Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
GUI Software Businesses Programming SuSE IT Technology

Novell Desktop To Standardize On Qt [updated] 615

Balinares writes "NewsForge reports that Novell has settled for Qt as its Linux desktop development environment, casting more light on their strategy to unify KDE and GNOME. This ought to be interesting. The prospect of using Mono to code against Qt makes me drool in advance. Maybe programming will suck no longer!" Update: 03/30 00:01 GMT by T : Sounds like that story doesn't quite hold water; Nat Friedman writes in this Slashdot comment that "We have not decided that we are standardizing on Qt for the desktop. ... We support development with a variety of toolkits, and our internal development is done using the right tool for the right problem. This includes Qt, Gtk, VCL, XUL and others, depending on the application."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell Desktop To Standardize On Qt [updated]

Comments Filter:
  • Novell... (Score:3, Redundant)

    by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:31PM (#8704778) Homepage Journal
    Novell is slowly changing my opinion of them...
  • GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:34PM (#8704808) Homepage
    What about that Ximian purchase? I guess it was just for Mono.
    1. Will they be writing a GTK-on-top-of-QT layer?
    2. Ditching GTK apps?
    3. Using GTK apps but not encouraging their creation?
    4. Just using QT for Novell-specific stuff (like Redhat uses GTK for its configurators, etc)?
    • Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:43PM (#8704931) Journal
      Not that I know anything but:

      1) I believe #4 is correct, at least for today's news.

      2)In the big picture, Novell wants to be a major Linux player, bought a lot of expertise, and is trying to integrate the two development platforms and environments without antagonizing either the developers from both sides or the screaming fanboys. I doubt if they themselves have a long-term plan yet.

      As long as I'm posting -- here's something I've asked a zillion times and still don't understand: given the GTK and Qt bindings for Mono, will it be possible to make run-anywhere applications on Linux that will work on Windows? Will generic .NET apps routinely work on Linux? Or is all developed code going to be toolkit specific?
      • by Valar ( 167606 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:06PM (#8705229)
        It should be possible to make a run anywhere application on linux that will run on windows-- for the most part. Of course, details like file path formats are different between the platforms, so in certain cases a little mojo might be needed to work. Actually, it is mostly a case of 'best practices' and assuming nothing about the user's configuration (i.e. don't guess whether they have windows installed on C:\, find out. Don't guess that their home directory is /home/blah, use the objects given to you and find out).

        As far as the UI libs go, a lot of the time, they are going to have bindings into native code-- but that is something the libraries handle for you. So assuming your qt library or whatever has linux and windows support, it should work on both platform. Obviously, if a coder screws up one side or the other, there will be issues, but that can be said of any kind of multiplatform development-- or any development at all.
      • Will generic .NET apps routinely work on Linux? Or is all developed code going to be toolkit specific?

        It's been a long time since I looked at this stuff but this is what I knew back then.

        C# is a lot like Java in that is it "portable" but not really. That is, all the underlying API's have to be there or it won't work and Mono does not currently have all the stuff that you get with Microsoft.

        For example, on Windows the default C# GUI API is using the Windows.Forms interface (or whatever it is called). M
        • Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:4, Informative)

          by dozer ( 30790 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @03:26PM (#8706368)
          Last I heard they were planning to use Wine to provide the GUI .Forms interface. Good luck is all I have to say. Seems like it would be better to make a Forms-to-Gtk (prefer) or Forms-to-Qt interface.

          Microsoft clumsily exposed a lot of the Win32 API underneath the Forms API. Bindings must either reimplement significant portions of the Win32 API (good luck!), or call through and let Wine handle the messy bits.

          Either way is sub-optimal, but at least using Wine is realistic!

    • Re:GTK is out, then? (Score:5, Informative)

      by miguel ( 7116 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:05PM (#8705221) Homepage
      As Nat has posted elsewhere, the Heise article is wrong.

      My team and other teams within Novell continue to
      develop and use Gtk as their toolkit (recently
      open sourced Simias/iFolder for instance) and
      all of the Mono GUI development tools.

      The only use of Qt that am aware of today
      is SUSE's recently open sourced YAST.

      Btw, if you have been following my posts on
      my blog and on the desktop-devel-list, you will
      know that my feeling is that all of the existing
      toolkits today (Gtk, Qt, XUL and VCL) will
      become obsolete and we need to start looking
      at the next generation toolkit system.

      • by Espectr0 ( 577637 )
        my feeling is that all of the existing
        toolkits today (Gtk, Qt, XUL and VCL) will
        become obsolete and we need to start looking
        at the next generation toolkit system.

        Which IS the next gen toolkit?
  • Boy. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:35PM (#8704822)
    The prospect of using Mono to code against Qt makes me drool in advance.

    Boy, you really need to get out more.
    • Re:Boy. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chuck Bucket ( 142633 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:38PM (#8704866) Homepage Journal
      Boy, you really need to get out more.

      you must be new here.
    • Re:Boy. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sosume ( 680416 )
      Actually, this may be the event I was waiting for to start writing X desktop apps instead of Windows. Mono is very very powerful and combined with Qt its even better. Who'd have thought that .NET could actually lead developers away from Microsoft..
      • Re:Boy. (Score:5, Funny)

        by alext ( 29323 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:06PM (#8705232)
        Who'd have thought that .NET could actually lead developers away from Microsoft[?]

        You and Miguel?
      • Re:Boy. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by S.Lemmon ( 147743 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:33PM (#8705655) Homepage
        Heh heh... Even now I can picture Balmer rubbing his fat little hands together and giggling gleefully. Micorsoft's fondest hope is that a good chunk of open source software will come to depend on mono before they play the patent card. Assurances that Microsoft would "just never do such a thing", somehow leave me unconvinced. ...and I'm sure someone will tempted to respond with the "but, but C# is a standard!" line too - don't bother, just submitting the "standard" in no way prevents Microsoft from enforcing related patents anytime they choose.

        Regardless of NET's good or bad points, it's a potential legal land mine for open source that could make the SCO fiasco look postiviely quaint. Unlike SCO, Microsoft would have an actual case.
  • by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:36PM (#8704836) Journal
    How much will it cost to use QT to write business apps?

    From the trolltech site: l

    " Use the Qt Commercial License to:
    Build commercial software.
    Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise."

    • by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <maxomai&gmail,com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:45PM (#8704964) Homepage
      Qt is released under GPL, and so Novell has every right to sell the desktop. Of course, everyone who purchases the software also has their GPL rights.

      Persons who develop GPL-incompatible software for the new desktop will probably have to GPL their code or purchase both a Qt license and a separate Novell license. Not cheap, but other than that, definitely fun.

    • $0.00 (Score:5, Informative)

      by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:45PM (#8704965)
      It costs nothing to develop business applications qith the QT toolkit. The only requirement is that if you use the $0.00 license(GPL) the app must be GPL. It really isn't much to ask.

      The fact that Novell is going to use QT is very telling. Novell is a software corporation whose existence past, present and future relies on selling software. That means that while they will throw the open source community a GPLed bone (Yast, Evolution) they will also offer up lots of closed source applications and some will be QT based.

      Novell is not afraid of having to pay a very reasonable licensing cost for commercial development and neither are most other software companies. They already pay licensing for MS Visual DEs, Borland DEs and probably many others. Paying for a QT license is a minor cost of doing business and it will not deter any serious software house.
    • by Frequanaut ( 135988 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:50PM (#8705042)
      From their website []

      (Either Qt/Windows or Qt/X11 or Qt/Mac)
      Prices per developer. Includes one year of support and maintenance. See also the Professional/Enterprise Comparison Chart
      Developers Professional Edition Enterprise Edition
      1 $ 1550,- $ 2490,-
      2 - 5 $ 1500,- $ 2250,-
      6 - 10 $ 1410,- $ 2120,-
      11 - 20 $ 1330,- $ 2000,-

      Which sort of sucks, because it sounds like I buy a license to develop under X and then need another to debug the problems that crop up under win32.

      It's not a lot of cash, but it's sort of tough to compete with a robust, free product.(i.e. GTK)

    • by lavalyn ( 649886 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:06PM (#8705236) Homepage Journal
      It costs nothing to use Qt to build software that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise, so long as it is not distributed outside the enterprise. Liken it to the GPL restriction: if you are bound by both the GPL and another license (say a proprietary development framework) the only distribution option is to not distribute at all.
  • Programming (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bingo Foo ( 179380 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:37PM (#8704843)
    Maybe programming will suck no longer!

    Hey, if programming were easy, people would do it for free.

  • by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:38PM (#8704862) Homepage Journal
    This does make a lot of sense, actually. And it might actually be early enough in the game for it to work.

    Right now, there is still the opportunity to attract developers to cross-platform .NET API's. .NET might, in fact, actually be the fastest route there (aside from Java, which I think people ought to be using for this purpose, but let's set that aside for a moment). Perhaps if, boosted by a Novell push, developers begin writing and publishing .NET code that uses Qt libraries, there will be that many more cross-platform desktop apps available that won't be bound to Windows.Forms, Avalon, or whatever other Windows-bound API's Microsoft wants everyone to use.

    It would be a double-bonus if Novell could make Mono a unified framework for writing apps that can be backended by KDE, GNOME, or Microsoft Windows without a rewrite. Let's see what happens. What's really a shame is that .NET is, on its face, a good design, but that we have to worry about Microsoft using it as a cudgel to beat back its competition.
  • by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:38PM (#8704867) Journal
    It's a bit odd that this article wasn't posted to /. sooner, as most people first noticed it when it made osnews almost a week ago.

    Many BrainShare attendees have already dismissed this as a badly written article, as it combines statements from Novell about their desire to see a unified Linux desktop (see one of the worst examples of tech reporting in years []) with rumors and rampant speculation. There is no basis of truth in the heise article.

    I'm sure Novell will send out someone with authority in due time to stomp this out, but this is just what I've heard so far.
  • by Offwhite98 ( 101400 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:41PM (#8704914) Homepage
    The old Microsoft approach is to Embrace an Extend. I often hear people say that Mono is going to die because MS has the staff to write more and more APIs and Mono will not be able to keep up. But my thoughts are that Mono and other Open Source projects should be able to implement some impressive and highly usable C# and .NET implementations completely independent of MS influence and support. Essentially the community will have the ability to Embrace and Extend a MS created technology with just the ECMA standard C# and CLI recommendation.

    I have been impressed with the CLI implementation and the SOAP and Web Services technologies that are a part of the .NET framework are very robust when compared to traditional network communications such as CGI or OLE. It is clearly an ideal glue language for a diverse Linux desktop which often mixes many programming and scripting languages together.
  • by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:42PM (#8704919) Journal
    I can say that there is nothing easier outside of web development. I am an old MFC programmer. I am often lost in developing Qt apps, but I am very comforatable with that because the documentation is copius cnad clear. Whats more is it is soooooooo well thought out. It makes MFC look like the crap that it is (C++ wrappers for C objects). Learning Qt is like learning to walk the right way. It's amazingly simple. I will always request that Qt be used regardless of platform in future jobs.

    Now the license is different. I often wish there was a small-business or starting-business license, but this is only pertanant if you are going commercial work. for GPL work it is completely free.

    Right now I'm doing some advanced work with QSA (Javascripted Qt apps) It is easy and cross platform. I can now replace a browser (and the rendering issues with a user interface file (loaded at run-time) and ECMA script code (platform indep. cause we run on various architectures with limited space, whose list may change at any time)

    The Troll Tech stuff is top notch.
    • by Rex Code ( 712912 ) <> on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:37PM (#8705712)
      Now the license is different. I often wish there was a small-business or starting-business license, but this is only pertanant if you are going commercial work. for GPL work it is completely free.

      There's no reason a small business can't do commercial work and license it under the GPL. It's done all the time by the Linux distributors both large and small, and many other development groups.

