[Paraview] New ParaView

[Wylie, Brian]

All,

We want to reassure folks that the Qt license for ParaView III should
not impede users in anyway.

We have worked with Trolltech and they have been great about supporting
the open source ParaView effort.

Trolltech has given us explicit permission to distribution the GPL
version of Qt from the Kitware website. All you have to do is download
Qt and download ParaView and compile.

You can compile, modify, etc... The only thing you cannot do is
development on the Qt QUI Client with the GPL version of Qt (but you CAN
submit patches).

  Brian Wylie - Org 9227
  Sandia National Laboratories
  MS 0822 - Building 880/A1-J
  (505)844-2238 FAX(505)845-0833                       
       ____                  _    __
      / __ \____  _________ | |  / (_)__ _      __ 
     / /_/ / __ `/ ___/ __ `/ | / / / _ \ | /| / /
    / ____/ /_/ / /  / /_/ /| |/ / /  __/ |/ |/ /
   /_/    \__,_/_/   \__,_/ |___/_/\___/|__/|__/

                                    Unleash the Beast
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paraview-bounces+bnwylie=sandia.gov at paraview.org 
> [mailto:paraview-bounces+bnwylie=sandia.gov at paraview.org] On 
> Behalf Of Sean Ziegeler, Contractor
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: Dominik Szczerba
> Cc: paraview at paraview.org
> Subject: Re: [Paraview] New ParaView
> 
> Well, I'm not involved in any ParaView GUI development, but I 
> do have experience with both Qt and FLTK.  IMHO, on the 
> technical size, Qt's feature set and maturity would probably 
> scale well with a project of ParaView's size.  And normally, 
> I'd be hesitant with a licence like Qt's, but TrollTech at 
> least has had an amicable history with the KDE folks for a 
> number of years, as far as I know.
> 
> Overall, I think both toolkits are reliable enough to be 
> depended upon.
> 
> That said, I personally like FLTK for smaller projects with 
> VTK and/or OpenGL.  It's lighter implementation makes 
> turn-around time faster for me.  I've found the stability of 
> the production 1.1.x releases good on both Windows and Linux.
> 
> -Sean
> 
> On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 10:29, Dominik Szczerba wrote:
> > OK, actually, might not belong to the ML here but I am 
> facing the same 
> > choice (GUI for my VTK visualizations). Therefore I hoped 
> for heavier 
> > criticism to rethink my own findings on Qt and FLTK rather 
> than start 
> > a flame war. I am particularilly interested if any 
> > compatibility/stability issues with fltk influenced your 
> choice of Qt. 
> > That Tcl/Tk is "a bit unconvenient" to compile on various systems I 
> > have known for quite a while now.
> > regards - Dominik
> > 
> > 
> > Andy Cedilnik wrote:
> > > Hi Dominik,
> > > 
> > > I would really not like to start a flame war.
> > > 
> > > We do use Fltk for some projects, so we do have some 
> experiences with it.
> > > 
> > > Overall my take is that Fltk does not provide nearly as much 
> > > infrastructure as Qt does. An example is the even 
> mechanism of Qt. 
> > > On the other hand Fltk is much lighter and its license is 
> more liberal.
> > > That said, Qt provides much more documentation and support.
> > > 
> > > It is a hard decision to make.
> > > 
> > >          Andy
> > > 
> > > Dominik Szczerba wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Could you please kindly shed some more light on fltk? I 
> assume the 
> > >> look was not the only criticism?
> > >> Thank you
> > >> Dominik
> > >>
> > >> Andy Cedilnik wrote:
> > >>  
> > >>
> > >>> Hello Arash,
> > >>>
> > >>> We spend some time evaluating various widget sets and 
> so far the 
> > >>> most robust is Qt. Fltk is great, but it looks unusual. 
> wxWidgets 
> > >>> looks more native, but there are stability issues on various 
> > >>> platforms, such as Mac OSX.
> > >>>
> > >>> As far as accessing Server Manager without GUI, it is actually 
> > >>> possible and not that hard right now. The API is not well 
> > >>> documented externally, but we do offer a ParaView 
> developers course.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hopefully that helps.
> > >>>
> > >>>       Andy
> > >>>
> > >>> Arash Jahangir wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>    
> > >>>
> > >>>> As I understand it, the next version of ParaView will 
> be Qt based.
> > >>>> Personally I find the Qt license wanting and I wish 
> Kitware had 
> > >>>> chosen wxWidgets or FLTK, but it is probably too late 
> to ask for 
> > >>>> this...so I cut to the chase:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Will version 3 of ParaView provide clear separation between UI 
> > >>>> and the functional code so that it is a relatively 
> easy task to 
> > >>>> write an alternate GUI for ParaView?  If so, how can I find 
> > >>>> documentation on linking another GUI to the ParaView engine?
> > >>>>       
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>     
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ParaView mailing list
> ParaView at paraview.org
> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview
> 
>