The theme overrides were not working, so the issue is likely in how the Qt5 template layer was built/integrated in the universe MATE build (Qt6ct seems unaffected, but will not help with code built on Qt5). i.e. the applications may not crash, but will look garbled and exhibit undefined GUI behaviors on legacy desktops. Overriding the themes and other documented workarounds will only suppress standard warnings, but have not had any impact on the core Qt5 issues.
For an LTS OS intended to be around for 12 years, I am not sure things have turned out well in user space and Qt5.
Hopefully, this saves someone a few hours of chasing this external issue in their own projects. =3
Uhm, I use Mate under Trisquel 11 (bound to Ubuntu 22 releases, but libre), it's the default desktop DE and I have no issues with neither qt5ct nor GTK theme overriding, which is more apt for Gnome3/OSTree based desktops than normal setups.
This issue appeared in Canonical's Ubuntu 24.04.1 Noble Numbat MATE Desktop iso and universe repository meta packages ubuntu-mate-desktop and mate-desktop .
The meta package ubuntucinnamon-desktop does not seem to impact the Qt5 Apps/installation in a detrimental way.
If I could offer any advice about this mystery issue... probably wiser to defer upgrading for a bit =3
...why? I know this is the default opinion, but it's always seemed misplaced to me, even more so in 2024.
QT is run by a for-profit company ($QTCOM, TIL!) selling commercial licenses, Electron is maintained by OpenJS, who has it MIT-licensed all the way. QT uses a language that was designed in 1985 (literally 1-5y after GUIs first appeared) and Electron uses a language designed in 1995 (for the express purpose of modernized GUIs). QT stands alone on its monolithic rock, whereas Electron leverages Chromium and Node.js, two absolute powerhouses of free development and dependencies. Finally, and most importantly: the web is more beautiful and far more consistent than native-styled apps, and GUIs made whole-cloth from QT are almost always too ugly to even be in the running there. All of those downsides are worth it to save some RAM? Not even worth it, but worth lauding like it's a brave stance?
Sorry, just triggered my trauma from having to work in QT before I was able to find my true calling as a webslinger. No offense to the author of this particular app ofc, I'm sure it was the right choice for them and it looks well-executed for QT. ...Though if they used Electron, it could've been "Jocker" or "Tocker" (ts!) or "Chrocker" or "Electrocker" rather than "cock-er", but that's neither here nor there.
Docker Desktop uses 130MB RAM for me on MacOS. I'm guessing the app is using a system webview rather than bundled chromium/electron, which is the right thing to do given how simple the UI is.
What's wrong with Qt?! I love it. KDE has long been my desktop of choice and Qt is my go to GUI framework for application development.
Qt Creator makes it so easy to whip together a UI that you can easily write code for. It's an absolute pleasure compared to alternatives (at least the ones that I've tried).
i exclusively contribute non UI stuff to kde because i could never get the hang of qt.
I'm a weird contributor tho. i only focus hard on one annoyance for a couple hours and convince myself i can code a solution by just looking at the project code... it mostly works but not for kde apps UI.
it doesn't help either that qt (or maybe its a kde thing) keep changing the base ui code. qml, designer, widgets... it's a dozen frameworks instead of one. not to mention most apps are usually in a mixed abandoned-migration state.
well, they just green ligthed a goal to make kde app writting easier. hopefully we will get a one stop place to read how to accomplish things.
Just wait till someone starts auto-deepfaking their way out of college exams and job interviews.
Computers made graphic design approachable, but early adopters oversaturated the market before it stabilized. We’ll eventually figure out social norms and regulations for AI voice mimicry too, but there will be chaos first. Also, tech always moves faster than law. By the time courts catch up, this will be old news.
But tbh "better" is subjective here. Does the new LLM improve user interactions significantly? Seems like people get obsessed with shiny new models without asking if it’s actually adding value.
I'm curious if there are studies for this? In particular, I always think back to how few people notice common ligatures in books that they are reading. To the point that I would generally be willing to wager decent money, thinking 90% odds, that any given friend/family I have has not noticed it in books that they are reading. Only indicator I have that someone is aware of them, is if they know any typography terms already. :D
I'm curious about this too. Is this just preference/taste and the way everyone does things, or is there evidence to back it up. What could a modern study look like? There are so many aspects like the font, size, width or how much fixed width spacing between chars, screen/page size, background color, type of content. And are there other metrics than reading speed? Like information retention, or psychological effects like do people feel positively or negatively about the content/topic/reading experience.
- > In Universal Principles of Design, the entry on legibility states: Proportionally spaced typefaces are preferred over monospaced.
- It's unclear if that book provides further evidence to this statement
- > One famous research on this is Beldie I. P., Pastoor S. & Schwarz E, 1983, “Fixed versus variable letter width for televised text”, Human Factors, 25, pp.273-277, where part of the results include: The reading time (Task 1) with the variable-matrix character design was 69.1 s on the average, and the mean reading time with the fixed-matrix character set was 73.3 s, t (8) = 2.76, p < 0.02. The difference is 4.2 s or 6.1% (related to fixed-matrix characters).
- I couldn't find a pdf of that one in particular. The difference seems small
- > Comic Sans MS, Arial and Times New Roman typefaces, regardless of size, were found to be more readable (as measured by a reading efficiency score) than Courier New.
- small sample size 27 children. also the children preferred comic sans... we could pick a cooler monospace font than courier new
> We compared the effects of fixed and variable (proportional) spacing on reading speeds and found variable pitch to yield better performance at medium and large character sizes and fixed pitch to be superior for character sizes approaching the acuity limit.
