<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_2155209</id>
	<title>Nokia's Maemo Switching To Qt</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246704600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:suka@gentoo.org" rel="nofollow">suka</a> writes <i>"During a keynote at the <a href="http://www.grancanariadesktopsummit.org/">Gran Canaria Desktop Summit</a>, Nokia's Quim Gil announced that a future release of <a href="http://maemo.org/">Maemo</a> is <a href="http://derstandard.at/fs/1246541386200/Maemo-switches-to-Qt">going to be built around Qt</a>. Maemo Harmattan is going to switch away from GTK+ / Hildon, derStandard.at reports from the conference."</i> Michael Pyne also writes with a post describing <a href="http://news.kde.org/2009/07/04/gran-canaria-desktop-summit-opens">day one of the conference from a KDE perspective</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>suka writes " During a keynote at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit , Nokia 's Quim Gil announced that a future release of Maemo is going to be built around Qt .
Maemo Harmattan is going to switch away from GTK + / Hildon , derStandard.at reports from the conference .
" Michael Pyne also writes with a post describing day one of the conference from a KDE perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suka writes "During a keynote at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, Nokia's Quim Gil announced that a future release of Maemo is going to be built around Qt.
Maemo Harmattan is going to switch away from GTK+ / Hildon, derStandard.at reports from the conference.
" Michael Pyne also writes with a post describing day one of the conference from a KDE perspective.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583771</id>
	<title>Re:N900, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an n800 owner and this is the first I've heard of Mer...  What exactly is it?  Is it a replacement OS?  It looks like it's somehow related to Ubuntu MID.  Is it stable enough that I should install it?  Is it backwards-compatible with Maemo apps?

Sorry about all the questions, but I've been anxiously awaiting some cool activity in Maemo-land!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an n800 owner and this is the first I 've heard of Mer... What exactly is it ?
Is it a replacement OS ?
It looks like it 's somehow related to Ubuntu MID .
Is it stable enough that I should install it ?
Is it backwards-compatible with Maemo apps ?
Sorry about all the questions , but I 've been anxiously awaiting some cool activity in Maemo-land !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an n800 owner and this is the first I've heard of Mer...  What exactly is it?
Is it a replacement OS?
It looks like it's somehow related to Ubuntu MID.
Is it stable enough that I should install it?
Is it backwards-compatible with Maemo apps?
Sorry about all the questions, but I've been anxiously awaiting some cool activity in Maemo-land!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584521</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Capt. Beyond</author>
	<datestamp>1246730100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you right now, Maemo will not use Qt Embedded.</p><p>'Bad code' is very subjective, and I would like you to prove Qt is slower than Gtk. Just because you say it's so, does not make it as such.</p><p>One reason they are going with Qt, is because they bought Trolltech. They could not have that much control over gtkMM, however ancient and unmaintained that code is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you right now , Maemo will not use Qt Embedded .
'Bad code ' is very subjective , and I would like you to prove Qt is slower than Gtk .
Just because you say it 's so , does not make it as such.One reason they are going with Qt , is because they bought Trolltech .
They could not have that much control over gtkMM , however ancient and unmaintained that code is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you right now, Maemo will not use Qt Embedded.
'Bad code' is very subjective, and I would like you to prove Qt is slower than Gtk.
Just because you say it's so, does not make it as such.One reason they are going with Qt, is because they bought Trolltech.
They could not have that much control over gtkMM, however ancient and unmaintained that code is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1246723200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C++, and I *despise* that language. Whereas GTK in C may be horrible, but the bindings to Python, Ruby and C# are all excellent and a newbie dev could easily believe they were designed for them from day one.</p><p>However, all the other advantages you mention are still valid, plus Nokia controls Qt so overall I support this move, it was the most logical thing they could do. They've lost me as a developer, but I don't think anyone's gonna cry over that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C + + , and I * despise * that language .
Whereas GTK in C may be horrible , but the bindings to Python , Ruby and C # are all excellent and a newbie dev could easily believe they were designed for them from day one.However , all the other advantages you mention are still valid , plus Nokia controls Qt so overall I support this move , it was the most logical thing they could do .
They 've lost me as a developer , but I do n't think anyone 's gon na cry over that ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C++, and I *despise* that language.
Whereas GTK in C may be horrible, but the bindings to Python, Ruby and C# are all excellent and a newbie dev could easily believe they were designed for them from day one.However, all the other advantages you mention are still valid, plus Nokia controls Qt so overall I support this move, it was the most logical thing they could do.
They've lost me as a developer, but I don't think anyone's gonna cry over that ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585665</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246796940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quim's documents didnt really mention QT Embedded nor QWS, it does mention Xorg and Gnome desktop and lots of its sub-components.  So you do the math =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quim 's documents didnt really mention QT Embedded nor QWS , it does mention Xorg and Gnome desktop and lots of its sub-components .
So you do the math = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quim's documents didnt really mention QT Embedded nor QWS, it does mention Xorg and Gnome desktop and lots of its sub-components.
So you do the math =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587275</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246819680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using the QObject system I easily write applications with no memory leaks</p></div><p>Good luck trying to verify that with Valgrind - it gets totally confused by Qt's little memory management tricks and reports all kinds of memory leaks.</p><p>Have you verified that there weren't any memory leaks or are you just guessing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the QObject system I easily write applications with no memory leaksGood luck trying to verify that with Valgrind - it gets totally confused by Qt 's little memory management tricks and reports all kinds of memory leaks.Have you verified that there were n't any memory leaks or are you just guessing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the QObject system I easily write applications with no memory leaksGood luck trying to verify that with Valgrind - it gets totally confused by Qt's little memory management tricks and reports all kinds of memory leaks.Have you verified that there weren't any memory leaks or are you just guessing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586999</id>
	<title>Re:Ubuntu?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246816800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would they gain from building on top of Ubuntu instead of Debian? I could understand building on top of Moblin (because of similar goals), but building on top of Ubuntu wouldn't really give Nokia anything AFAICT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would they gain from building on top of Ubuntu instead of Debian ?
I could understand building on top of Moblin ( because of similar goals ) , but building on top of Ubuntu would n't really give Nokia anything AFAICT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would they gain from building on top of Ubuntu instead of Debian?
I could understand building on top of Moblin (because of similar goals), but building on top of Ubuntu wouldn't really give Nokia anything AFAICT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584809</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246736220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>GTK attempts to do object-oriented code in C and the result is a mess of explicit casting and macros.</p></div></blockquote><p>Take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gtkmm" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">GTKMM</a> [wikipedia.org], the C++ binding for GTK+, which uses:</p><ul>
<li>signal handlers with full C++ type safety (no macros)</li><li>the standard C++ library (including STL containers and iterators, unlike Qt)</li><li>object compositing</li><li>automatic memory management, including for dynamically created objects</li><li>internationalization with full UTF-8 support and C++ std::strings</li><li>C++ inheritance to define your own widgets</li><li>everything in nicely defined C++ namespaces</li></ul><p>The GTK+ people chose C because back then the C++ compilers were not as mature as they are now (which is why Qt uses its own language as preprocessor, to fill in the old C++ compiler gaps), and practically any language could call C libraries, but not C++ libraries (not without extern "C", anyway). GTKMM provides a nice alternative, too bad so few people choose to use it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GTK attempts to do object-oriented code in C and the result is a mess of explicit casting and macros.Take a look at GTKMM [ wikipedia.org ] , the C + + binding for GTK + , which uses : signal handlers with full C + + type safety ( no macros ) the standard C + + library ( including STL containers and iterators , unlike Qt ) object compositingautomatic memory management , including for dynamically created objectsinternationalization with full UTF-8 support and C + + std : : stringsC + + inheritance to define your own widgetseverything in nicely defined C + + namespacesThe GTK + people chose C because back then the C + + compilers were not as mature as they are now ( which is why Qt uses its own language as preprocessor , to fill in the old C + + compiler gaps ) , and practically any language could call C libraries , but not C + + libraries ( not without extern " C " , anyway ) .
GTKMM provides a nice alternative , too bad so few people choose to use it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GTK attempts to do object-oriented code in C and the result is a mess of explicit casting and macros.Take a look at GTKMM [wikipedia.org], the C++ binding for GTK+, which uses:
signal handlers with full C++ type safety (no macros)the standard C++ library (including STL containers and iterators, unlike Qt)object compositingautomatic memory management, including for dynamically created objectsinternationalization with full UTF-8 support and C++ std::stringsC++ inheritance to define your own widgetseverything in nicely defined C++ namespacesThe GTK+ people chose C because back then the C++ compilers were not as mature as they are now (which is why Qt uses its own language as preprocessor, to fill in the old C++ compiler gaps), and practically any language could call C libraries, but not C++ libraries (not without extern "C", anyway).
GTKMM provides a nice alternative, too bad so few people choose to use it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584227</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1246725000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the n8x0 development community has been kind of dead since the introduction of The Great One. It isn't completely gone of course, but it is a lot less active than it was a year ago. The current stable of apps aren't going to be as useful as we would like them to be. The other thing is that there never really was that many to begin with, nothing even approaching what the iPhone has. Most of the development seemed to revolve around fixing deficiencies wit hteh OS(alternate environments, media players, web browsers and other things that got done right the first time in android/iphone/pre). Also, many of the apps were just straight ports of desktop gnome/gtk apps, and it would be rather trivial to do the same thing with qt/kde apps.</p><p>Another thing is that by switching to qt you can tap in to the KDE development community. KDE devs who were never interested in writing gtk for the n800 may now get excited about the 900 and pick it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the n8x0 development community has been kind of dead since the introduction of The Great One .
It is n't completely gone of course , but it is a lot less active than it was a year ago .
The current stable of apps are n't going to be as useful as we would like them to be .
The other thing is that there never really was that many to begin with , nothing even approaching what the iPhone has .
Most of the development seemed to revolve around fixing deficiencies wit hteh OS ( alternate environments , media players , web browsers and other things that got done right the first time in android/iphone/pre ) .
Also , many of the apps were just straight ports of desktop gnome/gtk apps , and it would be rather trivial to do the same thing with qt/kde apps.Another thing is that by switching to qt you can tap in to the KDE development community .
KDE devs who were never interested in writing gtk for the n800 may now get excited about the 900 and pick it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the n8x0 development community has been kind of dead since the introduction of The Great One.
It isn't completely gone of course, but it is a lot less active than it was a year ago.
The current stable of apps aren't going to be as useful as we would like them to be.
The other thing is that there never really was that many to begin with, nothing even approaching what the iPhone has.
Most of the development seemed to revolve around fixing deficiencies wit hteh OS(alternate environments, media players, web browsers and other things that got done right the first time in android/iphone/pre).
Also, many of the apps were just straight ports of desktop gnome/gtk apps, and it would be rather trivial to do the same thing with qt/kde apps.Another thing is that by switching to qt you can tap in to the KDE development community.
KDE devs who were never interested in writing gtk for the n800 may now get excited about the 900 and pick it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</id>
	<title>I wonder about this</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a lot of software for the Nokia N810 and below.  Switching out to a new UI means a lot of stuff will either get uprooted or there will be a lot of libraries loaded into the machine's precious little memory.</p><p>Still, if the developers of software port over to the new environment quickly enough, it won't matter but I can't imagine things will be quick enough.</p><p>What can be done under Qt that can't be done under GTK?  Is Qt more efficient in some way?  What are advantages of Qt over GTK?  I've never been clear on the differences... I just know they are different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of software for the Nokia N810 and below .
Switching out to a new UI means a lot of stuff will either get uprooted or there will be a lot of libraries loaded into the machine 's precious little memory.Still , if the developers of software port over to the new environment quickly enough , it wo n't matter but I ca n't imagine things will be quick enough.What can be done under Qt that ca n't be done under GTK ?
Is Qt more efficient in some way ?
What are advantages of Qt over GTK ?
I 've never been clear on the differences... I just know they are different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of software for the Nokia N810 and below.
Switching out to a new UI means a lot of stuff will either get uprooted or there will be a lot of libraries loaded into the machine's precious little memory.Still, if the developers of software port over to the new environment quickly enough, it won't matter but I can't imagine things will be quick enough.What can be done under Qt that can't be done under GTK?
Is Qt more efficient in some way?
What are advantages of Qt over GTK?
I've never been clear on the differences... I just know they are different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C++, and I *despise* that language.</p></div><p>Did you try C++ with or without Qt? I must admit, I don't like C++ outside of Qt, it brings the whole platform to another level. QStrings and QByteArrays are a godsend compared to std::string and char *. Using the QObject system I easily write applications with no memory leaks because it will delete any child QObjects when it goes, making it easy even without amy garbage collector. Finally, using signals and slots makes your application more robust - screw something up and nothing will happen because the signal never reaches its destination but it won't crash hard on an invalid pointer. Granted, I've heard you can do the same with STL and boost and duct tape, but I never managed to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C + + , and I * despise * that language.Did you try C + + with or without Qt ?
I must admit , I do n't like C + + outside of Qt , it brings the whole platform to another level .
QStrings and QByteArrays are a godsend compared to std : : string and char * .
Using the QObject system I easily write applications with no memory leaks because it will delete any child QObjects when it goes , making it easy even without amy garbage collector .
Finally , using signals and slots makes your application more robust - screw something up and nothing will happen because the signal never reaches its destination but it wo n't crash hard on an invalid pointer .
Granted , I 've heard you can do the same with STL and boost and duct tape , but I never managed to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C++, and I *despise* that language.Did you try C++ with or without Qt?
I must admit, I don't like C++ outside of Qt, it brings the whole platform to another level.
QStrings and QByteArrays are a godsend compared to std::string and char *.
Using the QObject system I easily write applications with no memory leaks because it will delete any child QObjects when it goes, making it easy even without amy garbage collector.
Finally, using signals and slots makes your application more robust - screw something up and nothing will happen because the signal never reaches its destination but it won't crash hard on an invalid pointer.
Granted, I've heard you can do the same with STL and boost and duct tape, but I never managed to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587159</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246818420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Qt isn't bad code and is probably faster the GTK.     The previous product I did used GTK.   The problems is QT Embedded.   It wants you to use QNetwork and QSocket and QWhatever.    Most of these are bad buggy wrappers on top of something else.  The build system for QT embedded is bad as an entire system builder.   As a whole QWS is not multithreaded safe.   I can tell you that I personally have fixed 100-200(our team fixed more like 1000s)bugs, race conditions, threading problems and work arounds in Qtopia for our embedded product. </p><p>I'm not arguing over QT and GTK, either will do the job.   However there is a lot of difference between QT the GUI toolkit and QT the system platform.    In it's embedded form (Qtopia, QT Embedded) it is a pain to deal with.   It is nothing more then a Demo that has never seen the light of day.   If they only use the QT GUI toolkit with the current setup they have (X11, glib, dbus etc..) it might not be bad.   However if they adopt QT Embedded the system platform, they will die a quick death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Qt is n't bad code and is probably faster the GTK .
The previous product I did used GTK .
The problems is QT Embedded .
It wants you to use QNetwork and QSocket and QWhatever .
Most of these are bad buggy wrappers on top of something else .
The build system for QT embedded is bad as an entire system builder .
As a whole QWS is not multithreaded safe .
I can tell you that I personally have fixed 100-200 ( our team fixed more like 1000s ) bugs , race conditions , threading problems and work arounds in Qtopia for our embedded product .
I 'm not arguing over QT and GTK , either will do the job .
However there is a lot of difference between QT the GUI toolkit and QT the system platform .
In it 's embedded form ( Qtopia , QT Embedded ) it is a pain to deal with .
It is nothing more then a Demo that has never seen the light of day .
If they only use the QT GUI toolkit with the current setup they have ( X11 , glib , dbus etc.. ) it might not be bad .
However if they adopt QT Embedded the system platform , they will die a quick death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Qt isn't bad code and is probably faster the GTK.
The previous product I did used GTK.
The problems is QT Embedded.
It wants you to use QNetwork and QSocket and QWhatever.
Most of these are bad buggy wrappers on top of something else.
The build system for QT embedded is bad as an entire system builder.
As a whole QWS is not multithreaded safe.
I can tell you that I personally have fixed 100-200(our team fixed more like 1000s)bugs, race conditions, threading problems and work arounds in Qtopia for our embedded product.
I'm not arguing over QT and GTK, either will do the job.
However there is a lot of difference between QT the GUI toolkit and QT the system platform.
In it's embedded form (Qtopia, QT Embedded) it is a pain to deal with.
It is nothing more then a Demo that has never seen the light of day.
If they only use the QT GUI toolkit with the current setup they have (X11, glib, dbus etc..) it might not be bad.
However if they adopt QT Embedded the system platform, they will die a quick death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585761</id>
	<title>skype?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246799280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if Qt is so cool and runs on all popular OSes, why Skype simply sucks on Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if Qt is so cool and runs on all popular OSes , why Skype simply sucks on Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Qt is so cool and runs on all popular OSes, why Skype simply sucks on Linux?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585687</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>ecki</author>
	<datestamp>1246797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...this is going to draw in QT Embedded</i> </p><p>What makes you think this?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... their bad, slow code<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i> </p><p>Care to shed some more light on this too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is going to draw in QT Embedded What makes you think this ?
... their bad , slow code ... Care to shed some more light on this too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is going to draw in QT Embedded What makes you think this?
... their bad, slow code ... Care to shed some more light on this too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246727760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much everything I've done with Qt tells me KDE should be a much better desktop than Gnome. But the truth is that most of the large desktop distributions use Gnome, Ubuntu is much bigger than Kubuntu and same goes for the others. None of the big three hitters Firefox, OpenOffice or GIMP are KDE applications - ok not all are Gnome apps either but there's not many "killer KDE apps" around. Don't get me wrong, they're all perfectly okay but nothing really rocks the boat.</p><p>Sometimes I just want to shoot the people that did usability studies for KDE, like for example making dolphin's file transfer dialogs into notifications that disappear whether they're done or not. When I'm moving a file it's very often a point to know when it's complete, and it irritates me to no end that every time I must click the notifications icon to know when it's really done. To be honest, I think I'd love to see Gnome/Qt. Maybe we'd see more head-to-head competition - or even more shared components? That's kind of hard today, both need to invent the wheel in C/C++ respectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much everything I 've done with Qt tells me KDE should be a much better desktop than Gnome .
But the truth is that most of the large desktop distributions use Gnome , Ubuntu is much bigger than Kubuntu and same goes for the others .
None of the big three hitters Firefox , OpenOffice or GIMP are KDE applications - ok not all are Gnome apps either but there 's not many " killer KDE apps " around .
Do n't get me wrong , they 're all perfectly okay but nothing really rocks the boat.Sometimes I just want to shoot the people that did usability studies for KDE , like for example making dolphin 's file transfer dialogs into notifications that disappear whether they 're done or not .
When I 'm moving a file it 's very often a point to know when it 's complete , and it irritates me to no end that every time I must click the notifications icon to know when it 's really done .
To be honest , I think I 'd love to see Gnome/Qt .
Maybe we 'd see more head-to-head competition - or even more shared components ?
That 's kind of hard today , both need to invent the wheel in C/C + + respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much everything I've done with Qt tells me KDE should be a much better desktop than Gnome.
But the truth is that most of the large desktop distributions use Gnome, Ubuntu is much bigger than Kubuntu and same goes for the others.
None of the big three hitters Firefox, OpenOffice or GIMP are KDE applications - ok not all are Gnome apps either but there's not many "killer KDE apps" around.
Don't get me wrong, they're all perfectly okay but nothing really rocks the boat.Sometimes I just want to shoot the people that did usability studies for KDE, like for example making dolphin's file transfer dialogs into notifications that disappear whether they're done or not.
When I'm moving a file it's very often a point to know when it's complete, and it irritates me to no end that every time I must click the notifications icon to know when it's really done.
To be honest, I think I'd love to see Gnome/Qt.
Maybe we'd see more head-to-head competition - or even more shared components?
That's kind of hard today, both need to invent the wheel in C/C++ respectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587283</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246819680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations, you convinced me to try out QT Creator.  Or, I would have had the "getting started" button actually worked on the splash screen.  I was really looking forward to switching to QT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you convinced me to try out QT Creator .
Or , I would have had the " getting started " button actually worked on the splash screen .
I was really looking forward to switching to QT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you convinced me to try out QT Creator.
Or, I would have had the "getting started" button actually worked on the splash screen.
I was really looking forward to switching to QT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586417</id>
	<title>Slides &amp; Audio</title>
	<author>ultrabot</author>
	<datestamp>1246810140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, it seems they got the audio recording of the talk up too.</p><p>Check it out at:</p><p>http://flors.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/maemo-harmattan-keynote-at-gcds/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , it seems they got the audio recording of the talk up too.Check it out at : http : //flors.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/maemo-harmattan-keynote-at-gcds/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, it seems they got the audio recording of the talk up too.Check it out at:http://flors.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/maemo-harmattan-keynote-at-gcds/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28624625</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it IS about the merits of the toolkit (GTK simply failed them). They don't say that however not to hurt people.</p><p>Qt is far more efficient with features like QtKinetic and stuff like that, and of course the cross-platform stuff. And then there is Plasma, which actually IS about making 1 app which works on ANY DPI... Be it a tv screen ("10 feet interface") or a mobile phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it IS about the merits of the toolkit ( GTK simply failed them ) .
They do n't say that however not to hurt people.Qt is far more efficient with features like QtKinetic and stuff like that , and of course the cross-platform stuff .
And then there is Plasma , which actually IS about making 1 app which works on ANY DPI... Be it a tv screen ( " 10 feet interface " ) or a mobile phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it IS about the merits of the toolkit (GTK simply failed them).
They don't say that however not to hurt people.Qt is far more efficient with features like QtKinetic and stuff like that, and of course the cross-platform stuff.
And then there is Plasma, which actually IS about making 1 app which works on ANY DPI... Be it a tv screen ("10 feet interface") or a mobile phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</id>
	<title>This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246715100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fromt TFA: "Nokias motivation for this move as being mostly driven through the desire for easier cross-platform-development, citing Maemo, Symbian and the desktop as examples."</p><p>One thing that sounds incredible wrong to me is the fact that they are saying that Qt was chosen to make "easier cross-platform-development". The applications that were ported directly from desktop to Maemo (Xchat is the first one the comes to my mind) have an incredible bad look in the device. Building an interface for a device that runs in a small screen (4.1 inches) with a small resolution (800x480) that also uses a large pointer (e.g., most of the screen is designed to thumb usage) is not the same as building an interface for normal computer screens and resolutions.</p><p>The move is simple political: Nokia controls Qt now, so they will use their own toolkit. It's not based on merits of the toolkit (or problems of the other.) But hey! Why tell people the truth, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fromt TFA : " Nokias motivation for this move as being mostly driven through the desire for easier cross-platform-development , citing Maemo , Symbian and the desktop as examples .
" One thing that sounds incredible wrong to me is the fact that they are saying that Qt was chosen to make " easier cross-platform-development " .
The applications that were ported directly from desktop to Maemo ( Xchat is the first one the comes to my mind ) have an incredible bad look in the device .
Building an interface for a device that runs in a small screen ( 4.1 inches ) with a small resolution ( 800x480 ) that also uses a large pointer ( e.g. , most of the screen is designed to thumb usage ) is not the same as building an interface for normal computer screens and resolutions.The move is simple political : Nokia controls Qt now , so they will use their own toolkit .
It 's not based on merits of the toolkit ( or problems of the other .
) But hey !
Why tell people the truth , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fromt TFA: "Nokias motivation for this move as being mostly driven through the desire for easier cross-platform-development, citing Maemo, Symbian and the desktop as examples.
"One thing that sounds incredible wrong to me is the fact that they are saying that Qt was chosen to make "easier cross-platform-development".
The applications that were ported directly from desktop to Maemo (Xchat is the first one the comes to my mind) have an incredible bad look in the device.
Building an interface for a device that runs in a small screen (4.1 inches) with a small resolution (800x480) that also uses a large pointer (e.g., most of the screen is designed to thumb usage) is not the same as building an interface for normal computer screens and resolutions.The move is simple political: Nokia controls Qt now, so they will use their own toolkit.
It's not based on merits of the toolkit (or problems of the other.
) But hey!
Why tell people the truth, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583139</id>
	<title>I know why..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246709040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because QT was released under the LGPL, sorta recently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because QT was released under the LGPL , sorta recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because QT was released under the LGPL, sorta recently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585339</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246790280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Nokia did screw up a platform once already.  Anyone remember EPOC before it was turned into Symbian?  They used to have a rocksolid platform on the Series 5 Psions, but somehow it was turned into the unstable mess that inhabits most of Nokias phones.  Not to mention that you have something like five more or less incompatible variants of Symbian OS nowadays.  So it sounds like Maemo will be getting a similar treatment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Nokia did screw up a platform once already .
Anyone remember EPOC before it was turned into Symbian ?
They used to have a rocksolid platform on the Series 5 Psions , but somehow it was turned into the unstable mess that inhabits most of Nokias phones .
Not to mention that you have something like five more or less incompatible variants of Symbian OS nowadays .
So it sounds like Maemo will be getting a similar treatment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Nokia did screw up a platform once already.
Anyone remember EPOC before it was turned into Symbian?
They used to have a rocksolid platform on the Series 5 Psions, but somehow it was turned into the unstable mess that inhabits most of Nokias phones.
Not to mention that you have something like five more or less incompatible variants of Symbian OS nowadays.
So it sounds like Maemo will be getting a similar treatment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28604647</id>
	<title>Lets blame GTK for everything</title>
	<author>WebCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246996800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly it is the most evil code on the planet.  It kills baby seals I heard.  GTK is responsible for all that subprime lending that triggered this massive economic meltdown too, right?  Geeeez.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The think I like least about each of Firefox, OpenOffice and GIMP is the user interface, for which I blame GTK.  For example, Firefox's application chooser dialog makes me want to slit my wrists.</p></div><p>Yes, GTK's ancestry is tied to GIMP in some long dark distant past...but to blame shortcomings in ANY of those applications you mention on GTK makes about as logical and sensible as the statement I made above.  First and foremost it doesn't matter if you use the greatest toolkit/framework/tools/etc in the universe, you can make an application that is absolutely horrible to use.  KDE and KOffice weren't horrible, but to many they've lacked in features, design and usability at various points in time.  The massive upheaval between KDE 3.x and KDE 4.x wasn't just done on a whim--their development communities went headlong into what they had to know was going to be a long, painful process to make KDE relevant again, and all through that time qt adherents would probably argue that qt was a more elegant platform throughout.  The thing is, GNOME had the upper hand from a usability perspective for some time because much was done to make the environment more usable, perhaps at the expense of the DEVELOPER experience.  Now KDE is back to being competitive in that space and some might say has the upper hand again because in addition to being competititve as a user environment it has a more elegant native development toolkit in the form of qt.</p><p>With Mozilla and Oo.org in particular your assertion makes no sense at all--both of those applications don't even natively depend upon GTK OR qt at all!  Integration with GTK (or, at a desktop level, GNOME) or qt (or KDE) in both of these apps is a "retrofit" and it sometimes shows.  Since FF and Oo.org both place a very high degree of emphasis on cross-platform support they may make sacrifices in native UI environment integration from time to time--or at least questionable choices.  FF does have its won XUL-based alternative if I recall, so you can still get around any GTK limitations. However, there is much that could be done by FF developers to better use the GTK wigit, and GTK being GPLed there is nothing at all preventing mozilla developers from contributing to the GTK project to address shortcomings pointed out by their users.  Perhaps the argument is there that GTK ought to rethink the design of its file chooser, but that isn't really an example of an overall GTK design/architectural shortcoming but rather a higher-level discussion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly it is the most evil code on the planet .
It kills baby seals I heard .
GTK is responsible for all that subprime lending that triggered this massive economic meltdown too , right ?
Geeeez.The think I like least about each of Firefox , OpenOffice and GIMP is the user interface , for which I blame GTK .
For example , Firefox 's application chooser dialog makes me want to slit my wrists.Yes , GTK 's ancestry is tied to GIMP in some long dark distant past...but to blame shortcomings in ANY of those applications you mention on GTK makes about as logical and sensible as the statement I made above .
First and foremost it does n't matter if you use the greatest toolkit/framework/tools/etc in the universe , you can make an application that is absolutely horrible to use .
KDE and KOffice were n't horrible , but to many they 've lacked in features , design and usability at various points in time .
The massive upheaval between KDE 3.x and KDE 4.x was n't just done on a whim--their development communities went headlong into what they had to know was going to be a long , painful process to make KDE relevant again , and all through that time qt adherents would probably argue that qt was a more elegant platform throughout .
The thing is , GNOME had the upper hand from a usability perspective for some time because much was done to make the environment more usable , perhaps at the expense of the DEVELOPER experience .
Now KDE is back to being competitive in that space and some might say has the upper hand again because in addition to being competititve as a user environment it has a more elegant native development toolkit in the form of qt.With Mozilla and Oo.org in particular your assertion makes no sense at all--both of those applications do n't even natively depend upon GTK OR qt at all !
Integration with GTK ( or , at a desktop level , GNOME ) or qt ( or KDE ) in both of these apps is a " retrofit " and it sometimes shows .
Since FF and Oo.org both place a very high degree of emphasis on cross-platform support they may make sacrifices in native UI environment integration from time to time--or at least questionable choices .
FF does have its won XUL-based alternative if I recall , so you can still get around any GTK limitations .
However , there is much that could be done by FF developers to better use the GTK wigit , and GTK being GPLed there is nothing at all preventing mozilla developers from contributing to the GTK project to address shortcomings pointed out by their users .
Perhaps the argument is there that GTK ought to rethink the design of its file chooser , but that is n't really an example of an overall GTK design/architectural shortcoming but rather a higher-level discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly it is the most evil code on the planet.
It kills baby seals I heard.
GTK is responsible for all that subprime lending that triggered this massive economic meltdown too, right?
Geeeez.The think I like least about each of Firefox, OpenOffice and GIMP is the user interface, for which I blame GTK.
For example, Firefox's application chooser dialog makes me want to slit my wrists.Yes, GTK's ancestry is tied to GIMP in some long dark distant past...but to blame shortcomings in ANY of those applications you mention on GTK makes about as logical and sensible as the statement I made above.
First and foremost it doesn't matter if you use the greatest toolkit/framework/tools/etc in the universe, you can make an application that is absolutely horrible to use.
KDE and KOffice weren't horrible, but to many they've lacked in features, design and usability at various points in time.
The massive upheaval between KDE 3.x and KDE 4.x wasn't just done on a whim--their development communities went headlong into what they had to know was going to be a long, painful process to make KDE relevant again, and all through that time qt adherents would probably argue that qt was a more elegant platform throughout.
The thing is, GNOME had the upper hand from a usability perspective for some time because much was done to make the environment more usable, perhaps at the expense of the DEVELOPER experience.
Now KDE is back to being competitive in that space and some might say has the upper hand again because in addition to being competititve as a user environment it has a more elegant native development toolkit in the form of qt.With Mozilla and Oo.org in particular your assertion makes no sense at all--both of those applications don't even natively depend upon GTK OR qt at all!
Integration with GTK (or, at a desktop level, GNOME) or qt (or KDE) in both of these apps is a "retrofit" and it sometimes shows.
Since FF and Oo.org both place a very high degree of emphasis on cross-platform support they may make sacrifices in native UI environment integration from time to time--or at least questionable choices.
FF does have its won XUL-based alternative if I recall, so you can still get around any GTK limitations.
However, there is much that could be done by FF developers to better use the GTK wigit, and GTK being GPLed there is nothing at all preventing mozilla developers from contributing to the GTK project to address shortcomings pointed out by their users.
Perhaps the argument is there that GTK ought to rethink the design of its file chooser, but that isn't really an example of an overall GTK design/architectural shortcoming but rather a higher-level discussion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584331</id>
	<title>Re:N900, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK, it's a project to create an OS that is compatible with Maemo but entirely based on Free Software. One of the goals (IIRC) is to allow running programs using the Freemantle APIs on the semi-abandoned N800s and N810s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , it 's a project to create an OS that is compatible with Maemo but entirely based on Free Software .
One of the goals ( IIRC ) is to allow running programs using the Freemantle APIs on the semi-abandoned N800s and N810s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, it's a project to create an OS that is compatible with Maemo but entirely based on Free Software.
One of the goals (IIRC) is to allow running programs using the Freemantle APIs on the semi-abandoned N800s and N810s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585039</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>ardor</author>
	<datestamp>1246827360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have personally worked on QT embedded projects as well, for well over a year. Some platforms weren't supported out of the box, yet I didn't find it to be particularly painful. Neither was the signal/slot-system. I did use GTKmm before Qt though, and had to endure all the braindead API designs inherited from gtk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have personally worked on QT embedded projects as well , for well over a year .
Some platforms were n't supported out of the box , yet I did n't find it to be particularly painful .
Neither was the signal/slot-system .
I did use GTKmm before Qt though , and had to endure all the braindead API designs inherited from gtk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have personally worked on QT embedded projects as well, for well over a year.
Some platforms weren't supported out of the box, yet I didn't find it to be particularly painful.
Neither was the signal/slot-system.
I did use GTKmm before Qt though, and had to endure all the braindead API designs inherited from gtk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28600051</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246876320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you recommend any resources (books or online) for learning it?  I've use QT/Qtopia apps on my old Archos PMA and I like the simple clean GUI.  Just right for a small device.</p><p>In my persoanl case, I've programmed a fair bit in 4GLs but only a little in C and Java and no C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you recommend any resources ( books or online ) for learning it ?
I 've use QT/Qtopia apps on my old Archos PMA and I like the simple clean GUI .
Just right for a small device.In my persoanl case , I 've programmed a fair bit in 4GLs but only a little in C and Java and no C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you recommend any resources (books or online) for learning it?
I've use QT/Qtopia apps on my old Archos PMA and I like the simple clean GUI.
Just right for a small device.In my persoanl case, I've programmed a fair bit in 4GLs but only a little in C and Java and no C++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586725</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1246813800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What are advantages of Qt over GTK?</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'd imagine the fact that Nokia now owns it might have something to do with this move.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are advantages of Qt over GTK ?
I 'd imagine the fact that Nokia now owns it might have something to do with this move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are advantages of Qt over GTK?
I'd imagine the fact that Nokia now owns it might have something to do with this move.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587333</id>
	<title>Re:Gtk+ is not Nokia's problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246820100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nokia has its own lightweight GUI library that they use with Symbian--and their UIs suck. They have built applications with Gtk+--and their UIs suck. They have build Windows and OS X desktop apps--and their UIs still suck. I think the problem Nokia has with GUIs and software has to do with how they develop software, not whether they use Gtk+ or Qt.</p></div></blockquote><p>My guess: this is a result of being entirely design-driven. This gives you a nice looking demo, but the developers are forced to do add seriously ugly hacks to implement everything the designers want... and that always bites you in the ass, usually faster than you expect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has its own lightweight GUI library that they use with Symbian--and their UIs suck .
They have built applications with Gtk + --and their UIs suck .
They have build Windows and OS X desktop apps--and their UIs still suck .
I think the problem Nokia has with GUIs and software has to do with how they develop software , not whether they use Gtk + or Qt.My guess : this is a result of being entirely design-driven .
This gives you a nice looking demo , but the developers are forced to do add seriously ugly hacks to implement everything the designers want... and that always bites you in the ass , usually faster than you expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has its own lightweight GUI library that they use with Symbian--and their UIs suck.
They have built applications with Gtk+--and their UIs suck.
They have build Windows and OS X desktop apps--and their UIs still suck.
I think the problem Nokia has with GUIs and software has to do with how they develop software, not whether they use Gtk+ or Qt.My guess: this is a result of being entirely design-driven.
This gives you a nice looking demo, but the developers are forced to do add seriously ugly hacks to implement everything the designers want... and that always bites you in the ass, usually faster than you expect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583285</id>
	<title>Ubuntu?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was I the only one thinking that Nokia was going to bring their N800 successors on to Ubuntu? How will they keep up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was I the only one thinking that Nokia was going to bring their N800 successors on to Ubuntu ?
How will they keep up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was I the only one thinking that Nokia was going to bring their N800 successors on to Ubuntu?
