|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

Posted Oct 17, 2013 19:15 UTC (Thu) by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032)
In reply to: First steps towards desktop consolidation? by proski
Parent article: Wireshark switches to Qt

While I share the general sentiment that Qt is gaining momentum relative to GTK+, I think it is a bit early for this conclusion.

to post comments

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

Posted Oct 17, 2013 19:52 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (12 responses)

When Cinnamon switches to Qt, we will know how it all will end. When Gnome itself switches, the transition will be complete.

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

Posted Oct 17, 2013 20:52 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] (10 responses)

These probably will never happen

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

Posted Oct 17, 2013 23:28 UTC (Thu) by FranTaylor (guest, #80190) [Link] (1 responses)

Why not? GTK is the GIMP toolkit, not the GNOME toolkit.

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

Posted Oct 18, 2013 5:21 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

It outgrew GIMP a while ago (i.e. about 15 years ago). In fact, the "+" in Gtk+ signifies this growth (in particular, object-oriented features, deriving new widgets etc) which weren't in the original Gtk.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 18, 2013 3:51 UTC (Fri) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (7 responses)

Of course they won't. But you had to say "probably".

I don't know how to cope with the new fact that, given the advent of LED displays, monochrome text on a black background is by far the lowest-power-consuming way to present a UI. All I can hope for is that e-paper will eventually catch up.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 18, 2013 5:13 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (6 responses)

That is true only of AMOLED (and similar) displays which are only widely available on phones so far. Backlit LED displays still consume power regardless of background, because they are still LCD displays where the backlight remains on at all times, only the backlighting is LED rather than fluorescent.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 18, 2013 8:56 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, that used to be true, but not anymore. Hint: look for the "Intel Display Power Saving Technology", you'll be surprised.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 18, 2013 9:26 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (1 responses)

I googled, and this is one of the top three hits!

Besides, I doubt it will cause power saving for black backgrounds with white text. If anything, it would be the opposite -- turn down the backlight for bright screens, turn it up for dark screens.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 18, 2013 15:44 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Also with LED back lighting it's possible to adjust and decrease the lighting in order to get better black depth. I believe techniques in adjusting color brightness to parts of the display is used by television manufacturers to artificially improve the black level and dynamic contrast ratings in their displays.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 20, 2013 1:02 UTC (Sun) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, it's AMOLED displays I am thinking of. In the really old days, green text on a black screen really did use less electron-beam power, but it didn't matter much because the whole apparatus cooked. An LC display monitor can (and in many cases does) turn down backlighting in areas of the screen that are supposed to be dim or black, but that's more meant to improve contrast than power consumption.

But on a display with one (or two) red, green, and blue LEDs corresponding to each pixel, everything changes. Only the LEDs that are lit up burn power, and for every
pixel kept black you gain battery life. It becomes actively irresponsible to present a paper-white background. You can watch The Dark Knight several times on the power used by one screening of Lawrence of Arabia.

I can't see any way around it. I will just need to get used to green-on-black text again.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 21, 2013 17:47 UTC (Mon) by mstone_ (subscriber, #66309) [Link] (1 responses)

I always preferred grey-on-black, and my terminal windows have been that way for 20 years. Reigning in the web is hard, though--web designers seem to really like staring into a light, for some reason.

Maybe not but

Posted Oct 22, 2013 19:34 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

> web designers seem to really like staring into a light, for some reason.

Maybe they hope it's the light at the end of the tunnel of designing web pages?

First steps towards desktop consolidation?

Posted Oct 19, 2013 6:14 UTC (Sat) by Rehdon (guest, #45440) [Link]

You can read Clem's take on GTK+2/3 and QT here:

http://segfault.linuxmint.com/2013/10/cinnamon-2-0-releas...

Spoiler:

"I don’t think GTK3 will ever get to a point where it needs patching or forking but it’s important to consider the risks associated with using it or migrating to it."

Rehdon


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds