On 11/06/2012 04:39 AM, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > If we are to switch the default desktop to a Qt based one, we're going to be > shifting Unity's roots from GNOME to KDE, and the Ubuntu default desktop > environment itself from GNOME to KDE.
Why? One would just need to have Qt bindings for all the libraries one needs; and most (if not all) of them already exist (they were done for Unity2D). > With that we're going to have to change over all the default apps in order to > maintain the user experience. Or we're going to require vast improvements in > the > integration of Gtk+ apps in KDE. Either way, the change is not going to happen > easily. I don't see any problems in using Gtk+ apps in KDE. What are the improvements that need to be done? Though to be honest, no one is talking about using KDE here. Unity2D is a fully Qt-based desktop environment, and yet I didn't notice any problems when running Gtk+ software along with it. > I don't think the little advantage, if any, that we can possibly derive from > shifting Unity to Qt is worth the amount of effort required to make it happen. I don't think that the topic is under discussion, as the decision to not use Qt for the unity shell has already been taken. However, I feel the need to correct your statement, as the amount of effort for "shifting Unity to Qt" is just a matter of resurrecting Unity2D. Speaking of which, although Canonical is not actively developing Unity2D anymore, anyone who has an interest in developing it is very welcome to make a step forward and start contributing to it (or forking it). > In fact, I think Unity-2D happening in Qt was a bad idea in the first place. I > recall there being quite a space crunch on the desktop CD image as a result of > shipping both toolkits together on disk. How did this affect you, precisely? Ciao, Alberto -- 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
