On 4/8/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Vlad wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)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.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud