From kind@yang.thch.uni-bonn.de Received: (qmail 3412 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 16:40:16 -0000 Received: from yang.thch.uni-bonn.de (131.220.92.10) by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 16:40:16 -0000 Received: by yang.thch.uni-bonn.de (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA19163; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:38:53 +0100 From: Carsten Kind <kind@yang.thch.uni-bonn.de> Subject: KDE Gnome Qt gtk-- To: gnome@nuclecu.unam.mx Date: Fri, 16 Jan 98 18:38:53 MET Cc: kde-request@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de, gtk-list@redhat.com Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Hi all, I've just compared different developments (see subject). This comparison results in some conclusions and suggestions: conclusions: 1. The KDE-Desktop is the most advanced desktop for Linux. 2. The difference between Gnome and KDE is simply avoiding Qt or not, the goal is the same. 3. Qt is the best available graphical Toolkit 4. gtk specially gtk-- is the closest completly free Toolkit to Qt. 5. The arguments of KDE-folks and Gnome-folks in spite of librarieschoosing is reasonable. suggestions: 1. What do the KDE-developers think about converting their apps to gtk--? 2. What do gtk-developers think about getting closer to Qt? 3. What do Gnome-developers think about avoiding multiple code with KDE and support their work ( or reverse KDE-folks help Gnome) ? What would happen? 1. The discussion if Qt is free or not is obsolete.( I think it's free enough, but that's a different point) 2. KDE will be established as standard desktop in the world of Linux. 3. Other applications orginally not written for KDE could get KDE apps, because other widget-sets could be emulated by the 'kde-toolkit' gtk. This are all crazy ideas, but I would like to know what do you think about them. A friend of free software and KDE Carsten -- ========================================================================== Carsten Kind Lehrstuhl fuer Theoretische Chemie Tel.: ++49-228-73-2998 Universitaet Bonn Fax.: ++49-228-73-2551 Wegelerstr. 12 e-mail: kind@yang.thch.uni-bonn.de D-53115 Bonn, Germany ==========================================================================
From bluesect@visi.net Thu May 11 19:23:57 2000 Received: (qmail 24163 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 18:30:38 -0000 Received: from geneva.visi.net (HELO mail4.visi.net) (206.246.194.4) by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 18:30:38 -0000 Received: from ankara.visi.net (bluesect@ankara.visi.net [206.246.194.5]) by mail4.visi.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA11237 for <gtk-list@redhat.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:31:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:24:34 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Olson <bluesect@visi.net> To: gtk-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: [gtk-list] KDE Gnome Qt gtk-- In-Reply-To: <"UyX3b2.0.zr.srulq"@mail2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980116125854.21735A-100000@ankara.visi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I feel that I must point out that one of the most important differences between KDE and Gnome is that of programming preferences. GTK is primarily C oriented while, my understanding is, KDE is heavily C++ based. There is a slight difference of opinion when it comes to what kind of language people are comfortable programming applications with. This is not to say that C++ or QT don't have their place, but obviously a lot of C programmers have a strong preference for C and want to stay close to it. Also, since GTK allows coders to develop their own custom widgets, there is obviously a very strong argument for sticking with a less proprietary development library. If Gnome and KDE can agree upon certain conventions for easing the transitions from one toolkit to the other, then I believe that both projects can benefit from their respective separate development paths. There might be some duplication of effort, but at the same time, parallel efforts often yield surprisingly different results. I don't think that mere duplication of some applications is any reason not to explore different ways of developing these applications. Because of this, I don't think that Gnome would benefit from trying to emulate QT. As for KDE becoming the premiere desktop for linux, I think that Gnome is gaining a tremendous amount of momentum and has the potential to far surpass other desktop projects because of the nature of its development model, right down to the toolkit. (bazaar) --see http://www.ccil.org/~esr/writings/cathedral.html for more information about the bazaar model of software development. I understand your feelings about KDE and Gnome, but there seems to be more to consider than just whether or not the apps get made. Personally, I prefer