Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Unifying GTK & QT Theme Engines 405

An anonymous reader writes "Some guy on kde-look recently released code that makes gtk apps use the current qt theme. Seems this would be a major development for unifying the 2 environments. From the URL: This GTK theme engine uses the currently selected QT style to do it's drawing. Basically, it makes your GTK apps look like QT ones. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unifying GTK & QT Theme Engines

Comments Filter:
  • by W32.Klez.A ( 656478 ) * on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:35AM (#7873470) Homepage
    While this may seem like a minor thing to some people, every bit of interoperability and unification helps. Naysay as much as you want regarding Microsoft, but the reason why they have the market share is because of the unification present (at least in appearance ;-). If OSS projects (and non-OSS friends of them) can't come together, they should at least work together.
    • by Xabraxas ( 654195 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @01:12PM (#7874016)
      Naysay as much as you want regarding Microsoft, but the reason why they have the market share is because of the unification present

      Nope. That is not even close to the reason why they have the marketshare that they have. First of all Mac has a very good unified theme but they have next to nothing in marketshare. If that's not enough to blow a hole in your argument then my next statement will. Third party apps for Windows often use themes that are not anywhere close to the Windows theme. Take Winamp for example.

      Windows has their marketshare because of apps, vendor lock in, propietary formats, and a whole bunch of other things that have nothing to do with a unified look and feel.

      With that said, I do think this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully one day KDE and Gnome will have unified libraries and a unified interface. I only hope for this so the community doesn't lose one desktop completely in favor of another.

      • by gujo-odori ( 473191 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @02:16PM (#7874374)
        It's even simpler than that. MS has their market share because IBM gave it to them by choosing them as the OS vendor for the IBM PC. All of the lock-in via proprietary formats and engineered lack of interoperability and highly predatory and monopolistic practices came after that. If IBM had chosen CPM as their OS or had written one from scratch, MS today would still be just an application vendor among many. A large one, probably, but still just an application vendor.
      • No friggin kidding *roll of the eyes*

        How on earth he got modded to +5 for such a ridiculously false statement is a true testament to the level of knowledge of most /. mods these days.

        Anyone over the age of 20 who knows anything about the industry should know that that(ie. consistency) is absolutely not the reason for MS's marketshare, and in fact isn't even true, nor has it ever been true.

    • Nonsense. Look at a lot of professional Windows apps (almost all games), they draw their own widgets. People want applications to look pretty, but not necessarily the same.
      • by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:33PM (#7876706)
        I only occasionally use XP on my old laptop, and I'm always shocked at how inconsistant everything is, how every app and website tries to wrest control over my system with its own, non-standard styles. From skined media players to full-screen, popped-up, Flash websites; from ever new MSOffice widgets to tray-launched applets; weirdly-named, unknown processes running in task-manager; never knowing how to stop an automaticly launched program (service? registry? auto-exec bat?). In fact, half the time I can't tell if I'm shutting a program off or just "hiding" it. Programs are always trying to grab MIME types and not give them back; wizards are always starting suddenly and won't quit; I have a hard time telling when and where (or if!) I've unzipped a file! I have to click, hover, clcik, hove, search, hover, and start again just to open Notepad, and it has NEVER smartly figured out that it is one of my most used apps. When my wife uses the laptop she always ends up with a million bizzarre windows all over, little apps launched, tons of stuff frozen...

        In a word: Windows has NO consistancy at all! And it really fucks up my productivity.
  • by randyest ( 589159 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:36AM (#7873471) Homepage
    Seems like a start in the right direction, but don't expect something ready to roll (as I did until I checked the site):

    Currently the code is very buggy and incomplete - a few widgets do not yet use the QT drawing code. However it is still perfectly usable. This theme is slightly slower than that of most native GTK themes, but the difference is hardly noticed on a fast machine.

    Known bugs: * Menus do not have borders
    * The background colour doesn't change when text is highlighted
    * Colours are incorrect when using certain styles (eg. Keramik)
    * Buttons, and other widgets, may be the wrong size
    * Scrollbars sometimes misbehave

    This is a 0.x release - do don't expect it to work perfectly :)

  • Just a style (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <> on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:39AM (#7873483)
    It's actually just a style that makes them both look more consistant. Unifying the API is the hardest job and I don't really want to see a unified API as it would be a bit of a mongrel. To me I think the best way forward is for either QT or KDE to die and the developers of the losing project to join the winning side.

