Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.11 Finally Flushes Out Its Qt4 Code For Configuring Kernel Builds UI

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

  • #11
    Heh. Last time I manually configured a kernel it was Qt3 bindings

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

      Is there some data about the relative market share of all these "make config" variants?
      I know what you mean... I know it's a common backend, but it's insane how much effort goes into having multiple GUI options for something as low-level as configuring the kernel build. You'd think anyone who did kernel development or built kernels from source would prefer to just have something simple and command-line... something that didn't require having a graphical desktop installed, much less running. That's why I always favoured 'menuconfig' back in my LinuxFromScratch days.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by cl333r View Post
        What is this Qt support used for - configuring the Linux kernel for building from source? So does Linux ship with a copy of Qt and we actually use Qt to build the Linux kernel?
        It's so sad library bundling has become so prevalent anybody would expect that.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Delgarde View Post

          I know what you mean... I know it's a common backend, but it's insane how much effort goes into having multiple GUI options for something as low-level as configuring the kernel build. You'd think anyone who did kernel development or built kernels from source would prefer to just have something simple and command-line... something that didn't require having a graphical desktop installed, much less running. That's why I always favoured 'menuconfig' back in my LinuxFromScratch days.
          My first ever kernel customisation I did was around 2.0.x. This was before I knew about 'make menuconfig' and only heard of 'make config'. Just imagine answering Y/M/N to every prompt 😂

          Comment


          • #15
            michael Possible type?

            "But for Linux 5.11 that is being remove to now focus on providing just a Qt5 interface (and presumably Qt 6, in due course) alongside the other Kconfig user interfaces from ncurses to GTK."

            Should that be removed?
            GOD is REAL unless declared as an INTEGER.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by f0rmat View Post
              michael Possible type?

              "But for Linux 5.11 that is being remove to now focus on providing just a Qt5 interface (and presumably Qt 6, in due course) alongside the other Kconfig user interfaces from ncurses to GTK."

              Should that be removed?
              Something I've been mulling about your signature. What does God=2/1 prove? It's a non-integer but reduces down to one...or have I had too much eggnog?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by dave_boo View Post

                Something I've been mulling about your signature. What does God=2/1 prove? It's a non-integer but reduces down to one...or have I had too much eggnog?
                In the early days of FORTAN (I used to program in ANSI FORTRAN IV), variables were no more than six characters long and defaulted to numerical values unless the variable was explicitly declared as a string. (Also ANSI FORTRAN IV and earlier stated that all typing was done in capital letters.) For the default numerical declarations, if the variable began with the letters I through N (first two letters of INTEGER), they defaulted to integers. Variables beginning with any other letter had their values default to REAL numbers. (The caps are not shouting, just the way the code was written). That gave rise to an old joke that GOD (as a variable) is REAL, unless declared as an INTEGER.

                As far as my name - that was also a common FORTRAN mistake. To print (screen or otherwise), the PRINT command had to reference a FORMAT command that dictated the format of the output. Since capital "O" is right next to the number "0" it was often easy to mistype. Back then, most computer resolutions (and green and white line printouts) did not distinguish between O and 0 very well (no slashes through the 0 and poor resolution). During compilation (especially in the middle of the night), if this mistake was made, you would get a stack dump which was only useful if you understood hexadecimal and the machine dependent compiler information. It was not until I reached graduate school and started working on DEC VAX/VMS machines that the O and 0 was clearly obvious. During my last year of graduate school, DEC created a very rudimentary IDE that could be used in lieu of a text editor. That helped significantly.

                You have not had too much eggnog, you are probably just much younger than me. Or you never programed in old FORTRAN - or both. FORTRAN II had arithmetic GOTO statements - talk about spaghetti code.
                Last edited by f0rmat; 26 December 2020, 06:44 AM. Reason: Grammar
                GOD is REAL unless declared as an INTEGER.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by f0rmat View Post

                  In the early days of FORTAN (I used to program in ANSI FORTRAN IV), variables were no more than six characters long and defaulted to numerical values unless the variable was explicitly declared as a string. (Also ANSI FORTRAN IV and earlier stated that all typing was done in capital letters.) For the default numerical declarations, if the variable began with the letters I through N (first two letters of INTEGER), they defaulted to integers. Variables beginning with any other letter had their values default to REAL numbers. (The caps are not shouting, just the way the code was written). That gave rise to an old joke that GOD (as a variable) is REAL, unless declared as an INTEGER.

                  As far as my name - that was also a common FORTRAN mistake. To print (screen or otherwise), the PRINT command had to reference a FORMAT command that dictated the format of the output. Since capital "O" is right next to the number "0" it was often easy to mistype. Back then, most computer resolutions (and green and white line printouts) did not distinguish between O and 0 very well (no slashes through the 0 and poor resolution). During compilation (especially in the middle of the night), if this mistake was made, you would get a stack dump which was only useful if you understood hexadecimal and the machine dependent compiler information. It was not until I reached graduate school and started working on DEC VAX/VMS machines that the O and 0 was clearly obvious. During my last year of graduate school, DEC created a very rudimentary IDE that could be used in lieu of a text editor. That helped significantly.

                  You have not had too much eggnog, you are probably just much younger than me. Or you never programed in old FORTRAN - or both. FORTRAN II had arithmetic GOTO statements - talk about spaghetti code.
                  I may be younger as the TI-94 was released my birth year. But, having dabbled in BASIC, the capitalization wasn't a bother.

                  As far as too much eggnog...I posted that and the world didn't end so I passed out. So I guess just waking up and it's still spinning means that my (lame) joke was just that.

                  None the less, I appreciate the history lesson. We sure have it a lot easier thanks to the efforts of all the 'old timers' suffering through those early limitations and coming up with all the things that we now use.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    f0rmat Possible typo?

                    "Possible type?"

                    Should that be typo?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X