faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Mike Hearn on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @13:53
|
> Macintosh has had a looooong history of open/free/shareware software
> (Hyperarchive anyone?)
Hmmm? Shareware is very different to free software.... Mac hardly has any history at all in that field.
> and MOST importantly port MacOSX apps to KDE!
How does that work? MacOS X apps are built on proprietary APIs, not Qt. You would have to rewrite the apps in order to port them, and AFAIK there are no open source programs that are sufficiently compelling and unique to warrant that. It'd just be the same old thing, open source code gets ported to MacOS, but none comes back. It's expected, same thing has been happening for years with Windows. Making even open source Windows programs run on Linux is very hard, but the reverse in not true (to the same extent).
I'm not sure how this benefits KDE, except perhaps by having more users of Qt based software (but then again mac users could use that before via X11). |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Rayiner Hashem on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @14:14
|
The nice thing is that Qt/Mac software, unlike X11 based Mac software, looks and feels native. Thus, software can be coded for OS X and QT/Mac, and easily be ported to Linux and Qt/Linux.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Mike Hearn on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @14:17
|
Yes, that's true enough. I'm not convinced Mac developers would use a non-native toolkit personally. Boy, do they love their cocoa ;)
Also, as I stated later, I think it uses a skin. A good skin, but still not native controls mind...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by rilla on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @18:37
|
> I'm not convinced Mac developers would use a non-native toolkit personally
I dont think the Mac version of Qt is marketed for primarily Mac developers, but insteadd for people who want to develop apps cross platform. Mac users are being increasingly exposed to free software and I think more and more people
> Also, as I stated later, I think it uses a skin. A good skin, but still not native controls mind...
Based on what I've heard, it uses carbon. Qt-Mac apps, such as Psi (great app-- best jabber app ever btw, use it all the time) or TOra (which hasn't officially been released for OSX, but preview builds work), look and feel just like Carbon apps. If it uses skins, i'll be VERY suprised because it works with the carbon no-lines hack. Only thing that seems to be weird is the toolbar handle but I think that's because carbon doesn't natively support moving around toolbars. MS Office v.X has it's own toolbar handles as do any apps with that functionality.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Don Sanders on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @20:55
|
Right. Early versions of Qt/Mac used a skin (pixmap based QStyle), but we changed over to using the OSX Appearance Manager API to draw widgets some time ago.
This is native, even if an OSX machine is using a third party (unsupported) OSX theme, or if apple brings out a new theme then Qt apps will draw widgets using that theme.
Don.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Paul Irwin on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @20:40
|
cocoa, once you start using it, proves to be IMHO the greatest interface and programming environment ever. don't get me wrong, i'm still a 40% linux user, and gcc is minimalistically awesome. but the 40% mac user in me loves cocoa to death. and the dev tools are free, like they should be. forget visual studio! but this Qt/Mac looks promising, considering that i now do some of my linux coding in Kate running inside X11 on Mac OS X, but it's a hindrance to have to run X11 just to get Kate to run. great job, guys! (in case you were wondering, the other 20% of me is windows XP!)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Rakko on Saturday 16/Aug/2003, @18:34
|
If you like Cocoa and Linux, you might want to look at GNUstep (if you haven't already). It's based on the same OpenStep framework as Cocoa.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Rayiner Hashem on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @01:23
|
I think, from the Konqueror shots, it just looks like a skin, because the Konq toolbars don't integrate so well into a Mac look.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by pret on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @07:33
|
MacOSX doesn't have a standard widget for windows-style toolbars handles. That's why it's like that. Microsoft apps, such as Office v.X are similiar-- but imho, a better apporach-- toolbar is a mini window at the top of the screen.. that isn't very OSX like, but is at least classic macos like. It's not a skin. You can prove this by running one of many aqua themes from resexcellenece =)
Other apps on OSX that have Windows-like toolbars also have their own custom toolbar handles. Even apps made in Cocoa do.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by Rayiner Hashem on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @01:25
|
They use Carbon, after all, which isn't really native like Cocoa is. Besides, I think the only reason the KDE screenshots look like they're using a skin is because the KDE toolbars don't fit the OS X look very well.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: This is welcome news...
by fault on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @09:13
|
> They use Carbon, after all, which isn't really native like Cocoa is.
Yeah, Qt/Mac uses Carbon, but this doesn't matter anymore in since MacOSX 10.1.5. Both Cocoa and Carbon in 10.1.5 (and 10.2.x) go through the Appearance Manager before being sent to the Window Compositing Manager. Back in 10.0.x and 10.1.0-4, Carbon apps often looked similiar to Cocoa apps, but had "one pixel off"-type of problems that didn't always make them feel like Cocoa apps. This isn't true anymore and you're likely not to notice the difference.
Apple did a real great job with this after initially blundering it up in the initial release(s) of OSX. It's a good model that Microsoft didn't follow between win16 and win32.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Changing Now: Apple is rockin' with OSS
by OSX_KDE_Interpollination on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @15:48
|
shipping with KHTML, tcsh, apache, X-Window System, Mach-Mk/BSD/Darwin etc.
This is great news
Oh yeah Unix on the desktop == 1% ... I expect that to increase to greater thatn MacOS share very soon. If you audit a campus for "type of desktop" you'll see lots of Unix and it's increasing.
Our campus is more like 5% Unix or more ...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Changing Now: Apple is rockin' with OSS
by fault on Tuesday 17/Jun/2003, @18:15
|
Erm, MacOSX is perfectly a form of a Unix (but isn't officially a OpenGroup-labelled "UNIX"), and has more of a right being called that than Linux, which is only Unix-like and not directly decended from either svr4 nor bsd, does.
See http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
go into the light
by verytechnical on Wednesday 18/Jun/2003, @01:11
|
>> Macintosh has had a looooong history of open/free/shareware software
>> (Hyperarchive anyone?)
>>
> Hmmm? Shareware is very different to free software.... Mac hardly has
>any history at all in that field.
No. From a HyperArchive search, all of these are free, with source code that one can reuse.
- SpriteWorld
- TransSkel
- Mozilla
- Mesa/Mac
- GW-Ada/Ed-Mac
- Brian Hook's 3D tools
- AIFF/DSP framework
- StonerView "produces a weirdly hypnotic helix of rippling colors"
- ircle, IRC client
- Blender/Mac, 3D modeler
- Jotto II, a word game based on logic and frustration
- Quesa
- Darwin
- QuickTime streaming server
- Road Runner/Mac
- GCC enhancements.
- Improvements to KHTML and KJS.
- Countless enhancements to other free software.
> How does that work? MacOS X apps are built on proprietary APIs, not Qt.
Qt is as much a proprietary API as OpenStep.
> You would have to rewrite the apps in order to port them
Not using GNUStep.
> It's expected, same thing has been happening for years with Windows.
It is true: the rest of the world is still catching up to Unix circa 1980.
But we are catching up.
> I'm not sure how this benefits KDE, except perhaps by having more
> users of Qt based software (but then again mac users could use
> that before via X11).
GNUStep and Qt are the best multi-platform solutions that I know of right not. Java needs speed and a free, obvious RAD environment. I just became exposed to Qt and it was by Qt/Mac. Perhaps now I will port my free software to Linux.
Everyone wins as programmers become free to distribute on multiple OS's.
Cheers,
James
jamesp_uhuh_670@earthlink.net
remove _uhuh and the second underscore to email
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
