On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Joanna Rutkowska <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 02:39:28PM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Generally yes, especially the part about choosing GTK ;) >> >> >> >> Noted. >> >> >> >> > Since then we've moved to default Xfce, and GTK will be more consistent >> >> > here. >> >> >> >> Are you saying that Xfce as default is the long term plan now? >> >> >> >> Or saying that there will be more consistency between {GTK in Xfce vs. >> >> GTK in Gnome} than {Qt in Xfce vs. Qt in Gnome}? >> >> >> >> I don't understand. >> > >> > Both Gnome and Xfce use GTK widgets, so GUI parts done in GTK (vs Qt) >> > are more consistent with the rest of desktop environment. >> >> [1] has made me give some more thought to this. Yes, GTK is the >> natural choice for things wishing to be first-class citizens in Gnome, >> but this may not be the strongest consideration long-term. >> >> Moving to Gnome has stagnated, and is a very low priority [2]. >> >> With the planned disaggregation of the GUI into its own domain [3], >> iteration in the desktop experience of Qubes becomes much easier, and >> I think it's quite reasonable to consider that Gnome may not be the >> only final target. >> >> I think it is also worthwhile to consider the difference in experience >> between Qt in primarily-not-Qt environments, vs. GTK in >> primarily-not-GTK environments. On other non-linux platforms, Qt is >> much better integrated into the native desktop UX than GTK. This is at >> least true on Windows and OS X, and even Genode has native support for >> Qt which continues to improve. This may may sound irrelevant now, but >> I think is less so post-GuiVM. >> >> FWIW it seems that peoples' complaints about the current Qt >> qubes-manager in Xfce have nothing to do with it being Qt instead of >> GTK. >> >> I'd also like to bring attention to some relevant 3rd party >> discussions on this: [4] >> >> I believe that limiting the inputs to this decision to "Gnome means >> GTK, we plan to eventually target Gnome, therefore let's use GTK" may >> be short-sighted. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> [1]: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/qubes-devel/jDHiZ9nhzIc/5DIRzcOUCwAJ >> [2]: >> https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/1806#issuecomment-280281571 >> [3]: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/833 >> [4]: >> https://askubuntu.com/questions/281092/why-is-canonical-choosing-qt-over-gtk-for-unitys-next-generation > > I think it's difficult and often counter-productive to try to over-generalize > or > make code over-portable "just in case".
Noted. I certainly agree with that principle in general. [1] :) [1]: http://opensslrampage.org/post/83031733755/remove-support-for-big-endian-i386-and > So, I think that the choice of the GUI framework should be dictated > primarily by the requirement to make our GUI stuff first-class citizens of > whatever Desktop Environment we want to be the official one in the upcoming > release. At this time we believe that for both 4.0 and 4.1 this will be Xfce4. > The next criterion should be ease of development/integration with current > code. Makes sense. > Perhaps for Qubes 5.x we will want to switch to some yet-unknown desktop > environment, but then, chances are high, we will want to rewrite any GUI stuff > anyway. The reason I raise this discussion is in hopes of reducing the likelihood that we find ourselves in a position where we wish to re-write things in the first place. If you believe it is inevitable, then I agree that optimizing for the next concrete plan makes the most sense. > This is because the new environment might use different UX paradigms, or > maybe in a few years time the general UX paradigm will change. So, ISTM, > trying > to plan too much ahead (which framework/lang to use for GUI/UX), might often > not > be worth it. Noted. The current plan sounds good to me too then. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/CABQWM_BgfZtamgL-OZ%3Dr9x2VT7XYYGYV1aOMjKBsis8dZ%3D5%2BTg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
