Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Finds New Love With Qt

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    Well, at least Gtk 2.x has to die. It looks like ass on anything but Gtk-based DEs. Every time I fire up a Gtk app on KDE, I want to kill a bunny and curse at God for allowing people to create such monstrosities. Hopefully Gtk 3 solved that?
    I used to feel like that about Gtk 1

    Gtk 2 was a marked improvement!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by monraaf View Post
      But the bigger issue for me is consistency, one thing I have always liked about GNOME is the minimalistic UI that doesn't get in the way. Developers of Qt apps on the other hand seem to more follow the Microsoft Windows philosophy, with cluttered UIs and too many options.
      I'm assuming Canonical will be taking this into account when choosing applications. That said, I don't completely agree with you. There are plenty of Qt applications with a minimal UI.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        I don't understand why people think that either GTK or Qt have to die.

        They are both decent toolkits, and they have their developer bases.

        Neither Windows nor Mac have just one toolkit, so why should Linux, where choice is revered?

        A couple of high-quality themes which apply to both will solve the visual discrepancies, and then you're set.
        we are also going to have e17 in a few months (or years who knows )

        what bothers me is having a non consistent desktop experience with apps looking like shit.

        we also need central configuration for the toolkits (have no idea if its achievable) and matching themes

        it would be better resource wise to have one toolkit or at least a big set of common libraries (ie why do we need both ffmpeg and gstreamer and whatever else does the same job)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by birdie View Post
          That's all nice, Qt fanboys now rejoice, now let's solve some real Linux problems.
          Thanks for that, glad to know there are users out there who care about open source software as a whole. I was happy to read concerns about real open standards was mentioned and is part of the concern, as "standards within distro X" by definition means they are not standards.

          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          I don't think so.

          But the rise of MeeGo will make Qt much more relevant in the future.
          If MeeGo finally ever truly sees the light of day. I'm very much looking forward to the ARM coalition to standardize the arch and maybe then we'll finally have devices that we can buy and install ARM Linux software on just like they were any standard computer without having to have specific compiled software for specific devices the way it is now.

          Not to mention, the cellular companies with their anti-standards contract-based device-lock-in market aren't helping on that front, at least not in America. Oh Europe and your government-mandated pro-consumer standards like SIM cards, how I envy thee.

          Originally posted by cl333r View Post
          Replace tomboy with gnote and throw away gbrainy and the mono runtime and all its dependencies. There, space problem pretty much solved.

          ps: Those (few) who think they absolutely need tomboy and can't live with gnote can install it.
          Gnote is awesome and is a complete replacement for Tomboy so I don't know where the love for .NET lies because even complaints about .NET being a better programming language can be erased thanks to language choices like Vala, which is better as it is not a "managed environment"/VM or whatnot like .NET is, so it's faster.

          Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
          we are also going to have e17 in a few months (or years who knows )

          what bothers me is having a non consistent desktop experience with apps looking like shit.

          we also need central configuration for the toolkits (have no idea if its achievable) and matching themes

          it would be better resource wise to have one toolkit or at least a big set of common libraries (ie why do we need both ffmpeg and gstreamer and whatever else does the same job)
          Basically what Gallium is for graphics drivers is what is needed on this front too, fully agreed. In other words, abstracting/separating the actual visual look/theme from the underlying GUI core. Then if you wanted to use GTK for the core, or Qt for the core, it wouldn't matter as it'd still look the same.

          The same thing needs to be done to the Linux kernel too so there are actually real standard interfaces for drivers. I refuse to believe that it's impossible to have a standard method of communication between system components that can't be made in such a way to allow for upgrades while maintaining compatibility. If you can have systems like DBus, you can have communication standards between drivers and other parts of the kernel.

          Comment


          • #20
            Finally Ubuntu developers are waking up...

            Well, it seems Ubuntu developers finally woke up and are forgetting (a bit) that there's only GNOME/GTK+ apps/desktop in the linux world...

            I also hope they start to develop some lightweight applications using the Qt framework instead of GTK+. It wouldn't just be good for Ubuntu, but maybe also for other distros...

            About some people saying Qt is a too huge application: Well, if you're compiling Qt in your PC along their debug libraries, you'll take about 700MB of installation (Qt 4.7).
            If you're compiling all main Qt runtime libraries (QtDevelop, QtCore, QtWebkit, QtMultimedia, QtPhonon, etc.), you'll have a full-blown access to them with about "just" 100MB of disk space.
            If you just want to compile the main Qt "Core", it isn't bigger in your disk than 20MB.

            Cheers

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              Well, at least Gtk 2.x has to die. It looks like ass on anything but Gtk-based DEs. Every time I fire up a Gtk app on KDE, I want to kill a bunny and curse at God for allowing people to create such monstrosities. Hopefully Gtk 3 solved that?
              You're funny

              Comment


              • #22
                If this means Brasero's out and K3B's in, I'm all for it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DanL View Post
                  If this means Brasero's out and K3B's in, I'm all for it.
                  No chance, since (a) K3B relies on kdelibs, not just Qt and (b) it sucks compared to Brasero.

                  The size issue can be solved simply enough: remove Rhythmbox and Totem and install Banshee (the new one, with DVD support). There, problem solved.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                    [K3B] sucks compared to Brasero.
                    You're joking, right? Either that, or you're totally blind.

                    PS:
                    If you really are blind, my apologies.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cl333r View Post
                      Replace tomboy with gnote and throw away gbrainy and the mono runtime and all its dependencies. There, space problem pretty much solved.
                      That would be perfect, if some idiot hadn't chosen to replace rhythmbox with banshee...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                        No chance, since (a) K3B relies on kdelibs, not just Qt and (b) it sucks compared to Brasero.

                        The size issue can be solved simply enough: remove Rhythmbox and Totem and install Banshee (the new one, with DVD support). There, problem solved.
                        Not a chance. The smartest and most efficient way (mono apps are damn slow and bloated compared to C,C++ and Vala apps; if you want to see a benchmark just say) is to get rid of crap called mono and thus mono based applications. Imagine how much space will be left. Then install Clementine. Btw. I like this Canonical move.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          Not a chance. The smartest and most efficient way (mono apps are damn slow and bloated compared to C,C++ and Vala apps; if you want to see a benchmark just say) is to get rid of crap called mono and thus mono based applications. Imagine how much space will be left. Then install Clementine. Btw. I like this Canonical move.
                          Too bad (for you) that Mono facilitates best-of-breed applications. We'll be seeing more of it as time passes, you can bet on this.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                            You're joking, right? Either that, or you're totally blind.
                            No, I'm 100% serious. I have both installed and I prefer Brasero by leaps and bounds. It's simple, clean and it works perfectly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                              No, I'm 100% serious. I have both installed and I prefer Brasero by leaps and bounds. It's simple, clean and it works perfectly.
                              Translation: Lacks functionality, configurability and works just as well. Yep. Those are the "good" apps nowadays, I guess.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
                                Basically what Gallium is for graphics drivers is what is needed on this front too, fully agreed. In other words, abstracting/separating the actual visual look/theme from the underlying GUI core. Then if you wanted to use GTK for the core, or Qt for the core, it wouldn't matter as it'd still look the same..
                                This abstraction already exist, it is called Qt!

                                Applications written against the Qt API will use whatever toolkit your DE is using behind the scene, be that Win32, Carbon, Gtk+ or Qt...

                                Yes, that means Qt applications will render the GUI using Gtk+ by default when running on GNOME, making them look like native Gtk+ applications (because when running on GNOME they are native Gtk+ applications).

                                Unfortunately the converse is not true for Gtk+ applications running on KDE.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X