On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Paul Cooper <p...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 11:01 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On 5/27/2010 10:37, JD Zheng wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > We were told Qt will be the primary UI toolkit (and App framework) for > > > MeeGo from the day we heard MeeGo, but seems people, esp. developer > who > > > is doing *real* UX development, have different ideas about it (see > > > original thread). > > > > All applications/etc will use Qt. Even the MeeGo ones. We have some > legacy apps > > that don't use Qt, but those are on a path to be converted to use Qt or > be replaced. > > (and there may be 3rd party legacy apps that will keep using what they > do; Chromium > > could be an example of that) > > Let's be clear here - much of what is in MeeGo Netbook is taken from > upstream projects, and while we contribute as much as we can we're not > in a position to dictate that things are rewritten in QT. Replacing, > based purely on toolkit, existing applications that have been tailored > to the netbook user experience either by us (Intel) or partners (Novell, > Collabora) would seem an excessive waste of time and energy and pretty > disrespectful of our partners excellent and substantial contributions > not to mention the efforts of numerous dedicated and hardworking > colleagues. > > However if people are looking to contribute apps then I would say there > is plenty of green field, and only your imagination and the SDK to hold > you back. Just open the MeeGo Garage client (written in QT btw) and see > there all the gaps and potential for new and exciting apps tailored to > the Netbook formfactor. http://meego.com/developers/getting-started has > all you need to get going. I look forward to seeing what amazing things > people can come up with. > > Paul > > > The Window Manager (and it's very close friends) are not "Applications" > in this sense, > > and may use technology that is appropriate for their problem domain, > which may or may > > not include Qt. > > > > > > > Also if we were going to do Qt for some UX and, for example, GTK for > > > others, do we still think we would have a unified platform? Shall we > > > focus on one framework after 1.0 was out? > > > > GTK is only available to run legacy applications, and should not be used > > for any new development for MeeGo. > > (This "for legacy only" also means that for example we're unlikely to go > to gtk 3.0 > > when it comes out, but rather we stay at the 2.x version train) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MeeGo-dev mailing list > > MeeGo-dev@meego.com > > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev > > -- > Intel Open Source Technology Centre > http://oss.intel.com/ > > I was looking for the answer to "to Qt or not to Qt" for all MeeGo UX and seems I am unable to get consistent answer. I was calling for community involvement for non-Qt app porting, seems it is just "wasting time", which implies the current GTK app will stay there as MeeGo core app and it basically says NO to my original question. Why wasn't moving to rpm "wasting time"? We followed the decision even if we disagreed, why decision can easily be reverted now for other reasons? Or maybe we shouldn't discuss decision in the first place? Sounds like the things left to any outsider is some applications to be done if no one is coding for that (well, I have no idea what is being developing). What does MeeGo really expect from community? (unfortunately so many emails distinguished "We(MeeGo?)" and community and I follow that). I was expecting the answer after 1.0 release and now it is the right time to ask. Thanks. JD Zheng
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