How will they keep up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585207</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246787580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What can be done under Qt that can't be done under GTK?</p><p>By the time Maemo Harmattan is released, probably a feature unique to Qt will be a development environment that will allow developers to take a main platform (e.g. Maemo) and port easily to Symbian, Windows Mobile, perhaps other mobile Linux distributions and the main full desktop environments including Windows and Mac OS X.</p><p>Quim Gil</p><p>The move is less about the technical possibilities of Qt vs GTK+ and more about how useful each toolkit is when aiming to target millions of users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What can be done under Qt that ca n't be done under GTK ? By the time Maemo Harmattan is released , probably a feature unique to Qt will be a development environment that will allow developers to take a main platform ( e.g .
Maemo ) and port easily to Symbian , Windows Mobile , perhaps other mobile Linux distributions and the main full desktop environments including Windows and Mac OS X.Quim GilThe move is less about the technical possibilities of Qt vs GTK + and more about how useful each toolkit is when aiming to target millions of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What can be done under Qt that can't be done under GTK?By the time Maemo Harmattan is released, probably a feature unique to Qt will be a development environment that will allow developers to take a main platform (e.g.
Maemo) and port easily to Symbian, Windows Mobile, perhaps other mobile Linux distributions and the main full desktop environments including Windows and Mac OS X.Quim GilThe move is less about the technical possibilities of Qt vs GTK+ and more about how useful each toolkit is when aiming to target millions of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583113</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The K in KDE stands for Krap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The K in KDE stands for Krap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The K in KDE stands for Krap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583195</id>
	<title>linux is shit for faggots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and those faggots are a drain on society that will hopefully all die soon so the real humans can get on with what we need to do instead of being held back by a bunch of aids having ass fuckers.<br> <br>die faggots die!</htmltext>
<tokenext>and those faggots are a drain on society that will hopefully all die soon so the real humans can get on with what we need to do instead of being held back by a bunch of aids having ass fuckers .
die faggots die !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and those faggots are a drain on society that will hopefully all die soon so the real humans can get on with what we need to do instead of being held back by a bunch of aids having ass fuckers.
die faggots die!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439</id>
	<title>GNOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246713060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNOME needs to follow suit, and soon, if GNU/Linux is to ever gain relevance on the desktop. For anyone who doesn't believe me, see the <a href="http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html" title="asktog.com" rel="nofollow">First Principles of Interaction Design</a> [asktog.com] and how many of those principles are broken by having two different toolkits that behave slightly differently, but are expected to co-exist (KDE apps on GNOME and vice-versa). QT is the logical choice for the One True Toolkit as it has the <a href="http://www.qtsoftware.com/products/developer-tools" title="qtsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">best development tools</a> [qtsoftware.com] of the GNU/Linux ecosystem.</p><p>What's that, you don't care whether GNU/Linux gains traction in the desktop market? That's funny, you're one of the ones advocating it to people, either fix GNU/Linux or stop advocating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME needs to follow suit , and soon , if GNU/Linux is to ever gain relevance on the desktop .
For anyone who does n't believe me , see the First Principles of Interaction Design [ asktog.com ] and how many of those principles are broken by having two different toolkits that behave slightly differently , but are expected to co-exist ( KDE apps on GNOME and vice-versa ) .
QT is the logical choice for the One True Toolkit as it has the best development tools [ qtsoftware.com ] of the GNU/Linux ecosystem.What 's that , you do n't care whether GNU/Linux gains traction in the desktop market ?
That 's funny , you 're one of the ones advocating it to people , either fix GNU/Linux or stop advocating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME needs to follow suit, and soon, if GNU/Linux is to ever gain relevance on the desktop.
For anyone who doesn't believe me, see the First Principles of Interaction Design [asktog.com] and how many of those principles are broken by having two different toolkits that behave slightly differently, but are expected to co-exist (KDE apps on GNOME and vice-versa).
QT is the logical choice for the One True Toolkit as it has the best development tools [qtsoftware.com] of the GNU/Linux ecosystem.What's that, you don't care whether GNU/Linux gains traction in the desktop market?
That's funny, you're one of the ones advocating it to people, either fix GNU/Linux or stop advocating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28598869</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246871280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yebbut is it good or is it wack?</htmltext>
<tokenext>yebbut is it good or is it wack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yebbut is it good or is it wack?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585121</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246785780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest pain with QT, is that since it tries to be cross platform is it re-implements everything (Networking, Audio, Mutexs etc... etc..).   They make it fairly easy to use their bad, slow code, while the "beautiful" non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C++ code.</p></div><p>This "biggest pain" of yours is what makes it cross platform.</p><p>You know what? You don't need to use these "slow" wrappers, you can use the file descriptors directly if you wish, and call to posix to your hearts content, if you don't care about running the code outside Linux. Good luck explaining that to your manager though.</p><p>I invite to you to investigate how "slow" these wrappers are by just reading the code:</p><p>http://tinyurl.com/loerlj</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They make it fairly easy to use their bad, slow code, while the "beautiful" non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C++ code.</p></div><p>PIBKCAP, probably.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest pain with QT , is that since it tries to be cross platform is it re-implements everything ( Networking , Audio , Mutexs etc... etc.. ) . They make it fairly easy to use their bad , slow code , while the " beautiful " non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C + + code.This " biggest pain " of yours is what makes it cross platform.You know what ?
You do n't need to use these " slow " wrappers , you can use the file descriptors directly if you wish , and call to posix to your hearts content , if you do n't care about running the code outside Linux .
Good luck explaining that to your manager though.I invite to you to investigate how " slow " these wrappers are by just reading the code : http : //tinyurl.com/loerljThey make it fairly easy to use their bad , slow code , while the " beautiful " non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C + + code.PIBKCAP , probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest pain with QT, is that since it tries to be cross platform is it re-implements everything (Networking, Audio, Mutexs etc... etc..).   They make it fairly easy to use their bad, slow code, while the "beautiful" non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C++ code.This "biggest pain" of yours is what makes it cross platform.You know what?
You don't need to use these "slow" wrappers, you can use the file descriptors directly if you wish, and call to posix to your hearts content, if you don't care about running the code outside Linux.
Good luck explaining that to your manager though.I invite to you to investigate how "slow" these wrappers are by just reading the code:http://tinyurl.com/loerljThey make it fairly easy to use their bad, slow code, while the "beautiful" non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C++ code.PIBKCAP, probably.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583103</id>
	<title>N900, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all fun and games, but why are there no new products in the Internet Table line? C'mon, it's been almost 2 years since N810. The OS lives while the hardware was abandoned? Weird.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all fun and games , but why are there no new products in the Internet Table line ?
C'mon , it 's been almost 2 years since N810 .
The OS lives while the hardware was abandoned ?
Weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all fun and games, but why are there no new products in the Internet Table line?
C'mon, it's been almost 2 years since N810.
The OS lives while the hardware was abandoned?
Weird.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586465</id>
	<title>Qt uses only 'nice' parts of C++</title>
	<author>chris-chittleborough</author>
	<datestamp>1246810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Qt designers don't just create widgets etc, they design components that are easy to program with. As part of this, they avoid stuff that requires the tricky/ugly parts of C++. For instance, you rarely need to explicitly delete objects, because their libraries use reference counting to automagically delete objects at the earliest appropriate time.
<br> <br>
So it is easy for any good programmer to learn enough C++ to use Qt effectively.
<br> <br>
(Actually, Qt uses an extended version of C++, implemented via a preprocessor. The extensions provide "signals" (like no-op methods) and "slots" (methods which can be connected to signals), plus a limited-and-very-useful facility for run-time widget class information. As usual with Qt, these facilities are just extensive enough make it easy to do the things most people want to do, rather than trying to provide everything that anyone might want.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Qt designers do n't just create widgets etc , they design components that are easy to program with .
As part of this , they avoid stuff that requires the tricky/ugly parts of C + + .
For instance , you rarely need to explicitly delete objects , because their libraries use reference counting to automagically delete objects at the earliest appropriate time .
So it is easy for any good programmer to learn enough C + + to use Qt effectively .
( Actually , Qt uses an extended version of C + + , implemented via a preprocessor .
The extensions provide " signals " ( like no-op methods ) and " slots " ( methods which can be connected to signals ) , plus a limited-and-very-useful facility for run-time widget class information .
As usual with Qt , these facilities are just extensive enough make it easy to do the things most people want to do , rather than trying to provide everything that anyone might want .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Qt designers don't just create widgets etc, they design components that are easy to program with.
As part of this, they avoid stuff that requires the tricky/ugly parts of C++.
For instance, you rarely need to explicitly delete objects, because their libraries use reference counting to automagically delete objects at the earliest appropriate time.
So it is easy for any good programmer to learn enough C++ to use Qt effectively.
(Actually, Qt uses an extended version of C++, implemented via a preprocessor.
The extensions provide "signals" (like no-op methods) and "slots" (methods which can be connected to signals), plus a limited-and-very-useful facility for run-time widget class information.
As usual with Qt, these facilities are just extensive enough make it easy to do the things most people want to do, rather than trying to provide everything that anyone might want.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584361</id>
	<title>Definition of "Quim"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246726860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>quim&#226;&#226;/kw&#201;m/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwim]  Show IPA<br>Use quim in a Sentence<br>&#226;"noun Slang: Vulgar. vagina; vulva.</p><p>Origin:<br>1725&#226;"35; orig. obscure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>quim     /kw   m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ kwim ] Show IPAUse quim in a Sentence   " noun Slang : Vulgar .
vagina ; vulva.Origin : 1725   " 35 ; orig .
obscure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quimââ/kwÉm/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [kwim]  Show IPAUse quim in a Sentenceâ"noun Slang: Vulgar.
vagina; vulva.Origin:1725â"35; orig.
obscure</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584769</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>Yokaze</author>
	<datestamp>1246735560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; One thing that sounds incredible wrong to me is the fact that they are saying that Qt was chosen to make "easier cross-platform-development". [...]<br>&gt; The move is simple political: Nokia controls Qt now, so they will use their own toolkit. It's not based on merits of the toolkit (or problems of the other.) But hey! Why tell people the truth, right?</p><p>And the reverse couldn't be possibly true: That Trolltech Qt was bought based on the merits of the platform and because Nokia expected easier cross-platform-development. Why do you think Trolltech started porting Qt to the S60 platform?</p><p>&gt; Building an interface for a device that runs in a small screen (4.1 inches) with a small resolution (800x480) that also uses a large pointer (e.g., most of the screen is designed to thumb usage) is not the same as building an interface for normal computer screens and resolutions.</p><p>Yes, it isn't. But I doubt, having larger entry barrier by having to learn a whole new API (Android, Symbian OS) or even language (iPhone OS) makes it easier to create a good application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; One thing that sounds incredible wrong to me is the fact that they are saying that Qt was chosen to make " easier cross-platform-development " .
[ ... ] &gt; The move is simple political : Nokia controls Qt now , so they will use their own toolkit .
It 's not based on merits of the toolkit ( or problems of the other .
) But hey !
Why tell people the truth , right ? And the reverse could n't be possibly true : That Trolltech Qt was bought based on the merits of the platform and because Nokia expected easier cross-platform-development .
Why do you think Trolltech started porting Qt to the S60 platform ? &gt; Building an interface for a device that runs in a small screen ( 4.1 inches ) with a small resolution ( 800x480 ) that also uses a large pointer ( e.g. , most of the screen is designed to thumb usage ) is not the same as building an interface for normal computer screens and resolutions.Yes , it is n't .
But I doubt , having larger entry barrier by having to learn a whole new API ( Android , Symbian OS ) or even language ( iPhone OS ) makes it easier to create a good application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; One thing that sounds incredible wrong to me is the fact that they are saying that Qt was chosen to make "easier cross-platform-development".
[...]&gt; The move is simple political: Nokia controls Qt now, so they will use their own toolkit.
It's not based on merits of the toolkit (or problems of the other.
) But hey!
Why tell people the truth, right?And the reverse couldn't be possibly true: That Trolltech Qt was bought based on the merits of the platform and because Nokia expected easier cross-platform-development.
