![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states "Qt (pronounced "cute" or as an initialism)", however, this seems incorrect, Qt is never supposed to be an initialism, that is considered a typo. -- 187.39.28.74 ( talk) 04:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism section? Surely not everyone believes that Qt is perfect when it is in fact simply the least worst option available at the moment. -- 79.64.102.83 ( talk) 17:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Trolltech insiders pronounce Qt as "cute"[citation needed]
I don't know how to 'cite' this, but it is called that in their developer videos and anyone who has attended a QuickStart or Developer Day. I've witnessed it used in all three personally myself. 71.179.4.155 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC) scorp1us@yahoo
Is there any reason to write QT Toolkit instead of just Qt? The program is called Qt, not QT and if the toolkit-attribute is needed we could call it Qt toolkit, but I don't think it has to be. BTW: The company calls itself Trolltech, not Troll Tech or TrollTech.
-Generally QT refers to QuickTime (Apple, Inc), so Qt is used to avoid confusion 71.179.4.155 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC) scorp1us@yahoo
I think there is. Okay, the GTK toolkit could be called just GTK here. But what about the Harmony toolkit? Wikipedia will become immense, so I think it's important to be as precise as possible, also in naming. (Although I haven't followed naming convention discussions, so I don't know what the consensus is). (Also, the original article wasn't mine.) -- Zork
Harmony is no more. However, why do you call it QT_Toolkit instead of Qt_Toolkit
I'm not sure this belongs in Category:X Windows Systems; it's really a portable toolkit. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is this an Integrated Development Environment?-- Jondel 02:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not an IDE. -- Yamla
Could someone please add how good Qt supports various font related features (OpenType like in http://www.linotype.com/8-36-8-17886/re-introducingzapfino.html, Bidi, etc.). I guess that what Scribe is about?
Removing this line: Note that the open source edition is restricted to open source non-commercial development only [1].
First, I removed non-commercial, since of course GPL software can be commercial. Then I realized that the remainder was duplicative of what the GPL already says. The complications of describing what Gerv mentions are beyond the scope of this article. It's cool, tho, so I stuck it into links.
Novalis 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Qt toolkit → Qt – {Qt is known as Qt, not "Qt toolkit". QuickTime is QT, not Qt. So there is no confusion.} — minghong 10:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
violet/riga (t) 17:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The alternative proposal has been accepted and implemented. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This section seems to be inaccurate, and contradictory:
According to documentation the FreeQt license (wasn't free software or open source) was used for Qt 1.45 and earlier), and the QPL only introduced with Qt 2.0. - Motor ( talk) 08:48:25, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
BTW: The article would really benefit from a simple "stable versions" table:
Version | Date | Information |
---|---|---|
2.0 | xxxxx | Introduction of the QPL etc etc. |
If anyone would like to investigate the details... - Motor ( talk) 11:11:44, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
Article says: "Other portable graphical toolkits have made a different design decision, such as wxWidgets, MFC (Windows only), GTK+, and the Java based SWT[2] which use the toolkit of the target platform for their implementation."
Gtk+ uses "the toolkit of the target platform"? Huh?
Yes this is definitely not true for GTK+, but you could add AWT to the list.... also it's pretty obvious that an one-platform toolkit like MFC uses native widgets...
I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments ( Peer review page). - Liberatore( T) 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be some confusion from the Nord on how the English language works, I'll lay it down for you all here. Open source means the source is available, this is not a point of view, this is the broadest definition of the term, the Open Source Initiative's definition of Open Source Software differs from this, it is however only their opinion and thus their point of view. In the same manner, free software is software which is made available for free, and while the Free Software Foundation defines free software differently, this is only their opinion and not the meaning of the words. Since Egil seems so confused and unwilling to perform the simple task of reading already available information in the open source article, perhaps he will take the time and exert the effort to read it here. 65.95.229.9 08:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In my view, the anon's version is definately a bit POV but OTOH the version with the OSI stance is a bit excessive - i.e. it could use a bit more support of the TT view - i.e. perhaps instead of just "which, while both free and open " you could say that it claimed to be that (if it did claim to be that, that is). In other words, a bit of attribution towards the TT side should balance it out. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The OSI and FSF's definitions of Open Source and Free Software are the commonly accepted definitions. Any deviation from their definitions would be misleading. Perhaps it would be an amicable conclusion to state "... (according to the FSF's definition)", although I think if the words " free software" are linked, there's no need because readers can click through for details on what the terms mean. The English language is a set of components. When put together, the components can mean something other than the combination of the strict interpretation of the individual components. — midg3t 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article mentioned that there are bindings for C, but where can these be found? I searched the web and did not come up with anything that seemed solid and well supported. Any ideas would be helpful. Perhaps it would even be possible to link directly from the article to bindings for the different languages? Filur 12:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph starting
The use of an additional tool has been criticised by part of the C++ community...
Needs some sort of citation or justification. The phrase " 'moc'-ery of c++ " is clearly a value judgement (besides being essentially meaningless) and should surely be attributed to someone if indeed someone has ever said that.
Furthermore, the "C++ community" is a very vague term, since it is not clear who is included in this. Exactly who has made these critisms of Qt should be referenced.
83.245.83.98 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Alternative toolkits such as GTK+ are available under a more permissive free software/open source license, at the expense of less complete support for Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows.
I started to reword this sentence and add it to the preceding paragraph since 1) is skirts around the fact that Qt is not LGPL and has no GPL exception, 2) mentioning GTK+ doesn't make it any clearer, and 3) the rest is not relevant. By the time I was done I had removed it and rewritten the preceding paragraph.
I'm not sure if the rewritten paragraph even belongs, though. I think it could be just as easily removed, yet I expect that some will want mention of the "...commercial development requires the commercial license" bit. I understand that it first appears shockingly in violation of the GPL, but think of the same statement with commercial replaced with proprietary.
Trolltech maintains that proprietary development requires the commercial license.
Anyway, let me know if the changes bother anyone.-- Hamitr 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What if a proprietary application uses Qt, not by linking to it but using some other way of interprocess communication? It’s completely legal for Firefox to connect to an IIS-powered server, as well as for Outlook to send mail via an Exim server, so it seems to be possible to split an application into a proprietary back-end and a open source Qt-based front-end without violating the GPL. One might declare the front-end is compatible with any back-end that conforms to a certain protocol; and it isn’t the developer’s trouble that the only application implementing the protocol is their own proprietary program. This also has the advantage of having the community improve the front-end module.
Any comments? Roman V. Odaisky 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the resemblance of the Qt logo to a hammer and sickle on purpose, or has someone from Trolltech confirmed it as an accident? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Starting from Qt 4.3.1, Qt lists a long list of linking exceptions for the GPL. It seems you are now able to link most Open Source licenced software with Qt. I think that warrants an update of that section in the article. See http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception
The open source editions of Qt 4.3.2 and above now support visual studio in as much as they officially work with the compiler, and qmake can generate visual studio projects ( http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/09/18/qtwindows-open-source-edition-to-support-vs-express/) - there is however no IDE integration in the open source edition. There's no official binaries for this option though - Qt needs to be built from source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.66.10 ( talk) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
> which was acquired by Nokia on January 28, 2008
On this date both companies announced the plans for the acquisition, but the process has just started. The Trolltech stakeholers are today as owners of the company as they were last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 ( talk) 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the design section , why there is a refer to wxWidgets?! it's supposed to be in the "See Also" section not within the article as that's seems to be ads from it's designers!!
