Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Original BeOS Developer Now at Trolltech 255

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the shakeups-and-new-blood dept.
UltimaGuy writes "Benoit Schillings, co-creator of the Be operating system and former CTO of Openwave, has been appointed to the newly created position of chief technology officer (CTO) at Trolltech. In the meantime, Trolltech has also joined the new mobile OSDL initiative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Original BeOS Developer Now at Trolltech More

Original BeOS Developer Now at Trolltech

Comments Filter:

  • Issues With Trolltech Lower Excitement (Score:5, Informative)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous@ya h o o .com> on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:33PM (#13823583) Homepage Journal
    Unless you're doing pure open source GPL'ed programming, entry level for a version of QT you can use for commercial code is nearly $1800. You can't even use the free version to get your sea legs under you, because the license does not allow you to use code you wrote with the free version in the paid versions.

    Microsoft, Borland, etc. usually have an entry level version of most of their programming products (with which you can still write proprietary code) that is less than my car payment. Entry level on QT is more than my mortgage.

    Yes, they support open source, but unless you're an open source coder or a well-funded enterprise coder, they basically tell you to F off. I don't like that and it detracts from any excitement I could have about these announcements.

    - Greg

    • I like Qt, but I'll agree it's pricey, and that's a per-seat cost. I'm currently researching options for a commercial product that will need to run on either a Linux or BSD platform, and TrollTech's pricing precludes them from even being considered. Unless you absolutely *have* to have cross-platform source, it's hard to justify that kind of money.

    • Re:Issues With Trolltech Lower Excitement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:44PM (#13823635) Homepage
      So wait, your biggest problem with trolltech is they don't have a price point for you?

      It's their software, right? They have the right to make money off of their own work, right? And license it however they choose?
      • Perhaps, but we have the right not to use it.

      • Re:Issues With Trolltech Lower Excitement (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @11:26PM (#13823859)
        Trolltech most certainly has the right to price their product at whatever point they want to, and to impose whatever restrictions they care to. I don't have any argument at all regarding that, but I don't feel that *for me* it's anything resembling a reasonable price, given my specific needs. For someone else that needs to have their cross-platform capability or other features that Qt offers, TT's pricing may represent a drop in the bucket compared to what development would cost for rolling their own or using someone else's libraries, and thus it would be a good buy for them.

        Everyone considering Qt needs to weigh the costs against the benefit of using it, and proceed accordingly. For my particular requirements, Qt is simply too expensive to consider, and since I can't use it professionally, any OSS stuff I happen to release will pretty much be guaranteed to be non-Qt as well. I doubt this will make the slightest difference to anyone but myself, but I can't imagine I'm the only developer in the same situation.
      • he has every right to complain.

        just like you enumerate their right to sell it at any price point they want.

        so what exactly are you trying to say, then?

        that he should shut up and accept it?

        complaining is a god given right (or nature given if you're into that instead).
      • It's just ironic that developing software on a traditionally free platform is so expensive, whereas on traditionally closed platforms it's free.
      • So wait, your biggest problem with trolltech is they don't have a price point for you?

        No, the biggest problem is that Troll Tech is using open source licensing as a gimmick to push a commercial piece of software at an inflated price point. Without the open source marketing, Qt wouldn't have a prayer in the free market because it's overpriced for what it does.

        And it is a commercial software project: it is run like one, it is sold under a commercial license, and Troll Tech retains all the rights.

        It's their s
        • with the "inflated price point" thing. Have you ever read Qt? It's very, very expensive to develop/maintain/keep going forward a library so complete, robust, etc.

          • Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by idlake ( 850372 )
            It makes no difference to me as a customer how much it costs to develop the library. There are plenty of good alternatives that I don't have to pay for (beyond what I already pay for the OS in any case): Swing, wxWidgets, Gtk+, Cocoa, MFC, .NET, etc. It's unfortunate for Troll Tech that they can't subsidize their development with other revenue streams, but that doesn't make me any more inclined to pay lots of money for their stuff.

