On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> 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.
That is the same as saying that stricktly speaking, they don't need GTK,
if you don't install GIMP...
I've never used GIMP in my life. It's perfectly possible to reverse your
argument by naming some well-known programs that require Qt: K3B, for one.
To name a counter example of 'Damn small linux': my Zaurus PDA runs linux,
uses Qt, but has no GTK.
I don't want to start a discussion, I replied just to point out that such
'absolute' statements are always dangerous and provoke reaction :-)
Qt versus GTK is an age-old discussion and has provoked many flamewars.
It's perfectly possible to run a fully-functional desktop with just one
of the 2 installed. In practice, this seldom happens, of course.
Michael.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