VMware server 2.0 rc1 for management uses Java toolkit not QT. I analyzed all binary and library in the Linux package RC2 downloaded today with 'nm', and there are no call to QT. But there are a lot of call to GLib/Gobject library, that are also packaged toghether. The 'vmware' executable, start a browser to 127.0.0.1:port and run the java interpreter. To me the management console is a Java applet. Where you "84.179.187.40" found that "# VMWare Server, a PC virtualization application, Qt frontend since version 2.0" citation? -- Efa2 ( talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article switches back and forth between referring to Qt's authors as Trolltech and as Qt Software, as I note their own website does, as well. Is there a particular reason for this? The article's rather confusing as it stands right now. If no one objects, I'm going to add a clarification to the introductory paragraph to the effect that the company's still referred to by its old name, or else update all references to Trolltech in the body of the article to Qt Software. 142.104.60.31 ( talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
A cursory glance reveals http groups.google.com group/comp.os.linux.announce/msg/ba2a4d4efc9fe910?dmode=source&output=gplain ... though there could be earlier ones? 64.58.22.201 ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that Nokia has been getting more aggressive in creating bindings I think this should move from a sentence to a full list (with links) jbolden1517 Talk 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the screenshot top-right now be changed to Qt Creator (the new QT IDE)? CharlesC ( talk) 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
At least from looking at the Qt Jambi page, it seems as if there are still new versions being released.
So that remark is wrong.
C++ GUI Programming with Qt 4/first edition. (2nd last link) does not work as of 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.215.245 ( talk)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Qt (toolkit) →
Qt (framework) —
I suggest to move Qt (toolkit) to Qt (framework) as Qt is not just a toolkit, it also can be used to create non-gui apps. From
Qt's official website:
I believe that the word framework is much more accurate than toolkit, in this case. What do other editors think? Thank you. — kedadial 16:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe this is a wise move, seeing as there is too much, too long text here that can be comfortably read. As Qt becomes ever more popular, more popular are going to be created using the Qt framework. A good move would be to move the subsection of applications into a separate bulleted list. Yannis A 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnanth ( talk • contribs)
An editor proposed to merge
Qt Development Frameworks into this article more than a month ago, but did not seem to provide a rationale. I do not think a merge would be appropriate at this point, and will remove the tags - unless, of course, there are any objections or arguments presented in favor of merging.
decltype
(
talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am also against merge .
Melnakeeb (
talk)
23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There is incorrect link to domain http://qtgears.com/ that is for sale, please remove it asap. -- 83.3.98.194 ( talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
“commonly known also as "Q.T. (KYOO-TEE)"”
Is it possible to prove that, please?
I have never seen it spelled this way, with a dot after each letter.
Spidermario ( talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
IINM, MeeGo Touch was developed at Nokia, not Intel. Having said that, it is Open Source, so perhaps Intel also contributed in some way, or forked it or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmaxwaterman ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite the phrasing on their web site, the actual source code does not bear this out. Qt still uses its own style engine to render everything down into pixels and bitblast that to the screen. They do not use native controls and use very little of the native platform's graphics API to render controls. Basically, this section is based on a stretching of the truth from a statement on the Qt web site and should be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalize ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we please get an up to date screenshot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.225.24 ( talk) 10:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
According to this press release, Digia is buying part of Qt. I'm not sure who will own the Qt brand and such, and the stuff like qt.nokia.com or the Qt port of WebKit. After the Nokia+Microsoft deal, it seems things are changing a lot and Nokia will be "just" another Microsoft partner. I'm afraid about the future of Qt. As this is going to happen, someone should do a wikipedia entry for the Digia company too (wich currently provides lots of resources to Qt development but not mentioned here at all). 87.217.11.95 ( talk) 16:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, it should be mentioned that Qt is struggling to stay alive. See this article.
"The innovation of Qt when it was first released relied on a few key concepts"
What is the expression
"The innovation .. relied on "
to be thought to mean?
Try this for comparison:
"The election of Nixon when it first occurred relied on a few key promises."
This is a sort of passive construction nonsense characteristic of a certain kind of journalism, is it not?
