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 459052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: De kogel is door de kerk
by lemur2 on Wed 19th Jan 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: De kogel is door de kerk"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

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?


Qt applications must be re-writen under Mr Shuttleworth's proposed scheme in order to work in an integrated fashion ONLY on Ubuntu. Yes indeed, that is what I meant.

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.


Your misunderstanding, not mine. Indeed nobody is being forced to do anything ... so nobody will do anything to make their Qt application depend on Ubuntu. That's crazy.

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.


So why not simply do it in a way that Qt applications can run in an integrated fashion under Ubuntu without requiring changes to Qt applications? All it requires is for Ubuntu's GNOME desktop to replace a few small parts of Qt, in a very similar way that KDE desktops currently replace a few small parts of GTK in order to achieve the GTK integration. What exactly would be wrong with doing that? It is no more work for Ubuntu.

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.


Canonical say they have already employed someone to do it the boneheaded wrong way. It won't work guys, it will fall in a heap for lack of Qt application authors willing to make their applications dependent on Ubuntu's GNOME.

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.


It is not that so much as that I am making the observation that it could very simply, with a sensible approach, be made a very much better thing for everybody concerned.

Edited 2011-01-19 10:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

geertjan Member since:
2010-10-29

Qt applications must be re-writen under Mr Shuttleworth's proposed scheme in order to work in an integrated fashion ONLY on Ubuntu. Yes indeed, that is what I meant.


I actually asked whether you agree that that is *not* true. That is what you implied when you said your post was sarcastic. But never mind.

Look, all I'm saying is that I think you're seeing it all too black and white. You point out some flaws in Canonical's approach, then you present an alternative which you claim is flawless, then you claim Canonical is just boneheaded for not going with your solution.

There's just more to it. The flaws you point out are just not as bad as you are trying to make them sound, and I'm sure your solution has problems as well.

But if your solution really is the ultimate perfect approach then I'm sure Canonical is willing to listen if you write them a serious proposal.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Qt applications must be re-writen under Mr Shuttleworth's proposed scheme in order to work in an integrated fashion ONLY on Ubuntu. Yes indeed, that is what I meant.


I actually asked whether you agree that that is *not* true. That is what you implied when you said your post was sarcastic. But never mind.

Look, all I'm saying is that I think you're seeing it all too black and white. You point out some flaws in Canonical's approach, then you present an alternative which you claim is flawless, then you claim Canonical is just boneheaded for not going with your solution.

There's just more to it. The flaws you point out are just not as bad as you are trying to make them sound, and I'm sure your solution has problems as well.

But if your solution really is the ultimate perfect approach then I'm sure Canonical is willing to listen if you write them a serious proposal.
"

Put it this way ... one of the primary reasons for writing your application to work with Qt is that Qt promises to give you very easy cross-platform support.

http://qt.nokia.com/
"QT - Cross-platform application and UI framework"

"Write code once to target multiple platforms"

This is the main billing for Qt.

Now Mr Shuttleworth has made a longish speech about wanting to include some of the great best-of-class Qt applications on his default Ubuntu install, and that he has hired a programmer ostensibly to enable this very thing to happen ... but then he goes on to explain that the chosen approach would require authors of Qt applications to modify their applications to work with the special bindings just for GNOME on Ubuntu.

So when you listen to Mr Shuttleworth's proposal, does not that ring a great big "hey, listen to this stupid idea" bell to you? Because it certainly does for me.

Edited 2011-01-19 11:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2