Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Ubuntu Mobile Looks At Qt As GNOME Alternative 262

Derwent sends along a Computerworld piece which begins: "The Ubuntu Mobile operating system is undergoing its most radical change with a port to the ARM processor for Internet devices and netbooks, and may use Nokia's LGPL Qt development environment as an alternative to GNOME. During a presentation at this year's conference, Canonical's David Mandala said Ubuntu Mobile has changed a lot over the past year... 'I worked on ARM devices for many years so a full Linux distribution on ARM is exciting,' Mandala said, adding one of the biggest challenges is reminding developers to write applications for 800 by 600 screen resolutions found in smaller devices. 'The standard [resolution] for GNOME [apps] is 800 by 600, but not all apps are. For this reason Ubuntu Mobile uses the GNOME Mobile (Hildon framework) instead of a full GNOME desktop, but since Nokia open sourced Qt under the LGPL it may consider this as an alternative.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu Mobile Looks At Qt As GNOME Alternative

Comments Filter:
  • Full 'nix for arm? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:27PM (#26539367) Journal

    There's already a full 'nix for ARM complete with working packaging and so on, in the form of OpenBSD, just in case anyone has forgotten it. Also, the developers need to be reminded that screens are 640x480 on small devices, not 800x600. It would start if they got out of the habit of using excessively lavish button bars with enourmous, heavily padded buttons.

    Anyway, it would be nice to see a proper "full" linux distribution. I'm not much of a fan of the special PDA ones since they're cut down. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of ubuntu either, but I appreciate that (say) Arch isn't to everyone's taste.

    • by siride ( 974284 )

      "It would start if they got out of the habit of using excessively lavish button bars with enourmous, heavily padded buttons."

      I'm glad I'm not the only one annoyed by this. The strange padding fetish that the GTK folks has results in terrible feng shui for most GNOME apps, especially Nautilus. Even tweaking the theme manually to reduce the insane amounts of padding only helps a little, and often causes subtle and not-so-subtle rendering glitches.

      • by Mprx ( 82435 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:54PM (#26539735)
        Padding makes clicking on the buttons faster, as explained by Fitts's law []. I don't want my usability compromised because some people are using impractically small screens.
        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by Chemisor ( 97276 )

          I don't want to click on your stupid big buttons. If I want to do something fast, I use the keyboard. You do provide keyboard shortcuts for your buttons, right? And if you say that you really really need an 800 pixel wide dialog, I say bullshit. We got by just fine ten years ago with 640x480 screens, and before you can say "we have more features now", I'll tell you to get rid of them and fix the bugs first. Call me bitter, but after a week of trying to play Fallout 3 with the screen freezing every five minu

          • by Mprx ( 82435 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:18PM (#26540019)
            If you really wanted to do things fast you'd use the mouse (preferably with gestures or pie menus).
   [] :

            We've done a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface. We discovered, among other things, two pertinent facts:

            • Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing.
            • The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.

            Try timing yourself on some web browsing/text editing/file managing tasks. Keyboarding may be faster occasionally, but you'll be surprised how often mousing wins.

            • by chromatic ( 9471 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:27PM (#26540113) Homepage

              Keyboarding may be faster occasionally, but you'll be surprised how often mousing wins.

              I use Vim all day, almost every day. Using a mouse and a word processor is very much not faster for me.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Lord Bitman ( 95493 )

                I use vim exclusively, but counting out how many words I want to move, followed by typing [ESC(which is the "capslock" key)] 17w, or even just hitting "w" or "W" repeatedly while tracking with my eyes wherever the cursor has ended up /this/ time based on whatever is considered a "word boundary"...

                has _ALWAYS_ been slower than moving my hand to the mouse and clicking. and USUALLY been slower than just holding down an arrow key, especially if using an editor which sanely handles the use of arrow keys to move

            • by Arker ( 91948 )

              This is only true for people who havent *learned* the keyboard shortcuts, or dont even touch-type to begin with. It was a rigged test and TOG, while usually good, shouldnt stoop so low as to imply otherwise.

              Give me a system with keyboard shortcuts that I know well (i.e. have in muscle memory) and I'll blow away the fastest mouser in the world. I'm not even a particularly fast typist either.

              Put me on a system with unfamiliar shortcut keys however and you will get results similar to what he's describing.

              • by Mprx ( 82435 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @10:09PM (#26540521)

                Keyboard shortcuts are not amenable to muscle memory, as the muscle movement differs depending on the previous shortcut. Returning to the home position between each keypresses allows muscle memory, but I'd be very surprised if it were enough to compensate for the movement inefficiency. Consecutive strings of keyboard shortcuts can be memorized by muscle memory (as with typing whole words), but if you use a string of shortcuts frequently enough to memorize in this way it would be better consolidated to a single shortcut.

                On the other hand, mouse gestures or pie menus require the exact same movement each time, so are highly amenable to muscle memory.

                • by Arker ( 91948 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @11:35PM (#26541323) Homepage

                  Keyboard shortcuts are not amenable to muscle memory, as the muscle movement differs depending on the previous shortcut. Returning to the home position between each keypresses allows muscle memory, but I'd be very surprised if it were enough to compensate for the movement inefficiency.

                  You're obviously not a touch typist. That's absurd. A practiced touch typist on a decent keyboard can select a paragraph for manipulation in about the time it takes you to get your hand from the keyboard to the mouse, let alone actually using the mouse to select the paragraph and THEN move the hand back into home position.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Just Some Guy ( 3352 )

                  Unfortunately for that comparison, mouse input is highly srialized while keyboarding is very parallel. I only have one arm to manipulate a mouse but 10 fingers to manipulate a keyboard.

                • by gknoy ( 899301 ) <gknoy.anasazisystems@com> on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:17AM (#26543221)

                  My reflexive control-X control-S (when I'm /not/ in Emacs) would beg to differ. It's gotten so ingrained that I'll use those shortcuts in other things as well; similarly, shift-delete will delete a whole line in my Other Editor, which annoys the heck out of me, as i'm expecting to cut what I have highlighted. ;) So, I'm pretty sure muscle memory works quite well with keystrokes ... whereas when mousing, I am always looking at where it's going. Perhaps with a tablet it'd be easier.... but even then I had trouble and needed to look.

              • by Miseph ( 979059 )

                If everything you do requires two hands on the keyboard hitting keys in programs you are ALWAYS familiar with you'll get what you're describing.

                How many people browse the web with only a keyboard? How many people edit pictures/music/movies with only a keyboard? How many people use a dozen programs in a different day, each with different keyboard shortcuts that would need to be muscle-memoried? I think a strong case could be made that people who use one hand on the keyboard with their other on the mouse will

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Arker ( 91948 )

                  How many people browse the web with only a keyboard? How many people edit pictures/music/movies with only a keyboard?

                  How many people that *think* they've been educated on computer usage never learned to type to begin with? How many keyboards these days are so shoddily made they are effectively useless for those of us that do know how to use them, clearly designed for use by hunt-and-peckers only? How many computer programs just assume the current answers to those facts and dont bother to even consider exce

            • by guruevi ( 827432 )

              I prefer (for small things) one hand on the mouse (trackball) other on the keyboard. Otherwise I like to use both hands on the keyboard and even in a full GUI environment, it's easier to just put in the right key combination than search through menu's for it. The fact that those keys are standard across the Apple platform makes it even easier. Heck, some of my comments in XCode (which I use for PHP, Perl, C and C++ development) have been known to have (or won't compile because of) :wq at the end (my previou

            • I think, these days, from the year that Tog wrote that article, your comment needs to be qualified. What he was talking about were primitive user interface elements: bolding, opening a file, saving a file, etc. But the qualification needs to be about expressability of the input method. So, if you are repeating the same or similar tasks over and over again, yeah it would be more productive to use the mouse. But, one may argue, if one is repeating the same task over and over again, that is something that

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by bhirsch ( 785803 )

