jeevesbond writes "The alpha version of Google Chrome is now available for GNU/Linux. Google Chrome developer and former Firefox lead Ben Goodger has some problems with the platform though. His complaints range from the lack of a standardised UI toolkit, inconsistencies across applications, the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG, to GTK not being a very compelling toolkit. With Adobe getting twitchy about the glibc fork and previously describing the various audio systems as welcome to the jungle, is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"
[I]s it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"
It was time ten years ago when Linux was first gaining real momentum in that area. I remember posting Slashdot comments about it and getting told Linux was about "choice" and that if I didn't like it, I should contribute code. Ten years later, even Google is bashing Linux for it. I bet nothing will change even now.
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts. Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts.
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Indeed. If we were to reject that attitude and simply standardize around a single way because it's best if everyone runs the same, we'd all run Windows. There's no logical argument that can be made for rejecting running Windows but advocating a standardized API for all Linux platforms. The argument for a standardized API is an argument against having multiple operating systems to begin with. Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance, holding logically imcompatible ideas to be simultaneously true. That's not so amazing as the fact that they've managed to maintain it for ten years...
Setting aside the logical contradictions of your point of view for the moment, and just out of curiosity, when you say "that are needed" -- needed for what? I'm unaware of any objective that an OS should have (keep my computer running, my multiple programs sharing resources effectively, my data safe, etc.) that would require other operating systems to run the same API as me. Why would it matter if my Debian desktop and your Fedora desktop are different? And why would it be more important and somehow more tragic that our two computers are different when it's not likewise tragic that my Debian desktop and my friend's Windows desktop are different? Why is one case of difference bad but the answer is not for all three of us to adopt the more popular standard, rather that for some reason two of us should and one should not?
A standardised API doesn't mean that there can only be one operating system, it just means there's a generally accepted way of making the operating system do what you want without having to alter your code for every different platform.
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts.... If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Er... Why is that a problem again?
Why can't billions of people use computers and technology to improve their lives *without* making their OS choice a matter of philosophy or identity? If they choose for more pragmatic reasons (requirements, price/value, simplicity), why is that a 'problem'?
Most people have only a few things in their life that really matter to them to the point you can call them 'enthusiasts'.
Most people use stamps without collecting them, drive cars without obsessing over engine models, drink wine without knowing merlot from cabernet, enjoy music without playing any instruments, use electricity without having the least idea about their house wiring... There are enthusiasts for everything, but as a matter of practicality (and probably mental health) humans have to pick the few things on which they invest their time and energy.
Fortunately, most enthusiast communities are not so arrogant that they assume everyone must share their interests and obsessions - as some kind of political or religious choice. They're the better for it.
Those who demand their pet interests to be *important* to everyone else demonstrate not just arrogance, but a selfishness that is most likely self-defeating.
Technology has continuously improved the standards of living of billions of people - but the greatest values of each advancement are only reached when they are so omnipresent and require so little training they're taken for granted. Billions of lives are saved/extended when electricity is in every building, when every child is vaccinated, etc. Computers are not different.
As a geek, I would like more people to become tech enthusiasts and share the same interests. But I'd also hope we recognize, considering the richness of the human experience, most people will (and should) care a lot less about the OS on their laptop than about most things in their daily life.
Constantly having to use second rate programs because the the GPL is so restrictive and viral that no software vendor wants to deal with it. As much as people spout 'open source' it isn't. It places as hard or harder restrictions on its use as any proprietary software, they are just different restrictions. But it definitely is not open.
Now you're clearly trolling/FUDing. There are plenty of proprietary apps for Linux, either as drivers (Nvidia) or as userland software (mostly for servers), and if you are merely using FLOSS there are hardly any restrictions at all. When was the last time you saw a EULA when you installed a FLOSS application?
The reason companies don't target desktop Linux is because it's only a tiny fraction of the market. The GPL has nothing to do with it. It's business, plain and simple.
Is that most people who use computers are NOT going to be enthusiasts. They use computers because the computer is a tool. They have something they want done, maybe it is e-mail, maybe it is watching video, maybe it is playing games, maybe it is staring at hampsterdance.com all day, doesn't matter. They have something they wish to do and the computer is the tool to allow them to do it. Thus their concern is getting the variety of tool that allows them to do this with minimal fuss. They aren't interested in technical merits, they aren't interested in becoming "fans". They want the shit to work and get out of the way.
Normal users are not OS "enthusiasts" any more than normal people are hammer "enthusiasts". I really don't give a shit about hammers. I don't are how they are made, I don't care about their design, I don't care about their merits. What I care about is their ability to pound a nail in to what I want. So I'm going to get a hammer that does that well for me. In my case, it is a standard claw hammer, about 1 foot long. I'm not interested in technical arguments as to why I ought to like a sledge hammer better. Yes, there are things a sledge hammer can do mine can't. I don't give a shit, I don't do those things and a sledge hammer is rather heavy and unwieldy. I have the hammer I want, and that's all I want. I'm not an "enthusiast" I'm a user.
So for most people, this is how computers are. For technical people, sure the computer itself can be fun. The process of running the system can be as interesting as anything you might do with it. However technical people aren't most people. Most people just want to d various tasks with the computer, and they want to the computer to not cause them grief as they do said tasks.
Yes, when distributing binaries one must target not only a specific distribution, but a specific release and a specific CPU architecture as well.
This is not true. If you make a binary installer with your own link libraries for all of the dependencies you need, you can successfully make a closed-source release which works on just about any kernel since 2.6 with the correct architecture. The Linux userspace ABI is very stable.
If you want to use open-source libraries that would make such a binary blob legally difficult, that's your choice.
Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard.
And this is just a bright example. The situation described is 100% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.
Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard. And this is just a bright example. The situation described is 100% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.
Sounds like the strength is also its weakness.
The criticism made is a fair one, and it is only when there are vocal and influential enough developers do people actually stop to pay attention. I am sure there will be many Linux developers who will go on the defensive, but until you are the number one choice for the desktop it is worth listening to what the critics say. Even when you are number on the desktop you should still listen to the critics if you want to stay there. Just look at Windows as an example.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday May 30 2009, @03:03PM (#28151751)
Does apt-get count as a relatively easy to use package manager? I've used it on both OS X and Windows machines.
The problem with having several GUI toolkits is that then you fragment the user experience. I use GIMP on OS X, and having X11 running makes it a very awkward, sometimes annoying experience - not only do I have to make sure I'm properly in GIMP rather than X11, but all the keys change command button to control button depending on which one you're in. It's really pretty awful, and I expect non-techy users to find it more confusing than I do.
