Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I beg to differ. I wouldn't install a linux which doesn't have KDE,
unless it's a server without X or GUI at all.
Well, you wouldn't, but this doesn't change the fact that Gtk is more
necessary for a desktop distro to work.
KDE has about 55% of the desktops, but what about the other 45%??? Those
don't need Qt strictly speaking, but the 55% KDEs definetively need Gtk
if they want to run Gimp for example.
A good example (again) is Damn Small Linux. I don't even think that Qt
is available for it, but Gtk is included on all KDE-based distros.
If I compile my app to Gtk1 it will run "natively" on Damn Small Linux,
i.e. without the need to install an extra widget.
I am not saying that Qt cannot be considered "native" as well .... it
can! I didn't talk about Qt in my first post because the Qt interface
for the LCL isn't working yet.
On most modern distros I would consider Gtk2 and Qt to be the more
"native" widgets.
And, purely historically, Qt was around _way_ before GTK was.
QT already existed when Linux didn't exist yet.
That I didn't know. Yet it does not change much.
Felipe
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
