Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Open Source Software News

Nokia Announces Qt 5 Plans 129

Posted by Soulskill
from the eggs-in-a-backup-basket dept.
aloniv writes "Since Nokia announced its switch to Windows Phone 7, people have been worried about the future of Qt. Well, it turns out Nokia is still going full steam ahead with Qt, having just announced their plans for Qt 5. Some major changes are afoot code- and functionality-wise, but the biggest change is that Qt 5 will be developed out in the open from day one (unlike Qt 4). There will be no distinction between a Nokia developer or third-party developer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nokia Announces Qt 5 Plans

Comments Filter:
  • by MrHanky (141717)

    I could swear I read this on Monday.

  • translation.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by metalmaster (1005171) on Friday May 13, 2011 @08:50AM (#36116904)
    "There will be no distinction between a Nokia developer or third-party developer." becomes "Develop it yourselves you lazy bastards, but dont forget to put our name on it too"
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2011 @08:54AM (#36116936)

      "There will be no distinction between a Nokia developer or third-party developer."

      Which will be a disapointment for any Nokia developers hoping to get paid.

    • by Chemisor (97276)

      Isn't that basically the philosophy of open source?

    • by diegocg (1680514)

      Plans to make QT a real community project already existed before Stephen Elop was made CEO of Nokia. And I would be very happy to see 3rd parties developing big chunks of QT - that would mean it can survive without Nokia.

      • by Kynde (324134)

        Plans to make QT a real community project already existed before Stephen Elop was made CEO of Nokia. And I would be very happy to see 3rd parties developing big chunks of QT - that would mean it can survive without Nokia.

        QT would have no problems without Nokia. It's the "with" part that people are worried about. And never so much as now that there's another bigger "with" involved.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by suy (1908306)

      "There will be no distinction between a Nokia developer or third-party developer." becomes "Develop it yourselves you lazy bastards, but dont forget to put our name on it too"

      Very wrong. Look at the list of maturity and status of Qt modules [nokia.com]. Nokia still is ready to maintain a huge percentage of Qt. They simply deprecated stuff because they think that other alternatives are better (eg. ditch Phonon because there is QtMultimedia). The only piece that Nokia is not interested in maintaining and that the comunity is worried about, is QtSVG, because the alternative, the SVG support in Webkit, is considered too big/slow, or unsuitable for being LGPL only.

      This is Qt development framewor

    • So, though you don't use Nokia cell phones or devices, you want them out of the goodness of their heart to provide you with a multi-platform GUI interface software. Who are you anyway, and why do you criticize
      • I do own a nokia featurephone. My point is that no distinction between developers will most likely leave more work to the third-party yet nokia's name will be attached. I thought atleast that much was clear in what i said....
        • Hi, Let's see, Nokia developed QT, and did it up to QT4. Now they have invested many manhours, salaries, and big dollars. They feel that it is time to turn QT over to the community because it is very worthy and because the community has a wealth of ideas about improvements.. Would you say they invested over a million dollars$ I would say so. I just feel that one should appreciate companies making good offers, but one could criticize companies taking away functionality (like Sony did)
  • As kde developers will start thinking about and switching to kde5. I see another wave of bugs and instability, the same that made me switch from kdev4.1 to xfce. These architects get excited by new technologies and loose the focus on stability and usability. Let's see what will happen.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by karper (2017856)
      It's going to be a behind-the-scenes change and it's not as big a deal as the kde3kde4 change. Reference: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2011/05/relax.html [blogspot.com]
    • Hi.

        I am a potential new linux user and my initial specialty/focus will be on the UI side. I have been considering looking into xfce as well. Do you think it's the new dark horse UI behind Gnome and KDE?

      • by Tolkien (664315)
        I've used xfce and it's pretty nice. The last time I did It was extremely bare bones, you added only what you wanted. I think that was their design philosophy or something so it's a safe bet, I think.
        • by horza (87255)

          I enjoy xfce4 but am happy with KDE4. It's not a dark horse, just another alternative. On a standard PC I would recommend Kubuntu, but on a netbook it's a trade-off time vs speed. If you want something that just works then install Kubuntu, though it's a bit heavy and slow, but if you have time to tweak (make sure you install ROX) and want the extra horse-power out of it then install Xubuntu. It is not that one is better than the other, it's just a trade-off. They are both great.

