Vlad wrote:
Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
How exactly does it make a huge difference in low end hardware? Provide
benchmarks.
> That's a suboptimal solution, originating from a lack of foresight in
> designing those applications to separate the core functionality from
> the GUI components.
Given that "we lacked foresight" and that the business logic is now not
separated from the UI in many of the tools is it worth rewriting them?
The only reason I mentioned the lack of KDE frontends for system tools
in Fedora is that a potential developer with Qt background asked where
he can help.
... and where I would suggest that there are better easier things to
tackle rather than rewriting Anaconda and system-config* tools. Just ask
the KDE SIG.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
