Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Thread beginning with comment 541518
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why not use Qt?
by woegjiub on Thu 8th Nov 2012 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not use Qt?"
woegjiub
Member since:
2008-11-25

I was mostly referring to the development of new applications, to be honest.
gtk seems much more developer-hostile, but most Linux applications seem to use it.
I agree that many Qt applications are bloated, but that is not something inherent to the toolkit, rather being a tendency of certain types of developers.
Looking at the (new, and not yet very stable) razor-qt desktop environment, fast Qt apps and environments are definitely possible.

I am yet to find a file manager and terminal that I like more than dolphin and konsole. It's just a shame that kde itself is not as nice as unity.
KDE telepathy is moving towards being a good chat client, but for now, the best option is still pidgin, unfortunately.

I can't say I've experienced the clicking threshold problems you describe, but considering I'm mostly a keyboard user, I am probably not able to judge.

Edited 2012-11-08 22:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Thu 8th Nov 2012 23:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I was mostly referring to the development of new applications, to be honest.
gtk seems much more developer-hostile, but most Linux applications seem to use it.


Maybe I'm just not using it right, but, last time I tried PyQt, I found PyGTK to generally be more comfortable. (Not to mention more favorably licensed and with a more sane reaction to receiving Ctrl+C)

Also, I've started playing around with Vala and it seems to be harder to shoot yourself in the foot with it than C++.

(If you're not familiar with it, it's a language that tries to layer a more Java/C#-style syntax on top of GObject and compiles to pure C. It's also been designed to be more friendly to being called by pure C code than C++.)

I am yet to find a file manager and terminal that I like more than dolphin and konsole. It's just a shame that kde itself is not as nice as unity.
KDE telepathy is moving towards being a good chat client, but for now, the best option is still pidgin, unfortunately.


Ever since Yakuake's KDE4 port made it too heavy, I've grown quite attached to my urxvt setup. (I use the bundled "kuake" plugin with GNU screen for tabs)

As for Dolphin, I find it a GNOME-reminiscent step backward from Konqueror 3 in various respects. As for PCManFM, the only things I've seen Dolphin do better are the filter bar and the split/unsplit toggle button... and the former is currently the new feature in development for PCManFM.

I actually think Plasma+Kwin is nicer than Unity+Compiz... but heavier than LXPanel+Openbox and I can't find where that Plasma equivalent to the (non-negotiable) LXPanel "Directory Menu" widget went since I last used it in KDE 4.4 or 4.5.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Why not use Qt?
by woegjiub on Thu 8th Nov 2012 23:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use Qt?"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

The official python API is PySide, not PyQt. That is the one actually developed by digia.

Regarding vala, it seems like a really cool idea, but is very immature and has a fair distance to go before it reaches widely useable potential.
I actually wanted to play around with it, until I realised it was basically just for gnome. I've only had bad experiences with gnome, so...

Dolphin does less than konqueror and kommander, but it does have a much more clean and pleasing UI, whilst retaining features like pane splitting, kparts and integrated terminal. Also good is that they have all of the panels and toolbars still fully customizable and removable.
Nautilus has been okay, but pcmanfm/thunar just don't look that good, and the reason we're using file managers instead of just a terminal is for the GUI, right?

It could well be that I have no problems because I'm running a Phenom II 965 quad core, and intending to upgrade to haswell next year, but even on my athlon, the themeing of KDE was something that kept me there, as opposed to the lighter desktops, despite the minor performance regressions. I know you clearly favour performance, but I like my working environment to feel enjoyable, which for me means a consistent and modern appearance.

I can't help you with that directory panel, unless it is folder view, or the classic start menu, which are still bundled with default KDE as plasmoids.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Why not use Qt?
by Elv13 on Fri 9th Nov 2012 03:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use Qt?"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

menu thing:
right click on the KMenu and click "Switch to classic"

it still have a few more items, but it is very close

Reply Parent Score: 2