Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Canonical "Won't Fix" GTK+ Wayland For Ubuntu

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Reason? If anyone is talking about cross-platform high quality code my immediate first suggestion is QT. What makes you / your projects so special that it NEEDS to be GTK?
    Reason - I don't do cross platform, I do Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is about Gtk. Qt for Ubuntu is an afterthought, especially after they declared Kubuntu a community project, it was never as polished as Ubuntu anyway.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nerdopolis View Post
    Not even that, we're talking about a few hundred kilobytes here. They don't need weston as a depend, they only need the wayland libraries to satisfy the wayland library dependancies in GTK!
    They still would need to add wayland to main, put it on the CD, and make it mandatory for anyone who plans to use anything related to Gtk.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibidem View Post
    They still would need to add wayland to main, put it on the CD, and make it mandatory for anyone who plans to use anything related to Gtk.
    no, you can switch backends, to have the GTK libs run under Wayland or X11... You can specify the backend with the GDK_BACKEND variable.

    And you don't need a wayland display server, you just need the core wayland libraries. I guess the issue with the GTK backends is that it's not truly modular, and it needs to load the dependancies for all compiled in backends at run time, instead of just loading the specified backend like QT...

    ...but the dependancies really are not that much.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Sure they don't contribute to some projects in the open - they prefer to modify stuff in their own forks to avoid other benefiting from their enhancements.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    365

    Default

    I don't see any problem with the decision at this time. Wayland is not mature or ready for general consumption in any way, so why should they ship GTK with Wayland support? The very few users that like to experiment with Wayland just need to compile/install a Wayland-capable build of GTK. No big deal.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Reason - I don't do cross platform, I do Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is about Gtk. Qt for Ubuntu is an afterthought, especially after they declared Kubuntu a community project, it was never as polished as Ubuntu anyway.
    It was my understanding that Canonical had plans to develop Unity on Qt. Then they decided to continue with gtk. I think they should have opted for Qt. As some people said, Unity-2D in Qt worked very well.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    Sure they don't contribute to some projects in the open - they prefer to modify stuff in their own forks to avoid other benefiting from their enhancements.
    ...except for the fact, that anyone can take ubuntu's patches (and/or sources) for any given app/lib/etc and use them if they like, as some people do... for example, in the AUR (Archlinux User Repository) there are versions of software that include certain ubuntu patches.

    Ubutnu/Canonical 'prefer' there own forked code because (in many cases) there patches would most likely be rejected by their corresponding upstream (developers) anyway. Ubuntu's patches often aren't useful (from the developers perspective) and/or don't fit into the upstream project's goals. ie: why would gnome want to add ubuntu's patches to gnome-system-settings? (that are only useful for Unity), or why would gnome want to add ubuntu's gtk2/3 patches for overlay scrollbars? (which for me anyway, would be a feature i would NOT want).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nerdopolis View Post
    I guess the issue with the GTK backends is that it's not truly modular, and it needs to load the dependancies for all compiled in backends at run time, instead of just loading the specified backend like QT...

    ...but the dependancies really are not that much.
    They wouldn't be much if all it did was require the packages be installed. But requiring the wayland libraries and their dependencies be loaded into memory, even though nothing in Ubuntu is likely to be using them any time in the next year or two? I think that's a reasonable blocker... no good reason to proceed with shipping Wayland-enabled Gtk+ until the Gtk+ backends can be isolated more effectively.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    It was my understanding that Canonical had plans to develop Unity on Qt. Then they decided to continue with gtk. I think they should have opted for Qt. As some people said, Unity-2D in Qt worked very well.
    Yes, Qt should have been their choice, but they were biased towards Gtk from the get go, plus, their developers are like script kiddies, they like writing a lot of stuff in Python even when it's a bad idea (software center and other core sophisticated stuff is written in Python, no wonder it loads like a fat cow).

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    It's Qt, not QT.

    Come on guys.
    Who gives a crap, it's like correcting guys who say FireFox, or Java Script.

Posting Permissions

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