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."
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Shuttleworth sees possibility in cats and dogs living together.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
QT and Gnome living together
Mass Hysteria!
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: (Score:2)
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.
To be fair to Taco, the bit in quotes is written by the submitter, at least in theory. Assuming he didn't edit it, that misquoting is down to "an anonymous reader".
Re:RFTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that supposed to be, y'know, his job?
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.
Spin (Score:2)
That is the great thing about having a popular site. Often times the same story is submitted by multiple readers. The "editors" don't need to spin the article. They just pick the version that most closely represents the overlord bias. There is no better example than the slashdot Politics section.
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: (Score:2)
Well said, my Commander.
Re: (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". Actua
Re: (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.
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: (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 t
Re: (Score:2)
He even pointed out a problem in doing it (GPL vs LGPL).
It is nice to have a choice in licenses. You have one framework / desktop environment in LGPL, and one in GPL. But I don't see why commercial companies don't embrace KDE.
The company needs to make a decision of framework for their application. Chances are that their application will run just fine under either KDE or Gnome whether it is written in Qt or GTK+. Their "solution" that they're selling can contain an unmodified KDE install or Gnome install...doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"KDELibs' biggest fault is that it's GPL"
KDELibs' biggest advantage is that it's GPL.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they are LGPL...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
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
In my experience, that doesn't necessarily seem to be true.
The UI Paradigms used in various applications seem to be very much a function of their underlying toolkits.
Windows apps have traditionally been heavily toolbar-driven, and allow for extensive keyboard navigation. Contextual menus are also used quite often (although less so these days). Many of the UI paradigms left-over from the pre-multitasking days are still around, as many apps (eg. Photoshop) still use nestled windows, and users are encouraged
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.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Part of the fun of playing a game is mastering its interface, and a unique interface can encourage unique new kinds of fun. Anyway, how would it work if every game had to use the same interface -- if you had to be able to play Halo, SimCity 4, Command & Conquer, Tetris, Line Rider, bridge, backgammon, and parcheesi on a standard chessboard?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
if you had to be able to play Halo, SimCity 4, Command & Conquer, Tetris, Line Rider, bridge, backgammon, and parcheesi on a standard chessboard?
I'm guessing playing backgammon on a standard chessboard wouldn't be so difficult...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think so. ./configure;make;make install just fine but not everyone can.
I have no problem moving between Gnome and KDE. I have gotten to the point that I like Gnome better because it actually feels simpler to use.
I have not used KDE4 at all so things may change.
That being said I can think of a LOT more pressing needs in OSS than merging KDE and GNOME.
1. Audio. It is still a mess. Make up your minds and create a standard for that.
2. An Installer. Repositories are great if they have what you want. Yes I can deal with
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is standardized way to handle alien packages. It doesn't
even have to be a "standard" way. It just has to be consistent in
approach across distributions that do packages. The obvious way would
be to have a part of the fs dedicated to alien packages where the alien
filestructure is mimicked.
Something along the likes of /opt/alien/RPM/redhat/5.0/usr/X11/bin/xv.
Alien packages could be treated less "cleanly" for the sake of convenience
and be segregated from the other packages so that the main system i
Re: (Score:2)
Okay except we don't have that.
There is alien and that does work but being able to download a file called setup or install is just intuitive And that counts for a lot when you are talking about Aunt Tillie ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you have never had an issue with an RPM?
You must not install anything that doesn't come with your install CD!
As I said I can manage source installs. The problem is that there isn't a Linux installer.
At best you have to find an RPM or deb for your system at worst you have to find the source tarball.
Add to that the complexity of packaging an install for the developers and you have a real mess.
Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer the mac way of installing via just drag and drop the app file into your applications directory (or any other directory).
I personally think that would be a much better default for 3rd party (non-repo) provided applications.
Sure, you waste hard drive space, but right now that is not a concern.
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: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: (Score:2)
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.
No reason at all, unless you count
1) getting everyone in the world to agree to do it in the first place
2) getting everyone in the world to agree on the mechanism.
How hard could that be?
Re: (Score:2)
It's never going to happen, for technical, social and licensing reasons, so it can't possibly be a priority [wiktionary.org]. A priority is something you set first. Putting never first is never a good idea. Pipe dream, perhaps. Certainly stupid. I can't believe someone with a UID below a million would even suggest it.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
thank you, that's a pile of good information.
Re: (Score:2)
"The lack of UI standardization is really making life unnecessarily hard. Getting Gnome somehow running on top of QT would be a big step in this direction."
How can be somebody so wrong and still being modded "+1 Insightful"?
1) What Shuttleworth said it's that Gnome's "philoshopy" (lack of -suppousedly, confusing options, lean and mean desktop) can certainly be built on top of Qt.
2) That's exactly what really differences KDE from Gnome on the user's eye. Gnome tries to be lean and mean on the understanment
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell shouldn't KDE swith to Gtk then? I don't like KDE and I've **NEVER** liked KDE. Ever. And its not for lack of trying or wanting to like KDE. I just can't use it for longer than 20 minutes before I get incredibly frustrated and give up. Its been that way for me for 10 years.
I'm quite content with GNOME right now, but if they switched to Qt, or tried to merge with KDE, I'd go full-time to e17 and say a pox on both their houses. But that is just me.
s/KDE/blabs/g;
s/GNOME/KDE/g;
s/blabs/GNOME/g;
s/Qt/blabs/g;
s/Gtk/Qt/g;
s/blabs/Gtk/g;
So, it's really a matter of taste. And choice.
Already done. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was called KDE 4.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kick yourself back to KDE 3.x like i did. Good thing Free software gives us such choices.
In other news, hell freezes over (Score:2)
While I personally think it would be great if we saw the current wasteful duplication of effort come to an end (flame away) I can't see it happening any time soon. There are too many stuborn people in both camps to go for something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the Cold War? The Russians avoided duplication of effort through central planning, the west duplicated effort massively through having competition within economies.
Yes, different operating system also provide competition, but the competition between desktop environments is more immediate. I am a KDE user, but I try Gnome or XFCE every so often, and would switch is one was better. That is not true of Windows or MacOS which I have not se
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other news, hell freezes over (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be all for that when the auto manufacturers stop all their wasteful duplication of effort and give us some fuel efficient cars that can be correctly serviced anywhere. Heck, why stop there? Let's just have one model of printer that does everything that everyone needs.
The reason that this hasn't happened yet is because each distro, GUI toolkit, etc. has its own purpose and audience both in user space and developer space. Forget the freedom jargon, it just gets into to preferences and needs. Some peop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're right but this is quite a problem. I recently made the switch from Windows to Ubuntu on my laptop. I still run Windows inside a VM but that's just for my management tools which are Windows only.
In these days you don't know which distro is right for you, they all provide much the same functionality and all have little differences. I tried the major distros, KDE, Gnome, and landed on Ubuntu with Gnome because everyone was ranting and raving about it and I thought it was worth a closer look.
In
eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is the code bad? Why is gconf that bad?
Generic whining like yours is sooooo 2002ish...
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: (Score:2)
Of course, you are free to define `usability' as `whatever is closest to Windows' if yu want.
From the wiki: [wikipedia.org]
Usability is a term used to denote the ease with which people can employ a particular tool or other human-made object in order to achieve a particular goal.
Making me click the wrong button after 10 years of Windows and KDE just because I paid more attention to what I want to do than how I do it is not "ease of use".
Ah, what's the use. It's my fault I clicked OK when it was in the (for me) wrong place. Just like Vista UAC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that like for real?
I've used Windows since 1994, GNOME/linux UI:s since 1999 and I can't recall a single time when I'd clicked on a wrong button _because_ of their order. Wording has been misleading on all platforms but ordering? I didn't even notice this before people started whining.
Re: (Score:2)
If buttons are labelled with actions rather than OK/Cancel ("Yes, I want to delete these"), order shouldn't matter. However, some consistency is required. My brain hurts going from positive/negative requesters to negative/positive between apps. I don't care which is right, just agree on a standard :)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, prefer having the most frequently used button always be put in the same place relative to the bottom right corner.
And I, for one, prefer having the most frequently used option always be first in the read order. You know, left-to-right? The way English is read?
Unless you read English from right-to-left, placing the most frequently used option on the right seems a bit silly, since it means you'll always come to it last when reading through the dialog.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, why not put it in the same place relative to the bottom left corner? That would accomplish the usability goal you keep repeating while encompassing multiple other usability goals such as readability and proper order of information relative to use frequency. Sorry you have your head so far into your own paradigm that you can't think.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not make it a friggin config-option in the [c|k]ontrol-center under the accessibility-tab, and be done?
"Where to put the Cancel-button in dialog-windows?"
[ ] Always right-most
[ ] Always left-most
[ ] Random position
[ ] Careful mode: Enable OK-button only after a delay of [ 5 ] seconds
[ ] Super-careful mode: Ask for [ 3 ] confirmations before proceeding with any action
[X] Toggle right/left when mouse-cursor hovers
[ ] Random position and randomly swap the labels of OK/Cancel
[ ] Random position and pick a r
Re: (Score:2)
Its not an infinite target, its a dialog, so "snapping to it" is not a particularly valid model. Also faster != better. Do you want the user to blindly click the dialog, or do you want the user to be accustomed to reading through his options until he finds the appropriate choice? Strange that with so much research done on the topic, every other gui toolkit disagrees.
Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
I always find that when dealing with any command of the form rm -rf, it's best to check and double-check that what I have typed is exactly what I mean. These are dangerous commands, and the slightest typo can leave one feeling terribly foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mistake (miss take?) lack of choices with people liking it. What else are people going to use if they want something that doesn't use the resources like KDE does, but has more features than Xfce?
Marc
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how QT is licensed under the GPL, how is this still relevant?
And you mean "Liberate from Nokia", since Nokia purchased Troll earlier this year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Trolltech is doing a great job. Qt4 is awesome, and now GPL under Windows too.
