# Why Fox **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [10 January 2003 23:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055 "2003-01-10T23:16:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [10 January 2003 23:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/1 "2003-01-10T23:16:12Z")
Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard GUI? I’m not bashing Fox, this is an honest question. Fox is not the standard GUI of any OS. My experience indicates that it’s difficult to install under Unix/Linux. Because it’s not based on the native GUI it always looks out of place (IMHO) and (for the same reason) it’s slow (at least in my limited experience). I’m sure that there is a very good reason for choosing Fox. I just want to know what it is. Thanks a lot. Daniel Carrera Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_P\_Zepeda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Daniel\_P\_Zepeda](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_P_Zepeda)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 02:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/2 "2003-01-11T02:06:50Z")
> Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard > GUI?\ Where is it said that FOX is being adopted as the standard GUI? There are quite a few ruby bindings for other GUI toolkits as well. I don’t think there is a “standard” yet, if ever. > I’m not bashing Fox, this is an honest question. Fox is not the > standard GUI of any OS. My experience indicates that it’s difficult to > install under Unix/Linux. Because it’s not based on the native GUI it > always looks out of place (IMHO) and (for the same reason) it’s slow (at > least in my limited experience). It is _not_ difficult to install if you read the docs and follow some simple instructions. It took me less than 1/2 hour to install it on a new Linux system just the other day. Maybe it is hard for someone with no Linux experience, but then any other standard GNU/FSF package would be hard for _them_. If you can type tar xvzf fox-whatever.tgz; ./configure; make; make install, then you can install FOX! It isn’t any harder than many a program I’ve hand to install, re-install, re-install for Windows. It may look out of place, I’ll grant you that, but it isn’t any slower than any of of the other toolkits that have scriptable bindings. Compared to Tk, hell, even Java Swing (which I detest), it is acceptable. If you want speed of application, write a FOX app in C++. I think this has more to do with the interpreted nature of the scripting language rather than FOX itself. In fact, on the ‘looks out of place’ Swing loses there too, and so does Tk. I’ve no experience using GTK, nor the newer Qt bindings available for Ruby so I can’t compare them, but I’d bet they’d lose on the speed, ‘look-and-feel’ front too. What’s left? Oh, WxWindows, that uses the native GUI set, so it should in theory anyway be faster, but then you have cross-platform problems with the widgets etc. I’ll tell you why _I_ use FOX/Ruby: They are a _joy_ to code in! I must be a nerd because I get a giddy feeling inside when I’ve finished a project in half the time than I thought it would take me, and the code looks so clean and elegant! It is truly cross-platform (If you code it that way of course) and the License is right. Qt, you have to pay a ton for a Windows license, Tk, looks Ok, but it’s API is horrid. (No offense it was great in it’s time, but is aging now), and WxWindows, well, again, the API isn’t so cool as FOX and the cross-platform widget problems are there and aren’t they going the way of FOX anyhow? I’ll bet there are a lot of people that feel the way I do about coding in Ruby/FOX, that may be why you get the impression that FOX is becoming the standard GUI toolkit. Hope this helps, D > **···** > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 08:16:12 +0900 Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote: > > > I’m sure that there is a very good reason for choosing Fox. I just want > > to know what it is. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > Daniel Carrera > > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 > > – > “Daniel P. Zepeda” \ > (Remove commas for address) ---
**Author:** ![Holden\_Glova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/57b2e6/32.png) [@Holden\_Glova](https://rubytalk.org/u/Holden_Glova)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 02:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/3 "2003-01-11T02:13:47Z")
Hi Daniel, I don’t have all the answers to your questions but maybe a few opinions and experiences to share. Fox is a stable gui toolkit and FXRuby is probably the most actively maintained set of Ruby GUI bindings available due to much hardwork by Lyle Johnson. There has been many, many, a GUI thread on -talk (check the archives if interested). Some talk about an SWT like toolkit that binds to native widgets for the OS so users can experience the look and feel they are used to. The real goal needs to be defined before answering this question properly. Maybe the goal is to have a set of actively maintained GUI bindings to a stable GUI toolkit? If that is the goal FOX certainly meets those needs