Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector
Posted May 18, 2014 12:41 UTC (Sun) by torquay (guest, #92428)
Posted May 18, 2014 16:25 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted May 19, 2014 6:51 UTC (Mon) by torquay (guest, #92428)
Posted May 19, 2014 22:46 UTC (Mon) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
You're not going to be taken seriously if you make statement like above. You dislike GTK, cool. But "switch because I dislike it" is not much of an argument.
Posted May 19, 2014 23:39 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
Posted May 20, 2014 19:07 UTC (Tue) by lambda (subscriber, #40735)
I watched Dirk Hohndel's talk, and my takeaway was that most of the issues were based on cross-platform use. In Gtk, running on platforms other than Gnome on X (or Wayland in the future) is a somewhat secondary goal, so while it works OK, there are a variety of platform integration issues and it doesn't really look or act very much like a native application. Cross platform application is precisely what Qt is designed for, and is much more of a core goal. As Dirk pointed out, most of Subsurface's users are on Windows and Mac OS X; it only has as high a percentage of Linux users likely due to Linus's involvement in the project.
I tried looking at a few of the issues they had mentioned where they had talked to Gtk developers and been snubbed, but I couldn't find much. One of them was asking about help on doing custom placement and changing the delay of tooltips, as they wanted to use tooltips to display information about what you were hovering over in the graph. They got a few answers about a few customizations you could do, but the response that to do it really well they'd probably have to implement a custom widget rather than using tooltips. What did they do in Qt? They wrote a custom widget for it.
The other major issue they mentioned was not being able to edit a dive right on the view screen, but having to pop up a separate window for editing. I never quite figured out what problem they ran into there. It would be helpful to point out the actual threads where they had trouble and had to give up in Gtk, because I'm curious about how much wasn't possible in Gtk, versus how much was just easier in a rewrite now that they knew about all of the mistakes they'd done in the first UI due to not being experienced UI developers.
Having some familiarity with both Gtk and Qt, though not a ton of experience, I would say that overall I prefer Gtk if I'm going to be writing Linux-native software, and Qt if I want to write something cross-platform.
Posted May 20, 2014 19:29 UTC (Tue) by rleigh (guest, #14622)
Here's one I got a message about this week by coincidence:
It would have been fixed by July 2005 had there been a reply saying "yes, fix it this way". This is a rare one which actually got a reply, but still no productive outcome. As it is, it's probably still broken (can't confirm, I ditched it soon after since I needed a working tool).
Just as a general comment on the CLA situation. I generally dislike them. But. If a project won't review and apply patches for bugs which are major blockers for their end users in a timely manner, who cares if it has a CLA or not? It's simply not safe to rely on either way. The above example was a non-critical example, but it blocked the use of UTF-8 strings in C sources which blocked the i10n/l10n of an entire project until we replaced the broken tool. There were plenty more serious ones at the time.
Posted May 20, 2014 6:23 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Mind you, if you closely follow Qt development, there's plenty in there that came about in the same fashion -- often the same things, even, like CCS-like styling. The difference is, it's almost always well-documented.
Posted May 20, 2014 7:34 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
It seems you repeat what others are saying. I'm repeating it is pretty useless what you're doing. Theming is NOT guaranteed to be stable. Complaining about that or having to resort to that is pretty pointless. Same for other things that you highlight.
Posted May 19, 2014 8:42 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)
Both code bases are under the LGPL, it is just that in Qt there's an extra option thanks to Digia - for those who pay for it, of course. That payment flows back into Qt as extra money.
This is the same situation as at ownCloud - without ownCloud Inc. there would simply be less development. Otherwise, it would still be aGPL so nobody loses.
Essentially, Rahul, what you portray as a 'problem' is an advantage for the ecosystem. Thanks to the proprietary license, companies like BMW and other large users of Qt contribute (via paying Digia). They would otherwise not or very little, as Open Source just isn't their thing.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds