On 4/8/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I feel I should say this: I'm a strong KDE user, not loud, but I really like KDE. However, I very much like the fact that the system-config tools are in Gtk. 1) pygtk is easy 2) they look different from my normal desktop apps - i think this is very good. My only problem with KDE on Fedora is that is the fairly large number of package with the name gnome in it that I seem to must have - for the sake of Firefox and OO.org , and even I know that is being a bit picky. By asking that there be a ksystem-config equivalent, that would be almost doubling the working - or at best multiplying it by a factor of 1.5. We need more, good system-config tools, not ksystem-config tools. And while on the subject, to those involved, if possible, don't use gnome widgets in the system-config-tools, seems like that has already started happening. -- Fedora Core 6 and proud -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