Consistency is important to a user experience. Learning how to complete tasks in an OS is very much like a language skill. When you force people to learn different sets of hot keys, different ways of achieving the same task, then you're burdening them with another language. The only good reason to break away from having a single HIG standard, as far as from the user's perspective, is if you're writing a really novel application where you're trying to provoke a different mindset; writing yet another average GUI toolkit doesn't come close to qualifying.
with a standardized HIG. After all, graphical interfaces are not exactly the new kid on the block. There are common standards (use radio buttons for this, checkboxes for that, put your menu HERE). And while Linux does not necessarily have to conform to OS X or Windows standards, it could certainly have a standard of its own. This would help developers a lot. In my experience, many developers, while good coders, are not good interface designers. Without a comprehensive guide, they just plain get it wrong.
I don't much give a damn about Adobe being skittish, though. Are they paying Linux core developers?
My wishes: While I don't mind gtk, I am really hoping gnome3 brings some good changes to it. One of the big things I wish for is more free functionally for base widgets. Things like spell checking for more elements, auto-connecting default actions for cut-copy-paste menues, user toolbar editing, etc. It's pure busy work.
My what the hells Why do some programs only have a quit menu and some only have a close (epiphany)? Why does the quit quick-key not work if the focus is in a text-view? While I can do ctrl-q to quit firefox, I have to close all the documents in gedit to get ctrl-q to work. What is wrong with having both close and quit for most apps?
My what is going to happen? I know they are working on a app driven interface over a window driven one (ala Mac OS X). You can tell just by looking at some of the preferences hidden in gconf, recent changes in gimp, and many others. What does this mean to the gtk developers and the future of their applications?
Let's face it, one of the things all Linux evangelists like to emphasise is the opportunity to use whatever you want and even build it yourself if you want to. But it's maddening for developers to create something that will work on every kind of linux desktop in existence. From political choices of free vs. non-free, to preferred distribution, version numbers, favourite window manager and a host of other choices, no two desktops will be the same. Linux isn't an operating system, it's an operating eco-system. Taking Google as an example, today I tried to install Google Earth on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop to no avail, despite it having installed without a hitch on my Xubuntu 7.04 Pentium III plaything in my room back in my parent's house. The exact same version of the program with dramatic differences depending on where you try it, that quickly becomes a support nightmare.
Now for the dedicated GNOME/KDE/xfce/whatever volunteer this does not pose much of a problem because your target audience has broadly the same machine makeup as you do, but for a commercial developer looking for a good ROI it quickly becomes untenable. Windows and Mac OS provide a devoloper with a guaranteed stable platform development-wise, and as such are much safer bets.
I agree that the only way Linux can make itself more attractive to commercial desktop program developers is with a mighty amount of consolidation, but the problem is that I don't think it will happen. The great OS wars that went before the dominance of Windows had winners and losers because they were systems of a closed nature, and so if you held with a losing team they closed down because it wasn't economically viable and you had to move to something more mainstream, thus consolidating the market. With Linux a project will never close down as long as someone like it more than something else.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday May 30 2009, @02:17PM (#28151279)
Follow the discussion, and you'll find it's not about complaints at all, at all, at all. Google is trying to figure out the best way to do Chrome for Linux, while making it something that Linux users will actually like, and that means more choices. That's all. No, it's not about needing to standardize, so could someone at Slashdot quit with that FUD? GNU/Linux is about choice, and it always will be.
Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1. You'd have tight integration with Webkit, a great toolkit, and cross-platform from day 1 on Windows, Mac, Linux and Solaris.
Google opted for VERY Windows-centric design which made porting hard, and then the man tasked with porting to Linux choose a poor toolkit and then blamed the Linux platform for two bad decisions in a row made by Google.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday May 30 2009, @04:59PM (#28152873)
I am a Chromium developer, and if you don't think Qt apps "speak with a foreign accent", especially on Mac, you don't pay close enough attention. It's not an immediate appearance difference, it's the way that subtle details are wrong. By contrast, Chromium appears _very_ different on Windows on the surface, but we go to great lengths to get small details right. Big differences can be accommodated. Small differences drive you crazy.
Also, most of us were Linux developers, not Windows developers, before writing Chromium, so again you are asserting things that are completely wrong.
A Qt browser on Windows looks just as native as Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome. Note, every one of those browsers uses a non-standard UI. Qt provides styles to mimic native widgets and can look perfectly native. Chrome wasn't even designed to look native. They are blowing smoke to obfuscate the reality of the situation.
Chrome wouldn't have looked one ounce more "foreign" because of Qt. It looks foreign because they designed it foreign.
My Mac currently has several apps in three different toolkits open; several apps written by Apple itself don't follow standard UI conventions. The Windows situation is even worse: there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC,.NET,...), plus dozens of third party ones. And UI conventions are violated constantly.
The real problem Windows programmers have with Linux is... that it isn't Windows. They start writing some big, ugly, messy Windows application (hello, Firefox), and then they moan and groan when porting it to Linux and usually do a piss-poor job at it too.
What is really going on is that they have wrapped a new layout engine ("views") and other tools around the "impoverished" (their words) Windows toolkits. Then, they started depending on their wrapper for features they added to Chrome. Now, when porting to Linux, they are suddenly discovering that, geez, both Gtk+ and Qt already does what "views" is doing, they just do it differently and in a way that doesn't connect well with the rest of Chrome. That's what they are complaining about.
Ben Goodger, here's a hint: pick Gtk+ or Qt as your toolkit, Linux users really don't care that much. And both of them are much better toolkits than what Windows offers. I'm sorry that the completeness of Linux GUI toolkits inconveniences you, but, well, too bad.
Or, if you like, don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much, since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.
There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either. Firefox and Opera use their own. OpenOffice.org uses its own. Even Microsoft Office uses its own. On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance. Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.
Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?
If the Chrome developers feel too constrained by GTK, they should have chosen a better toolkit, such as Qt (which, incidentally, is also popular on Windows). They can't blame their own bad choices on Linux. Their gripe sounds like the standard "how dare Linux be different from Windows and make us have to learn something new" whining.
I am sick to death of hearing developers bitch about "native look and feel". Grow up! Get a fucking life! I couldn't care less how the goddamn app looks COMPARED TO OTHER APPS as long as the look enables the FUNCTIONALITY to be performed correctly.
What matters is that the program does it's job - not that the widgets look the same as some other app on the system.
Christ, what a fucking waste of millions of man hours farting around with bullshit cosmetic issues! Fucking programmers think they're goddamn "artistes" when they can't even get their shit to RUN PROPERLY, NOT CRASH, BE FUCKING USABLE, and BE SECURE!
Shut the fuck up about look and feel and concentrate on making the thing fucking usable, reliable, and secure.
GTK isn't as nice as everyone makes it out to be. Basically what everyone has been doing is talking red hat, and suse and making their product work on that. You can't "standardize" Linux because the 7 or so distro can't agree.
I've got no idea about him but I've written several white papers for various platforms in my job including.NET and I use Windows daily at work and even in a VM at home sometimes. I also use Ubuntu and OS X primarily for my personal stuff. It's not an either/or religion for all of us who don't have the last name Stallman. I very much value open source products but there are things they don't do or don't do well or because of other cultural reasons such as de facto standards just are positioned properly in the market to do.
If you want it to be either/or us versus them then you have to make a product that meets ALL of my needs and currently no one does so I use Ubuntu (and previously FreeBSD, Suse, Gentoo, Slackware, or Redhat) when I feel it meets my needs and OSX or Win when they do.
You know, I have to agree. I just never did get the zealotry either. While at home and work my main OS is Windows 2K/XP/XP64, when I am called out to fix a network that some bonehead had let God knows what loose on? You bet I'm bringing my laptop with the Xandros Business partition fired up. It lets me access the Ad and Exchange, while having enough of a familiar interface I can hand it over to an employee that has a deadline to get their work done on. Use the right tool for the job, I always say.
That said, why do you Linux guys seem to hate standards so much, hmmm? I'm not talking to you specifically fooslacker, but Linux in general. I mean y'all got, what? Three different sound systems now? Would it really be so hard for all the major players to sit down and choose a basic standard, one that will hopefully be rock solid stable with minimal changes and a focus on backwards compatibility, so that writing drivers and programs for the entire Linux ecosystem would be easy and thus attract more companies?
I mean if I am a hardware manufacturer it takes just three drivers if I want to support Windows past, present, and future with a binary driver. Four if I want to cover the niches. I just have my developers write a Win98/ME, A win2k/XP, and a Vista/Win7. I add a WinXP64/Vista64 and since Win7 can use Vista drivers I have everything from 1998-2014 completely covered with just four binary drivers and no more out of pocket. There just ain't a way to do that in Linux. Same with programs, there really isn't a way to...say make a game, and be assured that it will work on Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Xandros, PCLOS,etc right now, much less have the same thing work out of the box five years from now so I can continue selling it without constant tweaks.
Look, nobody is asking you to become Windows or OSX. Nobody is asking you to give up the bazillion different distros out there. Just have a common, stable, and backwards compatible undercarriage that software developers and hardware manufacturers can target so that it doesn't matter if I use Xandros and you use CentOS and the guy down the street is running Gentoo, that any company can release a program or driver and know that for now and the long term across the board it will "just work", that's all. I bet if you had a stable and solid undercarriage that worked across the board that a lot more companies would seriously consider releasing their products and drivers for Linux. And that is good for everybody, right?
The freedom (free as in liberty) aspect of Linux make that sort of standardization somewhere between extremely difficult and absolutely impossible. Freedom and autonomy are the enemies of standards.
How many sound APIs does Windows have? There is WinMM, DirectSound, Media Foundation. I have seen games use OpenAL, FMod, Miles Sound System. Windows Vista's MIDI subsystem is incompatible with that of Windows XP, and means I get substandard MIDI sound. Talk about some feature regression.
Linux has had two leading sound systems. It used to be OSS (many years ago) and has been ALSA for quite some time. If you require anything else, you are probably going to have trouble in some distributions. Now, ALSA may be considered a crappy API, but then again, so was WinMM and it didn't stop people from using it.
I mean if I am a hardware manufacturer it takes just three drivers if I want to support Windows past, present, and future with a binary driver. Four if I want to cover the niches. I just have my developers write a Win98/ME, A win2k/XP, and a Vista/Win7. I add a WinXP64/Vista64 and since Win7 can use Vista drivers I have everything from 1998-2014 completely covered with just four binary drivers and no more out of pocket. There just ain't a way to do that in Linux.
There's a much easier way. Send a message to the kernel list saying, "I am a hardware manufacturer. Here are the docs for my hardware under NDA, and here's some samples." Ta-da! You get drivers written for free (or significantly reduced), and every subsequent distro release will support your hardware by default.
After extensive discussion, the Chromium developers decided to build the Linux port with GTK+, the toolkit that is used by the popular GNOME desktop environment
They argue, and I would not say that they are wrong, that GTK+ even so does not give the necessary functionality to allow all the Chrome features.
Consistency in any Windows applications is hard to come by. Running MS Office 2007 or Windows Live Messenger 2009 (and several earlier versions) in Windows XP will show you that. Yes, I realise they were made to look like Vista and 7 and fit in with Vista and 7's interfaces, but that in itself is a terrible crime of design! If they're made to look like Vista and 7, that means they probably aren't using the same code for their appearance. Big waste of resources if you add up every program that ignores the system theme and does it's own thing.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday May 30 2009, @02:26PM (#28151385)
Meh, everything is a trade-off. Qt is way easier than Gtk and has a huge API for doing all sorts of cross-platform stuff. Plus it's truly cross-platform whereas Gtk is pretty crappy on anything other that systems running X Windows.
The trade-off is that Qt is C++ and Gtk is C. This actually matters a lot when you need to interface to other C-only applications and libraries or whatever. C++-to-C is easy but using it the other way around is problematic and annoying. Then you have the issue of how clean the code is in each language (depends on your point of view as to which is better).
There also used to be the issue of Qt forcing the GPL down your throat but that is no longer an issue because both Gtk and Qt use LGPL.
Personally I have been using Qt for everything recently. Since the switch to LGPL it's the obvious choice even though I'm a C purist at heart. I hate the fact that it's so big though. Since it's LGPL you can't statically link only the stuff you use so your application installs tend to be larger than they really should be...
Trade-offs... Everything... So annoying, makes it hard to develop truly high quality software.
As they explained multiple times, they choose GTK because that's what the team doing the Linux "port" is familiar with. However their architecture allows to easily use different toolkits and they are willing to accept patches to support Qt or whatever else. They just don't have the resources necessary to support more than one toolkit.
For laughing out loud. Just like SWT supports any toolkit, I presume. What they did was to shove an abstract API mirroring the one of the windows toolkits. Of course, you can make that work on any toolkit, but it is not always going to be easy, nor a perfect match. And who needs another browser? Chrome offers very little new, being essentially Yet Another Konqueror Fork. (Maybe we can just label them all YAKF:o) )
But I merely replied because of the stupidness spouted about C++ re Qt.
