[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
I think getting something out the door for linux is a priority, rather than having support for multiple toolkits. I'm pretty sure - having been a Linux desktop user for 8 yrs+ - that someone will have an itch to make a QT front end once there is a beta+ release. I'm gasping for a chrome release on linux. Firefox is fab, really fab, but I find the speed of Chromium is what I need now, Having a clean separation between the backend and the UI is an excellent idea. Well done guys, keep up the good work.. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On Feb 19, 7:02 am, inaneframe inane...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not understanding the animosity shown toward GTK in this thread thus far. A majority of GNU/Linux distros are now using GNOME as the default desktop, I use and nearly every Free Software user that I know IRL uses and prefers it. I'm not going to bad mouth QT, I used it predominately a couple years ago in the 3.2 days and used it up until the betas of 3.5. All I want is a fast browser and I for one am happy about the choice to use GTK, not only because I use GNOME but also because I've noticed quite a bit of difference between loading QT in a non-QT environment vs loading GTK in a non-GTK environment, GTK is faster. Try loading Dolphin or Konqueror from GNOME and then Thunar, nautilus or epiphany from KDE and it's apparent. Dolphin is a very fast application, pretty darn slow to load in GNOME, Dolphin is a KDE application, it relies on the kdelibs and probably kded and maybe another kde-session-daemon. A Qt application does not have these dependencies. Try staring Skype, VLC or Google earth from Gnome and you will see that they load fast and integrate well, if you use the cleanlooks or QGtkStyle. They will run as single process, and no not need to have even kdelibs installed. Qt != KDE... Qt libs != kdelibs. Thunar is comparable directly, fast as hell to load in either environment. All I know is that there shouldn't be this kind of hate in the Free Software community. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
Just to add to what Ben said earlier in the thread, the Cocoa front-end is progressing quite well even though the Win UI is very different from Cocoa in terms of the interaction models and how the toolkits are designed (C++ vs Objective-C). The Model-View-Controller design of the shared code is proving that we can slap just about any UI we want on top of it (so far). This bodes well for some other group doing a Qt version. Just wanted to provide something tangible to the it should be possible argument. On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Ben Goodger (Google) b...@chromium.org wrote: I'll just repeat (since these threads seem to be linked from many places) - a Qt version for Linux is not impossible, it just requires a dedicated set of folk to work on it and maintain it. The design of Chromium is such that N front ends are possible. The team is most familiar with GTK and so that's where they'll be focusing their energy. -Ben On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:59 PM, inaneframe inane...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not understanding the animosity shown toward GTK in this thread thus far. A majority of GNU/Linux distros are now using GNOME as the default distro, I use and nearly every Free Software user that I know IRL uses and prefers it. I'm not going to bad mouth QT, I used it predominately a couple years ago in the 3.2 days and used it up until the betas of 3.5. All I want is a fast browser and I for one am happy about the choice to use GTK, not only because I use GNOME but also because I've noticed quite a bit of difference between loading QT in a non-QT environment vs loading GTK in a non-GTK environment, GTK is faster. Try loading Dolphin or Konqueror from GNOME and then Thunar, nautilus or epiphany from KDE and it's apparent. Dolphin is a very fast application, pretty darn slow to load in GNOME, Thunar is comparable directly, fast as hell to load in either environment. All I know is that there shouldn't be this kind of hate in the Free Software community. -- Mike Pinkerton Mac Weenie pinker...@google.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On 17 Gen, 19:45, Ben Goodger (Google) b...@chromium.org wrote: +1 FWIW, the changes I've made in the browser over the past few months (MagicBrowzr) should have made it possible for the front end to be written in any number of native toolkits. Our first test is going to be Cocoa on OS X. -Ben So, different native toolkits for each platform. But while Windows has mfc and Osx uses cocoa/carbon, i wonder what is the 'native toolkit' for linux (?) Or, if you prefer, why did you choose gtk over qt (at least) on linux? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On 17 Gen, 19:45, Ben Goodger (Google) b...@chromium.org wrote: +1 FWIW, the changes I've made in the browser over the past few months (MagicBrowzr) should have made it possible for the front end to be written in any number of native toolkits. Our first test is going to be Cocoa on OS X. -Ben So, different native toolkits for each platform. But while Windows has mfc and Osx uses cocoa/carbon, i wonder what is THE native toolkit for linux (?) Or, if you prefer, why did you choose gtk over qt (at least) on linux? It's very strange, since google earth uses qt... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
I'm not understanding the animosity shown toward GTK in this thread thus far. A majority of GNU/Linux distros are now using GNOME as the default distro, I use and nearly every Free Software user that I know IRL uses and prefers it. I'm not going to bad mouth QT, I used it predominately a couple years ago in the 3.2 days and used it up until the betas of 3.5. All I want is a fast browser and I for one am happy about the choice to use GTK, not only because I use GNOME but also because I've noticed quite a bit of difference between loading QT in a non-QT environment vs loading GTK in a non-GTK environment, GTK is faster. Try loading Dolphin or Konqueror from GNOME and then Thunar, nautilus or epiphany from KDE and it's apparent. Dolphin is a very fast application, pretty darn slow to load in GNOME, Thunar is comparable directly, fast as hell to load in either environment. All I know is that there shouldn't be this kind of hate in the Free Software community. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
I'm not understanding the animosity shown toward GTK in this thread thus far. A majority of GNU/Linux distros are now using GNOME as the default desktop, I use and nearly every Free Software user that I know IRL uses and prefers it. I'm not going to bad mouth QT, I used it predominately a couple years ago in the 3.2 days and used it up until the betas of 3.5. All I want is a fast browser and I for one am happy about the choice to use GTK, not only because I use GNOME but also because I've noticed quite a bit of difference between loading QT in a non-QT environment vs loading GTK in a non-GTK environment, GTK is faster. Try loading Dolphin or Konqueror from GNOME and then Thunar, nautilus or epiphany from KDE and it's apparent. Dolphin is a very fast application, pretty darn slow to load in GNOME, Thunar is comparable directly, fast as hell to load in either environment. All I know is that there shouldn't be this kind of hate in the Free Software community. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
That isn't really the situation forQtthough. Arora is a good example of howQtcan intigrate very well in Gnome. Using the gtkstyle themeqtuses the native GTK theme to render widgets, detecting Gnome it will automatically select that theme, use Gnome shortcuts, and Gnome styled icons. just theme something never make an application nativ. NEVER! If the application needs Qt - You need Qt on your system an so it can't be nativ on a GNOME Desktop. Qt is still not possible. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
just theme something never make an application nativ. NEVER! If the application needs Qt - You need Qt on your system an so it can't be nativ on a GNOME Desktop. Qt is still not possible. Oh yes! And if the application needs GTK+ you need GTK+ on your system and so it can't be native on a KDE Desktop! GTK+ is still not possible! Use only xlib please! :-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, vincenzo v.pupi...@gmail.com wrote: just theme something never make an application nativ. NEVER! If the application needsQt - You needQton your system an so it can't be nativ on a GNOME Desktop. Qtis still not possible. Oh yes! And if the application needs GTK+ you need GTK+ on your system and so it can't be native on a KDE Desktop! GTK+ is still not possible! Use only xlib please! :-) You're both wrong. Any distro conforming to the Linux Standard Base Desktop specification are required to have BOTH GTK+ and Qt. Although most distros don't follow the letter of the law here, it is not unreasonable to assume that a Linux system with a graphical desktop has both Qt and GTK+ libraries installed. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
Hmm, that's good to hear, it will make easier to have Gtk and Qt versions. I hope it will come true. - - Paweł On 17/01/2009, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:29 AM, kojot kojot...@gmail.com wrote: I not an expert (yet ;) in Qt and WebKit, but wouldn't it be easier to port to Linux and Mac with Qt? Not really. Very, very little of Chrome involves Gtk or Qt. - Dan --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
+1 FWIW, the changes I've made in the browser over the past few months (MagicBrowzr) should have made it possible for the front end to be written in any number of native toolkits. Our first test is going to be Cocoa on OS X. -Ben On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM, cpu c...@chromium.org wrote: When Dean and Evan say that they don't mind reviewing patches for Qt ports, what we are saying is that we don't mind having two UI versions of Chromium on linux? How would this work in the long term? UI tests times 2? you get to choose what Chromium to install? I figured it would be unsupported. If somebody asked me that they want to contribute a port of chrome on Windows UI using MFC, I would say no. I just don't see the cost/ benefit. Here's an analogy. Say I argued we should only target GTK because it runs on Windows just fine, so we'd be able to share UI test code between Windows and Mac. You'd (hopefully) say it'd be terrible because it's non-native. That's the situation between GTK and Qt these days. The OS underneath is the same, but running apps targeting one in an environment targeting the other in terms of user experience feels much like GTK apps feel on Windows. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to target both, but if someone else is willing to provide the patches I'm willing to review them. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM, cpu c...@chromium.org wrote: When Dean and Evan say that they don't mind reviewing patches for Qt ports, what we are saying is that we don't mind having two UI versions of Chromium on linux? How would this work in the long term? UI tests times 2? you get to choose what Chromium to install? I figured it would be unsupported. If somebody asked me that they want to contribute a port of chrome on Windows UI using MFC, I would say no. I just don't see the cost/ benefit. Here's an analogy. Say I argued we should only target GTK because it runs on Windows just fine, so we'd be able to share UI test code between Windows and Mac. You'd (hopefully) say it'd be terrible because it's non-native. That's the situation between GTK and Qt these days. The OS underneath is the same, but running apps targeting one in an environment targeting the other in terms of user experience feels much like GTK apps feel on Windows. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to target both, but if someone else is willing to provide the patches I'm willing to review them. That isn't really the situation for Qt though. Arora is a good example of how Qt can intigrate very well in Gnome. Using the gtkstyle theme qt uses the native GTK theme to render widgets, detecting Gnome it will automatically select that theme, use Gnome shortcuts, and Gnome styled icons. Lastly using QDesktopServices it will ask Gnome to perform actions like open this folder and does not explicitly use Konq. The same can not be said of a Gnome app these days. Some screenshots of Arora in different desktops show off the visual integration: http://code.google.com/p/arora/wiki/Screenshots. And there are file dialog hooks, I don't know if the gtkstye uses the Gnome file dialog, but it can. Qt has put a lot of time and effort into working well on KDE and Gnome so application developers don't have to. But I guess it all depends upon what you want it to do for you. For Chrome the browser applications there are definite advantages. For chromium the webkit rendering engine there might be stuff that can be shared with QtWebKit (or at least used as comparison or copy) such as clipboard, fonts, paint etc. Using Qt and taking advantage of that fact that Qt already has a working an tested (insert feature here) for X11 that can integrate with Webkit is a win. -Benjamin Meyer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
That's the situation between GTK and Qt these days. The OS underneath is the same, but running apps targeting one in an environment targeting the other in terms of user experience feels much like GTK apps feel on Windows. It doesn't have to any more. Qt 4.5 can use the current Gtk theme and it will adjust the button order and other UI features to match the current Gnome/GTK settings. I believe it can also use the native Gtk file dialog - if not there are certainly hooks that would permit it to be implemented. Maybe not absolutely perfect but certainly nothing like Gtk on Windows. Regards, Robert. On Jan 15, 7:04 pm, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM, cpu c...@chromium.org wrote: When Dean and Evan say that they don't mind reviewing patches for Qt ports, what we are saying is that we don't mind having two UI versions of Chromium on linux? How would this work in the long term? UI tests times 2? you get to choose what Chromium to install? I figured it would be unsupported. If somebody asked me that they want to contribute a port of chrome on Windows UI using MFC, I would say no. I just don't see the cost/ benefit. Here's an analogy. Say I argued we should only target GTK because it runs on Windows just fine, so we'd be able to share UI test code between Windows and Mac. You'd (hopefully) say it'd be terrible because it's non-native. That's the situation between GTK and Qt these days. The OS underneath is the same, but running apps targeting one in an environment targeting the other in terms of user experience feels much like GTK apps feel on Windows. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to target both, but if someone else is willing to provide the patches I'm willing to review them. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM, cpu c...@chromium.org wrote: When Dean and Evan say that they don't mind reviewing patches for Qt ports, what we are saying is that we don't mind having two UI versions of Chromium on linux? How would this work in the long term? UI tests times 2? you get to choose what Chromium to install? I figured it would be unsupported. If somebody asked me that they want to contribute a port of chrome on Windows UI using MFC, I would say no. I just don't see the cost/ benefit. Here's an analogy. Say I argued we should only target GTK because it runs on Windows just fine, so we'd be able to share UI test code between Windows and Mac. You'd (hopefully) say it'd be terrible because it's non-native. That's the situation between GTK and Qt these days. The OS underneath is the same, but running apps targeting one in an environment targeting the other in terms of user experience feels much like GTK apps feel on Windows. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to target both, but if someone else is willing to provide the patches I'm willing to review them. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
When Dean and Evan say that they don't mind reviewing patches for Qt ports, what we are saying is that we don't mind having two UI versions of Chromium on linux? How would this work in the long term? UI tests times 2? you get to choose what Chromium to install? Apologies if this was already discussed long time ago. If somebody asked me that they want to contribute a port of chrome on Windows UI using MFC, I would say no. I just don't see the cost/ benefit. Personally, Qt seems now the stronger toolkit, but I really don't have a clue about linux development. -cpu On Jan 14, 9:55 am, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM, andrewg droi...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 14, 11:44 am, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote: I'm no lawyer, but it appears there was already an exception list[1] for the GPL-licensed code that would've covered us anyway? So I believe this LGPL thing has no affect on us, except in its potential broader implications for the space of other software in the future. I, too, would be happy to review patches for Qt support. [1]http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html I'm no lawyer either, but I am pretty sure the GPL would have required Chromium to be released under the GPL as well, instead of its BSD license (unless all of the contributors had a commercial license to Qt). Ah, my misreading -- that page doesn't apply to the Open Source Edition. I do remember reading about BSD-licensed software needing to make licensing exceptions to link against Qt. (I apologize for my misinformation; I never looked into Qt too closely exactly because of these licensing shenanigans.) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: Qt now a possibility?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:15 AM, andrewg droi...@gmail.com wrote: I am sure most of you have seen the news by now that Qt is switching from GPL to LGPL licensing. Does this increase the chances of a Qt Chrome on Linux instead of GTK or has too much work already been completed on the Linux GUI? I'm no lawyer, but it appears there was already an exception list[1] for the GPL-licensed code that would've covered us anyway? So I believe this LGPL thing has no affect on us, except in its potential broader implications for the space of other software in the future. I, too, would be happy to review patches for Qt support. [1] http://doc.trolltech.com/4.3/license-gpl-exceptions.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
