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."
interesting note (Score:1, Interesting)
"The KDE project and related events are frequently sponsored by individuals, universities, and businesses.[9] On 15 October 2006, it was announced that Mark Shuttleworth became the first patron of KDE, the highest level of sponsorship available." [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
But when it came to artwork, they considered changing it, but he though an LTS was the wrong time to mess with it, because then they'd be stuck with new artwork for a long time.
Does that seem backwards to anyone? I mean, the people who are using an LTS want stability and software that's proven and that will get the job done, even if it is a little older. They know they're not on the bleeding-edge. Whereas with the artwork, I would think that an LTS is a great time to start off in a new direction so that a new theme can really come to be associated with the distro. Especially given how many people complain about the brown and orange they use now (although I actually prefer the brown and orange).
Re:eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is the code bad? Why is gconf that bad?
Generic whining like yours is sooooo 2002ish...
Re:RFTA (Score:2, Interesting)
RTFA yourself. Because he also says that he would like to see standardization in infrastructure and he sees exciting the FSF over this issue as a challenge. This reads to me very similiar to "yes, I'd like to do that and I have already spent some time thinking it over but it will be difficult."
Whether we'll be able to have the FSF excited about something, have GNOME excited about something, have Nokia excited about something which makes life better for developers - that's gonna be the interesting challenge for me. I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure.
KDE on GTK? (Score:5, Interesting)
So while I dislike using GNOME, mainly for its lack of configurability and the how it makes me feel, I do really like KDE. Similarly I'm not keen on QT, but I do like GTK.
So why not have KDE on GTK? As a bonus KDE apps would obey the LANG var, instead of QT out-of-band language selection. (which makes running more then one language, simultaneously, difficult)
GTK (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, one of GTK's biggest strength's lies in the fact that it is programmed in plain old C. Because
of this it is much easier to integrate with other languages that cannot handle C++ name munging. I cannot
see any significant value of doing such a conversion or fork.
Other Toolkits/Libraries (Score:2, Interesting)
The widget toolkits (QT & GTK+) aren't the only toolkits/libraries involved in creating KDE and Gnome applications. There are libraries used for accessing files across a network (SMB shares, NFS shares, HTTP, FTP, etc.), handling sound (ARTS and eventually Phonon for KDE, GStreamer/PulseAudio on Gnome)*, etc. While completely unifying Gnome and KDE would be stupid, and IMO, counterproductive, seeing a merge between the underlying technologies would be great. It would save third-party developers the time of having to re-implement the functionality contained in those libraries, without having to commit their application to a specific desktop environment. Meanwhile, the DE developers could still maintain their philosophy and have their desktop-specific applications keep their look and feel.
*Yeah, I know those aren't completely comparable.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, cause FOSS is all about reducing the choices. Whoever modded you insightful must have a very strange sense of humour.
What would be helpful is if KDE, Gnome, E+, Xfce and others started cooperating on APIs, and make non-WM features use libraries that don't link in the whole window manager. There's no reason why different window managers shouldn't call the same routine for creating a thumbnail image, for example, and the user can choose the library that does that best, without changing the WM.
Choices are good.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:1, Interesting)
Qt is arguably a better framework than GTK+ from a technical perspective. It's also better from a developer's perspective--GTK+ is a pain in the ass to program for. (It's also written in C and while wrappers do exist, they kind of suck--and I'd think we'd want fewer people writing code in C.)
Qt can be made to look like GTK+ if you really want it to, so there's no huge issue. But suggesting that KDE move to GTK+ is silly, because GTK+ doesn't even have a good chunk of the functionality that Qt does.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:4, Interesting)
So could I.
If it always worked. What caused me to give up on Slackware and switch to (yechh) Ubuntu was the relatively small number of applications available preconfigured for Slack. Maybe I just had a run of rotten luck, but it seemed to me that about 40% of the applications I attempted to ./configure, make, make install wouldn't install. Entirely too often I had to find and decode a README file, and/or decode the make files(), and/or spend (an) hour(s) running Google searches in order to figure out how to actually install the program. I'm too old and stupid for that. At least on the scale required.
Then there is that dependency thing ....
Don't get me wrong. It's better than Windows. But perfect it is not.
Re:RFTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming he didn't edit it Isn't that supposed to be, y'know, his job?
Yes and no. His job as an editor of a user-submitted news site is to make sure that stories come out presentable and factually accurate. It is not necessarily the editor's job to edit submissions in a way that changes the information they convey.
In fact, I'm rather glad that he left it alone. Not because I agree with the submission -- I think it was taken out of context as well. However, I'm glad to know that Taco doesn't just spin every submission he gets in a way that makes the news comes out the way he wants it to. It would be so easy to just re-word a couple things here and there, and suddenly the story is in his favorite shade of blue.
