Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

MattSmith · 2009-10-09 14:15:19

I know this has been discussed to death and flamed over many times, however I have a more particular case (my case), this being the reason why I moved to gnu/linux for the ability of choice and individuality.

Anyway before I get side tracked and all misty eyed over my linux story I would like to ask you fellow Arch'rs for your opinion.

I have been using wmii WM for 6 months and I love it, it's speed, it's simplicity. Up until recently I have been using GTK specific programs for their fabled speed and low resources. However I find applications like K3B and Vitual Box (both use QT) extremely powerful and useful. But sometimes deep down in my Obsessive-compulsive self I feel like these are outsiders, that they hinder my tidy lean my freedom fighting, copy left machine.

Am I right to think qt is slower, drags otherwise mostly un-needed dependencies, and takes up extra ram (I have 4 gigs tho), and look for other alternatives? Or should I just stop fussing over some minor graphical inconsistency and use the programs that are useful to me?

Thanks for the input!

Last edited by MattSmith (2009-10-10 02:31:51)

Lich · 2009-10-09 14:42:49

Most useful softwares use gtk, if you must use a qt app, just use it. This is not a war, use whatever you need and like, no need to settle for lesser apps just because they're not QT. The stuff needed for any qt app is like, under 300 mb, surely you can spare that?

shining · 2009-10-09 15:18:09

Maybe if you had really low mem, like < 512 MB, you should be careful. But with 4GB, come on

And btw there are ways to improve the graphical consistencies, in case you didn't already know.

sctincman · 2009-10-09 15:42:25

Plus, I don't think your system will load the qt libraries into memory until you run a qt app. So only a real concern if you're really low on disk space

I remember when running Gentoo, qt3 would pull in all sorts of KDE packages, but by qt4 they seem to have everything sorted out.

As Lich said, just go for it :]

Mr.Elendig · 2009-10-09 16:46:43

Both. Diskspace is cheap

linkmaster03 · 2009-10-09 21:24:10

I use VLC and Virtualbox, and they look just like any other GTK+ app thanks to QGtkStyle. You should check it out.

MattSmith · 2009-10-10 02:31:28

sweet thanks for all the replies guys, I just wanted to hear what everyone else thought on the matter

*david_a* · 2009-10-10 03:45:44

If you have the disk space and the memory, then use anything and everything that helps you in your work (or in your play). If you run into any problem, you can troubleshoot when it comes up. I tried to stick to just one until (just like you) I found a great app that I wanted to use, that happened to be from "the other side". So, I now have both installed on a machine that has lots of memory, lots of disk space, but a slow and old-ish cpu. Everything works fine here. Firefox kind of hogs my machine when lots of tabs are open, and that's the only problem I ever notice - but that's true for a lot of people and really doesn't affect your decision one way or another.

Wittfella · 2009-10-10 05:09:51

There is hardly any difference between the pure gtk and qt libraries. But there is a big difference between Qt and KDE. If you use KDE dependent apps then it does pull in heaps of stuff, but that is different than using stand-alone Qt apps, which are typically very small.

I'm not sure if k3b is a 'KDE' app as such, but I just checked and it does pull in a heap of stuff including kde dependencies. But its the same if you use with gnome apps.

Also about the "freedom fighting", open source all the way feelings, I don't believe there is any issue as Qt is basically fully open-source, they moved to LGPL a while back.

I don't use any full gnome or kde apps, only pure gtk or qt apps and I don't think there is a difference between the two.

quarkup · 2009-10-10 07:37:00

well there are some qt apps that are very utils (and very good programmed)

like "qtcreator" (a simple lightweight but very complete IDE for C/C++ and Makefile-based projects)
or "opera"

you don't need to have KDE packages at all and still need qt for some apps.

imo, KDE apps are not the favorite option when you talk about "tiling WM's" because its not that lightweight, so you won't run many things from it, but you can use some "tweaks/hacks" to get that apps look in your WM like in KDE (just actually run "kdeinit &")
KDE is pretty a great DE, but that means it's purpose is not to be really "small"

but anyway, GIMP is indeed a very good option if not the best for a digital "image manipulation program" (that's its name btw)
it requires gtk+, which is an acronym that means 'the gimp toolkit'

good luck though'

Arch Linux

#1 2009-10-09 14:15:19

Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#2 2009-10-09 14:42:49

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#3 2009-10-09 15:18:09

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#4 2009-10-09 15:42:25

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#5 2009-10-09 16:46:43

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#6 2009-10-09 21:24:10

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#7 2009-10-10 02:31:28

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#8 2009-10-10 03:45:44

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#9 2009-10-10 05:09:51

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

#10 2009-10-10 07:37:00

Re: Qt vs GTK for a tiling WM [SOLVED]

Board footer