IMHO. I have not had any trouble at all building and installing Fox or FXRuby. I also have not noticed any performance issues. Installing FOX was easy on Debian, Gentoo and from source without the use of the previously mentioned distributions package managers. * * * Signed, Holden Glova > **···** > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:16, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard GUI? > > > > I’m not bashing Fox, this is an honest question. Fox is not the standard > > GUI of any OS. My experience indicates that it’s difficult to install > > under Unix/Linux. Because it’s not based on the native GUI it always > > looks out of place (IMHO) and (for the same reason) it’s slow (at least in > > my limited experience). > > > > I’m sure that there is a very good reason for choosing Fox. I just want > > to know what it is. > > > > Thanks a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_Wisti1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@Brian\_Wisti1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Brian_Wisti1)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 06:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/4 "2003-01-11T06:19:01Z")
Hi Dan, I was not aware that Fox was being declared standard or official in any capacity. A lot of Rubyists are using Fox because it is easy for them to set up and Lyle Johnson works hard to make FXRuby useful for interested parties. FOX is not the native GUI for any system, but folks who want a “native” toolkit seem to be using a direct interface to those toolkits (Cocoa, COM, GTK) instead of wxWindows or FOX. Even though it is not native, it is a comprehensive toolkit, and I’ve heard very little of people saying “oh, I wish it had this widget”. Perhaps somebody with more extensive experience can correct me, but FOX also seems to have a respectable startup time - slower than Tk, but faster than Java/Swing. Most of all, I don’t think that people are choosing FOX. They are choosing FXRuby, which is one of the more impressive toolkit interfaces I have come across. But that’s my opinion, and it’s not a very informed one 🙂 -Brian W > **···** > > On Friday 10 January 2003 03:16 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard GUI? > > > > I’m not bashing Fox, this is an honest question. Fox is not the standard > > GUI of any OS. My experience indicates that it’s difficult to install > > under Unix/Linux. Because it’s not based on the native GUI it always > > looks out of place (IMHO) and (for the same reason) it’s slow (at least in > > my limited experience). > > > > I’m sure that there is a very good reason for choosing Fox. I just want > > to know what it is. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > Daniel Carrera > > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 > > – > brian at coolnamehere dot com > [http://coolnamehere.com](http://coolnamehere.com) ---
**Author:** ![Lyle\_Johnson6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@Lyle\_Johnson6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Lyle_Johnson6)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 20:46 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/5 "2003-01-11T20:46:57Z")
Daniel Carrera wrote: > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard GUI? If Ruby is adopting FOX as its standard GUI, that’s news to me. The only GUI one might point to as the “standard” for Ruby is Tk, since the Ruby/Tk extension is part of the standard Ruby source distribution. > Fox is not the standard GUI of any OS. No, FOX is a portable, cross-platform GUI library. If you want to write GUI applications intended for use on a variety of platforms, it’s a good choice. It is of course not the only for cross-platform GUI programming; there are, for example, Ruby bindings to GTK, Qt, FLTK and the previously-mentioned Tk. Curt Hibbs and Bob Calco (and others?) are also considering a Ruby binding to wxWindows. If you’re solely interested in, say, GUI programming on Windows, you might instead look at Ruby/SWin and VRuby. They are Ruby extensions that provide direct interfaces to the Win32 GUI controls. > My experience indicates that it’s difficult to install under Unix/Linux. I’ve been meaning to go back and review those threads from the mailing list some time. As I recall, one of your difficulties was that you were trying to compile the code on an old & dying Linux box with intermittent memory failures. Another difficulty was that you picked up some RPMs that installed FXRuby to the wrong directory so that Ruby couldn’t find it. Obviously, neither of those problems are specific to FOX or FXRuby. Did you encounter other installation problems that I’m forgetting? > Because it’s not based on the native GUI it always looks out of place > (IMHO) and (for the same reason) it’s slow (at least in my limited > experience). You may want to check with Curt and Bob, then, about progress on wxRuby. wxRuby is a cross-platform API but it uses native widgets (as opposed to the others mentioned earlier, which draw their own widgets). ---
