Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:02 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces As an answer to someone asking whether Unity will require a working OpenGL stack to operate in Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal", Mark Shuttleworth announced that Canonical would offer an optional, QT-based, "2D" implementation of Unity. Here is a video, too.
Thread beginning with comment 458238
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: WTF?!?
by Hiev on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF?!?"
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Qt ain't that heavy and is not that slow.

But people may take that perception becuase the main apps. that use Qt are heavy and slow, for example: they perceip KDE as heavy, bloatted and slow, hense they assume Qt is the same. But not really.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: WTF?!?
by puelocesar on Sat 15th Jan 2011 22:44 in reply to "RE[2]: WTF?!?"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think KDE passes a wrong idea about Qt. It's such an elegant and well designed framework used in a such messy and bloated desktop environment.

ps: Sorry the trolling KDE fans, but I became very disappointed to what KDE turned these days, after so much promise on the beginning of kde4 project..

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: WTF?!?
by gilboa on Sun 16th Jan 2011 13:47 in reply to "RE[3]: WTF?!?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think KDE passes a wrong idea about Qt. It's such an elegant and well designed framework used in a such messy and bloated desktop environment.

ps: Sorry the trolling KDE fans, but I became very disappointed to what KDE turned these days, after so much promise on the beginning of kde4 project..


I'm not your average KDE fan (I use KDE 4.6rc/4.5.x on my workstations, GNOME on desktops / HTPC's, XFCE on my netbook/low-end machines and IceWM on VM's), but I must admit that I'm somewhat baffled by your claim.
In my experience, as long as you have a decent graphics driver, KDE is actually faster than GNOME, at the expense of somewhat (~50MB) higher memory usage.
However, if you can't spare the memory, XFCE is far better suited to low-end machines compared to both KDE and GNOME...

You may or may not like KDE4 features *, but KDE 4.6 is just as bloated as GNOME 2.x is (or vice versa).

- Gilboa
* I personally depend on plasma's different widgets per desktop, kwin's per-window/application/class configuration/grouping and konsole's profile.

Edited 2011-01-16 13:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4