Linked by nej_simon on Mon 27th May 2013 22:25 UTC
Gnome "At the Tizen conference this week in San Francisco, Intel showed off an Intel Ultrabook running their next-generation Tizen 3.0 platform that's using a shell/desktop derived from GNOME 3.x."
Order by: Score:
Possible?
by judgen on Mon 27th May 2013 23:58 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Is it possible that gtk actually gets worse with every release? Maybe it is my code that is faulty but i have to do all kinds of tweaks to my software even for point releases and memory usage seems to go up as well along with gtk version numbering.

It is probably my fault in the first place, but i have given up and started migrating all of it to Qt and interfacebuilder is such an very nice piece of software so it is not such a painful migration at least.

Reply Score: 7

v RE: Possible?
by Hiev on Mon 27th May 2013 23:59 UTC in reply to "Possible?"
RE: Possible?
by pooo on Tue 28th May 2013 00:39 UTC in reply to "Possible?"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

If you really aren't locked into one DE, and if you are switching from gnome to QT sounds like you aren't, you should consider just making your app in HTML5 using a webkit widget and exposing the os features you need via javascript, ala phonegap.

Your app will look nice, be faster (really) and be 10x more portable.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Possible?
by moondevil on Tue 28th May 2013 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Actually it will run slow as molasses.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Possible?
by pooo on Wed 29th May 2013 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Possible?"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

Have you used a web browser in the last few years? Give me a break. It is crazy how slow to load and respond many simple desktop apps are. Unless you are doing something very graphically intense (like a game) you can get 100% adequate performance with way less effort using html5. It will definitely be faster to load and use less memory than a gtk app.

Edited 2013-05-29 05:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Possible?
by Neolander on Wed 29th May 2013 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Possible?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think you are confused as to what exactly makes web browsers sometimes run faster and use less memory.

For a simple example, the Gnome calculator weights 8.4 MB, whereas merely opening a new tab in Firefox without doing anything in it costs 11 MB. With this in mind, I strongly doubt that you can make a calculator web app which weights less than the Gnome one.

Same with performance, it really depends on if you are dealing with crappy coders and/or use an OS that has a poor file management performance. Most of my basic apps show up in about a tenth of a second, which is already a lot but far from being unacceptable.

Edited 2013-05-29 06:10 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Possible?
by Nelson on Wed 29th May 2013 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Possible?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Have you used a web browser in the last few years? Give me a break. It is crazy how slow to load and respond many simple desktop apps are. Unless you are doing something very graphically intense (like a game) you can get 100% adequate performance with way less effort using html5. It will definitely be faster to load and use less memory than a gtk app.


No. I can't wait until this stupid HTML everywhere fad is over. Use web tools for the web.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Possible?
by moondevil on Wed 29th May 2013 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Possible?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Have you used a web browser in the last few years?


Every day, and jump of joy every time I get assigned a server side or desktop based project instead of the typical "cram a desktop application into a browser thingie".

Reply Score: 6

...
by Hiev on Mon 27th May 2013 23:58 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

The year of the Linux desktop may be closer of what we think.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by VistaUser on Tue 28th May 2013 00:18 UTC in reply to "..."
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

Yeah, that year might also be the eyar of the android desktop...

(Though I suspect Linux can do what most people use computers for... but there is no point in changing unless there is some real pain that will be avoided by migrating (especially as windows comes installed by default). That's a tough sell.)

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...
by hussam on Tue 28th May 2013 12:17 UTC in reply to "..."
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

The year of the Linux desktop may be closer of what we think.

no no, not desktop. mobile phone with touch UI ;)

Reply Score: 2

Why GTK?
by asupcb on Tue 28th May 2013 01:44 UTC
asupcb
Member since:
2005-11-10

Why is Intel going with GTK when every other non-iOS, non-Android, non-MS mobile OS is supporting Qt as a primary (or at least secondary) officially supported toolkit? Qt is even getting iOS and Android ports in Qt 5.1 and will only get better from that point forward.

Why don't they support Plasma Active which is all but ready for this market? Especially once KDE makes the jump to the KDE 5 ecosystem.

Intel makes great hardware, but they can't seem to get software right, ever. Their Linux drivers are okay I guess, but what else do they ever call correctly in the software department?

Reply Score: 8

RE: Why GTK?
by shmerl on Tue 28th May 2013 02:39 UTC in reply to "Why GTK?"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

There is some effort to bring Qt to Tizen.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why GTK?
by Hiev on Tue 28th May 2013 02:50 UTC in reply to "Why GTK?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Why not GTK?

GTK is a great toolkit to work with.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why GTK?
by Lobotomik on Tue 28th May 2013 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Why GTK?"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Because GTK is unfathomable, while Qt is easy?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Why GTK?
by darknexus on Tue 28th May 2013 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why GTK?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Because GTK is unfathomable, while Qt is easy?

