Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Planning To Drop Qt4 & Its Dependencies Ahead Of 20.04 LTS

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Yet another perfect example why Linux is a joke on the desktop. Keep dropping stuff and compatibility, retarded monkeys.
    macOS keeps dropping stuff too and is about to drop 32-bit and Windows has dropped two of their own design languages lately. But I guess both of them are a joke on the desktop too, right?

    Comment


    • #22
      I hope this put some incentive to the few remaining Amarok developers to release a Qt5 version. I still use it because I never found other player with a playlist as good as it (personal preference, people) and also that works. Some player Kubuntu shipped a while ago was hopeless broke for me.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

        macOS keeps dropping stuff too and is about to drop 32-bit and Windows has dropped two of their own design languages lately. But I guess both of them are a joke on the desktop too, right?
        Most Apple users don't know the difference between a Program and a Icon let alone a 32 and 64 or graphics lib. At the end of the day they will say "Oh no" and come up with some excuse while smashing more applesauce into their head orifice.

        Comment


        • #24
          Its obvious that Ubuntu is throwing its desktop users under the Bus, hates its desktop users, no longer wants to be a desktop OS, and wants to only be a server OS from now on. This is a big middle finger and "we hate you" at Ubuntus desktop users. Removing Qt4 is another foolish and outrageous decision by Ubuntu which lacks any sense or real rationale. There are still a lot of Qt4 applications and porting them to Qt5 is a WASTE OF TIME.

          Really its getting tiring. Ubuntu needs to stop this nonsense. First they screwed us over on 32 bits which was a big middle finger to desktop users and now this. Ubuntu without a doubt hates its desktop users and does not like the fact that people use Ubuntu as a desktop OS, so it is trying to chase off as many of its desktop users as possible. There is no other explanation. for all of this.

          We must demand Ubuntu keep Qt4 and as well bring back 32 bit ISOs and maintains the full set of 32 bit packages. Desktop users should be treated better than this.
          Last edited by Neraxa; 08-23-2019, 03:34 PM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Neraxa View Post
            Its obvious that Ubuntu is throwing its desktop users under the Bus, hates its desktop users, no longer wants to be a desktop OS, and wants to only be a server OS from now on. This is a big middle finger and "we hate you" at Ubuntus desktop users. Removing Qt4 is another foolish and outrageous decision by Ubuntu which lacks any sense or real rationale. There are still a lot of Qt4 applications and porting them to Qt5 is a WASTE OF TIME.

            Really its getting tiring. Ubuntu needs to stop this nonsense. First they screwed us over on 32 bits which was a big middle finger to desktop users and now this. Ubuntu without a doubt hates its desktop users and does not like the fact that people use Ubuntu as a desktop OS, so it is trying to chase off as many of its desktop users as possible. There is no other explanation. for all of this.

            We must demand Ubuntu keep Qt4 and as well bring back 32 bit ISOs and maintains the full set of 32 bit packages. Desktop users should be treated better than this.
            Yeah geeze why waste time porting when a pure Qt4 app 9 times out of 10 is a pure Qt5 app. Why waste time with porting when you could just recompile against Qt5 and be done with it?

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
              I hope this put some incentive to the few remaining Amarok developers to release a Qt5 version.
              few? remaining?

              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
              Yeah geeze why waste time porting when a pure Qt4 app 9 times out of 10 is a pure Qt5 app. Why waste time with porting when you could just recompile against Qt5 and be done with it?
              If you can simply 'recompile' the same code for Qt5 then only because someone has already prepared said code for Qt5 compatibility. Porting is easy, that does not mean there are no code changes at all, unless it is very basic, simple stuff.

              That said, good for Ubuntu. Qt4 is completely unmaintained for years and trying to keep it alive with up to date toolchain and dependencies must be a major PITA by now.
              Last edited by genstorm; 08-23-2019, 04:55 PM.

              Comment


              • #27
                No MakeMKV for you! (I think it's still qt4 based)

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by cjcox View Post
                  No MakeMKV for you! (I think it's still qt4 based)
                  Nope, at least Gentoo's makemkv-1.14.4 depends on Qt5. We removed Qt4 in July 2018 already.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

                    I think it still is kinda early...

                    I may accept Qt 4 being dropped because:
                    - It's very old (9 years)
                    - Most Qt 4 apps can be ported to Qt 5 with ease, and about 95% have already been ported without problems
                    - Qt 4 does not have ANY kind of HiDPI support (GTK+ 2 at least has support for Oomox which can generate a pseudo-HiDPI theme)
                    - Apps that still want to stick to Qt 4 (e.g. Natron) can just pack Qt 4 with it (they already do, by the way)
                    Gtk2 is older than Qt4, and Gtk3 was released before Qt5 so i dont get that argument. Same with the repackaging argument.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post

                      Gtk2 is older than Qt4, and Gtk3 was released before Qt5 so i dont get that argument. Same with the repackaging argument.
                      The difference here is that it's harder to port from GTK+ 2 to 3. Therefore software that still rely upon GTK+ 2 exist.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X