Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by mark45 View Post
    Reason - I don't do cross platform, I do Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is about Gtk. Qt for Ubuntu is an afterthought, especially after they declared Kubuntu a community project, it was never as polished as Ubuntu anyway.
    It was my understanding that Canonical had plans to develop Unity on Qt. Then they decided to continue with gtk. I think they should have opted for Qt. As some people said, Unity-2D in Qt worked very well.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
      Sure they don't contribute to some projects in the open - they prefer to modify stuff in their own forks to avoid other benefiting from their enhancements.
      ...except for the fact, that anyone can take ubuntu's patches (and/or sources) for any given app/lib/etc and use them if they like, as some people do... for example, in the AUR (Archlinux User Repository) there are versions of software that include certain ubuntu patches.

      Ubutnu/Canonical 'prefer' there own forked code because (in many cases) there patches would most likely be rejected by their corresponding upstream (developers) anyway. Ubuntu's patches often aren't useful (from the developers perspective) and/or don't fit into the upstream project's goals. ie: why would gnome want to add ubuntu's patches to gnome-system-settings? (that are only useful for Unity), or why would gnome want to add ubuntu's gtk2/3 patches for overlay scrollbars? (which for me anyway, would be a feature i would NOT want).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
        I guess the issue with the GTK backends is that it's not truly modular, and it needs to load the dependancies for all compiled in backends at run time, instead of just loading the specified backend like QT...

        ...but the dependancies really are not that much.
        They wouldn't be much if all it did was require the packages be installed. But requiring the wayland libraries and their dependencies be loaded into memory, even though nothing in Ubuntu is likely to be using them any time in the next year or two? I think that's a reasonable blocker... no good reason to proceed with shipping Wayland-enabled Gtk+ until the Gtk+ backends can be isolated more effectively.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by YAFU View Post
          It was my understanding that Canonical had plans to develop Unity on Qt. Then they decided to continue with gtk. I think they should have opted for Qt. As some people said, Unity-2D in Qt worked very well.
          Yes, Qt should have been their choice, but they were biased towards Gtk from the get go, plus, their developers are like script kiddies, they like writing a lot of stuff in Python even when it's a bad idea (software center and other core sophisticated stuff is written in Python, no wonder it loads like a fat cow).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by asdx
            It's Qt, not QT.

            Come on guys.
            Who gives a crap, it's like correcting guys who say FireFox, or Java Script.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
              They wouldn't be much if all it did was require the packages be installed. But requiring the wayland libraries and their dependencies be loaded into memory, even though nothing in Ubuntu is likely to be using them any time in the next year or two? I think that's a reasonable blocker... no good reason to proceed with shipping Wayland-enabled Gtk+ until the Gtk+ backends can be isolated more effectively.
              Effective? Common. Writing the software updates, sources and the software center and other apps in Python is effective? It's like eating 5 pizzas at once and drinking diet coke.
              Last edited by mark45; 12-18-2012, 02:52 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                The main point of the discussion is solved by Gentoo having USE-flags that let the USER decide which optional features to build or not. And yes, gtk+:3 has a wayland USE-flag.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jannis View Post
                  The main point of the discussion is solved by Gentoo having USE-flags that let the USER decide which optional features to build or not. And yes, gtk+:3 has a wayland USE-flag.
                  Except people are talking about Ubuntu here? Sure, due to the way Gentoo works it's not a problem, but it is a problem for distributions that ship binaries...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                    Except people are talking about Ubuntu here? Sure, due to the way Gentoo works it's not a problem, but it is a problem for distributions that ship binaries...
                    Gentoo users have other problems like half-assed builds and failing system components. If wayland support in GTK+ is the only problem of Ubuntu then I'm very happy for us Kubuntu users.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Do not use Ubuntu!

                      They're trying to get the "GNU/Linux == Ubuntu" into the heads of our kids.
                      And unfortunately they're doing this amazingly well marketing-wise.
                      I know a bunch of people new to Ubuntu (and Linux) who don't know/see that Ubuntu is "just" another distribution.
                      That will get worse since Valve has chosen Ubuntu as the tier-one distribution. :/
                      Last edited by entropy; 12-18-2012, 08:05 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by entropy View Post
                        Do not use Ubuntu!

                        They're trying to get the "GNU/Linux == Ubuntu" into the heads of our kids.
                        And unfortunately they're doing this amazingly well marketing-wise.
                        I know a bunch of people new to Ubuntu (and Linux) who don't know/see that Ubuntu is "just" another distribution.
                        That will get worse since Valve has chosen Ubuntu as the tier-one distribution. :/
                        Ubuntu has incredible level of polish. Almost everything works out of the box and w/o bugs. Why the hell should end-user give a fuck about GNU/Linux crap? Come on.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Well it's obviously a matter of personal taste.

                          But...

                          Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                          Ubuntu has incredible level of polish. Almost everything works out of the box and w/o bugs.
                          Maybe they're aiming for this. Not accomplished yet!

                          It does some things very easy which helps new users, indeed. The installation process for instance.
                          But incredible level of polish? Everything works out of the box and w/o bugs?
                          Not my experience at all.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by entropy View Post
                            But incredible level of polish? Everything works out of the box and w/o bugs?
                            Not my experience at all.
                            Certainly beats Fedora (which fails to BOOT under certain hardware) and openSUSE (with dysfunctional HP printer support).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by asdx
                              Please never write any documentation then. Because I don't want to go around fixing the crap other people "who don't give a crap" make.
                              Do I give a fuck about that? No. You shouldn't as well.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ninez View Post
                                Ubutnu/Canonical 'prefer' there own forked code because (in many cases) there patches would most likely be rejected by their corresponding upstream (developers) anyway. Ubuntu's patches often aren't useful (from the developers perspective) and/or don't fit into the upstream project's goals.
                                They also have actually useful patches, that would also work with upstream goals, that they just haven't bothered to even submit.

                                For example their kernel patches for async isapnp and async initrd extraction. Both have been shipping in Ubuntu for several years now, and have been submitted upstream exactly zero times that I know of. Especially the latter would be widely useful.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X