Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:18 UTC, submitted by alinandrei
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu De kogel is door de kerk. After years of focussing entirely on Gtk+ and GNOME, Ubuntu will finally start evaluating Qt applications for inclusion in the defaukt Ubuntu installation. Mark Shuttleworth announced the policy change on his blog today.
Order by: Score:
th3rmite Member since:
2006-01-08

He wants Ubuntu to be fully accessible to everybody, so he said. If that's still true, I hope he's going to put some resources into making QT apps work with the various accessibility aids in Ubuntu. Otherwise, that makes Shuttleman a straight up liar.


Dammit, does nobody ever read the actual article before they start bashing Shuttleworth? Your answer is right in his blog post:

"In evaluating an app for the Ubuntu default install, we should ask:"..."is it accessible to people who cannot use a mouse, or keyboard?"

People, we are talking about the Ubuntu default install. He makes a difference between QT and KDE. He also even states that there is nothing preventing someone from installing a QT app on Ubuntu.

They just want to ensure that the best software in class is part of the default install and that it acts and looks like all of the other applications that are included by default.

Reply Score: 8

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That doesn't answer the OP's question.

Reply Score: 1

steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

That doesn't answer the OP's question.


The OP didn't ask a question

Reply Score: 1

Talk about arrogance
by phoenix on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:33 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

What is it with {GNOME|Ubuntu|Shuttleworth} thinking that everything has to be done their way or nothing?

Rather than working with the QT devs, the KDE devs, the GNOME devs to find common-ground for storing, accessing, changing settings, Shuttleworth wants to (basically) fork QT, shoehorn in DConf support, and create a bunch of Ubuntu-specific QT apps that use DConf. And, probably, use the glib even loop in QT, and (maybe down the road) just turn around and use GTK to draw QT widgets.

Talk about driving a wedge into the desktop world. I thought we had the freedesktop.org movement to find commonalities and common ways to do things so that each toolkit could work together.

Aaron Seigo published a response that covers it nicely:
http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2011/01/qt-acceptance-growing-next-colab...

Collaboration is needed. Not shoehorning your methods into someone else's toolkit.

Reply Score: 15

RE: Talk about arrogance
by orestes on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:40 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Collaboration is nice in theory, but design by committee is usually mediocre at best and disastrous at worst. If Shuttleworth's got a clear vision of what his OS should be and wants to drop the manpower into making it happen, more power to him.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Talk about arrogance
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:43 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Funny how aaron doesnt seem to agree with you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Funny how aaron doesnt seem to agree with you.

Where do you get that idea from?

...I hope that the message of working together (rather than dictating, for life or otherwise) also spreads.


Edited 2011-01-18 22:52 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Talk about arrogance
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk about arrogance"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Mainly because Aaron is not being acerbic and is open for collaboration. Nowhere does he says that this is like driving a wedge in the desktop world, for example.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You're reading this completely differently. He is advocating caution and already has some criticisms of how this is being presented:

finally, the suggestion in Mark's blog entry in quite literal terms is to use dconf within KDE. that may be a good idea, it might not be. holding out a "you can be included in $TARGET_OS" trinket as a mechanism to sway such decisions is not a useful approach no matter the validity of the suggestion.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're reading this completely differently. He is advocating caution and already has some criticisms of how this is being presented:

"finally, the suggestion in Mark's blog entry in quite literal terms is to use dconf within KDE. that may be a good idea, it might not be. holding out a "you can be included in $TARGET_OS" trinket as a mechanism to sway such decisions is not a useful approach no matter the validity of the suggestion.
"

Why is that not a valid approach? What does KDE have to lose if Qt devs implement dconf suport?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by leos on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Why is that not a valid approach? What does KDE have to lose if Qt devs implement dconf suport?


The power of Qt (and KDE to a lesser extent) is that the same developers interface will have different backends on different platforms, so the developer doesn't have to worry about it.

This is extremely powerful in allowing developers to concentrate on features in their applications, rather than worrying about exactly how to interface with the local libraries that perform task X on whatever platform they are on.

So the general problem here is different settings backends. Well Qt apps use QSettings that has different backends for different platforms, so on Windows it will use the registry, on Mac it will use plists, and on linux it will use .ini. KDE has a separate class that adds more features, called KConfig.

So the solution is not to add yet another class for dconf support. The correct answer is to work with KDE to either extend KConfig to allow using a dconf backend that will be transparent to the developers, or agree on a new interface that will support both backends.

Adding a DConfConfig class to Qt and asking all app developers to add support for it is totally backwards. Any even somewhat competent developer can tell you that. Hopefully that is not what Shuttleworth is actually suggesting and it will be clarified.

Edited 2011-01-18 23:19 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by plague on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
plague Member since:
2006-05-08

So the general problem here is different settings backends. Well Qt apps use QSettings that has different backends for different platforms, so on Windows it will use the registry, on Mac it will use plists, and on linux it will use .ini. KDE has a separate class that adds more features, called KConfig.

So the solution is not to add yet another class for dconf support. The correct answer is to work with KDE to either extend KConfig to allow using a dconf backend that will be transparent to the developers, or agree on a new interface that will support both backends.

I admit, I don't have any knowledge about the inner workings of QT/KDE/GNOME/GTK+/dconf, etc, so this may sound like a stupid question.. But If QT apps use QSettings, that itself has several different backends for different platforms, and the apps themselves work automagically with each backend, wouldn't it be easiest and best to simply create a dconf backend to QSettings?
Maybe that's exactly what you meant by extending KConfig to allow using a dconf backend?

If this can be done, I see absolutely no problem with it, even if a "better" solution is to be introduced later on.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by ndrw on Wed 19th Jan 2011 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

> KDE has a separate class that adds more features, called KConfig.

Ubuntu is not targeting KDE apps, not at the moment at least. What they want to do instead, is to make Qt applications feel native on the Ubuntu desktop.

Qt apps use QSettings, not KConfig, hence modifying the latter would largely be irrelevant to Ubuntu goals.

I'm happy with this move (see http://www.osnews.com/permalink?446284). Qt is a extremely developer friendly toolkit, yet lacking in areas related to user experience. If Ubuntu can iron out some of these (relatively minor) wrinkles it will be a win-win game for all parties involved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why? It's not about KDE apps, its about QT apps. One could actually question why KDE is not using the existing QSettings stuff but instead went their own way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is that not a valid approach? What does KDE have to lose if Qt devs implement dconf suport?

That's an odd slant you've put on this. Qt developers haven't decided anything. You're rather jumping ahead of yourself here.

It won't be Qt developers implementing this. It's being done by someone, in a fork for the timebeing, in a way that has already been decided. I don't get the impression many people have been consulted. I suggest you read Mark's post. No one apart from Ubuntu has decided that dconf is even the right direction to go in.

Oh, and probably because it's the same approach Shuttleworth has generally used over the years, and he's always ended up being wrong and hurting everyone in the process? Shuttleworth, Canonical and Ubuntu don't exactly have a track record of being right.

Let's not be naive here. Shuttleworth and Ubuntu have been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting Qt. The only way this will work for them is if they end up with some applications they can use, and they don't get to decide that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's being done by someone, in a fork for the timebeing, in a way that has already been decide


Writing a QSettings plugin is not creating a fork.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by mart on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
mart Member since:
2005-11-17

Why is that not a valid approach? What does KDE have to lose if Qt devs implement dconf suport?

The admirable target of this move is to add more unification and consistence...

...what it would do in reality is adding more fragmentation, having just another API for a configuration system doesn't really add value but confusion.
Also, expecting developers to "write applications for Ubuntu" is not quite realistic. Most Qt-only applications are targeted to the most wide target platform (especially Windows and Mac in primis) so expecting them to target a specific Linux distribution (with the hope some other distributions will adopt it, but i wouldn't hold my breath) instead seems not realistic to me.

Now, writing it as a QSettings/KConfig backend is another story and makes more sense for sure, this is what i fully support (where the best case scenario is having a backend for both, with the KConfig one as the fully functional one, see below).

Now, probably QSettings itself is a bit too limited and I'm not sure it's possible to have a full support to dconf with its API.
Different discourse for KConfig, (that btw has good reasons to exist and to be sed in place of QSettings, we didn't write it just because we were bored) it adds things like better groups nesting support, system/user config fallback, type safety, change notifications..
all things that are necessary to represent 100% of dconf

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by molnarcs on Wed 19th Jan 2011 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

[q]
Why is that not a valid approach? What does KDE have to lose if Qt devs implement dconf suport?


In theory, technically nothing. But KDE is not simply a sum of all KDE software. It's a fairly open community willing to work with anyone on common standards. Mark's post is a little bit arrogant in that it suggests the adaptation of something they developed in-house, instead of really working together with the community to solve common problems. This might be actually a good strategy sometimes, but not in KDE/QT's case. Those are not difficult people to work with, KDE adopted and collaborated on dozens of freedestkop.org standards. Anyway, I really really recommend reading Aaron Seigo's blog. In is usual lucid style he very clearly highlights the "problem" ;) That guy should be a PR expert or something (while Mark is obviously not ;) )

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2011/01/qt-acceptance-growing-next-colab...

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Mainly because Aaron is not being acerbic and is open for collaboration. Nowhere does he says that this is like driving a wedge in the desktop world, for example.

I'm afraid that's a hugely misleading thing to say. Let's not misrepresent the huge dose of caution Aaron has thrown over this because of past experience.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by phoenix on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Did you read the same blog posts I did? Because it sounds like you didn't.

"Mark suggests that Qt developers should start using Canonical's Qt add-on libraries for things like dconf so that Qt apps integrate properly with Ubuntu."

Basically, forking QT, leading to Ubuntu-only QT apps.

"To get applications working together as well as possible, the answer is not to start creating Ubuntu-targeted versions of Qt apps"

Collaborate, don't fork.

"Solving this means working together, not thinking that we are individually capable of coming up with the best ideas ever and that the world should simply bend to our whim of the day."

Which is what Shuttleworth is doing, by shoehorning DConf support into a Canonical fork of QT, instead of working together with QT and/or KDE devs to find a solution to the settings issue.

"As more groups warm to the beauty that is embodied in Qt, I hope that the message of working together (rather than dictating, for life or otherwise) also spreads."

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Talk about arrogance
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk about arrogance"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Which is what Shuttleworth is doing, by shoehorning DConf support into a Canonical fork of QT, instead of working together with QT and/or KDE devs to find a solution to the settings issue.


Yes, and world peace will arrive tomorrow.

This is a very good solution, and is not a fork at al - that's a bunch of FUD bullshit. All this means is giving Qt devs the option of building dconf support into their applications. Said applications will still work fine in any Qt environment, and as such, really can't be called forks. He's not forcing anyone, he's not dictating anyone, he's just saying: look, we're hiring a few devs to work on allowing Qt devs to implement dconf support, and if Qt apps want to make use of that, fine. If not, also fine.

Jesus Christ the anti-Shuttleworth and anti-Ubuntu talk is reaching insane proportions around here.

Edited 2011-01-18 23:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by phoenix on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Hey, we gotta balance out the anti-Apple and anti-MS crowd. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, but I can only interpret this one way and it's the same message that Mark Shuttleworth has given for years that has always ended up in nothing of very much significance happening:

Nevertheless, should a KDE app learn to talk dconf in addition to the standard KDE mechanisms, which should be straightforward, it would be a candidate for the Ubuntu default install.

What this means is that if a foreign application does things the way that we want in a way that we've already decided then we'll be happy to dangle a carrot of inclusion into Ubuntu.

Not helpful, in other words, because whatever way you choose to see it that is dictation in any language - or at least attempting to dictate.

They've obviously now seen the error of their ways over the years with their development platform and path. How much do you want to bet that they end up being wrong over this shoehorned approach until they either change again or go bust?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What this means is that if a foreign application does things the way that we want in a way that we've already decided then we'll be happy to dangle a carrot of inclusion into Ubuntu.


And this is different to just about any other software collection, how, exactly? Are you telling me KDE doesn't have rules for inclusion? OpenSUSE? Fedora?

Come on dude, this sounds a lot like trolling just because you hate Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And this is different to just about any other software collection, how, exactly? Are you telling me KDE doesn't have rules for inclusion? OpenSUSE? Fedora?

Most (succcessful) software projects formulate their direction for things by including the projects that they hope will buy in and working out the best direction to go in. Those that dictate tend to not be very successful, and Ubuntu doesn't have the best track record of thinking things through, dictating and convincing people that where they're going is the right path. They've only been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting Qt after seven years.

The only way they're going to make a success of this is by getting buy in from Qt and the developers of Qt-using applications, such as those in KDE, and he's not off to the best start.

Come on dude, this sounds a lot like trolling just because you hate Ubuntu.

Sorry sweetheart, no. Ubuntu just doesn't have track record of getting these things right, that's all.

I'd appreciate it if you could leave this kind of trolling out of this as well. It kind of makes it look like any criticism of Ubuntu is trolling against it, you know?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by WereCatf on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

They've obviously now seen the error of their ways over the years with their development platform and path. How much do you want to bet that they end up being wrong over this shoehorned approach until they either change again or go bust?

I am not an Ubuntu fan or anything, but even I have to jump in here: your comments sound like nothing more than trolling. They are perfectly within their rights to only include applications that work well on their desktop. After all, Ubuntu IS aimed for the desktop and they want to maintain atleast a certain element of quality there. Thus it's perfectly reasonable to want to only include such Qt apps by default that fill their requirements.

After all, that's what EVERY single effing distro does.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not an Ubuntu fan or anything, but even I have to jump in here: your comments sound like nothing more than trolling. They are perfectly within their rights to only include applications that work well on their desktop.

You can view it in whatever way that you want, but after seven years of steadfastly being hung-up on one toolkit, people complaining that perfectly good applications were being shoved to one side and coming up with some rather strange and very familiar reasons as to why they won't even acknowledge any other toolkits.......the irony is not lost on those of us who've seen what's happened over the past seven years.

After all, that's what EVERY single effing distro does.

No, outright excluding applications and alternative toolkits in installations based on ill-advised technology preferences is not what every distro does. Only some.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You can view it in whatever way that you want, but after seven years of steadfastly being hung-up on one toolkit, people complaining that perfectly good applications were being shoved to one side and coming up with some rather strange and very familiar reasons as to why they won't even acknowledge any other toolkits

That's called "having differing viewpoints and wishes" and, well, they wanted to keep Ubuntu as a GTK+ oriented distro.

No, outright excluding applications and alternative toolkits in installations based on ill-advised technology preferences is not what every distro does. Only some.

I see lots of distros doing that. Some distros ship only Qt apps by default, some only GTK+ apps by default, some ship a selection of both..

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Which is what Shuttleworth is doing, by shoehorning DConf support into a Canonical fork of QT, instead of working together with QT and/or KDE devs to find a solution to the settings issue.
Yes, and world peace will arrive tomorrow. This is a very good solution, and is not a fork at al - that's a bunch of FUD bullshit. All this means is giving Qt devs the option of building dconf support into their applications. Said applications will still work fine in any Qt environment, and as such, really can't be called forks. He's not forcing anyone, he's not dictating anyone, he's just saying: look, we're hiring a few devs to work on allowing Qt devs to implement dconf support, and if Qt apps want to make use of that, fine. If not, also fine. Jesus Christ the anti-Shuttleworth and anti-Ubuntu talk is reaching insane proportions around here. "

KDE desktops have pretty good support for GTK applications, including settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK-Qt

If Shuttleworth wants to integrate Qt and GTK applications on the one desktop, which is a perfectly reasonable aspiration, why not just use what already works?

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's a theme engine.

Read the article again. This is about the settings backend. A theme engine ain't gonna help you there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's a theme engine. Read the article again. This is about the settings backend. A theme engine ain't gonna help you there.


It gets you a long way there (although I agree there must be more to it than just a theme engine). On my system, GTK applications look virtually identical to "native" KDE/Qt applications, in that they all use the same Window styles; widget styles; system, window and application fonts; colours; printer settings; language settings; currency formats; etc, etc. Some GTK applications will even support KDE-style dialog boxes.

Surely such an approach is already far less eclectic than some other desktops, such as Windows for example.

Since it already exists, why not just go with that?

Edited 2011-01-19 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Wed 19th Jan 2011 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a theme engine.

Yer, and? It's certainly a big help to desktop and application integration - and guess who wrote it? We'll just paint over that though.......

Read the article again. This is about the settings backend. A theme engine ain't gonna help you there.

This is about integrating applications, not purely about some settings backend. A settings backend by itself certainly won't help you because you've got to agree a format with everyone as to what settings will be stored and how they will be used, and everyone has to buy into it for it to work. The article goes into no detail whatsoever there.

Stop telling people to read the article again when you don't understand the implications within it yourself and Mark Shuttleworth doesn't either.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

KDE desktops have pretty good support for GTK applications, including settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK-Qt

If Shuttleworth wants to integrate Qt and GTK applications on the one desktop, which is a perfectly reasonable aspiration, why not just use what already works?


That would mean having KDE as the default desktop instead of GNOME, thus that is absolutely of no help here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

KDE desktops have pretty good support for GTK applications, including settings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK-Qt If Shuttleworth wants to integrate Qt and GTK applications on the one desktop, which is a perfectly reasonable aspiration, why not just use what already works? That would mean having KDE as the default desktop instead of GNOME, thus that is absolutely of no help here.


I'd like to find out why. Plasma is after all very "programmable" and configurable, and could probably be shipped in such a way as to look and behave almost exactly like the GNOME desktop you are used to.

Such a GNOME-mimicking KDE desktop would possibly be more like GNOME now than GNOME 3 and/or Unity desktop would be.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'd like to find out why. Plasma is after all very "programmable" and configurable, and could probably be shipped in such a way as to look and behave almost exactly like the GNOME desktop you are used to.

That would be way more work than just implementing support for dconf. And it would require LOTS of work for everything to work like on GNOME.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by mart on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
mart Member since:
2005-11-17

That would mean having KDE as the default desktop instead of GNOME, thus that is absolutely of no help here.

the opposite is true as well, the default Qt build supports a theme that paints directly with the GTK engine.

Edited 2011-01-19 10:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by vivainio on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

the opposite is true as well, the default Qt build supports a theme that paints directly with the GTK engine.


I think QGtkStyle still uses Qt for painting, Gtk is used to launch system dialogs and fetch the theme attributes & bitmaps for the painter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Wed 19th Jan 2011 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That would mean having KDE as the default desktop instead of GNOME, thus that is absolutely of no help here.

That's the wrong way to be looking at it. It's really a question of what already works and who's actually done the work.

In reality though Qt now does a pretty good job of going in the reverse direction of taking on the Gnome and GTK environment.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by aunzim on Thu 20th Jan 2011 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
aunzim Member since:
2008-07-25

Why not? Is there a religious reason agaisnt KDE? KDE with plasma could be made to look and feel just like Gnome if is that you want. Or a another type of GUI like Unity for instance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by emilsedgh on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

Just because shuttleworth is letting Qt applications into Ubuntu, it doesnt mean its a good thing for intergration between desktops.

This is what exactly happened:
Qt is now far far ahead of GTK+.
Ubuntu wants to use Qt more.
They do the fastest and cheapest approach, which is also the one that has no cooperation with others.

What happens isnt very sad. We will probably see a few Qt applications which depend on something like libqdconf or something like that.

But the issue is, they could've done much more. They could've helped on a new standard on FD.o for managing settings. But they decided not to.

Please dont tell me that something designed by commite isnt going to work. FD.o standards have worked pretty awesome in the past few years. Its just that shuttleworth and ubuntu kids want FAST results. which isnt the best possible result.

And this is very very insulting:


But I think it’s entirely plausible that dconf, once it has great Qt bindings, be considered by the KDE community.


You see, KDE people had KConfig which is a pluggable settings system for years. And they consider it as a superior technology. Then suddenly someone jumps inbetween and suggests them to use dconf so they could be more intergrated.

Edited 2011-01-19 09:36 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by phoenix on Fri 21st Jan 2011 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Exactly. Rather than working within the existing communities (like fd.o), they are going their own way, doing their own thing, with a solution that benefits noone but themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Talk about arrogance
by fran on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk about arrogance"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

This Ubuntu bashing is petty.
Your mother never teach you not to look a gift horse in the mouth?
You do know there is like a gazillion other distros out there?
Guess its true, nobody hates you like your friends.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Talk about arrogance
by s-peter on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

What is it with {GNOME|Ubuntu|Shuttleworth} thinking that everything has to be done their way or nothing?


Nothing has to be done "their way or nothing"... The beauty of open source / free software is that if you like the idea you can use their software, and if you don't like it, you can use any of the alternatives that suits your preferences.

Canonical is just putting its money where its mouth is by sticking to a vision and implementing stuff based on it, rather than trying to draw conclusions from discussions at different forums that usually turn into endless (and often pointless) "religious wars". Whether the vision/idea is good will ultimately be decided by the users. (Unfortunately this doesn't prevent others from having endless and pointless religious wars related to Ubuntu.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

...implementing stuff based on it, rather than trying to draw conclusions from discussions at different forums that usually turn into endless (and often pointless) "religious wars".

I'm sorry, but I'm chuckling at how ironic that statement actually is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Talk about arrogance
by vivainio on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:34 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

And, probably, use the glib even loop in QT


All (?) Linux distros have built Qt to use glib for event loop for years. That's the way to integrate with gnome stuff.
Collaboration is needed. Not shoehorning your methods into someone else's toolkit.


What is needed is *action*, not planning or discussing about planning. For whatever canonical is bashed for these days, you can at least trust that they are *doing*, not debating.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

What is needed is *action*, not planning or discussing about planning. For whatever canonical is bashed for these days, you can at least trust that they are *doing*, not debating.

I don't think it's beyond the realms of sensibility that getting some buy-in from the developers of the software that you hope to use before hand would be a good idea for everyone.

Canonical has ended up 'doing' a lot of things over the years......and not being terribly successful at getting others to join in.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Talk about arrogance
by benhonghu on Wed 19th Jan 2011 02:25 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
benhonghu Member since:
2008-08-24

Collaboration is needed. Not shoehorning your methods into someone else's toolkit.


The beauty of open source development is it's largely an evolution rather than design. For it to work people need to let go of the notion that there's only one good way of doing things. We need to let people do what they think is the best to do, encourage them to do different thing.

So let Shuttleworth do his thing to Ubuntu. If you don't like it, you have 9071431 other distributions to choose from, pick the one you like.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So let Shuttleworth do his thing to Ubuntu.


Sure. Go ahead. Whatever. Away you go, and write a set of interface binding for Qt apps to be able to query dconf. Fill your boots.

Just don't expect authors of Qt programs to re-write all their applications (to call those bindings) just to satisfy the Ubuntu desktop.

As this thread title says ... talk about arrogance! Sheesh.

PS: I have an alternative proposal for Ubuntu ... re-write dconf for Ubuntu to set not only the dconf database but also to make synchronous, sympathetic changes to Qsettings. Integrate Qt applications without requiring any re-write by authors of said qt applications.

Edited 2011-01-19 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Talk about arrogance
by Hiev on Wed 19th Jan 2011 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk about arrogance"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Dude, are you even a developer? I mean, a real one?
if so, what do you do and in what languaje?

Just asking.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Dude, are you even a developer? I mean, a real one? if so, what do you do and in what languaje? Just asking.


MYOBB.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by Hiev on Wed 19th Jan 2011 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

So, you don't.

Then stop trolling about subjects you don't even understand.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So, you don't.


I didn't say that ... I haven't done programming for some years now, as I have moved up the engineering structure somewhat since then.

Then stop trolling about subjects you don't even understand.


Wrong guess. Entirely.

As I said, MYOBB.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Talk about arrogance
by Hiev on Wed 19th Jan 2011 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Talk about arrogance"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

So, you are not in the field, out of curiosity, have you ever programed professionaly in something more than Visual Basic 6?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Talk about arrogance
by asdf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk about arrogance"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

PS: I have an alternative proposal for Ubuntu ... re-write dconf for Ubuntu to set not only the dconf database but also to make synchronous, sympathetic changes to Qsettings. Integrate Qt applications without requiring any re-write by authors of said qt applications.


