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