QT vs GTK, or the dead hand of Gnome

[ivar]

Also Gnome is getting grants from Microsoft.

thats genius of Ms - making it harder for ppl to switch over from Windows to Linux GUI, lol!

[Hoser Rob]

Also Gnome is getting grants from Microsoft.

thats genius of Ms - making it harder for ppl to switch over from Windows to Linux GUI, lol!

Nonsense, MS is interested in the server market, they don't give a flying frak about the tiny percentage of desktop Linux users. If you think they consider any GNU/Linux distro competetion you're deluded.

[Portreve]

Still does not mean that Microsoft is a "friend" to Linux. Gnome by locking things down, I understand more control on the code ala Apple, where fewer things can break. But that only works if you control most, if not all, of the variables. I am writing this on a Cinnamon DE, and it is working great, and has been given my personal theme, so it looks the way I want it to look. Can't do that on Gnome. Also I question the sheer amount of heartbreaking work the devs have to do, to make GTK/Libaidwaita work on Mint. It must be brutal.

As I've said earlier, Cinnamon is significantly more stable than Gnome 3.x, period. Unfortunately, the garbage that a lot of other distros such as Fedora and openSUSE use for their software installation process, as well as other maintenance utilities (or lack thereof) can in my opinion really make Cinnamon look bad where user friendliness and intuitiveness are concerned.

It should be abundantly obvious why LM is so popular. The thing which really irks me is how it seems to get such short shrift from various podcasts. I called the Linux Unplugged guys on the carpet over it on their Facebook page, though I don't think they pay much attention to that. The Destination Linux folk are better about it, but even then they are highly experienced and highly specialized Linux users, so they have a tendency to talk about just what is immediately parked in front of their noses.

Also, with LM, it tends to be a very quiet and unassuming distro, and for the most part you don't see anything "exciting" taking place. Most of this distro's dev team's efforts of course are focused on Cinnamon, along with all the usual stuff that goes into maintaining a fork. This results in keeping a very solid and stable product, but for the most part precludes gaining any notoriety or generating any buzz.

[vanadium]

Most of the distros I have use GTK, which is controlled by, and locked down by the Gnome project.

Wrong premise for this thread. It is Free Software and Open Source. Feel free to contribute.

[MurphCID]

As I've said earlier, Cinnamon is significantly more stable than Gnome 3.x, period. Unfortunately, the garbage that a lot of other distros such as Fedora and openSUSE use for their software installation process, as well as other maintenance utilities (or lack thereof) can in my opinion really make Cinnamon look bad where user friendliness and intuitiveness are concerned.

It should be abundantly obvious why LM is so popular. The thing which really irks me is how it seems to get such short shrift from various podcasts. I called the Linux Unplugged guys on the carpet over it on their Facebook page, though I don't think they pay much attention to that. The Destination Linux folk are better about it, but even then they are highly experienced and highly specialized Linux users, so they have a tendency to talk about just what is immediately parked in front of their noses.

Also, with LM, it tends to be a very quiet and unassuming distro, and for the most part you don't see anything "exciting" taking place. Most of this distro's dev team's efforts of course are focused on Cinnamon, along with all the usual stuff that goes into maintaining a fork. This results in keeping a very solid and stable product, but for the most part precludes gaining any notoriety or generating any buzz.

It is just because it is so quiet and unassuming that makes Mint both so good, and the target of vitriol on the internet. Mint is not pretentious and so does not go out and thump its chest screaming "Look at me! Look at me! I USE MINT!"

[MurphCID]

Most of the distros I have use GTK, which is controlled by, and locked down by the Gnome project.

Wrong premise for this thread. It is Free Software and Open Source. Feel free to contribute.

If I could code, I certainly would.

[MurphCID]

The more I use Gnome/Cosmic on POP!_OS the less I like it. It is functional, but just not for me.

[Portreve]

Gnome and their GTK and KDE and their Qt are both so established and entrenched that it certainly seems unlikely they'll disappear, and even if they do it won't be overnight. That said, I'm always a proponent of having a disaster plan, a la Apple after Steve Jobs' return keeping an active development port of Mac OS X for x86-64 going.

Before I get the usual reaction to this, I understand full well Apple had the financial resources to support such an effort, and also it was becoming evident that IBM/Motorola no longer felt the impetus to keep PPC going full steam as they had during the previous decade, an overall scenario which (so far as we know) does not exist with respect to the Gnome Project. Moreover, there is a significant difference between commercial product development and libre software development. One example of this which even I can point to is Canonical's Unity for Ubuntu was shelved but has been picked up by other folk and has even been recognized by Canonical and given official spin status. In principle, it could take back over from Gnome 3.x; it is extremely difficult to find an equivalent scenario in the commercial proprietary space.

The biggest question in my mind, therefore, is not whether Clem & Co. should port Cinnamon to Qt, but rather if there really ought to be an independent toolkit standard which takes the lessons learned from GTK and Qt and then makes something like a next-generation standard, probably built as much as possible on Rust, and assumes the existence of Pipewire and Wayland and all the modern and latest technologies, but is written such that they never keep any eggs in any particular basket.

[MurphCID]

Gnome and their GTK and KDE and their Qt are both so established and entrenched that it certainly seems unlikely they'll disappear, and even if they do it won't be overnight. That said, I'm always a proponent of having a disaster plan, a la Apple after Steve Jobs' return keeping an active development port of Mac OS X for x86-64 going.

Before I get the usual reaction to this, I understand full well Apple had the financial resources to support such an effort, and also it was becoming evident that IBM/Motorola no longer felt the impetus to keep PPC going full steam as they had during the previous decade, an overall scenario which (so far as we know) does not exist with respect to the Gnome Project. Moreover, there is a significant difference between commercial product development and libre software development. One example of this which even I can point to is Canonical's Unity for Ubuntu was shelved but has been picked up by other folk and has even been recognized by Canonical and given official spin status. In principle, it could take back over from Gnome 3.x; it is extremely difficult to find an equivalent scenario in the commercial proprietary space.

The biggest question in my mind, therefore, is not whether Clem & Co. should port Cinnamon to Qt, but rather if there really ought to be an independent toolkit standard which takes the lessons learned from GTK and Qt and then makes something like a next-generation standard, probably built as much as possible on Rust, and assumes the existence of Pipewire and Wayland and all the modern and latest technologies, but is written such that they never keep any eggs in any particular basket.

I really agree with you. But I shudder at the level of work that would take. If I could code, I would love to jump in on this.

[AZgl1800]

... I will politely disagree about Gnome being the most reliable, ....

Based on what?

My use of Cinnamon has lead me to conclude that Cinnamon is either the most reliable, or in the top two. I think KDE rates up there as well with all the hard work the KDE people have put in. To me, at least, Gnome is gimmicky.

I am going to have say that Cinnamon is just about totally Rock Solid.....
it just keeps getting better every year.... I am now using LM21 and like what I see.
Compared to LM17, the first time I used Cinnamon, it has been a satisfying experience, and no real issues for me.

[ivar]

Nonsense, MS is interested in the server market, they don't give a flying frak about the tiny percentage of desktop Linux users. If you think they consider any GNU/Linux distro competetion you're deluded.

It was meant a little tongue-in-cheek, I guess it just didn't work too well.

[The Muffin Man]

I'll toss in that today's Qt/KDE is not your mother's Qt/KDE. Its memory footprint is rather small, if not a rival to XFCE. Even LXDE pulled it in.

[Portreve]

I'll toss in that today's Qt/KDE is not your mother's Qt/KDE. Its memory footprint is rather small, if not a rival to XFCE. Even LXDE pulled it in.

This is true. I've seen comparisons of modern (5.x IIRC) versions of KDE vs. Gnome and others (XFCE maybe? I don't really remember) and absolutely KDE's footprint is a fraction of what it used to be. Also, as a function of both improvements in code and improvements in hardware, KDE is very snappy and responsive.

[MurphCID]

KDE seems to have stayed true to the Linux philosophy as much as possible, and allows you to take control of your system and mod/theme it as much as you want. The Anti-Gnome if you will.

[Portreve]

From what I understand, the primary issue with KDE development is that you don't have one singular cohesive plan, and so it's very unstable in the sense of what versions of components are released and "current" at any one given moment time, which makes it hard for corporate users (and therefore corporate-oriented distros) to put out relatively frozen LTS releases which include it. This is one area that Gnome has it over KDE by leaps and bounds.

[MurphCID]

From what I understand, the primary issue with KDE development is that you don't have one singular cohesive plan, and so it's very unstable in the sense of what versions of components are released and "current" at any one given moment time, which makes it hard for corporate users (and therefore corporate-oriented distros) to put out relatively frozen LTS releases which include it. This is one area that Gnome has it over KDE by leaps and bounds.

True, but I like that they have the "15 minute bug hunt" where they are working on that.

[The Muffin Man]

FWIW, Perforce Helix is written using QT.

[MurphCID]

FWIW, Perforce Helix is written using QT.

What is that?

[AZgl1800]

FWIW, Perforce Helix is written using QT.

What is that?

google shows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perforceh ... i/Perforce

[The Muffin Man]

FWIW, Perforce Helix is written using QT.

What is that?

Helix Visual Client (P4V)