Other Which GUI library should I use?

kpedersen said:
If X11 gets replaced with *shudder* Wayland, a lot of great software will be killed. For example the ubiquitous XTerm, SDL 1.2, Gtk+ 2.x and other libraries that are quite critical for older software to work.
Click to expand...
Ouch! I had never thought of that.

giahung1997 said:
If you mean online websites provide services run on a browser, this is not what I want to mention.
I said about desktop app build using web technology, html5, nodejs, css... Ex: Atom, VSCode...
Click to expand...
I would say wrong tool for the job.
I dislike web techs with a passion (but html and css), they ruined internet for me. By using them for GUI, you are just turning the GUI experience into the same misery that it is using modern websites.
 
funkygoby said:
Ouch! I had never thought of that.


I would say wrong tool for the job.
I dislike web techs with a passion (but html and css), they ruined internet for me. By using them for GUI, you are just turning the GUI experience into the same misery that it is using modern websites.
Click to expand...


In some years, with Wayland, or W follower, or the new Cambridge X, everyone will have to reprogramme all graphical applications.
Really, it makes really no purpose to code anything hard, taking a lot of time, free without being paid, if you are alone on a single project. Co-workers are important for moving to next cool, shining graphical library, maintaining it.

If made alone, it is better to leave graphical applications for google, mac, apple,.. big companies that have lot of people for a project, lot of money to rewrite and remake the wheel with new libraries all over again and again...

really maybe the good way to go is to learn C++ or C, and likely to learn termcap / ncurses.
It is not GUI but CLI, still beautiful...
here a rapid example...

mc, vim,... emacs,... there are many famous programmes still, but of courses, you need QT, GTK,.. for nice softwares and desktops!

But,... yeah, why not QT? it will be there still for some time, until a shinning graphical library becomes fashion, in, a la mode.
Anyhow, computer hardware is very good today, you can screw the memory usage.
Look Internet, you use it daily with your browser, so?

In Conclusion:
You really need CLI and GUI, both.

cli-ncurses.png
 
Spartrekus said:
FLTK in FreeDOS, really?? Would you have a pictures / screenshot maybe.
Click to expand...

Yes, FLTK DOS port is known as fltkal. A lot of development has been carried out over it, and the result was XFDOS, a FreeDOS distro. The XFDOS project comes with a FLTK GUI, called SLWM (slow light window manager), which takes after x11-wm/flwm a bit. Here's a screenshot:

SLWM.png


The XFDOS projects includes various FLTK programs (ported and not), most of them is available on the FreeDOS and can be fetched/installed with FDNPKG. Among them:

- DILLO :

Dillo_for_DOS1.PNG



- FLMAIL

FlMail.PNG


- FlWriter:

FlWriter-shot3.png


- Mupdf:

mupdf-screenshot3.PNG



There's also FLChat, a nice IRC client, which I was unable to find a screenshot of ;)
 
Sensucht94 said:
Yes, FLTK DOS port is known as fltkal. A lot of development has been carried out over it, and the result was XFDOS, a FreeDOS distro. The XFDOS project comes with a FLTK GUI, called SLWM (small light windows manager), which takes after x11-wm/flwm a bit. Here's a screenshot:

View attachment 4753

The XFDOS projects includes various FLTK programs (ported and not), most of them is available on the FreeDOS and can be fetched/installed with FDNPKG. Among them:

- DILLO :

View attachment 4750


- FLMAIL

View attachment 4751

- FlWriter:

View attachment 4752

- Mupdf:

View attachment 4754


There's also FLChat, a nice IRC client, which I was unable to find a screenshot of ;)
Click to expand...
Maybe for ARM / ARMEL /ARMHF ?
 
Spartrekus said:
Maybe for ARM / ARMEL /ARMHF ?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not, FreeDOS kernel despite being very different from other DOSes, it's still DOS and requires CISC/x86 (16/32/64 bit). Good for CPUs before Pentium I, which are hardly supported by anything else nowadays, outside MirBSD which still maintains 486.

I run it on a Pentium 3 laptop, with 256MB RAM, a Sound Blaster 16, a 128 Gb IDE HDD, and a Realtek8139 Ethernet Card

On any Linux Environment however FreeDOS can run with performance close to native thanks to dosemu, or even better dosemu2 (currently only available on Linux, and, experimentally, on NetBSD). a batch script availalble on FreeDOS repo, FDNET.BAT sets up networking automatically (pcnet/intel/realtek packet driver for emulated NIC + mTCP + DHCP.EXE) on QEMU, Virtualbox and VMware. Currently I use FreeDOS on FreeBSD through QEMU

Finally, all this software should easily run on emulator/dosbox, and even better, on dosbox-x
 
Sensucht94 said:
Unfortunately not, FreeDOS kernel despite being very different from other DOSes, it's still DOS and requires CISC/x86 (16/32/64 bit). Good for CPUs before Pentium I, which are hardly supported by anything else nowadays, outside MirBSD which still maintains 486.

I run it on a Pentium 3 laptop, with 256MB RAM, a Sound Blaster 16, a 128 Gb IDE HDD, and a Realtek8139 Ethernet Card

On any Linux Environment however FreeDOS can run with performance close to native thanks to dosemu, or even better dosemu2 (currently only available on Linux, and, experimentally, on NetBSD). a batch script availalble on FreeDOS repo, FDNET.BAT sets up networking automatically (pcnet/intel/realtek packet driver for emulated NIC + mTCP + DHCP.EXE) on QEMU, Virtualbox and VMware. Currently I use FreeDOS on FreeBSD through QEMU

Finally, all this software should easily run on emulator/dosbox, and even better, on dosbox-x
Click to expand...

It is good to know that DOS still exists. Nothing faster than Win3.1 running on DOS. There were many programmes excellent quality (MS Excel,...).

Probably, very much sure, FreeDOS will take much much less ressource usage than any BSD.
648K is today nothing, but well, that was really DOS.

In comp, any C compiler (TCC, CLANG, GNU GCC,...) will produce an hello world of an huge size. Not cool in comparison if each bytes counts. Who would believe to do anything with few mbs only
 
Spartrekus said:
It is good to know that DOS still exists. Nothing faster than Win3.1 running on DOS. There were many programmes excellent quality (MS Excel,...).
Click to expand...

Actually OpenGEM is a lot faster than Win3 ;) ....a screenshot of mine (FreeDOS on QEMU, FreeBSD):

2018-04-25-194831_640x501_scrot.png


Probably, very much sure, FreeDOS will take much much less ressource usage than any BSD.
648K is today nothing, but well, that was really DOS.
Click to expand...

16-bit means esponentially less information indeed, another screenshot:

2018-04-25-194010_720x421_scrot.png


as you can see the mounted kernel image requires 16Kb XD

If you're interested in this retro stuff, Open Cubic Player is available in FreeBSD repo (and in FreeDOS' naturally): audio/ocp. Here's a screenshot (FreeSD port), I use it regularly:

2018-04-25-195207_640x218_scrot.png
 
Sensucht94 said:
Actually OpenGEM is a lot faster than Win3 ;) ....a screenshot of mine (FreeDOS on QEMU, FreeBSD):

View attachment 4757



16-bit means esponentially less information indeed, another screenshot:

View attachment 4758

as you can see the mounted kernel image requires 16Kb XD

If you're interested in this retro stuff, Open Cubic Player is available in FreeBSD repo (and in FreeDOS' naturally): audio/ocp. Here's a screenshot (FreeSD port), I use it regularly:

View attachment 4759
Click to expand...

opengem looks really beautiful.. it remembers me the old mac a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top