unity-design team mailing list archive

[Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/11/2012 16:02, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> 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
> Unity2D).

I think there's some misunderstanding here. In the opening post of this thread,
there's a mention of Dolphin, so I had assumed that "Unity" here referred to the
default desktop environment we're showing to users in Ubuntu, i.e. shifting from
Unity+GNOME to Unity+KDE.

>> 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
>> easily.
> 
> 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.

There are these little UI inconsistencies that really drive me up the wall, the
main source of annoyance usually being the file chooser, and the scrollbar. Even
if you choose a Qt theme that's designed  to be almost exactly the same as the
Gtk+ theme, there are these slight differences in behaviour that still make it
annoying. And let's not begin talking about using a custom theme. It's somewhat
similar to how WxWidgets applications still look out of place in a Gtk+-based
environment.

Most Qt applications running in GNOME these days somehow manage to use the Gtk+
file chooser, which is really great, but I don't think this change has happened
for Gtk+ applications running in KDE just yet. There are some notable
exceptions, though, like Lyx, but I hear they have a valid excuse of sorts for
this. Doesn't make it any less of a jarring experience though.

>> 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?

I guess I'm annoyed that the change (coupled with some other factors, like
Banshee sucking during that period) was what caused Ubuntu to not have a
note-taking application on the LiveCD (unless I'm mistaken and GNote is actually
seeded).

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature