QT vs GTK, or the dead hand of Gnome

[MurphCID]

I am impressed with what I have seen with KDE on POP!_OS so far. Good looking, clean desktop, icons, fonts, which is impressive. Still love Cinnamon, but KDE is not bad at all.

[Drugwash]

Indeed, they seem to have recovered quite well. I've seen it in Mageia a few months ago. Now I have a Debian KDE with Trinity on top, I log in alternatively when I'm in testing mood (it's a VBox setup, not bare metal).

[rossdv8]

One of the reasons I use Mint Xfce now instead of Mate or Cinnamon is that most of my Apps are the QT version. Obviously LibreOffice is not, but I have Office suites that are QT when I want them, and it is amazing how much QT stuff I have kept from my KDE days.

Of course,

The other two desktops (Xfce and MATE) also use GTK.

is quite correct, but of those, Xfce seems to play nicest with QT.
I think the Mint team has done a pretty good job with flexibility, and allowing us the ability to theme in almost any way we like to.
I still like having transparent Apps, just for the heck of it. I can't do that with GTK, but I can have fine tuned controls over stuff like In-App transparency in QT, and have it completely stable in Mint Xfce.

[MurphCID]

I used it for quite a while yesterday, and I must say KDE is a very attractive desktop, with a pretty good amount of customization. I am looking for the equal of the Cinnamox Heather theme for the task bar, but I am very pleased over all. I am not sure if it is QT that makes the difference, but in comparison Gnome looks positively old, and I mean 1990's, -early 2000's old.

[Drugwash]

in comparison Gnome looks positively old, and I mean 1990's, -early 2000's old.

We shouldn't think in these terms, and definitely the developers shouldn't either. It's all about what the user wants/needs, and that may well be a 90s look as well as a futuristic 2500s look. They (the developers) just don't understand that the user should have total freedom while providing them with clever and user-friendly means to achieve whatever they want. Instead, the developers try hard to lock users down to their own limited view of the present and future. And that is their biggest mistake.

[Petermint]

I mean 1990's, -early 2000's old

Windows 95. People still want that simplicity.

[rossdv8]

They (the developers) just don't understand that the user should have total freedom while providing them with clever and user-friendly means to achieve whatever they want. Instead, the developers try hard to lock users down to their own limited view of the present and future. And that is their biggest mistake.

If you mean the 'Mint Developers', I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I suspect the developers are trying to achieve a 'signature' look for Mint. Something that was more or less achieved by the Mint team when they developed Cinnamon, basically if I recall, because Gnome project (or someone at the time) decided the future was going to be 'Gnome Shell' and THAT was beginning to create a locked down style.

The Minties at the time wanted something closer to the normal Gnome styling and retaining more flexibility that Gnome Shell was going to provide.
I may be wrong (it was a while ago) but whatever caused it, we ended up with Cinnamon, designed by Mint and now used by other Linux distros because a lot of people just 'like it', and Mint decided to keep something close to the 'old style Gnome' so we have MATE.

KDE was dropped because it was a hell of a lot of work and thr KDE/Plasma people were on top of that side of things, with Kubuntu being well supported for people like me who like to play with weird theming.

Fortunately for weirdos, Mint retained Xfce, which lets us integrate almost all of KDE into Mint if we want to without major conflicts.

So I think the Mint devs aren't trying to lock us down. They simply give us choices. We can use Cinnamon for a 'Mint Experience' with specially built 'Desklets' to let us do things consistent with the different way they would 'like like Mint to look'.
That rules out a certain amount of interoperability with QT styling though.
We can use MATE, which also keeps us within the MATE developers' styling loop to some extent.
We have Xfce, which plays nicely with almost everything.
We can have KDE/Plasma, provided we are happy to install a heap of QT components from the Mint Repos, and/or a PPA for Kubuntu backports (until/unless Mint drops Ubuntu as its base).

Personally, of many distros I've used over the last 25 years or so, Mint is probably still the most customisable and flexible of all. One reason that many of us still like to donate.

[Drugwash]

If you mean the 'Mint Developers' [...]

No, not specifically. Was thinking of developers generally, more so of those who build the basic tools - such as the desktop environments - used in all various distros. I don't necessarily have a problem with a signature look as you called it but with the fact that it usually cannot be shifted too much around to fit precisely the user's taste.

When a user has to manually install a different DE, that is a sign that there's something wrong with that distro. Or that they chose the wrong distro for their purpose. What's wrong with the distro hoppers - are they all crazy, do they like playing around with dozens of distros just for the hack of it, or is it that they can't find anything precisely to their liking to make them settle once and for all?

I've been running Windows 98SE for about 17-18 years and would've stayed with it if it weren't for some breaking changes outside of the OS that couldn't be overcome. Why would I do that when there had been newer, more modern versions released in all this time? Because 98SE could be molded precisely as I wanted it while the newer ones were rigid and bossy.

