Written by opu.e the 22 Jan 09 at 20:44.

If there are security issues with, make it optional or make todays version optional...

If there are security issues with, make it optional or make todays version optional...

Written by loutre the 23 Jan 09 at 14:05.

You can change your configuration for an automatic login (see on the Internet). By default, it is more secure to keep a manual login, even if there is only one user.

You can change your configuration for an automatic login (see on the Internet). By default, it is more secure to keep a manual login, even if there is only one user.

Written by marcocapoferri the 19 Jan 09 at 16:09.

THIS IS NOT A PROPOSE TO BUILD A NEW TOOLKIT BUT ONLY TO CREATE A STANDARD WAY TO ACCESS IT

I don't know how this idea would be hard to do but this would be (in my opinion) a great goal

If a Open toolkit specification will be created we will be able to use Gnome's applications on KDE, E17 or another desktop environment (and viceversa for sure).

This will help developer for making great applications for all desktops environments, improve applications' quality standards and, at least but not the last, reduce project fragmentation.

If we reduce the fragmentation of the projects we could have better open source applications that can challenge the propietary.

Bye
Marco

THIS IS NOT A PROPOSE TO BUILD A NEW TOOLKIT BUT ONLY TO CREATE A STANDARD WAY TO ACCESS IT I don't know how this idea would be hard to do but this would be (in my opinion) a great goal If a Open toolkit specification will be created we will be able to use Gnome's applications on KDE, E17 or another desktop environment (and viceversa for sure). This will help developer for making great applications for all desktops environments, improve applications' quality standards and, at least but not the last, reduce project fragmentation. If we reduce the fragmentation of the projects we could have better open source applications that can challenge the propietary. Bye Marco

Written by loutre the 19 Jan 09 at 17:07.

Why not a "meta-toolkit", as swt in the java world ?

Thus we could keep or create great toolkits, and developers will not care for which desktop they are working.

Then you will use the application you want, keeping the choice of your desktop.


[fr] Un meta-toolkit indépendant de l'environnement graphique, à l'instar de SWT dans le monde java ; on pourrait ainsi bénéficier de toutes les applications et garder le choix de son environnement.

Why not a "meta-toolkit", as swt in the java world ? Thus we could keep or create great toolkits, and developers will not care for which desktop they are working. Then you will use the application you want, keeping the choice of your desktop. [fr] Un meta-toolkit indépendant de l'environnement graphique, à l'instar de SWT dans le monde java ; on pourrait ainsi bénéficier de toutes les applications et garder le choix de son environnement.

Written by Nait the 19 Jan 09 at 20:20.

This is NOT an idea to dump Gnome or changing it philosophy!

Pros:
-unified look, feel and behavior of apps in KDE and Gnome(both toolkit have some killer apps)
-no need to redevelop toolkit(planned GTK3)
-QT IMO have better documentation is cleaner, easier to learn, develop and prettier than GTK2 (let me repeat it: IMO)
-easier to switch between DE
-AFAIK QT is more-cross platform (some may put it in cons)
-no need to write GUI for app twice(if Ubuntu devs write some app in GTK, than Kubuntu user are complaining about lack of it)
-we may attract new developers who are kept away because of fragmentation

Cons:
-need to port huge number of apps(Biggest cons, but it may be a good opportunity to create better unified look of Gnome desktop),
-which will take long time to be as stable and usable as current version of Gnome(but it should be faster than it was with KDE4, because toolkit is ready and we could use mix of ported Gnome apps, with KDE apps in meantime)
-some good programmers may leave project(for example because qt is more about C++ than C, or because they were simply against the switch)

This is NOT an idea to dump Gnome or changing it philosophy! Pros: -unified look, feel and behavior of apps in KDE and Gnome(both toolkit have some killer apps) -no need to redevelop toolkit(planned GTK3) -QT IMO have better documentation is cleaner, easier to learn, develop and prettier than GTK2 (let me repeat it: IMO) -easier to switch between DE -AFAIK QT is more-cross platform (some may put it in cons) -no need to write GUI for app twice(if Ubuntu devs write some app in GTK, than Kubuntu user are complaining about lack of it) -we may attract new developers who are kept away because of fragmentation Cons: -need to port huge number of apps(Biggest cons, but it may be a good opportunity to create better unified look of Gnome desktop), -which will take long time to be as stable and usable as current version of Gnome(but it should be faster than it was with KDE4, because toolkit is ready and we could use mix of ported Gnome apps, with KDE apps in meantime) -some good programmers may leave project(for example because qt is more about C++ than C, or because they were simply against the switch) -GTK programmers would have to learn new toolkit -some legacy apps wont be ported I like Gnome philosophy better but IMO QT toolkit is better. Gnome devs make great work adding extra features without breaking compatibility but it is harder and harder and one day it'll be maintaining instead of evolution. Now when licensing problem is gone, there is no need to work on two toolkits and write to GUIs for each app. I know that this is something to decide by GNOME devs but lets vote: Do we want to wait some time,and then have rapider development of two desktops, with killers apps like Amarok, K3b, OO, FF,GIMP looking good in both desktop. IMO we should compete against windows and MacOS not against itself. PS: please don't flame

Written by gururise the 21 Jan 09 at 16:43.

The Qt toolkit uses the native widgets on all platforms except for Linux. On linux, Qt uses its own low level widgets. Now that Qt is going LGPL, it would be much easier and less disruptive to make Qt render using the Gtk toolkit on Linux. This would remove a lot of unneeded low-level GUI/widget code from Qt and would unify the look/theming on the Linux desktop, while preserving the two different desktop environments. Qt libraries could then ship with Gnome proper.

Looks like Trolltech is pushing this solution forward for Qt4.5, see: Qt Labs Blog

The Qt toolkit uses the native widgets on all platforms except for Linux. On linux, Qt uses its own low level widgets. Now that Qt is going LGPL, it would be much easier and less disruptive to make Qt render using the Gtk toolkit on Linux. This would remove a lot of unneeded low-level GUI/widget code from Qt and would unify the look/theming on the Linux desktop, while preserving the two different desktop environments. Qt libraries could then ship with Gnome proper. Looks like Trolltech is pushing this solution forward for Qt4.5, see: <a href="http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/05/13/introducing-qgtkstyle/">Qt Labs Blog</a>

Written by onestone the 27 Jan 09 at 18:30.

Qt is the much more advanced toolkit at the moment. However it's extremely unlikely that GNOME developers would like to use it directly, primarily because of ideological differences (C++ vs C, etc.). A major overhaul of GTK+ is already planned for GNOME 3. Instead of continuing the current separation and duplication of efforts, it would be great if GTK+ was rewriten as a tiny wrapper around Qt. Now that Qt 4.5 will be LGPL, this is actually possible.

Pros:
- it will be much easier to unify the look and feel of KDE and GNOME; there will be a single way to create skins/themes
- no huge porting of GNOME apps will be required; porting only GTK+ will be much easier
- Qt is available on more platforms; GTK+ will automatically gain that, as well as other features from Qt
- Duplication of efforts will be reduced greatly; KDE and GNOME communities will merge to a certain extent

Cons:
- none that I can think of

Qt is the much more advanced toolkit at the moment. However it's extremely unlikely that GNOME developers would like to use it directly, primarily because of ideological differences (C++ vs C, etc.). A major overhaul of GTK+ is already planned for GNOME 3. Instead of continuing the current separation and duplication of efforts, it would be great if GTK+ was rewriten as a tiny wrapper around Qt. Now that Qt 4.5 will be LGPL, this is actually possible. Pros: - it will be much easier to unify the look and feel of KDE and GNOME; there will be a single way to create skins/themes - no huge porting of GNOME apps will be required; porting only GTK+ will be much easier - Qt is available on more platforms; GTK+ will automatically gain that, as well as other features from Qt - Duplication of efforts will be reduced greatly; KDE and GNOME communities will merge to a certain extent Cons: - none that I can think of

Written by rodnyketi the 20 Jan 09 at 12:43.

be able to integrate google software to ubuntu and the repositories

be able to integrate google software to ubuntu and the repositories

Written by loutre the 20 Jan 09 at 16:08.

Google softwares are not libre (except Chrome). They don't have to be on Ubuntu reporitories.

You can use Mozilla Prism to fill Picasa GMail on so on "integrated" on your desktop. Perhaps Prism could be pre-configured on the reporitories (as Facebook) ?

Google softwares are not libre (except Chrome). They don't have to be on Ubuntu reporitories. You can use Mozilla Prism to fill Picasa GMail on so on "integrated" on your desktop. Perhaps Prism could be pre-configured on the reporitories (as Facebook) ?

Written by cheesehead the 20 Jan 09 at 17:34.

Google Earth, Picasa, and other great-software-with-non-free-licenses are already available in the Medibuntu repository. That's what Medibuntu is intended for, and it seems to work well.

Google Earth, Picasa, and other great-software-with-non-free-licenses are already available in the Medibuntu repository. That's what Medibuntu is intended for, and it seems to work well.

Written by tharris the 23 Jan 09 at 18:14.

We should talk to Google and ask for rights to redistribute Google software through multiverse. They may agree as long as the software is not modified, and there is no other change to the terms of service.

We should talk to Google and ask for rights to redistribute Google software through multiverse. They may agree as long as the software is not modified, and there is no other change to the terms of service.

Written by Clorox the 29 Jul 09 at 20:39.

Google already has their own repository for Chrome dev builds, Picasa, and Google Desktop.

Google already has their own repository for Chrome dev builds, Picasa, and Google Desktop.

Written by michaelperkele the 19 Jan 09 at 03:12.

If this were pre-installed in Kubuntu, maybe web developers would be more attracted to it. As far as I know, there are no web developing programs installed by default.

FYI: Quanta Plus is already in the repositories.

If this were pre-installed in Kubuntu, maybe web developers would be more attracted to it. As far as I know, there are no web developing programs installed by default. FYI: Quanta Plus is already in the repositories.

Written by loutre the 19 Jan 09 at 14:24.

Web-developers are advanced users so they can install Quanta Plus by themselves. Basic users don't care about this wonderful KDE application.

Web-developers are advanced users so they can install Quanta Plus by themselves. Basic users don't care about this wonderful KDE application.

Written by Primož Papič the 19 Jan 09 at 15:09.

Konqueror can be used to edit internet sites with it's embeded kate and you can do it on your server also.
Plus it's preinstalled with Kubuntu.
Those that feel that konqueror isn't enough for their web developing can still install Quanta Plus from repo.

Konqueror can be used to edit internet sites with it's embeded kate and you can do it on your server also. Plus it's preinstalled with Kubuntu. Those that feel that konqueror isn't enough for their web developing can still install Quanta Plus from repo.