In this case it relies on an ambiguity to suggest one sense of "innovation" while using the term in another sense. Who innovated and what was their innovation? Now it becomes a problematic assertion with regard to the facts concerning novelty and originality in a GUI Widget framework, library or architecture and needs some references to back it up given a multitude of other articles in wp. G. Robert Shiplett 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that Qt has a LGPL or even less restrictive license for most languages (as shown in the table Qt language bindings), why is there a commercial license and why would anybody need it? Does the product sold by Digia differ from the open source version?-- Borishollas ( talk) 18:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Reference 70, LGPL License Option Added to Qt, is dead. The page is still alive, but the content is no longer at that location, if anywhere. 173.13.21.65 ( talk) 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I created the Category:Software that uses Qt and Category:Software that uses GTK+ and populated them. It would be nice to know the version. What software uses Qt3, Qt4 or Qt5. AFAIK KDE Frameworks 5 and Plasma Next have been ported to Qt5 and the KDE Application will be in the future. Qt 5 was released on 19 December 2012, so I think it is lack of manpower that made KDE port so lately. What about Amarok and all the other software that uses Qt? What about proprietary software? User:ScotXW t@lk 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried viewing those Pluralsight tutorials. Not only do they require sign-up to view, they have the audacity to ask for one's credit card details even to begin a free trial! Are we sure that such sites deserve to be linked to by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coylabe ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Qt (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Qt (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be noted on the page (somehow) that Qt Location still use the very old and completely unmaintained Geoclue API. While the old API is kept alive by some folks downstream (Jolla), the code hasn't even existed in the upstream repo for many years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeenix ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a huge hole in the article. How does Qt work? When I build a cross-platform GUI, am I writing it in a specific existing language? Or does Qt use its own language? If it's just a widget toolkit that can be called from different languages, how do I achieve portability? Or do I need to duplicate the calls to the Qt widgets in both my android native code and my iOS native code? Or do I specify it in an XML file, that can be read by an integration module? These are all different approaches taken by different cross-platform GUI toolboxes, so they're all plausible implementations. But which one does Qt use? Or does it take a new approach? If so, what is it? From the article, I don't have a clue. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 17:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states "Qt (pronounced "cute" or as an initialism)", however, this seems incorrect, Qt is never supposed to be an initialism, that is considered a typo. -- 187.39.28.74 ( talk) 04:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism section? Surely not everyone believes that Qt is perfect when it is in fact simply the least worst option available at the moment. -- 79.64.102.83 ( talk) 17:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Trolltech insiders pronounce Qt as "cute"[citation needed]
I don't know how to 'cite' this, but it is called that in their developer videos and anyone who has attended a QuickStart or Developer Day. I've witnessed it used in all three personally myself. 71.179.4.155 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC) scorp1us@yahoo
Is there any reason to write QT Toolkit instead of just Qt? The program is called Qt, not QT and if the toolkit-attribute is needed we could call it Qt toolkit, but I don't think it has to be. BTW: The company calls itself Trolltech, not Troll Tech or TrollTech.
-Generally QT refers to QuickTime (Apple, Inc), so Qt is used to avoid confusion 71.179.4.155 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC) scorp1us@yahoo
I think there is. Okay, the GTK toolkit could be called just GTK here. But what about the Harmony toolkit? Wikipedia will become immense, so I think it's important to be as precise as possible, also in naming. (Although I haven't followed naming convention discussions, so I don't know what the consensus is). (Also, the original article wasn't mine.) -- Zork
Harmony is no more. However, why do you call it QT_Toolkit instead of Qt_Toolkit
I'm not sure this belongs in Category:X Windows Systems; it's really a portable toolkit. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is this an Integrated Development Environment?-- Jondel 02:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not an IDE. -- Yamla
Could someone please add how good Qt supports various font related features (OpenType like in http://www.linotype.com/8-36-8-17886/re-introducingzapfino.html, Bidi, etc.). I guess that what Scribe is about?
Removing this line: Note that the open source edition is restricted to open source non-commercial development only [1].
First, I removed non-commercial, since of course GPL software can be commercial. Then I realized that the remainder was duplicative of what the GPL already says. The complications of describing what Gerv mentions are beyond the scope of this article. It's cool, tho, so I stuck it into links.
Novalis 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Qt toolkit → Qt – {Qt is known as Qt, not "Qt toolkit". QuickTime is QT, not Qt. So there is no confusion.} — minghong 10:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
violet/riga (t) 17:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The alternative proposal has been accepted and implemented. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This section seems to be inaccurate, and contradictory:
According to documentation the FreeQt license (wasn't free software or open source) was used for Qt 1.45 and earlier), and the QPL only introduced with Qt 2.0. - Motor ( talk) 08:48:25, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
BTW: The article would really benefit from a simple "stable versions" table:
Version | Date | Information |
---|---|---|
2.0 | xxxxx | Introduction of the QPL etc etc. |
If anyone would like to investigate the details... - Motor ( talk) 11:11:44, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
Article says: "Other portable graphical toolkits have made a different design decision, such as wxWidgets, MFC (Windows only), GTK+, and the Java based SWT[2] which use the toolkit of the target platform for their implementation."
Gtk+ uses "the toolkit of the target platform"? Huh?
Yes this is definitely not true for GTK+, but you could add AWT to the list.... also it's pretty obvious that an one-platform toolkit like MFC uses native widgets...
I submitted X Window core protocol for peer review, as I intend to candidate it for featured status. I would appreciate comments ( Peer review page). - Liberatore( T) 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there seems to be some confusion from the Nord on how the English language works, I'll lay it down for you all here. Open source means the source is available, this is not a point of view, this is the broadest definition of the term, the Open Source Initiative's definition of Open Source Software differs from this, it is however only their opinion and thus their point of view. In the same manner, free software is software which is made available for free, and while the Free Software Foundation defines free software differently, this is only their opinion and not the meaning of the words. Since Egil seems so confused and unwilling to perform the simple task of reading already available information in the open source article, perhaps he will take the time and exert the effort to read it here. 65.95.229.9 08:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In my view, the anon's version is definately a bit POV but OTOH the version with the OSI stance is a bit excessive - i.e. it could use a bit more support of the TT view - i.e. perhaps instead of just "which, while both free and open " you could say that it claimed to be that (if it did claim to be that, that is). In other words, a bit of attribution towards the TT side should balance it out. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The OSI and FSF's definitions of Open Source and Free Software are the commonly accepted definitions. Any deviation from their definitions would be misleading. Perhaps it would be an amicable conclusion to state "... (according to the FSF's definition)", although I think if the words " free software" are linked, there's no need because readers can click through for details on what the terms mean. The English language is a set of components. When put together, the components can mean something other than the combination of the strict interpretation of the individual components. — midg3t 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The article mentioned that there are bindings for C, but where can these be found? I searched the web and did not come up with anything that seemed solid and well supported. Any ideas would be helpful. Perhaps it would even be possible to link directly from the article to bindings for the different languages? Filur 12:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph starting
The use of an additional tool has been criticised by part of the C++ community...
Needs some sort of citation or justification. The phrase " 'moc'-ery of c++ " is clearly a value judgement (besides being essentially meaningless) and should surely be attributed to someone if indeed someone has ever said that.
Furthermore, the "C++ community" is a very vague term, since it is not clear who is included in this. Exactly who has made these critisms of Qt should be referenced.
83.245.83.98 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Alternative toolkits such as GTK+ are available under a more permissive free software/open source license, at the expense of less complete support for Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows.
I started to reword this sentence and add it to the preceding paragraph since 1) is skirts around the fact that Qt is not LGPL and has no GPL exception, 2) mentioning GTK+ doesn't make it any clearer, and 3) the rest is not relevant. By the time I was done I had removed it and rewritten the preceding paragraph.
I'm not sure if the rewritten paragraph even belongs, though. I think it could be just as easily removed, yet I expect that some will want mention of the "...commercial development requires the commercial license" bit. I understand that it first appears shockingly in violation of the GPL, but think of the same statement with commercial replaced with proprietary.