Meh, does Chrome even follow Microsoft HIG? The tabs being almost part of the title bar, and the lack of an actual window title in the title bar, as well as the random Google logo next to the buttons, all seem to be completely contrary to what I expect on Windows. As do the Vista style buttons even on XP, but then Microsoft did that too with Windows Media Player in some version.
While i'm aware that a HIG should cover more than just the look and feel, it feels like google bends the rules when it comes to interface guidelines.
No two browsers look alike. I happen to like Google Chrome's look and feel. To me, it's way superior to IE's.
While Google Chrome has a unique look, it does not have a totally unique behviour. The X button is still in the corner of the screen, making it easy to find an click. (Aren't you annoyed by apps with no X button or titlebar?)
It accepts all the standard hotkeys. I don't care if an app looks Win32, if it doesn't let me use the hotkeys I've gotten used to.
All in all, I'd say the unique interface isn't disruptive. It might even be intuitive, to anyone that's used lots of Windows programs.
They certainly did break the windows HIG. Then again, I'm a big fan of standards, and yet I've deliberately broken HIGs when I knew they didn't apply well to a new kind of application. I feel justified in doing that, since I've been around since the basically the dawn of GUIs and been able to slowly watch the standardisation process of most widget types. None of that means that I want to start from scratch on a platform though, without any standard HIG already in place. It's one thing breaking the HIG when necessary. It's quite another if no one has bothered to agree on the HIG necessary for even the most typical apps.
Anyway... google are quite right here, I think. When are Linux standards people going to wake up and realise that ANY good, standardised library is better than two that are both great? Especially in open source, the fact that it's a standard allows people to focus on improving it. The whole point of an API is to have something to target your software to. It's also a standard which can be evolved later, even if the next version is as different as Qt is from GTK+. I don't give a crap if the standard is Qt or GTK+ --- whichever is chosen will eventually gain the features necessary for modern apps --- but SOME standard needs to be set.
True! And since it now comes with QGtkStyle, which uses GTK+ engines and widgets to render stuff, you can use it and have a nice looking app at the same time.
QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history, in my opinion. Since it's now available under the LGPL license, I have to assume that the development project the whiner from Google is talking about was done before the LGPL QT 4.5 version was released or is not written in C++. Standardization is fine and all, but please, please don't standardize on GTK. Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired.
No his problem is that QT has an execution loop which incompatible with the Chrome engine. What makes QT so cool for event driven programming is an event handler that can't be easily changed to match the event handler in Chrome.
Qt actually runs the glib event loop these days. You can easily verify this by kill -ABRT'ing a kde app and checking the core dump; this just in from kate:
#8 0xb5df874b in IA__g_poll (fds=0x9c225c8, nfds=6, timeout=25243) at/build/buildd/glib2.0-2.20.1/glib/gpoll.c:127 #9 0xb5deaf82 in g_main_context_iterate (context=0x9778e90, block=1, dispatch=1, self=0x9776f40) at/build/buildd/glib2.0-2.20.1/glib/gmain.c:2761 #10 0xb5deb268 in IA__g_main_context_iteration (context=0x9778e90, may_block=1) at/build/buildd/glib2.0-2.20.1/glib/gmain.c:2511 #11 0xb6a5f438 in QEventDispatcherGlib::processEvents (this=0x9763c68, flags={i = -1074473992}) at kernel/qeventdispatcher_glib.cpp:323
And drop some legacy systems (X comes to mind) along the way.
X is the only GUI* which is pretty much guaranteed to be installed on every Unix and Unix-type system in the modern world. It is to GUIs what ASCII is to text encoding schemes, or what HTML is to markup languages. We're never going to completely get rid of it, and any widely used standard that replaces it is going to have to include it as a subset. You may not like it, but it's relatively simple, its quirks are well understood, and dismissing it as "legacy" isn't going to make it go away.
*Please let's not get into the argument over whether or not X is a "real" GUI because it doesn't include this or that feature of your favorite window manager. It's as silly over the argument over whether MySQL is a "real" DBMS, or Perl / Python / Ruby / scripting language of your choice is a "real" programming language. The answer to all of these is "yes." Now let's move on.
Except GTK is so poor that you have Gnome devs calling for a major restructuring, and Mark Shuttleworth of Cannonical/Ubuntu fame calling for Gnome to be built on top of KDE. Ubuntu hitched their wagon to Gnome very early on, and ships broken KDE packages to this day, but I have to wonder if Shuttleworth regrets that decision today.
So this is how the QT people get to feel better about themselves after a horrible major restructuring that made Linus Torvalds of the Linux kernal fame team begrudgingly switch to Gnome even though he hates its approach to UI design.
I don't know what QuickTime has to do with it but if you mean Qt then I'm afraid all that was a storm in a teacup that was made a big thing of by some fanboys after Linus had made it known that he believed that Gnome had no real functionality. It simply meant that the KDE 4.0 as shipped by Fedora was not usable for him, which isn't surprising since distros were actually told this and they just replaced 3.5.x regardless and then whinged.
GTK has grown extremely long in the tooth because of the extreme dedication of the group to incrementalism, but that is not a sign of poor design.
Oh please, it is exceptionally poorly designed. GTK was chosen as a knee-jerk response to the whole KDE thing in the 90s to build Gnome on. To this day we still have brain damage like libegg and libsexy and where developers even copy and paste GTK code that they need liberally around their codebase if they want things like toolbars. The only reason there is a HIG is that things such as spacings cannot be inherited by applications. Leave a 12-pixel border between the edge of the window and the nearest controls?! The horizontal spacing between the buttons [on an alert] is 6 pixels?! Give me a fucking break. That's why we have component based programming and inheritance. If you give that to a Windows or OS X developer then he'll piss himself.
So Gnome's 2.0 structure was so bad that it is going to last longer than KDE3's?
KDE bit the bullet when they looked at the proprietary competition and what they were doing in Vista, Windows 7 and OS X. It's a rocky road but it was necessary if anyone was even going to fart in the general direction of an open source desktop.
I also doubt it's going to have the rockey ride that was 4.0/4.1 for KDE users either.
Why not? It happened for Gnome 2.x.
The reason for the outward protests at Gnome is that the developers are absolutely against the KDE4 kind of developement unless it is 100% necessary.
No. The protests against doing what KDE 4 has done have come about because it's like the elephant in the room - the developers know in the back of their minds that they need to do something if open source desktops and Gnome are to stay relevant when people look at Windows and OS X, but they don't want to do it because the infrastructure is so rotten that it will take them years to build it, years to build a desktop out of it and years to build any applications.
