Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 20th Apr 2008 00:35 UTC, submitted by Moochman
Qt Nokia will introduce Qt to the maemo platform in addition to GTK+. The first actual step will be the distribution of the Qt libraries for application development in maemo.org during 4Q2008. Nokia wants to explore cross-platform possibilities between S60 and maemo. It is interesting also to check the interest in the developer community for Qt in the tablets. This is also a way to attract more attention from the KDE community, a sensible move especially if the Trolltech acquisition gets completed.
Thread beginning with comment 310638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Qt quandary
by elsewhere on Mon 21st Apr 2008 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Qt quandary"
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Why learn GTK+? Because (and I am intentionally avoiding words like "most" or "majority" here) a substantial portion of your potential users are like me and prefer GTK+ apps to QT apps.


I'm a little surprised, despite your qualifier, that's a pretty subjective and totally unquantifiable answer, when you're usually more objective.

In that light, I would argue that the majority of users don't give a crap about what the GUI looks like. That's a typical GTK-type response whenever someone points out the superiority of Qt's framework over GTK (but we have *HIG* !!!!), but at the end of the day developers will choose the framework that works best for what they want to accomplish, not for what the users prefer. And users, for that matter, will generally choose their apps on merit. If you look at OSX or Windows, you very rarely see applications with anything regarding GUI consistency. Microsoft and Apple break their own guidelines all the time, let alone the third-party vendors. It's only linux where this argument is ever brought up, as if it has merit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Qt quandary
by sbergman27 on Mon 21st Apr 2008 12:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Qt quandary"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I'm a little surprised, despite your qualifier, that's a pretty subjective and totally unquantifiable answer, when you're usually more objective.


Unquantifiable? I should think that the endless flamewars regarding gui libs and DEs should be sufficient to demonstrate that quite a few people in Linux's current target market care enough to endlessly fight over them. You mean Tilly? She's doesn't make up much market share. Melvin makes all those decisions for her anyway. And he tends to have a preference.

I think what is getting lost in the rush to defend QT's honor and prove that it is the best gui toolkit in the world, bar none, is that the original poster was asking why he should not just program in QT and ignore everything else. That's a pretty loaded question.

But anyway, let's add something that is more quantifiable. From Fedora 8:

===
[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires gtk2 | wc -l
167

[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires qt | wc -l
27
===

(The above includes all packages available in the repo, and not just the one's installed. And thank you to Rahul for introducing me to the very useful "repoquery" utility.)

QT's World Domination plan has a ways to go. If QT is so wonderful that there is really no need to consider any other toolkit, and if it's OSS, then why hasn't QT taken over the Free Software world? Are all those devs just stupid? Are they supporting a non-QT toolkit for no reason at all?

To be clear, while others seem to be arguing the point that QT is the one true GUI toolkit, and that no others are needed, I am taking the position that GUI toolkits are *not* a one size fits all proposition from either a developer's or user's perspective. This is, as per usual, mistakenly perceived by some QT fans as an attack.

Edited 2008-04-21 12:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Qt quandary
by anda_skoa on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt quandary"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

===
[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires gtk2 | wc -l
167

[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires qt | wc -l
27
===

(The above includes all packages available in the repo, and not just the one's installed.


I think both numbers are way to low, even for a distribution with huge monolithic packages.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Qt quandary
by elsewhere on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 06:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt quandary"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Unquantifiable? I should think that the endless flamewars regarding gui libs and DEs should be sufficient to demonstrate that quite a few people in Linux's current target market care enough to endlessly fight over them. You mean Tilly? She's doesn't make up much market share. Melvin makes all those decisions for her anyway. And he tends to have a preference.


Emphasis above added by me.

You're making the same mistake that oh-so-many people in the desktop-linux debate make. That their perceived impressions apply to a larger userbase. The people bickering over Qt vs Gtk are not part of the target market for linux, they are the *existing* market for linux. They're irrelevant. They're a slice of a very small portion of the overall computing userbase. The target market for linux extends far beyond the blogosphere of linux-using pundits.

You arrogantly dismiss Tilly in favor of Melvin. But Tilly is the future, if linux is going to grow beyond it's niche, because we have enough Melvins already and they haven't managed to accomplish it yet, mostly because they allow their introverted perspectives to cloud their judgment and waste time arguing on about the technical merits of x versus y. What they prefer *must* be right for everyone else, no?

I think what is getting lost in the rush to defend QT's honor and prove that it is the best gui toolkit in the world, bar none, is that the original poster was asking why he should not just program in QT and ignore everything else. That's a pretty loaded question.


Who's calling Qt the best gui toolkit in the world? That would, frankly, diminish it's value, since it is considerably more than a simple gui toolkit, which is probably the point most people try to make when they object to GTK proponents dismissing it on vapid "appearance" claims.

As for the OP, he asked a valid question, and you respond with a subjective answer. He should use GTK because you and others prefer the appearance of GTK apps. No doubt that's the very reason that Firefox and OpenOffice have achieved such little penetration in the existing linux userbase, being that they are not GTK-based? To my point, the developers don't care. They will, and should, use what is most effective for them to deliver the application that they want to deliver. Qt has much to offer in that perspective, from a developer's POV. And the users will, generally, choose their apps based on merit as they did with Firefox and OOo, which "belong" to neither toolkit.

