Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Oct 2010 19:00 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Well, this is sure to raise a few eyebrows here and there. Today, at the Ubuntu Developer Summit, Mark Shuttleworth held his keynote speech, and in it, he announced that Ubuntu will switch to the Unity user interface come release, for both the netbook as well as the desktop, leaving the GNOME user interface behind (but keeping the GNOME platform).
Thread beginning with comment 447355
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by Luminair
by nt_jerkface on Wed 27th Oct 2010 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Luminair"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

A gaming company cares less than most about Qt vs. GTK nonsense, much less the environment. Most games are full-screen affairs that care about the WM and not much else at the DE level.


They still have installation routines and setup dialogs that tie into the system. But the point was more that there are companies who targeted demographic wants to run the latest distro/kernel version for performance and hardware support. I suppose A/V editors would have been a better example. RHEL has a conservative update policy but is getting long in the tooth even for database servers. Perhaps the rolling distros will end up doing more to address this problem.


Granted that multiple desktop environments have a non-zero support and development cost, but I don't know of any case where it's been a deal breaker for a porting effort. Do you?

Well I think it's a combined problem of distro, DE and package format fragmentation. Then you have sound issues as well. An ISV isn't going to point to DE as a deal breaker when it isn't the biggest problem. However I do think it has a role in discouraging ISVs. It makes the Linux desktop look like a work in progress since there isn't a consistent look and feel.

Proper Qt integration with GNOME will help a lot. What would help even more if writing Qt apps from C were painless.

I think a standard package format and installer would provide the most gain from the least amount of work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by Luminair
by sorpigal on Thu 28th Oct 2010 14:27 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by Luminair"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I think a standard package format and installer would provide the most gain from the least amount of work.

I don't believe this. A standard format doesn't help much, and you simply *cannot* get people to agree on one. Even on Windows I see a lot of different installation mechanisms and half of the time they're used in a broken way.

What you're really wanting is for third party devs to package once and install anywhere, which is a worthy goal but isn't solved just by unifying package format or even package management tool.

Reply Parent Score: 2