Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 13:43 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Just like Eugenia yesterday, I also upgraded my laptop's Ubuntu Feisty installation to Gutsy a few days ago. The upgrade process went completely awry, though, so I was forced to do a fresh install. Not a bad thing, as it gave me the opportunity to take a look at Ubuntu's soon-to-be-released Gutsy Gibbon with GNOME 2.20
Thread beginning with comment 273902
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Minimising what? I can do whatever I need to do on GNOME, and I can do whatever I need to do on KDE.

What's the problem then?

By minimising what I mean is that when you have a lot of people writing lots of applications that you can run then they tend to be less integrated with different toolkits and look somewhat different. That's what you get with diversity to an extent. When you have less applications, or you decide to stupidly rewrite what's already there, then you end up with less applications and functionality because you're cutting yourself off from what's out there. Not a good idea.

It's fine you hate Gtk+/GNOME (be honest about it for once)

Oh, here we go............

I don't like it for the very reasons I've stated, speaking primarily as a developer (which have knock-on effects for users). I'm not making them up and I'm not dumbing them down for political correctness. If people want to get upset then that's entirely up to them. If people want to debate, then great!

but please don;t try to shove me in a pro-GNOME corner.

It's always a dead give-away when people start talking about pro or anti anything ;-).

Well, this approach hasn't been very ineffective. Basically all major Linux distributions default to GNOME...

This is an argument usually wheeled out when people have nothing left to say ;-).

You know, people have been telling me this for the last seven years, and it doesn't seem to have made one iota of difference to the people out there who are actually using Linux desktops or one iota of difference to the relative popularity or usage of Gnome. Go figure that one out. This 'default' stuff has been done to death for years and years - and people are still trying to re-state it ;-).

But, we're off the beaten track there, as we always are over these things....... ;-) I'm not entirely sure where this "zero evidence" comes from.

The 'zero evidence' bit came about because there was no evidence at all as to why they suddenly went and did this with respect to consistency with Windows and the rest of the Linux/Unix world, apart from the feeling that Mac OS is right about everything. The right/left button ordering is merely a preference Apple made. Nothing more.

The whole 'Oh everybody defaults to Gnome so it's OK!' argument is just the sort of ignorance I'd expect, because people run applications under WINE (Paint.Net for instance), they also have a lot of older Motif applications that they run and they may actually have Qt applications running, because apparently, it's not so bad at this cross-platform thing. Apparently people run quite a few custom applications and things of that nature. I suppose they should all rewrite them for GTK to get consistency then......................?

You make it seem as if I'm in some way 'pro-GNOME' just because I do not wish to mingle Gtk+ applications with Qt applications. That's kind of a weird deduction there.

You're the one wading in and moaning about different toolkits, different looks, different behaviour etc.

In a Gtk+ environment, Qt applications stand out like an eyesore.

Whose fault is that then? I thought this didn't affect you anyway?

In a Qt environment, Gtk+ applications stand out like an eyesore.

What is a 'Qt environment'?

If you're running KDE, that effect is minimised because people actually put some considerate work into this and accepted that people might like to run GTK applications. Not perfect, but OK.

For the millionth time: I don't have a need for Qt applications in a Gtk+ environment! Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to repeat this?

W-h-a-t a-r-e y-o-u t-a-l-k-i-n-g a-b-o-u-t t-h-e-n? If everything is perfect and OK with the world, and everything is GTK for you, where's the problem? Everything should be consistent, right?

This discussion came about because someone said that toolkits shouldn't matter - and they shouldn't. You might get some differences here and there, but as long as there is some effort on integration and as long as the developer feels that they're using the right tool for the application then that benefits the end user. Moaning about 'differences' is neither here nor there because ultimately, a desktop environment has to attract and support applications that people want. Those who can do that, get ahead ;-).

Gtk+ applications serve my needs JUST FINE.

Go and use them then. For everyone else they have different applications that they use and they have some people who are fortunately willing to put some effort into integrating them and making them look OK in that environment. The net effect of that is that that environment gets more applications, and then more users ;-).

What's up with this militant approach of trying to shove applications down my throat that I don't want, nor need!

No one is. Amarok is a pretty good media player that apparently quite a few people use, and it seems popular. If you don't like it, don't use it. If the developers of your desktop that you use don't want to put effort into application integration then that's entirely up to them.

THERE IS NO PROBLEM. I'm content with the Gtk+ applications as they are, and when I'm in a Gtk+ environment, I haven't a need a Qt application could fulfill.

Hmmmmmmmm. Are you sure?

"Even though it obviously comes with The GIMP, I really also want a simple MS Paint like paint program to come pre-installed."


If you don't want to use that because your own desktop environment doesn't have that functionality, it's written in some foreign toolkit or the developers of your desktop don't want to do any integration work then that's fine. Go without.

"Another personal pet peeve is the complete inability to edit toolbars."

Then use a desktop environment with a proper set of underlying infrastructure and you won't have that problem. Like I said, in 2007 it's a bit daft that anyone is talking about that.

You're either able to attract all sorts of applications to your platform in the long-run, and that ultimately means more toolkits, embracing diversity and change, or you hit the bricks.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:

That's a long post, segedendum, but one which is based on two faulty assumptions.

1) I do not limit myself to GNOME. I run KDE too. I just don't mingle them.

2) I'm not advocating GNOME. Really, I don't. Your points are directed at someone who is advocating GNOME over KDE.

Edited 2007-09-24 17:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

segedunum Member since:

That's a long post, segedendum

Oh, the "It's such a long post I just can't understand what you wrote!" reply ;-). It warranted a decent explanation, which really took an awful lot of your arguments through the wash cycle.

You could have picked some selected highlights, but no.

...but one which is based on two faulty assumptions.

I'd love to know how you arrive at them, but of course, it's a whole lot easier just to shout zealot.

1) I do not limit myself to GNOME. I run KDE too. I just don't mingle them.

I never made that assumption anywhere, nor is anything I wrote based on it. This is the usual "I run KDE as well!" comment.

Many people do mix environments and applications, because many people like to keep the applications that suit them best or give them the best functionality at any given time. Most stick to the applications provided by their desktop environment, but as I'd stated, some people use different applications on Unix and Linux desktops, some run under WINE or Motif. It's a fact of life. I do not believe that everyone should be running KDE applications or something and nothing else.

Of course, you're free to tell the users of those applications that they look crap under the desktop you use............

2) I'm not advocating GNOME. Really, I don't.

I'm not interested whether you are are not, which is why I skirted around it in my previous reply. I'm debating the points that have been discussed in this thread, so feel free not to take the discussion somewhere where I never wanted it to go.

Your points are directed at someone who is advocating GNOME over KDE.

And we come back to the 'Gnome and KDE' thing again. Another dead give-away ;-). I'm not talking about Gnome and KDE as a couple of bulls with their horns locked. I'm talking about what's actually there and what's actually been and being done. If that comes off to you as a 'Gnome and KDE' thing then there's something wrong somewhere only you know about.

You may come off as advocating one over the other, but those are neither here nor there concerning the arguments I made about different toolkits, integration of different applications and what people actually want. If one does something better than the other then, well, that's the way it is.

Edited 2007-09-24 18:23

Reply Parent Score: 4