Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LXDE Previews Port From Gtk+ 2 to Qt

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the long-live-trolltech dept.

GUI 136

An anonymous reader writes "As the PCMan at the LXDE blog lets us know, the work on a port of LXDE to the Qt platform is showing promise. As the developers stand to face the deprecation of Gtk+ 2, migrating away from the popular toolkit will soon be necessary. The developers note that migration to Qt 'will cause mild elevation of memory usage compared to the old Gtk+ 2 version,' but clarify that a similar increase in resource usage is expected of a migration to Gtk+ 3. Yet, the port to Qt is ongoing, and clearly taking shape, as the screenshot shows. An official release might be a while, though. As an update to the post notes, the plan is to use the recently released Qt 5.1 in the future, which we might not see in distros for some time." They are also cooperating with the Razor Qt desktop. From the weblog post: "...We subscribed razor-qt google groups and discussed about possible cooperation earlier. Currently, the ported LXDE components are designed with Razor-Qt in mind. For example, PCManFM-Qt and LxImage-Qt will reads razor-qt config file when running in razor-qt session. We’ll try to keep the interchangeability between the two DEs. Further integration is also possible. Actually, I personally am running a mixed desktop with LXDE-Qt + Razor-Qt components on my laptop. Components from the both DE blends well."

cancel ×

136 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I, for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200021)

I, for one, welcome our new Qt overlords.

Re:I, for one (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201409)

I'm still on Motif you insensitive clod.

Sounds gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200039)

But I guess that's true of anything associated with Linsux.
 
Go suck another dick, faggots!

Re:Sounds gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200847)

Look, a lot of linux users are gay, true. But not all gay men sucks dicks. Many gay (and "straight") men get gay blowjobs on a daily basis but rarely, if ever, suck a dick in return. And when you're getting your dick sucked, what difference does it make it it's a dude or a lady? Or maybe that dick you want sucked is your own?

Re:Sounds gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200905)

Gum my dick, bitch!

Hmmmmmmmmm (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year ago | (#44200121)

I already have QT and such installed on my LXDE machine due to a couple of KDE apps I fell in love with. They work fine under Openbox/LXDE, so shouldn't be much of a problem to convert over to the new QT based DE.

Re:Hmmmmmmmmm (3, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44201053)

I already have QT and such installed on my LXDE machine due to a couple of KDE apps I fell in love with. They work fine under Openbox/LXDE, so shouldn't be much of a problem to convert over to the new QT based DE.

The problem isn't running QT based apps under Openbox/LXDE. The problem is rewriting LXDE componets to use QT to draw to the screen instead of GTK2. They are basically rewriting the panels and all the other components to call QT libraries instead of GTK2 libraries.

Re:Hmmmmmmmmm (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about a year ago | (#44201405)

On the other hand, I have no Qt apps installed, and no particular interest in any Qt apps I've heard of, and I'm not going to install Qt just for the sake of a jumped-up window manager. So this pretty much removes LXDE from the list of WMs/DEs I'm likely to try.

Re:Hmmmmmmmmm (2)

takeya (825259) | about a year ago | (#44201437)

I was in the same boat but I finally adopted VLC as my media player and it depends on the basic Qt libraries. It is so much faster to start and uses the least memory of any video player, for GTK+ or Qt. It really proves to me that Qt code can run just as fast as GTK code, even on a primarily GTK machine.

Also bear in mind that LXDE has not yet announced any plans to drop GTK support, but GTK3 team has been openly dismissive of anyone not developing for Gnome in specific, so it may be inevitable.

Why QT over GTK 3 ? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200159)

Serious question, I'm assuming that there was a specific reason for going with QT and not GTK3; anyone know why?

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (2)

dosius (230542) | about a year ago | (#44200185)

I've heard the Gtk3 devs are actively trying to prevent their stuff from being used outside of apps intended for GNOME 3 itself.

