unity-design team mailing list archive

[Chris <cyber.druif@xxxxxxxxx>]

That "freedom of choice" crowd can take it some place where the sun doesn't
shine. I don't mean to offense of course, even thou my words sound very
harsh.

What I mean is that the community should try to work together even more and
try to reduce the redundancy. As pointed out by the previous two posts have
we got to many toolkits to work with. Apparently five at the moment.

Asking big open source projects (eg. Mozilla, TDG) to make a more native
app for Linux (not just Ubuntu) wouldn't be too much to ask as far as I'm
concerned.

What we can agree on at least its that Qt and Gtk+ are the two most
commonly used toolkits, so asking for a version in either would be good I
think. Considering LibreOffice it would even improve boot up time to use a
more common toolkit.

Thoughts?

With metta, Chris

P.s.: I'm not certain Clutter would mean another toolkit. I thought it was
just some engine.
On Feb 23, 2012 3:42 PM, "Mark Curtis" <merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  While I like this idea, it'll probably get a lot of flak from the "LINUX
> IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!11" crowd.
>
> Are we supposed to tell The Document Foundation/Mozilla/etc "hey you want
> to make an Ubuntu version? Make it in {insert toolkit}?" I understand
> applications Canonical itself builds should be in the same toolkit, sure,
> but I don't know how successful it would be forcing/encouraging that for
> 3rd party applications. Given this is Linux most of the popular
> applications are third party contrary to Windows and OSX
>
> Compared to the other two operating systems and their applications
> *Microsoft *Windows:
> Control Panel, made by *Microsoft*.
> Windows Media Player, made by *Microsoft*
> Internet Explorer, made by *Microsoft*.
> Office, made by *Microsoft*
>
> *Apple* OS X:
> System Settings, made by *Apple*
> iTunes, made by *Apple*
> Safari, made by *Apple
> *iWork, made by* Apple
> *
> *Canoncial* Ubuntu
> Control Panel, made by *GNOME* (*Canonical*?)
> Rhythmbox, made by *GNOME*
> Firefox, made by *Mozilla*
> LibreOffice made by *The Document Foundation*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:40:27 -0500
> From: shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx
> To: unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future
>
> I was greeted by a small surprise today in updating my Precise machines: a
> new version of Ubuntu One controls that is made using Qt. All well enough,
> as it can make it much easier to share code with the Windows version of the
> app... But there are still some consequences.
>
> First of all, this brings the number of default toolkits up to *five*. We
> have Nux (for Unity), VCL (for LibreOffice), XUL (For Firefox and
> Thunderbird), Qt (for the new control panel), and GTK+ for all else. And no
> two of them look quite the same. What's worse is that, if we sync back up
> with GNOME in 12.10, we'll have six toolkits technically because of
> Clutter.*
>
> Now, this goes against what I thought Precise is to be about, but that's
> personal.
>
> The real issue is our outward appearance. Does it look good to users when
> they open a Qt app and it's JUST off enough visually for them to notice?
>
> Not only do we face the issue of visual inconsistency, but also in a bit
> of a bind with future aims. We want developers to create and they still
> don't know what they should use to make things based on what's available.
> Is all of it good? None? I know we don't exactly have a plethora of quality
> applications in a single toolkit, but for an LTS, was it really wise to
> expand the toolkit count further?
>
> We're doing what I accused Linux Mint of doing in my OMGU article: we keep
> pulling in a bunch of apps because they are good without looking at the
> whole picture. We need a consistent *platform* not a station from which
> we have tracks going off into several very different areas.
>
> I would have us look into, by the time 14.04 rolls out, having defined an
> HIG for Ubuntu, a default toolkit and a STRONG push to have default
> applications only in that toolkit. (In some cases, it's excusable... I
> don't expect a native browser to pop up out of nowhere and be able to
> challenge Firefox-- which at least sort of tries to look native) Precise is
> pixel-perfect? Then let's make sure "T" celebrates the True Toolkit.
>
>
> *I'm not counting Ubuntu for Android which, I believe brings in another
> 1-2 toolkits.
>
> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to :
> unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help :
> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
> Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>