Now, for fun I had tried various Linux distros during all that time. I was curious. Knoppix was the most prominent back then, easy to run live. Tiger Puppy 1.6 was interesting but its Compiz was too much for my feeble hardware. Ubuntu/Xubuntu/Kubuntu were imposing, sobre, hermetic. Others were too basic, no default DE - dropping at the command line without any clue whatsoever on what to do next was a deal breaker. Bottom line is, back then I couldn't find any Linux distro that could rise even to my old 98SE's level in terms of looks, customizability and user-friendliness.

Then, when push came to shove and not even the short-lasted XP setup could deal with the evergrowing demands of the modern web and software industry I had to look for a newer, compatible OS. Settled on Mint 19 Cinnamon after a few unsatisfactory tests with other distros. Seemed the most promising then. But in time I came to discover its shortcomings, more precisely Cinnamon's. Tried to deal with that, went up to 19.2 and was hoping for the best.
But starting with v19.3 a few (needed) options were hidden from the interface and the settings panel. Then starting with v20 they were completely removed. Then in v21 theming was completely screwed up, the theme I had manually ported from XP and was working fine in 19.2 suddenly became useless in 21. Not to mention a truckload of xlets that broke with Cinnamon 5.4 and had to be urgently fixed. Some may still be broken out there.

Thing is, I hadn't chosen Mint - and Cinnamon at that - for its signature look. Hell, I hate the color green generally. But it seemed customizable enough to worth my efforts. It doesn't anymore. The new GTK that it tries to accomodate is crippled in my opinion and there's nothing I can do about that. So if I were to replace this 19.2 setup or this machine entirely I would definitely discard Cinnamon, and go the KDE/Qt route which still provides both the extra titlebar buttons and the desired theming, and it has its own applet system. Sadly, since Mint doesn't provide an official KDE version anymore and I do not intend to attempt another "frankenmint", I will have to settle with some other distro - maybe a Debian KDE, or Q4OS KDE/Trinity, or anything similar. Preferably not Ubuntu-based, because I don't like where they go either. Amazingly or not there is a myriad of distros out there but still so few options for someone who just can't settle for the defaults.

[rossdv8]

I will have to settle with some other distro - maybe a Debian KDE, or Q4OS KDE/Trinity, or anything similar. Preferably not Ubuntu-based, because I don't like where they go either. Amazingly or not there is a myriad of distros out there but still so few options for someone who just can't settle for the defaults.

That's one of the things about Linux. Just when we settle on a particular distro, it changes, and gives us a reason to lok for what we enjoyed about it, in alternative distros. I also enjoyed Klaus Knopper's work and I used it to encourage quite a few people to experiment with Linux, before they settled on looking for a static distribution.

I suppose one of the reasons I was happy to settle on Xfce again when Mint dropped KDE, was that regardless of Distro, Xfce plays well with almost anything you do to it. I ended up customising things like Window buttons to a size and colour that I like, because I like the things big bold and bright, that glow like traffic lights when I hover the mouse over them.
And of course with Xfce, you can make it look like almost any other OS if you want to, then take that theming across to another distribution, intact.

I don;t like a lot about GTK widgets. I hated designing programs using them, but got used to it. Then I started playing with QT widgets. Same meal, different cafe. I have never seen the allure of having every little item in my menu use exactly the same seasoning, although there are certain elephants I always have in the herd.

I like transparent panels in things like File Managers, not because I need them, just because I think it is amusing that I can have the wallpaper visible around all the file icons in a folder. The same goes for the video wallpaper. It's not because only Linux can do it. I think Windows and Mac could do video wallpaper on the desktops before we could. But again, 'that we can' amuses me. Probably because I no longer work with computers for a living after close to 50 years of 'having to work' with them, I am just discovering the reason so many people 'play with' the things.

You and I are lucky, in that we both know what we want in an OS - and there are Linux Distros out there that cater to us.
For those of us that can't find exactly what we want, or don't want to tailor an existing Distribution to our needs we can always do what so many people have dome in the past. Roll our own Distribution, and inflict it on the world. Something I'm grateful people like Klaus Knopper, Clem and so many other people have done.

[Drugwash]

Well, apparently you really like to play with your machine/OS. Personally I never fancied transparency, even avoid it wherever it pops up, and as for the video desktop to me it would be utterly superfluous as I rarely see the desktop except for the few times when I need to launch something that's not in "quicklaunch" (panel's left section). But I need to enjoy the window background color (which for reasons beyond my comprehension is a dull grey in 99.9% of distros) and the window decorations with a subtle image model (not childish color gradient), unevenly-sized buttons á la Win Vista/7 and fine borders - all made up of image files, not colors. And the extra titlebar buttons, especially the shade one which I use quite frequently. If the OS doesn't provide these things for me I don't care what other fancy tools or facilities it may have - it won't see my HDD.

I for one may have relatively fancy tastes in regard to the aspect of the OS/windows, but am also quite conservative in that, and I definitely don't like swapping distros just like some people who live their life through hotel rooms all over the world. When I build my house as I like it'll have to stay that way until I die - or until I myself decide something needs to be changed. How would you feel if your house suddenly decided it needed an "upgrade" and said "sorry, this window/door will have to go, the architect considers it superfluous"?! Well, same for the OS.

Now gotta go out, I hope my house will still be here when I'm back.

[rossdv8]

You're right. I never got to play with my OS much when I had to use computers. Now that I have the time to use them just because I have so many lying around, I make the most of what I can do with them, rather than what i need to do with them. Which means if I can make them have all sorts of weird theming stuff, I do. I can't believe I only got into Conkies this year. I don;t need one, but I now have one that does exactly what I 'like' just because I was curious.

I didn't need all the fancy things like transparent Apps in Mint - but because they were in KDE, I wondered if I could have them in Mint. So if I remember correctly I have a dozen or so Apps with Transparency 'just because'.

Same with Buttons and Borders. I hated those skinny little lines around windows that we ended up with on most Linux desktop environments that elderly people like me can't grab with a mouse cursor, along with tiny Title Bar buttons that were nearly impossible for us oldies to see to click on. So when they infected Mint, one of the first thing I did was design some Window decoration mods that solved both those problems and made it so when I hover the mouse over a button the whole room sees it

[ivar]

Windows 95. People still want that simplicity.

I sometimes miss Windows 2000's UI simplicity

Same with Buttons and Borders. I hated those skinny little lines around windows that we ended up with on most Linux desktop environments that elderly people like me can't grab with a mouse cursor, along with tiny Title Bar buttons that were nearly impossible for us oldies to see to click on.

I hate this too, like scrollbars that are 1 pixel wide. Or like Windows Server 2019/2022 file explorer windows where borders are so thin they're invisibe

[MurphCID]

Windows 95. People still want that simplicity.

I sometimes miss Windows 2000's UI simplicity

Same with Buttons and Borders. I hated those skinny little lines around windows that we ended up with on most Linux desktop environments that elderly people like me can't grab with a mouse cursor, along with tiny Title Bar buttons that were nearly impossible for us oldies to see to click on.

I hate this too, like scrollbars that are 1 pixel wide. Or like Windows Server 2019/2022 file explorer windows where borders are so thin they're invisibe

It is an artifact of getting older... But I completely agree with you, scrollbars have gotten too darn small so as to almost be unusable.

[Drugwash]

They try to fool us that less is more. Well, less of them would indeed be more to us.

Windows 95. People still want that simplicity.

Some, maybe few, may want the simplicity of the 95 UI, but I guess most of us want the simplicity of use that Win9x provided. Linux gave me a bad allergy to the words password, permissions, mount. Suddenly the roles of owner and owned have been reversed, with the human being the owned. Oh eff that - I want my freedom back!

[rossdv8]

Some, maybe few, may want the simplicity of the 95 UI, but I guess most of us want the simplicity of use that Win9x provided. Linux gave me a bad allergy to the words password, permissions, mount. Suddenly the roles of owner and owned have been reversed, with the human being the owned. Oh eff that - I want my freedom back!

There is a really good reason for the whole Passwords, permissions thing. Mount is a slightly different aminal because inmost cases mounting is done automatically in GUI File Managers unless there's a reason to do it manually.

But that's another thing about Linux, if you choose to, you can run the whole thing as root. You 'shouldn't' and it is really not a good idea if a computer is going to be on the Net, but you 'can'.
We have more or less 'complete' control over what we do and how we do it, how it looks and what we choose to have in it.
With Linux we're not 'locked in' to what someone else dictates.

And that includes quite a lot of choice between Widget styles in our Apps. While a lot of things don;t have a QT style, some others, like VLC have styles in both widget sets, which just adds 'flexible consistency'.

[Drugwash]

There is a really good reason for the whole Passwords, permissions thing.

Sure, I agree with that. By all means let those who really need password protection and fine-grained file/folder/drive permissions have them. But on the other hand, when one wholeheartedly considers they don't need or want them let them have their way too.

Currently very few distros allow creating a no-password user, or completely disabling it in some GUI panel. In Windows 9x one would have to try hard to create multiple users, there was no such thing as "the OS doesn't allow me to open this file or folder" (unless the file was in use at the time) even when it came to system files. Even in XP the installation defaulted to an administrator user, and could very well be created without a password if the user so chose. I believe that was also the case for Win7 although I worked very very little with that version and forgot its details.

Linux Mint (at least) not only doesn't allow creating a no-password user, but while at install time it allows a very simple password - let's say a single character - when the user desires to change it it will not allow less than six characters! This is inconsistent, and very restrictive, especially to users that have a bad memory and/or do not want the password hassle at all. I'm one of those. If I hadn't found a good walkthrough on how to completely disable the password requirement long ago I tell you sincerely I wouldn't have been using Linux (Mint) now.

Running as root is something I have not (yet) tried but I can envision some hassle with applications that either are specifically designed not to be run as root or have bugs/quirks when running in that mode. There are also commands that just won't run as root and they even warn the user about that. It's a can of worms that I would gladly not open. Overall there is great inconsistency in running a Linux OS and its applications either in user mode or root mode, whereas Windows 9x, XP and maybe 7 didn't have such ridiculous problems (to the best of my knowledge); there was a certain restriction in XP about writing to the Program Files or Windows folders for a non-administrative user, but that could easily be overcome by installing or placing the application in a completely different folder outside of the "protected" folders. As a former 9x user you can imagine my frustration and despair being crippled and harrassed by the OS itself.

Mount is a slightly different animal [...]

Indeed, but it is still an animal. Ever since installing this last copy of Mint on this notebook I had a hard time understanding why in the GTK file dialog certain NTFS partitions on the main (internal) drive were always listed at the bottom in the "Other locations" section, while external drives - also NTFS - were nicely fit in the bookmarks section. Incidentally most of the times I needed to work with one of the internal partitions and it has always pissed me off that I had to perform extra steps to get there, as if those partitions were plagued or something. Windows would never do that, there would be no separation whatsoever between partitions/drives, even those network-mapped would show up in line with the local ones, making it an extremely consistent experience.
I won't even go into mapping/mounting network drives in Linux because my blood pressure would rise to unacceptably high levels. It's just a giant ugly mess.

Please note I didn't bring into discussion any comparison with Windows versions from 8 up, because those are utter garbage in my not-so-humble opinion, despite any few positive feats they may bring into the game. Reiterating: I, for one, want the simplicity of use from Win9x without the OS getting in my way unless I specifically ask it to. But we're already drifting away from the specific topic of this discussion, which is the DE toolkits.

[rossdv8]

But we're already drifting away from the specific topic of this discussion, which is the DE toolkits.

We sort of drifted a long way sideways. The whole thing about Passwords might be worth opening as a separate Topic, because I suspect you are not the only person who feels this way.

[MurphCID]

I am liking the whole KDE/QT look thing. A QT version of Cinnamon would most likely be amazing.

[Drugwash]

We sort of drifted a long way sideways.

True. Personally I don't mind but forums generally require strict topics. I'm a drifter (in so many ways )

The whole thing about Passwords might be worth opening as a separate Topic [...]

I have a hunch it won't achieve anything so why even bother. I can fix it relatively easily to never ever require a password again.
BTW, I also never ever use the trash bin - always delete directly since forever.

A QT version of Cinnamon would most likely be amazing.

Nah, they would ruin Qt's reputation.

[rossdv8]

I am liking the whole KDE/QT look thing. A QT version of Cinnamon would most likely be amazing.

Mint 19 or an early version of 20 Xfce still allowed me to install KDE and a recent Plasma once I had enabled Kubuntu backports PPA. I set up a script that allowed me to switch between them 'live'. It worked fine until something changed in a point release from memory.
By that time I had worked out that when running KDE/Plasma, there were a lot of GTK Apps that simply didn't theme well with KDE. And in Mint, more or less ALL the KDE/Plasma Apps had as GTK theme available.
So no matter if I was running Plasma - I still had a lot of GTK Apps, and so still had mixed theming.

E D I T: The last time I had it working was in Mint 19.3

Code: Select all

#!/usr/bin/env xdg-open
[Desktop Entry]
Name=Plasma
Comment=start PLASMA inside Mint 19.3 XFCE
Type=Application
Exec= plasmashell
Icon=/home/ross/Custom Icons/plasma-logo.png
Terminal=false # (or true)
Categories=Other;
Name[en_AU]=Plasma.desktop 

Obviously I had Plasma installed from the Repos.
I had a similar .desktop file on the panel to switch back

It turned out that I had everything I wanted from Plasma, including ALL the Apps available in XFCE so I resigned myself to running whatever KDE/Plasma Apps I wanted in their native QT theming, because I like it, and just wearing the things like LibreOffice and Synaptic when I use them, in GTK.
I often use things like Calligra Words in its QT style, just because I like it, and I like the way the 'Dockers'' work. These days of course, LibreOffice has also adopted Dockers - but I just like Calligra for quick jobs.
Being a StarOffice user from the days when StarOffice had a Linux Desktop Environment built in though, I do like where LibreOffice has taken that suite.

It was interesting there for a while to simply click an icon on my panel and watch the Xfce desktop switch to Plasma, the simply click again and swap back to Xfce.