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 459148
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: shocked
by lemur2 on Thu 20th Jan 2011 03:14 UTC in reply to "shocked"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"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. "

I'm shocked as well. Utterly shocked to my core.

I'm shocked that no-one has bothered to answer the perfectly civil question ... "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?".

There is no insult in the question, there are no angry words, no-one is accused of anything, and it is a perfectly valid quetion after all. Why should authors of Qt applications go to all the bother that Mr Shuttleworth is asking of them? What incentive is there?

Why shouldn't it be a vastly more preferable approach that Ubuntu itself is modified slightly instead, in order to better accomodate Qt applications as they already are?

Hmm?

Why can no-one answer these questions?

Edited 2011-01-20 03:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: shocked
by saynte on Thu 20th Jan 2011 06:09 in reply to "RE: shocked"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

I already gave you two reasons in another thread: dconf is fast, and allows for notification of changes at runtime.

On the second point: being able to receive notification of changes at runtime is not something one can do without changing their source-code. It's a fundamentally different operation than reading a settings file once.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: shocked
by lemur2 on Thu 20th Jan 2011 11:18 in reply to "RE[2]: shocked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I already gave you two reasons in another thread: dconf is fast, and allows for notification of changes at runtime.


This is not a reason why all Qt applications should be re-encoded rather than Ubuntu itself be re-encoded to better accomodate Qt applications as they are.

On the second point: being able to receive notification of changes at runtime is not something one can do without changing their source-code. It's a fundamentally different operation than reading a settings file once.


But why is it something that one needs to do? Just make the configuration change, close and re-start any Qt application. Just accept that this is a limitation of Qt applications. They will be perfectly integrated in all other respects, and no Qt applications will require re-encoding.

This way, Shuttleworth will be able to offer the entire suite of Qt applications straight away, with just that minor annoyance of not reflecting configuration changes until the next time the application is re-started. Ubuntu users will enjoy a much wider choice of pretty-well integrated applications than they do currently.

Shuttleworth's proposed way ... no one will bother to re-write their Qt apps for no good reason, and Shuttleworth will get no Qt applications for his default Ubuntu install.

How does the latter scenario help anybody?

Edited 2011-01-20 11:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1