Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Aug 2007 18:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 263475
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-08-04
But they did invent a user interface style that is a huge leap in usabilty. Feature for feature you could say it's been done but, for example, the Google Maps on the iPhone can tell you what you need to know in the time you have waiting at a stop light where on other phones you would spend all your time navigating.
So if you compare use cases rather than just features, you'll see the real payoff.
But, to get back to the topic, the problem is no one wants to pay for QT or rather, force commercial devs to pay for QT to use their platform. This means you're stuck with GTK. Which leads to a bigger issue: if you want an open source project to take a huge shift, you had better have the developers to back it up. You can't freeload. Look at WebKit, Apple didn't try to convince the khtml devs to do it for them, they applied their own resources to the project and let the community build around the fork.
Edited 2007-08-14 20:57