unity-design team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: possibility to use QT
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM, a.grandi@xxxxxxxxx <a.grandi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> What I cannot understand is how they're going to use Unity on tablet.
> Unity makes no sense on tablet, or better: the UI does, but the rest
The top bar isn't tablet friendly, it needs to be redesigned to be used in
But I have seen it redesigned in ubuntuTV.
> What I mean: it's useless to have a tablet interface if you're
> executing applications that were made with desktop in mind. How can
> you use Evolution, Firefox, Gwibber etc... that are currently
> available in Ubuntu Desktop, on a tablet? You can "run" them, but you
> surely cannot use them. (run and use are pretty different things!).
These applications can be reused, but only if you completely ignore their
default interface and provide a new one by your own.
Unity is being developed in this direction and now you're able to search
inside an application menu and execute commands.
As they have managed to search commands, they are able to provide new
ubuntu's UIs for each one and the application will serve only as a
What is needed to be modified inside each application is the export of
their internal methods, and the ability to hide all tool bars, then a lot
of design and mapping effort.
(which can't be easy done without a new dynamic mapper framework)
> 2 years ago I suggested to switch to Qt because I knew that it was
> made with "touch" in mind: they should have created the desktop UI
> using Qt or even better with QML. Then they should have created a
> unique SDK for desktop and tablets, for example: you need a panel? You
> use a UPanel. You need a button? You use a UButton etc....
Most of developers used to develop using gtk, you can't come in some day
and tell them I need you all to switch to another library.
You'll just lose their experience in GTK.
> It's pretty useless you try to optimize the kernel to save 1-2%
> battery when the applications ecosystem is not made for a portable
> device. Look for example Windows 8 or Android: they don't let you run
> an app in the background if you don't use proper services that are
> managed by the system. Ok... let's leave Win8 apart. Let's take
> Android as example. I think everybody here know its architecture.
> Surely they can do the same, but at which cost? It would be a
> completly different operating system. It would not be a GNU/Linux
> distribution at all (open or not open, this is NOT the problem).
I am with you in this, if you want people to develop for your platform, you
need to have an appropriate SDK limiting what people should use and
providing only a single default choice.
This need a decision that should be made on what to use, and you need to
support that decision till the end. And this is not easy.