But anyway, let's add something that is more quantifiable. From Fedora 8:

===
[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires gtk2 | wc -l
167

[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires qt | wc -l
27
===

(The above includes all packages available in the repo, and not just the one's installed. And thank you to Rahul for introducing me to the very useful "repoquery" utility.)


Stop the presses. Fedora has more Gtk dependencies than Qt? Wow. I supose if I scanned my Windows system and found zero packages dependent on Cocoa then it mitigates OSX as being a viable platform for development.

Sarcasm aside, the issue isn't how many packages Fedora has that are "dependent" upon Qt or GTK, it's more relevant that it will support packages dependent upon either. As will virtually every other distribution on the planet. So, again, developers do not risk losing a potential "market" simply by choosing one over the other. The distro manufacturers, even the one that helped instigate the creation of Gnome with their refusal to adopt KDE under Qt's original licensing guidelines, will support choices.

Besides which, your numbers are suspect. Ignoring the Qt packages, even the GTK dependencies seem a little ridiculously low.

QT's World Domination plan has a ways to go. If QT is so wonderful that there is really no need to consider any other toolkit, and if it's OSS, then why hasn't QT taken over the Free Software world?


It anchors the dominant desktop, and it provides sufficient value that developers pay to use it even on non-linux platforms, so it must have something going for it. Plus Nokia is ponying up $100M or so to buy it, and there is that little aspect of Qtopia, which can bridge cross-platform capability between desktop and mobile devices, and goes far beyond anything GTK can do right now, HIG aside. I'm not sure what your idea of dominance is, but I'd say that it's holding it's own right now.

Are all those devs just stupid? Are they supporting a non-QT toolkit for no reason at all?


See, you're really making the argument personal now? It started with you claiming that people should develop with GTK in consideration of your personal preference for it's appearance, and now it's degraded to anyone not using GTK or alternatives as being perceived as stupid? Don't use the word stupid. Your arguments are usually above that.

To be clear, while others seem to be arguing the point that QT is the one true GUI toolkit, and that no others are needed, I am taking the position that GUI toolkits are *not* a one size fits all proposition from either a developer's or user's perspective. This is, as per usual, mistakenly perceived by some QT fans as an attack.


Again, who argued it's the one true toolkit? Aside from the fact that it's not a toolkit, it's a framework, I objected to the fact that you dismissed it because you think it looks yucky, and I questioned that as being a relevant argument for a developer's POV.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Qt quandary
by leos on Fri 25th Apr 2008 03:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt quandary"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21


But anyway, let's add something that is more quantifiable. From Fedora 8:

===
[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires gtk2 | wc -l
167

[steve@hagar ~]$ repoquery --whatrequires qt | wc -l
27
===

(The above includes all packages available in the repo, and not just the one's installed. And thank you to Rahul for introducing me to the very useful "repoquery" utility.)



haha. Whatever you're doing here, you're doing it wrong. I don't know the correct query either, but if you think that only 27 packages depend on Qt, and only 167 depend on GTK you're delusional. When you use commands like this, you have to apply some logic to the results and always ask yourself, "Does this make sense?". Just listing output without critical thinking is not helping your argument.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Qt quandary
by hibridmatthias on Mon 21st Apr 2008 17:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Qt quandary"
hibridmatthias Member since:
2007-04-11

"Why learn GTK+? Because (and I am intentionally avoiding words like "most" or "majority" here) a substantial portion of your potential users are like me and prefer GTK+ apps to QT apps.
I'm a little surprised, despite your qualifier, that's a pretty subjective and totally unquantifiable answer, when you're usually more objective. In that light, I would argue that the majority of users don't give a crap about what the GUI looks like. That's a typical GTK-type response whenever someone points out the superiority of Qt's framework over GTK (but we have *HIG* !!!!), but at the end of the day developers will choose the framework that works best for what they want to accomplish, not for what the users prefer. And users, for that matter, will generally choose their apps on merit. If you look at OSX or Windows, you very rarely see applications with anything regarding GUI consistency. Microsoft and Apple break their own guidelines all the time, let alone the third-party vendors. It's only linux where this argument is ever brought up, as if it has merit. "

I agree with you. I know of few people that "prefer gtk". They prefer desktops, they prefer distros, they prefer apps; only the devs I know give a d@mn what toolkit was used. Now fonts, on the other hand... :-)

Edited 2008-04-21 17:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Qt quandary
by apoclypse on Mon 21st Apr 2008 20:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Qt quandary"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

If that is the typical response from GTK+ advocates then its wrong. The Gnome HIG has very little or at least should have very little to do with the toolkit itself. The same thing goes for Qt applications and how they are designed. Crappy UI's has very little to do with either GTK or Qt, or any toolkit for that matter (well that is not always true, you are not going to use Motif and get something pretty). If Qt application has bad design, then its because that particular app has a bad designer. The same for gtk apps, yes gtk has a very set look about it but that doesn't all of a sudden make it look better than Qt ( I'm a gnome user, BTW). Besides that Qt supports the ability to look like the platform its running on, this includes Gnome, including swtiching the button positions the way Gnome likes them.

There are plenty of Qt apps on the market that you wouldn't know are Qt (I think google earth uses Qt), because they are designed to look like whatever platform/design the author intended. I like Qt, I like its progress, its KDE I don't like but I certainly don;t blame Qt for that. I do however blame Gnomes deficiencies on GTK, because the toolkit itself needs a serious overhaul.

Reply Parent Score: 4