Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Chrome/Chromium Experimenting With A Qt Back-End

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by mystiquewolf View Post

    Don't you have that lag for at least 5 seconds the first time a dialog is about to be shown for a Firefox process instance?
    No. It works perfectly fine for me... and I say this as someone who disabled Chromium's KDE integration because forking a KDialog subprocess added a few hundred milliseconds to the dialog's appearance every time when I was rapid-fire Ctrl+S, Enter, Ctrl+W-ing a bunch of middle-clicked images.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by birdie View Post

      True so, but the number of times I've used this feature in Windows/Qt dialogs is less than 10 in my entire life ;-)
      Features I frequently miss when I use a GTK file chooser:
      1. Not having to navigate the file manager to a folder whenever I see something in a file picker which I want to rename or delete... possibly the folder I just typo'd while creating it. (Hell, this was one of the features Norton Desktop retrofitted onto Windows 3.1.)
      2. Being able to create application-specific entries in the places sidebar (though this doesn't yet work with things using the XDG portals since all things indirected through the portal APIs show up as the portal host to that feature.)
      Last edited by ssokolow; 15 April 2022, 03:04 AM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by arun54321 View Post

        Linux QT apps looks ugly. They look something from old windows 98/xp. Compact, box-y UIs. Yuck. It looks like they are made for someone with visual difficulties.

        Modern UIs don't fit on ugly and clutter jam like plasma. It's obvious.
        We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

        Even back in the GNOME 2.x days, the first thing I'd do for my GTK+ apps was replace Clearlooks with a modified version named Clearlooks Compact that gave me a modern "feel" with more Win9x/KDE-esque widget padding. KDE's default Breeze theme continues to strike that balance while Adwaita has doubled down on everything I disliked about stock Clearlooks.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by birdie View Post

          What's so good about libQt as opposed to libgtk aside from differences in font rendering and dubious GTK file open/save dialogs? I'm genuinely curious.
          There is no difference in font rendering for Chrome at least. They use their own Skia system. It is only for dialogs and desktop integration.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

            We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

            Even back in the GNOME 2.x days, the first thing I'd do for my GTK+ apps was replace Clearlooks with a modified version named Clearlooks Compact that gave me a modern "feel" with more Win9x/KDE-esque widget padding. KDE's default Breeze theme continues to strike that balance while Adwaita has doubled down on everything I disliked about stock Clearlooks.
            If there are ever any global theme engine for Linux, I wish they would introduce a setting for padding / spacing, so that a user can communicate to applications their preference on this matter, or at least let them know not everyone like small text with big space.

            Comment


            • #46
              I'm interested in what license this ends up using. Qt is either GPL or commercial, isn't it?

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                I'm interested in what license this ends up using. Qt is either GPL or commercial, isn't it?
                As usual:
                https://doc.qt.io/qt-6.3/licenses-used-in-qt.html

                Comment


                • #48
                  Something that I love from QT/KDE's file chooser is the ability to show thumbnails at custom sizes. When you're working with images, it's really useful.

                  And also the possibility of using the same views as in the file explorer. Sometimes I want the Icons view, whereas other times I need the Details view.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by OneTimeShot View Post
                    I'm interested in what license this ends up using. Qt is either GPL or commercial, isn't it?
                    Qt is LGPL just like Chromium.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by carewolf View Post

                      Qt is LGPL just like Chromium.
                      ... No... Neither of those are licensed LGPL.
                      Some components are, but the majority of both is MIT/BSD.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X