Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: Ubuntu Finds New Love With Qt

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    My only comment here is that including the qt-core and qt-gui libs on the Live CD will be difficult to impossible...
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    For some reason -and i cannot explain it- i get the feeling that GTK is declining

    Qt seems to have more support from big companies and gaining momentum.

    Might be wrong though.
    One of the reasons for GTK's adoption was because people were scared of Qt's longterm licensing. Now that Qt is available as LGPL I think it has quelled some people's fears. In addition, I honestly think Qt is a far more complete toolkit thanks to its corporate backing, not to mention easier to develop with in my opinion.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    985

    Default

    I've found the CD size distribution always a plus point, and am not particularly fond of this mixing of different toolkits. Keep in mind that this is not just CD/disk space we're talking about, but the extra toolkit libraries also need to be loaded in memory when running applications using these toolkits. May not be an issue on modern desktop systems, but might be on low end netbooks.

    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I don't understand why people think that either GTK or Qt have to die.
    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?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote 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!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote 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)

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Arrow 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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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