            Furthermore, if I'm going to pay $1800/developer, then I'm going to pay tha
    • You can use the free version to learn QT just can't work on your real project with it... I have to wonder how often that rule is ignored.
      • The GPL only comes in when you distribute, you can work on whatever code you like with the free version. Kind of weird if you ask me because they have per seat licences for proprietary code, but if you have a build box you should be ok as I see it.

        Remember, you don't have to accept the GPL to use their code, you have to accept it when you distribute though.

        Anybody care to clarify Trolltechs thinking here?

    • Re:license issues (Score:2, Informative)

      by benjamindees ( 441808 )
      the license does not allow you to use code you wrote with the free version in the paid versions.

      Sure it does. It just doesn't allow you to distribute that code. You can sit down, write all the programs you'd like with the free version, test it out yourself, then switch to the commercial version when it's time to release.

      • Re:license issues (Score:5, Informative)

        by nighty5 ( 615965 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @11:26PM (#13823858)

        Sure it does. It just doesn't allow you to distribute that code. You can sit down, write all the programs you'd like with the free version, test it out yourself, then switch to the commercial version when it's time to release.


        This is actually *NOT* the case. As per the QT license, you must BUY the licence before you start coding the application.

        Refer to the license FAQ: http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/index.html ?catid=1953&id=182 [trolltech.com]


        "Can we use the Open Source Edition while developing our non-opensource application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?

        No. Our commercial license agreements only apply to software that was developed with Qt under the commercial license agreement. They do not apply to code that was developed with the Qt Open Source Edition prior to the agreement. Any software developed with Qt without a commercial license agreement must be released as Open Source software."

        • Re:license issues (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          To highlight, its the commercial license wording that excludes developing under the GPL and getting a license at the last minute, not the wording of the GPL (which many people assume after reading the F.A.Q.)
          • AC:
            To highlight, its the commercial license wording that excludes developing under the GPL and getting a license at the last minute, not the wording of the GPL (which many people assume after reading the F.A.Q.)
            But it is an unenforceable license.

        • As per the QT license, you must BUY the licence before you start coding the application.

          Does playing around with a toolkit to learn how it works count as writing the application these days?

          • You can absolutely learn the toolkit on the opensource license, for free, which is what I'm doing right now. I'll buy a license when I start coding for the commercial app.

            Am happy to fork out the $1800 as the toolkit itself is going to save me thousands of dollars in development work I that I don't have to do...

          • Re:license issues (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Arandir ( 19206 )
            No it doesn't. Play around to your hearts content. When you're ready to code for real, then buy the license. Simple. If you're not playing around, then you need to make up your mind quickly if you're going to release it open source or not.

            To be blunt: If you're writing code you intend to release under a proprietary license, you need to buy the proprietary license. Of course, that's exactly what Trolltech just told you, but it didn't seem that you heard.
            • No, I heard. I said that because the previous poster had replied to a message which basically said "testing is free", with "no, you're wrong." Clearly he wasn't wrong.
        • How exactly do you write code with the Qt toolkit? Using both the free and commercial versions all I got was a library to link against, some compiling tools, and a GUI designer that I don't use.

          #include <QApplication>
          #include <QPushButton>

          int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
          QApplication app(argc, argv);

          QPushButton hello("Can anyone guess what license I was coded under?");
          hello.resize(300, 30);
        • I think they are misinterpreting the GPL. Or possibly have written that answer to obscure it, but still actually saying what the GPL says.
          It is OK to develop using the free QT, as long as you do not release anything outside. No beta testing either. Or multiple developers.
          As long as it is only in your hands, it is ok to develop and use it. You know, when you are the only one holding the binary and the sources, you are fully complying to the GPL as long as you do not give it to anyone else. The second you giv

          • I think they are misinterpreting the GPL. Or possibly have written that answer to obscure it, but still actually saying what the GPL says.

            I think the problem in this case is nothing to do with the GPL, and more a feature of the Qt commercial licence, which states that it can't be used for apps that were developed using the open source edition. They're not misinterpreting the GPL, since it is not the licence which introduces this restriction.

      • Re:license issues (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Spy Hunter ( 317220 ) *
        You can sit down, write all the programs you'd like with the free version, test it out yourself, then switch to the commercial version when it's time to release.