There's no "Linux community". There is a lot of communities of different sizes, many of which don't give a damn about each other, plus individual developers doing their own thing.
It's like asking, why does the "programming community" keep inventing new languages? Can't we just all settle on C?
There's a guy somewhere working on some project who got really fed up with say, artsd, and decided that writing a successful sound daemon would look good on his resume. And we end up with yet another sound system. And if you come to him complaining about the lack of unification he'll tell you he's doing it on his own time, has X very happy users and doesn't really care about what you think.
That is why Skype can build a distro-agnostic package with static linked libraries that just works on every distro, even though they also make distro-specific packages as well.
PulseAudio is just terrible in its current state. Phonon conversely is EXTREMELY easy to program for. There was a proof-of-concept media player app written for Phonon in 5 lines of code. It has multiple engines/backends to talk directly to the hardware, which do the heavy lifting. When writing an app, you don't have to debate between support for Gstreamer, or Xine, or whatever. Just write for Phonon and then don't sweat it.
Right (Score:5, Insightful)
'...is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?'
Good luck.
It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Insightful)
That part in the summary amused me:
It was time ten years ago when Linux was first gaining real momentum in that area. I remember posting Slashdot comments about it and getting told Linux was about "choice" and that if I didn't like it, I should contribute code. Ten years later, even Google is bashing Linux for it. I bet nothing will change even now.
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts. Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Parent
Re:It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Insightful)
Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
1986
BYTE: Given that manufacturers haven't wanted to fund the project, who do you think will use the GNU system when it is done?
Stallman: I have no idea, but it is not an important question.
Parent
Re:It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts.
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Indeed. If we were to reject that attitude and simply standardize around a single way because it's best if everyone runs the same, we'd all run Windows. There's no logical argument that can be made for rejecting running Windows but advocating a standardized API for all Linux platforms. The argument for a standardized API is an argument against having multiple operating systems to begin with. Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance, holding logically imcompatible ideas to be simultaneously true. That's not so amazing as the fact that they've managed to maintain it for ten years...
Setting aside the logical contradictions of your point of view for the moment, and just out of curiosity, when you say "that are needed" -- needed for what? I'm unaware of any objective that an OS should have (keep my computer running, my multiple programs sharing resources effectively, my data safe, etc.) that would require other operating systems to run the same API as me. Why would it matter if my Debian desktop and your Fedora desktop are different? And why would it be more important and somehow more tragic that our two computers are different when it's not likewise tragic that my Debian desktop and my friend's Windows desktop are different? Why is one case of difference bad but the answer is not for all three of us to adopt the more popular standard, rather that for some reason two of us should and one should not?
Parent
Re:It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Informative)
A standardised API doesn't mean that there can only be one operating system, it just means there's a generally accepted way of making the operating system do what you want without having to alter your code for every different platform.
Parent
Re:It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Insightful)
Er... Why is that a problem again?
Why can't billions of people use computers and technology to improve their lives *without* making their OS choice a matter of philosophy or identity? If they choose for more pragmatic reasons (requirements, price/value, simplicity), why is that a 'problem'?
Most people have only a few things in their life that really matter to them to the point you can call them 'enthusiasts'.
Most people use stamps without collecting them, drive cars without obsessing over engine models, drink wine without knowing merlot from cabernet, enjoy music without playing any instruments, use electricity without having the least idea about their house wiring... There are enthusiasts for everything, but as a matter of practicality (and probably mental health) humans have to pick the few things on which they invest their time and energy.
Fortunately, most enthusiast communities are not so arrogant that they assume everyone must share their interests and obsessions - as some kind of political or religious choice. They're the better for it.
Those who demand their pet interests to be *important* to everyone else demonstrate not just arrogance, but a selfishness that is most likely self-defeating.
Technology has continuously improved the standards of living of billions of people - but the greatest values of each advancement are only reached when they are so omnipresent and require so little training they're taken for granted. Billions of lives are saved/extended when electricity is in every building, when every child is vaccinated, etc. Computers are not different.
As a geek, I would like more people to become tech enthusiasts and share the same interests. But I'd also hope we recognize, considering the richness of the human experience, most people will (and should) care a lot less about the OS on their laptop than about most things in their daily life.
Parent
Re:It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Informative)
Now you're clearly trolling/FUDing. There are plenty of proprietary apps for Linux, either as drivers (Nvidia) or as userland software (mostly for servers), and if you are merely using FLOSS there are hardly any restrictions at all. When was the last time you saw a EULA when you installed a FLOSS application?
The reason companies don't target desktop Linux is because it's only a tiny fraction of the market. The GPL has nothing to do with it. It's business, plain and simple.
Parent
And what you touched on (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that most people who use computers are NOT going to be enthusiasts. They use computers because the computer is a tool. They have something they want done, maybe it is e-mail, maybe it is watching video, maybe it is playing games, maybe it is staring at hampsterdance.com all day, doesn't matter. They have something they wish to do and the computer is the tool to allow them to do it. Thus their concern is getting the variety of tool that allows them to do this with minimal fuss. They aren't interested in technical merits, they aren't interested in becoming "fans". They want the shit to work and get out of the way.
Normal users are not OS "enthusiasts" any more than normal people are hammer "enthusiasts". I really don't give a shit about hammers. I don't are how they are made, I don't care about their design, I don't care about their merits. What I care about is their ability to pound a nail in to what I want. So I'm going to get a hammer that does that well for me. In my case, it is a standard claw hammer, about 1 foot long. I'm not interested in technical arguments as to why I ought to like a sledge hammer better. Yes, there are things a sledge hammer can do mine can't. I don't give a shit, I don't do those things and a sledge hammer is rather heavy and unwieldy. I have the hammer I want, and that's all I want. I'm not an "enthusiast" I'm a user.
So for most people, this is how computers are. For technical people, sure the computer itself can be fun. The process of running the system can be as interesting as anything you might do with it. However technical people aren't most people. Most people just want to d various tasks with the computer, and they want to the computer to not cause them grief as they do said tasks.
Parent
Re:It's been time for YEARS (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, when distributing binaries one must target not only a specific distribution, but a specific release and a specific CPU architecture as well.
This is not true. If you make a binary installer with your own link libraries for all of the dependencies you need, you can successfully make a closed-source release which works on just about any kernel since 2.6 with the correct architecture. The Linux userspace ABI is very stable.
If you want to use open-source libraries that would make such a binary blob legally difficult, that's your choice.
Parent
Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard. And this is just a bright example. The situation described is 100% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.
Sounds like the strength is also its weakness.
