Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118

Thread: Ubuntu's Unity Written In Qt/QML For "Unity Next"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Do these people have absolutely no direction? What the hell is going on there?

    First they adapt GNOME 2 with a patchset from hell. Then they adopt GNOME3 elements, but write their own interface called Unity. Then they design a 2d look-alike called Unity 2D written using Qt. Then they drop it. Now they are rewriting Unity in QML.

    It must be hell for their developers. Tomorrow someone might come in and say "Forget it boys, today we're rewriting everything in C# and FLTK". Who makes these decisions?
    This "convergence story" they've been chasing is going to bite them in the ass.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    Do you believe they'll write closed source QT apps?
    They are not in the app business. There are plenty of GPL apps which run fine on closed systems, so they don't have to worry about apps.

    On the other hand, they will control Upstart, Mir (the display server) and Unity. That can be a basis for a decent stack which can be closed whenever they want.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Qt is just so much better than GTK. Every commit gets reviewed and they have a decent CI system.
    Makes sense to choose it.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Bam bam so the biggest distro chooses Qt. Apparently the Gnome shit interface and toolkit isn't exactly liked by both users and developers. See stupid gnome devs, there are consequences to your actions... The fact that you choose to ignore this will be your undoing.
    I've always preferred gtk over Qt for being C and its numerous bindings. But I agree that this anouncement means a big blow to GTK and Gnome. They're not dead, as long as they have Red Hat's backing, though.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    I've always preferred gtk over Qt for being C and its numerous bindings. But I agree that this anouncement means a big blow to GTK and Gnome. They're not dead, as long as they have Red Hat's backing, though.
    There is a very strange trend towards specialisation that is very new. It used to be that all distros offered tweaked KDE and GNOME desktops for the user to choose. Now it seems like each distro wants its own desktop in order to provide a certain kind of experience.

    GNOME is RedHat's private desktop nowadays.
    Unity is Ubuntu's desktop.
    Cinnamon is Mint's desktop.

    You can run them on other distros, but it's clear who does all the development and decides the direction.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Why don't they write their own toolkit from scratch? Call it Ut.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    They have spent millions on Unity, Unity2d, fixing GNOME, maintaining Compiz, and doing a number of other things, and NOW they are basically going to write a couple of plasmoids.

    Way to go. Awesome leadership.
    "millions."

    Really? I'd like to some sources... I really doubt this number. The work they invested into those technologies payed off while they were using them, but now they're switching to a technology they've decided is better. They have a sense of direction, even if they sometimes lack confidence.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    It is not about chosing technology. It is about doing whats best for Canonical. Source code wise they are gaining the ability to close up almost everything. Quite disturbing if you ask me.
    Except, not. It would be disturbing if that were so though.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    This "convergence story" they've been chasing is going to bite them in the ass.
    Ah, you've put your finger on the problem precisely! that explains exactly why Ubuntu is getting the first serious media coverage it has ever gotten...

    Not really, no. QML is very flexible, and combined with Mir, if Mir works out, then they'll be able to pull this off. If Mir doesn't work out, they might be up a creek without a paddle, as the saying goes... but otherwise, this idea is just crazy enough to work.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    They are not in the app business. There are plenty of GPL apps which run fine on closed systems, so they don't have to worry about apps.

    On the other hand, they will control Upstart, Mir (the display server) and Unity. That can be a basis for a decent stack which can be closed whenever they want.
    While I agree that they could, there's no real benefit to doing so.

    Pros
    1. No one can clone them?
    2. They could license their code to partners?

    Cons
    1. No one trusts them anymore.
    2. Partners go back to Android.
    3. The community, which significantly develops the code for them, can no longer help write code or fix bugs.
    4. As a result of #3, everything is now buggy, and they no longer have the resources to do much of anything.
    5. Ubuntu dies.

    I'm not seeing any balance sheet on which they could possibly decide to close up the source code.

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
  •