Why is Qtopia much faster?

[Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:36:06 +1000 Lorn Potter <lpotter at trolltech.com> babbled:

> > i guess i just don't lik the idea of a thin vertical stack where at each
> > layer 1 choice has been made for me and i'm stuck with it, like it or not,
> > or i move to a whole different stack. eg - must use qt, or must use gtk, or
> > must use efl. allow the choice to be made at the latest stage - not the
> > earliest. i prefer the idea of an ecosystem where all these toolkits and
> > mechanisms get along and co-habitate. jungle vs ivory tower guess... i'm a
> > jungle kinda guy! :) anyone want a banana? :)
> 
> I guess you have to define your target audience. The small niche linux hacker
> group or the larger general phone community that requires a consistent look
> and feel. Perhaps a good read of the Human Interface Design Principles at
> apple might do some good.

in that case, maybe we should all have given up - trolltech included, and
simply have used windows and visual studio - so we have a consistent os,
programming environment, ui toolkit etc. why should there be any variety or
choice - i mean... qt is a waste of time competing because it's different to
everything else.

variety is a fact of life. UNLIKE other platforms we get the chance to support
all of the variety - at once easily. other platforms force you into their idea
of toolkit, like it or no. at least i dont have to reboot just to run another
app using another toolkit...

> > sure, but any non-qt app.. will be a behemoth to port. you either:
> 
> just as any non-<toolkit-of-the-day>
> Like porting a qtopia app to gpe. or a windows app to linux. are you going to
> include win32 or S60 port because they have _way_ more applications written
> for them.

and so from that point of view - qtopia would be a loser as it has many fewer
apps written for it than general X11. :)

> > 1. do a whole port of the app to qt/qtopia (work work work!)
> >   (not to mention now that this basically means you pay nokia a license fee,
> > or your app must be GPL, can't be mit-x11, bsd, APL, MPL etc.).
> 
> You want to charge people money for your commercial app? so why is it bad for
> Trolltech ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Nokia to do the same?
> GPL ensures that the code and software remains free. Besides, the Neo is
> touted as a "Free your phone" phone. Why would you want to install non free
> apps on it? I could just as easily use any Nokia phone in existence.

i never mentioned commercial apps nor money. your idea of open is not mine - or
the next person along's. i prefer the open of mit-x11/bsd, not GPL. all are
free, open and cost $0, but GPL places more restrictions.

> Actually you are free to license the code you write in any way you want. It
> just has to be compatible with the license you link it to. No one is stopping
> you from writing your code in multiple licenses anyway.

if i want to write a library and license it with a less restrictive, yet still
open license, it BECOMES GPL - for all purposes GPL will virally impose itself.
this is not the case if i use gtk, sdl, efl etc., but is the case with qt. it
then would be my choice, as a developer of open, and free software, to choose a
toolkit that doesn't limit my own freedom to license as i please. remember i
never talked about charging for software or it being closed. :)

-- 
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>