Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Editorial Late last week we ran a story on how the Google Chrome team had decided to use Gtk+ as the graphical toolkit for the Linux version of the Chrome web browser. It was a story that caused some serious debate on a variety of aspects, but in this short editorial, I want to focus on one aspect that came forward: the longing for consistency. Several people in the thread stated they were happy with Google's choice for purely selfish reasons: they use only Gtk+ applications on their GNOME desktops. Several people chimed in to say that Qt integrates nicely in a Gtk+ environment. While that may be true from a graphical point of view, that really isn't my problem with mixing toolkits. The issue goes a lot deeper than that.
Permalink for comment 349329
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: We're Stuck With It
by leos on Mon 16th Feb 2009 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:

We develop a suite of apps for our local investor community. We don't charge for the software, but provide it as a means to accessing the exchange data which we do sell.
Our current target platform is Windows. Of course, the platform and libraries do come at a cost, but it's a cost the customer is very willing to pay. They take it for granted.
[q] Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite; where our customers pay nothing right now, the QT app would cost them more than the Microsoft one- guess which one they would choose?

You are mistaken. Qt does not and has never had a runtime/distribution license. Once you own the toolkit you can distribute as many copies of your app as you want.

You could have even made it open source and used Qt free of charge (since you're not charging for your software anyway).

This whole issue is in the past with the new Qt license anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 5