              Let's see...
              Open a new browser tab (winner: keybd)
              Close a browser tab (winner: keybd)
              Go to a history/bookmarked URL (winner: keybd)
              Navigate forward/back in the history (winner: keybd)
              Click a link (Tie. I generally hit / and start typing the link text, hit escape, then enter to visit the link. Sometimes moving the mouse over the link is faster.)
              Run an application (winner: keybd)
              Cut/copy/paste/save/print/quit/etc (winner: keybd)
              Scrolling via arrow, pgup/dn, home/end vs. wheel (winner: keybd)
              Switching between

              • Go to a history/bookmarked URL (winner: keybd)

                The AwesomeBar makes this SOOO fucking true!

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Curien ( 267780 )

                Open a new browser tab (winner: keybd)
                Close a browser tab (winner: keybd)
                Navigate forward/back in the history (winner: keybd)

                Those are all arguably faster with gestures.

                Go to a history/bookmarked URL (winner: keybd)

                With most browsers, I'd say this is true. With Opera's Speed Dial, it becomes a matter of whether you've memorized the name of the site (or bookmark). Just open a new tab, and you see a (fairly large) picture of each of your bookmarked sites. Click on the one you want to visit (or Ctrl+Number). T

          • by Tatsh ( 893946 )

            I agree 100%. GNOME has those stupid big ugly buttons (which always look better with ugly colours too; brown, beige, etc). And I've heard 'The bigger the better'. Even the old KDE design guide says it. Regardless, there is a reasonable limit and GNOME just goes too far. With that, I found GNOME to be TOO simple as a GUI and not for power-users. KDE all the way.

        • by siride ( 974284 )
          I use a high resolution screen and I'd rather have the layout reasonable and pleasing to the eye (not to mention more real estate for actual content), than be able to click the button an extra millisecond faster. Even Mac buttons aren't as big as what GNOME generally has, and since Mac is all about HIG and that kind of stuff, I assume that the buttons really just don't need to be that fucking big.
        • Gee, your UI can't allow you to choose themes? Has GNOME been so simplified that you can't choose any other theme?

        • So use a theme with more padding. siride was saying (I think) that it's not a good default, not that it shouldn't be allowed. I know that one of my number one issues with a lot of GTK+ stuff is that with so much room taken up by toolbars and other crap, the amount of screen real estate available for actual working is kind of small. (Go look at MonoDevelop versus Visual Studio for an example.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dolda2000 ( 759023 )

      Anyway, it would be nice to see a proper "full" linux distribution.

      You might want to look at Debian []. It has been running on ARM for quite a while.

  • The really cheep netbooks in the pipeline, the ones most likely to be ARM based at first, tend to only have 800x480 displays so an app that barely fits in 800x600 isn't going to be usable.

    I'm still waiting for one of the cheap netbooks to be available to purchase though. Lots of talk, but to date no URL to go with a credit card to buy quantity one. Really hope the different groups putting together these new ARM based machines can agree on some standards for bootloading and such so each one won't be all bu

    • Re:Too big (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Arker ( 91948 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:06PM (#26539881) Homepage

      I saw a MIPS based netbook for about US $150 a week or two ago. Trying to remember where.

      It strikes me that the best way to improve usability of X apps might be to send these little babies off to as many developers as you can find - and then preferably putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to try and use their apps on them.

      The gun to the head part, of course, is tongue in cheek - but wow! seldom is such a bad idea so tempting.

  • Why just netbooks? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeHackEd ( 159723 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:40PM (#26539541) Homepage

    Sure the big blocky feel of pretty much every window manager out there sucks on my Eee, but this is one reason I stick with GTK+ 1.x. I don't have a 1280x1024 monitor just so I can see the same material I could see on an 800x600 10 years ago but with cleaner rounded edges.

    And I have the bigger Eee. 1024x600 resolution, and some dialogs don't even fit on the screen.

    • I stick with ion3 because my screen isn't that big. 1024x768. With a tiling wm it feels big, but with gnome, kde, etc I can barely fit a single app on the screen.

      Of course, the learning curve for a tiling wm is kind of intense:-)

    • Martin Ankerl has a potential solution for you then, he made a HOWTO and has released a compact version of Human and Clearlooks which really make a difference! I even use them when I'm on my desktop these days to cut down on screen bloat. Find the HOWTO and linsk to the themes here: []


    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy ( 3352 )

      I'm a huge fan of Netbook Remix and "maximus". The former provides an awesome launcher sort of like the Eee's default interface but way better, and the second provides fullscreen, borderless windows. You might see what you think of it.

  • Yah for the LGPL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:40PM (#26539551) Homepage Journal

    For too many years the GPL has been killing adoption of Qt. That's a fact. Maybe it shouldn't have. Maybe people should be willing to be dictated to on what license they can use for their product because they dare to use the Qt framework. Maybe that's your opinion.

    Of course, now that so many people are piling on-board to use Qt thanks to the license change, I wonder how many of them have actually bothered to read the LGPL []. My favourite part is section 4.

    You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications,

    Yeah, didn't see that did ya? Almost every boiler plate EULA includes a clause prohibiting reverse engineering and I wonder how many have not been updated to comply with the LGPL (thankfully a lot of us can just ignore these restrictions as the government in our part of the world recognizes reverse engineering as a right that cannot be contracted out of).

    I'll be looking for violations.. just for shits and giggles.

    • by msobkow ( 48369 )

      Personally I'll be downloading the Windows version as soon as there is an LGPL variant. I've always wanted to work with Qt, but none of the companies I've worked for would accept the GPL restrictions and they weren't willing to pony up the license fees when they could get GTK-based applications for free.

      Qt looks like a nice successor to Neuron Data's Open Interface, based on C++ instead of C with C++ wrappers. Plus Qt seems to have better platform coverage and a much livelier support group.

      • by vbraga ( 228124 )

        Why don't you go for Qt 4.5 beta []? It's available both under GPL and a "special beta license" (dunno what that means). When Qt 4.5 is officially released (about March '09), supporting LGPL, you already playing with it.

        I've been working with it for about a year and it's really nice. It feels somewhat bloated sometimes and I really dislike the Visual Studio integration. Qmake could be better. But, overall, I believe is the best framework for C++. It's really nice to work with.

        • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *

          This is true. And you no longer have to worry about the insanity of Trolltech's lawyers who claimed that you couldn't do private commercial development with the GPL licensed library.

    • Certain companies won't touch LGPL for such reasons, preferring apache-licensed stuff.

    • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      Notice the words "for debugging such modifications".

      It pretty much means that your users are allowed to attach to your process with GDB to debug their libraries and that's about it.

      • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @10:21PM (#26540617) Homepage Journal

        Note the words "reverse engineering". If you forbid reverse engineering, as typical EULAs do, for any purpose, then that is forbidding reverse engineering for debugging modifications to the library. So they at least need to modify their EULA to permit reverse engineering for this purpose. And it also means they can't put any anti-debugging tricks in the application, because it will interfere with that reverse engineering.

        • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          It's certainly possible to use anti-debugging tricks, if they do not interfere with linked libraries.

          In practice, shareware authors can (and do) legally use anti-cracking protectors with their own code if they do not interfere with LGPL libraries.

          In any case, anti-circumvention prohibitions in EULAs are the most stupid clauses...

    • If you're looking for violations, check out all those little devices (routers, media players etc.) which link to uClibc without shared libraries...

      uClibc is LGPL. When it's not a shared library, that conveyes certain rights to a relinkable form of the object code of all applications on the device, including proprietary apps.

      I've never seen such relinkable object code of the proprietary apps offered, for download or in any other form. In other words, flagrant LGPL violations everywhere.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, didn't see that did ya? Almost every boiler plate EULA includes a clause prohibiting reverse engineering

      It is my understanding that you can reverse-engineer the LGPLed library, but nothing else. And that isn't much of an issue: the LGPLed part should come with the complete source (or equivalent), so being able to debug/disassemble binaries for which you have the source isn't a big deal. In fact the purpose of this clause (again, to my understanding) is simply to be able to ensure that the source of the LGPLed library indeed corresponds to the binary of said LGPLed library.

      So yes, EULAs might need to change

      • Re:Yah for the LGPL (Score:4, Interesting)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <> on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @06:22AM (#26543833) Homepage Journal

        No. You fail. To understand what the LGPL means you need to actually read the LGPL. I know it's scary, but there ya go. The provisions actually say that you have to permit reverse engineering of the application, and take no action to permit said reverse engineering, so that one can debug changes to the LGPL library. The purpose of these provisions is to allow someone to fix problems in the LGPL library and have your application work with those changes.

  • enough said for now. this is just speculation. nobody is seriously looking into dumping gtk+/gnome.

  • Most ARM handhelds have 800x480 screens, or smaller. 4:3 isn't that common, unless you're talking about relatively new tablets where larger displays matter.

    Gnome is rather heavy. Nice to see them using something lighter, at least until ARM processors reach netbook speeds.

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:07PM (#26539887) Homepage

    I worked on ARM devices for many years so a full Linux distribution on ARM is exciting

    You mean. for example, Debian GNU/Linux on ARM []?

  • AT LAST (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NekoXP ( 67564 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:22PM (#26540047) Homepage


    At last some common sense..

    Qt outstrips GTK/GNOME just as a GUI toolkit and a bunch of middleware, even before you start thinking about stuff like KDE.

    The only thing stopping it's use - at least in the strange mix of preinstalled Linux distributions on standard hardware - was that weird problem of having to have every one of your developers buy a license just to run their app - on a Dell for example - if their license was even slightly incompatible. That was a real turn-off if you were a hardware company wanting to take advantage of open source and build communities around open source software.

    I'm glad that so soon after Nokia announced the LGPL relicensing, people are taking notice of what is quite obviously a far superior middleware solution than the GTK/GNOME nightmare, and considering developing solutions that work because of code quality and wealth of features, and not *just* because it's GPL.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      That was a real turn-off if you were a hardware company wanting to take advantage of open source

      Why? If you were not selling the software you didn't need a commercial licence. The idea was simply to stop people making money from Trolltech's efforts for free, but if you aren't making anything from it (eg. selling the hardware but giving the software away) then you didn't need to give them anything.

  • I agree with the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, but that goes to Nokia, actually. Regarding this, how would you switch from gnome to QT? that won't make sense, guess they meant they would switch to KDE so that they will then make QT apps?
  • by dhasenan ( 758719 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:45PM (#26540289)

    Ubuntu Mobile is not switching to Qt.

    Ubuntu Mobile is not even considering switching to Qt.

    At some point in the future, they may consider switching.

    How is this news?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mcbridematt ( 544099 )

      I was at the particular session where David spoke. His comment was more along the lines that mobile GUI's were a fast moving target, and Qt may gain more momentum given Nokia acquired it and made it LGPL. (aside, Nokia is now pushing Qt for Symbian/S60 dev)

      The comment regarding screen resolution is that the majority of developers haven't designed their GUI under a low res environment, and given that such resolutions are starting to appear again, some work needs to be done.

      • by jonasj ( 538692 )

        So in other words they are NOT seriously consider basing ubuntu mobile on qt or kde in the future? Just so I'm sure I understand right what you're saying... if that is in fact what you're saying. (If it is, it would be somewhat of a relief.)

    • How is this news?

      It opens the door for Kubuntu Mobile.

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:59PM (#26540429) Homepage

    Qt was already Open Source, of course, under the GPL.

    • Qt was already Open Source, of course, under the GPL.

      That is not entirely accurate.

      Qt was previously dual-licensed by Trolltech with certain restrictions. If you used the GPL version of the Qt development tools and IDE then it was required a viral GPL license be applied to any application developed. You could not use the "Free" version of Qt to develop a closed source application. I may be mistaken but there may have been other restrictions, such as the ability to develop commercial application with the

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by |DeN|niS ( 58325 )

        It was certainly not a traditional GPL software development toolkit in the sense of the restrictions placed on the developer.

        Of course it was, it's the GPL, nothing more, nothing less.

        What you are referring to is a condition of the commercial license, (to prevent you from finally buying 1 single license to release your 20-man-years-application commercially). You are free to accept, reject, or try and renegotiate the conditions of this commercial license. If you don't like them, stick with the GPL, it's yo

  • KDE uses QT, so what is so wonderful about this 'news'?
  • by hubert.lepicki ( 1119397 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @03:34AM (#26543021)
    OK, Qt isn't even close to Gnome in terms of being a desktop environment. In fact, it isn't a desktop environment at all - so it can't be alternative to Gnome. It can be alternative to GTK, which is underlying library for Gnome. What I guess is the case - Ubuntu might look for KDE as an alternative to Gnome desktop, or create something new based on QT that'll fit more on small screens.
    • by CrashandDie ( 1114135 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @06:30AM (#26543889)
      The summary is a bit stupid.

      Hildon is GTK for Mobile Devices. It was developped by Nokia. One distribution that uses this the most is Maemo. Considering Maemo is a Nokia-motivated (read coded/funded) project, and that Nokia bought Trolltech and told them to GPL Qt, they now have an extra incentive to boost Qt adoption. One of the tactics used to boost Qt adoption is that from their next version of Maemo (code named Fremantle), the UI is going to be moving from Hildon to Qt. Fremantle will still be using the Hildon libraries, but the version after Fremantle (Harmattan?) will include the Qt libraries by default, and will be officially supported.

      Considering that Hildon is very closely entied to Maemo, if Maemo drops its use (read: if Nokia drops it), keeping it up to date is going to be a hard task, which is probably why UbuntuM is switching to Qt as well, as they don't want to have to maintain the UI library on their own; quite the smart move.

      We've seen full Linux distributions running on ARM platforms for quite a while. Yes, Debian works, Maemo does as well, and some people might even be intersted in projects such as Mer (Mer is project that forked from Maemo and that is basically the Maemo community yelling at Nokia that they'd better not drop support for the n800/n810 in Fremantle, as they're proving they could very well take care of themselves --software wise-- and that they won't buy new devices just because Nokia wants them to). We've even seen fully fledged KDE desktops run on the n8x0, or Android for that matter.

      The main problem on these devices is the lack of support for languages like C++. Yes, we have libhildonmm (C++ bindings for Hildon), but this is all pretty limited. They don't add the flexibility and power that Qt has; and they most probably won't ever do so. At this point, the devices are too slow to even think about compiling C++ on it, so most people default to shit languages like Python.

      But I digress, let me summarise:

      - Nokia created Hildon, and Maemo.
      - Maemo uses Hildon.
      - Ubuntu Mobile came along, liked Hildon and said "Hey, let's use that!".
      - Nokia bought Trolltech, that develop Qt.
      - Nokia is switching Maemo to use Qt instead of Hildon.
      - Ubuntu Mobile doesn't want to hold on to the losing end, and switches to Qt before Hildon dies.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by yelvington ( 8169 )

        Someone should mod parent up as informative.

        What is striking about all these comments is that there seems to be a lack of clarity about what Ubuntu Mobile is, and whether it even needs to exist.

        It's not for netbooks. Netbooks currently run Intel processors, most have 1024x600 displays, and they all can run standard Linux distributions (after the usual wifi struggles). Linpus and Ubuntu Netbook Remix provide alternative desktops with big icons. A lot of people immediately turn that stuff off.

        Ubuntu Mobile se

  • Merging Qt and Gtk (Score:3, Informative)

    by Yahma ( 1004476 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @12:51PM (#26547639) Journal

    There is an ongoing discussion [] about the possibility of porting Gnome 3 to use the Qt toolkit over at Ubuntu Forums.

    There also exists an Ubuntu Brainstorm Idea [] with several possible solutions, with Solution #4: Change Qt to render using the Gtk widgets my favorite.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye