New developer

[Rahul Sundaram]

Vlad wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> It is not worth the effort for Anaconda and many other tools.
> 
> Sure, if you think KDE users aren't worth having an efficient Fedora
> system.

Don't presume what I think please. What I am claiming is that a bunch of 
GTK based tools in a KDE spin of Fedora is better than the time spend 
rewriting these tools in QT.

Loading two different graphic frameworks at the same time
> wastes memory/diskspace, slows down startup time, and leads to
> graphical inconsistencies. For people with low-end hardware that makes
> a huge difference.

I doubt that loading GTK instead of QT makes a big difference. Before we 
go down this route let's properly analyze the benefits claimed instead 
of having some vague notions.

Wasting memory and disk space: How much exactly?

Look and Feel: Can be mostly solved by http://gtk-qt.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ 
which there was a plan to provide by default in the KDE spin.

How exactly does it make a huge difference in low end hardware? Provide 
benchmarks.

 > That's a suboptimal solution, originating from a lack of foresight in
 > designing those applications to separate the core functionality from
 > the GUI components.

Given that "we lacked foresight" and that the business logic is now not 
separated from the UI in many of the tools is it worth rewriting them?

> The only reason I mentioned the lack of KDE frontends for system tools
> in Fedora is that a potential developer with Qt background asked where
> he can help.

... and where I would suggest that there are better easier things to 
tackle rather than rewriting Anaconda and system-config* tools. Just ask 
the KDE SIG.


Rahul