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.
Permalink for comment 459041
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2