Why do you think Trolltech started porting Qt to the S60 platform?&gt; Building an interface for a device that runs in a small screen (4.1 inches) with a small resolution (800x480) that also uses a large pointer (e.g., most of the screen is designed to thumb usage) is not the same as building an interface for normal computer screens and resolutions.Yes, it isn't.
But I doubt, having larger entry barrier by having to learn a whole new API (Android, Symbian OS) or even language (iPhone OS) makes it easier to create a good application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583645</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>umeboshi</author>
	<datestamp>1246715520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, gtk+ is for C, while qt is for C++.  Another major difference is that qt is more than just a widget toolkit, but an application runtime environment that provides widgets.  This means that qt provides string handling, database connectivity, etc., although you don't have to use anything but the widgets and application objects, if you wish.</p><p>I thing maemo is mostly written in C, so some parts will probably have to be rewritten in C++.</p><p>This article may help a bit, although it only compares qt with gtkmm (the c++ bindings to gtk):<br><a href="http://www.telegraph-road.org/writings/why.html" title="telegraph-road.org">http://www.telegraph-road.org/writings/why.html</a> [telegraph-road.org]</p><p>This article should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's pretty old, and may be inaccurate today.</p><p>I started using gtk+ with python, way back in the 1.x versions.  The 2.x bindings for python were much better, allowing me to write more pythonic code using gtk+.</p><p>Later on, I decided to try out qt3, and I haven't looked back since.  While it took a bit of getting used to, I found that it was easier to use qt, rather than gtk+, although I'm hard pressed to figure out exactly why.</p><p>One of the things I liked about qt over gtk+ was the separation of the layout widgets and the interactive widgets.  Coming from gtk, this was something that took me a while to understand, but once I got the hang of it, I liked it, and think that it's a better way to organize the widgets.  With gtk, a vbox holds child widgets, such as buttons, labels, etc.  So if you want to rearrange them in an hbox, you have to destroy those widgets and make new ones in the hbox.  In qt, the layout widgets are of type "layout", and you can only have layout children in layout widgets.  The interactive widgets are children of the main widget (or a child widget of the main widget).  These widgets are "placed" into the layout, but can be removed without being destroyed, allowing you to rearrange the layout more easily.</p><p>I also prefer the signal/slot mechanism in qt over the callback mechanism in gtk.  On the average, it makes it easier to glue your widgets together, but there are a few circumstances where a callback mechanism is preferred, in which case you have to invent a new signal(s) and chain them together.  This is because there is no order of slots called when a signal is emitted.</p><p>Also, the qt documentation was better, more organized, and easier to read than the gtk docs (at least around the time I switched ~2004).</p><p>Probably the largest reason why we're even having this discussion is due to licensing.  Gtk gained a lot of popularity, due qt being licensed under the trolltech license, which restricted developers from using the free version in commercial products.  The switch to gpl didn't do much to change this, although you could then create commercial products, but you also had to release the source for those products.  So if you wanted to keep the source closed and use qt, you still had to purchase a commercial qt license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , gtk + is for C , while qt is for C + + .
Another major difference is that qt is more than just a widget toolkit , but an application runtime environment that provides widgets .
This means that qt provides string handling , database connectivity , etc. , although you do n't have to use anything but the widgets and application objects , if you wish.I thing maemo is mostly written in C , so some parts will probably have to be rewritten in C + + .This article may help a bit , although it only compares qt with gtkmm ( the c + + bindings to gtk ) : http : //www.telegraph-road.org/writings/why.html [ telegraph-road.org ] This article should be taken with a grain of salt , as it 's pretty old , and may be inaccurate today.I started using gtk + with python , way back in the 1.x versions .
The 2.x bindings for python were much better , allowing me to write more pythonic code using gtk + .Later on , I decided to try out qt3 , and I have n't looked back since .
While it took a bit of getting used to , I found that it was easier to use qt , rather than gtk + , although I 'm hard pressed to figure out exactly why.One of the things I liked about qt over gtk + was the separation of the layout widgets and the interactive widgets .
Coming from gtk , this was something that took me a while to understand , but once I got the hang of it , I liked it , and think that it 's a better way to organize the widgets .
With gtk , a vbox holds child widgets , such as buttons , labels , etc .
So if you want to rearrange them in an hbox , you have to destroy those widgets and make new ones in the hbox .
In qt , the layout widgets are of type " layout " , and you can only have layout children in layout widgets .
The interactive widgets are children of the main widget ( or a child widget of the main widget ) .
These widgets are " placed " into the layout , but can be removed without being destroyed , allowing you to rearrange the layout more easily.I also prefer the signal/slot mechanism in qt over the callback mechanism in gtk .
On the average , it makes it easier to glue your widgets together , but there are a few circumstances where a callback mechanism is preferred , in which case you have to invent a new signal ( s ) and chain them together .
This is because there is no order of slots called when a signal is emitted.Also , the qt documentation was better , more organized , and easier to read than the gtk docs ( at least around the time I switched ~ 2004 ) .Probably the largest reason why we 're even having this discussion is due to licensing .
Gtk gained a lot of popularity , due qt being licensed under the trolltech license , which restricted developers from using the free version in commercial products .
The switch to gpl did n't do much to change this , although you could then create commercial products , but you also had to release the source for those products .
So if you wanted to keep the source closed and use qt , you still had to purchase a commercial qt license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, gtk+ is for C, while qt is for C++.
Another major difference is that qt is more than just a widget toolkit, but an application runtime environment that provides widgets.
This means that qt provides string handling, database connectivity, etc., although you don't have to use anything but the widgets and application objects, if you wish.I thing maemo is mostly written in C, so some parts will probably have to be rewritten in C++.This article may help a bit, although it only compares qt with gtkmm (the c++ bindings to gtk):http://www.telegraph-road.org/writings/why.html [telegraph-road.org]This article should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's pretty old, and may be inaccurate today.I started using gtk+ with python, way back in the 1.x versions.
The 2.x bindings for python were much better, allowing me to write more pythonic code using gtk+.Later on, I decided to try out qt3, and I haven't looked back since.
While it took a bit of getting used to, I found that it was easier to use qt, rather than gtk+, although I'm hard pressed to figure out exactly why.One of the things I liked about qt over gtk+ was the separation of the layout widgets and the interactive widgets.
Coming from gtk, this was something that took me a while to understand, but once I got the hang of it, I liked it, and think that it's a better way to organize the widgets.
With gtk, a vbox holds child widgets, such as buttons, labels, etc.
So if you want to rearrange them in an hbox, you have to destroy those widgets and make new ones in the hbox.
In qt, the layout widgets are of type "layout", and you can only have layout children in layout widgets.
The interactive widgets are children of the main widget (or a child widget of the main widget).
These widgets are "placed" into the layout, but can be removed without being destroyed, allowing you to rearrange the layout more easily.I also prefer the signal/slot mechanism in qt over the callback mechanism in gtk.
On the average, it makes it easier to glue your widgets together, but there are a few circumstances where a callback mechanism is preferred, in which case you have to invent a new signal(s) and chain them together.
This is because there is no order of slots called when a signal is emitted.Also, the qt documentation was better, more organized, and easier to read than the gtk docs (at least around the time I switched ~2004).Probably the largest reason why we're even having this discussion is due to licensing.
Gtk gained a lot of popularity, due qt being licensed under the trolltech license, which restricted developers from using the free version in commercial products.
The switch to gpl didn't do much to change this, although you could then create commercial products, but you also had to release the source for those products.
So if you wanted to keep the source closed and use qt, you still had to purchase a commercial qt license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585173</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246786980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this informative? RTFA they don't use QWS or QT embedded. And GTKMM is worst of both worlds (gtk and c++). The main reason to use GTK+ is if you do not want to use C++ and you don't like QT's license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this informative ?
RTFA they do n't use QWS or QT embedded .
And GTKMM is worst of both worlds ( gtk and c + + ) .
The main reason to use GTK + is if you do not want to use C + + and you do n't like QT 's license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this informative?
RTFA they don't use QWS or QT embedded.
And GTKMM is worst of both worlds (gtk and c++).
The main reason to use GTK+ is if you do not want to use C++ and you don't like QT's license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583087</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585327</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME</title>
	<author>Daniel Phillips</author>
	<datestamp>1246789920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pretty much everything I've done with Qt tells me KDE should be a much better desktop than Gnome. But the truth is that most of the large desktop distributions use Gnome, Ubuntu is much bigger than Kubuntu and same goes for the others. None of the big three hitters Firefox, OpenOffice or GIMP are KDE applications - ok not all are Gnome apps either but there's not many "killer KDE apps" around. Don't get me wrong, they're all perfectly okay but nothing really rocks the boat.</p></div><p>The think I like least about each of Firefox, OpenOffice and GIMP is the user interface, for which I blame GTK.  For example, Firefox's application chooser dialog makes me want to slit my wrists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much everything I 've done with Qt tells me KDE should be a much better desktop than Gnome .
But the truth is that most of the large desktop distributions use Gnome , Ubuntu is much bigger than Kubuntu and same goes for the others .
None of the big three hitters Firefox , OpenOffice or GIMP are KDE applications - ok not all are Gnome apps either but there 's not many " killer KDE apps " around .
Do n't get me wrong , they 're all perfectly okay but nothing really rocks the boat.The think I like least about each of Firefox , OpenOffice and GIMP is the user interface , for which I blame GTK .
For example , Firefox 's application chooser dialog makes me want to slit my wrists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much everything I've done with Qt tells me KDE should be a much better desktop than Gnome.
But the truth is that most of the large desktop distributions use Gnome, Ubuntu is much bigger than Kubuntu and same goes for the others.
None of the big three hitters Firefox, OpenOffice or GIMP are KDE applications - ok not all are Gnome apps either but there's not many "killer KDE apps" around.
Don't get me wrong, they're all perfectly okay but nothing really rocks the boat.The think I like least about each of Firefox, OpenOffice and GIMP is the user interface, for which I blame GTK.
For example, Firefox's application chooser dialog makes me want to slit my wrists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587233</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1246819260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without, and from reading a few Qt tutorials it seems that as long as you stay within it, it does make C++ programming much nicer and easier than 'pure' C++, so I'm gonna try writing a 'real' app in it now, thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without , and from reading a few Qt tutorials it seems that as long as you stay within it , it does make C + + programming much nicer and easier than 'pure ' C + + , so I 'm gon na try writing a 'real ' app in it now , thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without, and from reading a few Qt tutorials it seems that as long as you stay within it, it does make C++ programming much nicer and easier than 'pure' C++, so I'm gonna try writing a 'real' app in it now, thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587823</id>
	<title>Re:Gtk+ is not Nokia's problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246825020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian doesn't do UIs. It's an OS and some frameworks. The 'Symbian GUI' is S60 which does indeed suck, this is not Symbian's fault. Nokia also traditionally underpowers its phones which is why people think the OS is slow, put it on iPhone hardware and you'd be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian does n't do UIs .
It 's an OS and some frameworks .
The 'Symbian GUI ' is S60 which does indeed suck , this is not Symbian 's fault .
Nokia also traditionally underpowers its phones which is why people think the OS is slow , put it on iPhone hardware and you 'd be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian doesn't do UIs.
It's an OS and some frameworks.
The 'Symbian GUI' is S60 which does indeed suck, this is not Symbian's fault.
