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 459066
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: De kogel is door de kerk
by geertjan on Wed 19th Jan 2011 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: De kogel is door de kerk"
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

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

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.


I would be surprised if MeeGo didn't move to dconf as well, as dconf appears to be the "best of breed" configuration database on Linux right now. Currently meego uses gconf which sort of sucks.

Qt has no dconf equivalent, QSettings is for static configuration data.

Reply Parent Score: 2