Re: Kconfig (qt) -> Gconfig (gtk)

[Nero <neroz@iinet.net.au>]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:28 am, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Patrick Finnegan (pat@purdueriots.com) wrote:
> > On 2 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2002-11-02 at 20:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > Oh please....
> > > > Wouldn't it be more helpful to iron the (few) small glitches out of
> > > > the qt based one than write a new one just because you don't happen
> > > > to like the library?
> > >
> > > Lota of installations have gtk but don't have qt.
> >
> > And a lot of installations have QT but not GTK... This feels like a vi vs
> > emacs discussion.
> >
> > Personally, it makes no difference to me which library is used.  I'm
> > doubtful I'll use anything other than menuconfig unless it makes my life
> > a *whole* lot easier. I'd say 'choose one and get on with it.'
>
> Exactly my point.  I just don't see the point in spending the neuron
> hours on both.
>
> But you guys who are worried about space and dependencies always can:
>    1) use menuconfig

OR, we could use the logical choice. GTK+ is on most systems, has hardly any 
dependancies, is relatively small (compared to Qt) and doesn't require a C++ 
compiler. Really, I think the only people being religious here are the ones 
voting for Qt, as it just doesn't make sense to use it for such a thing. If 
you absolutely hate GTK+, there is menuconfig, and IIRC KDE have their own 
[external] kernel configurator utility.

(and before anyone tries to jump on me for being a gtk zealot - I'm not. I run 
KDE as my primary desktop, so I'm quite fond of Qt. That doesn't mean it 
makes any more sense in a kernel however ;))