The criticism made is a fair one, and it is only when there are vocal and influential enough developers do people actually stop to pay attention. I am sure there will be many Linux developers who will go on the defensive, but until you are the number one choice for the desktop it is worth listening to what the critics say. Even when you are number on the desktop you should still listen to the critics if you want to stay there. Just look at Windows as an example.
Parent
Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with having several GUI toolkits is that then you fragment the user experience. I use GIMP on OS X, and having X11 running makes it a very awkward, sometimes annoying experience - not only do I have to make sure I'm properly in GIMP rather than X11, but all the keys change command button to control button depending on which one you're in. It's really pretty awful, and I expect non-techy users to find it more confusing than I do.
Consistency is important to a user experience. Learning how to complete tasks in an OS is very much like a language skill. When you force people to learn different sets of hot keys, different ways of achieving the same task, then you're burdening them with another language. The only good reason to break away from having a single HIG standard, as far as from the user's perspective, is if you're writing a really novel application where you're trying to provoke a different mindset; writing yet another average GUI toolkit doesn't come close to qualifying.
Parent
I don't see anything wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't much give a damn about Adobe being skittish, though. Are they paying Linux core developers?
Re:To "Anonymous Coward" (Score:5, Informative)
My wishes:
While I don't mind gtk, I am really hoping gnome3 brings some good changes to it. One of the big things I wish for is more free functionally for base widgets. Things like spell checking for more elements, auto-connecting default actions for cut-copy-paste menues, user toolbar editing, etc. It's pure busy work.
My what the hells
Why do some programs only have a quit menu and some only have a close (epiphany)? Why does the quit quick-key not work if the focus is in a text-view? While I can do ctrl-q to quit firefox, I have to close all the documents in gedit to get ctrl-q to work. What is wrong with having both close and quit for most apps?
My what is going to happen?
I know they are working on a app driven interface over a window driven one (ala Mac OS X). You can tell just by looking at some of the preferences hidden in gconf, recent changes in gimp, and many others. What does this mean to the gtk developers and the future of their applications?
Parent
Linux's greatest strength = greatest weakness (Score:5, Insightful)
Now for the dedicated GNOME/KDE/xfce/whatever volunteer this does not pose much of a problem because your target audience has broadly the same machine makeup as you do, but for a commercial developer looking for a good ROI it quickly becomes untenable. Windows and Mac OS provide a devoloper with a guaranteed stable platform development-wise, and as such are much safer bets.
I agree that the only way Linux can make itself more attractive to commercial desktop program developers is with a mighty amount of consolidation, but the problem is that I don't think it will happen. The great OS wars that went before the dominance of Windows had winners and losers because they were systems of a closed nature, and so if you held with a losing team they closed down because it wasn't economically viable and you had to move to something more mainstream, thus consolidating the market. With Linux a project will never close down as long as someone like it more than something else.
Article by Slashdot completely distorts reality (Score:5, Informative)
Follow the discussion, and you'll find it's not about complaints at all, at all, at all. Google is trying to figure out the best way to do Chrome for Linux, while making it something that Linux users will actually like, and that means more choices. That's all. No, it's not about needing to standardize, so could someone at Slashdot quit with that FUD? GNU/Linux is about choice, and it always will be.
Qt (Score:5, Interesting)
Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1. You'd have tight integration with Webkit, a great toolkit, and cross-platform from day 1 on Windows, Mac, Linux and Solaris.
Google opted for VERY Windows-centric design which made porting hard, and then the man tasked with porting to Linux choose a poor toolkit and then blamed the Linux platform for two bad decisions in a row made by Google.
I have zero sympathy.
Re:Qt (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a Chromium developer, and if you don't think Qt apps "speak with a foreign accent", especially on Mac, you don't pay close enough attention. It's not an immediate appearance difference, it's the way that subtle details are wrong. By contrast, Chromium appears _very_ different on Windows on the surface, but we go to great lengths to get small details right. Big differences can be accommodated. Small differences drive you crazy.
Also, most of us were Linux developers, not Windows developers, before writing Chromium, so again you are asserting things that are completely wrong.
Parent
Re:Qt (Score:5, Insightful)
A Qt browser on Windows looks just as native as Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome. Note, every one of those browsers uses a non-standard UI. Qt provides styles to mimic native widgets and can look perfectly native. Chrome wasn't even designed to look native. They are blowing smoke to obfuscate the reality of the situation.
Chrome wouldn't have looked one ounce more "foreign" because of Qt. It looks foreign because they designed it foreign.
Parent
and this is different from other platforms... how? (Score:5, Insightful)
My Mac currently has several apps in three different toolkits open; several apps written by Apple itself don't follow standard UI conventions. The Windows situation is even worse: there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC, .NET, ...), plus dozens of third party ones. And UI conventions are violated constantly.
The real problem Windows programmers have with Linux is... that it isn't Windows. They start writing some big, ugly, messy Windows application (hello, Firefox), and then they moan and groan when porting it to Linux and usually do a piss-poor job at it too.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
What is really going on is that they have wrapped a new layout engine ("views") and other tools around the "impoverished" (their words) Windows toolkits. Then, they started depending on their wrapper for features they added to Chrome. Now, when porting to Linux, they are suddenly discovering that, geez, both Gtk+ and Qt already does what "views" is doing, they just do it differently and in a way that doesn't connect well with the rest of Chrome. That's what they are complaining about.
Ben Goodger, here's a hint: pick Gtk+ or Qt as your toolkit, Linux users really don't care that much. And both of them are much better toolkits than what Windows offers. I'm sorry that the completeness of Linux GUI toolkits inconveniences you, but, well, too bad.
Or, if you like, don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much, since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.
GUI standard is a myth. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either. Firefox and Opera use their own. OpenOffice.org uses its own. Even Microsoft Office uses its own. On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance. Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.
Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?
If the Chrome developers feel too constrained by GTK, they should have chosen a better toolkit, such as Qt (which, incidentally, is also popular on Windows). They can't blame their own bad choices on Linux. Their gripe sounds like the standard "how dare Linux be different from Windows and make us have to learn something new" whining.
Christ, everybody just shut up about look and feel (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sick to death of hearing developers bitch about "native look and feel". Grow up! Get a fucking life! I couldn't care less how the goddamn app looks COMPARED TO OTHER APPS as long as the look enables the FUNCTIONALITY to be performed correctly.
What matters is that the program does it's job - not that the widgets look the same as some other app on the system.
Christ, what a fucking waste of millions of man hours farting around with bullshit cosmetic issues! Fucking programmers think they're goddamn "artistes" when they can't even get their shit to RUN PROPERLY, NOT CRASH, BE FUCKING USABLE, and BE SECURE!