Again, Slashdot is a user-submitted news site. Not satisfied with the quality of the news? Submit a better story yourself.
Re:eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trolltech dual-licenses the libraries. Even if they discontinue the dual licensing, Qt4 and earlier will always be available due to the gpl and can be forked, so that's a red herring.
The truth is that Qt is cleaner, provides better, less limited dialogs, EASIER to use than that damned Gtk file open/save dialog, and just like Gtk is freely available.
I for one cannot stand gnome because the gnome developers' idea of making a system easier to use is to cripple the interface and treat the user like an idiot. The KDE team strives to provide all the functionality but make it intuitive enough that novices can understand it.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Interesting)
It *used* to have a standard UI. The Windows Interface Guidelines [amazon.com] was the bible of user interface work. Once upon a time, that is.
Programming Windows used to be fine - you had Windows Controls and the standard message passing architecture. It worked, and you could write apps that all looked the same and reused the same set of windows. I think it helped Windows adoption in a time when UI development had a 'whatever you wanted' approach.
However, that was then. Now Windows is a mish-mash of Win32 controls, embedded HTML, Vista-alike pretend-browser windows, WPF, Windows Forms, Silverlight, and I'm sure there are more. Its a huge mess, and I'm not surprised considering their push for "more new stuff" to keep developers from going elsewhere.
So, yes, if Linux could point to a fast development system that provided a better user experience... businesses would have a good reason to migrate. Something about standard UI = lower TCO if I recall the Microsoft marketing machine's reasons why Windows is better (oh the irony).
I Second That (Score:2, Interesting)
But, as Bobby sez, things have changed.
Gnome moving to Qt is one of the best ideas I've heard in YEARS! Qt is commercial, better documented, and was DESIGNED to work everywhere from embedded devices to Macs. I've personally worked with both toolkits and as a Cocoa developer, well, Qt is just better.
A quick search for "Gtk Embedded" reveals that my suspicions are correct. The first result is some obscure article in Linuxjournal from 2002! The same search for Qt takes you to Qt's embedded systems portal, full of documentation articles and so on.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Gtk+embedded [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Qt+embedded [google.com]
But this isn't just with the embedded side of Qt/Gtk---it's with everything. Go on, pick a topic and do an honest comparison. Want to install your Gtk application on Windows? Get ready to install Cygwin! Want to install A Qt application on Windows, or perhaps a Windows CE phone? No problem: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/features/platforms/embedded/windowsce [trolltech.com]
I see a lot of comments doing a lot of whining about "Qt Applications are Unstable!!" Qt is easier to deploy consistently and for this developer works more like every other standard GUI toolkit. Gtk is and has always been an absolute nightmare. This anti-Qt argument is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, something akin to how Java is evil because it is allegedly slow. Here's a tip: next time someone tells you about Java being slow, ask them if they've ever heard of SwingWorker. If they have, ask them to explain how/why it exists.
Re:RFTA (Score:2, Interesting)
"KDELibs' biggest fault is that it's GPL"
KDELibs' biggest advantage is that it's GPL.
Re:eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there's an even stronger obligation: if Trolltech (Nokia) stops releasing new GPL versions of Qt, then all previous versions of Qt become BSD licensed. The KDE Free QT Foundation board (two Trolltech reps, two KDE reps, KDE decides ties) can vote to decide whether Trolltech is meeting its part of the agreement.
This probably won't happen for a long, long time though. Qt was bought out by Nokia which has plenty of resources and may be interested in developing mobile apps with it. KDE has an interest in Qt continuing commercial development by Trolltech, which has added lots of useful features/optimizations to Qt in coordination with KDE, that the KDE project probably couldn't do on their own on the same timescale on a purely volunteer effort.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, although the thumbnail generation is not standard, the location and storing thereof is. So there actually is a standard, interoperable across desktops.
Yay !
Re:Spin (Score:5, Interesting)
As for which articles the Slashdot editors choose, it seems to be the ones designed to generate the most comment traffic. They may not be completely factual, but if they say something outrageous (Gnome is going to Qt!) then they're in. This is the same principle that most 24 hour news sites operate on, if it will draw viewers, put it on the air.
Re:RFTA (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm very interested in finding out, how to get those two communities working closer together, how to get more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of technology but also at the level of best practices / processes."
"...see both desktops focusing on a common infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects - HAL, d-bus". Actually what he did was pose the question of whether or not: "if Nokia makes the QT-licenses effectively compatible with the GNOME vision, can they embrace QT as a platform?" Its a good question. Could Gnome embrace QT as a platform?