Because that's an outright stupid and horrible idea. What next? A configuration merge engine which asks the user in toolkit-independent manner how differences in two supposedly simultaneously managed config backends should be merged?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Talk about arrogance
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk about arrogance"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"PS: I have an alternative proposal for Ubuntu ... re-write dconf for Ubuntu to set not only the dconf database but also to make synchronous, sympathetic changes to Qsettings. Integrate Qt applications without requiring any re-write by authors of said qt applications.


Because that's an outright stupid and horrible idea. What next? A configuration merge engine which asks the user in toolkit-independent manner how differences in two supposedly simultaneously managed config backends should be merged?
"

Yes, I have reconsidered ... a better approach is for Ubuntu to write a replacement for QSettings class and qtconfig, such the the replacement libraries run with the rest of Qt only when GNOME runs. This maintains the dconf database as the repository of all GNOME settings, and Qt applications running under GNOME would see those settings translated from the dconf database.

If one also installed KDE on the same machine (perhaps for different users to use as their preferred desktop), when KDE ran the exact same Qt applications they would see the KDE desktop settings for that user, since KDE would be running the default QSettings class and qtconfig settings.

So, I agree, doing it that way around is better.

However, either way is still better than what Shuttleworth proposes, requiring Qt applications to be re-written to run under a Ubuntu-unique version of GNOME.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by Carewolf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

KDE doesn't use QSettings.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Talk about arrogance
by phoenix on Fri 21st Jan 2011 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk about arrogance"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Oh, wouldn't something as thoughtful as that be nice to work with? ;) There just might be hope for humanity yet. Although, I wonder if any Canonical people read OSNews ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by phoenix on Fri 21st Jan 2011 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The beauty of open source development is it's largely an evolution rather than design.


The biggest problem with open-source development is that it's largely evolution rather than design.

For it to work people need to let go of the notion that there's only one good way of doing things. We need to let people do what they think is the best to do, encourage them to do different thing.


Which is fine, so long as there is a vision of what the end product should look like. Re-doing things every 6 months because it doesn't work is no way to run a software project. There needs to be some kind of framework, plan, whatever, and not just "try X; fail; try Y; fail; Try Z; mostly works; Try Q; almost works; try A; works; try B; works better" ad nauseum.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Talk about arrogance
by Aragorn992 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 07:55 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Because design-by-committee has been time again shown to be slow and often substandard. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It's true that this method rarely fails but it also rarely produces something innovative.

That's not even taking into account the typical knee-jerk reactions I would expect from the non-Ubuntu people in the open source world (which Ubuntu has plenty of experience with, by the way).

Arrogrant, bloody-minded, dictatorship (I'm purposely exaggerating) can be a good thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by mart on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
mart Member since:
2005-11-17

Because design-by-committee has been time again shown to be slow and often substandard. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. It's true that this method rarely fails but it also rarely produces something innovative.


and never the less, without efforts like freedesktop (that admittely have its share of problems) we wouldn't even have the same storage for the start menu, the same hints for windows (a panel is a panel in all window managers that wasn't really true some years ago) we couldn't see notifications of applications written in the other toolkit...

(to not mention waay wider efforts like uhm, HTML anyone?)

Now, we have gained a significant amount of interoperability over those years, it would be a shame backpedal it.

Things like Ubuntu just proposed, are in the right direction, with the best intentions of the world.
What I say is, be careful of how something is pushed forward, a little "implementation detail", like it can be the choice of writing backends versus a new api, can have the consequence of having very good or very bad consequences.

And you know how all of this can be avoided? it's called "working together", and is what it's slowly starting to happen. We are talking with them and for this very reason I'm delaying any judging until this thing rolls down.
As collaboration with Ubuntu goes, in the history we have very sore points but very successful episodes as well (for instance the integration of our StatusNotifier protocol with their DBusMenu protocol was a quite good example of working together) so, we'll see.

What I can say, that from KDE we are always open for collaboration.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Talk about arrogance
by twizster on Wed 19th Jan 2011 22:40 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
twizster Member since:
2011-01-19

anyone tried it on trunk GNOME? seems to fail miserably on x86_64 (core dumps all the time.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Talk about arrogance
by Sauron on Thu 20th Jan 2011 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk about arrogance"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Not surprising. QT apps or not, Ubuntu will still be the crash happy Linux Distro that breaks on every update!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Talk about arrogance
by disposaboy on Sat 22nd Jan 2011 11:34 UTC in reply to "Talk about arrogance"
disposaboy Member since:
2011-01-22

You don't appear to know what you're talking about.

Reply Score: 1

offers devs more options
by Adurbe on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:47 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

offering devs more language options on the ubuntu 'platform' can only be a good thing.

I might be jumping a few (lots) of steps, but it could be a decent olive branch to nokia to possibly work closer together in the mobile/linux space

Reply Score: 3

RE: offers devs more options - QT market
by jabbotts on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "offers devs more options"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

My first thought was Nokia also but of Ovi's apps being QT based. Potentially, the same app I run on my phone may be natively available to run on a future Ubuntu release (assuming Ovi and/or Ubuntu last long enough).

Reply Score: 1

Like I've Said Before....
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:51 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

They've eventually been dragged kicking and screaming into doing this after years of the "Oh, we won't ship Qt or anything that even smells like it's been near KDE" basically for their own petty NIH reasons - something they were more than happy to accuse others of. Those of us who identified Qt as the right basis years ago are simply rolling our eyes.

To be honest, all this sounds like it's coming from a company that's now thinking it has to do something.

All they need now is a desktop environment that works well with Qt and isn't a tack on, and some actual Qt applications........... From Mark's blog postting that sounds like it's going to be as much of a challenge as getting them to even acknowledge Qt was there. It's only taken seven years!

Edited 2011-01-18 23:00 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Like I've Said Before....
by s-peter on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:31 UTC in reply to "Like I've Said Before...."
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

They've eventually been dragged kicking and screaming into doing this after years of the "Oh, we won't ship Qt or anything that even smells like it's been near KDE" basically for their own petty NIH reasons - something they were more than happy to accuse others of. Those of us who identified Qt as the right basis years ago are simply rolling our eyes.

So what was this Kubuntu thing about? This is not about "the right basis", but about "any basis". So far they've focused on building more-and-more user-friendly systems based on each "basis". Now they are starting to work on removing this "basis" barrier so that you can use applications with different toolkits in a single system consistently.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Like I've Said Before....
by segedunum on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Like I've Said Before...."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not entirely sure what that claptrap is supposed to mean, but:

Now they are starting to work on removing this "basis" barrier so that you can use applications with different toolkits in a single system consistently.

Which they've always been somewhat less than keen to do in the past, leaving it to other people to do in spite of them. Afterall, it's only taken them seven years.

Edited 2011-01-18 23:37 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Like I've Said Before....
by s-peter on Wed 19th Jan 2011 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Like I've Said Before...."
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

leaving it to other people to do in spite of them

As far as I know, most people who work on Ubuntu are either Canonical employees, or volunteers who do it because they agree with Ubuntu's goals and enjoy working on it... I can only assume that by "other people" you are referring to the large number of volunteers, but I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

Reply Score: 1

De kogel is door de kerk
by Munchkinguy on Tue 18th Jan 2011 23:46 UTC
Munchkinguy
Member since:
2007-12-22

"De kogel is door de kerk"? My sub-standard Dutch translation skills tell me that this means "The casserole is by the church", which makes no sense. Can someone explain?

Edited 2011-01-18 23:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: De kogel is door de kerk
by avgalen on Wed 19th Jan 2011 01:32 UTC in reply to "De kogel is door de kerk"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

It means "the decision has been made"

I don't know why Dutch expressions keep being used without any reason or explanation

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk
by ozonehole on Wed 19th Jan 2011 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE: De kogel is door de kerk"
ozonehole Member since:
2006-01-07

Hey, I kind of enjoy the foreign idioms. I don't speak Dutch, so I turned to Google translate which says:

"The ball is cast"

There is an expression in English "The die is cast." An explanation for how this originated:

http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/die-is-cast-the

So, the decision is engraved in stone.

