Hi,
is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
Hi,
is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
I believe that someone at one point had it running in XPhoton but there
is no native photon port.
Cheers,
Kris
vasa <vv40in@rambler.ru> wrote:
Hi,
is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra
I managed to compile most of Qt/X11 3.0.0 under QNX 6.1.
Jens
“Kris Eric Warkentin” <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9vqml5$ofd$2@nntp.qnx.com…
I believe that someone at one point had it running in XPhoton but there
is no native photon port.Cheers,
Kris
vasa <> vv40in@rambler.ru> > wrote:
Hi,is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
\Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra
I think it would mostly be a business case problem for Trolltech. They
already support quite a few platforms so a native Photon port probably
wouldn’t be horribly difficult for them. It’s just a question of whether
they’d ever get paid for it. I think that running QT under Xphoton might be
sufficient for desktop apps but one would definitely need a native port to
use it embedded.
cheers,
Kris
“Jens H Jorgensen” <jhj@videk.com> wrote in message
news:a29mf4$m43$1@inn.qnx.com…
I managed to compile most of Qt/X11 3.0.0 under QNX 6.1.
But please contact Trolltech and ask for QNX support - I think if
sufficient
people ask - they will add support for it.Jens
“Kris Eric Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:9vqml5$ofd$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> …
I believe that someone at one point had it running in XPhoton but there
is no native photon port.Cheers,
Kris
vasa <> vv40in@rambler.ru> > wrote:
Hi,is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
\Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra
Kris Warkentin wrote:
I think it would mostly be a business case problem for Trolltech.
And why is this not a case of business for QSSL??
Qt for Photon … that means a mature C++ API for Photon … would
attract a lot of LINUX developers and would make the ports of Qt/X11
applications
much easier for native PHOTON applications!!
I wonder whether QSSL is looking for native Photon applications or not
??
Regards
Armin
They
already support quite a few platforms so a native Photon port probably
wouldn’t be horribly difficult for them. It’s just a question of whether
they’d ever get paid for it. I think that running QT under Xphoton might be
sufficient for desktop apps but one would definitely need a native port to
use it embedded.cheers,
Kris
“Jens H Jorgensen” <> jhj@videk.com> > wrote in message
news:a29mf4$m43$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I managed to compile most of Qt/X11 3.0.0 under QNX 6.1.But please contact Trolltech and ask for QNX support - I think if
sufficient
people ask - they will add support for it.Jens
“Kris Eric Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:9vqml5$ofd$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> …
I believe that someone at one point had it running in XPhoton but there
is no native photon port.Cheers,
Kris
vasa <> vv40in@rambler.ru> > wrote:
Hi,is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
\Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra
Jens
“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C4CAB59.46EC89A4@web_.de…
Kris Warkentin wrote:
I think it would mostly be a business case problem for Trolltech.
And why is this not a case of business for QSSL??
Qt for Photon … that means a mature C++ API for Photon … would
attract a lot of LINUX developers and would make the ports of Qt/X11
applications
much easier for native PHOTON applications!!I wonder whether QSSL is looking for native Photon applications or not
??Regards
Armin
They
already support quite a few platforms so a native Photon port probably
wouldn’t be horribly difficult for them. It’s just a question of
whether
they’d ever get paid for it. I think that running QT under Xphoton
might be
sufficient for desktop apps but one would definitely need a native port
to
use it embedded.cheers,
Kris
“Jens H Jorgensen” <> jhj@videk.com> > wrote in message
news:a29mf4$m43$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I managed to compile most of Qt/X11 3.0.0 under QNX 6.1.But please contact Trolltech and ask for QNX support - I think if
sufficient
people ask - they will add support for it.Jens
“Kris Eric Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:9vqml5$ofd$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> …
I believe that someone at one point had it running in XPhoton but
there
is no native photon port.Cheers,
Kris
vasa <> vv40in@rambler.ru> > wrote:
Hi,is there Qt for qnxnto ?
vasa
\Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra
vasa <vv40in@rambler.ru> wrote:
Hi,
is there Qt for qnxnto ?
I was going to release Qt3 (for X Window) along with the XFree86 port,
but then someone (TheAlien?) from the qnx irc mentioned qt compiled
out of box (or easily) on qnxnto.
Is anyone able to confirm Frank’s rumour with any details ?
“Frank Liu” <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote in message
news:a3btut$d6d$1@inn.qnx.com…
vasa <> vv40in@rambler.ru> > wrote:
Hi,is there Qt for qnxnto ?
I was going to release Qt3 (for X Window) along with the XFree86 port,
but then someone (TheAlien?) from the qnx irc mentioned qt compiled
out of box (or easily) on qnxnto.
I managed to compile Qt 3.0.0 (static library) for XPhoton fairly easy. I
think if I spend a little more time I would have been able to complile to
dynamic linked libraries also.
Jens
“Ron Groenenberg” <rgroenenberg@atsautomation.com> wrote in message
news:3c5a9f79$1@ats2.sentex.ca…
Is anyone able to confirm Frank’s rumour with any details ?
“Frank Liu” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:a3btut$d6d$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
vasa <> vv40in@rambler.ru> > wrote:
Hi,is there Qt for qnxnto ?
I was going to release Qt3 (for X Window) along with the XFree86 port,
but then someone (TheAlien?) from the qnx irc mentioned qt compiled
out of box (or easily) on qnxnto.
Jens H Jorgensen <jhj@videk.com> wrote:
I think that would be great if Qt was supported natively in Photon - I would
definitly consider using that platform. Then again there is also Qt/Embedded
which would not need Photon.
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port
Frank Liu wrote:
Jens H Jorgensen <> jhj@videk.com> > wrote:
I think that would be great if Qt was supported natively in Photon - I would
definitly consider using that platform. Then again there is also Qt/Embedded
which would not need Photon.Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon.
Yes … but that means you would loose a lot of nice Photon features …
therefore
embedded Qt for QNX6 makes no sense for me.
From my point of view makes a port of the Qt API 3.0 to native PHOTON
more sense.
A lot of interesting Qt/LINUX apps could be easily ported … and a lot
of
LINUX devolopers could move to QNX6 ( well, at least with their apps
)
Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
IMHO … a Qt/Embedded port wouldn’t be interesting from a technology
point of view.
Regards
Armin
Armin Steinhoff <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:
Yes … but that means you would loose a lot of nice Photon features …
therefore
embedded Qt for QNX6 makes no sense for me.
that’s probably why they didn’t release qt/embedded for QNX.
I took a brief look at it and it should be too difficult to port
it to qnx.
From my point of view makes a port of the Qt API 3.0 to native PHOTON
more sense.
it is probably too big a task that scares people away
A lot of interesting Qt/LINUX apps could be easily ported … and a lot
of
LINUX devolopers could move to QNX6 ( well, at least with their apps >
)
well, qt/embedded (or even qt/x11) can achieve this goal.
qt api should be the same for different OS, right?
if you run qnx6 on a powerful desktop and don’t care about the
memory, you can go qt/x11, and if your application has a memory
constraint, you can go the low qt/embedded, which can run with 2M
of ram. you wont’ lose the GUI features in anyway (assuming qt
is truely cross platform).
IMHO … a Qt/Embedded port wouldn’t be interesting from a technology
point of view.
this is probably the reason why no one ever looked at it
you are right, it should be just forgoten.
frank
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a guy from Troll hanging
out on #qnx that was doing a port of Qt/Embedded using the “direct mode”
that the devg drivers offer. I bet if someone called Troll with $$ on the
table they could get it. Heck, it might even be in the current CVS release
of Qt3 and no one has noticed.
chris
–
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> wrote:
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a guy from Troll hanging
out on #qnx that was doing a port of Qt/Embedded using the “direct mode”
that the devg drivers offer. I bet if someone called Troll with $$ on the
speaking of $$, I just looked at their site for pricing.
We should probably forget about it
frank
table they could get it. Heck, it might even be in the current CVS release
of Qt3 and no one has noticed.chris
–
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
Frank Liu <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote:
Armin Steinhoff <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:
Yes … but that means you would loose a lot of nice Photon features …
therefore
embedded Qt for QNX6 makes no sense for me.that’s probably why they didn’t release qt/embedded for QNX.
just curious, I sent an email to trolltech and got an reply today.
qt-embedded is fully ported to qnx6!! but it is not open-sourced.
(that’s probably why we didn’t see it in the downloadable source).
so the discussion is over for qt/embedded
frank
Frank Liu wrote:
Frank Liu <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote:
Armin Steinhoff <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:
Yes … but that means you would loose a lot of nice Photon features …
therefore
embedded Qt for QNX6 makes no sense for me.that’s probably why they didn’t release qt/embedded for QNX.
just curious, I sent an email to trolltech and got an reply today.
qt-embedded is fully ported to qnx6!! but it is not open-sourced.
(that’s probably why we didn’t see it in the downloadable source).
so the discussion is over for qt/embedded >
Well … the existence of Qt/embedded should be a good reason for QSSL
to initiate a port of the Qt API to native Photon … if QSSL is
interested to see Photon based embedded applications
Armin
frank
Our company is ready to spend some $ for QtE/QNX.
Jens
“Frank Liu” <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote in message
news:a3kqdk$nkt$1@inn.qnx.com…
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote:
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a guy from Troll
hanging
out on #qnx that was doing a port of Qt/Embedded using the “direct mode”
that the devg drivers offer. I bet if someone called Troll with $$ on
thespeaking of $$, I just looked at their site for pricing.
We should probably forget about it >
franktable they could get it. Heck, it might even be in the current CVS
release
of Qt3 and no one has noticed.chris
–
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
“Jens H Jorgensen” <remove-nospam-jhj@videk.com> wrote in message
news:a3mj2a$476$1@inn.qnx.com…
Our company is ready to spend some $ for QtE/QNX.
I think the cross platform compatability in Qt(E) is outstanding.
Furthermore the Qt API and Qt Designer are great. I just love the fact
that
you would be able to write an application and compile it under Win32 or
under QNX
Tilcon offers a product that allows application to be recompile for
various platform (QNX6, Win32) Never tried it myself.
–
Jens
“Frank Liu” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:a3kqdk$nkt$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote:
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would
understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a guy from Troll
hanging
out on #qnx that was doing a port of Qt/Embedded using the “direct
mode”
that the devg drivers offer. I bet if someone called Troll with $$ on
thespeaking of $$, I just looked at their site for pricing.
We should probably forget about it >
franktable they could get it. Heck, it might even be in the current CVS
release
of Qt3 and no one has noticed.chris
–
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
\
Thanks for pointing that out.
I am going to take a look at Tilcon’s GUI library but it doesn’t look as
easy to do cross platform porting as Qt(E). It seems you have the
responsibility of #ifdef…#endif your way out of differences between
platforms in your own code, where as Qt wraps all the OS specifics into
their Qt classes.
–
Jens
“Mario Charest” <goto@nothingness.com> wrote in message
news:a3mp2e$84d$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Jens H Jorgensen” <> remove-nospam-jhj@videk.com> > wrote in message
news:a3mj2a$476$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Our company is ready to spend some $ for QtE/QNX.I think the cross platform compatability in Qt(E) is outstanding.
Furthermore the Qt API and Qt Designer are great. I just love the fact
that
you would be able to write an application and compile it under Win32 or
under QNXTilcon offers a product that allows application to be recompile for
various platform (QNX6, Win32) Never tried it myself.–
Jens
“Frank Liu” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:a3kqdk$nkt$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote:
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would
understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a guy from Troll
hanging
out on #qnx that was doing a port of Qt/Embedded using the “direct
mode”
that the devg drivers offer. I bet if someone called Troll with $$
on
thespeaking of $$, I just looked at their site for pricing.
We should probably forget about it >
franktable they could get it. Heck, it might even be in the current CVS
release
of Qt3 and no one has noticed.chris
–
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
\
Jens H Jorgensen wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out.
I am going to take a look at Tilcon’s GUI library but it doesn’t look as
easy to do cross platform porting as Qt(E).
It is more or less easy … but the C++ support and object orientation
is very limited. They have a big plus in animated virtual instruments.
Qt supports all other areas of GUIs better.
It seems you have the
responsibility of #ifdef…#endif your way out of differences between
platforms in your own code, where as Qt wraps all the OS specifics into
their Qt classes.
Yes, the Qt classes are first class
Armin
–
Jens“Mario Charest” <> goto@nothingness.com> > wrote in message
news:a3mp2e$84d$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Jens H Jorgensen” <> remove-nospam-jhj@videk.com> > wrote in message
news:a3mj2a$476$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Our company is ready to spend some $ for QtE/QNX.I think the cross platform compatability in Qt(E) is outstanding.
Furthermore the Qt API and Qt Designer are great. I just love the fact
that you would be able to write an application and compile it under Win32 or
under QNXTilcon offers a product that allows application to be recompile for
various platform (QNX6, Win32) Never tried it myself.–
Jens
“Frank Liu” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:a3kqdk$nkt$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote:
Given the strength of QNX, it is probably making more sense to port
Qt/Embedded than Qt/X11, besides, Qt/Embedded is a much easier port
than Qt/Photon. Since Qt/Embedded doesn’t need photon or other GUI
environment, it is probably better suited for QNX/embedded.
This sounds like a competing product for photon, and I would
understand
why QSSL isn’t interested in such a port >
I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a guy from Troll
hanging
out on #qnx that was doing a port of Qt/Embedded using the “direct
mode”
that the devg drivers offer. I bet if someone called Troll with $$
on
thespeaking of $$, I just looked at their site for pricing.
We should probably forget about it >
franktable they could get it. Heck, it might even be in the current CVS
release
of Qt3 and no one has noticed.chris
–
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I
get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/
\