Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Unifying GTK & QT Theme Engines

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the bringing-it-together dept.

KDE 405

An anonymous reader writes "Some guy on kde-look recently released code that makes gtk apps use the current qt theme. Seems this would be a major development for unifying the 2 environments. From the URL: This GTK theme engine uses the currently selected QT style to do it's drawing. Basically, it makes your GTK apps look like QT ones. "

cancel ×

405 comments

cock (-1)

(TK)Max (668795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873464)


______
.-" "-.
/ \
| | < FROM THIS DISEASED MOUTH
|, .-. .-. ,| SPREADS THE WORD OF TROLLKORE.
| )(__/ \__)( | AWRY BE THE WORDS AND OPINIONS
|/ /\ \| OF THOSE WHO POST HERE. TAKE
(_ ^^ _) NO HEED OF THEM.>
\__|IIIIII|__/
|-\IIIIII/-|
\ /
`--------`
.::::TROLL-KORE FOREVER!!!
.::::I hate you, I hate your country, and I hate your face.

CmdrTaco anally rapes little Mexican boys (-1)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873557)

the pathetic pervert that he is

Re:CmdrTaco anally rapes little Mexican boys (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873645)

And you're a subscriber troll who actually PAYS Taco! Now who's pathetic?

Awww (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873465)

How QuTe.

Second Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873466)

Second Post

Unification in the *nix world (4, Insightful)

W32.Klez.A (656478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873470)

While this may seem like a minor thing to some people, every bit of interoperability and unification helps. Naysay as much as you want regarding Microsoft, but the reason why they have the market share is because of the unification present (at least in appearance ;-). If OSS projects (and non-OSS friends of them) can't come together, they should at least work together.

Re:Unification in the *nix world (1, Flamebait)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873548)

Dip Shit ... ...every bit of interoperability and unification helps. Naysay as much as you want regarding Microsoft, but the reason why they have the market share is because of the unification present(at least in appearance. ..

What interoperability ? sure Windows has great interoperability ... WITH ITSELF... Just like MacOS or Linux Or BSD, they interoperate perfectly with themselves. The difference is with the *nixes you have choice. Since when did Windows offer you a number of different Window managers? And guess what... OpenSource by definition provides better interoperability with other operating systems than your proprietary windows fluff. How may open source programs have been ported to other Operating systems? And how many windows programs have been ported to Open Source platforms? I suggest you reconsider your understanding of the word Interoperability, and as for Unification? it has no place on windows because you only have one window manager anyway.

Re:Unification in the *nix world (0, Redundant)

W32.Klez.A (656478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873562)

Perhaps you misread my comment:

(at least in appearance ;-)

Or I have been trolled. Thanks.

Re:Unification in the *nix world (5, Insightful)

Christopher Whitt (74084) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873631)

What interoperability ?

I think you mistook the OP comment on interoperability between apps written for different window managers to mean cross-platform portability.

The OP didn't claim windows was interoperable in a cross-platform sense. They were pointing out that on Windows, all apps have the same look and feel.

To achieve that result on Linux, across several common UI toolkits and window managers requires interoperability between apps written for the various toolkits.

Re:Unification in the *nix world (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873583)

Subscribers get a -6 modifier, and removed from my buddylist.

The finbe print . . . (4, Informative)

randyest (589159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873471)

Seems like a start in the right direction, but don't expect something ready to roll (as I did until I checked the site):

Currently the code is very buggy and incomplete - a few widgets do not yet use the QT drawing code. However it is still perfectly usable. This theme is slightly slower than that of most native GTK themes, but the difference is hardly noticed on a fast machine.

Known bugs: * Menus do not have borders
* The background colour doesn't change when text is highlighted
* Colours are incorrect when using certain styles (eg. Keramik)
* Buttons, and other widgets, may be the wrong size
* Scrollbars sometimes misbehave


This is a 0.x release - do don't expect it to work perfectly :)

Re:The finbe print . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873658)

good call, it's not ready for prime time. but, once something builds enough to release to thousands of eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.

and it's not "finbe print": check out the fine print [fineprint.com]

Unified OS already exists since Win 95 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873477)

I'm using Windows XP... seems pretty unified to me.

Re:Unified OS already exists since Win 95 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873502)

Unified OS ?

I think you mean Unified GUI or Window manager.... Since when did Windows have a choice of window managers?

Stupid Troll.

Re:Unified OS already exists since Win 95 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873504)

Win 9x/Me and Win NT/2000/XP aren't really that unified.

Re:Unified OS already exists since Win 95 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873530)

Good for you, in the *nix world there is more than one player on the field. You probably think that sucks. Well, then you should stick to windows.

Bluecurve (0, Redundant)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873478)

Isn't this what Redhat's Bluecurve does?

Re:Bluecurve (1)

Talez (468021) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873487)

Sort of.

IIRC, Bluecurve is a theme for both QT and GTK2 and wasn't applied to original GTK apps.

Re:Bluecurve (5, Informative)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873494)

No, bluecurve are still seperate themes that look the same.. You need to make each theme both for gtk and for qt.
This theme engine uses the actual qt theme and thus does not require any duplicate work when creating a theme.

I wonder if the reverse could also be done (a qt engine that uses the gtk engine for its theme) or is gtk more flexible in this regard?

Jeroen

Re:Bluecurve (0)

Anonymovs Coward (724746) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873671)

I wonder if the reverse could also be done (a qt engine that uses the gtk engine for its theme) or is gtk more flexible in this regard?

At one time this was indeed possible, and KDE's theme manager had an "import GTK theme" option. It worked well, but that option seems to have disappeared in newer releases. I don't know why: something to do with changes in GTK2 or Qt3 perhaps?

Re:Bluecurve (1)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873769)

It has to do with Qt3 introducing a new style system (which allows Qt application like Opera to use "KDE styles"). KDE2's "legacy style" was simply never ported.

Re:Bluecurve (5, Informative)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873501)

Isn't this what Redhat's Bluecurve does?

No. Bluecurve is one widget style under QT and another under GTK, that have been designed to look the same as one another.

This system is quite different to that, it gets GTK to effectively draw widgets in the same style as the QT theme, regardless of which QT theme you're using.

Why do we need two widgets? (-1, Flamebait)

Tirel (692085) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873480)

Really, I mean, QT is nice and all, but what do we really need it for? GTK+ 2.x is far superior to the QT widget family as it provides antialiased fonts, superb localization and a better application framework in one package (all this can be gotten with QT, but not without downloading the source and patching it, which can be a pain to the new Linux user.) Hopefully this is a step toward unification of the two widgets, I'm sure the QT team can find a way to contribute to the GNOME project, and with one desktop having twice the amount of applications as before, it should really be ready to blow m$ away. Me, I still like TK the best ;-)

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873507)

Wow, I'm a Gnome user and even I find the first statement trollish.

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (2, Funny)

zarr (724629) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873522)

Why do we need two widgets?

Because if you only had one widget, all GUI programs would be a pain to use.

What are you smoking? Crack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873544)

I'm sorry man but the QT widgets support EVERYTHING you just listed and every distro i have used in the last two years i think (redhat,mandrake,gentoo) support all of these functions out of the box/rpm/src - heck even the direct KDE sources supports these WITHOUT patches.

I'm not saying that QT is better etc... but this comment is complete flamebait and (even though you like 'TK the best') one has to be impartial...

well no this is slashdot so fsck it but u get my point.. dont take it personally.. im tired and cant sleep ;)

GRRRR - annoyed QT widget-with-antialiased-fonts-localization-superio r-application-framework user

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873546)

This is simply not true. QObject, the base of all QT Classes has been providing tr(const char*) and tr(const char*, const char*) for internationalization for years, localization is supported (see http://doc.trolltech.com/3.1/i18n.html) and both QT and KDE provide great anti-aliases fonts.

Don't know what you mean with the application framework, but if you look at QT/KDE as a competitor to GTK/Gnome, the KDE framework provides everything from common dialogs, clipboard handling, a component model (KParts) and vfs (kio-slaves) to IPC (DCOP), XML UI definitions, plug-in support and common components like a HTML rendering engine, a JS interpreter or a spell checker, that applications can use.

Also applications can expose interfaces for use with scripting languages and tons of other features.

Check http://developer.kde.org/ if you want to learn more. (Though I guess you already know these things and still like to troll.)

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873783)

Single rooted class hierarchies are a design mistake - a sure sign that QT sucks.

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (1)

dna42 (682340) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873563)

wow, this is the worst gnome troll, i've ever seen...
to be precise, QT had antialiasing and good localisation a long time before gtk (back when gtk2 didn't exist and QT was at 2.x)

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873575)

I agree, I used to be a KDE developer before I finally tried the GNOME framework and saw that QT is a bloated mess of s**t full of templates and object-orientated programming abused in the worst ways possible, I mean, these people used auto_ptr! Not even complete C++ newbies are ignorant to use auto_ptr, and don't even start with the linked lists..

When you use C++, if it's a big project then you should use the Boost libraries, but no, these people go and implement their own linked lists, which turn out to be 300% slower than the Boost implementation, but are now too far integrated to be removed. Horrible, I tell you.

the GNOME framework on the other hand, is the perfect manifestation of good, clean and thought-out programming that uses C with a touch of object here and there to make things easy. The interface is great, and well, check out the docs, they're written by professionals.

Not to mention that GNOME is GNU and therefore free, which QT is a propertiary licence.

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (1)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873663)

> the GNOME framework on the other hand, is the perfect manifestation of good, clean

Good and clean as in "three different HTML rendering engines" starting with GNOME 2.6?

> Not to mention that GNOME is GNU and therefore free, which QT is a propertiary licence.

Since when is the GPL propretiary?

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873725)

Since when is the GPL propretiary?

Since your parent first wanted to release something without showing the basic courtesy of releasing it with source code, I assume.

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (2, Insightful)

JDWTopGuy (209256) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873577)

I don't know whether you're trolling or not, but IIRC, GTK is C based, while QT is C++.

Now, I'm sure that you can write your program in either C or C++ and still use either toolkit, but I would imagine C programmers prefer a C-based toolkit, and C++ programmers prefer a C++ toolkit.

