MIR will be the new display server, and Unity will be ported to Qt

[tartalo]

Somewhat related question here: If Unity transfers to Qt/qml will Ubuntu then see a default software shift as well, I'm thinking Rhythmbox --> Amarok?

Since QT will be supported earlier and probably better, I'd expect that.
It makes sense, KDE is ahead in mobile support (Plasma Active), by the time Mir hits Ubuntu many KDE/QT apps will be well tested in touch interfaces.
EDIT: Oh! And don't forget all the QT apps in Meego, Mer and related projects.

[MadmanRB]

Plasma is supposed to crash, bro. KDE fans like it this way.

Plasma has stabilized greatly over tyhge last few years.
Plasma crashing has nothing to do with QT, its more of a flaw with the compsitor.
Razor-QT doesnt use plasma and does seem far more stable because of it.
But Plasma is really starting to shine.

[georgelappies]

Qt is superior to GTK.

+1 in every single way.

[georgelappies]

Somewhat related question here: If Unity transfers to Qt/qml will Ubuntu then see a default software shift as well, I'm thinking Rhythmbox --> Amarok?

A Rhythmbox --> Clementine move might be better

[evilsoup]

So... Unity is moving away from Canonical's crazy internally-developed compositor (Compiz*) to Qt, which is more mature, more stable, and has a wider developer-base than Canonical hires... and at the same time, they're ignoring Wayland/Weston and going with their own in-house solution for the compositor?

So in two LTSs time, are we going to see Canonical give up on this folly and switch to Wayland, just like they've given up on Compiz now?

If they were forking the code, I would understand that - since pushing out a working product quickly is important to them. But starting an in-house project from scratch is crazy; they're missing out on the main advantage of open-source. Definitely just NIH.


*: I know that Compiz wasn't originally a Ubuntu project, but they did hire in the main dev rather than just using Mutter or whatever

[ZarathustraDK]

Canonical's Mir Project Retracts Wayland Criticism
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTMxODY

Not to pick a side here, but that article is fair and balanced in the Fox News sense of the line.

Multiple quotes/statements from the Mir-detractors vs. speculation based on a (warranted) edit of a wiki.

We need to hear the Canonical side to this story, not these prescient assumptions about how Canonical is in your base killing your doodz.

[lykwydchykyn]

I think this is the main reason for this move, after all QT is a long established toolkit and its incredibly flexible (thus why Nokia took interest in it, in hopes of using it for mobile technology)
So why use a untried untested thing like wayland?

How is Mir any more tried or tested than wayland??

Most applications have nothing to do with X. They are dependant on the toolkit (Qt & Gtk). Once you port the toolkits to Mir, almost all the applications will automatically be compatible. The few applications that use X directly, will be supported by launching rootless X session.

How is this situation different from wayland?

While I am admittedly not a developer by any means, I do have to question what it is exactly that makes Qt superior to GTK. I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to desktop environments, and I've tested out Gnome Shell 3.6, the latest Unity, and KDE 4.10 pretty extensively for a few weeks each. Judging entirely on the outside and overall workings of the environments and software, there is absolutely no contest that Gnome Shell feels the easiest to use out of the gate, much more polished, and rather configurable given the array of available extensions as opposed to KDE and Unity.

If you're judging QT vs GTK on the basis of KDE vs GNOME, you really aren't talking from an informed standpoint. The KDE project has a vision for a desktop that's different from the GNOME team, and people are bound to like one or the other. Toolkit has nothing to do with it. There is nothing inherent in QT that forces you to create a desktop environment like KDE (case in point, razor-qt), just like there is nothing inherent in GTK that forces you to make a desktop like GNOME (case in point, LXDE, XFCE, others...).

If you want a developer's perspective, GTK is just a graphics toolkit. QT is a multi-faceted development library that covers graphics, sound, networking, database access, and tons of other stuff. It abstracts just about anything you'd want to do when writing software, so that you can compile your code for multiple platforms without rewriting. It's well-designed and awesome.

That doesn't mean GTK is bad, but it's just a different animal with different intentions.

And for goodness sake, people; QT has been available under a GPL license since before Ubuntu existed. Let's get over the licensing FUD please.

[llanitedave]

If you want a developer's perspective, GTK is just a graphics toolkit. QT is a multi-faceted development library that covers graphics, sound, networking, database access, and tons of other stuff. It abstracts just about anything you'd want to do when writing software, so that you can compile your code for multiple platforms without rewriting. It's well-designed and awesome.

That doesn't mean GTK is bad, but it's just a different animal with different intentions.

And for goodness sake, people; QT has been available under a GPL license since before Ubuntu existed. Let's get over the licensing FUD please.

I was waiting for someone to say this. There's nothing wrong with GTK, but QT is simply at another level.

And it's both amusing and tiresome to read all the grouches pontificating about what Canonical should be doing, as if each and every one of them has some special sacred insight.

[Roasted]

If you're judging QT vs GTK on the basis of KDE vs GNOME, you really aren't talking from an informed standpoint. The KDE project has a vision for a desktop that's different from the GNOME team, and people are bound to like one or the other. Toolkit has nothing to do with it. There is nothing inherent in QT that forces you to create a desktop environment like KDE (case in point, razor-qt), just like there is nothing inherent in GTK that forces you to make a desktop like GNOME (case in point, LXDE, XFCE, others...).

If you want a developer's perspective, GTK is just a graphics toolkit. QT is a multi-faceted development library that covers graphics, sound, networking, database access, and tons of other stuff. It abstracts just about anything you'd want to do when writing software, so that you can compile your code for multiple platforms without rewriting. It's well-designed and awesome.

That doesn't mean GTK is bad, but it's just a different animal with different intentions.

I'll be the first to admit that I am indeed looking at it from the standpoint of KDE vs Gnome, and I acknowledge that it may not be entirely accurate to do that. As somebody who's not a developer that's all I can base my opinion on. Bottom line is, I'm an end user, so I want things to work smoothly and quickly without fuss. As a result I begin to wonder why the QT vs GTK argument is even relevant if the end goal is where the real golden ticket is, since that's what (in my opinion) really counts. That being said, I'm sure there are some merits to be had on the developer/maintainer level with working on either side of the court. But as an end user, I can tell you I've never had a "GTK" crash of any sort.

[lykwydchykyn]

But as an end user, I can tell you I've never had a "GTK" crash of any sort.

You've never had any piece of software that uses GTK crash on you?