Qtce ?

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:42 pm

Something I was thinking about the other day, Qt has been GPLed for almost six years now, and since a lot of people like the idea of a lightweight desktop, why havn't there been a such one, built with Qt? Xfce uses GTK, and in six years you could get quite far on a such project.

It's not that I think this is something we need in the Free Software community, but I just thought it was interesting that there havn't been like a Qfce

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:10 pm

That's an interesting idea, but they'd have to change the name. Qtce? Sounds like Cutesy, lol. Wouldn't everything have to be built from the ground up, since apps like Konqueror, and Amarok are so resource heavy? Seems like a massive undertaking.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:23 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:That's an interesting idea, but they'd have to change the name. Qtce? Sounds like Cutesy, lol.

LOL, well I just played a pun on Xfce

Wally Balljacker wrote:Wouldn't everything have to be built from the ground up, since apps like Konqueror, and Amarok are so resource heavy? Seems like a massive undertaking.

Hmmm, I don't know for sure, you could just use KHTML, Konqueror's browser engine, and write a new browser, and probably use quite a lot of code from Konqueror, and just cut it down strip out the unnecessary KDE integration stuff like the KParts technology and file manager stuff, then you have a great web browser, for a file manager, you could have a very simple one like that new one that Xfce has. In general since there are so many KDE apps, you could just use bits and pieces from a lot of them and create smaller mini versions of them without all the integration.

thetza · Post by **thetza** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:21 am

there definitely is a Qt based light weight WM, its called qlwm. I don't really think its ground breaking, and don't know what the project status is either.

That said, I'm not really sure why more WM's aren't written in Qt. Maybe because KDE is so successful?

Gomer_X · Post by **Gomer_X** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:57 am

Tsuroerusu wrote:Something I was thinking about the other day, Qt has been GPLed for almost six years now, and since a lot of people like the idea of a lightweight desktop, why havn't there been a such one, built with Qt? Xfce uses GTK, and in six years you could get quite far on a such project.

Qt = C++

C++ != lightweight

Just my opinion.

thetza · Post by **thetza** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:17 pm

Gomer_X wrote:
Tsuroerusu wrote:Something I was thinking about the other day, Qt has been GPLed for almost six years now, and since a lot of people like the idea of a lightweight desktop, why havn't there been a such one, built with Qt? Xfce uses GTK, and in six years you could get quite far on a such project.
Qt = C++

C++ != lightweight

Just my opinion.

So GTK+2 = C, C = Lightweight, thus by the transitive property GTK+2 = Lightweight?

You can write lightweight C++, though it usually ends up looking like C with a thin OO wrapper. And please for the love of god don't use templates.

Gomer_X · Post by **Gomer_X** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:48 am

thetza wrote: So GTK+2 = C, C = Lightweight, thus by the transitive property GTK+2 = Lightweight?

Not exactly. I never said C was lightweight. C++ != lightweight is not the same as C == lightweight. I believe C is LIGHTER, all else being equal.

If GTK+2 where written in C++, it would be heavier. You can write bad code in ANY language, though.

Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:17 am

Gomer_X wrote:You can write bad code in ANY language, though.

So True!! People bitch about Java being slow and bloated but Azureus (bit torrent client) is actually very quick and responsive.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:46 am

Patrick wrote:
Gomer_X wrote:You can write bad code in ANY language, though.
So True!! People bitch about Java being slow and bloated but Azureus (bit torrent client) is actually very quick and responsive.

Yeah it is, I'm actually quite stunned about how fast Azureus is when you think about how much it can do, which is another reason why Azureus is like crack to me!

Post by **Patrick** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:48 am

Tsuroerusu wrote:Yeah it is, I'm actually quite stunned about how fast Azureus is when you think about how much it can do, which is another reason why Azureus is like crack to me!

I like Azureus a lot but lately I've been mostly using ktorrent. I really like the built-in search engine.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:06 am

Patrick wrote:
Tsuroerusu wrote:Yeah it is, I'm actually quite stunned about how fast Azureus is when you think about how much it can do, which is another reason why Azureus is like crack to me!
I like Azureus a lot but lately I've been mostly using ktorrent. I really like the built-in search engine.

KTorrent is nice, I just find Azureus more robust, just seems to work better in the cases of a tracker going down or being unavailable for a little while

CptnObvious999 · Post by **CptnObvious999** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:04 pm

Patrick wrote:
Gomer_X wrote:You can write bad code in ANY language, though.
So True!! People bitch about Java being slow and bloated but Azureus (bit torrent client) is actually very quick and responsive.

Well the reason I don't like Java apps is that it has to load a pretty big JRE into the RAM and then the program so startup time is obviously going to be longer than something like KTorrent which is writen in C/C++ (its one of those

). Also I don't like Java because it looks ugly but thats a whole different issue. I always have KTorrent open but rarely interact with it so I don't want to have Azureus taking up a fair amount of RAM for something siting in the background. KTorrent is great because the KDE libs are already in RAM because I use KDE so it doesn't have as big an overhead.

Gomer_X · Post by **Gomer_X** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:11 am

CptnObvious999 wrote:Well the reason I don't like Java apps is that it has to load a pretty big JRE into the RAM and then the program so startup time is obviously going to be longer than something like KTorrent which is writen in C/C++ (its one of those ). Also I don't like Java because it looks ugly but thats a whole different issue. I always have KTorrent open but rarely interact with it so I don't want to have Azureus taking up a fair amount of RAM for something siting in the background. KTorrent is great because the KDE libs are already in RAM because I use KDE so it doesn't have as big an overhead.

I personally use the bittorrent command line version. That way I can start a torrent at a console, and still leave it running when I shut down X. It has command line options for what few features I need.

There's also a program called ctorrent (ctorrent.sourceforge.net) that is small and fast, but very limited. Also only available as source.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:50 pm

Gomer_X wrote:There's also a program called ctorrent (ctorrent.sourceforge.net) that is small and fast, but very limited. Also only available as source.

And hasn't been updated for ages, very close to not working anymore.

thelinuxlink.net

Qtce ?

Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?

Re: Qtce ?