Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LXDE Desktop Being Ported To Qt

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

  • LXDE Desktop Being Ported To Qt

    Phoronix: LXDE Desktop Being Ported To Qt

    The lightweight LXDE desktop will be slowly transitioning from being GTK2-based to using the Qt tool-kit...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQwMjg

  • #2
    I feel GTK coms a bit more and more redundant...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      The lightweight LXDE desktop will be slowly transitioning from being GTK2-based to using the Qt tool-kit...

      Did they say why they wanted to port to Qt? Considering that there is already Razor-Qt which fills the same niche and considering that a port from GTK+ to Qt amounts to a complete rewrite (a port from GTK+2 to GTK+3 is quite simple btw), the whole plan seems rather pointless.

      Comment


      • #4
        Now Gtk _is_ redundant since Red Hat doesn't have to fear Qt that much since it's been open sourced a long ago. Qt is also growing at the expense of Gtk, I recall Linus moving his app from Gtk to Qt, Canonical moving slowly to Qt.

        Fact is Qt5 is a much better alternative to Gtk 2/3 with lots of libs, I've been doing Gtk+ for a few yeas but I'm planning to move to Qt as well, I tried qt5 out it looks great.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mark45 View Post
          Now Gtk _is_ redundant since Red Hat doesn't have to fear Qt that much since it's been open sourced a long ago. Qt is also growing at the expense of Gtk, I recall Linus moving his app from Gtk to Qt, Canonical moving slowly to Qt.

          Fact is Qt5 is a much better alternative to Gtk 2/3 with lots of libs, I've been doing Gtk+ for a few yeas but I'm planning to move to Qt as well, I tried qt5 out it looks great.
          Hmm, PCman said porting from GTK2-> Qt is easyer than porting to GTK3.

          Comment


          • #6
            Qt is by far a better choice when doing cross-platform development, that's true. However, API-wise, I prefer cairo over the Qt equivalent, as it allows me to plot to PDF files without having a display connected (if I recall correctly, QPrinter needs an QApplication object which needs DISPLAY to be set. And QConsoleApplication seems not to work in conjunction with QPrinter -- not checked if this is still true for Qt5).

            Also, there is a better binding support for GTK compared to Qt, simply because not every language supports the usage C++ libraries - this is true for e.g. Haskell. While there _are_ haskell bindings for Qt, they can't be considered usable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Thaodan View Post
              Hmm, PCman said porting from GTK2-> Qt is easier than porting to GTK3.
              I am inclined to doubt that, as long as your code is well-written.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Thaodan View Post
                I feel GTK coms a bit more and more redundant...
                I would be happy to see the Linux desktop ecosystem go towards a single GUI-toolkit world. It would defragment things a little bit at least and ease app development. And probably lead to a better desktop experience.
                Last edited by jukkan; 07-04-2013, 07:21 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hey, what happened to funkystar (or whatever his nick was), that Qt/KDE hater?

                  But yay! Qt is pretty awesome these days

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Maybe the difficulties of third party dealing with libgtk3 instabilities, influenced the decision.
                    Minor releases generated constant complains of breakage from developers and theme creators.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jukkan View Post
                      I would be happy to see the Linux desktop ecosystem go towards a single GUI-toolkit world. It would defragment things a little bit at least and ease app development. And probably lead to a better desktop experience.
                      So what would you do to EFL, WxWidgets, Motif, SDL, Clutter and the rest? How exactly would it benefit anything to have less choice of toolkits? How would it "defragment" anything, and how would it ease app development? App developers can already choose whatever toolkit they want, you'd want them to have less choice - how'd that make anything easier?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dee. View Post
                        So what would you do to EFL, WxWidgets, Motif, SDL, Clutter and the rest? How exactly would it benefit anything to have less choice of toolkits? How would it "defragment" anything, and how would it ease app development? App developers can already choose whatever toolkit they want, you'd want them to have less choice - how'd that make anything easier?
                        Agreed.

                        No platform has a single toolkit, not Windows, not OSX, and certainly not Linux.

                        What is needed is consistent look&feel and theming. Qt has done this for a long time, automatically adapting to GTK, Mac and Windows themes. GTK refuses to add this functionality, although it exists.

                        That's the problem. Make them look the same and let the developers choose whatever they feel more comfortable with.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by oleid View Post
                          Qt is by far a better choice when doing cross-platform development, that's true. However, API-wise, I prefer cairo over the Qt equivalent
                          Cairo is no part of GTK. It's an independent project that also works with Qt applications.

                          Originally posted by oleid View Post
                          Did they say why they wanted to port to Qt? Considering that there is already Razor-Qt which fills the same niche and considering that a port from GTK+ to Qt amounts to a complete rewrite (a port from GTK+2 to GTK+3 is quite simple btw), the whole plan seems rather pointless.
                          Read the added paragraph in the blog post about Razor.

                          Originally posted by oleid View Post
                          I am inclined to doubt that, as long as your code is well-written.
                          Check the LXDE blog. It's all explained there in previous posts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Isn't Qt5 significantly heavier than GTK+2? The point of LXDE is to be lightweight, and in comparison to Xfce, it is. I used to have an Lxde setup that used about 45MB of RAM when booting to the desktop and I used it daily. I don't see this happening with Qt5.


                            Another thing I wanted to point out is what happens when a distro is released with LXDE and Wayland? That kind of makes the X in LXDE a bit incorrect.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dee. View Post
                              So what would you do to EFL, WxWidgets, Motif, SDL, Clutter and the rest? How exactly would it benefit anything to have less choice of toolkits? How would it "defragment" anything, and how would it ease app development? App developers can already choose whatever toolkit they want, you'd want them to have less choice - how'd that make anything easier?
                              You forgot Fox Toolkit and FLTK.
                              • WxWidgets: ewww. I wanted to like it, but it has these little bugs all over the place that make it.. well, ewww
                              • SDL: Now you are mixing cattles with aliens. SDL is a great tool for bringing full screen OpenGL content to a platform (see Steam), but it's not what you'd call a general purpose GUI framework (you know, with input boxes, buttons and all that stuff). It's a layer below.
                              • Clutter: It's dusty and out of active development.

                              I like Qt though. It's cross-platform, quite versitale and powerfull and most importantly it's quite clean and nice to work with + it has good documentation.

                              Edit: Of course, I would enjoy to see people produce alternatives.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X