Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Sees Possibility For a QT-based GNOME
An anonymous reader writes "derStandard.at has an extensive interview with Ubuntu-founder Mark Shuttleworth, in which he seems to be pushing for a switch to QT in the GNOME-project: 'I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of QT.' He goes on to talk about Apple as an 'innovation leader' and problems with Hardy Heron."
Yeah, I thought that conclusion seemed suspect too. "It's possible" is different from advocating it.
Let's be fair about number three, that's a problem with the gaming industry in general. Almost every game reinvents its own UI, on pretty much all platforms, anywhere.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Part of the fun of playing a game is mastering its interface, and a unique interface can encourage unique new kinds of fun. Anyway, how would it work if every game had to use the same interface -- if you had to be able to play Halo, SimCity 4, Command & Conquer, Tetris, Line Rider, bridge, backgammon, and parcheesi on a standard chessboard?
I'm sure both are very capable libraries. All I want to see is wxWidgets being used for all GUI frontends so that they have a native feel whether you're in Gnome, KDE, Elightenment, XFCE, OS X, Windows, etc. That is, as soon as wxWidgets has KDE support.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
I don't think so. ./configure;make;make install just fine but not everyone can.
I have no problem moving between Gnome and KDE. I have gotten to the point that I like Gnome better because it actually feels simpler to use.
I have not used KDE4 at all so things may change.
That being said I can think of a LOT more pressing needs in OSS than merging KDE and GNOME.
1. Audio. It is still a mess. Make up your minds and create a standard for that.
2. An Installer. Repositories are great if they have what you want. Yes I can deal with
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Assuming he didn't edit it
Isn't that supposed to be, y'know, his job?
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
being innovation leader for restriction maybe?
you cant (normally) install a custom program or use an ipod for data storage out of the box.
maybe design leader but not innovation leader oh no!
This is just not true.
The first thing I do with any macs I lay hands on is drop mplayer SVN builds onto them, and the first thing I do after plugging in an ipod is to "enable disk use". I've had ipods since the second generation (the 10 gb brick), and still have the latest 2. 60% of both of these are occupied by normal everyday data.
Do I agree with itunes music store? no! Luckily I can go into parental controls in itunes and turn every hint of it off.
Do I wish they would remove the horrid bloat from itunes? Yes. Do I think they're moving in the wrong direction? Yes.
They're not quite where you are asserting they are yet though.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I prefer the mac way of installing via just drag and drop the app file into your applications directory (or any other directory).
I personally think that would be a much better default for 3rd party (non-repo) provided applications.
Sure, you waste hard drive space, but right now that is not a concern.
Windows back compatibility? How far back do you want to go?
Wrong - try MS Bookshelf 92. Most of the "technologies" touted for that time period are now broken. Even when implemented by Microsoft. I wonder if "MS Bob" works (I doubt it). Most other shell extensions of that era no longer work.
So we know the window of compatibility is less than 16 years.
Maybe the "era of compatibility" extends back to Windows 95... I don't know (and, really, don't care much). Windows users probably have a much better idea than I do.
Just sayin'
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
How far back do you want to go?
I can run MS-DOS software from the '80s on Windows XP SP2. I can run some Windows software from 1992, and I can run just about any well behaved application (which rules out things like shell extensions) from 10-15 years ago.
So we know the window of compatibility is less than 16 years.
What's the window of compatibility for binary executables on Linux? Even if they only depend on glibc, and don't pull in any GUI libraries, is it as long as 10 years? When was the last time they broke glibc? If you want to run a 10 year old GUI binary on a recent Linux, would you even know where to find all the back-rev lib*.so files it needs?
For FreeBSD installing compat3x should take you back to 1998, but I don't know if compat3x (let alone compat22) is still usable on FreeBSD 7.
I don't even think the "window of compatibility" for Mac OS is as long as 15 years.
16 years of binary compatibility is pretty damn good, for a desktop OS. Servers, now, you can probably still run VMS 2.0 binaries from 1980, but that's a whole different world.