Widget sets (was Re: [TriLUG] redhat-config-network question)

[Tanner Lovelace]

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 00:12, Brent Fox wrote:

> You don't have to use two sets of desktops to run into the problem. 
> Just running apps based on a different toolkit than the desktop you're
> currently using is enough.  For example, in 7.3, if you're using KDE and
> then launch balsa, balsa's buttons look different than other KDE apps. 
> The user does not understand why Balsa sticks out like a sore thumb. 
> The opposite is true if you're running Gnome and start up KMail.

Your examples are taken directly from KDE vs Gnome programs or QT vs 
GTK.  I get your point, but your example would have been better if 
you'd chosen something other than contrasting the difference 
between QT and GTK, especially considering my point below.
 
> We have to pragmatic about where to spend our limited development
> resources.  What good would writing our tools in both GTK and QT do? 
> Why stop there?  Why not in Tk too?  Why not write them in C as well so
> the anti-python lobby will be happy?  Once we're finished, we can
> rewrite them again in Perl.  By 2008, we'd finally have some config
> tools.  :)

No, I never said write them in every possible way.  And your
examples of using different languages are just dumb.  Weren't you the
one that said the user didn't care what was on the back end (or 
something like that).  What we're talking about here is how they 
look.

> Besides, this doesn't address the problem of having apps written in
> different toolkits look different.  You can't expect everyone to write
> their apps in multiple toolkits.  Making QT and GTK look the same was
> the best way to solve this problem.  The user can always change the
> theme if they want to.

But, and here I go back to the original complaint, the whole point is
that the user who brought this up didn't have all the space in the
world and *didn't* want to install *both* QT and GTK.  Since QT and
GTK seem to be the two preeminent toolkits (currently) in the linux
world, *and* both seem to be somewhat large, I would contend that
distributions should provide their configuration tools so that
they're either available in both toolkits (in case one isn't installed),
or, in some other toolkit that's a) separate b) lightweight and c)
can be themed to look like the default theme.  Red Hat, for better
or worse, has a reputation for giving KDE the short stick.  As Lisa
found out, significant functionality is *missing* unless you install
Gnome.  With this one little detail, Red Hat pushes people into using
Gnome and GTK, whether they want it or not!  (And people wonder why
Red Hat gets the reputation of being pushy!)  This is my main complaint.
Major configuration tools should either be written in both QT and GTK
or in something separate like TK that doesn't cause the user to install
both toolkits if they don't want too.

BTW, realize also that I fault Mandrake for this too.  Although their
support of KDE and QT is a *lot* better than Red Hat's, they too
wrote their configuration tools in GTK.  So, this isn't just a Red
Hat problem.

Cheers,
Tanner
-- 
Tanner Lovelace | lovelace(at)wayfarer.org | http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
GPG Fingerprint = A66C 8660 924F 5F8C 71DA  BDD0 CE09 4F8E DE76 39D4
GPG Key can be found at http://wtl.wayfarer.org/lovelace.gpg.asc
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little yellow bolts of light! 
                                Commander John Crichton (Farscape)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/attachments/20030228/b99fae9a/attachment.pgp>