Not sure how true that is though.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (5, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44200223)

XFCE is doing fine with the transition so I assume it wasn't too much of a problem. Also I quoted the guy who made the switch for LXDE and he didn't mention that issue. He mostly thinks that GTK3 is the same weight at Qt and since he liked Qt better once they were the same weight it became the better choice. Since GTK3 isn't that similar to 2 it was roughly an equal porting effort and that's why he switched.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44200497)

Whether that is true or not the naming convention they've used effectively makes it as if they are deliberately getting in your way if you are trying to have a mixed GTK2 and GTK3 environment during a changeover. They have brought something like DLL hell to *nix for the first time in that old and new software cannot interact since it can't tell the difference between old and new vital components that act differently. That seems to have been deliberate to avoid any abandoned portions of gnome creeping into gnome3, but it's still annoying (eg. can't run the new version of gimp on a distro with a gnome2 desktop).

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44200717)

What do you mean? You should be able to run gtk3 run fine on any distribution. It doesn't matter one bit if that is some Qt based distro (KDE/whatever), some Gtk based distro (whatever version, 1.x, 2.x, 3.x) or whatever else.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44201393)

Simple - there's various backends (not libraries) in gnome2 and gnome3 which behave differently, are incompatible and are called with the same names. Try installing the most recent gimp on the most recent version of CentOS or RHEL and you'll see an example of what was broken by this decision. You've got to either remove everything that needs gtk2 or give up on anything that needs gtk3. I can see why they did it (they wanted a clean slate and not have support old apps) but it still pisses me off.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202291)

I don't have RHEL. Libraries do NOT have the same names. GTK+-2.x and 3.x do not have the same names, same for various other things.

I do have Firefox, it uses GTK+-2.x, it runs fine in GTK+-3.x. Sounds more like some missing dependencies in your Gimp package.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44202371)

As I said above, not libraries. Instead it's some of the desktop environment backends. Google will help. It's been discussed a lot and pissed off a lot of people over at least two years so far.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#44202875)

Hmm....GIMP depends on GTK....which stands for GIMP Took Kit....

A lot of programs (looking at the GNOME DE) do have issues due to naming - which is why the MATE project had to change the program names.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44201077)

I've heard the Gtk3 devs are actively trying to prevent their stuff from being used outside of apps intended for GNOME 3 itself.

Not sure how true that is though.

I don't think that the Gtk3 devs are trying to prevent others from using their stuff, but Gtk3 is actively being developed to suppoert Gnome 3 and particularly gnome-shell. As such, there are lost of changes from one release to the next of Gtk3 that are not backward compatible. That is fine for Gnome 3, but not for others trying to use the libs.

It is anticipated that eventually, the changes will settle down and things will stabalize, but right now, GTK3 is a moving target. Since desktop environments like LXDE and Xfce don't have large development teams, it's hard for them to make a new release to keep up with the Gnome 3/Gtk3 release schedule.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (2)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202295)

That is not true. The only changes that are invasive is for themes. However, that is due to the move to css for themes and once that is done, it'll be easier to theme things. So aim is not to make things difficult, but unfortunately to make things easier it sometimes is more difficult temporarily.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about a year ago | (#44201227)

GTK 3 without GNOME is going the way of udev without systemd, read for example

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-list/2012-November/msg00044.html [gnome.org]

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44202085)

Funny your mentioning systemd, as I was just thinking about that earlier today. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of it, for several reasons, and I was gratified to see that (for now, at least) Pat Volkerding has kept it out of Slackware.

However, I suspect that sooner or later, everything will depend on it, and unless we introduce forks of udev, we'll be stuck with it, just like many distros are with pulse audio, which I really do hate. It is my contention that "pulse" stands for Pretty Useless Load of Superfluous Excreta.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (5, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44200199)

I don't know who "PCMan" is on the LXDE team but he is the author and here is what he wrote

I, however, need to admit that working with Qt/C++ is much more pleasant and productive than messing with C/GObject/GTK+.
Since GTK+ 3 breaks backward compatibility a lot and it becomes more memory hungry and slower, I don’t see much advantage of GTK+ now. GTK+ 2 is lighter, but it’s no longer true for GTK+ 3. Ironically, fixing all of the broken compatibility is even harder than porting to Qt in some cases (PCManFM IMO is one of them).
So If someone is starting a whole new project and is thinking about what GUI toolkit to use, personally I might recommend Qt if you’re not targeting Gnome 3.

