First Mono, now this Nokia shit.
Dammit. Where has my tin hat gone...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu Finds New Love With Qt
Collapse
X
-
K3B > Brasero
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostNo, I'm 100% serious. I have both installed and I prefer Brasero by leaps and bounds. It's simple, clean and it works perfectly.
Leave a comment:
-
I see that Waldo Bastian was also involved.
Anyway, just because something was designed to be desktop-agnostic does not mean that all desktops will use it. Look at Akonadi, for example.
Leave a comment:
-
I don't understand it either. But it was initiated by Havoc Pennington.
But I know that KDE does not use dconf, and they probably have no intention of doing so. It's only relevant for GNOME-centric distros.
So it's basically some work to have Qt apps integrate better into a GNOME desktop, not much more.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostI was under the impression that dconf was also a GNOME tech.
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2005/04/s...-of-dconf.html
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostSorry, but I do not consider this a meaningful contribution to Qt. That's GNOME development, not Qt development.
He is contributing code to improve the configuration system of Qt, so I fail to see how this can be called Gnome development. If someone improved Qt performance on, say, Mac OS X, would you legitimately call this Mac OS X development rather than Qt development?
Leave a comment:
-
According to this very article, Canonical "is driving the development of dconf bindings for Qt". Confirmed on Mark's blog: they have contracted with Ryan Lortie to contribute to Qt.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostI'm not 100% about Qt on Windows, but Microsoft ITSELF uses more than two different toolkits on windows (or rather very different versions of the same toolkit, with slightly different look and feel), and Java fakes the look and feel too (badly), so this is a moot point.
1. WinAPI (both 16- and 32bit versions)
2. MFC
3. WinForms
4. WPF
5. IE toolkit
6. Office toolkit
7. WMP toolkit (?)
All of those touch WinAPI at some point but they look, feel and behave differently. Java, Delphi and GTK applications also draw their own widgets. No idea about Qt.
Yeah, there's no rhythm or reason to this madness. Qt is the least of their worries.
Leave a comment:
-
following is somewhat OT
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostNo, not really. A couple of people complained that Canonical is not contributing to the Linux kernel as much as Red Hat but w/e.
As far as I'm concerned, their work on accessibility, design/usability, compiz and qt is more important to the Linux community as a whole.
Yes more users is probably good to have more "force" in the market, but it also needs developers/development. Most Ubuntu users probably are not able to develop code (ok, basically this is likely true for any other distribution). And it needs a lot of coding to keep all these people with their different setups satisfied.
So I hope that the user masses that *buntu attracted will just support developers with donations or something. Or write decent and helpful bugreports.
But if Canonical makes money, more than to cover its own cost, it would be nice to see them putting some of that into kernel/userland development (as they showed here). So everyone will benefit from it.
(I for my part am not a code developer, I'm a user contributing money (from what I can spare) and sometimes a bug report for one or the other project. Or give help to new users in my reach. I develop chemistry. So sadly no time for being a kernel or userland hacker.)
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: