Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Feb 2009 12:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 348867
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-02-10
Qt "limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator subset of what's supported by that framework on each platform."
The way I see this is an extremely bad excuse for not using QT for Chrome linux variant. I would have accepted them using GTK+ if they would have just said that QT licensing was confusing or something...
QT is a lot better toolkit than GTK+ and it's a lot more advanced and it's faster too. Take a look Opera and Skype for example. They use QT on GNU/Linux and are one of the best examples of porting Windows application to our favorite platform.
Besides Nokia who now owns TrollTech is making QT work under LGPL license...
Better talk about subject here under topic "Qt now a possibility?":
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/1d...