Re: [Qemu-devel] quick gtk2.c update

["Jim C. Brown" <jma5@umd.edu>]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 05:53:14AM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > It's a very bad idea to have the installer need to go back on to the net to 
> > download something else.
> > 
> > The user should get the whole thing at once.
> 

I already agreed to this.

> yes, that's what hyperlinks are for, just put _another_ one
> on the download site saying something like: "this also 
> requires that you install bla, bla and bla. you can get
> a recent version of them here, here and here" ...
> 

Well, the least that could be done would be to have two versions of qemu for
download, one that includes the gtk libs and one that doesnt. Along with a big
notice in red that says: IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GTK IS THEN GET THE VERSION OF
QEMU THAT INCLUDES GTK. Or something.

> > > GTK libraries are not part of qemu, they are a separate resource that qemu
> > > depends on.
> > 
> > As far as the user is concerned, they are part of qemu.
> 
> as is VBRUN.dll for each and every application .. NOT!
> 
> this is the windows concept of 'do not share libraries',
> 'do not trust installed resources' and 'do not keep any
> compatibility' ...
> 

I agree. This should be avoided, especially because GTK is better well known
in the Windows world that qemu is currently.

> > Realistically, we don't need GTK.  We've already got a GUI with an api. 
> > That's what windows programmers use.  The vast majority of us will never use 
> > xchat etc.  Qemu may be the only one they use.
> 
> so why not make a native GUI for windows, and just
> use that? (according to Micro$oft this could not take
> longer than a five minutes with their advanced tools)
> 

A) Using microsoft tools may lead to slight incompatibilities with the qemu
code which requires gcc. [The -mms-bitfields problem discussed earlier in this
thread is a good example of that.]

B) Even if they didn't cause any problems (or the GUI was coded by hand), we
would still need a separate team of developers for the Win32 GUI. Considering
the lack of Windows build maintainers, let alone developers, this would not be
a favor to anyone, least of all the end user.

C) Sharing the same GTK GUI for Linux qemu and Windows qemu would provide a
consistent interface between the two platforms. IMHO this is the most important
one.

> > And it's not a good idea to distribute the libraries seperately.
> 
> it's neither smart nor good to deploy apps bundled
> with a complete operating system. period.
> 

Um...

> > Or put them in the Windows system directory.  Too much junk gets put there 
> > already due to years and years of poor programming, careless authors, 
> > indifferent programmers, and Microsoft's encouragement.
> 
> precisely, and every app wants to use their 'personal'
> version of lib whatever, but that's a windows issue,
> nothing which should concern QEMU ...
> 

Except it already does.

> 
> best,
> Herbert
> 

-- 
Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty.
Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.