Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In Road To Qt, Audacious Switches From GTK3 Back To GTK2

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by hungerfish View Post
    funny reading this. Until now, I wasn't aware that they wanted to port to Qt. Going back to gtk2 for stability makes some sense, as gtk2 is as stable as it's going to get!
    I've been a long time audacious user but recently switched away from it, preferring qt programs with my kde desktop.
    Until audacious makes 'the right' switch toolkit-wise, I guess it wouldn't be wrong to link to http://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/.
    Qmmp is like audacious, at least it support the classic winamp interface styles and does what it says on the box - play music!
    if i understood correctly, stability was not the problem. i wrote (or b1tched about it, pure matter of choice) about troubles when making gtk3 cross platform application more than few times here. your application simply looks and works in no consistent way as system it is running on, unless you run gnome

    sad fact is "gtk+ is not gtk+, at least not even close to mission statement on gtk.org". in some parts, it is completely bastardized version of some insane gnome design decisions. and unlike old gtk+, where gnome specific things were separated, gtk3 includes some gnome insanities in its core, where old cross compatible things are getting tagged as deprecated

    although, it is worth mentioning. last statements from gtk devs were more positive (fixing some most outstanding bugs for cp development, finally road to stable 4...), bit too late though. and unless they change their plans a little, they might have lost those last developers that are still using it for non gnome. whole road to 4 seems perfect until you read that scene graph is blocker for release 4. gtk never come close to it, way off to have it finalized with good design/api/functionalities. suddenly 4 is reaaaaally faaaaaaar away. if they added it as unstable separate lib of gtk4 and worked on it while 4 is online, they could get both. faster 4 release and more time to work on scene graph. but, longer the time they take, more developers will simply start using qt

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by alazar View Post
      Anybody knows any tablet with gnome 3 in it? I would like to know if at least all those decissions they've made are worth anything.
      They are worth it, on the desktop, which is where you use it. Not without exceptions though.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post
        although, it is worth mentioning. last statements from gtk devs were more positive (fixing some most outstanding bugs for cp development, finally road to stable 4...), bit too late though. and unless they change their plans a little, they might have lost those last developers that are still using it for non gnome. whole road to 4 seems perfect until you read that scene graph is blocker for release 4. gtk never come close to it, way off to have it finalized with good design/api/functionalities. suddenly 4 is reaaaaally faaaaaaar away. if they added it as unstable separate lib of gtk4 and worked on it while 4 is online, they could get both. faster 4 release and more time to work on scene graph. but, longer the time they take, more developers will simply start using qt
        I wasn't able to read much of what you said, but the last bit about QT adoption... kind of strikes me as a good thing. I'm sick of the toolkit split.

        Comment


        • #19
          Drop audacious and use QMMP!

          Once upon a time wrote for QMMP output plugins JACK and OSS.

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't know what's wrong with gtk-3 based Audacious... It looks fine for me. I use GTK interface, but Winamp interface also seems to look fine.

            Gtk2 is a bit faster and more stable on Windows. Though I sometimes use current pygobject (gtk3 for python) on windows and it's IMO acceptable. On linux I don't have any issues with gtk3.

            It's also strange that they are switching from recently ported gtk3 to gtk2, and they are going to switch to qt... Not sure if they really know what they want...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by deve View Post
              It's also strange that they are switching from recently ported gtk3 to gtk2, and they are going to switch to qt... Not sure if they really know what they want...
              It's not strange at all. They're going back to GTK2 to stay away from GTK3 while they develop the Qt version.

              Comment


              • #22
                Monochrome icons in file-chooser do NOT respond to themes

                Originally posted by oleid View Post
                /me not understanding...

                What monochrome icons? Isn't that, what icon themes are for?

                Client side window decorations are optional, AFAIK. Yet, they allow greater flexibility for the application designer.

                Android message windows?

                Furthermore, using some #ifdefs and a few build system tweaks, a gtk3 app should compile as gtk2 app.
                I cannot find any options to replace the monochrome icons in the gtk-file-chooser. They are a glaring mismatch to my custom theme, the only way I can think of to get rid of them would be to custom compile GTK3 with the icons manually switched out for my own. That would require keeping all the build-deps for GTK3 installed, rebuilding everytime GTK3 gets an update something else depends on, and be yet another fork away from the Ubuntu base of my own private remix of Ubuntustudio and Mint with perhaps a dozen installations to mantain.

                If GTK3 continues in this direction, that work by the MATE team to port GTK2 to Wayland will become damned important in a few years, and the Cinnamon folks may have to lock and fork GTK3 just to keep their themes looking reasonable and window controls working. They've already had to fork most of GNOME, if they have to fork GTK3 and maybe even Clutter that's a lot more work for the mint team.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I can understand their position. I fucking hate tablets and their interfaces for dumbed-down people.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Gnome Music app keeps getting better and better. I haven't opened Audacious in 3 years.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
                      I wasn't able to read much of what you said, but the last bit about QT adoption... kind of strikes me as a good thing. I'm sick of the toolkit split.
                      main flaw of gtk3 is ever changing state and the fact your application looks/works completely different than everything if you don't run it in gnome. but, there were also components that are not present anywhere like AppMenu to make it even worse.

                      last announcements from gtk were fixing most things that were problematic for non gnome developers. only bug i can see is that they want to wait with releasing of stable 4 for scene graph. which can be way too long

                      qt adoption is not necessary good thing. it was competition that created dual licensed qt after all. and i'm yet to see one decent looking qt theme

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Qt should be the new standard, really. But it needs to drop the proprietary version. Become the "SDL of desktop applications".

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yeah... I wish gnucash would switch to qt. It looks pretty ugly under windows or kde.

                          I currently use clementine for my music player (which is qt based) and it looks native on win/mac/linux/kde/gnome/etc.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Gains what?

                            Not reading much about this porting decision but I'm wondering what benefit it could have by going Qt.

                            Better cross-platform support? Yes, Qt4/5 indeed has better support on Win and OS X. But how many users who may want to use cross-platform audacious over many existing ones native on these platform.

                            Better Linux support? Porting to Qt4 will lose Wayland support in GTK3+. Qt5, well, has not been widely adopted by Linux distributions. Besides, desktop linux is no longer the focus point of Qt world.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                              Qt should be the new standard, really. But it needs to drop the proprietary version. Become the "SDL of desktop applications".
                              The proprietary version is what makes the free one so good. There are alternative business models that could work without it, but Digia uses it to fund development so we can get the general toolkit under GPL / LGPL. It is like if you made a video game where the base game was FOSS and it had proprietary DLC you paid for to support core development.

                              That would actually be an interesting game development model. Albeit it is basically freemium except with more freedom.

                              I never looked at Qt until they changed the license model, but honestly what Digia does with their clients doesn't matter to me - I usually won't use the proprietary software produced with it anyway (I have Skype in a container for a few of my friends who like selling their souls to MS...) but we get a GPL toolkit that kicks butt with license protection from KDE.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lovenemesis View Post
                                Not reading much about this porting decision but I'm wondering what benefit it could have by going Qt.

                                Better cross-platform support? Yes, Qt4/5 indeed has better support on Win and OS X. But how many users who may want to use cross-platform audacious over many existing ones native on these platform.

                                Better Linux support? Porting to Qt4 will lose Wayland support in GTK3+. Qt5, well, has not been widely adopted by Linux distributions. Besides, desktop linux is no longer the focus point of Qt world.
                                Then what should we do? Linux desktop other than GNOME isn't the focus point of GTK3. Should we fork GTK2?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X