Update 2013-03-27:
I got some feedback about the toolkit choice above. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that gtk+ is bad and did not intend to start a toolkit flame war. If you’re going to use python, C#, or other scripting language, gtk+ is still a good choice due to its mature language bindings.

Vala is attractive initially, but after trying it in real development, you’ll see the shortcomings of this approach. Because it sometimes generates incorrect C code that still compiles, we got some really hard-to-find bugs. So we need to examine the generated C code to make sure it does things right. This takes much more time than just writing plain C code myself. Besides, the generated C code is not quite human-readable and debugging becomes a problem. Another issue that’ll hit you is the problems in the library bindings. Though there exists many vala bindings for various C library, their quality is uncertain. Finally, debugging, examing, and fixing the bindings all the time takes even more time and offsets the time saved by using Vala.

To sum up, for compiled binary programs, Qt IMHO is a good choice to consider if you don’t hate C++.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (2)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year ago | (#44200405)

Personally, I've never tried Qt, but I can attest to the horrible backwards-compatibility of GTK+3. Luckily, most everyone just uses Glade, so most of the time it's not *too* bad, but there are still problems and shortcomings there. However, I don't think you can really write an entire DE using Glade alone... I also think QT is the smarter choice because development on the Ubuntu Phone uses Qt w/ QML, and I believe LXDE's most thriving distro is Lubuntu. I assume this also means that we may be able to use LXDE on Ubuntu Phones with pretty good compatibility/support.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (3, Informative)

sidthegeek (626567) | about a year ago | (#44200551)

PCMan is the original author of LXDE.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

emblemparade (774653) | about a year ago | (#44201385)

This is a fairly balanced statement (I especially like the "if you don't hate C++"). But it's also obviously a subjective experience, and YMMV.

I found Vala/Genie to be an amazing development experience: C#/Python-like linguistics, but with the true C ABI, with automatic wrapping for dynamic languages. GObject is ingenious! But it is also true that Vala is still in beta: some bindings might be broken, and Genie has some serious linguistic failings, but it's not a big deal to fall back to C when nothing else works. So, one approach is that you can use Vala, report bugs, help make it better ASAP. Still, I can sympathize with projects such as LXDE not having this patience.

Other tidbits:

1. The "breakage" of GTK+3 compared to GTK+2 is overblown. The API changes are rather small, and there are good guides for doing it. Most projects shouldn't take more than a day or two to upgrade. The basic components are all the same, and GLib is essentially unchanged. There are big changes for theme developers, but I wouldn't count that as a dev challenge, more of a user challenge.

2. Qt requires that you not just love C++, but also deal with the Qt C++ preprocessor... it's not a very pure C++ environment. It's mature and works, but not everybody's cup of tea. I know I would rather not have to program with it given good alternatives.

3. I'm very happy with the competition between GTK+ and Qt. It is making both toolkits better. And for a long time it hasn't been a problem using both toolkits together on the same DE.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44201739)

Vala is attractive initially, but after trying it in real development, youâ(TM)ll see the shortcomings of this approach. Because it sometimes generates incorrect C code that still compiles, we got some really hard-to-find bugs. So we need to examine the generated C code to make sure it does things right. This takes much more time than just writing plain C code myself. Besides, the generated C code is not quite human-readable and debugging becomes a problem. Another issue thatâ(TM)ll hit you is the problems in the library bindings. Though there exists many vala bindings for various C library, their quality is uncertain. Finally, debugging, examing, and fixing the bindings all the time takes even more time and offsets the time saved by using Vala.

I can vouch for the truth of all of this. That said, I'd still rather write Vala code than C -- fixing library bindings is typically less painful than doing manual memory management.

(And yes, I'm one of the few people who develops in Vala for a living.)

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44200465)

I can tell you why I wouldn't.......

Both QT and GTK3 are fine GUI development environments. However, the GTK team doesn't have a commitment to maintaining backwards compatibility, which means if you write your code for GTK3, you can expect to rewrite it in a few years, with little real benefit. When choosing between two decent platforms, why not choose the platform that is more stable?

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44200727)

Can you give a reference to where you found that GTK 3.x wouldn't provide backwards compatibility? This as it should.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44200827)

Can you give a reference to where you found that GTK 3.x wouldn't provide backwards compatibility?

Sure. I strongly recommend clicking on this link [gnome.org] from the summary, where you will find this sentence in the first paragraph: "GTK+ 3 is a major new version of GTK+ that breaks both API and ABI compared to GTK+ 2.x." It then goes on to discuss in more detail the changes that will break compatibility.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (2)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | about a year ago | (#44200939)

Yeah and GTK+ 2.x was API/ABI incompatible with GTK+ 1.x, pretty much setting an expectation that the whole thing will be overhauled approximately once a decade. So whenever GTK+ 4.0 is out, your 3.x apps likely won't just compile+run as-is in the new version, but there's no reason you can't have all the older libraries installed at the same time.

GTK+ 2.x apps aren't magically breaking and GTK+ 3.x apps won't magically break either.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44201025)

Sure. And in the worst case I can just compile GTK 2 myself, which is the great thing about open source. I just see no reason to invest in the platform when there are other, more stable options available.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year ago | (#44201631)

The problem is that GTK3 has utilities which are names the same as GTK2, so you can't have both installed at the same time.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44201637)

Linux comes to the rescue, there are ways to compile things so that you link to a specific version of the library. Having both installed at the same time is not a problem.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year ago | (#44201765)

True, but it does complicate things. Seriously, if you're going to provide a tool with incompatible functionality, at least name it something different. At the minimum append a version number.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202305)

Explain which command already!

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201877)

The problem is that GTK3 has utilities which are names the same as GTK2, so you can't have both installed at the same time.

Wow, I guess I'd better remove one of them right now, based entirely on what some guy at slashdot said.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202301)

Such as? All these claims are very unspecific. Kind of annoying. And still, is it really a problem? Any package system can deal with that easily. E.g. I have both installed, I have used various distributions, yet never come across this seems like you're searching for problems.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44201091)

GTK+ 2.x apps aren't magically breaking and GTK+ 3.x apps won't magically break either.

Obviously you haven't tried to take source code written for GTK2 and recompile it agains GTK3. It may not be magically broken, but it is definitley broken.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44201115)

I think he meant that you can still compile GTK2 apps by using the GTK2 libraries. Which is true but still leaves a problem......

HELL.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201213)

early gtk+ 2 apps and later ones had the same problem. They deprecated functions and features during the lifetime of gtk+2

While most of them won't affect MOST apps, I ran into a few other the years that it did, and trying to read through the documentation to figure out the alternative way to do it left me tossing the apps aside and finding an easier and more productive way to deal with it.

Honestly the sole reason GTK has lasted as long as it did was it being C only compared to QT's C++, and the lack of an LGPL'd version of QT. Nokia solved the latter and the gnome crew has made the former a hindrance rather than an asset.

Just my 2c as an end-user and some time patcher.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201361)

Terrible argument. You get this same breakage between any two major version numbers of any major toolkit.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44201421)

Terrible argument.

There was no argument at all in the post you replied to. It was all presentation of fact.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202309)

There is no API/ABI breakage in minor versions, you/someone pretended there was. Further, you could write programs which worked in the latest 2.x versions and 3.0. Misrepresentation of facts.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#44202117)

What annoys me is how themes break between minor versions with GTK. I'm sick to death of GTK and have been for 8-9 years. GTK was never meant to be used the way it has been. It was the Gimp Toolkit and nothing more until the Gnome devs came along and bastardized the whole thing and laid hack upon hack on it until they sorta got it to work. Time to flush the turd.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202297)

