> > So instead of improving the appearance of, say, the XUL toolkit, you'd > prefer rewriting Firefox and Thunderbird in a completely different toolkit > (or, shudder, dropping Firefox in favor of a more "native" browser such as > Epiphany). Fortunately, that's just not going to happen because, simply, > the ROI would be below zero. >
Please read. I've said this SEVERAL times: I'm not saying rewrite ANYTHING. I'm not saying drop Firefox if it remains the best option. But, if an application that is more "native" comes around that is comparable to Firefox, why wouldn't we pick that? And why would we continue to branch out further with Canonical-made applications into other toolkits? I think that the U1 control panel on Windows should have adopted GTK before the Ubuntu version adopted Qt. (Unless the aim is to make future Canonical-made Ubuntu applications in Qt... And port what exists to it.)
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