Nokia also traditionally underpowers its phones which is why people think the OS is slow, put it on iPhone hardware and you'd be surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584253</id>
	<title>What's good on Hildon/Maemo?</title>
	<author>itomato</author>
	<datestamp>1246725360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you name three apps that are available for Maemo that you would honestly miss?</p><p>The mail app blows, the browser sucks, the media player is lousy, and the application manager is beta-quality, at best.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I love my n810, mostly for the hardware - Maemo is a drag.</p><p>-</p><p>Qt vs GTK: <a href="http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/11/21/0227206.shtml" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/11/21/0227206.shtml</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you name three apps that are available for Maemo that you would honestly miss ? The mail app blows , the browser sucks , the media player is lousy , and the application manager is beta-quality , at best.Do n't get me wrong , I love my n810 , mostly for the hardware - Maemo is a drag.-Qt vs GTK : http : //slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/11/21/0227206.shtml [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you name three apps that are available for Maemo that you would honestly miss?The mail app blows, the browser sucks, the media player is lousy, and the application manager is beta-quality, at best.Don't get me wrong, I love my n810, mostly for the hardware - Maemo is a drag.-Qt vs GTK: http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/11/21/0227206.shtml [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583835</id>
	<title>Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246719000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly I couldn't find any connection able to upload the 22Mb audio file of the keynote, but I'll try again tomorrow.</p><p>In the meantime you can check the slides at <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/qgil/maemo-harmattan-qt-and-more" title="slideshare.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/qgil/maemo-harmattan-qt-and-more</a> [slideshare.net]</p><p>Quim Gil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly I could n't find any connection able to upload the 22Mb audio file of the keynote , but I 'll try again tomorrow.In the meantime you can check the slides at http : //www.slideshare.net/qgil/maemo-harmattan-qt-and-more [ slideshare.net ] Quim Gil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly I couldn't find any connection able to upload the 22Mb audio file of the keynote, but I'll try again tomorrow.In the meantime you can check the slides at http://www.slideshare.net/qgil/maemo-harmattan-qt-and-more [slideshare.net]Quim Gil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585205</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246787580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gtkmm" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">GTKMM</a> [wikipedia.org], the C++ binding for GTK+, which uses:</p></div><p>The problem is that gtkmm is always "something to take a look at" instead of being something people actually use. Why is that? The C mentality of gnome devels? General badness of gtkmm?</p><p>One advantage of Qt is that it was C++ from birth, so C++ is the unquestioned first class citizen in the Qt world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at GTKMM [ wikipedia.org ] , the C + + binding for GTK + , which uses : The problem is that gtkmm is always " something to take a look at " instead of being something people actually use .
Why is that ?
The C mentality of gnome devels ?
General badness of gtkmm ? One advantage of Qt is that it was C + + from birth , so C + + is the unquestioned first class citizen in the Qt world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at GTKMM [wikipedia.org], the C++ binding for GTK+, which uses:The problem is that gtkmm is always "something to take a look at" instead of being something people actually use.
Why is that?
The C mentality of gnome devels?
General badness of gtkmm?One advantage of Qt is that it was C++ from birth, so C++ is the unquestioned first class citizen in the Qt world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584183</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246724520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The main issue with Qt was that, up until recently, it was licensed under the LGPL....</p><p>Slight correction: until recently, it was licensed under the GPL; but is now licensed under the LGPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The main issue with Qt was that , up until recently , it was licensed under the LGPL....Slight correction : until recently , it was licensed under the GPL ; but is now licensed under the LGPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The main issue with Qt was that, up until recently, it was licensed under the LGPL....Slight correction: until recently, it was licensed under the GPL; but is now licensed under the LGPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586119</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Klivian</author>
	<datestamp>1246805700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C++</i>

This is repeated over and over again and even if people believe it, it' still not true. That is pure FUD.

<i>Whereas GTK in C may be horrible, but the bindings to Python, Ruby and C# are all excellent</i>

Fact is, the Qt bindings for those languages are more comprehensive and more up to date than the GTK counterparts. The Qt bindings all have powerful automatic tools for generating bindings for those languages, making it easy to keep up to date.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C + + This is repeated over and over again and even if people believe it , it ' still not true .
That is pure FUD .
Whereas GTK in C may be horrible , but the bindings to Python , Ruby and C # are all excellent Fact is , the Qt bindings for those languages are more comprehensive and more up to date than the GTK counterparts .
The Qt bindings all have powerful automatic tools for generating bindings for those languages , making it easy to keep up to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main issue is that Qt is pretty strongly tied to C++

This is repeated over and over again and even if people believe it, it' still not true.
That is pure FUD.
Whereas GTK in C may be horrible, but the bindings to Python, Ruby and C# are all excellent

Fact is, the Qt bindings for those languages are more comprehensive and more up to date than the GTK counterparts.
The Qt bindings all have powerful automatic tools for generating bindings for those languages, making it easy to keep up to date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585143</id>
	<title>Re:Qt != KDE, GTK+ != GNOME</title>
	<author>FooBarWidget</author>
	<datestamp>1246786380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would it be worse of both worlds? They're just libraries; mix and match however you like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would it be worse of both worlds ?
They 're just libraries ; mix and match however you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would it be worse of both worlds?
They're just libraries; mix and match however you like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585285</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1246789380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it came across slightly wrong in the wording.</p><p>The point is not that you can take a full desktop application and run it on the maemo.  The point is that you can develop it on the desktop.  You don't need special hardware, you don't need an emulator etc.<br>You can use your normal environment, use Qt Creator for the IDE, and write your program.  You can use your normal debugger and profiller, and so on, since it's all native code.</p><p>Then at the end of the day, you can just click and button and it recompile it for the arm for the machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it came across slightly wrong in the wording.The point is not that you can take a full desktop application and run it on the maemo .
The point is that you can develop it on the desktop .
You do n't need special hardware , you do n't need an emulator etc.You can use your normal environment , use Qt Creator for the IDE , and write your program .
You can use your normal debugger and profiller , and so on , since it 's all native code.Then at the end of the day , you can just click and button and it recompile it for the arm for the machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it came across slightly wrong in the wording.The point is not that you can take a full desktop application and run it on the maemo.
The point is that you can develop it on the desktop.
You don't need special hardware, you don't need an emulator etc.You can use your normal environment, use Qt Creator for the IDE, and write your program.
You can use your normal debugger and profiller, and so on, since it's all native code.Then at the end of the day, you can just click and button and it recompile it for the arm for the machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583413</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246712880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Qt is not just a gui framework. It provides a massive amount of extra stuff. Browse the documentation: <a href="http://doc.qtsoftware.com/4.5/index.html/" title="qtsoftware.com">http://doc.qtsoftware.com/4.5/index.html/</a> [qtsoftware.com]</p><p>Note the WebKit integration, multimedia framework (Phonon, which was a part of KDE and later folded into Qt), OpenGL support, etc. etc.</p><p>Comparing it to GTK is like comparing a full-fledged desktop like KDE or Gnome to Blackbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Qt is not just a gui framework .
It provides a massive amount of extra stuff .
Browse the documentation : http : //doc.qtsoftware.com/4.5/index.html/ [ qtsoftware.com ] Note the WebKit integration , multimedia framework ( Phonon , which was a part of KDE and later folded into Qt ) , OpenGL support , etc .
etc.Comparing it to GTK is like comparing a full-fledged desktop like KDE or Gnome to Blackbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Qt is not just a gui framework.
It provides a massive amount of extra stuff.
Browse the documentation: http://doc.qtsoftware.com/4.5/index.html/ [qtsoftware.com]Note the WebKit integration, multimedia framework (Phonon, which was a part of KDE and later folded into Qt), OpenGL support, etc.
etc.Comparing it to GTK is like comparing a full-fledged desktop like KDE or Gnome to Blackbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585045</id>
	<title>Gtk+ is not Nokia's problem</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1246827540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia has its own lightweight GUI library that they use with Symbian--and their UIs suck.  They have built applications with Gtk+--and their UIs suck.  They have build Windows and OS X desktop apps--and their UIs still suck.  I think the problem Nokia has with GUIs and software has to do with how they develop software, not whether they use Gtk+ or Qt.</p><p>Another problem with their choice is that it ties them to C++; the trend in mobile development, however, is towards other languages, like Javascript (Pre), Java (Android), Objective-C (iPhone), and C# (Windows Mobile).  Only Symbian steadfastly clings to C and C++.  That would be fine if Symbian actually ended up being the fastest and having the best UI of the bunch, but it's actually the slowest and least responsive of the bunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has its own lightweight GUI library that they use with Symbian--and their UIs suck .
They have built applications with Gtk + --and their UIs suck .
They have build Windows and OS X desktop apps--and their UIs still suck .
I think the problem Nokia has with GUIs and software has to do with how they develop software , not whether they use Gtk + or Qt.Another problem with their choice is that it ties them to C + + ; the trend in mobile development , however , is towards other languages , like Javascript ( Pre ) , Java ( Android ) , Objective-C ( iPhone ) , and C # ( Windows Mobile ) .
Only Symbian steadfastly clings to C and C + + .
That would be fine if Symbian actually ended up being the fastest and having the best UI of the bunch , but it 's actually the slowest and least responsive of the bunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has its own lightweight GUI library that they use with Symbian--and their UIs suck.
They have built applications with Gtk+--and their UIs suck.
They have build Windows and OS X desktop apps--and their UIs still suck.
I think the problem Nokia has with GUIs and software has to do with how they develop software, not whether they use Gtk+ or Qt.Another problem with their choice is that it ties them to C++; the trend in mobile development, however, is towards other languages, like Javascript (Pre), Java (Android), Objective-C (iPhone), and C# (Windows Mobile).
Only Symbian steadfastly clings to C and C++.
That would be fine if Symbian actually ended up being the fastest and having the best UI of the bunch, but it's actually the slowest and least responsive of the bunch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585031</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246827240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to know what Maemo actually is. Since the summary doesn't care to enlighten us, could you maybe do the honors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to know what Maemo actually is .
Since the summary does n't care to enlighten us , could you maybe do the honors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to know what Maemo actually is.
Since the summary doesn't care to enlighten us, could you maybe do the honors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583741</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246716960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot one thing: performance. Qt guys take it very seriously, and have numerous tests showing off just how fast their rendering and layout code is. I would imagine that, for resource-constrained devices, this can be a big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one thing : performance .
Qt guys take it very seriously , and have numerous tests showing off just how fast their rendering and layout code is .
I would imagine that , for resource-constrained devices , this can be a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one thing: performance.
Qt guys take it very seriously, and have numerous tests showing off just how fast their rendering and layout code is.
I would imagine that, for resource-constrained devices, this can be a big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586051</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1246804560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> When I'm moving a file it's very often a point to know when it's complete, and it irritates me to no end that every time I must click the notifications icon to know when it's really done.</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure the tray icon indicates the number of running transfers now. It also pops up a message briefly when the transfer finishes. (Of course, I'm probably using a newer KDE version than you.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm moving a file it 's very often a point to know when it 's complete , and it irritates me to no end that every time I must click the notifications icon to know when it 's really done.I 'm pretty sure the tray icon indicates the number of running transfers now .
It also pops up a message briefly when the transfer finishes .
( Of course , I 'm probably using a newer KDE version than you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When I'm moving a file it's very often a point to know when it's complete, and it irritates me to no end that every time I must click the notifications icon to know when it's really done.I'm pretty sure the tray icon indicates the number of running transfers now.
It also pops up a message briefly when the transfer finishes.
(Of course, I'm probably using a newer KDE version than you.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583689</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246716240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what about writing software for Maemo and Symbian? None of the issues you mention apply and there's a strong demand for this since Symbian has a large installed base and no future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about writing software for Maemo and Symbian ?
None of the issues you mention apply and there 's a strong demand for this since Symbian has a large installed base and no future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about writing software for Maemo and Symbian?
None of the issues you mention apply and there's a strong demand for this since Symbian has a large installed base and no future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583333</id>
	<title>Qt != KDE, GTK+ != GNOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246711860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like they're still <a href="http://www.vuntz.net/journal/post/2009/07/04/Nokia-GNOME-Mobile" title="vuntz.net" rel="nofollow">planning on using a lot of GNOME components</a> [vuntz.net], but putting a Qt skin on it. I just wonder if it is the best of both worlds, or the worst of both worlds...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like they 're still planning on using a lot of GNOME components [ vuntz.net ] , but putting a Qt skin on it .
I just wonder if it is the best of both worlds , or the worst of both worlds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like they're still planning on using a lot of GNOME components [vuntz.net], but putting a Qt skin on it.
I just wonder if it is the best of both worlds, or the worst of both worlds...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583993</id>
	<title>It was either that or switch Symbian to Hildon</title>
	<author>eean</author>
	<datestamp>1246721340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia wants a common platform across their internet tablets and smart phones. Given that the Symbian is going to support Qt, and the Symbian user base is much greater, its makes sense that Maemo would want to have access to the 3rd party apps written for the user base that numbers in the millions</p><p>And really it was clear in the talk he gave that the Maemo stack is still mostly unchange, and still using most of the Gnome libraries including crucial stuff like Tracker. Really even with the change in UI toolkit, its more Gnome then KDE, especially as none of the Maemo stack actually originated from the KDE community, where as much of it did from the Gnome camp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia wants a common platform across their internet tablets and smart phones .