**Author:** ![Ptkwt1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/85e7bf/32.png) [@Ptkwt1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ptkwt1)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 20:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/6 "2003-01-11T20:51:27Z")
In article [Pine.GSO.4.44.0301101810140.1535-100000@vandermonde.math.umd.edu](mailto:Pine.GSO.4.44.0301101810140.1535-100000@vandermonde.math.umd.edu), > **···** > > Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard GUI? > > I’m not sure that it’s accurate to say the Fox is being adopted as Ruby’s > standard GUI. It’s one of several available GUI toolkits with bindings > available in Ruby, including: Tk, gtk, qt and fltk. > > ## Phil > > “Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?” > Amy Weiss (accusing [theregister.co.uk](http://theregister.co.uk) of engaging in ‘tabloid journalism’) > Senior VP, Communications > Recording Industry Association of America ---
**Author:** ![Enrique\_Meza3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f08c70/32.png) [@Enrique\_Meza3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Enrique_Meza3)\ **Post date:** [12 January 2003 17:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/7 "2003-01-12T17:20:04Z")
> Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox > as its standard GUI? Well I am using Ruby/GTK and works Great !!. I am selling a point of sale called DonManolo → [Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://www.geocities.com/emezaj/) . I had some troubles with documentation ( all in japanease ). But I think is a good choice. Cheers, Enrique Meza // > **···** > > * * * > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > > > **[Yahoo Mail](https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/)** > > > > Take a trip into an upgraded, more organized inbox with Yahoo Mail. Login and start exploring all the free, organizational tools for your email. Check out new themes, send GIFs, find every photo you’ve ever sent or received, and search your account... ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 02:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/8 "2003-01-11T02:56:37Z")
> It is _not_ difficult to install if you read the docs and follow some > simple instructions. It took me less than 1/2 hour to install it on a new > Linux system just the other day. Maybe it is hard for someone with no > Linux experience, Please don’t assume that I don’t have any Linux experience. I’ve been using Linux and Unix as my sole OS for 5 years. I love tinkering with the system and I generally install from source. I assure you that I’m familiar with the ./configure; make; make install. My complaint is that it doesn’t work on the systems I’ve tried. > I’ve no experience using GTK, nor the newer Qt bindings available for Ruby > so I can’t compare them, but I’d bet they’d lose on the speed, > ‘look-and-feel’ front too. You shouldn’t make that statement if you don’t have that experience. My experience with Ruby/Gtk was better on both accounts. I wasn’t (and I’m not) trying to push any given toolkit. I was asking a question. > I’ll tell you why _I_ use FOX/Ruby: They are a _joy_ to code in! > … and the License is right. Qt, you have to pay a ton for a Windows > license, Tk, looks Ok, but it’s API is horrid… and WxWindows, well, > again, the API isn’t so cool as FOX and the cross-platform widget > problems are there and aren’t they going the way of FOX anyhow? Thank you for the input. This explanation is more along the lines of what I was looking for. Daniel Carrera Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 > **···** > > > Hope this helps, > > D > > > > > I’m sure that there is a very good reason for choosing Fox. I just want > > > to know what it is. > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > Daniel Carrera > > > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > > > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 > > > > – > > “Daniel P. Zepeda” \ > > (Remove commas for address) ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 03:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/9 "2003-01-11T03:06:37Z")
Holden, Thank you for your response. I found it helpful. Perhaps the performance issues I notice are unique to the machine I had for some reason. I’ll keep trying to figure out why fox won’t compile on the Sun. I’ll see how that works out. Lyle, thank you for your offer of help. I’ll get back to you after I go back to work. Thanks to all who clarified the role of Fox in Ruby. Cheers, Daniel Carrera Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 ---
**Author:** ![Dmitri\_Colebatch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f1d935/32.png) [@Dmitri\_Colebatch](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dmitri_Colebatch)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 11:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/10 "2003-01-11T11:32:25Z")
> Perhaps somebody with more extensive experience can correct me, but FOX > also > seems to have a respectable startup time - slower than Tk, but faster than > Java/Swing. Bear in mind that the Java VM takes a long time to kick in, and that what a lot of people would perceive as being slowness of swing startup is actually startup of the JVM. Having said that, it doesn’t really matter now does it, when you’re comparing Java swing to FXRuby (o: my 2c dim ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Freeze2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@Jim\_Freeze2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Freeze2)\ **Post date:** [12 January 2003 02:39 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/11 "2003-01-12T02:39:56Z")
I think some people may get this impression since FreeRIDE is based on fox. > **···** > > On Saturday, 11 January 2003 at 11:06:50 +0900, Daniel P. Zepeda wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 08:16:12 +0900 \> Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote: > > > > > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard > > > GUI?\ > > > > Where is it said that FOX is being adopted as the standard GUI? There are > > quite a few ruby bindings for other GUI toolkits as well. I don’t think > > there is a “standard” yet, if ever. > > ## – Jim Freeze > > Alex Haley was adopted! ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Sawyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Tom\_Sawyer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tom_Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [12 January 2003 20:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/12 "2003-01-12T20:13:18Z")
Enrique Meza hmmm… this is the first Ruby commerical app i’ve heard of. nice work. in italian only? (that is italian right?) i wonder if there are there other Ruby commercial apps? > **···** > > On Sunday 12 January 2003 10:20 am, Enrique Meza wrote: > > > > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox > > > as its standard GUI? > > > > Well I am using Ruby/GTK and works Great !!. I am > > selling a point of sale called DonManolo → > > [Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://www.geocities.com/emezaj/) . I had some troubles > > with documentation ( all in japanease ). But I think > > is a good choice. > > – > tom sawyer, aka transami > [transami@transami.net](mailto:transami@transami.net) > > ``` > .''. > .''. . *''* :_\/_: . > :_\/_: _\(/_ .:.*_\/_* : /\ : .'.:.'. > > ``` > > ## .‘’.: /\ : ./)\ ‘:’\* /\ \* : ‘..’. -=:o:=- :_/_:‘.:::. | ’ _‘’_ \* ‘.'/.’ _(/_’.‘:’.’ : /\ : ::::: = _/_ -= o =- /)\ ’ \* ‘..’ ‘:::’ === \* /\ \* .‘/.'. ‘.\_\_\_\_\_ \* | _.._ : |. |’ .—"| \* | \_ .–’| || | \_| | \* | .-‘| \_\_ | | | || | .-----. | |’ | || | | | | | || | \_\__’ ’ /“\ | '-.”". ‘-’ ‘-.’ '` |_. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Hickman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecd19e/32.png) [@Peter\_Hickman](https://rubytalk.org/u/Peter_Hickman)\ **Post date:** [13 January 2003 09:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/13 "2003-01-13T09:27:37Z")
Lyle Johnson wrote: > Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me why Ruby is adopting Fox as its standard GUI? > > If Ruby is adopting FOX as its standard GUI, that’s news to me. The only > GUI one might point to as the “standard” for Ruby is Tk, since the > Ruby/Tk extension is part of the standard Ruby source distribution. Additionally Tk runs virtually anywhere. Windows, Linux, Mac OSX (under X) and on those Pocket PCs whith Linux on them. It might be a pig but it is at least a portable pig. When a better GUI toolkit (which is virually anything lets be honest) is part of the standard Ruby distribution on all platforms the way Tk is then I’ll look into using it. Until then however… ---
**Author:** ![HAL\_9000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/90ced4/32.png) [@HAL\_9000](https://rubytalk.org/u/HAL_9000)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 03:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/14 "2003-01-11T03:44:14Z")
Well, I’ll add my $0.02. I’m not aware that Fox is any kind of standard for Ruby. Someone playing with FreeRIDE might get that impression, but even FR will use other GUIs in the future; Fox was just the first. Some people (Curt Hibbs et al.) are working on the bindings for wxWindows. Then a wxWindows engine for FreeRIDE will be developed. I don’t know wxWin, but some people rave about it. I find FX/Ruby acceptable in its API and its look/feel. But then I use Windoze a lot. And, too, the API feels funny in some places. It seems to require a lot of setup and such, relative to Tk. But the look/feel is to me far superior. I have a friend who _hates_ Fox. He hates the look of it. He hates that it’s not (yet) themable. Not only that, but he says he has his limit of N toolkits installed and he refuses to install the (N+1)th. For that matter, he’s not fond of wxWin either. He seems to like GTK and Qt. Most people I talk to seem to think Qt is the best overall. But if you care about compatibility with Windows – it’s not free on MS platforms. Enough rambling. I’ve told you all I know and then some. Hal > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: “Daniel Carrera” [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:06 PM > Subject: Re: Why Fox > > > Holden, Thank you for your response. I found it helpful. > > Perhaps the performance issues I notice are unique to the machine I had > > for some reason. I’ll keep trying to figure out why fox won’t compile on > > the Sun. I’ll see how that works out. > > > > Lyle, thank you for your offer of help. I’ll get back to you after I go > > back to work. > > > > Thanks to all who clarified the role of Fox in Ruby. ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_P\_Zepeda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Daniel\_P\_Zepeda](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_P_Zepeda)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 05:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/15 "2003-01-11T05:16:35Z")
> > It is _not_ difficult to install if you read the docs and follow some > > simple instructions. It took me less than 1/2 hour to install it on a > > Linux system just the other day. Maybe it is hard for someone with > > Linux experience, > Please don’t assume that I don’t have any Linux experience. I’ve been > using Linux and Unix as my sole OS for 5 years. I love tinkering with > the system and I generally install from source. I assure you that I’m > familiar with the ./configure; make; make install. My complaint is that > it doesn’t work on the systems I’ve tried. I didn’t assume that. I merely made the statement that the old ‘configure, make, make install’ might be harder for those with no Linux experience. Actually, the ‘read the docs’ part was more the operative phrase in that paragraph. You were the guy that was having problems with the RPMs originally weren’t you? I believe Lyle pointed you in the direction of installing from source IIRC. Actually, I’m rather surprised that you had such hard time with the ‘configure;make;make install’ routine on the systems you have tried. I’ve done that routine on several distros with no problems, Ok, minor problems, that reading the docs made a ‘no problem.’ I _did_ have to jump through hoops trying to install RPMs on Mandrake, and ended up with an unstable system that crashed my apps regularly. Installing from source cured that. > > I’ve no experience using GTK, nor the newer Qt bindings available for > > Ruby so I can’t compare them, but I’d bet they’d lose on the speed, > > ‘look-and-feel’ front too. > > You shouldn’t make that statement if you don’t have that experience. My > experience with Ruby/Gtk was better on both accounts. I wasn’t (and I’m > not) trying to push any given toolkit. I was asking a question. You are right on that score of course. Should have kept my mouth shut where I didn’t know what I was talking about. > > I’ll tell you why _I_ use FOX/Ruby: They are a _joy_ to code in! > > … and the License is right. Qt, you have to pay a ton for a Windows > > license, Tk, looks Ok, but it’s API is horrid… and WxWindows, well, > > again, the API isn’t so cool as FOX and the cross-platform widget > > problems are there and aren’t they going the way of FOX anyhow? > > Thank you for the input. This explanation is more along the lines of > what I was looking for. Good, I’m glad I could help. > **···** > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:56:37 +0900 Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote: > > > Daniel Carrera > > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 > > > > > Hope this helps, > > > D > > > > > > > I’m sure that there is a very good reason for choosing Fox. I just > > > > want to know what it is. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > Daniel Carrera > > > > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > > > > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 > > > > > > – > > > “Daniel P. Zepeda” \ > > > (Remove commas for address) > > – > “Daniel P. Zepeda” \ > (Remove commas for address) ---
**Author:** ![Enrique\_Meza3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f08c70/32.png) [@Enrique\_Meza3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Enrique_Meza3)\ **Post date:** [13 January 2003 17:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/16 "2003-01-13T17:07:41Z")
> hmmm… this is the first Ruby commerical app i’ve > heard of. nice work. in > italian only? (that is italian right?) No is in spanish. Don Manolo is a “shopkeeper” called “gachupin” in Mexico in the midle of 50’s. Cheers, Enrique Meza // > **···** > > * * * > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > > > **[Yahoo Mail](https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/)** > > > > Take a trip into an upgraded, more organized inbox with Yahoo Mail. Login and start exploring all the free, organizational tools for your email. Check out new themes, send GIFs, find every photo you’ve ever sent or received, and search your account... ---
**Author:** ![Holden\_Glova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/57b2e6/32.png) [@Holden\_Glova](https://rubytalk.org/u/Holden_Glova)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 04:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/17 "2003-01-11T04:06:28Z")
Hi Hal, I’m not sure the issue about QT not being free on windows is correct. This certainly used to be the case a year or more ago, but those times have passed. They have a non-commercial version which gives no support and binary only. There are some other restrictions but I hate legal mumbo jumbo and seeing as I don’t want to go to sleep yet, i might bookmark this and read it later (at bedtime). For those interested: [http://www.trolltech.com/developer/download/qt-win-noncomm.html](http://www.trolltech.com/developer/download/qt-win-noncomm.html) [http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/noncomm.html](http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/noncomm.html) FWIW, I have enjoyed the limited amount of QT experimentation I had. * * * Signed, Holden Glova > **···** > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:44, Hal E. Fulton wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: “Daniel Carrera” [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) > > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:06 PM > > Subject: Re: Why Fox > > > > > Holden, Thank you for your response. I found it helpful. > > > Perhaps the performance issues I notice are unique to the machine I had > > > for some reason. I’ll keep trying to figure out why fox won’t compile on > > > the Sun. I’ll see how that works out. > > > > > > Lyle, thank you for your offer of help. I’ll get back to you after I go > > > back to work. > > > > > > Thanks to all who clarified the role of Fox in Ruby. > > > > Well, I’ll add my $0.02. > > > > I’m not aware that Fox is any kind of standard for Ruby. > > Someone playing with FreeRIDE might get that impression, > > but even FR will use other GUIs in the future; Fox was > > just the first. > > > > Some people (Curt Hibbs et al.) are working on the > > bindings for wxWindows. Then a wxWindows engine for > > FreeRIDE will be developed. > > > > I don’t know wxWin, but some people rave about it. > > > > I find FX/Ruby acceptable in its API and its look/feel. > > But then I use Windoze a lot. > > > > And, too, the API feels funny in some places. It seems > > to require a lot of setup and such, relative to Tk. But > > the look/feel is to me far superior. > > > > I have a friend who _hates_ Fox. He hates the look of it. > > He hates that it’s not (yet) themable. Not only that, but > > he says he has his limit of N toolkits installed and he > > refuses to install the (N+1)th. For that matter, he’s not > > fond of wxWin either. He seems to like GTK and Qt. > > > > Most people I talk to seem to think Qt is the best overall. > > But if you care about compatibility with Windows – it’s > > not free on MS platforms. > > > > Enough rambling. I’ve told you all I know > > and then some. > > > > Hal ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 05:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/18 "2003-01-11T05:27:43Z")
> You were the guy that was having problems with the RPMs > originally weren’t you? I believe Lyle pointed you in the direction of > installing from source IIRC. I don’t see your point. I tried source and it didn’t work. I then tried RPMs and that didn’t work either. Lyle was kind enough to offer instructions for installing from source, but I already knew how. I still haven’t managed to install from source. I’ll try again when I get back to work. > Actually, I’m rather surprised that you had such hard time with the > ‘configure;make;make install’ routine on the systems you have tried. Me too. Source compiles usually work great for me. When the don’t I can generally figure out why and fix it. Strange. Cheers, Daniel Carrera Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 ---
**Author:** ![Gour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@Gour](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gour)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 07:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/19 "2003-01-11T07:29:09Z")
I did install Fox on my Linux box without any problem, but still Qt has advantage because of Unicode support (there is also Designer tool). I heard that Unicode is also planned for Fox, but don’t know about any date. However, Ruby/Qt community does not look very active. My $0.02. Sincerely, Gour > **···** > > Hal E. Fulton ([hal9000@hypermetrics.com](mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com)) wrote: > > > Most people I talk to seem to think Qt is the best overall. > > But if you care about compatibility with Windows – it’s > > not free on MS platforms. > > – > Gour > gour@mail.inet.hr > Registered Linux User #278493 ---
**Author:** ![Park\_Heesob3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c89c15/32.png) [@Park\_Heesob3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Park_Heesob3)\ **Post date:** [11 January 2003 08:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055/20 "2003-01-11T08:34:33Z")
Refer to [The GUI Toolkit, Framework Page](http://www.atai.org/guitool/) Almost complete GUI Toolkit document, but there is no mention about Ruby or FXRuby. Park Heesob > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: “Hal E. Fulton” [hal9000@hypermetrics.com](mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com) > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 12:44 PM > Subject: Re: Why Fox > > > Most people I talk to seem to think Qt is the best overall. > > But if you care about compatibility with Windows – it’s > > not free on MS platforms. [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/why-fox/4055.md?page=2)