That is not in 3.x (3.0 / 3.2), that is between major versions (2.x vs 3.x). 2.x existed for 10+ years. At the end of 2.x you could write your programs in such a way that it will run on 2.x and 3.x. Arguing over lack of API stability, while still 2.x versions are being released plus this is the first API change in 10+ years, think your expectations are a bit off.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200467)

The Qt toolkit is object-oriented (making it nicely modular) and has a nicer API. Plus Qt makes it easier to port software to other platforms. The Qt devs also appear to be making it easier to port applications between versions where GTK seems to take bigger leaps. Really, if you need to transitio, or start from scratch, Qt has a lot of little points in its favour.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year ago | (#44200769)

Serious question, I'm assuming that there was a specific reason for going with QT and not GTK3; anyone know why?

Feeping creaturism and bloat? Per TFA, QT is getting to have a smaller footprint than GTK3.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201109)

There's also that nasty problem with the direction that GNOME is taking. More and more, that DE is making itself unfriendly to operating systems other than Linux (especially GNOME 3's dependency on systemd). So far as I know, that kind of thinking does not infect GTK+...yet. There does seem to be movement to make GTK+ more Gnomish. Actually, I think that rather it would become more ghoulish.

That dependency on systemd prevents the stabilization of Gnome 3 in Gentoo. (That's a whole 'nother discussion!) It's smart of the LXDE developers to move now to avoid getting caught in a crisis.

Re:Why QT over GTK 3 ? (1)

bkor (21535) | about a year ago | (#44202317)

Gentoo packagers always claim GNOME has a dependency on systemd. It has a soft requirement for some things, not a hard requirement. E.g. ConsoleKit is not maintained anymore, so it either wants ConsoleKit or logind part (is e.g. used+packaged separately on Ubuntu!!).

I've said this on the Gentoo development list. The only reply is "but I want the features systemd provides so I call it hard dependency". It is really telling to want systemd things and complain about it at the same time.

Why LXDE/Qt over Razor? (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44201603)

From a user standpoint, I have a different question, or a variation of this one. Why would anyone who needs a Qt based environment prefer LXDE, which is just beginning now, over Razor-qt, which has been around a bit and has a considerable headstart? Although I'd welcome these 2 merging, if that's what happens.

Re:Why LXDE/Qt over Razor? (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44202185)

I think your premise is wrong. LXDE is way ahead of Razor-qt. LXDE is undergoing a change of widget sets that's a much easier task then Razor developing an entire desktop layer that LXDE already has. LXDE is one of the 4 main open source GUIs, there are solid distributions which use LXDE as their environment. Qt is just a widget set for LXDE. I think merger makes sense and the Razor code might speed up LXDE's migration. But that's all Razor codebase can offer some code for some components that might be useful. The Razor developers of course could become really important players for LXDE going forward.

The only thing missing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200267)

....Is a world class browser that uses QT. Firefox and Chrome both stick out like sore thumbs with some QT themes (like Oxygen-transparent).

If I'm forced to have gtk+ on my system, might as well make use of it.

Re:The only thing missing... (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44200293)

I'd like to see all Linux projects standardize on Qt as a their Gui toolkit. I understand why everyone has their own but the war is won and Qt won it.

Re:The only thing missing... (2, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44200345)

Personally I hate the Qt APi. It has its uses. The cross platform capabilities are a lot better and it has a lot of functionality built-in that you can only get as separate external libraries with GTK+. But I disagree that it is better to program for. GObject may be verbose but to me the object model, class hierarchies, etc make a lot more sense.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44200505)

Personally I hate the Qt APi

Why? Its an API. Stiil, that said, it makes more sense to me than others, GTKMM included. Even though similar I tend to remember Qt apis better for some reason.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201241)

My shop had to move from the X/Motif toolkit to something else. It would port easily to anything that provided a void *user_arg to routines that allowed information to be passed into callbacks. GTK provided this, QT did not.
Going to GTK was a port. Going to QT would have been a rewrite, actually a complete redesign.