If you really find GTK+ to be unfathomable, remind me never to hire you as a coder. It's overly verbose and a bit convoluted, but by no means unfathomable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Why GTK?
by Lobotomik on Tue 28th May 2013 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why GTK?"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Mmm, please, let me reword:

Because it is extremely wordy and convoluted while Qt is easy?

Edited 2013-05-28 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Why GTK?
by Hiev on Tue 28th May 2013 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why GTK?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

"extremely wordy" is not a valid reason to discard a toolkit, I could write your statement as "it makes code easier to read", now convoluted? how so?.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why GTK?
by Nelson on Tue 28th May 2013 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why GTK?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes it is. If there is more developer friction in getting up and running vs another technology, its a legitimate complaint.

Qt may not be perfect, but you can be plenty more expressive using Qt than you can using GTK.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Why GTK?
by Hiev on Tue 28th May 2013 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why GTK?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

You are confusing the GNOME project with GTK, is not the same.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why GTK?
by segedunum on Wed 29th May 2013 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why GTK?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

If you put GTK in front of your average Windows or Mac developer who has no notion of Linux GUI politics they're going to laugh in your face at the prospect of using it, and then have the blood drain out of their face as they realise you are serious.

I would never hire anyone who thought it was a good idea to use it. Anyone who does has too much Linux desktop history about them and I think that's the mistake Intel have made here.

Edited 2013-05-29 07:24 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why GTK?
by insanity_tn on Tue 28th May 2013 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Why GTK?"
insanity_tn Member since:
2009-08-28

.

Edited 2013-05-28 11:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why GTK?
by Soulbender on Tue 28th May 2013 04:50 UTC in reply to "Why GTK?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why is Intel going with GTK when every other non-iOS, non-Android, non-MS mobile OS is supporting Qt


Because they have made a decision base on technical and business merits to use GTK just like how those other vendors did when they chose QT.
Not everyone has to use QT, ya know.

Edited 2013-05-28 04:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why GTK?
by moondevil on Tue 28th May 2013 06:28 UTC in reply to "Why GTK?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Intel makes great hardware, but they can't seem to get software right, ever. Their Linux drivers are okay I guess, but what else do they ever call correctly in the software department?


Their developer tools?

As for hardware don't get me started on their GPUs.

Edited 2013-05-28 06:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why GTK?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 30th May 2013 22:21 UTC in reply to "Why GTK?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Intel isn't really in charge of Tizen. Samsung is. Its basically Bada 3.0. Meego had great QT support, why is it completely gone, and has to be added back in? Because Tizen has very little to do with Meego, its Bada 3.0 which didn't have very good support for QT.

Reply Score: 3

Confused
by ThomasFuhringer on Tue 28th May 2013 09:50 UTC
ThomasFuhringer
Member since:
2007-01-25

And I thought the whole point of using Tizen was to take advantage of that super efficient Enlightenment toolkit for native development and HTML5 for less performance critical apps.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Confused
by tonny on Tue 28th May 2013 16:22 UTC in reply to "Confused"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

+1.
Anyone trying enlightenment will see their strength. Extensive control panel and efficient mem usage. Just not too elegant for my taste. But then, thats better with each day passing.

Edited 2013-05-28 16:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

The obvious question as a user would be
by darknexus on Tue 28th May 2013 12:41 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Why do I want it? Looks like Intel is repeating the Moblin mistake. Ultrabooks run any os laptops do, being x86 and all. So why would I, as a user, go with Tizen even if I did want Linux? Why wouldn't I go with Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, or anything else much better supported that I'm likely to find packages for? Since it looks like Intel's moving away from Tizen's original goals and putting GNOME 3 in there, it's not as if it's going to run much lighter on resources than anything else based on that DE. What's the point of it?

Reply Score: 5

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

What is the advantage over Android, iOS and Windows systems related to games?

Reply Score: 3

swift11 Member since:
2012-08-23

Tizen will be cross-platform: phones, tablets, PCs, TVs, cars, ...

Reply Score: 1

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Android and Windows are already there.

So what is the advantage again over existing OS?

Edited 2013-05-29 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

swift11 Member since:
2012-08-23

After the Microsoft monopoly, most companies would like to avoid a Google monopoly: http://automotive.linuxfoundation.org/

Reply Score: 1

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I am fully aware that Linux distributions are being used in the automobile industries and I can assure you that in Germany many are quite happy with the Google monopoly as you put it.

While others are using Qt/C++ directly on top of their hardware or in-house developed distributions.

Having a logo on that site does not mean that they are actively using a Tizen distribution on their cars.

Reply Score: 4