Given that the Symbian is going to support Qt , and the Symbian user base is much greater , its makes sense that Maemo would want to have access to the 3rd party apps written for the user base that numbers in the millionsAnd really it was clear in the talk he gave that the Maemo stack is still mostly unchange , and still using most of the Gnome libraries including crucial stuff like Tracker .
Really even with the change in UI toolkit , its more Gnome then KDE , especially as none of the Maemo stack actually originated from the KDE community , where as much of it did from the Gnome camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia wants a common platform across their internet tablets and smart phones.
Given that the Symbian is going to support Qt, and the Symbian user base is much greater, its makes sense that Maemo would want to have access to the 3rd party apps written for the user base that numbers in the millionsAnd really it was clear in the talk he gave that the Maemo stack is still mostly unchange, and still using most of the Gnome libraries including crucial stuff like Tracker.
Really even with the change in UI toolkit, its more Gnome then KDE, especially as none of the Maemo stack actually originated from the KDE community, where as much of it did from the Gnome camp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587371</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246820400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Arcos PMA uses QT.  It's fine on a small screen, or at least can be if it's done right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Arcos PMA uses QT .
It 's fine on a small screen , or at least can be if it 's done right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Arcos PMA uses QT.
It's fine on a small screen, or at least can be if it's done right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585693</id>
	<title>Mono poisoning the system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246797840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pro Mono crowd can take some responsibility for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pro Mono crowd can take some responsibility for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pro Mono crowd can take some responsibility for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584823</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246736460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where to start...</p><p>Ubuntu bigger than Kubuntu? Hardly surprising. Look at the number of people and the amount of resources/marketing that goes into each... and then realize that Kubuntu quite possibly is the *worst* "KDE based" distribution out there. Almost \_always\_ when people have some KDE problem they are using Kubuntu, it seems.</p><p>As for the big hitters, depends on what you're doing: If you're doing layout for example, Scribus is probably the best free tool available. (No, it's a Qt app and not KDE, but the conversively the same applies to firefox, OpenOffice etc, as you noted). Kdenlive is the best videoeditor I've found so far, and it's improving. Koffice 2 isn't there yet, but I think pouring resources into the monster that is OpenOffice and starving Koffice might be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the Free Desktop. The 2.0 serie is still in heavy development, but it shows great promise IMO, and considering the small number of people working on it it beats the crap out of openoffice. If music is your poison, Amarok can't be beat. Finally, the reall killer feature IMO that is constantly underrated is the incredibly tight integration of the entire kde environment, that gnome just can't compete with.</p><p>That notifications are kept indefinitely, minimized in the notifications icon is annoying, but if you look at it form a "helicopter view" KDE is all in all considerably less annoying than GNOME, more complete and better integrated, so these notifications are not worth turning into showstoppers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where to start...Ubuntu bigger than Kubuntu ?
Hardly surprising .
Look at the number of people and the amount of resources/marketing that goes into each... and then realize that Kubuntu quite possibly is the * worst * " KDE based " distribution out there .
Almost \ _always \ _ when people have some KDE problem they are using Kubuntu , it seems.As for the big hitters , depends on what you 're doing : If you 're doing layout for example , Scribus is probably the best free tool available .
( No , it 's a Qt app and not KDE , but the conversively the same applies to firefox , OpenOffice etc , as you noted ) .
Kdenlive is the best videoeditor I 've found so far , and it 's improving .
Koffice 2 is n't there yet , but I think pouring resources into the monster that is OpenOffice and starving Koffice might be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the Free Desktop .
The 2.0 serie is still in heavy development , but it shows great promise IMO , and considering the small number of people working on it it beats the crap out of openoffice .
If music is your poison , Amarok ca n't be beat .
Finally , the reall killer feature IMO that is constantly underrated is the incredibly tight integration of the entire kde environment , that gnome just ca n't compete with.That notifications are kept indefinitely , minimized in the notifications icon is annoying , but if you look at it form a " helicopter view " KDE is all in all considerably less annoying than GNOME , more complete and better integrated , so these notifications are not worth turning into showstoppers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where to start...Ubuntu bigger than Kubuntu?
Hardly surprising.
Look at the number of people and the amount of resources/marketing that goes into each... and then realize that Kubuntu quite possibly is the *worst* "KDE based" distribution out there.
Almost \_always\_ when people have some KDE problem they are using Kubuntu, it seems.As for the big hitters, depends on what you're doing: If you're doing layout for example, Scribus is probably the best free tool available.
(No, it's a Qt app and not KDE, but the conversively the same applies to firefox, OpenOffice etc, as you noted).
Kdenlive is the best videoeditor I've found so far, and it's improving.
Koffice 2 isn't there yet, but I think pouring resources into the monster that is OpenOffice and starving Koffice might be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the Free Desktop.
The 2.0 serie is still in heavy development, but it shows great promise IMO, and considering the small number of people working on it it beats the crap out of openoffice.
If music is your poison, Amarok can't be beat.
Finally, the reall killer feature IMO that is constantly underrated is the incredibly tight integration of the entire kde environment, that gnome just can't compete with.That notifications are kept indefinitely, minimized in the notifications icon is annoying, but if you look at it form a "helicopter view" KDE is all in all considerably less annoying than GNOME, more complete and better integrated, so these notifications are not worth turning into showstoppers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584289</id>
	<title>Re:This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever li</title>
	<author>ceallaigh</author>
	<datestamp>1246725840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
The real story is the Nokia / Intel announcement of cooperation on Atom/mobile products.  Intel seems rather focused on Mobilin for MID with a long term strategy for handsets.  While Nokia will be pushing their Ovi stores/maps/content with a new UI for Symbian.  I doubt that Nokia ever looked on Maemo for more than an R&amp;D effort.  Commercially it was never a success nor a viable consumer product - a geek toy yes, a popular consumer product never.

Maemo is irrelevant.  The real thing to watch is the Intel/Nokia relationship on handsets - see how that evolves from processor choice to OS.

Sean</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real story is the Nokia / Intel announcement of cooperation on Atom/mobile products .
Intel seems rather focused on Mobilin for MID with a long term strategy for handsets .
While Nokia will be pushing their Ovi stores/maps/content with a new UI for Symbian .
I doubt that Nokia ever looked on Maemo for more than an R&amp;D effort .
Commercially it was never a success nor a viable consumer product - a geek toy yes , a popular consumer product never .
Maemo is irrelevant .
The real thing to watch is the Intel/Nokia relationship on handsets - see how that evolves from processor choice to OS .
Sean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The real story is the Nokia / Intel announcement of cooperation on Atom/mobile products.
Intel seems rather focused on Mobilin for MID with a long term strategy for handsets.
While Nokia will be pushing their Ovi stores/maps/content with a new UI for Symbian.
I doubt that Nokia ever looked on Maemo for more than an R&amp;D effort.
Commercially it was never a success nor a viable consumer product - a geek toy yes, a popular consumer product never.
Maemo is irrelevant.
The real thing to watch is the Intel/Nokia relationship on handsets - see how that evolves from processor choice to OS.
Sean</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795</id>
	<title>This is the Death of Maemo,if it really ever lived</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can tell you right now, this will kill Maemo.    QT is a pretty good GUI toolkit, but this is going to draw in QT Embedded (QWS server and such).    I personally have been working on an Embedded QT device for 2 years and can tell you,  QT Embedded is horrible.   Nothing more then a Demo written by Trolltech to try and expand the market share.   The biggest pain with QT, is that since it tries to be cross platform is it re-implements everything (Networking, Audio, Mutexs etc... etc..).   They make it fairly easy to use their bad, slow code, while the "beautiful" non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C++ code.   If they wanted C++ they should of gone with GTKmm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you right now , this will kill Maemo .
QT is a pretty good GUI toolkit , but this is going to draw in QT Embedded ( QWS server and such ) .
I personally have been working on an Embedded QT device for 2 years and can tell you , QT Embedded is horrible .
Nothing more then a Demo written by Trolltech to try and expand the market share .
The biggest pain with QT , is that since it tries to be cross platform is it re-implements everything ( Networking , Audio , Mutexs etc... etc.. ) . They make it fairly easy to use their bad , slow code , while the " beautiful " non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C + + code .
If they wanted C + + they should of gone with GTKmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you right now, this will kill Maemo.
QT is a pretty good GUI toolkit, but this is going to draw in QT Embedded (QWS server and such).
I personally have been working on an Embedded QT device for 2 years and can tell you,  QT Embedded is horrible.
Nothing more then a Demo written by Trolltech to try and expand the market share.
The biggest pain with QT, is that since it tries to be cross platform is it re-implements everything (Networking, Audio, Mutexs etc... etc..).   They make it fairly easy to use their bad, slow code, while the "beautiful" non-standard signal slot system makes it a pain to integrate with real C or C++ code.
If they wanted C++ they should of gone with GTKmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587119</id>
	<title>Re:GNOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246818060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?</p><p>Firefox application dialog is exactly what you said it is, FIREFOX APPLICATION DIALOG, it is *not* the Gnome's application dialog... So blame Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? Firefox application dialog is exactly what you said it is , FIREFOX APPLICATION DIALOG , it is * not * the Gnome 's application dialog... So blame Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?Firefox application dialog is exactly what you said it is, FIREFOX APPLICATION DIALOG, it is *not* the Gnome's application dialog... So blame Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583641</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1246715520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a version of Qt for low memory devices (was called qtopia, now something else) which would give it an advantage on the platform instead of having to custom strip back the gimp toolkit.  There's also the C vs C++ choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a version of Qt for low memory devices ( was called qtopia , now something else ) which would give it an advantage on the platform instead of having to custom strip back the gimp toolkit .
There 's also the C vs C + + choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a version of Qt for low memory devices (was called qtopia, now something else) which would give it an advantage on the platform instead of having to custom strip back the gimp toolkit.
There's also the C vs C++ choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583687</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1246716180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is a lot of software for the Nokia N810 and below. Switching out to a new UI means a lot of stuff will either get uprooted or there will be a lot of libraries loaded into the machine's precious little memory.</p></div></blockquote><p>As it is, minor Maemo releases can (and sometimes do) break compatibility with applications while major releases are generally not expected to be backwards compatible at all. It works the same on any Linux distro or desktop environment. Development of Maemo has moved at a glacial pace, so when Nokia switches to Qt, I assure you it will be a major release.</p><p>I'm looking forward to Maemo on Qt 4 if for no other reason than it will make WebKit support a cinch. (The current official Maemo web browser uses Gecko and using it is generally an unpleasant experience.) In fact, if I recall correctly, there are some KDE folks trying to get KDE 4 ported to Maemo, with all the interface enhancements necessary to make it usable on small-screen devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of software for the Nokia N810 and below .
Switching out to a new UI means a lot of stuff will either get uprooted or there will be a lot of libraries loaded into the machine 's precious little memory.As it is , minor Maemo releases can ( and sometimes do ) break compatibility with applications while major releases are generally not expected to be backwards compatible at all .
It works the same on any Linux distro or desktop environment .
Development of Maemo has moved at a glacial pace , so when Nokia switches to Qt , I assure you it will be a major release.I 'm looking forward to Maemo on Qt 4 if for no other reason than it will make WebKit support a cinch .
( The current official Maemo web browser uses Gecko and using it is generally an unpleasant experience .
) In fact , if I recall correctly , there are some KDE folks trying to get KDE 4 ported to Maemo , with all the interface enhancements necessary to make it usable on small-screen devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of software for the Nokia N810 and below.
Switching out to a new UI means a lot of stuff will either get uprooted or there will be a lot of libraries loaded into the machine's precious little memory.As it is, minor Maemo releases can (and sometimes do) break compatibility with applications while major releases are generally not expected to be backwards compatible at all.
It works the same on any Linux distro or desktop environment.
Development of Maemo has moved at a glacial pace, so when Nokia switches to Qt, I assure you it will be a major release.I'm looking forward to Maemo on Qt 4 if for no other reason than it will make WebKit support a cinch.