We went with GTK and never looked back. However because of the changes in GTK 3 we will probably be sticking with GTK 2 for the next decade or two.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44202447)

Personally I hate the Qt APi. It has its uses. The cross platform capabilities are a lot better and it has a lot of functionality built-in that you can only get as separate external libraries with GTK+. But I disagree that it is better to program for. GObject may be verbose but to me the object model, class hierarchies, etc make a lot more sense.

I possibly didn't fully understand your comment. You expressed that you don't like the Qt API, but in the last sentence it looks like you actually favor Qt over GTK. Seeing GObject referring to GNOME and object model & class hierarchies belonging to Qt.

Re:The only thing missing... (3, Interesting)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year ago | (#44200453)

Here's a good history by RMS: http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2000090500121OPLFKE [linuxtoday.com] . Note that since then, Qt is now under the GPL v2.1; however, because of the history, I think most developers fear tight integration with it. "Will they ever remove the GPL in a new version one day?" is the thought in some people's minds. A lot of F/OSS may sound ridiculous and like paranoia, but it's paranoia that keeps companies like Microsoft out of the OS that we geeks love so much. Having said all of this, my personal opinion is that Qt is fine now and that the paranoia is unwarranted, but it still exists.

Re:The only thing missing... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200595)

Most importantly, the KDE community, way back when Nokia bought Trolltech, has managed to get in the contract a clause (still valid under Digia ownership) that says if Nokia/Digia doesn't release new versions of Qt under a free license (currently it is - to correct you a bit there - under the LGPLv2.1) for 12 months, then everything is automatically given to the community under a BSD license.

http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

Re:The only thing missing... (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44200917)

It is both LGPLv2 and GPLv3.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44201619)

As well as QPL. Really, the only reason to support GTK+ is GIMP.

Re:The only thing missing... (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44201023)

the paranoia is unwarranted, but it still exists.

It may well be there, but there's also a marginalization of Qt/KDE by some of the largest distros (perhaps with that canard). If you look at the companies backing them, you'll see many @bigco addresses on the GNOME-related software teams and many, many fewer working on KDE. So I think some of it is simply NIH, but perhaps with a business strategy aspect of, "Who is Digia and why should BigCo be dependent on them when we have an alternative we control, even if it's not as good?" That question may have even had more merit under Nokia, especially when it was taken over by Microsoft (oh, did I say that out loud?).

Even if it's a false dilemma, it probably keeps many people working on the projects they like inside their comfort zone. Big choices can be made on merit, but there are sometimes humans involved who apply criteria without pure impartiality. Sometimes these bigco's pick a technology horse, and boy do they stick with it until it needs to be brought out back and shot. Qt/KDE is definitely not alone in that regard!

Re:The only thing missing... (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#44201139)

I think this dates back to the early Gnome 1 days. Compaq, Debian, Eazel, Free Software Foundation, Gnumatic, Helix Code, Henzai, Inc., IBM, Sun Microsystems, and VA Linux Systems were the guys behind Gnome 1. That's where the big company support started.

The big company Qt guys were SUSE (Novell), Turbolinux (Asian still big) Conectiva (now merged with MandrakeSoft to form Mandriva) and Caldera (SCO).

When Nokia owned Qt directly that certainly helped but Nokia was very parochial in its interests. Both Gnome and KDE are underfunded at this point.

Pissing Contest By Users (3, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44200543)

I'd like to see all Linux projects standardize on Qt as a their Gui toolkit. I understand why everyone has their own but the war is won and Qt won it.

War..Won!? All I see is healthy competition, and personally I run a whole host of Applications that I don't care what toolkit they are in. Having a look around there are some absolutely stellar QT applications http://calibre-ebook.com/ [calibre-ebook.com] , k3b http://www.k3b.org/ [k3b.org] (although not in development for a while), MP3 Diags http://mp3diags.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] and of course Clementine http://www.clementine-player.org/about [clementine-player.org] . There are a few programs that can run either that I use Transmission http://www.transmissionbt.com/ [transmissionbt.com] and Avidemux http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/ [fixounet.free.fr] . But the Bottom line is GTK+ seems as popular as ever, and still more popular than Qt.

