Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Mozilla Firefox On Wayland Is Progressing

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    A bag of hurt known as Qt where every idea needs a button and configuration option. Pass.
    I guess you don't know what Qt is or you confuse it with KDE - the developer decides how many buttons and configurations he makes, not the toolkit.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    He wouldn't accept reality: his skewed view on FOSS would be forever warped by a 25+ year foundation of frameworks dating back to 1989 NeXTSTEP 1.0 which has seen every single OS since blatantly rip it off, however poorly.
    Accept reality, okay - it's an Apple fanboy!

    That has nothing to do with Apple, it's about Linux - or does MacOSX use Wayland? I don't think so!

    Back to topic, that's why I don't want GTK3: http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3...slenvm_jpg.htm

    It's ugly, it wastes screen space. Pass.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    A bag of hurt known as Qt where every idea needs a button and configuration option. Pass.
    You must be confusing different things. Qt is a set of libraries, they don't have an UI themselves.

    Developers building Qt can decide certain option at configuration times, a technique usually referred to as build-options.
    Users of applications built with Qt can influence certain features by setting environment variables before launching the application.

    Developers creating applications might expose configuration options in their applications' UI, but that is obviously independent of the library being used.

    Cheers,
    _

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JörnS View Post
    GTK3 *puke*

    I hope they will face the same issues like Audacious and port to Qt. I would prefer even Lynx over a GTK3-Firefox. Gnome team doesn't care about external projects, so I don't care about them!
    Let Mozilla and Collabora discover their mistake by themselves.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JörnS View Post
    Accept reality, okay - it's an Apple fanboy!

    That has nothing to do with Apple, it's about Linux - or does MacOSX use Wayland? I don't think so!

    Back to topic, that's why I don't want GTK3: http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3...slenvm_jpg.htm

    It's ugly, it wastes screen space. Pass.
    Why should they port to qt. It is suicide for them to use it in mac and windows environment. The port has only use in linux. And Qt still has very small market share in linux. Maybe Canonical can change that in a few years, but this has still not happened. In a gtk environment qt is able to (somewhat) integrate with a soon deprecated gtk2. Before Canonical release a usable desktop version of unity it is a idiotic project to waste money at.
    Cocoa is at lest used with a platform with a "measurable" market share.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Why should they port to qt. It is suicide for them to use it in mac and windows environment. The port has only use in linux. And Qt still has very small market share in linux. Maybe Canonical can change that in a few years, but this has still not happened. In a gtk environment qt is able to (somewhat) integrate with a soon deprecated gtk2. Before Canonical release a usable desktop version of unity it is a idiotic project to waste money at.
    Cocoa is at lest used with a platform with a "measurable" market share.
    Are you aware that KDE apps use Qt? Maybe Qt is not more used than Gtk+, I don't know, but for sure it doesn't have a "very small market share in linux".

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Why should they port to qt. It is suicide for them to use it in mac and windows environment. The port has only use in linux. And Qt still has very small market share in linux. Maybe Canonical can change that in a few years, but this has still not happened. In a gtk environment qt is able to (somewhat) integrate with a soon deprecated gtk2. Before Canonical release a usable desktop version of unity it is a idiotic project to waste money at.
    Cocoa is at lest used with a platform with a "measurable" market share.
    It is about Linux, not about Windows or OSX. Both Windows and OSX are not affected with the GTK3 port, nor would they be affected by a port to Qt. By the way, the most used desktop on Linux is KDE - which is based on Qt. I'm not sure, but Canonical's Unity 8 will be based on Qt, I think (Unity2D was, that's for sure). Then there is LXQt, the successor of LXDE and RazorQt and there are some other small desktops based on Qt. All in all, Qt has the highest market share on Linux, I think.

    Even if this is not correct: Qt integrates really good in every desktop, GTK3 does not. CSD, anyone?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Why should they port to qt.
    Projects are abandoning GTK left and right in favor of Qt because GTK3 is so bad. GTK2 was popular, GTK3 is not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •