Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 118

Thread: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Beans
    219

    Re: Why Not Fork KDE into a Qt Gnome Instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by CraigPaleo View Post
    I'm for Gnome staying with GTK but for the sake of this discussion, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to fork KDE and make it look, feel and act like Gnome? I mean to the extent that the user wouldn't know the difference. I don't mean just a "Gnome theme" here but something like what Apple did after it acquired Next.

    It kept Carbon and Cocoa, removed some redundancies and now has two toolkits. Gtk would then be more akin to Carbon and Qt to Cocoa.

    It just seems like it'd be much more efficient to modify existing code, which already uses Qt, rather than porting a whole DE to an entirely different toolkit, which is also written in a different language. Don't you think?
    Carbon is slowly being depreciated.
    ASUS X202E - Intel Core i3 1.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 500 GB Seagate HDD

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Beans
    35
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    Someone posted this as an Ubuntu Brainstorm Idea. Go vote now!

    I've added another solution, which was brought up earlier in this thread. The idea of replacing the part of Qt that draws its own widgets with that of native Gtk widget.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Beans
    4,508
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    Erm, heh. I think Gnome developers can decide just fine for themselves what to do with their time in the future

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    73

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    [consolidated below]
    Last edited by infinitelink; January 28th, 2009 at 01:09 PM.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    73

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    [consolidated below]
    Last edited by infinitelink; January 28th, 2009 at 01:08 PM.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    73

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    [consolidated below]
    Last edited by infinitelink; January 28th, 2009 at 01:08 PM.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    73

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    [consolidated below]
    Last edited by infinitelink; January 28th, 2009 at 01:07 PM.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Beans
    73

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    Quote Originally Posted by SKLP View Post
    Now that the Qt licensing situation is acceptable for most people, the reason Gtk/GNOME was created in the first place has now *disappeared*. However, I'm one of those people who happen to believe that GNOME has grown into something which I prefer to use over KDE by a large margin.
    I want to point-out how much people are ignoring in this forum, making statements already settled, like this consideration: there's no discussion of dropping Gnome in favor of KDE, but rather pointing-out that the next very substantial re/write of Gnome could be based on QT (not KDE, not KDE, not KDE) to unify the linux development efforts.

    Quote Originally Posted by SKLP View Post
    IMO, Qt is now KDE's main strength.

    What has caused KDE to develop such a cluttered, non-usability focused GUI (in the past) might be in part because many companies did not see it as completely serious, when it depended on a toolkit which has licensing problems. Hence they did not do any of the nice usability work to it that has been put into GNOME since the 1.x days.
    The KDE UI was usable precisely because it was customizable: the constant complaint I hear (and anybody else familiar with the OSS community) about Gnome is its heinously awful customization: even removing all ways to customize when the feature is in the code. : ( People have diverse computing needs, and toddler-level hand-holding, while useful in many contexts, is not suitable for widespreadly used DEs.

    Quote Originally Posted by SKLP View Post
    What would be optimal right now (IMO) is if
    a) GNOME 3.0 was created by forking all of KDE 4.2, and changing all applications to comply to the GNOME HIG (and changing to other things the gnome guys like, such as adding spatial dolphin, etc)
    Gnome HIG: "um, we think these common options, especially those used on the most widely adopted OS, with the greatest amount of familiarity, might confuse two year olds. Therefore, we disabled the options: and built an atom-bomb into the code for anyone who tries to re-enable them. Just kidding! Actually it'll just frustrate you to no end why you can't get the re-enabled stuff to work or work correctly; we don't like giving our users too much control." (not subtle sarcasm, I know)

    Quote Originally Posted by SKLP View Post
    b) the GNOME and KDE foundations merged to create a new unified DE (based on KDE 4.2, obviously)
    Have you even read any of this? GTK is the development framework used to create Gnome's libs, but in programming terms, it is not its foundation (Gnome's libs); QT is the framework of KDE's libs, but not KDE's foundations (KDE's libs).

    -- -- --

    Quote Originally Posted by optimisme View Post
    Mark is right

    Gnome must improve (in many ways) and a good way to do it, is using Qt.

    Of course it won't happen, maybe a working group can start creating a new desktop environment with the goals of GNOME, but also improving it where GNOME fails.

    Qt has a lot of advantages, now is supported by NOKIA and its license is all right. GNOME (or a kind of) using Qt means the most powerful and usable desktop ever done (even better than Mac OS X if it is done all right).

    Hopefully someone (probably someone from NOKIA) will notice it, and will skip KDE (the way it behaves is not nice with new users) and will start doing a kind of GNOME (or a kind of Aqua, or just a better user interface) easy to use (and configure) getting the power of Qt.

    That day, if it comes, I probably will use this new software even if it means say goodbye to Ubuntu. Because what we all want, apart of software freedom, is good software.

    GNOME engineers must know sometimes, the best way to go on, is just leave the past behind, and expend all the efforts evolving the ideas but rewriting source from the scratch.

    In my opinion the good part of KDE is Qt (with some great software and design decisions) and the bad part of GNOME is GTK

    Of course this change is radical, and doing it means some loses. But loses are not as big as advantages, because using Qt as "the linux paradigm" means unifying linux and making easier for software companies, to go "the linux way"
    Except for 4.0 (though 4.2 is supposed to have incredibly clear this problem up), KDE is much more alike to Windows (you know, where the new linux users come from) than Gnome. Gnome's HIG is terribly simplistic and toddlish (not that that doesn't have valid applications).

    Though frankly I believe most computer users would neither notice on care on either, at least initially, though inevitably when they wish to "make their computers their own" (inevitable general consumers of computers), Gnome becomes the show-stopper. KDE's philosophy seems to be "make available", and let the user decide how to tune their desktop. I like this. (Yet I also like Gnome.)

    --

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mann View Post
    I believe that Gnome should stay with GTK+ - I believe it's Gnome's need that help[ed] push GTK+ along. It's the same with KDE and Qt, the desktop's needs drive the development of the toolkit.

    I personally think Qt is fantastic and has a better chance of going multi-platform - it's already being seen with VLC's latest version in Windows... Embedded video at last! Gnome will fight back, and GTK+ will eventually become a better toolkit, then it'll be Qt's turn to become better, ad infinitum.
    The competition will continue to drive quality software into users hands.
    QT is already multiplatform, FYI. GTK seems to be a giant hack with poor bindings and a ton of needed restructuring: I don't know that dropping it in favor of porting GNOME to QT is actually all that much extra work. It's likely the C could be converted somewhat semi-automatically (I know this really doesn't work too extensively, but some work could be done here to explore the possibility), use the C-related tools from QT to get Gnome's libs working with QT (if they're still around), and so on, so forth.

    Quote Originally Posted by gururise View Post
    There exists, or used to exist, a C wrapper to Qt. This C wrapper could be brought back to life and used as the basis for the port of Gnomelibs to Qt.

    And with the proper Qt2Gtk engine running, the widgets would look exactly the same as they do now.. In fact, if done right, most end-users would not even know that Gnome switched from Gtk+ to Qt.
    Actually I'd love to see this done not in order that GTK be totally abandoned, but to free-up time (since the development tools would be standardized) for its developers to actually to the overhauling GTK needs so that it could truly be competitive, (it's not), and to become very attractive to developers in a wider range of uses. : D

    -- -- --

    Quote Originally Posted by phrostbyte View Post
    If you care so much about this why don't you go submit a bug report to Gnome. "Suggesting" things on the forums is about as useful as suggesting improvements to brick wall. Even Ubuntu has a special place for proposing suggestions (Ubuntu Brainstorm).

    But really of course the best way for this to happen would be to go ahead and do all these simple Gnome 3.0 like changes yourself, since software doesn't write itself. What will make this actually happen is the willingness to make it happen, and the actions of making it happen. I don't see either of that here.
    I've heard a lot of complaints that Gnome's devs don't like accepting submitted code. That's also their choice, but it's kind-of counter OSS community too. Maybe they've gotten better in the past few years, though, don't know. Anyone know?

    -- -- --

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadi View Post
    It's actually "Gimp Tool Kit". Gtk was made for Gimp, then Gnome came around that. But it still points out that the toolkit is tailored to Gnome's needs.
    Gnome also suffers from limitations due to GTK, graphical is an areas hackish, and an ideological knee-jerk reaction to KDE's formation and development based upon QT's QPL. Perhaps later GTK's addressed some of this, but I've heard a lot of complaints about graphical limitations confining Gimp to raster for being a hack from GIMP. Not that I'm complaining about that, actually: it makes perfect sense in business terms. : D

    -- -- --


    Quote Originally Posted by bruce89 View Post
    [...]

    GTK+ 3.0 is in the planning stages at the moment actually. Also, GTK+ isn't a "ripoff" of Qt, it was created because of the licence issue way back in the past (the QPL).


    This makes no sense at all, what would KDE switch to?
    I think you missed the point; I think he's calling QT the new GTK, the cream that fills the need GTK+Gnome were created for; more suitable and ready for that task, with all the major advantages that GTK can't even begin to dream of attaining in a longshot (on every platform, widely popular and available, and etc.); it's the new "in"...

    GTK != Gnome; KDE != QT; or vice versa for either. (!= means "does not equal, by the way). Gnome could be put atop QT with the requisite effort, and remain Gnome, with all of QT's advantages to boot; and now that QT development is being opened-up to the world for participation, without requiring copyright assignment, under the LGPL, QT is not only open source, but they could perhaps also code any advantages GTK has to and submit the work for inclusion in QT!

    -- --

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobw.uk View Post
    Would it really be such a good idea to put (a large part of) the future of the free desktop in a one big Nokia controlled basket?
    Here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Keyper7 View Post
    [...]

    Quote from ars technica:
    -- -- --

    From an Anonymous Coward over on Slashdot:

    Seriously. This is going to be one of the biggest misquoted articles of the year because some Slashdot nobody editor decided to take Shuttleworth's words out of question's context.

    He quite clearly says that it is possible to deliver GNOME's qualities on Qt. He didn't say that he wants to do it. He didn't say he was going to do it. He even pointed out a problem in doing it (GPL vs LGPL).

    Of course, it would also be possible to deliver GNOME's qualities on Enlightenment or Tcl/Tk if you could find enough hackers to do it. There's nothing unique about GNOME's qualities that only GNOME could do it. They simply picked a different path, and it happens to be one that works incredibly well for Ubuntu. So well that they can share schedules with GNOME, that they can build a base for ISVs on GNOME, and on and on.

    So please, PLEASE read the fine article before jumping to conclusions from the terrible Slashdot header. [Source: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl...&cid=24180679]
    The mistake of this guy's post is horrible, though: Gnome is much LGPL, not GPL. With QT becoming LGPL, there isn't an incompatibility between Gnome and QT. (http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3413801) I don't know why people aren't paying attention to details, it's really annoying. : (
    Last edited by infinitelink; January 28th, 2009 at 01:39 PM.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Beans
    5,991

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    infinitelink,

    Wow! =D>

    You have a very good wrinting style getting stuff across.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal

    Re: Port Gnome 3 to Qt

    Quote Originally Posted by infinitelink View Post
    [consolidated below]
    There is an inconspicuous, multi-quote button just to the right of the "quote" button, which can be very useful when quoting more than one post.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •