Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Qt 5.0 Beta Released

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,198

    Default

    And does Windows still use client-side decoration in Windows 7?
    Is client-side decoration default or optional?
    Does Windows support server/wm-side decorations?
    Which is default?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Why should each use different schemes for "yes" "no", "apply" "cancel" buttons?
    Why should every application use their own font rendering system? Their own drawing primitives?
    You’re right, of course… Qt should look and behave exactly like Gtk. Making apps responsible for drawing their title bar isn’t going to make it any easier.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    And does Windows still use client-side decoration in Windows 7?
    I don’t understand… Is Windows a good example of how to make things? Do we want to clone Windows?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    You’re right, of course… Qt should look and behave exactly like Gtk. Making apps responsible for drawing their title bar isn’t going to make it any easier.
    It's not meant to make it easier, it's meant to make fucking roundtrip lag disappear.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I don’t understand… Is Windows a good example of how to make things? Do we want to clone Windows?
    No, absolutely not.
    But I do think that the developers of Wayland (or any other similar system) should know how others designed and architectured their solution and why they chose that particular design.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Sure they can. That is one possible use case for dbus-menu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bm7Q6_SH4
    I don't see how this is the same. It's not. On Windows you have your own button, complete with control over the graphics and layout.
    You quote out of contextOn purpose? I never wrote that it's the same. The original claim was that Linux WMs can't have menu buttons in the title bar and I disproved you.
    The look and feel of that button should be defined by the WM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Well then you probably shouldn't also ever bother about using Wayland, as this design decision will not change =)
    And who are you to claim authority over the all future development decisions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Why should applications trick me into thinking they look the same with same titlebars, when their window is rendered completely differently from each other (Qt, GTK, EFL)?
    If you can be tricked by a title bar how the application itself looks, you'd be the biggest retard the world has ever seen.
    The toolkit even has nothing to do with this. If each application can decide how title bars look and feel, it'll lead do inconsistencies even within applications using a shared toolkit.

    Considering that as part of Canonical's usability vision they need to have control over all title bars. I doubt they'll be willing to let application developers fuck up Unity's look and feel. Canonical can be surprisingly persuasive and even willing to actually contribute code when it comes to that. It was Canonical who wrote and contributed the code to Qt to export application menus via dbus to make Qt applications integrate into Unity.

    Well, I'm curious how it'll actually end up. I have the gut feeling that in the end applications won't get complete control over the window decoration, despite Wayland's design intentions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    It's not meant to make it easier, it's meant to make fucking roundtrip lag disappear.
    No idea which lag you are referring to.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Have you ever ran Chrome on Linux? Do you actually know that applications can bypass window manager decorations right now on X? The window decorations cannot be enforced.

    So seriously, what are you talking about? On Wayland, window decorations will be standardized by your DE. All KDE apps will still look the same. All Gnome apps will look the same. Unless an app doesn't want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    The look and feel of that button should be defined by the WM.
    And who are you to claim authority over who should define the look and feel of buttons?
    Last edited by RealNC; 09-02-2012 at 06:16 AM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    And who are you to claim authority over the all future development decisions?
    What the hell are you talking about? If you were familiar with Wayland in even the slightest,
    you'd have long known that this is a standpoint Khristian has made clear he won't leave.
    It's not going to happen, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    If you can be tricked by a title bar how the application itself looks, you'd be the biggest retard the world has ever seen.
    The toolkit even has nothing to do with this. If each application can decide how title bars look and feel, it'll lead do inconsistencies even within applications using a shared toolkit.
    I'm talking from the viewpoint of a hypothetical use you idiot. I'm indirectly quoting Khristian here,
    but to have a consistent experience it doesn't really help to have a tiny scratch at the top look the same across all apps,
    while the titlebar and actual content mismatch in style. Consistency within app > fake consistency across apps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Considering that as part of Canonical's usability vision they need to have control over all title bars. I doubt they'll be willing to let application developers fuck up Unity's look and feel. Canonical can be surprisingly persuasive and even willing to actually contribute code when it comes to that. It was Canonical who wrote and contributed the code to Qt to export application menus via dbus to make Qt applications integrate into Unity.
    Don't know what they'll do, but I don't think they'd be stupid enough to fork Wayland over this issue.
    Actually, it's not going to be an issue at all. If you look at how native theme engines can make either Qt look almost the same as GTK and vise versa,
    there might not even be a need for a shared library with deco drawing routines / unified theming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Well, I'm curious how it'll actually end up. I have the gut feeling that in the end applications won't get complete control over the window decoration, despite Wayland's design intentions.
    Project leader's words > your gut feeling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    No idea which lag you are referring to.
    Synchronization issues due to X, the WM and the client each having to wait for each other.
    I'm not really good at explaining it, but I've sure experienced it with apps like Inkscape.
    You should consult Wayland resources for info on that.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Have you ever ran Chrome on Linux?
    Yes, it's horrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Do you actually know that applications can bypass window manager decorations right now on X?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    And who are you to claim authority over who should define the look and feel of buttons?
    Someone with some experience in usability. Unlike you, obviously. No surprise you have the reputation of being a troll.

    My views on usability and consistency on that matter are backed up by John Siracusa from ArsTechnica who repeatedly criticized similar instances under OSX (iTunes’ vertical window buttons, “natural” look of Address Book, etc.).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    What the hell are you talking about? If you were familiar with Wayland in even the slightest,
    you'd have long known that this is a standpoint Khristian has made clear he won't leave.
    It's not going to happen, period.
    Despite being hosted on fdo, Wayland is mostly an Intel project. If Intel orders him to implement something else (or at least an alternative route), it'll happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Consistency within app > fake consistency across apps. […] Actually, it's not going to be an issue at all. If you look at how native theme engines can make either Qt look almost the same as GTK and vise versa
    It's not fake consistency, it's one brick to get consistency throughout the system.
    What you simply fail to understand is that it's not about the look alone, even though I repeatedly wrote “look and feel”.

    Once users get GNOME applications into their hand which they cannon minimize under other DEs (Plasma Desktop or whatever) because minimizing is not something that fits into GNOME Shell’s workflow, a shitstorm will break out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Project leader's words > your gut feeling.
    Linus Torvalds once said that in-kernel, non-modular drivers are the way to go. We have kernel modules now.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    You didn't answer the question. If applications can already disable WM decorations, then what's your problem?

    Answer that please, instead of talking around it and trying to sneak out, Mr. Usability Authority.

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
  •