C, but my supervisor prefers C++. Who's right? Well, we have never had reason to question each other's preferences. Suffice it to say that we simply think in different ways. But that often leads to more variety. By the way, I have not taken a hard look at QT. I am going by the discussions that have taken place on various mailing lists, so if i have erred in my assumptions, feel free to correct me with extreme prejudice. ;) This ramble brought to you by Dean Olson <bluesect> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Carsten Kind wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just compared different developments (see subject). > This comparison results in some conclusions and suggestions: > > conclusions: > 1. The KDE-Desktop is the most advanced desktop for Linux. > 2. The difference between Gnome and KDE is simply avoiding Qt or not, the goal > is the same. > 3. Qt is the best available graphical Toolkit > 4. gtk specially gtk-- is the closest completly free Toolkit to Qt. > 5. The arguments of KDE-folks and Gnome-folks in spite of librarieschoosing > is reasonable. > > suggestions: > 1. What do the KDE-developers think about converting their apps to gtk--? > 2. What do gtk-developers think about getting closer to Qt? > 3. What do Gnome-developers think about avoiding multiple code with KDE and > support their work ( or reverse KDE-folks help Gnome) ? > > What would happen? > 1. The discussion if Qt is free or not is obsolete.( I think it's free enough, > but that's a different point) > 2. KDE will be established as standard desktop in the world of Linux. > 3. Other applications orginally not written for KDE could get KDE apps, > because other widget-sets could be emulated by the 'kde-toolkit' gtk. > > This are all crazy ideas, but I would like to know what do > you think about them. > > A friend of free software and KDE > Carsten > -- > ========================================================================== > Carsten Kind > Lehrstuhl fuer Theoretische Chemie Tel.: ++49-228-73-2998 > Universitaet Bonn Fax.: ++49-228-73-2551 > Wegelerstr. 12 e-mail: kind@yang.thch.uni-bonn.de > D-53115 Bonn, Germany > ========================================================================== > > -- > To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe gtk-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null >
From agulbra@troll.no Thu May 11 19:23:57 2000 Received: (qmail 3102 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 19:08:07 -0000 Received: from lupinella.troll.no (195.0.254.19) by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 19:08:07 -0000 Received: by troll.no id <79740-291>; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:07:50 +0100 To: stephen farrell <stephen@farrell.org> Cc: Carsten Kind <kind@yang.thch.uni-bonn.de>, gnome@nuclecu.unam.mx, kde@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de, gtk-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: KDE Gnome Qt gtk-- References: <199801161639.KAA03886@athena.nuclecu.unam.mx> <87k9c0mgt3.fsf@phaedrus.uchicago.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <agulbra@troll.no> Date: 16 Jan 1998 20:07:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: stephen farrell's message of "16 Jan 1998 12:09:44 -0600" Message-ID: <m3vhvk5jb3.fsf@lupinella.troll.no> Lines: 18 stephen farrell <stephen@farrell.org> > The point is that NeXT found ways to make the very useful Unix tools > and ways of thinking (a few small tools that work well, and can be > strung together to make custom tools on demand; multitasking; etc) > available at the graphical user interface level. Could you give some examples? > Microsoft did nothing of the sort. and KDE is cloning microsoft. > > (NeXT even has tab completions (albeit with Esc (?)) in their file > open/save dialogue boxes. I consider making a graphical interface for > linux that doesn't do this traitorous!) Are you saying that the Windows 95 file dialog does not have file name completion? And what do you mean by traitorous? --Arnt
From atai@ece.ucsd.edu Thu May 11 19:23:57 2000 Received: (qmail 5705 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 21:38:06 -0000 Received: from mailbox1.ucsd.edu (132.239.1.53) by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 21:38:06 -0000 Received: from vision.ucsd.edu (vision.ucsd.edu [132.239.223.49]) by mailbox1.ucsd.edu (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA28689 for <gtk-list@redhat.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from atai@localhost) by vision.ucsd.edu (8.8.5/SOEGW-PSEUDO-4.2-SunOS-8.6.x) id NAA22722; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) for gtk-list@redhat.com From: atai@ece.ucsd.edu (Andy Tai) Message-Id: <199801162138.NAA22722@vision.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: [gtk-list] Re: KDE Gnome Qt gtk-- To: gtk-list@redhat.com Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980116125854.21735A-100000@ankara.visi.net> from "Dean Olson" at Jan 16, 98 01:24:34 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As for KDE becoming the premiere desktop for linux, I think that Gnome is > gaining a tremendous amount of momentum and has the potential to far > surpass other desktop projects because of the nature of its > development model, right down to the toolkit. > (bazaar) --see http://www.ccil.org/~esr/writings/cathedral.html for more > information about the bazaar model of software development. I believe KDE also emphasizes the bazaar model... in fact, they would say they are the true followers of the Linux spirit... Anyway, these days no one has a monopoly on bazaars. The thing special about GNOME is it is an offical GNU project, with the support of Redhat and Debian... This status makes it the choice for most free software supporters, and it has enough talents and backing sufficient enough to become "The Desktop" in the long run... > > By the way, I have not taken a hard look at QT. I am going by the > discussions that have taken place on various mailing lists, so if i have > erred in my assumptions, feel free to correct me with extreme prejudice. > ;) Qt is no question the best GUI toolkit for X Windows out there, just looking at the technical side. If it is not for the license issue, the world would be heaven.... I think, gtk is among the LGPLed libraries the one with the most promise to approach the quality of Qt. Supporting GNOME is one of the ways to make gtk improve. With the ways things are going with GNOME, the free software community is moving in a very good direction. -- Li-Cheng Tai (Andy Tai) e-mail: atai@ece.ucsd.edu Free software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people, worldwide. Develop! Share! Enhance! And enjoy!
From jpaint@serv.net Thu May 11 19:23:57 2000 Received: (qmail 10446 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 23:03:53 -0000 Received: from itchy.serv.net (205.153.153.233) by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 23:03:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (jpaint@localhost) by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA16167; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:03:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:03:55 -0800 (PST) From: Jay Painter <jpaint@serv.net> To: gtk-list@redhat.com cc: gnome@nuclecu.unam.mx, kde-request@fiwi02.wiwi.uni-tuebingen.de Subject: Re: [gtk-list] KDE Gnome Qt gtk-- In-Reply-To: <"UyX3b2.0.zr.srulq"@mail2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.980116142412.6293F-100000@itchy.serv.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > 3. Qt is the best available graphical Toolkit I've programmed with Qt, and I develop for GTK. Although this statment was true 6 months ago, it's becomming less true all the time. GTK is currently equivalent to Qt 1.1, which was released in about Feb 97. There are also many specialized, high-level widgets avaible for GTK: xmhtml-gtk, a 3.2 HTML complient widget supporting tables/frames, the GtkTerm widget which is a terminal widget. GTK can be bound to any language which can use C shared libs, which is about all of them. GTK doesn't require the moc compiler for it's widget signals (although I don't consider the moc compiler a problem, but it's still a little annoying). GTK also has some advantages over Qt in it's object-oriented design. All GTK object methods are virtual, GTK signals, and overrideable on a instance basis. Here's an example: Let's say you wanted to create a button which had a pixmap in and text in it. Normally, when you press the button it sends out it's "clicked" signal. But in this button, when you click the pixmap, you don't want it to send out it's clicked signal, you want it to togle showing two different lines of text within the button. To impliment this in Qt, you would have to inherit the button, override the button_press_event, check for the click on the pixmap, and either change the text or pass the event down to the button level. So, what's wrong with this? Well, for one thing you only use the button once, so it's alot of effort for just one button. The other thing is you have to come up with a reasonable name for your new button hack. You don't want to come up with a name for your new button. It's a stupid little button. Half an hour later you name it MyStupidButton in frustration. Two days later you think of a reasonable name, and go back and change it. In GTK, all member functions are signals! You can override the button_press_event for your one button after creating with a simple gtk_signal_connect (object, "button_press_event", new_function_pointer). Done. I wouldn't worry about a comming Qt/GTK GNOME/KDE war. We're working together as much as possible. It's also quite possible Qt will have to LGPL it's libraries (or at least one version of them) to compete with GTK. Regards, Jay Painter