Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Which widgets?

From: Robert Jonsson <rj@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Sun Feb 26 2006 - 11:58:54 EET

On Sunday 26 February 2006 08.11, Jan Depner wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 16:56 +0200, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 13:15 +0100, Carlo Capocasa wrote:
> > > Heh, I'm only a novice programmer, and I'm already lazy :)
> >
> > Ah, the sign of a good programmer. :)
> >
> > > KDE and Gnome both appear greedy to me. They both want me to use their
> > > system and hence, tell me how to use my computer. Very little care is
> > > taken to make sure individual parts can be used without installing the
> > > whole whack. It's like I want to marry the girl I love but I can't
> > > without also marrying her cousin, her sister and her aunt. This is the
> > > Win/Mac philosophy, not the UNIX philosophy, and especially not the
> > > free software philosophy.
> >
> > It's true that with KDE you are marrying into KDE's family with bastard
> > cousins like ksycoca, kdeinit, klauncher etc. But this isn't true with
> > gnome.
> I just want to point out, for those who do not already know, KDE is
> not the same as Qt. KDE is built using Qt. I write most everything at
> work using C++/Qt. I do not use any KDE libraries. I still get the
> lovely printing, ftp, socket, mysql, etc widgets without having to run
> any of the KDE stuff.

Just wanted to chime in with a, I concur.
If you want to build on a gui toolkit and get the least dependencies I think
neither Gnome nor KDE are the right choices. The real choices here are QT or
GTK. The choice is simple for me, QT, but that's just me...

As for other toolkits, there are soon as many as there are stars in the sky,
though most of them don't get installed on a standard system. I wonder how
widespread fltk is? I checked it out a very long time ago there was a lot of
things to like about it, small, gui-builder etc...


Received on Sun Feb 26 20:22:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:22:11 EET