As for the decision itself, I'm OK with it. Anything that makes my Ubuntu desktop work a little better is a step forward.

Peace.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As for the decision itself, I'm OK with it. Anything that makes my Ubuntu desktop work a little better is a step forward. Peace.


That's nice. After utterly ignoring Qt and KDE for many a year, suddenly, just for the sake of the Ubuntu default desktop, all authors of Qt applications must re-write parts of their application in order to be aware of qt-dconf settings, unique to Ubuntu?

I'm so glad you are OK with that. </sarcasm>

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk
by geertjan on Wed 19th Jan 2011 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk"
geertjan Member since:
2010-10-29

Yep, they must. All Qt programmers that do not use dconf will be arrested and executed.

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

All Canonical is doing is creating a new piece of software that allows Qt application to integrate better into GNOME and Ubuntu. Yes, not just Ubuntu, this will also benefit other distros that combine GNOME with Qt applications. And everybody is free to use or ignore it.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

Indeed. The library is already being written so an application which wishes to be part of the default installation only needs to add the library and to save/store its settings via that. Not really a big effort needed. And besides, not all apps are going to get on the default installation anyways.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"

I suppose they were happier complaining than actually getting something. And still, Qt apps have been available in Ubuntu for years, the only difference now is that it's possible some Qt apps will be included by default.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yep, they must. All Qt programmers that do not use dconf will be arrested and executed.

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

All Canonical is doing is creating a new piece of software that allows Qt application to integrate better into GNOME and Ubuntu. Yes, not just Ubuntu, this will also benefit other distros that combine GNOME with Qt applications. And everybody is free to use or ignore it.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"


I'm sorry you missed the sarcasm tag, I actually did put one right there in that post for you.

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?

Why would it be so hard for Mr Shuttleworth to arrange to do the work of integration, if he wants to include these best-of-class Qt applications on his default CD?

There are two methods which come to mind, neither of which would require Qt authors to leap to Mr Shuttleworth's bidding (for Mr Shuttleworth's benefit):

1. Ubuntu writes a replacement qtconfig
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/qtconfig.html
The qtconfig tool allows users to customize the default settings for Qt applications on a per-user basis, enabling features such as the widget style to be changed without requiring applications to be recompiled.
and a replacement for QsettingsClass in the QtCore module, both of which integrate with dconf, all other parts of Qt remain untouched,

http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.6.2/qsettings.html
Detailed Description

The QSettings class provides persistent platform-independent application settings.

Users normally expect an application to remember its settings (window sizes and positions, options, etc.) across sessions. This information is often stored in the system registry on Windows, and in XML preferences files on Mac OS X. On Unix systems, in the absence of a standard, many applications (including the KDE applications) use INI text files.

QSettings is an abstraction around these technologies, enabling you to save and restore application settings in a portable manner. It also supports custom storage formats.

QSettings's API is based on QVariant, allowing you to save most value-based types, such as QString, QRect, and QImage, with the minimum of effort.


or

2. Ubuntu writes an expanded dconf module which edits both the dconf database and the qtconfig and QsettingsClass storage.

Either way, it seems to me, suddenly Qt applications running on Ubuntu will see the same settings changes as dconf does, without any requirement for said Qt applications to be re-written or even re-compiled.

Surely this is an infinitely better solution for everybody, even for Mr Shuttleworth?

Edited 2011-01-19 09:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: De kogel is door de kerk
by saynte on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

dconf has technical advantages over flat-file storage, including notice of changes, and a quite fast retrieval/loading mechanism (as it is more likely that settings are read than written).

Having the author of dconf write bindings for Qt, so there is the choice of using it, is a good thing!

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: De kogel is door de kerk
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: De kogel is door de kerk"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

dconf has technical advantages over flat-file storage, including notice of changes, and a quite fast retrieval/loading mechanism (as it is more likely that settings are read than written).

Having the author of dconf write bindings for Qt, so there is the choice of using it, is a good thing!


But only Qt applications which were re-written to explicitly call those bindings (probably making them a dependency, and also therefore bringing in dconf as a dependency) would be able to work.

However, modifying dconf to also provide a replacement QSettings class and a replacement qtconfig would provide the desired mechanisms for Qt applications running under Ubuntu's GNOME to use the dconf database WITHOUT having to modify said Qt applications!

Better for everybody!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: De kogel is door de kerk
by geertjan on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk"
geertjan Member since:
2010-10-29

Wait, I thought the sarcasm tag just applied to that last sentence you wrote. Are you saying it applied to your entire post? So this part:

...all authors of Qt applications must re-write parts of their application in order to be aware of qt-dconf settings, unique to Ubuntu?


was sarcastic as well? So you agree with me that it's not true that all Qt applications must be re-writen and that it will only work on Ubuntu?

Anyway, I think here is where your problem lies:

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?


Seems to me you are just creating this problem in your head. There is no matter of "honour" here. Nobody is being forced to do anything. Here's how I see it for example:

For years people have been asking for the inclusion of Qt apps in the default Ubuntu install. Canonical didn't want to do this at first because of poor integration in GNOME. But now it seems they have some room in their budget for helping that integration, making Qt apps in the default install possible. Apart from being good for Ubuntu in the long run, this is a favor for those who wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu. For those that are not interested in this, *nothing* changes.

If you don't like their dconf solution, that's fine. Your solution with QSettings sounds good too. Perhaps you should collaborate with Canonical on it, or try to implement it yourself.

But as long as they are implementing something with their time/money - something which has no down-sides because it doesn't affect anybody that is not interested - than that can only be a good thing in my book. You can say it's not good enough, but I don't see how you can view this as a bad thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: De kogel is door de kerk
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: De kogel is door de kerk"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Wait, I thought the sarcasm tag just applied to that last sentence you wrote. Are you saying it applied to your entire post? So this part:

...all authors of Qt applications must re-write parts of their application in order to be aware of qt-dconf settings, unique to Ubuntu?

was sarcastic as well? So you agree with me that it's not true that all Qt applications must be re-writen and that it will only work on Ubuntu?


Qt applications must be re-writen under Mr Shuttleworth's proposed scheme in order to work in an integrated fashion ONLY on Ubuntu. Yes indeed, that is what I meant.

Anyway, I think here is where your problem lies:

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?

Seems to me you are just creating this problem in your head. There is no matter of "honour" here. Nobody is being forced to do anything.


Your misunderstanding, not mine. Indeed nobody is being forced to do anything ... so nobody will do anything to make their Qt application depend on Ubuntu. That's crazy.

Here's how I see it for example:

For years people have been asking for the inclusion of Qt apps in the default Ubuntu install. Canonical didn't want to do this at first because of poor integration in GNOME. But now it seems they have some room in their budget for helping that integration, making Qt apps in the default install possible. Apart from being good for Ubuntu in the long run, this is a favor for those who wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu. For those that are not interested in this, *nothing* changes.


So why not simply do it in a way that Qt applications can run in an integrated fashion under Ubuntu without requiring changes to Qt applications? All it requires is for Ubuntu's GNOME desktop to replace a few small parts of Qt, in a very similar way that KDE desktops currently replace a few small parts of GTK in order to achieve the GTK integration. What exactly would be wrong with doing that? It is no more work for Ubuntu.

If you don't like their dconf solution, that's fine. Your solution with QSettings sounds good too. Perhaps you should collaborate with Canonical on it, or try to implement it yourself.


Canonical say they have already employed someone to do it the boneheaded wrong way. It won't work guys, it will fall in a heap for lack of Qt application authors willing to make their applications dependent on Ubuntu's GNOME.

But as long as they are implementing something with their time/money - something which has no down-sides because it doesn't affect anybody that is not interested - than that can only be a good thing in my book. You can say it's not good enough, but I don't see how you can view this as a bad thing.


It is not that so much as that I am making the observation that it could very simply, with a sensible approach, be made a very much better thing for everybody concerned.

