{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreia2k4p4frl7vig4qpbm3ltpo3x47uscgkrres3nvhmxa33zum76yy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3ml4pz4me4462"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33412&p=273493#p273493",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-05T17:28:01.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> Agreed. Users can run QT applications on GTK based desktops and GTK based applications on QT desktops. Generally most desktops will make the applications in the other toolkit look native in terms of the theme as well. Theargument that we'd only consider QT if we found a large number of users to be using KDE is a poor argument for this reason, although there are other reasons that are more valid to stick with what we have for now. GTK4 would be a terrible choice.\n\nYeah, I'm just saying I'm not sure about embracing Qt solely because GTK seems to have become a worse option, especially if it turns out most users will be in GTK4 environments in 5 years anyway. That would mean we'd be bound by some of Mutter's constraints even if we use Qt? I wasn't really arguing for anything yet other than maybe a poll seeing what environment most users are on, what direction those environments are moving in, and figuring out what can realistically be done with the foundation we would have to build on. My concern is mostly that I don't want us to be targeting solely alt-Linux and old computers... remain compatible, yes, but not plant our flag fully in that space and give up on modern Linux entirely. And sometimes it feels like there are a lot of forces pulling us in the wrong direction on that front and lulling people into a false sense of security, which is why all these toolkit-related issues are sticking in my craw all of a sudden and making me uneasy.\n\n\n> I posted a screenshot of a mostly working QT6 implementation.\n\nYes, but you also said it was experimental and not ready, right? Usually when I say something is experimental or mostly working, I don't want people to count on it being available or a viable option yet. If I claimed it were ready or practically ready, that might put pressure on you to finish it, or prompt early acceptance/rejection of the idea based on an awkward alpha/bata impression, when you were really just playing around with it to see how it looks. Sorry if it seemed like I was dismissing your work, I didn't mean for it to come across like that.\n\nThat said, if you are now saying your implementation of Qt is mostly finished, you're offering it up for people to play with, and it only has a few bugs left to be ironed out... then that does change things considerably because now the Qt work has already been done, and the bar becomes a lot lower... if it works well enough in most environments and Qt6 is scheduled to outlive GTK3 in terms of security updates, it becomes worth considering solely because it means we don't have to do GTK4... which I agree is not a good optio, but it could be \"made to work\" (probably would need custom widgets, some careful overrides to widgets that do exist in GTK4, and probably a lot of extra work since I wouldn't want to pull in libadwaita) and has some advantages like better integration with glib, which we rely on for event loops and such on Linux. Still, Qt also has some advantages over GTK, like better KDE integration, all or most of the widgets we need, and not needing as much custom code to get something that looks okay without libadwaita (which is the only realistic way we can do GTK4 anyway, the non-libadwaita path, which is of course the harder one).\n\nI mean, I think it just comes down to the fact that any attempt to support modern mainstream Linux (especially 5 years from now) is going to involve some unhappy compromises no matter what we do. Modern Linux isn't the friendliest to our direction as a project, but I don't really want to ignore it completely and just build a wall around ourselves out of XLibre and GTK forks either... you know what I mean? Not that we can't keep on supporting those older technologies, but there's a difference between being friendly to alt-Linux and other Unix-like OSes... and falling so far behind that we are totally relegated to that corner and unable to run on modern mainstream Linux without the user installing weird RPMs from questionable sources or compiling old stuff themselves in 5 or 6 years.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Browser Development • Re: Linux Pale Moon with Qt toolkit",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-05T17:28:01.000Z"
}