GUI With Ruby

ruby-talk
21

Une Bévue wrote:

···

Martin Portman <martin.portman@iptest.com> wrote:

I have had success with Ruby/Gtk/ruby-gnome2 on a Mac, OS X 10.4 and Windows.
I am able to move applications/scripts between Windows and Mac, and everything
works well

That's really fine having an X-platform like GUI.

Do you have to change something within your Ruby scripts ?

Nope. Well, nothing Gtk specific, just the usual stuff. The themes on each machine
make somethings look a bit more decorative than others, but interactionally they are identical.

Martin

22

for macs you can use RubyCocoa.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

23

Qt 4 Ruby works on Windows and Linux for sure. I don't know about Macs, though. I think most Mac users prefer native Mac GUIs anyhow, and there is one for Ruby that has a very good reputation. I don't have a Mac, so I've forgotten the name.

I'm using Qt4 QtRuby on the Mac and Linux wonderfully. I've started diving into an attempt to build it on Windows, but honestly, using Windows for software development is very frustrating for me. However, it certainly is feasible to build and once someone does and they share their library or routine for building it, we can safely say it's supported there as well.

Caleb

24

Aren't the licensing fees for Qt waived if you're using it for
non-commercial, open source software (or something like that)? It
seems like it used to be the case that you only had to pay the
licensing fees if you were using Qt for commercial development.

···

On 3/10/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

[For Qt] your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.

25

John Joyce wrote:

Actually, Qt has gotten a lot better, and does work on Windows and OS X and linux with claimed native look and feel.
Your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding about the Qt license is this -- when you start a project, you decide which license it will use -- commercial or open source -- and the project is forever licensed that way. Say you pick open source. You download the open source version, incorporate it into your project, and you can never convert the project to a commercial one at that point.

Similarly, if you start a commercial project, buy the commercial version of Qt, etc., you can never convert the project to open source. I'm not sure how this fits with the Ruby license.

My own personal opinion is that most "open source" licenses are junk, with the GPL being one of the worst. I think it's high time someone came up with an open source license that says something like this:

"This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it's your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it's your money and not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it's your fame and not mine. And I can't prevent you from compiling it and distributing the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too."

···

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

26

Thanks, just playing with it now. I like the idea of using interface builder for building a gui, but I'm not that familiar with XCode - I've worked my way through the example currency converter, that's all :slight_smile:

···

On 10/03/2007, at 3:56 PM, Aaron Smith wrote:

for macs you can use RubyCocoa.

27

There is an Education License allowed on faith, but you do have to wonder if lawyers won't come knocking some day.
It is just something to be aware of. You do need to read that stuff if you use it and put it into use.

···

On Mar 11, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Lyle Johnson wrote:

On 3/10/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

[For Qt] your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.

Aren't the licensing fees for Qt waived if you're using it for
non-commercial, open source software (or something like that)? It
seems like it used to be the case that you only had to pay the
licensing fees if you were using Qt for commercial development.

28

Caleb Tennis wrote:

Qt 4 Ruby works on Windows and Linux for sure. I don't know about Macs, though. I think most Mac users prefer native Mac GUIs anyhow, and there is one for Ruby that has a very good reputation. I don't have a Mac, so I've forgotten the name.

I'm using Qt4 QtRuby on the Mac and Linux wonderfully. I've started diving into an attempt to build it on Windows, but honestly, using Windows for software development is very frustrating for me. However, it certainly is feasible to build and once someone does and they share their library or routine for building it, we can safely say it's supported there as well.

Caleb

Oops ... it *doesn't* work on Windows? I lied! Bad me! Well, there's always Cygwin ... <ducking>

···

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

29

That's called the BSD licence.

···

On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 02:21:23AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

My own personal opinion is that most "open source" licenses are junk, with
the GPL being one of the worst. I think it's high time someone came up with
an open source license that says something like this:

"This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You
can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it's
your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it's your money and
not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it's your fame
and not mine. And I can't prevent you from compiling it and distributing
the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too."

30

I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.

I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.

But I am quite a pessimist.

Cheers
Robert

···

On 3/10/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

John Joyce wrote:
> Actually, Qt has gotten a lot better, and does work on Windows and OS
> X and linux with claimed native look and feel.
> Your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding about the Qt license is this -- when you start a project, you decide which license it will use -- commercial or open source -- and the project is forever licensed that way. Say you pick open source. You download the open source version, incorporate it into your project, and you can never convert the project to a commercial one at that point.

Similarly, if you start a commercial project, buy the commercial version of Qt, etc., you can never convert the project to open source. I'm not sure how this fits with the Ruby license.

My own personal opinion is that most "open source" licenses are junk, with the GPL being one of the worst. I think it's high time someone came up with an open source license that says something like this:

"This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it's your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it's your money and not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it's your fame and not mine. And I can't prevent you from compiling it and distributing the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too."

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous

31

I've been playing around with FXRuby, but I find that the tutorial is
more of a quick run-through more than a tutorial. It doesn't explain
things in enough depth. I've tried Googling for one, but to no effect.
Does anybody know of a good tutorial for FXRuby along with a list of
classes and methods?

P.S. I'm quite new to Ruby, and I haven't yet had the need to use a
"gem". Would anyone be able to give me an explanation of exactly how
these "gems" work?

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

32

Oh, sure, I definitely agree that people need to understanding the
licensing terms for the software that they're considering using.

···

On 3/10/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

There is an Education License allowed on faith, but you do have to
wonder if lawyers won't come knocking some day.
It is just something to be aware of. You do need to read that stuff
if you use it and put it into use.

33

Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours" license?

···

On 3/10/07, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> wrote:

On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 02:21:23AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> My own personal opinion is that most "open source" licenses are junk,
with
> the GPL being one of the worst. I think it's high time someone came up
with
> an open source license that says something like this:
>
> "This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source.
You
> can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it's
> your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it's your money
and
> not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it's your
fame
> and not mine. And I can't prevent you from compiling it and distributing
> the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too."

That's called the BSD licence.

34

Optimist: the glass is half full
Pessimist: the glass is half empty
Cynic: the glass is half empty, but it's probably not something you
wanted to drink anyway

I'm a cynic, according to my own definition: an optimist that has
learned from life experience. I am concerned with the notion that the
BSD license doesn't ensure that we will always have source code
available to us when we get the binary. On the other hand, I am *more*
concerned that the *forced distribution of source code* mandated by the
GPL is actually more restrictive in practice. For one thing, it
prevents anyone that didn't have the foresight to get the source at the
same time as the binaries from redistributing the binaries in his or her
possession, unless he or she can still find the source. For another, it
requires, in many cases, for those with limited resources to choose
between maintaining an archive of source code with redundant backups for
several years after distributing binaries, or simply not distributing.

I definitely prefer the BSD license. It would be better to have access
to a binary with no source than neither (to compare worst-case
scenarios).

Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over the
GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
violations of GPL terms.

···

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:53:05AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

>
I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.

I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is
important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.

But I am quite a pessimist.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid

35

Robert Dober wrote:

I am quite surprised to hear that from you. I always have seen you as
a practical guy and I intend that as a compliment.
Now the exact wording of your licence simply means that someone can
take your code away from you (theoretically not because you can prove
prior art by definition) but you might need a lawyer etc.

That's what I meant. It's a statement that I *can't* prevent someone from taking it away from me. If I want to keep my code to myself, I can do that simply by keeping it to myself. If I want to give it away, I'll give it away. What I *can't* do is give someone else's intellectual property away.

I feel that the GPL is not *easy* to use but I also feel that it is important.
I am nervous about the BSD or Ruby licence, although they are
convenient for sure - in the short run.
I have the feeling that they are naive and that the wonderful things
they do not really
protect might be taken away from the community one day.

But I am quite a pessimist.

Well, in the specific case of Ruby, I don't think it will be "taken away" so much as it will be "purchased." My license says essentially, "Here is this idea I had expressed in software. If you are willing to do the work to make a business out of it, great, I don't expect anything in return for it."

Then again, I've been programming a long time, and intend to keep doing it till they pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard. (Unless, of course, I figure out a way to turn thought directly into code without requiring tongues or fingers. *That* I might not give away. :slight_smile: )

···

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

36

Yannick Grams wrote:

I've been playing around with FXRuby, but I find that the tutorial is more of a quick run-through more than a tutorial. It doesn't explain things in enough depth. I've tried Googling for one, but to no effect. Does anybody know of a good tutorial for FXRuby along with a list of classes and methods?

I've been learning FXRuby in the last two months, and you really just have to dive in.
Pick something you want to make and start doing it. I started off using foxguib, which helped me learn the way things are supposed to look, but once you get started, it's much more efficient, and you learn faster, to code everything yourself.
I also keep the FXRuby and FOX websites open all the time. Having the API docs on hand is a must.
Once you learn a little bit about how FXRuby works, go bach through the tutorial, and look at all the example programs.
Things start to make a lot more sense then.

Raj Sahae

37

The lack of tutorial-style documentation is indeed a problem. As far
as a list of classes and methods, there's some pretty comprehensive
API documentation at the FXRuby web site. You know, the site that I
gave you a link to in my previous e-mail.

···

On 3/10/07, Yannick Grams <yannick_grams@hotmail.com> wrote:

I've been playing around with FXRuby, but I find that the tutorial is
more of a quick run-through more than a tutorial. It doesn't explain
things in enough depth. I've tried Googling for one, but to no effect.
Does anybody know of a good tutorial for FXRuby along with a list of
classes and methods?

38

Albert Ng wrote:

Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours" license?

The text of the BSD license is here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php\.

39

Well there's always the "public domain", i.e. no license and absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the dissemination of their work...

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

···

On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:

Um, how close is the BSD license to this "my code, don't need to quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it's consequences are all yours" license?

----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

40

I must admit that I don't have any interest in my 'old' code at all, so the thought of other people running off with it and doing their own thing really doesn't bother me. Been there, done that, bored now. If someone can figure out a way of making millions off some random crufty code I threw together as a quick hack one Saturday then good luck to them :slight_smile:

The couple of open-source projects I'm currently trying to get up and running are BSD licensed for the simple reason that the people they're targeted at are generally BSD-license friendly, but all the commercial code I've written has been locked under proprietary licenses and if I ever had to do anything similar in the future, well a good clean-room rewrite would be a blessing in disguise.

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

···

On 12 Mar 2007, at 01:20, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

Well, in the specific case of Ruby, I don't think it will be "taken away" so much as it will be "purchased." My license says essentially, "Here is this idea I had expressed in software. If you are willing to do the work to make a business out of it, great, I don't expect anything in return for it."

Then again, I've been programming a long time, and intend to keep doing it till they pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard. (Unless, of course, I figure out a way to turn thought directly into code without requiring tongues or fingers. *That* I might not give away. :slight_smile: )

----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason