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."

33 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shuttleworth sees possibility in cats and dogs living together.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:In other news by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 5, Funny

      QT and Gnome living together

      Mass Hysteria!

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  2. No, GNOME-like values on QT by paroneayea · · Score: 5, Informative
    That's a pretty misleading summary. Actual quote:

    derStandard.at: So you would favor GNOME to switch over to QT?

    Shuttleworth: Well, I think it would be perfectly possible to deliver the values of GNOME on top of QT. There are licensing issues, GNOME is very much built on the LGPL, allowing companies to build their own products on a free software system, giving them some freedom and flexibility in their choice of licensing. That's very frankly been a huge drive for the adoption of GNOME by corporate ISVs.

    He says in this article that GNOME was chosen for how easy to use it is. He's saying that the widget set doesn't dictate that, so the same thing could be done with QT, not that GNOME should be rewritten with QT.

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
    1. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by zootm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I thought that conclusion seemed suspect too. "It's possible" is different from advocating it.

    2. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The lack of UI standardization is really making life unnecessarily hard.

      Oh yah, because they are so standarized in Windows. Let see if they all use the Windows toolkit and have the same UI for some common Windows Apps.

      1. Office, nope
      2. Firefox nope
      3. Games nope

      And many more. Just about every Linux application uses either QT or GTK. Both are good, and in just about 75% of common applications you can get either a QT version or a GTK version.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by paroneayea · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh yah, because they are so standarized in Windows. Let see if they all use the Windows toolkit and have the same UI for some common Windows Apps.

      1. Office, nope
      2. Firefox nope
      3. Games nope

      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. Yes, even on Linux.

      --
      http://mediagoblin.org/
    4. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by Allen+Varney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think so.
      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 ./configure;make;make install just fine but not everyone can.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      not to start a flame war here, but to get KDE and Gnome somehow merged would seem to be the biggest priority for OSS in getting linux deployed to the desktop en masse

      Yeah, cause FOSS is all about reducing the choices. Whoever modded you insightful must have a very strange sense of humour.

      What would be helpful is if KDE, Gnome, E+, Xfce and others started cooperating on APIs, and make non-WM features use libraries that don't link in the whole window manager. There's no reason why different window managers shouldn't call the same routine for creating a thumbnail image, for example, and the user can choose the library that does that best, without changing the WM.

      Choices are good.

    8. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ***Yes I can deal with ./configure;make;make install just fine but not everyone can.***

      So could I.

      If it always worked. What caused me to give up on Slackware and switch to (yechh) Ubuntu was the relatively small number of applications available preconfigured for Slack. Maybe I just had a run of rotten luck, but it seemed to me that about 40% of the applications I attempted to ./configure, make, make install wouldn't install. Entirely too often I had to find and decode a README file, and/or decode the make files(), and/or spend (an) hour(s) running Google searches in order to figure out how to actually install the program. I'm too old and stupid for that. At least on the scale required.

      Then there is that dependency thing ....

      Don't get me wrong. It's better than Windows. But perfect it is not.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Informative

      DirectX is not a user-interface API. It's a graphic programming API.

      --
      This space for rent.
    10. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It *used* to have a standard UI. The Windows Interface Guidelines was the bible of user interface work. Once upon a time, that is.

      Programming Windows used to be fine - you had Windows Controls and the standard message passing architecture. It worked, and you could write apps that all looked the same and reused the same set of windows. I think it helped Windows adoption in a time when UI development had a 'whatever you wanted' approach.

      However, that was then. Now Windows is a mish-mash of Win32 controls, embedded HTML, Vista-alike pretend-browser windows, WPF, Windows Forms, Silverlight, and I'm sure there are more. Its a huge mess, and I'm not surprised considering their push for "more new stuff" to keep developers from going elsewhere.

      So, yes, if Linux could point to a fast development system that provided a better user experience... businesses would have a good reason to migrate. Something about standard UI = lower TCO if I recall the Microsoft marketing machine's reasons why Windows is better (oh the irony).

    11. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by Jerry · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do know that the GNOME and KDE dev crews are meeting this summer in a joint conference, don't you?

      Some sort of merging would be nice but there are a lot of hurdles to leap over, the first being that GNOME is built using C and KDE is built using C++.

      The second is that GNOME requires at least 6 separate additional apps be installed in order to do development, while KDE supplies everything that is needed in one download file.

      The third is that GTK+ is a UI toolkit only, while QT4 includes both the GUI designer AND an API for database connectivity, threading, console app development, and many, many more features.

      The fourth is that GNOME offers an LGPL license to facilitate the inclusion of proprietary binary files and QT requires that developers purchase a commercial developer's license in order to include proprietary binary files in a distro. That license could cost as much as $3K apiece and $1.5K/year for support. This is, no doubt, the BIG reason why ISVs prefer GNOME over KDE.

      However, GNOME already includes KDE components which enable GNOME users to run KDE applications, and KDE include GNOME components that allow it run GNOME apps, so a lot of progress has been made already. I will wager that even more progress will be made at this summer's conference.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    12. Re:No, GNOME-like values on QT by JamesGecko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Valve and a lot of games released on Steam have actually been pretty good about having a consistent menu system.

  3. Already done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought it was called KDE 4.0.

  4. eh? by jabjoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wouldn't that get rid of the original point of GNOME? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#History

    1. Re:eh? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the name of $SOMETHING, just let the `reversed OK and Cancel buttons' meme die.

      Of course, you are free to define `usability' as `whatever is closest to Windows' if yu want. I, for one, prefer having the most frequently used button always be put in the same place relative to the bottom right corner.

    2. Re:eh? by kimvette · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Trolltech dual-licenses the libraries. Even if they discontinue the dual licensing, Qt4 and earlier will always be available due to the gpl and can be forked, so that's a red herring.

      The truth is that Qt is cleaner, provides better, less limited dialogs, EASIER to use than that damned Gtk file open/save dialog, and just like Gtk is freely available.

      I for one cannot stand gnome because the gnome developers' idea of making a system easier to use is to cripple the interface and treat the user like an idiot. The KDE team strives to provide all the functionality but make it intuitive enough that novices can understand it.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  5. RFTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously. This is going to be one of the biggest misquoted articles of the year because some Slashdot nobody editor decided to take Shuttleworth's words out of question's context.

    He quite clearly says that it is possible to deliver GNOME's qualities on Qt. He didn't say that he wants to do it. He didn't say he was going to do it. He even pointed out a problem in doing it (GPL vs LGPL).

    Of course, it would also be possible to deliver GNOME's qualities on Enlightenment or Tcl/Tk if you could find enough hackers to do it. There's nothing unique about GNOME's qualities that only GNOME could do it. They simply picked a different path, and it happens to be one that works incredibly well for Ubuntu. So well that they can share schedules with GNOME, that they can build a base for ISVs on GNOME, and on and on.

    So please, PLEASE read the fine article before jumping to conclusions from the terrible Slashdot header.

    1. Re:RFTA by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:RFTA by mhall119 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It read more of a "Gnome does not have to be GTK only", more than "Lets move Gnome over to QT". He also specifically mentioned things like HAL and D-Bus as examples of "common infrastructure", so he's not just talking about the UI toolkit.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    3. Re:RFTA by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Assuming he didn't edit it Isn't that supposed to be, y'know, his job?

      Yes and no. His job as an editor of a user-submitted news site is to make sure that stories come out presentable and factually accurate. It is not necessarily the editor's job to edit submissions in a way that changes the information they convey.

      In fact, I'm rather glad that he left it alone. Not because I agree with the submission -- I think it was taken out of context as well. However, I'm glad to know that Taco doesn't just spin every submission he gets in a way that makes the news comes out the way he wants it to. It would be so easy to just re-word a couple things here and there, and suddenly the story is in his favorite shade of blue.

      Again, Slashdot is a user-submitted news site. Not satisfied with the quality of the news? Submit a better story yourself.

    4. Re:RFTA by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, they are LGPL...

  6. Re:In other news, hell freezes over by Yfrwlf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Wow! by norminator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought it was interesting how he says that for some of the technical things, like Pulse Audio, Firefox, etc., it would be better to use the newest stuff, even if it wasn't *quite* ready, and fix it all in a service pack, so that the latest software would be there for the long haul.

    But when it came to artwork, they considered changing it, but he though an LTS was the wrong time to mess with it, because then they'd be stuck with new artwork for a long time.

    Does that seem backwards to anyone? I mean, the people who are using an LTS want stability and software that's proven and that will get the job done, even if it is a little older. They know they're not on the bleeding-edge. Whereas with the artwork, I would think that an LTS is a great time to start off in a new direction so that a new theme can really come to be associated with the distro. Especially given how many people complain about the brown and orange they use now (although I actually prefer the brown and orange).

  8. Re:Apple innovation? by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!!
  9. KDE on GTK? by Trevelyan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't mean to sound like a troll. It just I am one of those odd people that prefers to use KDE (over GNOME), and likes to write GUI apps using GTK.

    So while I dislike using GNOME, mainly for its lack of configurability and the how it makes me feel, I do really like KDE. Similarly I'm not keen on QT, but I do like GTK.

    So why not have KDE on GTK? As a bonus KDE apps would obey the LANG var, instead of QT out-of-band language selection. (which makes running more then one language, simultaneously, difficult)

  10. Qt nitpicking by cronius · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that don't know: It's Qt, not QT. It's not an acronym, it's pronounced "cute."

    One of the guys from trolltech once told me that when they created the library(-ies) they needed a prefix for all the functions. The letter 'Q' was chosen as it was the most appealing / best looking letter in emacs at the time (which was the head developers favourite editor).

    Thus Qt became the name.

    --
    Life is Reality
  11. What on earth is he getting at? by argent · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shuttleworth says: "And you can't run an old Windows application on a recent Windows version."

    There are some applications, particularly ones that are pushing the limits of what you can do on a PC, that can't run on the most recent versions of Windows, but in general that's not true. I've got programs that I've carried around for decades that still work as far as I've been willing to take Windows.

    Mind you, Vista might be an exception, but Microsoft has... up to Vista... bent over backwards to ludicrous levels to maintain backwards compatibility. The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is a cliche, but this is a perfect example of an exception that DOES prove the rule... there's an enormous push-back against Vista simply because it's perceived as being incompatible. It's NOT a model to follow.

    1. Re:What on earth is he getting at? by ratboy666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:What on earth is he getting at? by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  12. Re:Spin by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a politics section you'll have people decrying your outright and blatent bias no matter what you do or how little bias you actually have. That's the way politics sections work, you decry their obvious bias in an effort to bias them.

    As for which articles the Slashdot editors choose, it seems to be the ones designed to generate the most comment traffic. They may not be completely factual, but if they say something outrageous (Gnome is going to Qt!) then they're in. This is the same principle that most 24 hour news sites operate on, if it will draw viewers, put it on the air.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.