(The current official Maemo web browser uses Gecko and using it is generally an unpleasant experience.
) In fact, if I recall correctly, there are some KDE folks trying to get KDE 4 ported to Maemo, with all the interface enhancements necessary to make it usable on small-screen devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586145</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>GeneralAntilles</author>
	<datestamp>1246806060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Z</p><p>What can be done under Qt that can't be done under GTK?  Is Qt more efficient in some way?  What are advantages of Qt over GTK?  I've never been clear on the differences... I just know they are different.</p></div><p>Simple, Nokia is trying to build an ecosystem that will allow developers to deploy their software across several different platforms using only one toolkit (Qt). Since Qt will be available on both Maemo and S60.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZWhat can be done under Qt that ca n't be done under GTK ?
Is Qt more efficient in some way ?
What are advantages of Qt over GTK ?
I 've never been clear on the differences... I just know they are different.Simple , Nokia is trying to build an ecosystem that will allow developers to deploy their software across several different platforms using only one toolkit ( Qt ) .
Since Qt will be available on both Maemo and S60 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZWhat can be done under Qt that can't be done under GTK?
Is Qt more efficient in some way?
What are advantages of Qt over GTK?
I've never been clear on the differences... I just know they are different.Simple, Nokia is trying to build an ecosystem that will allow developers to deploy their software across several different platforms using only one toolkit (Qt).
Since Qt will be available on both Maemo and S60.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder about this</title>
	<author>ricotest</author>
	<datestamp>1246713900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First and foremost Qt is not just a widget toolkit. It is a full development environment: it has a build system (qmake), a fully-developed IDE and widget layout editor (Qt Creator) and many, many extra libraries. To quote just a few examples, there are classes to handle tray icons (whether in KDE, GNOME, Mac OS X or Windows), classes for running TCP servers, integration with the Phonon media framework, the WebKit browser, SVG, databases, multi-threaded code and even scripting support using QtScript, an implementation of ECMAScript (JavaScript).</p><p>Qt is written in C++. GTK attempts to do object-oriented code in C and the result is a mess of explicit casting and macros. Seriously, most GTK C code looks horrible and is far less terse than the equivalent Qt program. This is mitigated when Python or Perl is used, but then you're sacrificing speed. With Qt writing C++ is basically as easy as using Java, C# or any other 'modern' language. All of the nasty stuff is taken care of. For example, Qt code is generally cross-platform.</p><p>Its signal and slot system is also very powerful. For example, you connect a button's click() signal to the QApplication's quit() slot, and the button will cause the app to close when clicked. These signal/slot pairs can even be set via the Qt Creator IDE, just like Visual Basic! Or you might start up a webpage download and assign a slot to handle the signal sent when the page has been downloaded. Qt's signal/slots are introspective and modifiable at runtime, and you define new signals and slots just like you define new methods for a C++ class. The drawback there is that Qt programs require a pre-processing pass by moc (the meta-object compiler), in order to generate meta-data for runtime signal/slot manipulation, and to offer some syntactic sugar around Qt's features. As a side-effect, Qt adds syntactic sugar for features some might find questionable, for example adding a foreach() loop for lists.</p><p>The build system, qmake, is quite simple: you list your source files, libraries and headers to link in a short configuration file (qmake can even generate this for you). qmake then generates a makefile from this data. This is useful as it also includes the 'moc' pass, but can be constrictive in some cases. You are, of course, not obligated to use qmake in your Qt project.</p><p>As far as widgets go, Qt's are comparable with GTK or any other toolkit out there. Qt does a better job of looking good on non-Linux platforms, such as Windows. It has a simple but flexible widget system that is much easier to use than GridBagLayout or any of Swing's more poweful layouts.</p><p>The main issue with Qt was that, up until recently, it was licensed under the LGPL and before that, it was under the restrictive 'Qt license'. This is no longer the case, so jump in!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First and foremost Qt is not just a widget toolkit .
It is a full development environment : it has a build system ( qmake ) , a fully-developed IDE and widget layout editor ( Qt Creator ) and many , many extra libraries .
To quote just a few examples , there are classes to handle tray icons ( whether in KDE , GNOME , Mac OS X or Windows ) , classes for running TCP servers , integration with the Phonon media framework , the WebKit browser , SVG , databases , multi-threaded code and even scripting support using QtScript , an implementation of ECMAScript ( JavaScript ) .Qt is written in C + + .
GTK attempts to do object-oriented code in C and the result is a mess of explicit casting and macros .
Seriously , most GTK C code looks horrible and is far less terse than the equivalent Qt program .
This is mitigated when Python or Perl is used , but then you 're sacrificing speed .
With Qt writing C + + is basically as easy as using Java , C # or any other 'modern ' language .
All of the nasty stuff is taken care of .
For example , Qt code is generally cross-platform.Its signal and slot system is also very powerful .
For example , you connect a button 's click ( ) signal to the QApplication 's quit ( ) slot , and the button will cause the app to close when clicked .
These signal/slot pairs can even be set via the Qt Creator IDE , just like Visual Basic !
Or you might start up a webpage download and assign a slot to handle the signal sent when the page has been downloaded .
Qt 's signal/slots are introspective and modifiable at runtime , and you define new signals and slots just like you define new methods for a C + + class .
The drawback there is that Qt programs require a pre-processing pass by moc ( the meta-object compiler ) , in order to generate meta-data for runtime signal/slot manipulation , and to offer some syntactic sugar around Qt 's features .
As a side-effect , Qt adds syntactic sugar for features some might find questionable , for example adding a foreach ( ) loop for lists.The build system , qmake , is quite simple : you list your source files , libraries and headers to link in a short configuration file ( qmake can even generate this for you ) .
qmake then generates a makefile from this data .
This is useful as it also includes the 'moc ' pass , but can be constrictive in some cases .
You are , of course , not obligated to use qmake in your Qt project.As far as widgets go , Qt 's are comparable with GTK or any other toolkit out there .
Qt does a better job of looking good on non-Linux platforms , such as Windows .
It has a simple but flexible widget system that is much easier to use than GridBagLayout or any of Swing 's more poweful layouts.The main issue with Qt was that , up until recently , it was licensed under the LGPL and before that , it was under the restrictive 'Qt license' .
This is no longer the case , so jump in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First and foremost Qt is not just a widget toolkit.
It is a full development environment: it has a build system (qmake), a fully-developed IDE and widget layout editor (Qt Creator) and many, many extra libraries.
To quote just a few examples, there are classes to handle tray icons (whether in KDE, GNOME, Mac OS X or Windows), classes for running TCP servers, integration with the Phonon media framework, the WebKit browser, SVG, databases, multi-threaded code and even scripting support using QtScript, an implementation of ECMAScript (JavaScript).Qt is written in C++.
GTK attempts to do object-oriented code in C and the result is a mess of explicit casting and macros.
Seriously, most GTK C code looks horrible and is far less terse than the equivalent Qt program.
This is mitigated when Python or Perl is used, but then you're sacrificing speed.
With Qt writing C++ is basically as easy as using Java, C# or any other 'modern' language.
All of the nasty stuff is taken care of.
For example, Qt code is generally cross-platform.Its signal and slot system is also very powerful.
For example, you connect a button's click() signal to the QApplication's quit() slot, and the button will cause the app to close when clicked.
These signal/slot pairs can even be set via the Qt Creator IDE, just like Visual Basic!
Or you might start up a webpage download and assign a slot to handle the signal sent when the page has been downloaded.
Qt's signal/slots are introspective and modifiable at runtime, and you define new signals and slots just like you define new methods for a C++ class.
The drawback there is that Qt programs require a pre-processing pass by moc (the meta-object compiler), in order to generate meta-data for runtime signal/slot manipulation, and to offer some syntactic sugar around Qt's features.
As a side-effect, Qt adds syntactic sugar for features some might find questionable, for example adding a foreach() loop for lists.The build system, qmake, is quite simple: you list your source files, libraries and headers to link in a short configuration file (qmake can even generate this for you).
qmake then generates a makefile from this data.
This is useful as it also includes the 'moc' pass, but can be constrictive in some cases.
You are, of course, not obligated to use qmake in your Qt project.As far as widgets go, Qt's are comparable with GTK or any other toolkit out there.
Qt does a better job of looking good on non-Linux platforms, such as Windows.
It has a simple but flexible widget system that is much easier to use than GridBagLayout or any of Swing's more poweful layouts.The main issue with Qt was that, up until recently, it was licensed under the LGPL and before that, it was under the restrictive 'Qt license'.
This is no longer the case, so jump in!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583097</id>
	<title>umm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583331</id>
	<title>Re:N900, please</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1246711800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the RX-51, aka "N900" is due "second half of 2009". The OS for it will not be backwards compatible with the n800</p><p>For OS developments regarding n8*0, check out the community project "MER" instead: <a href="http://wiki.maemo.org/Mer\_Blueprint" title="maemo.org">http://wiki.maemo.org/Mer\_Blueprint</a> [maemo.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the RX-51 , aka " N900 " is due " second half of 2009 " .
The OS for it will not be backwards compatible with the n800For OS developments regarding n8 * 0 , check out the community project " MER " instead : http : //wiki.maemo.org/Mer \ _Blueprint [ maemo.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the RX-51, aka "N900" is due "second half of 2009".
The OS for it will not be backwards compatible with the n800For OS developments regarding n8*0, check out the community project "MER" instead: http://wiki.maemo.org/Mer\_Blueprint [maemo.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586503</id>
	<title>!News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246811100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody with a hint of interest in the Maemo platform already knows this from Wikipedia and the project home page (at least 4 to 6 months)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody with a hint of interest in the Maemo platform already knows this from Wikipedia and the project home page ( at least 4 to 6 months ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody with a hint of interest in the Maemo platform already knows this from Wikipedia and the project home page (at least 4 to 6 months)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586359</id>
	<title>Re:This sounds wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246809300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think "easier cross-platform-development" is not for desktop-platform against embedded platform. Qt is already available for Windows CE, Linux embedded and will soon be for Symbian/S60. Cross-platform would be the possibility to run software on different type of phones. The fact that you can port a desktop application to the phones is just a bonus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " easier cross-platform-development " is not for desktop-platform against embedded platform .
Qt is already available for Windows CE , Linux embedded and will soon be for Symbian/S60 .
Cross-platform would be the possibility to run software on different type of phones .
The fact that you can port a desktop application to the phones is just a bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "easier cross-platform-development" is not for desktop-platform against embedded platform.
Qt is already available for Windows CE, Linux embedded and will soon be for Symbian/S60.
Cross-platform would be the possibility to run software on different type of phones.
The fact that you can port a desktop application to the phones is just a bonus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583109</id>
	<title>Starting over</title>
	<author>Vector7</author>
	<datestamp>1246708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly surprising, considering Hildon really wasn't very good. Sluggish, clumsy, and tending to waste a lot of very precious screen real estate - not that I see how switching to Qt changes any of those things. Still, it sounds like they're basically throwing the whole UI and all the software written for it out, and that sucks. I've long been tempted to write a little music toy app to run on my N800, but I should probably just buy an iPhone or a Pre (given that I don't actually carry the N800 around anywhere anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly surprising , considering Hildon really was n't very good .
Sluggish , clumsy , and tending to waste a lot of very precious screen real estate - not that I see how switching to Qt changes any of those things .
Still , it sounds like they 're basically throwing the whole UI and all the software written for it out , and that sucks .
I 've long been tempted to write a little music toy app to run on my N800 , but I should probably just buy an iPhone or a Pre ( given that I do n't actually carry the N800 around anywhere anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly surprising, considering Hildon really wasn't very good.
Sluggish, clumsy, and tending to waste a lot of very precious screen real estate - not that I see how switching to Qt changes any of those things.
Still, it sounds like they're basically throwing the whole UI and all the software written for it out, and that sucks.
I've long been tempted to write a little music toy app to run on my N800, but I should probably just buy an iPhone or a Pre (given that I don't actually carry the N800 around anywhere anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28598869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28624625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28604647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28600051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_2155209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28604647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584097
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586119
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584285
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587275
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586465
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28600051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28598869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28624625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28587371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28584331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28586503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_2155209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28583333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_2155209.28585143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
