Shuttleworth Sees Possibility For a QT-based GNOME 296
An anonymous reader writes "derStandard.at has an extensive interview with Ubuntu-founder Mark Shuttleworth, in which he seems to be pushing for a switch to QT in the GNOME-project: 'I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of QT.' He goes on to talk about Apple as an 'innovation leader' and problems with Hardy Heron."
No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Informative)
He says in this article that GNOME was chosen for how easy to use it is. He's saying that the widget set doesn't dictate that, so the same thing could be done with QT, not that GNOME should be rewritten with QT.
eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Informative)
The lack of UI standardization is really making life unnecessarily hard.
Oh yah, because they are so standarized in Windows. Let see if they all use the Windows toolkit and have the same UI for some common Windows Apps.
1. Office, nope
2. Firefox nope
3. Games nope
And many more. Just about every Linux application uses either QT or GTK. Both are good, and in just about 75% of common applications you can get either a QT version or a GTK version.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yah, because they are so standarized in Windows. Let see if they all use the Windows toolkit and have the same UI for some common Windows Apps.
Let's be fair about number three, that's a problem with the gaming industry in general. Almost every game reinvents its own UI, on pretty much all platforms, anywhere. Yes, even on Linux.
RFTA (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:2, Informative)
> Yeah, I thought that conclusion seemed suspect too. "It's possible" is different from advocating it.
That must be why the headline reads 'Shuttleworth Sees Possibility' instead of 'Shuttleworth Advocates'
Re:eh? (Score:4, Informative)
In the name of $SOMETHING, just let the `reversed OK and Cancel buttons' meme die.
Of course, you are free to define `usability' as `whatever is closest to Windows' if yu want. I, for one, prefer having the most frequently used button always be put in the same place relative to the bottom right corner.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:3, Informative)
Issue isn't with headline, it's with the summary:
I realise misleading summaries are far from rare on Slashdot, but still.
Qt nitpicking (Score:5, Informative)
For those that don't know: It's Qt, not QT. It's not an acronym, it's pronounced "cute."
One of the guys from trolltech once told me that when they created the library(-ies) they needed a prefix for all the functions. The letter 'Q' was chosen as it was the most appealing / best looking letter in emacs at the time (which was the head developers favourite editor).
Thus Qt became the name.
Re:RFTA (Score:5, Informative)
It read more of a "Gnome does not have to be GTK only", more than "Lets move Gnome over to QT". He also specifically mentioned things like HAL and D-Bus as examples of "common infrastructure", so he's not just talking about the UI toolkit.
Re:RFTA (Score:2, Informative)
There's this association called "FreeDesktop.Org", I wonder if you've ever heard about them? They've been working for years and years now trying to bring all Linux desktop environments to the same table, instead of reimplementing 100 proprietary components and somehow trying to mash them together. We've already seen enormous successes come out of the project, D-Bus being one of the biggest of them.
He'd also be a moron not to have thought about it. Nobody's closing their eyes to KDE, and it's hard not to acknowledge their improvements nor any other environment's progress. The important part to take away from G'Op's post is that Shuttleworth is not planning to rewrite GNOME in Qt.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Informative)
You do know that the GNOME and KDE dev crews are meeting this summer in a joint conference, don't you?
Some sort of merging would be nice but there are a lot of hurdles to leap over, the first being that GNOME is built using C and KDE is built using C++.
The second is that GNOME requires at least 6 separate additional apps be installed in order to do development, while KDE supplies everything that is needed in one download file.
The third is that GTK+ is a UI toolkit only, while QT4 includes both the GUI designer AND an API for database connectivity, threading, console app development, and many, many more features.
The fourth is that GNOME offers an LGPL license to facilitate the inclusion of proprietary binary files and QT requires that developers purchase a commercial developer's license in order to include proprietary binary files in a distro. That license could cost as much as $3K apiece and $1.5K/year for support. This is, no doubt, the BIG reason why ISVs prefer GNOME over KDE.
However, GNOME already includes KDE components which enable GNOME users to run KDE applications, and KDE include GNOME components that allow it run GNOME apps, so a lot of progress has been made already. I will wager that even more progress will be made at this summer's conference.
What on earth is he getting at? (Score:4, Informative)
Shuttleworth says: "And you can't run an old Windows application on a recent Windows version."
There are some applications, particularly ones that are pushing the limits of what you can do on a PC, that can't run on the most recent versions of Windows, but in general that's not true. I've got programs that I've carried around for decades that still work as far as I've been willing to take Windows.
Mind you, Vista might be an exception, but Microsoft has... up to Vista... bent over backwards to ludicrous levels to maintain backwards compatibility. The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is a cliche, but this is a perfect example of an exception that DOES prove the rule... there's an enormous push-back against Vista simply because it's perceived as being incompatible. It's NOT a model to follow.
Re:Will the real Mark Shuttleworth stand up? (Score:1, Informative)
You shouldn't be modded up after the crapflood [slashdot.org] you organized yesterday. In fact, anyone who operates 12 accounts and does things like these [slashdot.org] should be banned from Slashdot altogether.
Thankfully there are people who keep track [slashdot.org] of what you do.
I expect you'll be replying to this with the name troll account [slashdot.org] you created for me, just like you troll other [slashdot.org] legitimate Slashdot users people that way [slashdot.org].
Re:RFTA (Score:1, Informative)
Re:RFTA (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they are LGPL...
Re:RFTA (Score:2, Informative)
But it isn't factually correct. Shuttleworth does not seem to push for a Qt-based Gnome at all.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:3, Informative)