    Merging QT and KDE would be like merging Linux and one of the BSDs.
    • Re:Just a style (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shisha ( 145964 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:56AM (#7873586) Homepage
      No one is really talking about unifying the API. That's the bit that developers are most mentally attached to. As we all know GTK vs. QT is rather different in the style of writing code, different mindset even, so it wouldn't work for either side to unify the API. With unified API we'll have loads of unhappy QT _and_ GTK developers!

      OTOH this (unifying themes, i.e. one theme working for both QT & GTK) is the first step in the right direction, of making the two indistiunguishable to the user. Next would be _perfect_ cut & paste, including HTML pages, pictures, vector graphics etc. AFAIK has come a long way working on cut & paste (drag & drop) and apparently all it needs now is more polish.

      Final stage would be using kparts in GTK apps and bonobo components in KDE. There are cautious steps in that direction. And then there is OpenOffice (check out cukoo) of course and Mozilla and GNUStep... long way to go till everything is perfect. Then it will be the job of distributors like Mandrake & Xandros to give us the perfect desktop linux. Or our job, for those who like to tweak and fiddle with things. I'm looking forward to all this! (and I hope I'll be seeing less and less GNOME (KDE) sucks!!! style flamewars everywhere. Hey, I don't care whether I'm using Rhythmbox (where the file open dialog is still a joke) or Juk (which uses arts for the sound backend and arts sucks _and_ is a joke), I'll settle for either of the two as soon as it'll be perfect :-))!
      • Wasnt gnome abandoning bonobo?
      • Re:Just a style (Score:3, Insightful)

        Working copy & paste/drag & drop is definitely important, but I don't know about the component thing.

        The other important things are that all apps should use the native print/file dialog, and all apps should have access to the virtual filesystems within that environment.

        Everything required for solid integration between these two (awesome) environments is well under way (from the KDE side at least -- I don't hang about the Gnome forums).

        I too very much hope that everyone will learn to get along whe
    • Re:Just a style (Score:3, Interesting)

      by arvindn ( 542080 )
      If you want a unified API, look no farther than wxwindows [].

      It has backends for qt, gtk, ms-windows etc. Trouble with it is that it adds an extra layer of complexity for the programmer and dependency for the end user.

      • Re:Just a style (Score:3, Insightful)

        by The Vulture ( 248871 )
        I've been working on a new home project for a couple of months in wxWindows now, and I must say, I'm very impressed with it.

        I've done Qt programming in the past (no GTK though), and toyed around with Windows GDI, but wxWindows actually seems to make more sense to me - it just seems easier than both of those (that could be because I haven't used Qt or GDI in a bit though).

        I disagree on the extra layer of complexity for the programmer though - it's nice to be able to develop your main application using only
  • That some guy is... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:39AM (#7873485)
    David Sansome... at least name the person who put in the effort to make this happen.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Chill out David.
      We all saw your name when we followed the link.

      Good work btw.
  • Widget Mania (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:44AM (#7873512) Homepage Journal
    This is a good first step. But it's a tiny baby step.

    When I can choose a widget theme once, using a central theme selector, such as GNOME's, and it shows up in all versions of Qt, GTK, Gtk2, Tk, Mozilla, and other applications, then I'll take notice.

    The proliferation of toolkits does such a disservice to the desktop, even moreso than the proliferation of desktop environments. Why are there so many?

    It seems like most OSS developers must go through the same milestones of skill development: a new C++ string class, a new IRC client, a new window manager, a new toolkit, and a new update package manager. Stop rewriting the wheel and improve what's out there in meaningful new ways.

    • Re:Widget Mania (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trick ( 3648 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @12:01PM (#7873617)
      Call me crazy, but I'm glad we've got a choice of desktop environments. Not to knock the KDE folks, but I happen to prefer GNOME. If desktops were to somehow "unify," and that meant all we had left was KDE, I'd be more than a bit peeved. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who'd feel the same if GNOME were to disappear so that KDE could be the one true desktop environment.

      If that means that some apps won't be completely integrated with my dekstop, I'm fine with that. I'd rather have the choices I have now than be forced to use a desktop environment I don't like.
      • Re:Widget Mania (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sleepy ( 4551 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @12:50PM (#7873885) Homepage
        >Call me crazy, but I'm glad we've got a choice of desktop environments.

        Except for a few "journalists" and controversial posters, I would bet that most people agree.

        >Not to knock the KDE folks, but I happen to prefer GNOME. If desktops were to somehow "unify," and that meant all we had left was KDE, I'd be more than a bit peeved.

        KDE will never be the dominant desktop. No offense to anyone pro-KDE. By the time this all works out, we'll have a KDE and GNOME that is so different from today's that we will not remember what the API wars were about.

        Wrappers, unification API's, and are bringing the two sides together where it makes sense. It makes sense in a LOT of places that aren't talking yet, but I say in time it will work out.

        I'd LOVE to see KDE and GNOME use "common API's" for file dialogs. Why the hell NOT? An application should just say "file_dialog_common()" and then the user/desktop/distro settings determine WHO draws it. It doesn't matter. Desktop-specific features are EXTENSIONS. Granted, a lot of people thought GTK 2.2 and 2.4 file dialog was sub-optimal. Hopefully in the future with GTK 2.6, there will be some interest in at least standardizing the function calls, if not the actual code itself.

        People won't shut up about which API "rules" until much of what the API's provide has been turned into a commodity, as in this example. The revolution will not be televised. ;-)

        • > KDE will never be the dominant desktop.

          Care to substantiate that is not _currently_ the dominant desktop?
        • Re:Widget Mania (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) *
          I'm glad we have choice of desktop environment too. I just feel, as do many others, that the choice of API should not lock you into one widget set with its own drawing mechanisms, theme engine, and so on such that it becomes aesthetically impossible to run apps written for one desktop environment and apps written for the other desktop environment at the same time, when certain apps really only have a top notch representative in one widget set or the other.

          I think hacking the widget set to make it use the

      • I respect his choice for whatever software he wants, thats for sure.

        But he doesn't offer any real nor insightful reason for why he chooses GNOME over KDE.

        You can take his post, and replace GNOME with KDE and KDE with GNOME. The post still says the same thing. See how pointless his post is ?

        Sunny Dubey

      • Okay, I'll call you crazy cos you've totally missed the point of this.

        It's not to "Unify" the desktops per se, it's to make GTK and QT apps look like each other. There's nothing wrong with having your widget, styles, and colors shared across apps, and it's even better if it happens transparently.
    • But... But...

      Without rewriting the wheels we wouldn't have so [] many [] iTunes [] clones []!
    • One of the things I like the most about GTK is that it doesn't look like QT. Is change always progress?
    • It probably means that many of those people consider bloat a big enough issue that they prefer to start from scratch. Or that GNOME is not good enough yet.

      BTW: you forgot the editor :)
  • by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:52AM (#7873565) Homepage Journal
    If you make a unified trailer hitch that will hook any load to any automobile, then you'll be sure to find someone trying to pull a truckload of anvils with a VW Rabbit.

    This is a minor bit of neat hackery, nothing earth-shaking though, and nowhere near a step to unified environments.... If you want to create that illusion, surely it would be better to make something that creates two sets of themes (gtk and qt... or even more toolkits) from one single source, think DocBook. Fortunately, I don't think the author of this software claimed that he was trying to unify anyway.
  • by Gilesx ( 525831 ) * <sjw AT diepls DOT com> on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:53AM (#7873572)
    The only true way to unify the two DEs is to get both camps to agree on a common widget set.

    I, like many other Gnome users, chose the Gnome DE because of it's professional appearance - something which I feel KDE doesn't even come close to. There is no way I'd want to replace my Gnome widgets with KDE widgets, and I'd bet the farm that KDE people would feel the same way about the reverse.

    There are many half hearted, rush desktop unification jobs at the moment. Unfortunately the only way that we're ever going to see true unification is if everyone agrees to work on it simultaneously at a deeper level than just aesthetics.

    How can you unify two groups of people that aren't even on the same page?
    • You're not replacing widgets, just the engine which renders their appearance. Even if GTK were using the default QT theme it would still contain the same 'feel' as GTK even if it looked different.

      A unified theme engine is a good thing. The hardest thing is abstracting out the differences in how both GTK and QT go about rendering their buttons. Perhaps it would be as well to produce some abstract widget-neutral interfaces for this kind of thing.

  • Licensing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) * on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:56AM (#7873592)
    This is interesting for sure, but what are the licensing implications of this? Can anybody tell me?

    GTK is LGPLd. That means it can be used by proprietary software (and in fact, sometimes is). If I use this theme engine does that mean I can no longer run proprietary software that uses GTK because I'd be linking it with GPLd code?

    Perhaps the same concept should be applied but in reverse - a Qt theme engine to use GTK. There seems to be more experience going this way too, for instance XUL is already GTK themable and it works nicely.

    • Re:Licensing? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ianoo ( 711633 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @12:12PM (#7873669) Journal
      No I don't think this works at all. In the absence of repugnant EULA agreements from certain companies like Microsoft I can modify and combine software however I want on my own machine to suit my own needs. The GPL doesn't say you must make the source code available if you modify, it says you must make the source code available if you distribute. I can (and do) modify GPL and LGPL software to suit my needs on my own machine without any intention of ever redistributing these modifications, mostly because they're silly and complete messes (for example I've hacked various bits of GNOME's panel system to suit my own needs, such as removing the "Actions" menu from the Foobar).

      Hence if I take commercial GTK applications and GPL'd GTK applications and commercial QT applications and GPL'd QT applications and install them on my own machine, I can install whatever the heck I like to change and/or modify their behaviours at runtime. This themeing engine doesn't have licensing issues at all.
      • Installing stuff together isn't the same as linking them together. Of course GTK can be used at the same time as proprietary and free software, the question is can you link them together using plugins in this way. At least from discussions I've seen in GStreamer the answer appears to be "no".
  • Okay, now... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Janek Kozicki ( 722688 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @11:57AM (#7873598) Journal
    I want Mozilla and OpenOffice to use a widget set of my choice (no matter which one I choose - qt, gtk, gtk2 ....)

    btw, it reminds me of wxWindows [] - a set of tools that allow you to compile your programs under different OSes using native widget sets of your choice. All widget sets are supported, but the widget set is chosen during compile time.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Is SodiPodi [], the famous vector image editor. It is a GTK program that uses the KDE file and print dialogs.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, 2004 @12:40PM (#7873823)
    Many times when there is a debate about Gnome vs KDE , the argument of the API popup often like comments like this one:

    >"A GNOME spreadsheet you want Miguel? Don't worry. The way things are
    >looking, I can hack one out in a few days. We will borrow from X, Y, and Z
    >projects since they have most of the functionality we need. It will be a
    >matter of fitting them all together."

    I find it always funny that KDE supporters always list re-use of existing libraries as a big minus point of Gnome, as if it is a bad thing to re-use and adopt none-Gnome supporting libraries,

    It is my vision that this is one of the great strengths of Gnome. In Gnome the supporting libraries are almost never Gnome dependent they often use already existing libraries or help to modify them too their needs, without Gnome-ifying them. When they create a new one for use in Gnome they tend too make it as generic as possible, With this sort of philosophy you create functionality that is easily adopted by other projects or was already in use or planned to get used. Things like Cairo (X-server), Fontconfig, ATK, etc. This is exactly why this functionality is popping up everywhere in open-source land. Which makes the KDE supporters scream that Gnome is taking everything over. This isn't true, but Gnome by using the above philosophy, doesn't alienate itself from other Linux/*nix projects in stark contrast too KDE. Gnome is not only about building a great desktop, it is about building modular desktop technology that can be used and reused by more projects then Gnome only, which make Gnome more cooperative too other projects then KDE. Look at the way KDE looked at Open-Office, They trashed everything about it and Koffice (or anything which was KDE-ified was much better), only now, after Gnome (Ximian) has showed the way by starting to make Open-Office better merge able into other widget sets they realize what opportunities Open-Office has too offer, but don't expect any thank you for the groundwork Ximian has done, making the integration as generic as possible so that a qt variant is also possible. No they will scream and whine till the end that Gnome is about adopting and Gnome-ifying, while little somebody else can use is coming from the KDE community (it is all of the KDE or die, look at Red-hat and userLinux how KDE treads other visions).

    The question is: Do you want a *nux/Linux community desktop which takes from (Fontconfig, Cairo, librsvg, etc) and gives too (GTK+,, Gstreamer, ATK, Pango, etc) other projects (Xfree86, XFCE4, etc) without making everything it touches Gnome or do we want the none-*nix/Linux philosophy of one big API in the form of a win32 clone which alienates everything none C++/QT/KDE bolted on *nux/Linux (KDE). Which is more *nix/Linux one great API for everything or take the tools and merge it too what you need?

    I find the KDE community extremely vicious against everything not KDE, The Borg like mentality of adapting everything into the KDE frame-work without keeping it generic alienates it from everything none C++/QT/KDE, but especially the whining they do that libraries that Gnome uses are also used in other important projects is something that keeps amazing me. It is the KDE community that uses embrace and KDE-ify it as there mantra! They turning the reality upside down.
    • by Findus Krispy ( 737807 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @02:34PM (#7874462)

      I find it always funny that KDE supporters list re-use of existing libraries as a big minus point in Gnome, as if it is a bad point to re-use and adopt none-Gnoome supporting libraries,

      Actually both communities are correct in their approach -- both are refreshingly pragmatic.

      If you have a toolkit available to you as good as Qt, which makes re-use *very* simple, then you may very well realise that it would be easier to re-write existing functionality for that framework, rather than having to create a new framework yourself.

      On the other hand, if you had no such library in the first place, you would see that it would be easier to re-use the myriad of existing software, and develop/grow a library that explicitly enables that.

      Both approaches are equally valid given the differing starting positions of their projects.

      I find the KDE community extremely vicious against everything not KDE, ...

      No, niether the KDE or Gnome communities are vicious, it's just the fringe lunatics that pretend to represent these communities that talks all this crap. And they mostly do it here on Slashdot.

      If you do some development, or just subscribe to the lists, you'll see exactly what I mean. Lot's of nice people just having fun developing quality code. Hurrah for Gnome and KDE!
  • by eschasi ( 252157 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @12:51PM (#7873898)
    Stating prejudices up-front: I'm a KDE kind of guy.

    There's plusses and minuses to this. On one hand, unified theming is a win, no question. But doing so by adding yet another layer of interface could perpetuate the core differences rather than helping unify them. The world is rife with short-term hacks that are still running; it's one of the big contributors to bloatware.

    In addition, it's a one-way change. When the author completes his work, Gnome apps can follow KDE themes, but not vice-versa. That's good for KDE, but not particularly good for Gnome.

    It also leads to some subtle UI traps. When I run a Gnome app under KDE, it stands out. In one sense that's bad, as it can be visually jarring. In another sense that's good, as I'm visually alerted to expect some different UI rules. If one can't determine which ruleset to follow by a casual glance at the app, it's going to lead to user confusion.

    It's also going to dilute the UI guidelines to both KDE and Gnome. Application writers tend to model their UIs on other apps, not from reading the UI guidelines. An app developer running Gnome apps under KDE look (but not feel!) will assume that either the KDE rules are loose or that he should be developing Gnomish features.

    I'm not saying the author shouldn't do this; it's a noble goal and (from the responses on the author's posting []) pretty decent code for an alpha/beta release. But we should hope for and work towards better long-term theme engines.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, 2004 @01:11PM (#7874011)
    I really don't understand most Slashdot readers. In every news about KDE or Gnome people start fighting on what is better, Qt or Gtk, C or C++, Gnome or KDE, with theory on how SuSE buyout will end KDE, why Qt isn't free, that Linus uses KDE, Trolltech is owned by SCO, etc. People who keeps posting things like this must be new to free software, or just don't understand it at all. The goal is *NOT* to kill Microsoft Windows and every OS and have just GNU/Linux with one desktop installed on all computers. The goal is freedom, is choice. I don't want to be like 10 years ago, when I thought DOS/Windows were the only operationg system available. Also, most free software projects are coded for fun. I can assure you, even if the whole world start using Gnome and KDE is just used by it's own developers, KDE will keep existing! There's no desktop war, so there is not going to be a winner. So, understand the community, and stop flames. We should be discussing how great it is that someone is trying to make GTK apps integrate better to the KDE environment, and hoping a GTK coder will start doing the same. I use KDE and I get really happy when I see a new feature on Gnome, cause probably KDE will have it too soon, Gnome users should feel the same way when KDE gets a new feature. And, while we're still talking about this, please, when a project is posted here, let's not comment on how there was already a project with the same goal and how duplicate effort is lame: if someone think it'll be fun to code another mp3 player, let him do it, *For coders, projects are mostly about fun!*
  • Hehe (Score:4, Informative)

    by davidsansome ( 563576 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @02:49PM (#7874575)
    That's quite interesting - I was just uploading version 0.2, when I suddenly noticed slowing down... now I know why :)

    Anyway, 0.2 should fix some problems people have been having.
  • Unification (Score:3, Interesting)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @04:23PM (#7875149)
    Its interesting how people ar deriding this sort of "look-based" unification. The truth is that "look-based" unification has worked just fine for Microsoft. I use a mostly KDE desktop, and only once in a while do I have to start a GTK app. The same thing is probably true for GNOME people --- they only have to start a non-GNOME app on occasion. If you use MS Office, you're automatically using at least two toolkits on a Windows desktop. Windows has many toolkits that major apps use on a regular basis. Its nearly impossible to run a normal Windows desktop without regularly encountering at least a few.

    Now, why do Windows users think their desktop is so unified, when in practice, *NIX desktops are really more unified? Because Windows toolkits look kinda the same! Windows's "unified look and feel" is based entirely on unification of themes, rather than on any real technical unification.
    • Re:Unification (Score:4, Informative)

      by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @10:14PM (#7877847) Homepage
      That is absolutely correct. Any "unification" of Windows is due to the fact that programmers of other toolkits copied the GDI32 and MFC ones. In fact most of the unification on Linux is due to people copying Windows, not from any plan or from copying each other.

      Windows programs probably use many times more toolkits than Unix. Except for GTK, ALL the Unix toolkits have a Windows version, plus there are dozens of Windows-only toolkits. Therefore there are more Windows toolkits than Unix. I can confirm that quite a few different ones are being used for Windows programs. Also high-end 3D software and other production software like Avid like to use their own in-house toolkits, so that they can access widgets that don't exist anywhere else.

      Yet idiots keep posting here their belief that Windows has a single toolkit and that is why it is "unified". That is FALSE. The reason there is unification is because of toolkits copying each other, something that is finally happening in Linux as well.
  • by hitmark ( 640295 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @04:39PM (#7875224) Journal
    copy&paste, drag&drop is. what ims saying is that in windows you have one set of rules for the clipboard, so that any program doing a copy&paste job have the same calls to make.

    i dont care if my xchat looks like my conqueror as long as i can copy a url from one and paste it in the other:)

    oh and there are a lot of people that messes around with the windows looks, litestep or plan 9 anyone? hell you can even run blackbox as your windows desktop:)
  • by bad_sheep ( 186776 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @05:07PM (#7875426) Homepage
    Yet Another QT Hacker will soon write a similar style for QT to use GTK to draw widgets, the result will be:

    GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
    QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
    GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
    QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
    GTK: Please QT, draws me a button...

    Have to wait before having anything drawn on the screen...
    • I've read this... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kingkade ( 584184 )
      Yet Another QT Hacker will soon write a similar style for QT to use GTK to draw widgets, the result will be:

      GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
      QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
      GTK: Please QT, draws me a button
      QT : Please GTK, draws me a button
      GTK: Please QT, draws me a button...

      I've read this a couple of times and it still isn't funny.
  • by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @06:07PM (#7875900) Homepage
    The biggest annoyance I have between various toolkits is not visual appearance (although that is annoying), but the file open/save dialogs.

    I find the KDE open/save dialogs vastly more useful than the GNOME ones, for example.

    There are some people who feel the other way.

    What is needed is a way to make it so that I always get KDE open/save dialogs, even when using GNOME apps, and so that the GNOME dialog fans always get GNOME dialogs, even when using KDE apps.

    Choice is great, but this kind of thing should be the user's choice, and the current system makes it the programmer's choice, indirectly by which toolkit the programmer uses or which desktop environment the programmer writes for.

The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected. -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972