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 459183
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: shocked
by lemur2 on Thu 20th Jan 2011 11:18 UTC 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

RE[4]: shocked
by WereCatf on Thu 20th Jan 2011 11:40 in reply to "RE[3]: shocked"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.

You're forgetting that there's plenty of capable people using Ubuntu themselves. It's quite probable they will write the patches for their favorite Qt apps. Eventually the most popular Qt apps atleast will have dconf support that way.

Sure, it's not the smartest way of doing things, but atleast the goal is good: to have all the apps feel even just a tad bit more integrated.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: shocked
by lemur2 on Thu 20th Jan 2011 12:32 in reply to "RE[4]: shocked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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.


You're forgetting that there's plenty of capable people using Ubuntu themselves. It's quite probable they will write the patches for their favorite Qt apps. Eventually the most popular Qt apps atleast will have dconf support that way.
"

Ubuntu developers have completely shunned Qt applications up until this point. Are you suggesting that suddenly they will become Qt experts, and somehow wrest control of Qt applications design aims from the original authors?

Sure, it's not the smartest way of doing things, but atleast the goal is good: to have all the apps feel even just a tad bit more integrated.


Given that the GNOME paltform up until now has treated Qt developers as lepers almost, surely a better goal is to modify GNOME to make it Qt-application-friendly in the form that the Qt applications already exist? The way it is, Shuttleworth seems to be saying to Qt developers: "here you are, former lepers, here is a pile of work you can do so that you may be finally admitted to the halls of GNOME on Ubuntu, to further the everlasting glory of the Ubuntu brand". Or something like that.

My recommendation: to get along with other people, and join with them in collaboration, at least try to see things from the other people's point of view.

Edited 2011-01-20 12:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: shocked
by phoenix on Fri 21st Jan 2011 22:26 in reply to "RE[4]: shocked"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You're forgetting that there's plenty of capable people using Ubuntu themselves. It's quite probable they will write the patches for their favorite Qt apps. Eventually the most popular Qt apps atleast will have dconf support that way.


Yay! More Ubuntu-specific apps and patches applied to make apps work in non-standard ways.

What are the odds that each and every single upstream project will accept and integrate these patches?

Wouldn't it be simpler for Ubuntu to patch the source code repo that they control? Rather than generating umpteen patches against upstream repos and spending all that extra time managing the patches?

Sure, it's not the smartest way of doing things, but at least the goal is good: to have all the apps feel even just a tad bit more integrated.


Ah, so you agree it is suboptimal, and that they should look at other ways to do this. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: shocked
by saynte on Thu 20th Jan 2011 12:10 in reply to "RE[3]: shocked"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


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.


No one said that all Qt applications should be re-encoded, beside you. That's a straw-man argument.


But why is it something that one needs to do? Just make the configuration change, close and re-start any Qt application.


Because it's much more convenient to not have to save and restore all of your work for a configuration change.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: shocked
by TheGZeus on Fri 21st Jan 2011 03:49 in reply to "RE[3]: shocked"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

*headdesk*
"ENCODED"???

WHAT?????

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: shocked
by lemur2 on Fri 21st Jan 2011 06:21 in reply to "RE[4]: shocked"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

*headdesk* "ENCODED"??? WHAT?????


Shuttleworth's proposal involves writing new APIs for Qt applications to interface with dconf. This appraoch involves changing the code of the said Qt applications both to interrogate dconf to read configuration parameters via these new APIs (not too onerous perhaps) but also to respond to messages coming from dconf when the parameters are changed by another application. The latter actually involves a bit of structural change within the applications themselves, because they currently simply assume that configuration parameters are constant for any given run of the application.

Not only do the Qt applications have to be recompiled, but they need to have extra code added for when they are reading configuration parameters at first start-up, but even worse they need to be re-arranged structurally to take account of the fact that they are now supposed to dynamically respond to changes to configuration parameters at any time during a run.

That represents a bit of a minor re-write.

This is what I meant to convey with "re-encoded" but apparently that was being a bit too economical with words ... not normally a problem of mine.

Try "minor re-write" instead if it suits you better.

Edited 2011-01-21 06:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3