Why is Qtopia much faster?
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
raster at openmoko.org
Wed Jul 23 01:54:35 CEST 2008
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:38:35 +1000 Lorn Potter <lpotter at trolltech.com> babbled:
> > and so from that point of view - qtopia would be a loser as it has many
> > fewer apps written for it than general X11. :)
> No, because it is easy to make a Qt app into a Qtopia app.
> two or three line change in the best case (QApplication -> QtopiaApplication
> and for the menu)
still limits it to qt apps only. gtk, xul, fltk, efl, raw xlib... need major
work. an x11 environment can ALSO run the qt apps... so it's a superset.
> >>> 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.
> Yes you did. "pay for a license' implies both money and you needing a
> commercial license, which implies you intend on producing closed source
no - i meant either i accept GPL, OR i pay for a license TO nokia to AVOID the
GPL infecting my software. me paying for a license to not mean i thus obviously
am going to make my library app closed and force people to pay for it, but
the reality that i have to fork out money to ship something licensed as NOT
being GPL, invariably will lead to having to charge for it.
> > 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. :)
> So, instead you choose to limit the freedom of your users, which include
> other developers.
how does this limit them? they have access t more apps, more toolkits and more
software and have the CHOICE to choose their applications, be they open, or
closed, GPL, LGPL, MIT-X11, BSD etc. etc. etc. how does this seem like less
freedom to you?
> btw, kde libs are licensed LGPL.
i know. but as they invariably use QT, GPL superceeds LGPL in terms of being
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>
More information about the community