ProgrammingThis forum is for all programming questions.
The question does not have to be directly related to Linux and any language is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
And I still wonder, why are non-KDE Qt apps so rare?
Because there's really no benefit in not taking advantage of KDE, unless your app needs to run on platforms where KDE isn't available. Combining Qt with KDE gives you a richer API and access to KDE's theme engine.
My MPD client is a KDE app because I wanted access to KDE's icons (for the toolbar). and because I wanted it to be KDE-themed.
Yep, that's the Qt4 bindings I meant. Even if you manage to compile, the question is completeness. Though I'm not familiar in detail with Qt4 and these bindings, but somehow the question arose.
It tried Perl Qt4, it failed to compile. I also tried converting the RPM packages to pacman, they installed without an error, the files in the hard drive went where they were supposed to in the original RPM, but Perl says it can't find the modules when I try one of the examples.
Qt license used to be restrictive for a long time, i.e. there was no LFPL option;
Folks in the US do not quite like things developed in Europe (Qt is a European creation), RedHat prefers Gnome, etc.
Yes... Very good point Sergei: Even though Torvalds likes Qt doesn't mean that other FOSS users will. I am American (from California) but actually really prefer Qt Designer over Glade as well -- You don't need as many widgets (e.g. Layout) on top of the MainWindow class, You can develop complex GUIs with it without much difficulty, etc and in most cases without even knowing how to code -- you just plug in widgets and go, compiling when you're done. Even though you can also do this with Glade, in GTK most widgets depend on others, which makes for a messy experience.
Also, how can you even lay widgets out in GTK/Glade? They seem to be smooshed right together by default and the only appearant way to have some space between them is to hard-code pixel values <shiver>. OTOH, Qt makes it beautiful on its own! It sacrifices flexibility for actually being able to do what you always want. Am I misunderstanding something, or is there really no way to change this behavior in GTK?
But I kind of agree with Kenny_Strawn about the licensing. It might be FOSS now, but it's not like it's community-developed or was designed with the FOSS spirit. In fact, I have the idea (whether it's true or not) that Qt was only made free because of the pressure of all those angry KDE users who had to get illegal copies of Qt, not because they like or support FOSS.
Also, how can you even lay widgets out in GTK/Glade? They seem to be smooshed right together by default and the only appearant way to have some space between them is to hard-code pixel values <shiver>.
...
...
But I kind of agree with Kenny_Strawn about the licensing. It might be FOSS now, but it's not like it's community-developed or was designed with the FOSS spirit. In fact, I have the idea (whether it's true or not) that Qt was only made free because of the pressure of all those angry KDE users who had to get illegal copies of Qt, not because they like or support FOSS.
It's a good thing Qt was designed by a commercial entity - that's why we have much less mess in it.
And sometimes I am sick and tired of ardent GPL3 proponents ideological stance.
I know. I am talking about the distance between items in a packing box.
EDIT: see attached screenshot (in case you're wondering, the theme is QtCurve with a custom config. I wish I used a different theme for this screenshot that would better show the way the buttons are squeezed together with no gaps.).
Also, how can you even lay widgets out in GTK/Glade? They seem to be smooshed right together by default and the only appearant way to have some space between them is to hard-code pixel values <shiver>. OTOH, Qt makes it beautiful on its own! It sacrifices flexibility for actually being able to do what you always want. Am I misunderstanding something, or is there really no way to change this behavior in GTK?
But I kind of agree with Kenny_Strawn about the licensing. It might be FOSS now, but it's not like it's community-developed or was designed with the FOSS spirit. In fact, I have the idea (whether it's true or not) that Qt was only made free because of the pressure of all those angry KDE users who had to get illegal copies of Qt, not because they like or support FOSS.
You know, it's really up to the user whether to use Qt or GTK. If I had to choose, I would really choose Qt in some cases because it's cleaner (to design complex GUIs) and GTK for mainstream applications (i.e. Web browsers, office suites, terminal emulators, social clients, /etc). But it's your choice. I would say go with what you think is more practical.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.