What is most bizarre is this about this is LXDE is looking great, a Desktop we don't hear about often enough, and is looking like a desktop I would use...half this discussion is about lets be honest a license subtlety I don't care about.

Re:Pissing Contest By Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200733)

. But the Bottom line is GTK+ seems as popular as ever, and still more popular than Qt.

What is most bizarre is this about this is LXDE is looking great, a Desktop we don't hear about often enough, and is looking like a desktop I would use...half this discussion is about lets be honest a license subtlety I don't care about.

I have used LXDE ever since the KDE4.0 debacle It has done everything I needed it to do.

Re:Pissing Contest By Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201041)

The author of Calibre attempts to pollute each end user's system with EVERY MIME TYPE INSTALLED ON HIS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM, which happens to have a very long list of mime types, and in the bug report complaining about this, he claims that "it's better for them to have my mime types because they might not have them". Stellar application my ass.

Re:Pissing Contest By Users (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44201427)

Since k3b has worked perfectly for me nearly every time I've used it in the last 7 years or so... I'd say those devs are kicking back and admiring a job well done..

I don't understand why Transmission is so popular. Must be because the Gnome users don't know about KTorrent.

Speaking of GTK apps... Would you believe Mozilla Sunbird 0.9 still runs on a modern KDE4 desktop?

(I have a need for a standalone calendar app that reads and writes remote ICS files, and it seems silly to run Thunderbird on that machine when I receive nothing other than system mails on it.)

Re:Pissing Contest By Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44202735)

Ironically both Transmission and Avidemux have also qt frontends.

Re:The only thing missing... (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year ago | (#44200789)

I'd like to see all Linux projects standardize on Qt as a their Gui toolkit. I understand why everyone has their own but the war is won and Qt won it.

Because it was a commercial library for a long long time and people went with alternatives, similar to LessTif vs Motif back in the day.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#44200861)

Who used LessTif? GTK was invented by the GIMP guys (early versions used Motif).

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44200979)

Who used LessTif?

Everybody who didn't want to pay for Motif, for whatever reason

Sadly, by time it get really compatible it was mostly obsolete.

GTK was invented by the GIMP guys (early versions used Motif)

I bet most linux GIMP users were *not* linking against commercial Motif.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#44201505)

I use Lesstif almost every single day since it's used by Xpdf and I've yet to find a better PDF reader than Xpdf.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#44201633)

LessTif came a lot later. Initially, it was the OpenLook vs Motif wars, and Motif won - even Sun abandoned OpenLook in Solaris. By the time LessTif arrived, Motif was available as a the basis of CDE. LessTif was used by the Linux distros, as they wanted a liberated version of Motif.

Anyway, all that became moot w/ the introduction of KDE and GNOME.

Re:The only thing missing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44202293)

And now Motif is open source anyway...

SCORE!

Re:The only thing missing... (3, Insightful)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year ago | (#44201007)

I don't have anything against Qt, but what makes you think that it "won"? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major open source desktop applications that use Qt (other than those bundled with KDE). They all use GTK+: Firefox, LibreOffice, Chrome(ium), Gimp, Gnome, Eclipse and every Java app that uses SWT (and every Java app that uses Swing emulates GTK+ not Qt).

Re:The only thing missing... (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44201105)

Skype?

Re:The only thing missing... (4, Informative)

darthium (834988) | about a year ago | (#44202023)

I don't have anything against Qt, but what makes you think that it "won"? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major open source desktop applications that use Qt (other than those bundled with KDE). They all use GTK+: Firefox, LibreOffice, Chrome(ium), Gimp, Gnome, Eclipse and every Java app that uses SWT (and every Java app that uses Swing emulates GTK+ not Qt).

VLC media player is qt-based

And this other is less known but even more impressive, Velneo: www.velneo.com It's a RAD tool, where the awesome productivity is cross platform.

Check a full-fledged ERP, running i Android http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXluV5jvmc0 [youtube.com] The very exact set of advanced corporate features are available in Windows, MacOSX, Linux and Android. In the video, it is shown accessing a remote database in realtime. I tested it on my own, you develop once, and you don't have to know anything advanced about Windows, Android, MacOSX or Linux, to run the software you developed in such OS.