          Phillip.

          • by Tolkien (664315)
            Oh, I didn't mean to imply that Xfce is a dark horse, just that it itself is a safe bet. :)
    • by DMiax (915735)
      Relax :) [blogspot.com] (blog post from one of the head developers of KDE)
    • by IrquiM (471313)
      They told you not to use KDE 4.1 as a primary desktop, but you did it anyways! It's your fault - not KDEs! (Which is not called KDE anymore anyways...)
  • > There will be no distinction between a Nokia developer or third-party developer.

    Or indeed not being a developer at all.

  • by NtwoO (517588) on Friday May 13, 2011 @09:18AM (#36117104) Homepage
    The deal between Microsoft an Nokia has been a big topic with many opinions. The opinion that Microsoft actually needed a strong hardware platform for their OS more than Nokia needed Win Mobile for their phones is a strong contender for me. Maybe having a say in keeping Qt open is a clear signal that this is also truly the case. It could very well be that Nokia was keen for the partnering but is not ready to sell their soul and cut off all options for the future. ~
    • The annual (linux) Meego conference is in a few days' time, in San Francisco. Google News (search) reveals that the Nokia N950, the successor to the N900 will be _probably_ be announced at this conference.

      Nokia has never backed-off its support for Meego. Well, okay they have hyped and now focused development resources towards their M$ partnership, but to the extent possible given their current business strategies, they still support their prior open-source OS strategy. In other words, they haven't really ba

      • by gbjbaanb (229885)

        I guess people are voting with their feet - by not buying WP7 :)

        We'll see what happens, I think WP7 will continue to bomb even after the $1bn bung from MS runs out, and then Nokia will at least have the opportunity to ressurect itself with its old ace card, maybe beefing it up for non-phone systems. The danger is that, good though Meego is and could be, Android will steal all its market before it has a chance to shine. That's a problem they'll have to deal with while they attempt to flog WP7 devices.

      • by CRCulver (715279)
        Elop has announced that Nokia is trying to hand Meego over to another company like LG and does not believe Meego has a place in its longterm strategy. Also, there's a big controversy that this new "N950" model will feature just Maemo with a few updates applied, and it does not meet the Meego standards. There's plenty of coverage of the controversy over at Maemo Weekly News.
  • Why exactly are these two things related? Qt is a completely different development line from WP 7, it's a windowing toolkit not a mobile OS. Show me some good news about MeeGo, and I might, just maybe, get a bit excited.

    Sure, you could go on about how Qt is at the foundation of MeeGo, but it's at the foundation of lots of other things too, like KDE amongst others. Good news for Qt does not imply good news for MeeGo. In fact, possibly quite the opposite, as I can imagine a scenario where Nokia had left o

    • by CRCulver (715279)
      In a recent interview with Elop (no longer have the link, sorry, maybe someone else does) he said that Nokia is looking to pass Meego to some other company, for example, LG. Nokia's commitment to Meego is finished.
      • by horza (87255)

        Give it to Samsung! They are already streets ahead of Nokia when it comes to hardware, give them Meego and I can see them becoming the number one handset manufacturer.

        Phillip.

        • by Microlith (54737)

          Samsung doesn't want to work with MeeGo, at best they'll meet up at the Linaro level. LG has already hopped on the handset working group.

  • If you're writing software in C++ that's portable, which GUI library would you use at the present time?

    • For small use FLTK [fltk.org]
      Or more options here [dwheeler.com]
  • Then we reconsider using it.
    • by DMiax (915735)
      Qt already adheres to standards. MOC is just a boilerplate generator and the actual code is compiled with any standards-compliant C++ implementation.
    • Don't think it really can drop MOC or something like as still be a viable UI library.

      Dynamic dispatch is pretty fundamental in event driven UIs, and not sure if C++ can really provide such a concept. Thats why we need more dynamic languages like JScript/Python/Objective-C/C# for this type of programming.