        No, you can't. You can't "switch" code you developed using the GPL version to the commercial version. It's not against the GPL; it is against the commercial license that TrollTech sells QT under. You can write all the programs you'd like with the free version, but you can never ever use any of that code with the commercial version of QT.

        The r

    • Well I don't see the problem. Either you "Contribute to the continued development of the product by purchasing commercial licenses from Trolltech", or you "Contribute to the Open Source community by placing your application under an Open Source license (e.g. the GPL)." What is the problem? That you don't want to contribute your code to the GPL, but you want to use a GPLed codebase? Isn't that akin to stealing? So you don't want to use the GPL? Then pay for the commercial license. Sounds like you want
    • I believe the minimum price point to do anything commercial with Borland is about a grand. The old $95 dollar standard versions, if they exist anymore, used to allow commercial use if the restricted features allowed what you wanted, but I understand they changed all of that.

      Gee, what ever happened to the $49.95 Turbo Pascal? Borland, we hardly know you.

    • Re:Issues With Trolltech Lower Excitement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @11:26PM (#13823855)
      Why is $1800 considered a lot of money for a programmer?

      If you're looking at producing something commercial, then it's a perfectly fine investment.
      plenty of other industries and interests have costs similar or much larger than that - and they don't have the same prospect for making the money back as a good commercial application does.
      By the way - to get your sea legs under you, there's an evaluation version. You can also talk to Trolltech about your specific situation and your possible options.

      Every time a TrollTech article comes up, there's the same whiny troll about the price of the license, well guess what? It's a fucking GOOD thing that you can't afford it, because we don't WANT your crappy $15 shareware anyway.

      And god help you if you ever want to be a musician: "waaahhhh, why do guitars cost so much?" "waaaahhhh, why do I have to pay $5,000+ for sequencers, effects and soft-synths?" or alternatively - "wahhhhhh, why does it cost $500 an hour to record in this studio?"

      • Re:Issues With Trolltech Lower Excitement (Score:4, Informative)

        by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:52AM (#13824195)
        Seriously. $1800 isn't a lot of money. In many engineering fields (mechanical, aerospace, maybe chemical and electrical), a full suite of software for a single engineer can cost well over $20,000. Something like CATIA's product-life-management suite starts at $12,000, and can cost over $30,000 per seat over 5 years when maintainence and support are factored in. Heck, even something like Matlab will cost you $2000 for the initial license, then another $4000-$7000 for all the plugins you need for your particular field.
      • I don't know any full time professional US/EU software developers that make less than $50,000. Most get paid a heck of a lot more than that. Surely they can afford a tiny $1800 license.

        Qt isn't for part time shareware authors.
        • I don't know any full time professional US/EU software developers that make less than $50,000. Most get paid a heck of a lot more than that. Surely they can afford a tiny $1800 license.

          Qt isn't for part time shareware authors.

          And not for anyone who has made a project, only to then want to go professional. If say BitTorrent had been written using the Qt library, it doesn't matter that he just got $8 million in funding. That code is still ineligible for a commercial version (unless you port it to a different

      • still overpriced (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cahiha ( 873942 )
        Why is $1800 considered a lot of money for a programmer?

        Because it's about $1800 more than Cocoa+XCode, $1800 more than Gtk+ or wxWidgets, or $1000 more than .NET+VS-Enterprise. In other words, it's overpriced compared to the alternatives. Whether a company can in principle squeeze the money for paying for the overpriced product into the budget is not relevant.

        "wahhhhhh, why does it cost $500 an hour to record in this studio?"

        The proper question is "why does it cost $1500 an hour to record in this studi

      • Seriously? (Score:3, Informative)

        by hummassa ( 157160 )
        Why is $1800 considered a lot of money for a programmer?
        Maybe because in some countries it's the yearly wage of said programmer?????? Hint: a high-pay programmer in my country makes circa US$ 10000/yr.
    • because the license does not allow you to use code you wrote with the free version in the paid versions.

      WRONG! Please mod parent flamebait.

      You're confusing paid versions with proprietary versions. You can make money [gnu.org] selling paid versions of Free and Open Source Software.

      QT [trolltech.com] is licenced under the GPL [gnu.org], which is a Free and Open Source Software license. It forces software vendors to share the source code, but does not prohibit vendors from selling binaries.

      Anyone (ranging from independent programmers to

      • It forces software vendors to share the source code, but does not prohibit vendors from selling binaries.

        It's actually better than that. It forced the vendor to share the source code to the same parties with which they shared the binaries. In other words if you only have, say, half a dozen very trustworthy clients, or clients who would never even think to ask for the source code, then you're in a fairly good place.

        On the other hand, it only takes one client with knowledge of the GPL to redistribute yo

    • I was wondering how long it would take for this nonsense to surface itself. And it didn't take long: First message!

      In short: what is the "issue" with Qt? the fact that it licensed under the GPL. And why is that a problem? Because it makes it difficult to write proprietary software using Qt (you have to pay TT in order to do so).

      Hello, why exactly is that a problem? Since when did free software movement turn from creating great software that is Free, in to something meant to satisfy the whims of pushers of p
      • In short: what is the "issue" with Qt? the fact that it licensed under the GPL. And why is that a problem? Because it makes it difficult to write proprietary software using Qt (you have to pay TT in order to do so).

        The issue with Qt is not that it is covered by the GPL, the issue with Qt is that it is covered also by a commercial license. And the problem with that is that it makes it easy to write proprietary software using Qt--all you have to do is fork over some money to Troll Tech. Troll Tech's dual li
        • Oh look, it's the same moron who thinks that releasing GPL'ed software is a threat to Free Software! [slashdot.org]. Seriously, just stop. you are only making a fool out of yourself.

          And the problem with that is that it makes it easy to write proprietary software using Qt--all you have to do is fork over some money to Troll Tech.

          And that money is used to improve Qt, which in turn helps developers of Free Software since they have a kick ass Free toolkit at their disposal. And isn't it even easier to write proprietary softwa

        • And another thing: According to TT's latest customer-survey, 28% of their customers (as in , people/companies that have bought their license) have participated in free software projects, with 68% targetting the Linux-platform. And TT also sponsors several free-software developers (Zack Rusin and Aaron Seigo for example). It seems to me that Qt is NOT "killing" free software, quite the contrary! they are funneling money and resources in to free software, they are bringing in more and more developers in to fr

    • You can't even use the free version to get your sea legs under you, because the license does not allow you to use code you wrote with the free version in the paid versions.

      There are a lot of pieces of software where the free demo is crippled in some way - in this case it isn't there are just restrictions on how you use it - just like the academic versions of a huge number of different pieces of software.

      I see nothing wrong with having to develop all commercial qt software on the commercial version, and I d

  • I predict (Score:3, Funny)

    by eobanb ( 823187 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:37PM (#13823599) Homepage
    I predict three types of comments here...

    1) BeOS was a great multimedia OS

    2) Trolltech's licencing schemes suck

    3) Gnome vs. KDE
    • How about Linux/Java vs Linux/QT for embedded apps?

    • Re:I predict (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      BeOS was way ahead of its time, and was particularly well-suited for multimedia applications. I think its main failure was the user interface. The learning curve was just too steep for people used to Windows (~90%). Perhaps they would have hit a bigger market if they went with something at least resembling Windows, such as Gnome or KDE. They probably thought the QT license was too restrictive (costs more than a fucking kidney transplant), and Gnome looks like total shit. So they whip up this Fisher Pri
      • What was BeOS really like, apart from there were no applications for it and no one used it?

        One one hand there is Windows, which sucks monkey's balls when it comes to soft real time like multimedia with respect to issues such as control over task/thread scheduling, granularity of same, and Windows deciding to take siesta's for 10's of ms (we are not talking about any kind of hard guaranteed real time). On the other hand there is Linux, and I suppose there are real-time versions and frame buffer graphics a

        • Re:What was BeOS really like? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dlockamy ( 597001 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:10AM (#13824019)
          Hmm, where to start?