      Anyway, I see this misconception about QT's licensing all the time, and I think part of it stems from Trolltech's own use of the word commercial to describe their other license. The word they (and you) are looking for is proprietary, not commercial. If you don't want to use the GPL (usually because you're paranoid about people stealing the ideas, or because you want to link with some other proprietary code), then you have to pay for commercial (i.e. proprietary) Qt licensing. However, you're free to use the free (GPL) version of Qt commercially, as long as you follow the GPL.
  • Redhat got it right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <see my homepage> on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:43PM (#8704943) Homepage
    I'm surprised redhat has stuck with gnome this long as their DE of choice. It is more usable, and that's why I am glad personally they have.

    With [] so [] many [] of [] the gtk programs riviling the qt equivalents, I wonder why companies always flock towards Qt.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Because due to the plain well organized OO API coded in an OO language Qt is very easy to code in.

      The bindings are no problem as well, there are bindings for most of the commonly used OO languages including excellent ones for java.

      It is a matter of time, I think a license for Qt is well invested given that the license costs itself probably are gathered in within weeks due to the speed you can code the thing in.

      The problem with Qt is, that the current license costs basically locks out single developers wh
      • by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian&wylfing,net> on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:40PM (#8705759) Homepage Journal
        The problem with Qt is, that the current license costs basically locks out single developers who dont want to go the GPL route.

        I was going to moderate, but this is driving me insane. There are just too many posts like this. How is $1000 "locking out" single developers who intend to sell closed-source licenses? Even for sole proprietorships $1K is nothing special. Besides, you are talking about selling closed-source software, which by definition requires other people to pay you money per license, but somehow you think TrollTech is a fiend for wanting to do the same thing. If you want to be open, TrollTech is right there with you.

    • I find that Gnome's apps are far more primitive than KDE's, and behind the times. Let's take a look at your examples:

      The Gimp: Well, it uses Gtk+, but it isn't officially a part of the Gnome platform, is it? It doesn't use too many other Gnome libraries. I don't really count it as a Gnome app. And, er, why was it in development for three frickin' years to get to 2.0?

      Gaim: Yes, Gaim is very good, but you should see the new Kopete messenger in KDE 3.2. Very slick, supports MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, and IRC, wit
  • This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jared_hanson ( 514797 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:48PM (#8705008) Homepage Journal
    I personally have been hoping for a while now something like this would happen for the Linux desktop. It's going to take a corporation to step up and unify this effort in order to gain mass acceptance. I'm sure there will be some grumbling in the community, but open source is open so feel free to customize to your hearts content if you don't like it. Most people don't want to have to go to this effor though.

    The only potential problem I see is Trolltech's insistance on license fees for commercial development. Not that this is any different in the Windows world, but it'd be nice to give ISVs a completely royalty free solution. I'd like to see Novell take that $50 million that IBM gave them and purchase TT outright and put Qt under a more liberal open license. The wording on the KDE Free Qt clause seems a bit unclear to me. Does Qt get automatically BSD'ed when any company buys Trolltech. What if the purchasing company doesn't make the license any more closed that currently, does that have an effect.

    Anyway, I've never understood the reasons people chose to write a whole desktop environment in straight C. C++ just seems a far more natural fit. I've looked over both GNOME and KDE fairly extensively, and there is no doubt in my mind that KDE has a cleaner code base and architecture. With all the "higher level language" rumblings going on in the GNOME community, I suspect that those developers are hitting a brick wall in terms of where they want to go and what the current code is capable of becoming. That sort of thing isn't happening in the KDE world, so I think that speaks volumes.

    Good luck Novell, you've got at least one supporter here.
  • by AyeRoxor! ( 471669 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:49PM (#8705024) Journal
    I hate QUICKTIME!!! /should I rtfa?
  • Wait a sec... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by daniel borgmann ( 679904 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:56PM (#8705113) Homepage
    The only source of this so far has been Heise. In their original article, they word this quite unclear (I'm german) basically just mentioning that this information "slipped through during the day", without any source or confirmation.
    However, asked for confirmation at Novell and they assured that no decision would have been fallen yet.
    They (Novell) also demoed quite a few new Gtk applications at the keynotes, most notably the interesting iFolders (using Gtk on Linux), while I don't think there has been shown any _new_ Qt program.

