May-C wrote:That is really a big difference. You are wrong that moste famous software is written in GTK. Qt has also a impressive list of great software: Skype, Googleearth, Webkit or Opera for example. If you use GTK or Qt is just a matter of taste.

Three of those four are closed source though...and can't really be used to counteract "The most successful FOSS programs are written using gtk". It would be like claiming that gtk is responsible for the famous FOSS-apps Adobe AIR, Adobe Flash, and Nero...all programs are good, but not good examples of FOSS apps - successful or not.

But add VLC to that mix. VLC and Firefox/Thunderbird are really the only successful FOSS apps of either toolkit if by successful one means "Programs that are often installed on Windows and MacOS X boxes as well". Well, the only ones I can think of at least.

thedayofcondor wrote:I could try to find out how big phonon is, probably not much as it is some sort of "converter" (this reminds me more and more Java, let publish a coherent API and let the VM take care of the implementation specific details)

That's actually quite a matching concept, with the small correction that even in Java the details are not handled by the VM but by the Java class library.

thedayofcondor wrote:I would like to reverse the question, can be phonon be used without KDE?

Certainly.
Earlier versions of the Xine backend used to depend on some KDE features, but that has been solved now as well.

Phonon can be considered the choice for Qt applications with multimedia needs within the Phonon scope, totally independent of platform.

thedayofcondor wrote:If, as I think, phonon is heavily relying on other kde libraries, this is really a shame.

In a software stack view it would sit "below" KDE, i.e. KDE depends on it not the other way around.

thedayofcondor wrote:About gnome, most applications I have installed seems to be linked with libgnome (try to removing it from your system and you will see what you have to give away)

Probably the distributor or more generic binary builder did enable GNOME integration features at build time. Enabling KDE specific integration features would make it link to KDE libraries instead.

Build time options often make this a grey area. I have seen people think that products with their own toolkit abstraction like Mozilla's, OpenOffice.org or Eclipse would be using a specific toolkit, since this was the implementation they had installed and weren't aware of one of the implementations based on alternatives.

Cheers,
_

Hi All,

some other opinions, not strictly KDE, but probably somehow touching the suject...
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... itics.html

Not that I want to criticise anything

Regards,
Richard