Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Aug 2007 15:52 UTC, submitted by zaboing
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "A few months ago, the GNOME Mobile Platform was announced to the public. One of the main forces behind the launch of this initiative was Nokia, which uses a lot of GNOME-components in its Linux-based Internet Tablets Nokia 770 and N800. During this years GUADEC Andreas Proschofsky had the chance to sit down with Carlos Guerreiro, Nokias Manager for Open Source Software, to talk - amidst other things - about the not so different needs of personal computers and mobile devices, about the necessity for GTK+ 3.0 and the impact of the iPhone launch."
Thread beginning with comment 262967
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Qt
by superstoned on Mon 13th Aug 2007 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Qt"
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

It's true that more people work on KDE, but that's because KDE has a larger community of people developing in their free time. Gnome has more paid developers (a research study has been done into that, some time ago).

And indeed, Trolltech employs a lot of people on Qt. Of course, they don't just work for KDE, but mostly for their clients, like the movie studio's...

Anyway, about your call for 'numbers' -> feel free to generate them. According to many developers, it takes around 1/4 less code to write a Qt/KDE app than an equivalent GTK/Gnome app. go ahead and try to write a multimedia app with KDE 4 beta 1...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Qt
by kelvin on Mon 13th Aug 2007 09:50 in reply to "RE[9]: Qt"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

Gnome has more paid developers (a research study has been done into that, some time ago).


URL please. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you're making this up. I've asked you several times to provide some hard facts, but you keep repeating yourself.

And indeed, Trolltech employs a lot of people on Qt. Of course, they don't just work for KDE, but mostly for their clients, like the movie studio's...


Of course they don't all work directly on KDE, but nonetheless Trolltech has 200 people working on Qt and related products, and Qt is the largest and most important part of KDE.

Anyway, about your call for 'numbers' -> feel free to generate them.


You're the one making these outrageous claims, and now you're asking me to verify them and do your research for you? If you're under the impression that multimedia development with GTK/GNOME is difficult, I advise you to look into the gstreamer python bindings.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[11]: Qt
by superstoned on Mon 13th Aug 2007 10:03 in reply to "RE[10]: Qt"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

URL please. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you're making this up. I've asked you several times to provide some hard facts, but you keep repeating yourself.
I'd love to give you an url, but this is simply from what I've heard from those who did talk to this researcher.

You're the one making these outrageous claims, and now you're asking me to verify them and do your research for you?
I'm not making outrageous claims, I'm merely parroting what many developers say and write.

And as I said, it's silly to ask for numbers proving anything is easier or harder for developers - it's way too subjective.

Again, GTK is to Qt what Gecko is to KHTML/webkit. Now I'm sure some will argue Gecko is easier to hack on than Webkit. But most people would describe working on Webkit as comparable to going to far with SM.

If you're under the impression that multimedia development with GTK/GNOME is difficult, I advise you to look into the gstreamer python bindings.

One bird (which one was it? its zwaluw in dutch, but swallow can't be right, can it?) doesn't make summer. I'm sure there is a lot of GTK/Gnome stuff which is better than their comparable Qt/KDE equivalent.

BTW I'm not going to respond anymore. I don't have 'numbers backing my statements' (and the why I described), and besides - I'm no developer, so you should talk to people fluent in both GTK and Qt, and without a 'religion' in the area of language (C/C++) or toolkits. All of those ppl I have spoken to where very clear on their preference, but why should you believe me? Try a meeting like FOSDEM to ask some hackers...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Qt
by sjh24wvu on Mon 13th Aug 2007 10:06 in reply to "RE[9]: Qt"
sjh24wvu Member since:
2007-08-13

Just for the fun of it I grabbed Amarok2 (the kde4 version of Amarok as far as I could tell) and Rhythmbox. I ran sloccount over them both. Amarok2 came out with 190k and Rhythmbox came out with 100k. So that comes out with half the code in the opposite direction you claimed one quarter.

Now, I can hear you say, "But Amarok has far more functionality than Rhythmbox." That may be true, but does it have 8 times (this number comes from the actual sloc and your 1/4 estimate) the functionality of Rhythmbox? I don't think so. From a quick read Amarok also contains a media engine, I believe its called Phonon. Well, Rhythmbox happily uses gstreamer. So I don't think you can count that against it.

In summary, I call BS on your 1/4 estimate. It seems unrealistic for any nontrivial application. I think that this will become even better highlighted when you compare qt4/c++ versus gtk/python or ruby or mono or Java or Perl. Or for that matter even gtkmm. GTK has its warts, but IMO so does QT. In fact, one of QT's biggest warts seems to be its lilliputian community that seems to need to put down Gnome/Gtk at every opportunity. I think they are probably about equivalent in their expressiveness and thats what really matters in the end. The rest can and will likely be fixed.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[11]: Qt
by GeneralZod on Mon 13th Aug 2007 10:20 in reply to "RE[10]: Qt"
GeneralZod Member since:
2007-08-03

"I don't think so. From a quick read Amarok also contains a media engine, I believe its called Phonon. Well, Rhythmbox happily uses gstreamer. So I don't think you can count that against it. "

One correction: amaroK does not contain a "media engine": kdelibs contains Phonon, which is a lightweight wrapper around existing media engines (e.g. gstreamer, xine, etc) that will be used by most KDE4 apps, including amaroK.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Qt
by leos on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:15 in reply to "RE[10]: Qt"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Just for the fun of it I grabbed Amarok2 (the kde4 version of Amarok as far as I could tell) and Rhythmbox. I ran sloccount over them both. Amarok2 came out with 190k and Rhythmbox came out with 100k. So that comes out with half the code in the opposite direction you claimed one quarter.


First of all, the grandparent claimed 1/4 LESS code, not 1/4 OF the code. Please pay attention.

Also, Amarok 2 is not a good one to compare, since it is still in heavy development and will have a lot of code that may not be included in the final version (lots of ideas being tried out right now).

Now, I can hear you say, "But Amarok has far more functionality than Rhythmbox." That may be true, but does it have 8 times (this number comes from the actual sloc and your 1/4 estimate)


So from the code size differences, Amarok should have 2.5 times the features of rythymbox (not 8 times, this is due to your mistake above). I wouldn't be surprised if this was true. Amarok allows output to Gstreamer, Xine, and helix engines, has different UIs to chose from, has plugin support in different languages, extensive context information features (lyrics, wikipedia, statistics), etc.
Overall, comparing the two projects is a silly endeavour, since they are so different. You could only compare them if one was a direct port of the other.

Reply Parent Score: 7