Re: QT embedded floppy disk demo

From: Emanuele Aina (faina.mail@tiscali.it)
Date: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 13:28:00 CEST


Lisias Toledo sentenzi˛:

>>GTK+ is even worst, because it is a new API the call the Xlib API.
>>Therefore, GTK+ requires an X-Window server in order to work.>
>
> To not mentio the huge footprint.

Perhaphs you haven't read the link on Linuxdevices I have posted.

<http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9006921228.html>

It is a good comparision between embedded GUI, speaking about
Microwindows, Opengui, Picogui, Qt/E, GTKfb and GTK+/TinyX.

You may be surprised, but as a result the choice of the writer
has been GTK+ and TinyX on the framebuffer for their maturity/stability,
their low memory footprint (lower than Qt/E) and for the fact that their
source is completely free.

>> As you see, I simply removed the X Protocol, reducing X-Window
>> from a "graphics network server" to Microsoft Windows! Is that the
>> answer?

I think that, for a low powered devices, losing the possibility of
running applications on a more powerful machine in a transparent manner
it is a big disavantage.

> I think it's one of possible answers. How good is a graphics network
> server on a mono-user, mono-task enviromnent as a PDA?

Several paper seems to state that it aren't the network capabilities
of XFree to slow down apps.

-- 
Au revoir.
Lele..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.dk
For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.dk


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:22 CET