Edited 2011-01-19 10:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

shocked
by ngaio on Thu 20th Jan 2011 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?


I am shocked at aggression and anger directed toward Ubuntu in so many of the comments in this discussion. It seems a small but very vocal minority is interpreting Canonical's actions in the most negative light possible, and sharing their negativity with the rest of us.

FOSS development, just like practically any field in which people-to-people cooperation is essential, requires people be -- at minimum -- civil and respectful of each other.

Unfortunately much of the discussion in the last day or two has been anything but civil.

Reply Score: 2

RE: shocked
by lemur2 on Thu 20th Jan 2011 03:14 UTC in reply to "shocked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?
I am shocked at aggression and anger directed toward Ubuntu in so many of the comments in this discussion. It seems a small but very vocal minority is interpreting Canonical's actions in the most negative light possible, and sharing their negativity with the rest of us. FOSS development, just like practically any field in which people-to-people cooperation is essential, requires people be -- at minimum -- civil and respectful of each other. Unfortunately much of the discussion in the last day or two has been anything but civil. "

I'm shocked as well. Utterly shocked to my core.

I'm shocked that no-one has bothered to answer the perfectly civil question ... "why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?".

There is no insult in the question, there are no angry words, no-one is accused of anything, and it is a perfectly valid quetion after all. Why should authors of Qt applications go to all the bother that Mr Shuttleworth is asking of them? What incentive is there?

Why shouldn't it be a vastly more preferable approach that Ubuntu itself is modified slightly instead, in order to better accomodate Qt applications as they already are?

Hmm?

Why can no-one answer these questions?

Edited 2011-01-20 03:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk
by segedunum on Wed 19th Jan 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep, they must. All Qt programmers that do not use dconf will be arrested and executed.

It's a nice way of inserting a bit of sensationalism into the debate, but that's exactly what Shuttleworth is asking Qt application developers to do.

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

That's about the size of it, and probably what will happen.

All Canonical is doing is creating a new piece of software that allows Qt application to integrate better into GNOME and Ubuntu.....And everybody is free to use or ignore it.

It will get ignored by upstream, like many of the other things Ubuntu has done, because people are not going to rewrite their applications to support something that Ubuntu has suddenly come up with out of the blue.

Those of us actually debating something here are asking what it will take for what Mark Shuttleworth wants to be a success. Telling us that we can all ignore him is probably what will end up happening, but it's not terribly productive.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"

Well no. People have asked for better Qt aplication support for years, and got completely stonewalled by Ubuntu and then other people did the actual work.

It does a disservice to the people who've actually done work and written code on this front to claim that Ubuntu is now somehow starting this off.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Authors of QT applications would most likely continue using QSettings as they have always done. QT is nice and modular like that. Not like such facts will matter for the irrational anti-Ubuntu and anti-Shuttleworth brigades.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Authors of QT applications would most likely continue using QSettings as they have always done. QT is nice and modular like that.


Correct. Exactly so. That is precisely what you would expect them to do.

However, when said Qt applications are installed on a default Ubuntu (with modified qtconfig and QSettings class, both now integrated with dconf) now, suddenly, when the Ubuntu user changes something like the system font (using dconf), suddenly any installed Qt applications will also see the same change.

Which is what you want.

Without requiring said authors of QT applications to change their code at all, or even have to recompile.

Not like such facts will matter for the irrational anti-Ubuntu and anti-Shuttleworth brigades.


Puhlease, get real. What everybody wants is for it to work properly, without putting extra work on the authors of thousands of Qt applications.

This is not any kind of anti-Ubuntu campaign, this is simply a "if you want to integrate Qt applications, do it properly and everybody wins" campaign.

Edited 2011-01-19 09:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk
by segedunum on Wed 19th Jan 2011 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Authors of QT applications would most likely continue using QSettings as they have always done.

It's about more than just creating a dconf settings backend. If you want proper application integration then all the applications have to pay attention to the settings they set and get from dconf. This is a mammoth task, will need to be some kind of Freedesktop specification and will require a lot of buy-in.

Not like such facts will matter for the irrational anti-Ubuntu and anti-Shuttleworth brigades.

Hmmmm. I love how any percieved criticism of Ubuntu and what Mark Shuttleworth says is somehow, by default, anti-Ubuntu and ant-Shuttleworth trolling. As if the opinions of Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth trump everyone elses', including those of the upstream who they expect to buy into this, and can't be questioned. Interesting.

Edited 2011-01-19 15:13 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE: De kogel is door de kerk"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't know why Dutch expressions keep being used without any reason or explanation


Because I like adding a little bit of other languages than English to OSNews. It's also why I NEVER link to a Google Translate article.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Because I like adding a little bit of other languages than English to OSNews. It's also why I NEVER link to a Google Translate article.

But but but but.... Dutch is such an ugly language :<

I'd prefer latin instead tbh.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But but but but.... Dutch is such an ugly language :


What about Finnish?


Gggnnnni gnnnn iitttiiiiitnnnnbb bmmmmttttiiii. Rrtttttnnniiiimmmee dddiiiiiinnnnooommmmmiii?

I'm sure that random collection of letters means SOMETHING in Finnish ;) .

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk
by suser on Fri 21st Jan 2011 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk"
suser Member since:
2005-08-04

well, you are wrong, it does not mean anything ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk
by phoenix on Fri 21st Jan 2011 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And ... putting the translation in () after the quote is hard because ... ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: De kogel is door de kerk
by fonebone on Wed 19th Jan 2011 03:37 UTC in reply to "De kogel is door de kerk"
fonebone Member since:
2005-10-05

I'm not Dutch, but we have the same expression. It literally means "the bullet went through the church". We say: "Die koel is deur die kerk".

Edited 2011-01-19 03:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk
by blaer on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: De kogel is door de kerk"
blaer Member since:
2010-10-28

It is a dutch (and also south african, as it turns out) saying. Its origins lie in war. Warring parties did not fight in churches, out of respect. As soon as one of them violated that rule it meant that the church stopped being a safe haven.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk
by Lennie on Thu 20th Jan 2011 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: De kogel is door de kerk"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Thanks, I always wondered. That is really useful.

Reply Score: 2

.
by Icaria on Wed 19th Jan 2011 02:00 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

Qgtkstyle is an abomination, as if Ubuntu didn't already ship with enough broken artwork.

Reply Score: 1

Qt in - mono out?
by qbrick on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:38 UTC
qbrick
Member since:
2010-04-20

As a consequence of adding qt to the default install Canonical ought to drop mono.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Qt in - mono out?
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:44 UTC in reply to "Qt in - mono out?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As a consequence of adding qt to the default install Canonical ought to drop mono.


That too would be a win for everybody.

As a bonus, they could change the default media player to something like Clementine (which is a Qt application)

http://www.clementine-player.org/

or VLC (which is a Qt application)

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

or even SMPlayer (which is a Qt application)

http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/

... none of which require Mono.

Edited 2011-01-19 09:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Qt in - mono out?
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Qt in - mono out?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

... none of which require Mono.

Neither does the default media player.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Qt in - mono out?
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Qt in - mono out?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

... none of which require Mono.

Neither does the default media player.


http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/10/banshee-becomes-ubuntu-11-04-def...

Banshee becomes Ubuntu 11.04 default music player

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Qt in - mono out?
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Qt in - mono out?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/10/banshee-becomes-ubuntu-11-04-def.....

Banshee becomes Ubuntu 11.04 default music player


Banshee is a music player. Not a media player. Replacing Banshee with VLC or similar as you suggested would be retarded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Qt in - mono out?
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Qt in - mono out?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/10/banshee-becomes-ubuntu-11-04-def.....

Banshee becomes Ubuntu 11.04 default music player


Banshee is a music player. Not a media player. Replacing Banshee with VLC or similar as you suggested would be retarded.
"

This says "media player".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banshee_%28media_player%29

Replacing Banshee with Clementine seems quite OK though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_%28software%29

Edited 2011-01-19 10:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Qt in - mono out?
by WereCatf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Qt in - mono out?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

This says "media player".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banshee_%28media_player%29


Yeah, it still is clearly a music player/manager, which you should have been able to tell even from the damn thumbnail image.

