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 310649
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Qt quandary
by leos on Mon 21st Apr 2008 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Qt quandary"
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

I apologize, in advance, for my blunt answer. But in my opinion QT apps are generally crap.


Ah, OSNews's personal GTK troll strikes again.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, why bother saying it?

They look bad.


Personal preference, completely irrelevant.

Their UI is generally not well designed.


And once again, completely unsubstantiated claims.

QT itself does not lend itself to creating apps with good UI design.


You sir, are an idiot and know nothing about programming frameworks. Thanks for playing though.

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.


No one that isn't a geek (and on top of that, hugely misinformed as you are) will ever care about the distinction, as long as there isn't anythign fundamentally wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Qt quandary
by sbergman27 on Mon 21st Apr 2008 18:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Qt quandary"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Ah, OSNews's personal GTK troll strikes again.
If you don't have anything intelligent to say, why bother saying it?
...
You sir, are an idiot and know nothing about programming frameworks.

How could I possibly contradict such an enlightened point of view as this? Come on, Leos, that kind of response is really beneath you. Name-calling? Shame on you. I went out of my way to make it *quite* clear that I was voicing my own opinion, and I have to wonder what is the reason for such oversensitivity regarding criticism of QT. One does not resort to the kinds of emotional statements I have quoted above in relaxed, casual conversation. It is no secret that I prefer GTK and Gnome to QT and KDE, and I have good reasons for feeling that way. I'm sure you have good reasons for preferring QT and KDE, but I don't call you names over it, even when you don't make it clear that you understand that what you are voicing is only your own opinion.

This may come as a shock to you, Leos, but while I prefer GTK and Gnome, I am not anti-QT or anti-KDE. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I'm glad that QT and KDE exist to please those users whom I really would not care to have plaguing the Gnome platform, requesting that it be turned into something resembling KDE. And I would guess that you feel the same way about those of us who prefer the Gnome's UI policies.

I also feel that having a couple of major GUI toolkits/DEs that are distinct in character from each other is good for the adoption of FOSS desktops, in general, since users have different tastes, and developers have different tastes.

See my response to Elsewhere for more on the original topic.

Edited 2008-04-21 18:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Qt quandary
by leos on Fri 25th Apr 2008 07:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Qt quandary"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

How could I possibly contradict such an enlightened point of view as this?


Indeed, especially as you have only rhetoric instead of real arguments.

Come on, Leos, that kind of response is really beneath you. Name-calling? Shame on you. I went out of my way to make it *quite* clear that I was voicing my own opinion, and I have to wonder what is the reason for such oversensitivity regarding criticism of QT.

Criticism is fine by me, I have criticism of Qt myself. It is not ideal in lots of ways that ccan be intelligently debated.. What bothers me is you making random statements about the internal capabilities of Qt, which you apparently do not know anything about. I am somewhat familiar with GTK, but I dont make completely unfounded statements about it.

You say this is just your opinion, and thus excuses any statemnts you make, but that is not true. You intentionally make your opinion sound like fact, which makes it deceptive, and no longer opinion. When you say qt is not capable of well designed UIs, you're lying, not stating an opinion. Just like when I say the sky is green, that is not an opinion, but a lie. When you are stating opinion, you have to be careful about how you express yourself. Opinion is not a free ticket to say whatever nonsense you want.

I also feel that having a couple of major GUI toolkits/DEs that are distinct in character from each other is good for the adoption of FOSS desktops, in general, since users have different tastes, and developers have different tastes.


Sure, no one is arguing that point.

Reply Parent Score: 2