Trolltech maintains that proprietary development requires the commercial license.
Anyway, let me know if the changes bother anyone.-- Hamitr 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What if a proprietary application uses Qt, not by linking to it but using some other way of interprocess communication? It’s completely legal for Firefox to connect to an IIS-powered server, as well as for Outlook to send mail via an Exim server, so it seems to be possible to split an application into a proprietary back-end and a open source Qt-based front-end without violating the GPL. One might declare the front-end is compatible with any back-end that conforms to a certain protocol; and it isn’t the developer’s trouble that the only application implementing the protocol is their own proprietary program. This also has the advantage of having the community improve the front-end module.
Any comments? Roman V. Odaisky 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the resemblance of the Qt logo to a hammer and sickle on purpose, or has someone from Trolltech confirmed it as an accident? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Starting from Qt 4.3.1, Qt lists a long list of linking exceptions for the GPL. It seems you are now able to link most Open Source licenced software with Qt. I think that warrants an update of that section in the article. See http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception
The open source editions of Qt 4.3.2 and above now support visual studio in as much as they officially work with the compiler, and qmake can generate visual studio projects ( http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/09/18/qtwindows-open-source-edition-to-support-vs-express/) - there is however no IDE integration in the open source edition. There's no official binaries for this option though - Qt needs to be built from source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.66.10 ( talk) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
> which was acquired by Nokia on January 28, 2008
On this date both companies announced the plans for the acquisition, but the process has just started. The Trolltech stakeholers are today as owners of the company as they were last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.219 ( talk) 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the design section , why there is a refer to wxWidgets?! it's supposed to be in the "See Also" section not within the article as that's seems to be ads from it's designers!!
VMware server 2.0 rc1 for management uses Java toolkit not QT. I analyzed all binary and library in the Linux package RC2 downloaded today with 'nm', and there are no call to QT. But there are a lot of call to GLib/Gobject library, that are also packaged toghether. The 'vmware' executable, start a browser to 127.0.0.1:port and run the java interpreter. To me the management console is a Java applet. Where you "84.179.187.40" found that "# VMWare Server, a PC virtualization application, Qt frontend since version 2.0" citation? -- Efa2 ( talk) 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article switches back and forth between referring to Qt's authors as Trolltech and as Qt Software, as I note their own website does, as well. Is there a particular reason for this? The article's rather confusing as it stands right now. If no one objects, I'm going to add a clarification to the introductory paragraph to the effect that the company's still referred to by its old name, or else update all references to Trolltech in the body of the article to Qt Software. 142.104.60.31 ( talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
A cursory glance reveals http groups.google.com group/comp.os.linux.announce/msg/ba2a4d4efc9fe910?dmode=source&output=gplain ... though there could be earlier ones? 64.58.22.201 ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that Nokia has been getting more aggressive in creating bindings I think this should move from a sentence to a full list (with links) jbolden1517 Talk 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the screenshot top-right now be changed to Qt Creator (the new QT IDE)? CharlesC ( talk) 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
At least from looking at the Qt Jambi page, it seems as if there are still new versions being released.
So that remark is wrong.
C++ GUI Programming with Qt 4/first edition. (2nd last link) does not work as of 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.215.245 ( talk)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Qt (toolkit) →
Qt (framework) —
I suggest to move Qt (toolkit) to Qt (framework) as Qt is not just a toolkit, it also can be used to create non-gui apps. From
Qt's official website:
I believe that the word framework is much more accurate than toolkit, in this case. What do other editors think? Thank you. — kedadial 16:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe this is a wise move, seeing as there is too much, too long text here that can be comfortably read. As Qt becomes ever more popular, more popular are going to be created using the Qt framework. A good move would be to move the subsection of applications into a separate bulleted list. Yannis A 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnanth ( talk • contribs)
An editor proposed to merge
Qt Development Frameworks into this article more than a month ago, but did not seem to provide a rationale. I do not think a merge would be appropriate at this point, and will remove the tags - unless, of course, there are any objections or arguments presented in favor of merging.
decltype
(
talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am also against merge .
Melnakeeb (
talk)
23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There is incorrect link to domain http://qtgears.com/ that is for sale, please remove it asap. -- 83.3.98.194 ( talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
“commonly known also as "Q.T. (KYOO-TEE)"”
Is it possible to prove that, please?
I have never seen it spelled this way, with a dot after each letter.
Spidermario ( talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
IINM, MeeGo Touch was developed at Nokia, not Intel. Having said that, it is Open Source, so perhaps Intel also contributed in some way, or forked it or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmaxwaterman ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite the phrasing on their web site, the actual source code does not bear this out. Qt still uses its own style engine to render everything down into pixels and bitblast that to the screen. They do not use native controls and use very little of the native platform's graphics API to render controls. Basically, this section is based on a stretching of the truth from a statement on the Qt web site and should be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalize ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we please get an up to date screenshot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.225.24 ( talk) 10:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
According to this press release, Digia is buying part of Qt. I'm not sure who will own the Qt brand and such, and the stuff like qt.nokia.com or the Qt port of WebKit. After the Nokia+Microsoft deal, it seems things are changing a lot and Nokia will be "just" another Microsoft partner. I'm afraid about the future of Qt. As this is going to happen, someone should do a wikipedia entry for the Digia company too (wich currently provides lots of resources to Qt development but not mentioned here at all). 87.217.11.95 ( talk) 16:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, it should be mentioned that Qt is struggling to stay alive. See this article.
"The innovation of Qt when it was first released relied on a few key concepts"
What is the expression
"The innovation .. relied on "
to be thought to mean?
Try this for comparison:
"The election of Nixon when it first occurred relied on a few key promises."
This is a sort of passive construction nonsense characteristic of a certain kind of journalism, is it not?
In this case it relies on an ambiguity to suggest one sense of "innovation" while using the term in another sense. Who innovated and what was their innovation? Now it becomes a problematic assertion with regard to the facts concerning novelty and originality in a GUI Widget framework, library or architecture and needs some references to back it up given a multitude of other articles in wp. G. Robert Shiplett 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that Qt has a LGPL or even less restrictive license for most languages (as shown in the table Qt language bindings), why is there a commercial license and why would anybody need it? Does the product sold by Digia differ from the open source version?-- Borishollas ( talk) 18:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Reference 70, LGPL License Option Added to Qt, is dead. The page is still alive, but the content is no longer at that location, if anywhere. 173.13.21.65 ( talk) 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I created the Category:Software that uses Qt and Category:Software that uses GTK+ and populated them. It would be nice to know the version. What software uses Qt3, Qt4 or Qt5. AFAIK KDE Frameworks 5 and Plasma Next have been ported to Qt5 and the KDE Application will be in the future. Qt 5 was released on 19 December 2012, so I think it is lack of manpower that made KDE port so lately. What about Amarok and all the other software that uses Qt? What about proprietary software? User:ScotXW t@lk 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried viewing those Pluralsight tutorials. Not only do they require sign-up to view, they have the audacity to ask for one's credit card details even to begin a free trial! Are we sure that such sites deserve to be linked to by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coylabe ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Qt (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Qt (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be noted on the page (somehow) that Qt Location still use the very old and completely unmaintained Geoclue API. While the old API is kept alive by some folks downstream (Jolla), the code hasn't even existed in the upstream repo for many years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeenix ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a huge hole in the article. How does Qt work? When I build a cross-platform GUI, am I writing it in a specific existing language? Or does Qt use its own language? If it's just a widget toolkit that can be called from different languages, how do I achieve portability? Or do I need to duplicate the calls to the Qt widgets in both my android native code and my iOS native code? Or do I specify it in an XML file, that can be read by an integration module? These are all different approaches taken by different cross-platform GUI toolboxes, so they're all plausible implementations. But which one does Qt use? Or does it take a new approach? If so, what is it? From the article, I don't have a clue. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 17:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)