Replacing Banshee with Clementine seems quite OK though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_%28software%29


That I don't take any stance on, I don't like either Qt or Mono apps.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Qt in - mono out?
by Amaranth on Thu 20th Jan 2011 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Qt in - mono out?"
Amaranth Member since:
2005-06-29

No amount of theme engine is going to make Clementine look anything like a regular GNOME/Ubuntu app. Sure, it's powerful, but it's also a cluttered mess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Qt in - mono out?
by phoenix on Fri 21st Jan 2011 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Qt in - mono out?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

How is clementine cluttered? Serious question, not looking for flames. It's a simple two-pane layout with the library on one side and the playlist on the other. (Or have I configured it that way? Can't recall, it's been a couple months since I installed it; I just play music with it.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Qt in - mono out?
by lucas_maximus on Wed 19th Jan 2011 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Qt in - mono out?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

[sarcasm]Because MONO is the Evil.[/sarcasm]

http://www.novell.com/products/monotools-for-visualstudio/

Novell (who have a patent agreement with Microsoft) even supply mono development tools to Visual Studio developers ... there is no way Microsoft are now going to start patent infrigments proceedings on Novell.

This Anti-MONO FUD is fuelled more by a hatred towards Microsoft than anything else.

Reply Score: 4

Mono Out Would be a Good thing
by oiaohm on Wed 19th Jan 2011 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Qt in - mono out?"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

[sarcasm]Because MONO is the Evil.[/sarcasm]

http://www.novell.com/products/monotools-for-visualstudio/

Novell (who have a patent agreement with Microsoft) even supply mono development tools to Visual Studio developers ... there is no way Microsoft are now going to start patent infrigments proceedings on Novell.

This Anti-MONO FUD is fuelled more by a hatred towards Microsoft than anything else.


You lack history. History tell you that something is strange. Visual Studio plugin was free and open source at one point. Why is it not now.

Novel MS patent agreement has to be renewed at end of this year. Not renewed no more patent coverage. With the sale of Novell MS might have no reason to renew. Due to the fact MS might become a part owner of all of Novell patents so unable to ever be attacked by them.

Also Mono has been systematically getting rid of GPL and LGPL from there source code base swaping to a license that does not legally contain any clauses to promise patent protection.

Lot of the mistrust comes from the Fat long filename patents. MS waited 8 year to spring those on companies. So waiting out a 5 year agreement is not outside MS known wait time to attack.

MS has used Submarine Patents. Once bitten twice shy here.

Really key reason to be rid of mono from default mono install is performance on a livecd. Simply it suxs.

Reason why it suxs is Linux is designed to pull of a few simple tricks. Native programs are mapped to memory. Something that is mapped to memory Linux kernel does not need to use swapspace for if runs low on memory. In fact never uses swapspace for.

Mono simply creates more on the fly data that must be sent to swap to free up ram in case of running out. So forcing up the min ram requirement when you don't have swapspace. Ie most key time of not having swapspace a Livecd.

Really Mono and Java should both be limited preferably to harddrive installs and never ever found on a Livecd due to the overhead of both.

Only possible exception for java is using gcj to product native binaries for the livecd.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mono Out Would be a Good thing
by oiaohm on Wed 19th Jan 2011 21:00 UTC in reply to "Mono Out Would be a Good thing"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

O yes I am sick of every time I bring up the technical limitation of Mono of being accuses of being just a MS hater.

I bring up the technical limitation about Java and people don't dispute it. The technical limitation has nothing todo with my like or dislike of MS.

Simple fact here MS made .Net to compete with Java and in the process they copied the weaknesses.

Reply Score: 0

KConfig
by vivainio on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:27 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

I am busy right now so can't research myself - how about KDE making a standalone version of KConfig that can use dconf as backend (possibly with canonical-sponsored dconf binding), then suggest Qt developers to use KConfig everywhere (ubuntu, meego, windows, ...).

Everyone wins, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE: KConfig
by mart on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:58 UTC in reply to "KConfig"
mart Member since:
2005-11-17

I am busy right now so can't research myself - how about KDE making a standalone version of KConfig that can use dconf as backend (possibly with canonical-sponsored dconf binding), then suggest Qt developers to use KConfig everywhere (ubuntu, meego, windows, ...).

Everyone wins, right?


yes and no. being standalone or not (that in the ends boils down to having or not a certain dependency) has big advantages and disadvantages. using another library means a whole lot of things you can do "for free" (well sort of) so decide what can be used inside a library or not is not an easy task.

however, we are now in a big effort in modularizing KDElibs more and more, making easy using even just any subset one wants (even providing builds with more or less features targeted for instance to mobile devices and what not) This year will be pretty important in this regard for the technical direction, so I can just say stay tuned ;)

Reply Score: 3

Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Wed 19th Jan 2011 12:10 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

I for one am happy that Qt is getting some much needed love on Ubuntu. Now, I'd like to see Ubuntu invest into moving over some of my most used apps to Qt. (Chromium, Firefox, Gimp. etc.)

Reply Score: 2

Can we discuss something useful?Z
by sorpigal on Wed 19th Jan 2011 12:10 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

The comments here are really all over the place and waxing into hysteria and then waning into irrelevance. Can we discuss something useful?

What Shuttleworth brings up is a good point and an interesting technical challenge that's worth solving. A unified config API is something which has been of great utility in Windows from an application developer point of view, and remember that more developers==more apps==better for users, and it has long been my thought that Linux could use something similar.

Other attempts have been made to create the be-all and end-all of configuration systems on Linux, but they have all been misguided as far as I can tell. gconf and systems like it fail because they also effectively unify config storage, which is a hot button issue. No one wants another Windows Registry! And yet the gconf devs only reluctantly moved away from storing data in a big binary blob. Things like Project Elektra (formerly known as linuxregistry) have attempted to create a unified API and a pluggable storage mechanism, to an extent, but the proposal for elektra was that all software (including and especially daemons) be rewritten to use it, throwing away the native config file format. This was a non-starter for most projects, and rightly so.

We don't need a unified storage system. What I mean is that there's very little incentive for apache and samba to store settings the same way as each other, much less the same way as emacs and vim. Having a separate config format for each daemon is a reality only a fool would attempt to combat at this time. However, when it comes to regular desktop apps our options are far less limited. Most user apps don't require anything fancy config-wise, and most developers of user apps aren't attached to any specific config storage system. Unifying most user apps would certainly be possible.

What I really don't want to see, however, is another gconf. It's not sufficient to have a massive inscrutable database which requires special tools to access and process--this is something elektra got right with its FS back end. Some concepts from gconf, and indeed from Windows Registry, are useful to take in to account: Configuration policy set by the system, global defaults, user settings, and how those are combined into a final set of settings. Any system which fails to keep in mind the corporate-lock-down scenario is doomed to eventual inadequacy.

What we need is a simple and stable API that app authors can target and easily understand. It's got to be good for simple cases like "I need to store a flag" or "I need to store some key/value pairs" to more complex cases like "I need to know whether this setting is available to this user" or "I need to store a complex data structure." Ideally the system will impose no overhead, be able to transparently expose settings to remote systems, not enforce a single storage mechanism, have no concurrency issues, be resilient in the face of crashes and unexpected failures, allow applications to subject themselves to policy control, and so simple to use that every developer will want to adopt it.

I see that there are not many docs on dconf. I don't want to dismiss it out of hand due to my own ignorance, but what I have seen does not suggest that it is the best solution to simplifying user application settings storage and access. It certainly seems insufficiently neutral to appease all developers of KDE, Enlightenment, and so forth.

So, what is the correct design for the perfect desktop configuration system? You tell me.

Reply Score: 4

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Anyone interested in this topic may want to look here

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/config-spec

Which includes links to config systems and some description of what the requirements look like.

Reply Score: 3

Parasite
by vivainio on Wed 19th Jan 2011 12:55 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Edit: realized after posting that this may be considered trollish.

Edited 2011-01-19 12:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Jason Bourne
by Jason Bourne on Wed 19th Jan 2011 14:32 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

I wished there were no GKT or QT, no GNOME or KDE! I'm sick tired of the dispute between these two deities, which magically start to emerge if anything said about any of them.

Can software developers use something else? Something that is consistent, standard, and powerful.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Jason Bourne
by orestes on Thu 20th Jan 2011 00:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Jason Bourne"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Short of going back to the text based world, no. You'll never get the entire Open Source world to converge on one grand unified interface or toolkit. You'll always have at least one guy who thinks the way things are done sucks and takes advantage of the freedom the ecosystem grants to build his own path. And thank $DEITY for that guy, because without him nothing interesting would ever happen.

Me, I just tune out the silly bickering and focus on what I want to do with my system.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Jason Bourne
by nt_jerkface on Thu 20th Jan 2011 01:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by Jason Bourne"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Is your third movie worth watching?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Jason Bourne
by segedunum on Fri 21st Jan 2011 00:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Jason Bourne"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Can software developers use something else? Something that is consistent, standard, and powerful.

We did have CDE.

Reply Score: 2

Stupid idea
by Carewolf on Wed 19th Jan 2011 18:06 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

One thing they will realize is that QSettings is best used for application specific settings. Sharing settings between applications and especially between specific application is something it does extremely poorly. It is not something it is designed for, so I suspect they will find that while QSettings can use dconf, QSettings can not be used in place of dconf.

I have had this problem several time developing small GUI tools for internal use, QSettings is easy to use, but it is best used for application specific settings. When I wanted several small tools to share some of the same settings I had to do a lot of tricks to make it work in QSettings (basically reducing it to an ini-file parser).

Reply Score: 3

Kick Shuttleworth to the curb
by nt_jerkface on Thu 20th Jan 2011 01:51 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Oracle is considered the evil empire of Linuxland and yet they contribute more to the kernel (btrfs).

The word Linux is not on the Ubuntu website
http://www.ubuntu.com/

What kind of ass doesn't mention Linux on a website for a Linux based operating system? Compare it to Oracle:
http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/index.html

Shuttleworth wants to turn the Linux desktop into a purple Mac junior. You guys gave him a fair chance and all he has done is wrap a debian distro in marketing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kick Shuttleworth to the curb
by ple_mono on Thu 20th Jan 2011 02:40 UTC in reply to "Kick Shuttleworth to the curb"
ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

Oracle is considered the evil empire of Linuxland and yet they contribute more to the kernel (btrfs).

So that is how you measure worthiness in "Linuxland"? That shouldn't be an obligation. You do what you do best, and i do what i do best. As long as it's free, who cares.

The word Linux is not on the Ubuntu website
http://www.ubuntu.com/

What kind of ass doesn't mention Linux on a website for a Linux based operating system? Compare it to Oracle:
http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/index.html

So what? It's not on the front page. Anyone that's interested can find out for themselves. http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu
I don't put my moms name on my shirt, so people know where i come from. If they're so interested, they can ask. Seriously.

Shuttleworth wants to turn the Linux desktop into a purple Mac junior. You guys gave him a fair chance and all he has done is wrap a debian distro in marketing.

Yes. And I like it. Good for me?

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So that is how you measure worthiness in "Linuxland"? That shouldn't be an obligation.


It's just an observation. Oracle gets bashed and derided for building off RHEL even though they contribute btrfs and yet Ubuntu gets a free pass and contributes nothing.

So what? It's not on the front page. Anyone that's interested can find out for themselves.

It says a lot about his true intentions. He wants to disassociate Linux from Ubuntu in the public's mind.

I don't really care but I'm surprised by how many in Linuxland are on board with him. If Ubuntu ever got anywhere with the public he would no doubt push some type of application lock-in. He would probably go the Google route of using a non-standard (but open source) API to discourage porting.

Reply Score: 3

ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

It's just an observation. Oracle gets bashed and derided for building off RHEL even though they contribute btrfs and yet Ubuntu gets a free pass and contributes nothing.

Fair enough. But in my mind oracle shouldn't have been bashed for that either.

It says a lot about his true intentions. He wants to disassociate Linux from Ubuntu in the public's mind.

Yes, you may be right. But here's food for thought: what if that is what is needed for linux to actually grow on the "average user". You can't argue with the stamp (many) people put on linux users today. But if you sneak in the backdoor, maybe they don't notice how nice it is until they are already using linux. See? Maybe he's doing it, intentionally, for a good purpose. But then again, maybe i'm too blue eyed.

I don't really care but I'm surprised by how many in Linuxland are on board with him. If Ubuntu ever got anywhere with the public he would no doubt push some type of application lock-in. He would probably go the Google route of using a non-standard (but open source) API to discourage porting.

Perhaps. But, he's obviously trying to go his own way, and that annoys people to no end. What's wrong with coming up with something more popular than the "upstream" product (especially if upstream refuses to even consider to merge it in), if people genuinely like it better?

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

But here's food for thought: what if that is what is needed for linux to actually grow on the "average user".


Sure but how much time is he going to be given to attract average users? Linux desktop share hasn't changed since he showed up. Ubuntu has just become the de facto Gnome distro, Linux desktop share wouldn't drop if Ubuntu disappeared.

You can't argue with the stamp (many) people put on linux users today. But if you sneak in the backdoor, maybe they don't notice how nice it is until they are already using linux.


Shuttleworth has tried the Mac junior approach and it hasn't worked. If Linux is going to remain a niche desktop then you might as well go with the distro that is honest and not wrapped in marketing. I think Linux Mint is a better name anyways.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kick Shuttleworth to the curb
by jbauer on Thu 20th Jan 2011 19:40 UTC in reply to "Kick Shuttleworth to the curb"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

OThe word Linux is not on the Ubuntu website
http://www.ubuntu.com/


Given Linux's track record on desktop and consumer systems, can you blame them?

That is not the problem. What's wrong with Ubuntu is that they're not doing anything that others haven't tried before. It's nothing but logical that they're failing exactly like the others did.

Reply Score: 1

Calm down Qt fans
by nt_jerkface on Thu 20th Jan 2011 09:49 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Qt is like a snowball rolling down a hill.

It's too big to stop but Shuttleworth wants to try and direct it.

Good luck with that.

Reply Score: 1

Love the qt
by dizzey on Thu 20th Jan 2011 16:29 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

I think it's the right move. Personally i dont like the look and feel of kde applications, i thought that was qt's fault. now i have done some development and it's easy to make really nice qt applications. The development suit is one of my favourites.

What ubuntu lacks in my opinion is a great development suit to make Ubuntu applications with qt they will get just that. And by making a extension they will get nice integration with ubuntu, that is my main concern with qt/kde apps they dont blend in well with the rest of my desktop.

I hope that one of the goals is to be able to connect it with their app:store so ubuntu starts to draw development for paid app:s.

Dont get me wrong i do like the free as in beer applications for linux but i feel that being able to buy applications would be a step up.

Reply Score: 1

dodged a bullet. or a fusillade
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 21st Jan 2011 02:26 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

unintended bonus of not using Linux on the desktop anymore: I don't have to care about any of this. Look at all these words. Look at all the grief and heartache that goes with Gnome / KDE / GTK / Qt. Then binary drivers in the kernel. hal / udev / defvs / devicekit. Firegl / RadeonHD / that other one. Xorg / Xfree(hah) / Wayland. Compiz / Beryl. All the way back to OSS / Alsa.

I don't have to care about any of it anymore. None of it affects me and it feels great. I haven't had any non-working (after previously working) hardware in a couple years.

I'm glad it's out there to keep people honest and promote openness. But I'm way more relaxed leaving it to others.

Reply Score: 0

RE: dodged a bullet. or a fusillade
by aaronb on Fri 21st Jan 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "dodged a bullet. or a fusillade"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Good luck with...

WPA (Windows Product Activation)
WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage)
OMGMCHAV (Oh my god my computer has a virus)
IH"L"W (I hate "Linux" words)
IFBH (Insert flame bait here)

Reply Score: 2

LAS
by vivainio on Sat 22nd Jan 2011 14:43 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Linux action show is talking about this issue:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jupiterbroadcasting#p/u/5/HYB41lncLLk

at 11 min.

Reply Score: 2