    So take this all with a grain of salt, I can't really imagine that this is a clear decision yet.
  • If only (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:56PM (#8705116)
    If only Sun had embraced Open Source the way Microsoft did, maybe Java/Swing would find itself beginning to be the consensus cross-platform GUI development platform instead of Mono... pity
  • by 11223 ( 201561 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:57PM (#8705125)
    Why, oh why, did they choose a C++ toolkit? Issues of gcc binary compatibility aside, C++ suffers from the Fragile Base Class (FBC) problem, where adding new instance variables to base classes can break binary compatibility for every derived class. This is why QT has broken binary compatibility twice already in the past. C structures suffer from this same problem, but Mono classes, Objective C classes, et al do not.

    I still don't understand the popularity of QT. It's as if people don't want linux to be taken seriously as a deployment platform. Why target a host that won't run your binaries next year?
    • They chose it because C++ is basically the standard for GUI development. Programmers who do a lot of work with MFC will find the transition to QT easier and there is also the STL. So, to me, the choice of a C++ toolkit seems obvious and is probably the only reason QT was chosen.
  • by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:59PM (#8705151)
    keeping kde and gnome separate for a little while longer, or possibly forever, might be a good plan. There's one catch though, they need to be completely interoperable. I want to be able to install the same program on both desktops and have it work seamlessly. I also want an icon put on the desktop or the taskbar menus. Is this possible? I don't have the expertise but I'm sure it can be done if these programs are on top of a standard api.

    Why do I think this is a good idea? Keeping them separate but equal promotes competition between them. It makes them work harder to fix those little glitches that annoy users. KDE is looking kind of like windows xp, and gnome mac os X. It'd be nice if they took on more of an original look, but hey rome wasn't built in a day. I think that having the choice between both desktops knowing that most applications will work the same without needing a hundred different rpms for each thing is what's needed. I also think that libraries need to be consolidated. Basically I guess I'm saying this: the ease of installing programs on windows, but the ability to run them on a mac. Sound difficult? eh, look how far things have come.
  • by Nat Friedman ( 31798 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:00PM (#8705159) Homepage

    We're not really sure where the rumor came from that Novell is standardizing on Qt as its desktop platform. Chris Stone said no such thing during his keynote; the video for the keynote is available here: ml

    Novell supports GNOME and KDE, Qt and Gtk. We have not decided that we are standardizing on Qt for the desktop. First of all, most software developed for the Linux desktop is developed by the broader community, and Novell could never impose a standard platform on the community at large. We support development with a variety of toolkits, and our internal development is done using the right tool for the right problem. This includes Qt, Gtk, VCL, XUL and others, depending on the application.

    We do not regard the variety of toolkits and platforms in the Linux world as a problem, as long as there are standards and shared code which allow applications to work together.

    And frankly, today's Linux toolkits and platforms are one of the least interesting topics on the Linux desktop today. The important issues for this industry and market are our opportunity to innovate in information management and collaboration, improving interoperability with Windows users and services, bringing more ISVs and developers to the Linux platform, enhancing the usability and consistency of the various components that make up the desktop, enabling Windows migration with tools and training and documentation, and creating a manageable Linux desktop to enable large-scale deployments.

    We see as one of the most important and central elements of the Linux desktop for the next several years. The desktop today is made up of a number of components, including OpenOffice, Mozilla, Evolution, and of course GNOME and KDE. Over time we hope to work with to unify the key interfaces and functionality of these components, to improve integration for users and provide a common open
    source desktop platform.

    Nat Friedman
    Novell/SUSE Linux Desktop Lead
  • Complete Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

    by sn0wman3030 ( 618319 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:02PM (#8705181) Homepage Journal
    Bullshit. I've watched that keynote from Novell's website. (and you can too []) All he said is that SuSE 9.1 will be getting a QT-based Openoffice. THAT IS ALL. nothing more. The journalist completely missinterpreted this, saying that SuSE is going to standardize on QT. It's all a missunderstanding.
  • by niom ( 638987 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:04PM (#8705209)

    Novell is trying to create a professional desktop environment for Linux. To this end, choosing the highest quality toolkit is much more important than having to pay a small fee for the development of non-GPL applications.

    Gtk's licensing only has an advantage over Qt's for those shops that want to create commercial non-GPL applications yet are too small to afford Qt's relatively cheap license. Novell have obviously decided that those shops aren't such an important market to sway their choice.

  • by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:11PM (#8705319)
    What are the legal ramifications of using something like Mono? I'm guessing there isn't, as I'm sure Novell would've taken it into consideration any possibility of Microsoft trying to patent .net technology.

    I don't know if it's just heresay, but could MS patent .net and totally screw over any open source projects that use Mono?
  • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theendlessnow ( 516149 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:35PM (#8705686)
    Hee, hee... all these posts about the evils of KDE/Qt are hilarious.

    Use GNOME/Gtk, because you can USE Gtk as much as you want for COMMERCIAL development without paying anything.

    Don't use KDE/Qt, because you can only develop FREE software using it, otherwise it costs money.

    So.. NOW KDE/Qt is the champion of free software, whereas GNOME/Gtk is for the COMMERCIAL (and apparently not so evil after all) PROPRIETARY closed source solutions.

    You make me laugh!

    If GNOME/Gtk is REALLY a friend, let's see them place everything under GPL (for true software protection) rather than the LGPL.

    What's the big deal about support Qt is you use the toolkit? Yep.. it's commercial...and if you use it for commercial development, it costs money... so?? Is someone suggesting their software business plan is only to sell like 10 copies of their software, so they can't afford to by a real development license?? Just seems weird.

  • by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) * on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:47PM (#8707961)
    This is not a post about Gnome vs KDE. I like them both, though I use Gnome more because I still think the KDE widgets are a little to blocky/clunky. If QT starts making some good money, they should hire a graphic artist to draw out their widgets to make them smoother and round those stinken corners. I have seen KDE desktops that look great just as I have seen Gnome desktops that look great. I guess, to my eyes, QT widgets still look too blocky.

    Anyway, I wonder what in the world would make Novell pick QT? I don't have a problem with the QT license since it is free for GPL'ed code and if you want to do closed source, you pay, just like the rest of the world. I am fine with that. What I don't understand is what is Novell's game plan concerning all the Ximinan "IP" that they bought? There is no acceptable QT based groupware application that is ready _NOW_, while there is GTK+ based Ximian Evolution that even works very well with MS Exchange. There is Mozilla that is GTK+ based. Novell is not going to get all those users to switch to konq when, IMO Konq is not standards compliant enough yet and the rendering engine is not up to snuff with Gecko. What about OOo? Again, it uses GTK+, I cannot see Novell porting that beast to QT. These three apps are critical to the Linux desktop, everything else is fluff in comparision.

    Maybe they plan to do some good QT/GTK+ integration? I hope so, since the two tool-kits have issues with simple interoperation such as drag-n-drop and copy-n-paste, not to mention how different the widgets look. I personally don't want a Linux desktop that has no consistency between the widgets. This is the main reason I always look for Gnome apps over KDE apps to keep my desktop consistent (with the exception of K3b, since it is one great app).

    Oh, there is also the issues of the different technologies that the two desktops use. What sound server are they going to use? arts or esd? Are they going to make the coding changes to to the all the other apps or do they expect a user to have both running? DCOP or Orbit? etc vs etc. IMO, Novell should have picked one desktop and then ported any of the very good apps from the other desktop over. It would take a long time to port Evolution, Mozilla/Firefox and OOo to QT and have it be stable.

    Since Redhat dropped interest in the desktop, I was hoping for Novell to help push Desktop Linux, though this move makes me less optimistic.

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...