          As far as soft real time? Back in the day I ran Be on a P2 350 2xx Megs ram. I could easily play 10-20 mp3s at one time with all playing smoothly while I ran several other programs. Sure there was no reason to do that, but it looked cool. Same goes for video. I remember the cool thing at one time was to play 50 or so copies of the Phantom Menace trailor.
          You really could run the full system to 100% and still have damn good GUI responce. There's still no system (that I've found) that runs as smooth as Be did in 1998.

          The great thing about programming was that the threading was to embedded in the system that you didn't know you where even using it. Take some time to browse the BeBook [beunited.org]. It was a great api.

        • Err..
          Linux makes Windows look good on the gaming/soft realtime/attempt to be responsive front


          You must be kidding. Using fluxbox and mplayer, I can have mplayer fullscreen on one workspace and switch around workspaces including the mplayer one just as fast as if mplayer weren't even running. Alt-tabbing between WMP and other applications on the same machine in Windows is painfully slow. For that matter, I can do the same with Starcraft and WINE.
      • Heh. Neither Qt nor GNOME even existed when BeOS was developed. The BeOS interface was modeled on the Mac's.
    • 4) Apple was smart for integrating NeXT and Jobs instead of BeOS.

      /ducks

    • i wish there were more people like you in every thread.

      no, seriously.

      yeah i'll be here all week but what does that have to do with this discussion?

  • Dear Trolltech (Score:5, Funny)

    by porksoda ( 253218 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:37PM (#13823600) Homepage
    I was just wondering if it's at all possible for you guys to change your name from Trolltech to something less pleasant sounding. No, wait.... Not possible.
    Maybe.. Goatsetech?
    I dunno.
    But fire the guy who came up with that name, anyway.

    Sincerely,
    Common Sense

  • The Zeta community gets smaller and smaller (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MysteriousMystery ( 708469 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:46PM (#13823643)
    The community of BeOS loyalists just keeps shrinking it seems. I was reading on a popular BeOS news site that Microsoft hired some former Be programmers to work on Windows sound. Now trolltech has one of the co-creators of the BeOS. It really makes me wonder how much longer the small user base of BeOS users will last, especially since Zeta hasn't taken off due to its price.
  • This MLI that Trolltech, Motorola, and WindRiver are forming looks to be another one of those biannual mailing list groups. By which I mean that there is a lot of initial interest and a bunch of people join the group and get included on the mailing list and after a month or two of email flurries, the list dies down to an automated email verifying the list recipients every two years.

    These things come and go so fast that it seems to not even be worth the trouble to discuss.

    On the other hand, Linux as a mobil

  • Wow, misread that. (Score:3, Funny)

    by yurivish ( 902527 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:49PM (#13823661)
    I thought it read "Original BSOD Developer". Hehe...

  • A question on dual licensing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teslatug ( 543527 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @10:53PM (#13823684)
    Does Trolltech incorporate GPL-ed contributions into their commercial release? If yes, what gives them the right to re-license those contributions under a non-GPL license? Else, what do they get out of open sourcing their software other than publicity?

    • Re:A question on dual licensing (Score:5, Informative)

      by xfmr_expert ( 853170 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @11:13PM (#13823796)
      For you contribution to be accepted, you must assign copyright to Trolltech, allowing them to release your contributions under whatever license they choose. If you don't, they don't incorporate it. No skin off their back.
      • They don't accept contributions at all.. their not a community project. If you send them a patch they will request that you send them a description of the bug and a test case. They won't even read your patch because it might infect the brains of their programmers. It's a very shit way to run an open source project.
        • What in the world gave you the idea that Qt was an open source project? It's a commercial product from a commercial company that, out of the goodness of their hearts (or because they see a commercial advantage in offering the toolkit free for developers to play with), they also happen to release under the GPL. What you describe may indeed be a crappy way to run an open source project, but it's a great way to run a company -- it avoids copyright infringement.

          If you want an open source project, go restart
        • It's not an open source project.

          BTW, you'll get that same response from projects like GCC too. They require copyright assignment on all code, and they won't look at a (non-trivial) patch either.

          And they have the same reasons.
          • Yes, but unlike Trolltech and Real Media and other companies, they're not asking you to sign over your copyright so they can go off and make proprietary software with it. When you sign over your copyright to the FSF you know they are not going to do something ethically dubious with it like that.
            • What's ethically dubious about it? They tell you upfront what they're going to do with the code!
              • To people who associate themselves more with the Free Software movement than with the Open Source movement, making any kind of proprietary software is ethically dubious.

                But here's an idea. Suppose Kubuntu starts to sprint ahead of Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth says to the GNOME team to pull their socks up and they can't. What's gunna happen? Will they rename Kubuntu to Ubuntu and create a Gubuntu distribution? Doesn't seem very likely, unless Shuttleworth buys Trolltech. There is another way though, he
            • Keep your arguments straight! First you're saying Qt is shit because they require copyright assignment. Although so does the FSF on certain projects.

              So now you're saying that it's 'ethically dubious' for free software programmers to contribute code to a project if there's a properitary version of it? That'd make it 'ethically dubious' to contribute anything to a BSD-licensed project then.

              That's an incredibly narrow-minded ethic you've got there. Not even RMS would agree with that.
          • Actually it is easier to get Trolltech to accept a Qt patch, than to make FSF accept a GCC patch.

            FSF requires your signature on wierd legal papers before accepting anything.

  • I wish (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <oliverthered@hotmail. c o m> on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @11:06PM (#13823762) Journal
    I wish I could select uneditable text (like error messages!)
    I wish the QT supported full reflection and serialization so that drag and drop could be fully intergated in KDE.
    I wish they would make QT thread safe so that when web plugins and konquerer tabs crashed they didn't take all my konqueror windows with
    them.

    and finally I wish that new guy would read my comment.

    • Re:I wish (Score:3, Informative)

      by temojen ( 678985 )
      I wish they would make QT thread safe so that when web plugins and konquerer tabs crashed they didn't take all my konqueror windows with them.

      I wish you would learn what threading means and how it relates to what you can expect from the memory state of other threads if one of them crashes.

    • Re:I wish (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 )

      I wish they would make QT thread safe so that when web plugins and konquerer tabs crashed they didn't take all my konqueror windows with them.

      "Thread-safe" means that an API can be used in two threads simultaneously without them interfering with each other. It does not mean that a process is protected from being killed when one of its threads causes a segfault or whatever. Qt is thread-safe.

      What you are complaining about is not thread-safety, but the fact that Konqueror uses threads for separate

  • In other Be-related news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doorbot.com ( 184378 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2005 @11:33PM (#13823897) Journal
    ...HaikuOS has a paid developer for a few weeks.

    Axel's development blog [blogspot.com] is available, as is the story on OSNews [osnews.com] where I found the link.

    Apparently, Haiku should have a bootable CD image soon.

  • Benaphores (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:08AM (#13824013)
    Does this mean he's going to create bad, non-functioning printer GUIs and name things like 'benaphore' for TrollTech too?

    Out of all of the people that presented at the various Be Dev Conferences, he's the one that was the least impressive. He seemed to be cut from the same cloth as JLG when it came to attitude, with nothing to really back it up.

  • I have several devices running Qt/Embedded and it's nothing short of evil. A device running Qt/Embedded cannot be used with other standard Linux GUI toolkit: Qt/Embedded takes over the entire window system. The justification for this is that Qt/Embedded is supposedly an efficient system for embedded devices, but nothing could be further from the truth: compared to X11 with an embedded X11 toolkit, Qt/Embedded is a resource hog, slow, and has a UI that is poorly adapted to small screen devices. The Qtopia
    • I have a Zaurus SL-C1000 and 760, and also have had a 5500. I do understand what you're saying about Qt/Embedded (now just called qtopia), but it's horses for courses: an X11 handheld device isn't what everyone wants... I disagree that the apps aren't optimised for small screens: to me, it's an excellent UI. Opie seems to look exactly the same, surely imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ;-)

      The best thing about QTopia is that it has a *superb* web browser, namely Opera and if you don't like that

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close