On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Andrej N. Gritsenko <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> PCMan have written on Tuesday, 26 March, at 10:42:
>>I just released PCManFM Qt file manager 0.1.0.
>>The tarball is available for download here.
> I never looked into razor-qt before and I wasn't aware such DE even
> exists but now that I looked into its site I've found out some conceptual
> similarities with LXDE. And I've got some crazy idea. Since libfm/pcmanfm
> has Qt port already and LXDE as whole has too few active developers, it
> might be reasonable to join projects (razor-qt and LXDE), i.e. port to Qt
> rest of LXDE components so LXDE will be based on Qt instead of GTK and
> razor-qt will get few missing applications as well. It's a crazy idea, I
> know, and may be even silly one, I just got that thought and decided to
> write it out loud. :)
> I never did comparizon on resourses consumption between pcmanfm GTK
> and Qt versions though, it should be done somehow sometime. And if Qt is
> more lightweight than GTK then... you know. :)
> The only problem is that GTK is C but Qt is C++...
Thank you guys very much for the proposal. It's not crazy at all.
The proposal is very practical. Actually, it's also what I'm thinking about now.
As the lead developer and founder of a some what famous DE, it's
really hard for me to say this. Even I personally found that using Qt
is much more productive and I already tested razor-qt for a while, I
felt that we should not abandon our LXDE users/supporters.
Politically, we belongs to the Gtk+ camp and moving toward Qt will
make some supporters disappointed. Technically, porting to Qt is much
easier than it looks like.
It only took me 1 - 2 months to port 90% of the functionality of pcmanfm to Qt.
So porting all other LXDE components to Qt is applicable and practical.
I've been evaluating razor-qt for months. I followed up the project
regularly and joined their mailing list. It has very similar goals
with us and its development is really rapid.
After months it's nearly complete now and contains even much more stuff than us.
The infrastructure and library APIs are also well designed.
So personally I like razor-qt very much and admire their work.
Resource usage is a little more than ours, but that's understandable
because it has more features.
Free software is all about choice, but too many choices is not always good.
Diversity is nice, but having duplicated work with the only
differences in GUI toolkits is non-sense. This only creates
unnecessary divergence and waste precious man power.
Since we have the same goals, merging the effort is reasonable.
Though the future of Qt is uncertain (will Digia sell it someday?), it
still has many supporters and ubuntu is moving toward Qt. Currently,
Gnome 3 seems to be the only user of gtk+3. XFCE2 is using gtk2 and
they're also suffering from the painful porting.
Gtk2 seems to be lighter than Qt in some cases, but it's no longer
true for gtk3.
Besides, it's KDE that's bloat, not Qt. Compared with gtk+, Qt
contains much more than just GUI widgets. It also offers xml parsers,
database supports, network stuff, and even webkit support. With gtk+,
you need to install many other libraries for these but with Qt they're
built-in. That explains the bigger library size. So it's not really
To sum up, if our developers and users are willing to joint the effort
and help razor-qt instead of mirrors what they have with gtk+, I'm not
against the idea.
Instead of having two incomplete DEs, at least we can have a really good one.
For those who get used to gtk+, learning C++ and Qt is much easier
than learning GObject. I started porting pcmanfm to Qt immediately
after reading the Qt tutorial and "hello world".
Maybe a vote is needed for this issue?
Comments are wanted, please.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Razor-qt" group.
For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Razor-qt" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to email@example.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.