Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Jan 2011 22:18 UTC, submitted by alinandrei
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu De kogel is door de kerk. After years of focussing entirely on Gtk+ and GNOME, Ubuntu will finally start evaluating Qt applications for inclusion in the defaukt Ubuntu installation. Mark Shuttleworth announced the policy change on his blog today.
Thread beginning with comment 459017
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: De kogel is door de kerk
by geertjan on Wed 19th Jan 2011 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: De kogel is door de kerk"
geertjan
Member since:
2010-10-29

Yep, they must. All Qt programmers that do not use dconf will be arrested and executed.

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

All Canonical is doing is creating a new piece of software that allows Qt application to integrate better into GNOME and Ubuntu. Yes, not just Ubuntu, this will also benefit other distros that combine GNOME with Qt applications. And everybody is free to use or ignore it.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

Indeed. The library is already being written so an application which wishes to be part of the default installation only needs to add the library and to save/store its settings via that. Not really a big effort needed. And besides, not all apps are going to get on the default installation anyways.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"

I suppose they were happier complaining than actually getting something. And still, Qt apps have been available in Ubuntu for years, the only difference now is that it's possible some Qt apps will be included by default.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yep, they must. All Qt programmers that do not use dconf will be arrested and executed.

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

All Canonical is doing is creating a new piece of software that allows Qt application to integrate better into GNOME and Ubuntu. Yes, not just Ubuntu, this will also benefit other distros that combine GNOME with Qt applications. And everybody is free to use or ignore it.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"


I'm sorry you missed the sarcasm tag, I actually did put one right there in that post for you.

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?

Why would it be so hard for Mr Shuttleworth to arrange to do the work of integration, if he wants to include these best-of-class Qt applications on his default CD?

There are two methods which come to mind, neither of which would require Qt authors to leap to Mr Shuttleworth's bidding (for Mr Shuttleworth's benefit):

1. Ubuntu writes a replacement qtconfig
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/qtconfig.html
The qtconfig tool allows users to customize the default settings for Qt applications on a per-user basis, enabling features such as the widget style to be changed without requiring applications to be recompiled.
and a replacement for QsettingsClass in the QtCore module, both of which integrate with dconf, all other parts of Qt remain untouched,

http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.6.2/qsettings.html
Detailed Description

The QSettings class provides persistent platform-independent application settings.

Users normally expect an application to remember its settings (window sizes and positions, options, etc.) across sessions. This information is often stored in the system registry on Windows, and in XML preferences files on Mac OS X. On Unix systems, in the absence of a standard, many applications (including the KDE applications) use INI text files.

QSettings is an abstraction around these technologies, enabling you to save and restore application settings in a portable manner. It also supports custom storage formats.

QSettings's API is based on QVariant, allowing you to save most value-based types, such as QString, QRect, and QImage, with the minimum of effort.


or

2. Ubuntu writes an expanded dconf module which edits both the dconf database and the qtconfig and QsettingsClass storage.

Either way, it seems to me, suddenly Qt applications running on Ubuntu will see the same settings changes as dconf does, without any requirement for said Qt applications to be re-written or even re-compiled.

Surely this is an infinitely better solution for everybody, even for Mr Shuttleworth?

Edited 2011-01-19 09:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

dconf has technical advantages over flat-file storage, including notice of changes, and a quite fast retrieval/loading mechanism (as it is more likely that settings are read than written).

Having the author of dconf write bindings for Qt, so there is the choice of using it, is a good thing!

Reply Parent Score: 2

geertjan Member since:
2010-10-29

Wait, I thought the sarcasm tag just applied to that last sentence you wrote. Are you saying it applied to your entire post? So this part:

...all authors of Qt applications must re-write parts of their application in order to be aware of qt-dconf settings, unique to Ubuntu?


was sarcastic as well? So you agree with me that it's not true that all Qt applications must be re-writen and that it will only work on Ubuntu?

Anyway, I think here is where your problem lies:

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?


Seems to me you are just creating this problem in your head. There is no matter of "honour" here. Nobody is being forced to do anything. Here's how I see it for example:

For years people have been asking for the inclusion of Qt apps in the default Ubuntu install. Canonical didn't want to do this at first because of poor integration in GNOME. But now it seems they have some room in their budget for helping that integration, making Qt apps in the default install possible. Apart from being good for Ubuntu in the long run, this is a favor for those who wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu. For those that are not interested in this, *nothing* changes.

If you don't like their dconf solution, that's fine. Your solution with QSettings sounds good too. Perhaps you should collaborate with Canonical on it, or try to implement it yourself.

But as long as they are implementing something with their time/money - something which has no down-sides because it doesn't affect anybody that is not interested - than that can only be a good thing in my book. You can say it's not good enough, but I don't see how you can view this as a bad thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

shocked
by ngaio on Thu 20th Jan 2011 02:14 in reply to "RE[5]: De kogel is door de kerk"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Anyway, my point is this ... why should authors of Qt applications be falling over themselves to re-write their apps just for the "honour" of being included on Mr Shuttleworth's Ubuntu default install CD?


I am shocked at aggression and anger directed toward Ubuntu in so many of the comments in this discussion. It seems a small but very vocal minority is interpreting Canonical's actions in the most negative light possible, and sharing their negativity with the rest of us.

FOSS development, just like practically any field in which people-to-people cooperation is essential, requires people be -- at minimum -- civil and respectful of each other.

Unfortunately much of the discussion in the last day or two has been anything but civil.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep, they must. All Qt programmers that do not use dconf will be arrested and executed.

It's a nice way of inserting a bit of sensationalism into the debate, but that's exactly what Shuttleworth is asking Qt application developers to do.

Oh wait, the only downside to not implementing dconf is that you won't see your application installed by default on the Ubuntu live CD. So no, nobody must do anything.

That's about the size of it, and probably what will happen.

All Canonical is doing is creating a new piece of software that allows Qt application to integrate better into GNOME and Ubuntu.....And everybody is free to use or ignore it.

It will get ignored by upstream, like many of the other things Ubuntu has done, because people are not going to rewrite their applications to support something that Ubuntu has suddenly come up with out of the blue.

Those of us actually debating something here are asking what it will take for what Mark Shuttleworth wants to be a success. Telling us that we can all ignore him is probably what will end up happening, but it's not terribly productive.

I don't get all these comments saying "I have wanted Qt apps in Ubuntu for years, and now they are doing it. Those bastards!"

Well no. People have asked for better Qt aplication support for years, and got completely stonewalled by Ubuntu and then other people did the actual work.

It does a disservice to the people who've actually done work and written code on this front to claim that Ubuntu is now somehow starting this off.

Reply Parent Score: 4