      I'm sure there are things C++ is good for, but its not something as dynamic as UIs.
    • by 21mhz (443080)

      We as in who? The "template metaprogramming" weenies who could not understand for a decade why C++ is a train wreck?
      Don't bother; "we" the practical developers creating real-world maintainable software don't need you on our projects.

      • by tibit (1762298)

        It's not even about template metaprogramming. Template metaprogramming simply does not provide several facilities that are make-or-break for language binding generation. C++ does not have built-in facilities needed by binding generators, this has nothing to do with Troltech/Nokia's developers "ineptness". Guess why swig still exists? Hint: because whoever designs C++ lives on a little cloud-9 where you don't interface with anybody who doesn't use C++. It's a basic deficiency of current C++ spec, and there's

        • by 21mhz (443080)

          because whoever designs C++ lives on a little cloud-9

          You could have put the period here. They are also oblivious about such bleeding edge innovations as shared libraries and standardized ABIs.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        We as in guys who don't want a stupid non-standard moc-to-cplusplus-precompiler messing around our make scripts.
        And if you say C++ is a train wreck, perhaps you should take a look at how C++0x has improved things.

        Qt has forced this "our way or the highway" mentality on developers. Want signals and slots? No, you cannot use your custom template implementation that would make things much easier, you need to do it via the MOC. Properties? The same thing. And don't forget that if you read the code and do your o

    • by tibit (1762298) on Friday May 13, 2011 @12:12PM (#36119172)

      C++ simply does not provide the introspection needed for a major application development framework. If it did, you could drop MOC. The way it stands, moc basically generates introspection tables because the out-of-touch [expletive deleted] folks who design C++ couldn't be bothered. That's my take on it.

      Every time you interface C++ code with any sort of an interpreted or JIT-ed language, you have to generate "bindings" using an external tool precisely because C++ lacks facilities for code to know about other code. Qt folks were nice enough to maintain such a tool themselves and to make it a core part of their process. I don't consider it a bad thing. QMetaObject system makes it fairly easy to expose QObjects to any other language that's either interpreted or JIT-ed.

  • When they bought trolltec they planned on using qt in their phones. What incentive is there to continue development of qt when they plan on using winmo on their upcoming models? do they plan on utilizing "third-party" developers to drop/reduce development costs on qt?
  • As much as I'd like to believe that it's because they are good people doing good things, why are they putting money into this, and how long can we expect them to keep doing so?

    • by suy (1908306)

      As much as I'd like to believe that it's because they are good people doing good things, why are they putting money into this, and how long can we expect them to keep doing so?

      There is a rumor about this. Some people thought that it would be possible to add S40 support in Qt. I thought that S40 phones are too small and cheap to run powerful apps, and the demand for applications for this platform is quite small, but... Stephen Elop and Mary McDowell visited Qt headquarters [nokia.com]. McDowell is the head of "mobile phones", which is the feature phone (or "dumb phone") division in Nokia. Given that Windows Phone is only targeted at high end, some of the market space that Symbian covered has

    • by Locutus (9039)
      well it's not a plan to fragment the Qt developers and projects and it's not so that if that were to happen yet another cross platform dev tool would benefit Microsoft and their plans for Windows Phone 7, 8, etc app development. No, it's not that. Look, over there! Ice cream!

      it does seem strange that Nokia sold the rights and licenses to collect revenue from customers yet retained control of the Qt development with little to no form of income from it. But then there's this poison pill they agreed to when p
      • by ecki (115356)

        You're paranoid. Plus the poison pill agreement is not relevant anymore now that Qt is under the LGPL (it was drafted before the license change). Check the work on open governance for Qt.

        • by Locutus (9039)
          paranoid? on the contrary, over 20 years of experiencing Microsoft's business practices back my distrust that Qt has not been part of the Nokia-Microsoft marriage. As I said, the software can be run into the ground by misdirection so it only matters who controls it and Nokia kept control.

          LoB
    • by ecki (115356)

      To learn from the former Trolls how to create great software. The framework is important, but so are the people working on it, and how they get things done.

  • I've written it off as more or less completely irrelevant

  • Ow gawd. Styling of Qt quick resembles Symbian.

Pause for storage relocation.

Working...