The power of Qt is noticeable in Velneo, and I talk after a decade and half of experience in software development, including using mainstream development tools.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#44202481)

I had a click on the Velneo link... it might be awesome, but its in spanish(?) so that would put most people off it immediately.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44201101)

I'd like to see all Linux projects standardize on Qt as a their Gui toolkit. I understand why everyone has their own but the war is won and Qt won it.

Ironically, didn't Gtk (and Gnome) come from disatisfaction with the original license QT was released under years ago (and since remedied)?

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year ago | (#44201733)

It was never a war. It was a balance between two options, each with advantages and drawbacks. Three, if you count the Enlightenment libraries, and I would very much like to. Choice is healthy.

Re:The only thing missing... (4, Interesting)

Joe Tie. (567096) | about a year ago | (#44200753)

How many times has firefox been ported to qt at this point? I remember at least two separate times that it almost got into a usable state but was then abandoned.

Re:The only thing missing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201453)

firefox doesn't need Qt or Gtk. It just needs a library for doing graphics and receiving input (ex: Gdk), so there is no point of messing with a library built solely for GUI.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#44201521)

Not if you want things like menus and buttons, which I've heard Firefox has.

Re:The only thing missing... (3, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44202099)

Not if you want things like menus and buttons, which I've heard Firefox has.

I heard the next version will be removing the last of them, since they confuse users.

Re:The only thing missing... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#44202137)

That's something that I've not heard then. Sounds more like something Gnome would do. Maybe I should check out Epiphany again just to see if something like that is going on.

Re:The only thing missing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44202159)

You only have to check for what Chrome does, because at this point it is extremely clear that unfortunately Mozilla got scared by the popularity of the dumbed-down shit that is Chrome, lost its confidence and is now nearly finished in making the Firefox UI into a 100% clone of the Chrome UI.
With all the dumbing down and general FAIL that encompasses.

Re:The only thing missing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200853)

I love Konqueror. It's been my only browser at home since 2007.

Huge icons... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200347)

Why do the tool bar icons have to be huge and child-like?

The name should be changed to MXDE now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44200437)

...or maybe to QXDE or QtXDE, to avoid the change of weight that "MXDE" would suggest.

Re:The name should be changed to MXDE now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201089)

agreed, never having used a system with qt I went and downloaded one, debian based, very light, openbox desktop, and it was acceptable, but noticeably heavier and sluggish to the alternatives on a VM

yea it looked nice, but it was about like using an old 68k mac in terms of responsiveness

Been wanting this (2)

hockpatooie (312212) | about a year ago | (#44200611)

To me, this is a good thing if it joins with and speeds up Razor-QT development. Many times I wished for a lightweight QT-based desktop (but realistically, I'm so content with XFCE+openbox I'll probably never switch)

Re:Been wanting this (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#44201155)

RazorQT is getting there. Been using it as a DE on some older systems (think P4 era). Have that next to TDE on one laptop.

Yay. (0)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44201489)

Yay. More projects should port from crappy bastard hack oop GTK to properly object oriented QT. GTK is just pathetic. I always notice when a program uses GTK - dialogs suck, widgets often require two clicks, one to focus, another to ack (what the fuck? this is the 21st century) interface is usually simplistic verging on nonfunctional and defaults are terrible. All things that OOP helps a lot. Especially defaults. Plain old C is the enemy of good defaults. Speaking as a verteran plain old C hack, including all the crappy workarounds GTK does to pretend that compilers didn't advance in the last 20 years.

Re:Yay. (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44201513)

I meant "act", not "ack".

Re:Yay. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44201749)

Oh. I thought the "ack" as "acknowledge", which also works in your sentence.

go47 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44201615)

Compositing (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44202563)

LXDE should ship with a desktop compositor. Currently there is horrible tearing going on all around, and of course using the 3D acceleration of GPU would be a nice thing to utilize.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?