Shut the fuck up about look and feel and concentrate on making the thing fucking usable, reliable, and secure.
You want to be Picasso, get a fucking paintbrush!
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Funny)
Can you please submit the patch upstream so we don't all have to fix it ourselves on our own copies. Thanks.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want it to be either/or us versus them then you have to make a product that meets ALL of my needs and currently no one does so I use Ubuntu (and previously FreeBSD, Suse, Gentoo, Slackware, or Redhat) when I feel it meets my needs and OSX or Win when they do.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I have to agree. I just never did get the zealotry either. While at home and work my main OS is Windows 2K/XP/XP64, when I am called out to fix a network that some bonehead had let God knows what loose on? You bet I'm bringing my laptop with the Xandros Business partition fired up. It lets me access the Ad and Exchange, while having enough of a familiar interface I can hand it over to an employee that has a deadline to get their work done on. Use the right tool for the job, I always say.
That said, why do you Linux guys seem to hate standards so much, hmmm? I'm not talking to you specifically fooslacker, but Linux in general. I mean y'all got, what? Three different sound systems now? Would it really be so hard for all the major players to sit down and choose a basic standard, one that will hopefully be rock solid stable with minimal changes and a focus on backwards compatibility, so that writing drivers and programs for the entire Linux ecosystem would be easy and thus attract more companies?
I mean if I am a hardware manufacturer it takes just three drivers if I want to support Windows past, present, and future with a binary driver. Four if I want to cover the niches. I just have my developers write a Win98/ME, A win2k/XP, and a Vista/Win7. I add a WinXP64/Vista64 and since Win7 can use Vista drivers I have everything from 1998-2014 completely covered with just four binary drivers and no more out of pocket. There just ain't a way to do that in Linux. Same with programs, there really isn't a way to...say make a game, and be assured that it will work on Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Xandros, PCLOS,etc right now, much less have the same thing work out of the box five years from now so I can continue selling it without constant tweaks.
Look, nobody is asking you to become Windows or OSX. Nobody is asking you to give up the bazillion different distros out there. Just have a common, stable, and backwards compatible undercarriage that software developers and hardware manufacturers can target so that it doesn't matter if I use Xandros and you use CentOS and the guy down the street is running Gentoo, that any company can release a program or driver and know that for now and the long term across the board it will "just work", that's all. I bet if you had a stable and solid undercarriage that worked across the board that a lot more companies would seriously consider releasing their products and drivers for Linux. And that is good for everybody, right?
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The freedom (free as in liberty) aspect of Linux make that sort of standardization somewhere between extremely difficult and absolutely impossible. Freedom and autonomy are the enemies of standards.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux has had two leading sound systems. It used to be OSS (many years ago) and has been ALSA for quite some time. If you require anything else, you are probably going to have trouble in some distributions. Now, ALSA may be considered a crappy API, but then again, so was WinMM and it didn't stop people from using it.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Informative)
I mean if I am a hardware manufacturer it takes just three drivers if I want to support Windows past, present, and future with a binary driver. Four if I want to cover the niches. I just have my developers write a Win98/ME, A win2k/XP, and a Vista/Win7. I add a WinXP64/Vista64 and since Win7 can use Vista drivers I have everything from 1998-2014 completely covered with just four binary drivers and no more out of pocket. There just ain't a way to do that in Linux.
There's a much easier way. Send a message to the kernel list saying, "I am a hardware manufacturer. Here are the docs for my hardware under NDA, and here's some samples." Ta-da! You get drivers written for free (or significantly reduced), and every subsequent distro release will support your hardware by default.
Parent
RTFA, they did (Score:5, Informative)
They argue, and I would not say that they are wrong, that GTK+ even so does not give the necessary functionality to allow all the Chrome features.
Parent
Re:RTFA, they did (Score:5, Insightful)
They argue, and I would not say that they are wrong, that GTK+ even so does not give the necessary functionality to allow all the Chrome features.
Like merging the window title with the tab bar? Why do they want a consistent HIG if they break it the first chance they get?
Parent
Re:RTFA, they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Consistency in any Windows applications is hard to come by. Running MS Office 2007 or Windows Live Messenger 2009 (and several earlier versions) in Windows XP will show you that. Yes, I realise they were made to look like Vista and 7 and fit in with Vista and 7's interfaces, but that in itself is a terrible crime of design! If they're made to look like Vista and 7, that means they probably aren't using the same code for their appearance. Big waste of resources if you add up every program that ignores the system theme and does it's own thing.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Meh, everything is a trade-off. Qt is way easier than Gtk and has a huge API for doing all sorts of cross-platform stuff. Plus it's truly cross-platform whereas Gtk is pretty crappy on anything other that systems running X Windows.
The trade-off is that Qt is C++ and Gtk is C. This actually matters a lot when you need to interface to other C-only applications and libraries or whatever. C++-to-C is easy but using it the other way around is problematic and annoying. Then you have the issue of how clean the code is in each language (depends on your point of view as to which is better).
There also used to be the issue of Qt forcing the GPL down your throat but that is no longer an issue because both Gtk and Qt use LGPL.
Personally I have been using Qt for everything recently. Since the switch to LGPL it's the obvious choice even though I'm a C purist at heart. I hate the fact that it's so big though. Since it's LGPL you can't statically link only the stuff you use so your application installs tend to be larger than they really should be...
Trade-offs... Everything... So annoying, makes it hard to develop truly high quality software.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
As they explained multiple times, they choose GTK because that's what the team doing the Linux "port" is familiar with. However their architecture allows to easily use different toolkits and they are willing to accept patches to support Qt or whatever else. They just don't have the resources necessary to support more than one toolkit.
For laughing out loud. Just like SWT supports any toolkit, I presume. What they did was to shove an abstract API mirroring the one of the windows toolkits. Of course, you can make that work on any toolkit, but it is not always going to be easy, nor a perfect match. And who needs another browser? Chrome offers very little new, being essentially Yet Another Konqueror Fork. (Maybe we can just label them all YAKF :o) )
But I merely replied because of the stupidness spouted about C++ re Qt.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While i'm aware that a HIG should cover more than just the look and feel, it feels like google bends the rules when it comes to interface guidelines.
No two browsers look alike. I happen to like Google Chrome's look and feel. To me, it's way superior to IE's.
While Google Chrome has a unique look, it does not have a totally unique behviour. The X button is still in the corner of the screen, making it easy to find an click. (Aren't you annoyed by apps with no X button or titlebar?)
It accepts all the standard hotkeys. I don't care if an app looks Win32, if it doesn't let me use the hotkeys I've gotten used to.
