Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Permalink for comment 541515
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Thu 8th Nov 2012 22:38 UTC in reply to "Why not use Qt?"
Member since:

It seems rather odd to be complaining so strongly about gnome, when Qt exists, is much more stable and well supported, is easier to code for, has better documentation, and much better cross-platform support.

I've been using only Ubuntu for a while now, so I know not if fedora etc have made their qt themes look and behave nicely alongside their gtk themes, but in unity and in KDE, Qt looks beautiful.
It would surely be easier to improve Qt themeing as canonical have, than to keep complaining about gtk, because we all know that gnome do things their own way, and don't really care very much about anyone else.

Unfortunately, switching to Qt theming is a lot more difficult than it sounds.

There used to be a GTK+ theme which delegated the work to Qt but, as far as I can tell, the last commit to it seems to have been back in 2009. (Around the same time Qt gained an officially supported, bundled theme which did the reverse, theming Qt using GTK+ themes)

As for switching the apps themselves over, I can tell you, as a programmer, that's not a very viable option. GTK+ and Qt aren't just widget toolkits. They both provide their own approaches to a LOT of low-level functionality that neither C nor C++ offer as core features. (The event loop, signals, network-transparent file I/O, reference-counted object system, etc.)

Finally, just finding replacements isn't a viable option since any given user who's grown comfortable with an application will probably see all the competitors as significantly inferior... if for no other reason, due to their design philosophies not lining up with the user's comfort zone.

I used to be a happy KDE 3.5 user but I always ran a mix of Qt and GTK+ applications. Since KDE 4 came out and I switched to LXDE, I've just moved more and more to the GTK+ side of things.

For example:
- Konqueror 4 is apparently bitrotting except for minor fixes by KHTML devs.
- Without KParts, Dolphin is inferior to PCManFM.
- Nothing else comes close to Pidgin or Kopete.
- Kopete is under-maintained, buggy, and lacks IRC.
- No other Qt or GTK+ app is as responsive as Geeqie (formerly GQView).
- etc. etc. etc.

...not to mention how Qt 4's movement threshold for clicking and dragging is so small (compared to Qt 3 and GTK+) that, in Konqueror or Dolphin, I make accidental copies more often than I open files. (I have a Logitech G3 mouse and a big desktop)

...or how, being used to LXDE with lightweight GTK+ apps, I can actually notice and get annoyed by how the closest competing Qt4 apps tend to be a few hundred milliseconds more sluggish on my AthlonII X2 270 with 16GiB of RAM.

Edited 2012-11-08 22:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6