<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 17/11/13 12:58, Gonzalo Odiard
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ+iPVQr50xSBoTF1FPiB-ccEJ2Mz0QvsjrnMkDaRSin6gDtSg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>I hope we can solve the performance problems then you don't
need use a old Sugar version,</div>
<div>to avoid all these problems.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I don't think it's likely you or me will be able to fix this
one. It's lower level than Python<br>
and it looks to be by design of the lower level libraries.<br>
<br>
Note this mainly affects the XO1 which is already considered End Of
Life. I think efforts are<br>
much more productive in trying to make the GNU+Sugar user experience
excellent on <br>
Classmates and other netbooks.<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
BTW, we are not the only ones affected. The entire LXDE desktop
environment has decided<br>
to forego migrating to GTK3 and instead decided to port everything
to QT.<br>
<br>
Here's a quote from the initial release of the QT file manager
PCManFM [1]:<br>
<i>"I, however, need to admit that working with Qt/C++ is much more
pleasant and productive than messing with C/GObject/GTK+.</i><i><br>
</i><i>Since GTK+ 3 breaks backward compatibility a lot and it
becomes more memory hungry and slower, I don’t see much advantage
of GTK+ now. GTK+ 2 is lighter, but it’s no longer true for GTK+
3. Ironically, fixing all of the broken compatibility is even
harder than porting to Qt in some cases (PCManFM IMO is one of
them).</i><i><br>
</i><i>So If someone is starting a whole new project and is thinking
about what GUI toolkit to use, personally I might recommend Qt if
you’re not targeting Gnome 3.</i><i>"<br>
<br>
[1] </i><a href="http://blog.lxde.org/?p=990">http://blog.lxde.org/?p=990</a>
</body>
</html>