All in all, I'd say the unique interface isn't disruptive. It might even be intuitive, to anyone that's used lots of Windows programs.
Parent
Re:Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They certainly did break the windows HIG. Then again, I'm a big fan of standards, and yet I've deliberately broken HIGs when I knew they didn't apply well to a new kind of application. I feel justified in doing that, since I've been around since the basically the dawn of GUIs and been able to slowly watch the standardisation process of most widget types. None of that means that I want to start from scratch on a platform though, without any standard HIG already in place. It's one thing breaking the HIG when necessary. It's quite another if no one has bothered to agree on the HIG necessary for even the most typical apps.
Anyway... google are quite right here, I think. When are Linux standards people going to wake up and realise that ANY good, standardised library is better than two that are both great? Especially in open source, the fact that it's a standard allows people to focus on improving it. The whole point of an API is to have something to target your software to. It's also a standard which can be evolved later, even if the next version is as different as Qt is from GTK+. I don't give a crap if the standard is Qt or GTK+ --- whichever is chosen will eventually gain the features necessary for modern apps --- but SOME standard needs to be set.
Parent
Re:No Link to Actual Content (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:No Link to Actual Content (Score:5, Funny)
"Alternatively, you could have binged it."
Yeah, if I wanted a snarky answer. http://www.eternaldusk.com/images/screenshots/chandlerbing.png [eternaldusk.com]
Parent
Re:Use Qt.... (Score:5, Interesting)
True! And since it now comes with QGtkStyle, which uses GTK+ engines and widgets to render stuff, you can use it and have a nice looking app at the same time.
Parent
Re:Use Qt.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Use Qt.... (Score:5, Informative)
No his problem is that QT has an execution loop which incompatible with the Chrome engine. What makes QT so cool for event driven programming is an event handler that can't be easily changed to match the event handler in Chrome.
Qt actually runs the glib event loop these days. You can easily verify this by kill -ABRT'ing a kde app and checking the core dump; this just in from kate:
#8 0xb5df874b in IA__g_poll (fds=0x9c225c8, nfds=6, timeout=25243) at /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.20.1/glib/gpoll.c:127 /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.20.1/glib/gmain.c:2761 /build/buildd/glib2.0-2.20.1/glib/gmain.c:2511
#9 0xb5deaf82 in g_main_context_iterate (context=0x9778e90, block=1, dispatch=1, self=0x9776f40) at
#10 0xb5deb268 in IA__g_main_context_iteration (context=0x9778e90, may_block=1) at
#11 0xb6a5f438 in QEventDispatcherGlib::processEvents (this=0x9763c68, flags={i = -1074473992}) at kernel/qeventdispatcher_glib.cpp:323
Parent
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
And drop some legacy systems (X comes to mind) along the way.
X is the only GUI* which is pretty much guaranteed to be installed on every Unix and Unix-type system in the modern world. It is to GUIs what ASCII is to text encoding schemes, or what HTML is to markup languages. We're never going to completely get rid of it, and any widely used standard that replaces it is going to have to include it as a subset. You may not like it, but it's relatively simple, its quirks are well understood, and dismissing it as "legacy" isn't going to make it go away.
*Please let's not get into the argument over whether or not X is a "real" GUI because it doesn't include this or that feature of your favorite window manager. It's as silly over the argument over whether MySQL is a "real" DBMS, or Perl / Python / Ruby / scripting language of your choice is a "real" programming language. The answer to all of these is "yes." Now let's move on.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Except GTK is so poor that you have Gnome devs calling for a major restructuring, and Mark Shuttleworth of Cannonical/Ubuntu fame calling for Gnome to be built on top of KDE. Ubuntu hitched their wagon to Gnome very early on, and ships broken KDE packages to this day, but I have to wonder if Shuttleworth regrets that decision today.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
He did call for it to be built on top of Qt, not KDE. I know better, and honestly can't tell you why I typed KDE instead of Qt.
Parent
Re:Asinine. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what QuickTime has to do with it but if you mean Qt then I'm afraid all that was a storm in a teacup that was made a big thing of by some fanboys after Linus had made it known that he believed that Gnome had no real functionality. It simply meant that the KDE 4.0 as shipped by Fedora was not usable for him, which isn't surprising since distros were actually told this and they just replaced 3.5.x regardless and then whinged.
Oh please, it is exceptionally poorly designed. GTK was chosen as a knee-jerk response to the whole KDE thing in the 90s to build Gnome on. To this day we still have brain damage like libegg and libsexy and where developers even copy and paste GTK code that they need liberally around their codebase if they want things like toolbars. The only reason there is a HIG is that things such as spacings cannot be inherited by applications. Leave a 12-pixel border between the edge of the window and the nearest controls?! The horizontal spacing between the buttons [on an alert] is 6 pixels?! Give me a fucking break. That's why we have component based programming and inheritance. If you give that to a Windows or OS X developer then he'll piss himself.
KDE bit the bullet when they looked at the proprietary competition and what they were doing in Vista, Windows 7 and OS X. It's a rocky road but it was necessary if anyone was even going to fart in the general direction of an open source desktop.
Why not? It happened for Gnome 2.x.
No. The protests against doing what KDE 4 has done have come about because it's like the elephant in the room - the developers know in the back of their minds that they need to do something if open source desktops and Gnome are to stay relevant when people look at Windows and OS X, but they don't want to do it because the infrastructure is so rotten that it will take them years to build it, years to build a desktop out of it and years to build any applications.
Parent
Re:Why does Linux hate compatibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no "Linux community". There is a lot of communities of different sizes, many of which don't give a damn about each other, plus individual developers doing their own thing.
It's like asking, why does the "programming community" keep inventing new languages? Can't we just all settle on C?
There's a guy somewhere working on some project who got really fed up with say, artsd, and decided that writing a successful sound daemon would look good on his resume. And we end up with yet another sound system. And if you come to him complaining about the lack of unification he'll tell you he's doing it on his own time, has X very happy users and doesn't really care about what you think.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
If only the Linux Standard Base existed! Oh, wait, it does!
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb [linuxfoundation.org]
That is why Skype can build a distro-agnostic package with static linked libraries that just works on every distro, even though they also make distro-specific packages as well.
Parent
Re:World of goo anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
PulseAudio is just terrible in its current state. Phonon conversely is EXTREMELY easy to program for. There was a proof-of-concept media player app written for Phonon in 5 lines of code. It has multiple engines/backends to talk directly to the hardware, which do the heavy lifting. When writing an app, you don't have to debate between support for Gstreamer, or Xine, or whatever. Just write for Phonon and then don't sweat it.
Parent