Of course, if you want to liberate it, FORK IT AND SHUT UP. (You know, GPL and all that.)
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: (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
He has been through the flames of re-entry :) (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Worry about your own release cycle, buddy... (Score:2)
Misleading headline aside, this is the sort of thing that makes me mostly ignore Ubuntu:
A year or two of unstable interfaces is not going to win over developers or users. Thankfully the GTK+ developers actually understand the value of stable interfaces and have managed t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
One of its weaknesses is that the C functions aren't very well thought out. It's a horrid mess, even after cleaning up through the versions. Thank goodness there is Gtkmm, with its clean C++ API :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
mind boggles (Score:2)
Geez... the gtk+ toolkit, and the other assorted infrastructure libraries, are some of the main strengths of gnome. Even if the gnome project as a whole is kind of wacky, it's got some technically pretty solid underpinnings.
Remove those, and what's left, besides the comical leadership?
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:What on earth is he getting at? (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows back compatibility? How far back do you want to go?
Wrong - try MS Bookshelf 92. Most of the "technologies" touted for that time period are now broken. Even when implemented by Microsoft. I wonder if "MS Bob" works (I doubt it). Most other shell extensions of that era no longer work.
So we know the window of compatibility is less than 16 years.
Maybe the "era of compatibility" extends back to Windows 95... I don't know (and, really, don't care much). Windows users probably have a much better idea than I do.
Just sayin'
Re:What on earth is he getting at? (Score:5, Insightful)
How far back do you want to go?
I can run MS-DOS software from the '80s on Windows XP SP2. I can run some Windows software from 1992, and I can run just about any well behaved application (which rules out things like shell extensions) from 10-15 years ago.
So we know the window of compatibility is less than 16 years.
What's the window of compatibility for binary executables on Linux? Even if they only depend on glibc, and don't pull in any GUI libraries, is it as long as 10 years? When was the last time they broke glibc? If you want to run a 10 year old GUI binary on a recent Linux, would you even know where to find all the back-rev lib*.so files it needs?
For FreeBSD installing compat3x should take you back to 1998, but I don't know if compat3x (let alone compat22) is still usable on FreeBSD 7.
I don't even think the "window of compatibility" for Mac OS is as long as 15 years.
16 years of binary compatibility is pretty damn good, for a desktop OS. Servers, now, you can probably still run VMS 2.0 binaries from 1980, but that's a whole different world.
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 ever
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the reason to use an LTS release. You use LTS because you want a platform that doesn't change (except for security fixes and bug fixes) for a long time. That means that towards the end of the LTS release's lifecycle you accept that you're using pretty outdated stuff, it doesn't mean that you necessarily want that at the beginning.
If what you want is something that's well-proven, you don't adopt any new release, LTS or not. You might pick up a year-ol
Re: (Score:2)
The choice of Firefox wasn't to have the newest, it was to have something that was still supportable in 3 years time. It's the same reason there isn't an LTS of Kubuntu, because KDE4 wasn't stable enough, and KDE 3.5 wouldn't be supportable in 3 years.
The artwork was a different issue, because upgrading artwork mid-LTS wouldn't actually be a big deal technically. Instead the choice was made because the LTS wasn't the "kick-off" of a new series, but rather the end-product of the series that started with Ed
Re: (Score:2)
As a Qt library user, the quality of the library itself is high. When I program correctly, it is reliable. When I don't program correctly, it is unreliable. I am left to conclude that I, not the library am responsible for the crashes. Usually, my apps only crash when I am not bounds checking. I don't remember what specific thing I did, but it's been a while.
Blame the developer, not the library.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the developer, not the library.
Yes, but I find it hard to believe that when so many QT applications are unstable whereas the GTK alternatives are more stable that this is just a developer problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I like the idea of a Qt port of GNOME, since I feel that Qt is somewhat superior to GTK, both in terms of development and in terms of use. Others will undoubted
Re: (Score:2)
I personally love using KDE and hate Gnome for its minimal configuration options. But I prefer programming Gtkmm/Gnomemm apps or wxWidgets rather than using KDE libs/Qt.
There are no real differences between KDE/Qt and Gnome/Gtk+ apps per se, but the philosophy and style guidelines for each desktop project affect how people implement their interfaces. With the skins and compatibility libs in KDE3, I have to look hard to tell which app is Gnome out of my most used ones.
(Of course, when I am scratching my own
Re:Apple innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
being innovation leader for restriction maybe?
you cant (normally) install a custom program or use an ipod for data storage out of the box.
maybe design leader but not innovation leader oh no!
This is just not true.
The first thing I do with any macs I lay hands on is drop mplayer SVN builds onto them, and the first thing I do after plugging in an ipod is to "enable disk use". I've had ipods since the second generation (the 10 gb brick), and still have the latest 2. 60% of both of these are occupied by normal everyday data.
Do I agree with itunes music store? no! Luckily I can go into parental controls in itunes and turn every hint of it off.
Do I wish they would remove the horrid bloat from itunes? Yes. Do I think they're moving in the wrong direction? Yes.
They're not quite where you are asserting they are yet though.