Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It is not worth the effort for Anaconda and many other tools.
Sure, if you think KDE users aren't worth having an efficient Fedora system. Loading two different graphic frameworks at the same time wastes memory/diskspace, slows down startup time, and leads to graphical inconsistencies. For people with low-end hardware that makes a huge difference.
There are other KDE focussed distributions which have used GTK based tools like Mandriva.
That's a suboptimal solution, originating from a lack of foresight in designing those applications to separate the core functionality from the GUI components. I would point to K/Ubuntu as an example where desktop integration is tackled correctly: for every system tool there is a KDE or GNOME frontend to be used on the respective desktop, and the core functionality is shared in a common backend.
If you disagree put in the effort.
The only reason I mentioned the lack of KDE frontends for system tools in Fedora is that a potential developer with Qt background asked where he can help.
Vlad
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Vlad wrote:
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It is not worth the effort for Anaconda and many other tools.
Sure, if you think KDE users aren't worth having an efficient Fedora system.
Don't presume what I think please. What I am claiming is that a bunch of GTK based tools in a KDE spin of Fedora is better than the time spend rewriting these tools in QT.
Loading two different graphic frameworks at the same time
wastes memory/diskspace, slows down startup time, and leads to graphical inconsistencies. For people with low-end hardware that makes a huge difference.
I doubt that loading GTK instead of QT makes a big difference. Before we go down this route let's properly analyze the benefits claimed instead of having some vague notions.
Wasting memory and disk space: How much exactly?
Look and Feel: Can be mostly solved by http://gtk-qt.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ which there was a plan to provide by default in the KDE spin.
How exactly does it make a huge difference in low end hardware? Provide benchmarks.
That's a suboptimal solution, originating from a lack of foresight in designing those applications to separate the core functionality from the GUI components.
Given that "we lacked foresight" and that the business logic is now not separated from the UI in many of the tools is it worth rewriting them?
The only reason I mentioned the lack of KDE frontends for system tools in Fedora is that a potential developer with Qt background asked where he can help.
... and where I would suggest that there are better easier things to tackle rather than rewriting Anaconda and system-config* tools. Just ask the KDE SIG.
Rahul
On 4/8/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Vlad wrote:
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It is not worth the effort for Anaconda and many other tools.
Sure, if you think KDE users aren't worth having an efficient Fedora system.
Don't presume what I think please. What I am claiming is that a bunch of GTK based tools in a KDE spin of Fedora is better than the time spend rewriting these tools in QT.
Loading two different graphic frameworks at the same time
wastes memory/diskspace, slows down startup time, and leads to graphical inconsistencies. For people with low-end hardware that makes a huge difference.
I doubt that loading GTK instead of QT makes a big difference. Before we go down this route let's properly analyze the benefits claimed instead of having some vague notions.
Wasting memory and disk space: How much exactly?
Look and Feel: Can be mostly solved by http://gtk-qt.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ which there was a plan to provide by default in the KDE spin.
I feel I should say this: I'm a strong KDE user, not loud, but I really like KDE. However, I very much like the fact that the system-config tools are in Gtk. 1) pygtk is easy 2) they look different from my normal desktop apps - i think this is very good.
My only problem with KDE on Fedora is that is the fairly large number of package with the name gnome in it that I seem to must have - for the sake of Firefox and OO.org , and even I know that is being a bit picky.
By asking that there be a ksystem-config equivalent, that would be almost doubling the working - or at best multiplying it by a factor of 1.5. We need more, good system-config tools, not ksystem-config tools.
And while on the subject, to those involved, if possible, don't use gnome widgets in the system-config-tools, seems like that has already started happening.