Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wireshark 1.99.2 Works On Its Qt Interface

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wireshark 1.99.2 Works On Its Qt Interface

    Phoronix: Wireshark 1.99.2 Works On Its Qt Interface

    Wireshark 2.0 has stepped closer to being released with the new Wireshark 1.99.2 development release. This new Wireshark release continues work on porting its UI to Qt...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Will the Qt version for Mac allow me to get rid of that buggy XQuartz?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chol View Post
      Will the Qt version for Mac allow me to get rid of that buggy XQuartz?
      Qt on Mac works superb in general.

      Just recently, I did an Uni project and used the Qt.
      These **holes require that the code works on Windows, so I did the development on Linux, and ported it to Windows
      and to Mac too, just for fun (I have OSX in VM to know this evil better)

      Last edited by Maxim Levitsky; 05 February 2015, 11:56 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems they still support qt4 in 1.99.2 O_O
        I just compiled the QT5 flavor.
        ## VGA ##
        AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
        Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

        Comment


        • #5
          They stuck with classic Qt

          Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
          It seems they still support qt4 in 1.99.2 O_O
          I just compiled the QT5 flavor.
          Should be compatable with both 4 & 5 as they are using Qt not QML, obviously for performance reasons. QML is verly slow and bloated for desktop apps such as this

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Maxim Levitsky View Post
            Qt on Mac works superb in general.
            Yeah... as someone developing a Qt 5.4 application on the Mac I can tell you it is less than "superb".

            Comment


            • #7
              Would not expect it to get better

              Originally posted by bpetty View Post
              Yeah... as someone developing a Qt 5.4 application on the Mac I can tell you it is less than "superb".
              Wireshark is a Widget appliation and Digia has pretty much put Widgets out to pasture as they have not done any substantial work with widgets in two years, and it looks like this will not change. While I like QML for what it is, it really fails for large industrial desktop applications.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DarkCloud View Post
                QML is verly slow and bloated for desktop apps such as this
                What fubar is this? The overhead of QML is almost entirely static, in that the primary overhead is the QML runtime engine and compiler. That is constant for any app using it, and it only needs to be loaded once if you have a lot of QML based apps (ie, that is why plasma-desktop uses a lot of RAM nowadays under KDE5, where it usually uses around 200MB at boot, but then you can throw dozens of widgets on it and the memory usage barely goes up).

                I will admit it is unnecessarily high overhead because the Qt project refuses to open source their QML to binary compiler. If they did that it would have pretty much no overhead over Qt Widgets and it would be always hardware accelerated. Even now the difference is negligible besides the runtime library memory overhead and startup costs of loading it and compiling everything the first time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by zanny View Post
                  Qt project refuses to open source their QML to binary compiler.
                  Should be pretty easy to create an open source version. QML is just javascript with a bunch of callback hooks running in V8.
                  Just get it to do AOT instead of JIT. I shouldn't speculate, because I haven't used QML nor have I "compiled" it... but I would not be surprised if that is what they are doing and calling it "compiled".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Almost static

                    Originally posted by zanny View Post
                    What fubar is this? The overhead of QML is almost entirely static, in that the primary overhead is the QML runtime engine and compiler. That is constant for any app using it, and it only needs to be loaded once if you have a lot of QML based apps (ie, that is why plasma-desktop uses a lot of RAM nowadays under KDE5, where it usually uses around 200MB at boot, but then you can throw dozens of widgets on it and the memory usage barely goes up).

                    I will admit it is unnecessarily high overhead because the Qt project refuses to open source their QML to binary compiler. If they did that it would have pretty much no overhead over Qt Widgets and it would be always hardware accelerated. Even now the difference is negligible besides the runtime library memory overhead and startup costs of loading it and compiling everything the first time.
                    Except when you want to create more objects like in a large table and want to sort them very fast. Also just try to load a 400 meg file into a table in QML Table and also in QTableView (Wiget) then get back to me

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X