Re:Why do we need two widgets? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873767)

C programmers prefer a toolkit containing plenty of whips and thumbscrews. They must be masochists, it's the only explanation for their use of a glorified assembler.

Just a style (4, Interesting)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873483)

It's actually just a style that makes them both look more consistant. Unifying the API is the hardest job and I don't really want to see a unified API as it would be a bit of a mongrel. To me I think the best way forward is for either QT or KDE to die and the developers of the losing project to join the winning side.

Merging QT and KDE would be like merging Linux and one of the BSDs.

Doh, Replace KDE with GTK (0)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873505)

Replace KDE with GTK, sorry I have KDE on the brain :)

Re:Doh, Replace KDE with GTK (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873511)

Replace KDE with GTK, sorry I have KDE on the brain :)

I agree, replace KDE with GTK ;)

Re:Just a style (5, Insightful)

Shisha (145964) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873586)

No one is really talking about unifying the API. That's the bit that developers are most mentally attached to. As we all know GTK vs. QT is rather different in the style of writing code, different mindset even, so it wouldn't work for either side to unify the API. With unified API we'll have loads of unhappy QT _and_ GTK developers!

OTOH this (unifying themes, i.e. one theme working for both QT & GTK) is the first step in the right direction, of making the two indistiunguishable to the user. Next would be _perfect_ cut & paste, including HTML pages, pictures, vector graphics etc. AFAIK freedesktop.org has come a long way working on cut & paste (drag & drop) and apparently all it needs now is more polish.

Final stage would be using kparts in GTK apps and bonobo components in KDE. There are cautious steps in that direction. And then there is OpenOffice (check out cukoo) of course and Mozilla and GNUStep... long way to go till everything is perfect. Then it will be the job of distributors like Mandrake & Xandros to give us the perfect desktop linux. Or our job, for those who like to tweak and fiddle with things. I'm looking forward to all this! (and I hope I'll be seeing less and less GNOME (KDE) sucks!!! style flamewars everywhere. Hey, I don't care whether I'm using Rhythmbox (where the file open dialog is still a joke) or Juk (which uses arts for the sound backend and arts sucks _and_ is a joke), I'll settle for either of the two as soon as it'll be perfect :-))!

Re:Just a style (1)

Roberto (1777) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873788)

Wasnt gnome abandoning bonobo?

Re:Just a style (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873828)

No. Bonobo is still in use (a major part of Evolution especially), although it's not quite as in-your-face about it as KParts.

Re:Just a style (1)

md81544 (619625) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873799)

I think you mean "Merging QT and GTK" or "KDE and Gnome". KDE is based on Trolltech's QT, Gnome is GTK.

That some guy is... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873485)

David Sansome... at least name the person who put in the effort to make this happen.

Re:That some guy is... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873709)

Chill out David.
We all saw your name when we followed the link.

Good work btw.

use the console you lamers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873491)

X11 is for wannabe Windows users

Widget Mania (4, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873512)

This is a good first step. But it's a tiny baby step.

When I can choose a widget theme once, using a central theme selector, such as GNOME's, and it shows up in all versions of Qt, GTK, Gtk2, Tk, Mozilla, and other applications, then I'll take notice.

The proliferation of toolkits does such a disservice to the desktop, even moreso than the proliferation of desktop environments. Why are there so many?

It seems like most OSS developers must go through the same milestones of skill development: a new C++ string class, a new IRC client, a new window manager, a new toolkit, and a new update package manager. Stop rewriting the wheel and improve what's out there in meaningful new ways.

Re:Widget Mania (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873579)

Are you lost in 1995? If you got the head out of the sand you would notice that almost all new apps use GTK2 or QT. Not everyone have a hardon for widgets you know.

And the last thing you wrote is borderline trollish.

Re:Widget Mania (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873611)

This is not a theme/style, it's a way of using Qt to draw GTK's widgets. So, if you switch your Qt-theme GTK-apps should follow automagicly.

I think this is great. Next step would be "replacing" GTK's file/print/... dialogs with the KDE-counterparts and voila, a nice unified desktop. I don't know if that's possible, but it would be great...

Oh, and befor you ask: yes, GTK-people can do the same thing the other way around, feel free to do so. Picking one toolkit isn't going to happen, so integration is what we need.

Re:Widget Mania (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873694)

> Next step would be "replacing" GTK's file/print/... dialogs with the KDE-counterparts and voila, a nice unified desktop.
FYI, this work is being done and it's working already [kde.org] .

Re:Widget Mania (4, Insightful)

Trick (3648) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873617)

Call me crazy, but I'm glad we've got a choice of desktop environments. Not to knock the KDE folks, but I happen to prefer GNOME. If desktops were to somehow "unify," and that meant all we had left was KDE, I'd be more than a bit peeved. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who'd feel the same if GNOME were to disappear so that KDE could be the one true desktop environment.

If that means that some apps won't be completely integrated with my dekstop, I'm fine with that. I'd rather have the choices I have now than be forced to use a desktop environment I don't like.

Re:Widget Mania (1)

Fidgety Philip (729556) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873710)

Not only that, but if you insist on unification, you destroy most of the features of Open Source / Free Software development that are meant to be its strengths.

If you want to have a single project and still allow developers to add the features that only a few people want, then all you will get is a host of patchsets instead of a host of projects.

Well, actually, what you will get is a lot of people who are dissatisfied.

Re:Widget Mania (1)

Talez (468021) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873621)

But... But...

Without rewriting the wheels we wouldn't have so [rhythmbox.org] many [tex9.com] iTunes [kde-look.org] clones [sourceforge.net] !

Re:Widget Mania (1)

ihummel (154369) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873678)

It seems like most OSS developers must go through the same milestones of skill development: a new C++ string class, a new IRC client, a new window manager, a new toolkit, and a new update package manager. Stop rewriting the wheel and improve what's out there in meaningful new ways.

Instead of writing their own version of programs already in existence, they should read the source of already existent OSS programs and mess around altering them. If they need to write a program that is redundant, then they should resist the temptation to put it on the web and promote it unless it is significantly better than what is already out their. You're right: the proliferation of redundant programs is harmful.

Re:Widget Mania (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873681)

Stop rewriting the wheel and improve what's out there in meaningful new ways.

But before you can do that you have to at least understand the wheel.

Of course that doesn't mean you have to release every bloody line of code you write.

KFG

ummmmm... (-1, Troll)

deander2 (26173) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873523)


"making GTK2 apps use QT" != "Unifying"
"making GTK2 apps use QT" == "How to migrate off GTK2"

(some of us like the speed, stability, etc. of gnome 2.4 - why would i want to quit using it?)

Re:ummmmm... (2, Informative)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873568)

It doesn't replace GTK widgets with QT widgets, it just changes the drawing style so they look consistent.

This may not be useful to you but if you think that someday you might like an engine that lets QT programs fit in better with your GTK desktop then you can see that this is good for people who are in the opposite position.

It may not help everyone, but it helps some of them. That's still good, right?

Re:ummmmm... (4, Interesting)

plj (673710) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873628)

"making GTK2 apps use QT" != "Unifying"
"making GTK2 apps use QT" == "How to migrate off GTK2


Don't be ridiculous. There are many applications that are built completely around GTK(2). I, for one, usually prefer KDE over Gnome, but I've always found it much harder to live completely without GTK apps that completely without QT apps.

Both are great toolkits with their own pros and cons - just use the right one for the right job.

Personally, though, the feature I'd most like to see in GTK would be the chance to move the menubars of all apps to the top of the screen like on Mac OS, just as I can do with QT apps.

Re:ummmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873695)

(some of us like the speed, stability, etc. of gnome 2.4 - why would i want to quit using it?)

The troll answer: so as to benefit from the speed, stability, etc. of KDE 3.2. Which is reputed to be faster than Gnome, although since I don't use either I can't comment on that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's the UI and "feel" of the two that are really different - the underlying technology is about equal, and neither is significantly faster. If you prefer Gnome (or KDE), that's great, but don't go claiming your choice is technologically superior unless you have some hard figures to back that up.

Re:ummmmm... (1)

Lispy (136512) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873721)

QT is for QTers, so? ;-)

Accountability Problems (-1, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873531)

I think the real problem with integrating KDE and Gnome isn't with the GUI, but is that with closed software you hold yourself accountable to different forces than with open software. While KDE isn't technically closed, it seems to me that they still hold themselves more financially accountable to the closed software model of doing business. Unlike Gnome, this diverts some of their talent, focus, and resources into gaining revenue from controlling people's copying behavior rather than thru more efficient services and support, or business models more accountable to the free (as in freedom) software paradigm.

IMHO, the closed method is a dead end, and KDE isn't doing themselves a long term favor by being so split brained. They'll never win on one end, because they can't compete againse Microsoft, and they never lead on the other because they cant keep their focus like gnome.

Re:Accountability Problems (2, Informative)

platypus (18156) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873613)

"While KDE isn't technically closed, it seems to me that they still hold themselves more financially accountable to the closed software model of doing business. Unlike Gnome, this diverts some of their talent, focus, and resources into gaining revenue from controlling people's copying behavior rather than thru more efficient services and support, or business models more accountable to the free (as in freedom) software paradigm."

WTF are you talking about? KDE is free. Maybe you should specifically state what leads you to say something like the above.

Re:Accountability Problems (0, Flamebait)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873646)

Maybe you should specifically state what leads you to say something like the above.

I'll do it for him. He prefers GNOME.

Re:Accountability Problems (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873703)

WTF are you talking about? KDE is free. Maybe you should specifically state what leads you to say something like the above.

Well maybe I missed somthing, but last time I checked, it's free only if you use it in free software. For other software, they are just like any other commecrial software company.

Re:Accountability Problems (2, Informative)

platypus (18156) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873729)

Well maybe I missed somthing, but last time I checked, it's free only if you use it in free software.

Yeah, just like the linux kernel ...

For other software, they are just like any other commecrial software company.

... which doesn't even have this option.

Btw. it seems you are talking about QT, not KDE. I sense you should inform yourself about KDE and what some people (rightly or wrongly) suppose to be its problems. Funnily, the FSF should be [gnu.org] more satisfied with QT's licensing than with GTK's, but what do I know.

Re:Accountability Problems (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873757)

Quoth the article:

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library.

Yeah, still debatable. Not that it particularly matters.

NO. (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873761)

I can call the Linux API from closed source apps with no license fee.

I can not do the same thing with QT, it costs 1,200+ /dev for that right.

Re:Accountability Problems (1)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873618)

> While KDE isn't technically closed, it seems to me that they still hold themselves more financially accountable to the closed software model of doing business.

Any examples to help me understand what you mean please?

Re:Accountability Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873714)

He's making the standard Gnome-troll error of confusing KDE with Qt. KDE is completely Free and non-commercial.

Qt, meanwhile, is Free As In Uses RMS's Favorite License - unlike GTK, which uses the LGPL, a license RMS regrets ever writing - but since Trolltech also try to scratch a living by selling people licenses to use Qt in closed-source applications, some people believe they're tainted by the 3v1l of pr0pr1374ry 5057w4r3(tm).

OFFTOPIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873650)

This has nothing to do with the article.

Re:Accountability Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873656)

Hmm, well, GTK is under the LGPL while Qt is under the GPL, which makes Qt more Free than GTK...

Re:Accountability Problems (1)

49152 (690909) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873728)

I think you are a bit confused with the difference between QT/Trolltech and KDE

Re:Accountability Problems (1)

jregel (39009) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873737)

KDE is free software. The parent is talking rubbish and should not be modded insightful!

Re:Accountability Problems (3, Insightful)

Kesha (5861) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873746)

Argoff, would you care to elaborate on your earlier statements?

I can't claim to know anything about GNOME development, but what do you know about KDE development that makes you think that they are "financially accountable to the closed software model of doing business"? They are not the ones being sponsored by SUN, GNOME is. Their annual budget for the year 2002 was a little over $1800, and for 2003 a little over $7600 - http://dot.kde.org/1072276327/

This does not look like "financial accountability to the closed model of doing business" to me. They have competent developers and newbees, both of which work on the code that they are capable of working on. Most newbees start out working on a small application, because nobody in their right mind would trust a newcomer unfamiliar with the KDE architecture to make changes to its core (does not apply to trivial bug fixes).

And what exactly do you mean by "can't keep their focus like gnome"? Where is that focus now - remove advanced desktop features so that the "simple" users can use it? KDE will find a way to meet the needs of simple users without sacrificing the usability to which advanced users became accustomed, that has been their focus since KDE 3.0, and they are following though with it.

Paul.

Re:Accountability Problems (1)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873813)

> They are not the ones being sponsored by SUN, GNOME is. Their annual budget for the year 2002 was a little over $1800, and for 2003 a little over $7600

December brought a little more for this year, but from the signature of a known KDE developer: "We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs."

Great, so now we can make GTK apps ugly also (1)

TrekCycling (468080) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873541)

Like I said, I use Gnome, in part because I like the way it looks as opposed to QT. QT is hard on the eyes. I'd prefer to see something that made QT Apps look like GTK.

Re:Great, so now we can make GTK apps ugly also (1)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873596)

I'd prefer to see something that made QT Apps look like GTK.

That's right. We've got a big group of people who use GTK and also the occasional QT program and another big group of people who use QT and also the occasional GTK program. And a bunch of other groups too.

So ideally it would be nice to have a system that let QT apps fit in GTK apps, as you say you'd like, and a system that lets GTK apps fit in with QT apps which is what was announced here. Well this means that we're part way there. Doesn't resolve every issue, but it's progress.

Re:Great, so now we can make GTK apps ugly also (1)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873606)

You don't understand the difference between a style engine and a default style.

Re:Great, so now we can make GTK apps ugly also (2, Insightful)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873616)

QT is hard on the eyes.

No, QT is hard on your eyes. As shocking as it might be, different people have different artistic tastes. Personally I've never seen a GTK theme I didn't think was painful to look at, excluding those based on QT themes, but I'd never say they're hard on the eyes - just because it's obvious many people do like them. Having an opinion on matter which by its very nature is nonobjective does not make it fact.

Re:Great, so now we can make GTK apps ugly also (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873768)

QT is hard on the eyes.

No, QT is hard on your eyes. As shocking as it might be, different people have different artistic tastes. Personally I've never seen a GTK theme I didn't think was painful to look at, excluding those based on QT themes, but I'd never say they're hard on the eyes - just because it's obvious many people do like them. Having an opinion on matter which by its very nature is nonobjective does not make it fact.

Jesus, you're a sensitive little bitch. Do you really think you need share this little bit of wisdom? Of course the opinion "QT is hard on the eyes" is just a fucking opnion of one person, you don't have to point that out sherlock. The opinion is self-evident, "my eyes" or "the eyes" doesn't make a whit of difference. It's assclowns like you that make people have to prepend everything they say with "i think" when it should be obvious that an opinion is being expressed. Get a grip.

Both of you should stop be so fanatical about your favorite toolkits, too.

Re:Great, so now we can make GTK apps ugly also (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873652)

shutup dude !!!

gtk is but ugly. not even close to kde's elegant look. not to mention that almost useless file dialog.

Unified eyecandy != unified environments... (2, Insightful)

Rahga (13479) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873565)

If you make a unified trailer hitch that will hook any load to any automobile, then you'll be sure to find someone trying to pull a truckload of anvils with a VW Rabbit.

This is a minor bit of neat hackery, nothing earth-shaking though, and nowhere near a step to unified environments.... If you want to create that illusion, surely it would be better to make something that creates two sets of themes (gtk and qt... or even more toolkits) from one single source, think DocBook. Fortunately, I don't think the author of this software claimed that he was trying to unify anyway.

Unifying to look like what? (3, Interesting)

Gilesx (525831) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873572)

The only true way to unify the two DEs is to get both camps to agree on a common widget set.

I, like many other Gnome users, chose the Gnome DE because of it's professional appearance - something which I feel KDE doesn't even come close to. There is no way I'd want to replace my Gnome widgets with KDE widgets, and I'd bet the farm that KDE people would feel the same way about the reverse.

There are many half hearted, rush desktop unification jobs at the moment. Unfortunately the only way that we're ever going to see true unification is if everyone agrees to work on it simultaneously at a deeper level than just aesthetics.

How can you unify two groups of people that aren't even on the same page?

Licensing? (3, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873592)

This is interesting for sure, but what are the licensing implications of this? Can anybody tell me?

GTK is LGPLd. That means it can be used by proprietary software (and in fact, sometimes is). If I use this theme engine does that mean I can no longer run proprietary software that uses GTK because I'd be linking it with GPLd code?

Perhaps the same concept should be applied but in reverse - a Qt theme engine to use GTK. There seems to be more experience going this way too, for instance XUL is already GTK themable and it works nicely.

Re:Licensing? (3, Interesting)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873669)

No I don't think this works at all. In the absence of repugnant EULA agreements from certain companies like Microsoft I can modify and combine software however I want on my own machine to suit my own needs. The GPL doesn't say you must make the source code available if you modify, it says you must make the source code available if you distribute. I can (and do) modify GPL and LGPL software to suit my needs on my own machine without any intention of ever redistributing these modifications, mostly because they're silly and complete messes (for example I've hacked various bits of GNOME's panel system to suit my own needs, such as removing the "Actions" menu from the Foobar).

Hence if I take commercial GTK applications and GPL'd GTK applications and commercial QT applications and GPL'd QT applications and install them on my own machine, I can install whatever the heck I like to change and/or modify their behaviours at runtime. This themeing engine doesn't have licensing issues at all.

Re:Licensing? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873766)

Installing stuff together isn't the same as linking them together. Of course GTK can be used at the same time as proprietary and free software, the question is can you link them together using plugins in this way. At least from discussions I've seen in GStreamer the answer appears to be "no".

Okay, now... (3, Interesting)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873598)

I want Mozilla and OpenOffice to use a widget set of my choice (no matter which one I choose - qt, gtk, gtk2 ....)

btw, it reminds me of wxWindows [wxwindows.org] - a set of tools that allow you to compile your programs under different OSes using native widget sets of your choice. All widget sets are supported, but the widget set is chosen during compile time.

Re:Okay, now... (3, Informative)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873686)

Seems like you will be able to choose for the next major OpenOffice version whether you want a Gtk2 or a Qt/KDE version [openoffice.org] . And guess which will have the higher integration into its desktop. :-)

Re:Okay, now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873775)

Having to "port" every application to your favorite widgetset is an expensive and braindead approach to get desktop integration. Even if this OO work is successful, it's a big fork and doesn't help Mozilla, Evolution, etc users.

Multiple widgetsets are fact of life in the Unix world and always will be. There needs to be a universal solution -- not port every app. It would make much more sense to standardize the integration protocols and use things like this unified theme engine to get a consistent L&F.

So often Open Source developers ignore the upside of the Unix legacy -- Open Standards, and instead focus on the downside -- Forking & Fragmentation.

Thank Goodness (1, Interesting)

ParadoxDruid (602583) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873602)

I've tried using both Gnome and KDE, and I feel like Gnome isn't as advanced as KDE, despite what some of the other people on Slashdot may feel.

For one thing, I can change the individual colors of my widgets in my theme on the fly in KDE, something that a friend of mine who has used Gnome for over 4 years says is still not possible- the theme specifices one color set.

For another- most users never change some defaults, and the default Gnome icons are UGLY. Dark and uninspired.

Something to let me use excellent programs written for GTK, but with a more QT feel is nice. I'll have to check it out.

I already use ThinGeramik, a GTK style that looks to QT ThinKeramik for it's colors and such (also on kde-look.org).

Re:Thank Goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873668)

ParadoxDruid:
For one thing, I can change the individual colors of my widgets in my theme on the fly in KDE, something that a friend of mine who has used Gnome for over 4 years says is still not possible- the theme specifices one color set.

Hmmm. Let's assume that what you say is accurate. What intrigues me is why you think that this behavior is important or neccessary. Enlighten us, please. (And personally, I happen to think both Gnome and KDE are pretty nice environments).

Re:Thank Goodness (2, Informative)

Roberto (1777) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873760)

Well, lets say you like brushed metal or whatever,but you also like the auvergine color.

Right now, IIRC, the color is part of the theme in gnome, and you need to find an "auvergine-brushed-metal" somewhere.

On KDE, the widget look and the color are separate, and can be configured at will.

Re:Thank Goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873801)

Thanks. OK, I understand that.

Also worth checking out... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873680)

Is SodiPodi [sodipodi.com] , the famous vector image editor. It is a GTK program that uses the KDE file and print dialogs.

Lawsuits by Canopy? (-1, Troll)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873712)

Dopn't forget trolltech is a canopy company. Yarro sits on trolltech's BOD. Canopy and canopy companies have already sued msft, and ca. Scox, another canopy company is now suing IBM. All over IP violations. This is Canopy's real business.

Once you start mixing code, you open yourself up to lawsuits. Especially if you are mixing code with the lawuit-happy canopy. Canopy's entire existance is based on these kinds of lawsuits.

Re:Lawsuits by Canopy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873789)

*sigh*

Canopy owns 4.1% of Trolltech. The vast majority (64.7%) is owned by the employees. See it all at http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html.

Borland owns twice the stock of canopy, why don't you say Trolltech is a Borland company then?

Re:Lawsuits by Canopy? (2, Insightful)

twener (603089) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873797)

And Apple is a Microsoft company. Learn something about research, share amounts and who controls a company.

Re:Lawsuits by Canopy? (1)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873814)

Learn something about research, share amounts and who controls a company.

Agreed. Company law is quite definite on this point, the company is controlled by its Board of Directors. How anyone could think that Canopy has any influence over Trolltech is beyond me.

Re:Lawsuits by Canopy? (3, Insightful)

platypus (18156) | more than 10 years ago | (#7873820)

Dopn't forget trolltech is a canopy company. Yarro sits on trolltech's BOD. Canopy and canopy companies have already sued msft, and ca. Scox, another canopy company is now suing IBM. All over IP violations. This is Canopy's real business.

Once you start mixing code, you open yourself up to lawsuits. Especially if you are mixing code with the lawuit-happy canopy. Canopy's entire existance is based on these kinds of lawsuits.


Arrgh, why does this awful legend still exist? Canopy owns a very, very small stake in Trolltech, while the employees hold more than 2/3 (IIRC) of the stock.
OTOH, Sun, a major sponsor of Gnome development, has seemingly filled SCO's war chest with a good amount of money (if what is said on groklaw is true), but nobody whines about that.
And, there's still this [urbanlizard.com] if Trolltech might be bought out.

Now, here's a question. Let's say Microsoft is doomed, and Sun, by having enourmous success with some Gnome based desktop offering, replaces them in market dominance. The dangers of this scenario combined with the fact the Gnome is LGPL'd are left as an excercise to the reader.

See, both scenarious are very unlikely, but I see no reason why I should trust Sun more than Trolltech.

Gnome translate-o-matic 2004 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873773)

Gnome is a rival to KDE, the popular collection of programs for Linux and freinds. Unfortunatley, ever since Gnome 2.4 (and the BETA 2.5) was released, I have found more and more Zealots who MUST advocate it at every possible moment. Here are some of their most common claims and what they REALLY MEAN.

Claim : Unlike KDE, Gnome is free
Translation : GPL is freerer than LGPL. LGPL allows corporations like Novell
and Sun to have propeitry forks and lock away their changes from the user. Now
that Novell has taken over Ximian you can expect Gnome to get put under
corpirate lock. With KDE you have the choice, you either PAY UP or pay with
your source code. Most companies agree, the majority of commerical software for Linux is written in Motif and Qt, and NOT GTK. Apart from Ximian's desktop, there is no major product using GTK.

Claim : Nautilus is much better than konqueror.
Wrong, if your using nautilus for anything more than a simple finder clone you
can forget it. No split screen, no ioslaves (gnome-vfs can't compare, sorry) and forget about being able to
have a decent file dialog, not to forget that it is as unstable as hell and is
STILL slow on >3 Ghz machines. The latest version decided to copy Windows 95, complete with a my computer icon on the desktop.

Claim : Gnome is easier to use than KDE
Yep, nothing like using gconf-editor to edit all except the most trivial of
settings. Want tear off menus? Want a useable file dialog? You won't find it
here. Gnome was a lot more usable back in the 1.4 series, before sun came along with their usabillity "study".

Claim : Gnome has eye candy
Yes, my pirated Win32 fonts with the patent infringing font renderer. Bit
stream vera sans looks like Tahoma put through a shreadder! Of course I still
reboot into windows to print using "Comic Sans MS. Gnome themes don't even let you change the colour scheme. Looking at sites like art.gnome.org [gnome.org] you will see that the majority of themes are the same one in different colours!

Claim : Gnome is not ugly like KDE
I am too stupid to realise that the look of KDE can be changed by going to the Appearence and themes section in KDE, not to mention that KDE has more themes wrote for it. Popular themes such as Keramik, Liquid, dotNET, Plastik and Alloy were wrote for KDE first, but somebody wrote a crappy port of it on art.gnome.org, so Gnome must be good.

Claim :Gnome has a new web browser
Yawb! Along with Galeon, mozilla, thunderbird, konqueror, atlantis, lynx,
netscape and w3m. Yes I need another browser! Not to mention that its got a
religiously offensive name and it dosen't allow bookmark folders. It also
crashes like a crazy! Apple chose khtml for a REASON! its stable and light! Epiphany is also a faliure, it has gone through 6 major bug fixes and none of the major distrobutions use it because they stick with decent browsers.

Claim : Gnome is more popular than KDE
Despite the fact that the only mainstream Gnome based distro has been EOL'd,
and all the newbie distros such as Mangadrake, Lindoze, $u$E, Lycoris,
Xandroze, Gentoo use kde default, bruce perens decided to make a gnome based distro and everybody hated it because KDE wasn't in it.

Klaim : You KDE guys must be sick of the K
Our G's and monkeys are SO MUCH better, gedit, glib, gconf, bobono, ghex,
gless, same-gnome, gstreamer.

Claim : Gnome has multimedia framework
Its a kludge of esd combined with broken xine libraries. No wonder it crashes
all the time and dosen't work on 95% of video files. But we have Rhythmbox, a cheesy Itune clone using it, so it rules!

Zealot : My Gnome work station.....
My 2Ghz G5 box my mum bought for me from PC world, that is made of
made to break components and running Debian Gnu/Linux, but it has a GEFORCE RADEON 9000 card and a CUTE one button mouse, so it must be good. Too bad my mum's six year old 300Mhz Celeron with 64MB of ram thrashes it in performance everyday with her KDE workstation running Mandrake 8.0.

Claim : Gnome allows mac like operation.
We have a shameless expose ripoff, with a cheezy name, instead of fixing our buggy and slow metacity window manager, we decided to add this hack to make it even slower. Next thing you know we
will scrap the panel for a cheezy dock clone. x86
compatible 1 button mice are almost impossible to find anyway. It dosen't copy
the mac style menu concept. Our auto apply implementation is broken and
dangerous, but you can always use gconf like a real geek. We also arent porting GTK to Mac os X because Apple uses KDE technology.

Zealot :Gnome is gnu/software.
gnu/Yay, gnu/gnome gnu/for gnu/my gnu/debian gnu/linux gnu/box. gnu/I gnu/am gnu/so gnu/happy!

About
Inspired by the Gentoo translate-o-matic [upevil.net] . Written using Kwrite 4.2 on KDE 3.1.94
Version 1.3.1 Last updated 2004-01-04. If this post is moderated -1, troll or equivilent, it means that the Moderator agrees that GNOME SUCKS!

KDE vs Gnome, battle of philosophy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7873823)

Many times when there is a debate about Gnome vs KDE , the argument of the API popup often like comments like this one:

>"A GNOME spreadsheet you want Miguel? Don't worry. The way things are
>looking, I can hack one out in a few days. We will borrow from X, Y, and Z
>projects since they have most of the functionality we need. It will be a
>matter of fitting them all together."

I find it always funny that KDE supporters always list re-use of existing libraries as a big minus point of Gnome, as if it is a bad thing to re-use and adopt none-Gnome supporting libraries,

It is my vision that this is one of the great strengths of Gnome. In Gnome the supporting libraries are almost never Gnome dependent they often use already existing libraries or help to modify them too their needs, without Gnome-ifying them. When they create a new one for use in Gnome they tend too make it as generic as possible, With this sort of philosophy you create functionality that is easily adopted by other projects or was already in use or planned to get used. Things like Cairo (X-server), Fontconfig, ATK, etc. This is exactly why this functionality is popping up everywhere in open-source land. Which makes the KDE supporters scream that Gnome is taking everything over. This isn't true, but Gnome by using the above philosophy, doesn't alienate itself from other Linux/*nix projects in stark contrast too KDE. Gnome is not only about building a great desktop, it is about building modular desktop technology that can be used and reused by more projects then Gnome only, which make Gnome more cooperative too other projects then KDE. Look at the way KDE looked at Open-Office, They trashed everything about it and Koffice (or anything which was KDE-ified was much better), only now, after Gnome (Ximian) has showed the way by starting to make Open-Office better merge able into other widget sets they realize what opportunities Open-Office has too offer, but don't expect any thank you for the groundwork Ximian has done, making the integration as generic as possible so that a qt variant is also possible. No they will scream and whine till the end that Gnome is about adopting and Gnome-ifying, while little somebody else can use is coming from the KDE community (it is all of the KDE or die, look at Red-hat and userLinux how KDE treads other visions).

The question is: Do you want a *nux/Linux community desktop which takes from (Fontconfig, Cairo, librsvg, etc) and gives too (GTK+, Freedesktop.org, Gstreamer, ATK, Pango, etc) other projects (Xfree86, XFCE4, etc) without making everything it touches Gnome or do we want the none-*nix/Linux philosophy of one big API in the form of a win32 clone which alienates everything none C++/QT/KDE bolted on *nux/Linux (KDE). Which is more *nix/Linux one great API for everything or take the tools and merge it too what you need?

I find the KDE community extremely vicious against everything not KDE, The Borg like mentality of adapting everything into the KDE frame-work without keeping it generic alienates it from everything none C++/QT/KDE, but especially the whining they do that libraries that Gnome uses are also used in other important projects is something that keeps amazing me. It is the KDE community that uses embrace and KDE-ify it as there mantra! They turning the reality upside down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...