) that combines with others to make the whole GUI's visual appearance.

And I also know that the LGPL is a license that serves as a compromise between permissive licenses and copyleft licenses. That's why it is called "Lesser": It says that software that merely links with software licensed under it can be under another license, even a proprietary license, but software that actually uses its code may not.

So, how do "most of the native Qt widgets that aren't KDE-specific are proprietary" come from your words above ?

I also don't get where you got the idea that Qt is proprietary. It was, but not any more.

All I said was that GTK+ is FOSS all the way and is community-developed, while AFAIK Qt is developed by a corporation and just releases it under a FOSS license to keep KDE users from getting angry about the fact that they must install non-free software.

*** If you think Qt is connected to KDE, please read below ***

Also, there seem to be plenty of members that falsely believe that Qt is part of or dependant on KDE. Yes, there are KDE widgets, but they are all just subclasses of pure nothing-to-do-with-KDE Qt widgets. Also, people say that Qt is KDE because most Qt progrmas bring in KDE dependencies. But this is because most Qt programs are made specifically for KDE, because just about no-one but KDE uses Qt for some reason. This is no different than a GTK+ program made specifically for GNOME pulling in GNOME dependencies. Writing a Qt program that has nothing to do with KDE is just as simple as writing a GTK+ program that has nothing to do with GNOME.

If you really want examples of Qt programs with no KDE dependencies, check out "SpeedCrunch" and "VirtualBox". They don't even follow KDE's theme setting! To change "pure" non-KDE Qt settings, including the theme, run the command "qtconfig".

Kenny;

Based on our discussion in another thread**, I concur that you need to be more careful with your facts and references. Please don't modify your enthusiasm---just slow down a bit....

thanks

**http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...nux-os-819405/ (In this thread, you never posted a follow-up after the post from the company making the SW. )

1 members found this post helpful.

A long time ago in Qt Designer I made a complex GUI for fun. It was very easy, it Just Worked, and it looks perfect and professional.

Just to see, I decided to try recreating it in Glade. It's insane how difficult and frustrating it is. The main problem is the layouts. Somehow in Qt you just throw it together and it looks PERFECT. But in GTK+, you have to change all these little settings and even set hard-coded pixel values for spacings (yuck)!

Also, in Qt, they don't have these complicated packing boxes where things go in the front and in the back. They just have "spacers", which you can pretend are like invisible springs that push apart certain GUI elements in a box layout. So simple!

I can't believe how someone in their right mind would ever choose to write an app in GTK+ rather than Qt, having gotten a taste of both. I'm just thinking, maybe I'm doing something wrong? How could it be that GTK+ is so popular?!?

My 2 pence.

Qt is far more than just GUI library, you've got thread, network ... os-independant wrappers. GTK+ is GUI only. Am i wrong there since nobody else tell that important point ?

The official Qt's documentation is really great, GTK+ official documentation is quite incomplete.

Not that much experencied with Qt (only a dozen of app), I've tried Qt-designer and I don't like it, especially because I never found a way to declare an array of identical widgets, Qt-designer output is a big unreadable source code you've got to compile. By the way, writing a "not that much" complicated GUI by hand only is really easy.

I've tried GTK+ only once, and without testing glade, but afaik glade output is an xml description of your widget that could be interpreted at runtime. There too, I found that writing gui by hand is quite easy, but i think that pure C object oriented coding can be disturbing for somebody not too experienced.

A couple of reasons:

1. Qt license used to be restrictive for a long time, i.e. there was no LFPL option;
2. Folks in the US do not quite like things developed in Europe (Qt is a European creation), RedHat prefers Gnome, etc.