A GNOME 3.0 plan [LWN.net]

A GNOME 3.0 plan

Posted Apr 3, 2009 14:39 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: A GNOME 3.0 plan by drag
Parent article: A GNOME 3.0 plan

Plans to release GTK sometime next year are complete fantasies. It's also going to take several years (remember GTK1 -> GTK2 migration). In this aspect it won't be much different from QT3 -> QT4 migration.

I'll even make a prediction: by the time GNOME3 is released, it will be in the process of being abandoned in favor of KDE.

KDE4 was not just a significant ABI/API change, it was a major rewrite of most of parts of software. KDE 4.2 is fairly feature-complete now, with lots of new features compared to KDE 3.5.10.

On the other hand, you can count on GNOME to remove few features just to be "less confusing" to user.

(Log in to post comments)

A GNOME 3.0 plan

Posted Apr 3, 2009 21:53 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

A. Gnome 3.0 is not going to be a nearly as significant of a change as GTK1 to GTK2 or from KDE3/QT3 to KDE4/QT4. It'll be a revamp of some UI features and depreciation of old features in a effort to remove dependencies and improve performance.

B.If QT is good and it is using C++ then what is the point to having two QTs? Why not just use KDE instead of Gnome? Why not just get rid of Gnome altogether if you think it should be all C++ or that it should be QT.. you already have everything you want, right?

A GNOME 3.0 plan

Posted Apr 4, 2009 18:40 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

A) It's better be significant or GNOME is going to lose to Windows 7 and KDE4.

B) I would just throw out all GTK code right now If I could. But of course, there's just too much legacy code in GTK. So it's better to provide a clean migration path from GTK to QT.

A GNOME 3.0 plan

Posted Apr 5, 2009 3:58 UTC (Sun) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link]

>>B.If QT is good and it is using C++ then what is the point to having two QTs? Why not just use KDE instead of Gnome? Why not just get rid of Gnome altogether if you think it should be all C++ or that it should be QT.. you already have everything you want, right?

How about because QT is nearly as hacky as GTK+? Some of us would like a nice C++ library that uses standard libraries (or boost) and not some Hack that relies on Macro's and throws away type safety.