Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Feb 2009 12:55 UTC
Google A major complaint about Google's Chrome web browser has been that so far, it is still not available on anything other than Windows. Google promised to deliver Chrome to Mac OS X and Linux as well, but as it turns out, this is a little harder than they anticipated, Ben Goodger, Google's Chrome interface lead, has explained in an email. It has also been revealed what toolkit the Linux version of Chrome will use: Gtk+.
Thread beginning with comment 348869
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why not QT?
by averycfay on Sat 14th Feb 2009 13:50 UTC in reply to "Why not QT?"
averycfay
Member since:
2005-08-29

They didn't say that QT was bad... they said they wanted to use the native toolkit. So the question is: what is the native toolkit on Linux? While it's not as clearcut as windows or mac os x, gtk/gnome has more users than qt/kde, so it makes sense to use that as "native".

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Why not QT?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 14:45 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

While it's not as clearcut as windows or mac os x, gtk/gnome has more users than qt/kde, so it makes sense to use that as "native".

Well, that ought to upset a number of people here. :-)

I'm wondering how many of them will show up to "debunk" your assertion, and "prove" it's just a dirty rotten lie spread by Gnome fans. I suspect that there are at least ten essays under construction even as I write this. So you might want to inspect your asbestos underwear for any imperfections, and maybe borrow a few shuttle tiles from NASA.

Edited 2009-02-14 14:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Why not QT?
by kragil on Sat 14th Feb 2009 14:47 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

gtk/gnome has more users than qt/kde


Citation needed.


I think Google coders want job security as much as anybody. So using Qt just wouldn't have made sense.

What is better? A bit more native speed and being a bit leaner or having the browser develop at much great speed with a much better and consistent code base and simultanous releases. (Qt 4.5 is fast on every platform.)

The way I see it, Chrome was meant for windows and then after the fact they decided to go x-platform.

Great strategy.

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 15:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

...Chrome was meant for windows and then after the fact they decided to go x-platform.

Citation needed.

Edited 2009-02-14 15:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by bnolsen on Sat 14th Feb 2009 15:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

<quote>(Qt 4.5 is fast on every platform.)</quote>

Wrong!

Qt fails when it comes to network transparency. This is true with remote X11 (unix) and terminal server (windows), especially when heavy rendering is required (cad/gis). Yes, an answer is to use vnc/remote desktop instead but they're not suitable replacements.

We dumped qt4 because of the above and if you go looking at the qt blogs a constant theme in the user comments is: "is this feature X going to speed up remote display"?

I was kind of hoping that google might take a shot at writing a better cross platform gui toolkit.

As it stands I certainly hope to see Qt truly shredded over the next 2 years as the old unecessary redundant portions written specifically for vendor lock in are replaced with better open/standard technologies. I'd say gtk is likely to be more stable in the upcoming couple of years.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by averycfay on Sat 14th Feb 2009 16:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

Citation needed.

I'm not looking to get into some long-winded debate here. I run 2 websites that appeal to the general linux crowd (not gnome, kde, or any distro specific) and get thousands of uniques per month.

You can't get everything from webserver stats, but you can get a lot. Even if I make some very favorable assumptions for kde (like that >90% of kde users run firefox instead of konqueror), there are still more non-kde users.

Looking at other stats, normal ubuntu beats kubuntu by about 100-1. Maybe people install normal ubuntu and then install kde. I don't know. Even if you assume that kde users in general don't run ubuntu, you can't get around the fact that ubuntu itself is the most popular distro by a rather large margin (on my sites ~55% run ubuntu).

Edited 2009-02-14 16:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by kragil on Sun 15th Feb 2009 21:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04
RE[2]: Why not QT?
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 14th Feb 2009 14:51 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

(...) gtk/gnome has more users than qt/kde, so it makes sense to use that as "native".


is that a fact? where did you get your numbers from?

it would have been "gtk has a better license" couple of weeks ago ..now that both QT and gtk will be using the same licence, the reason is now "more people use gtk therefore its the better toolkit"? .."more usage" means better these days?

it may make sense to you, but it doesnt to me and i suspect to most kde users

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by Hiev on Sat 14th Feb 2009 14:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I think is more related to Nokia being the competence of Google (Android vs Qt movil).

Anyway, Im pleased they used GTK+, is light fast and well integrated with Linux. Thank you google.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Why not QT?
by segedunum on Sat 14th Feb 2009 14:56 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

They didn't say that QT was bad... they said they wanted to use the native toolkit.

What native toolkit would this be, as Chrome by definition doesn't have one as a cross-platform application?

While it's not as clearcut as windows or mac os x, gtk/gnome has more users than qt/kde, so it makes sense to use that as "native".

While I won't debate the number of users thing (not really at issue here), it doesn't get away from the fact that porting a cross-platform application to specific native platforms, and have it work in the same way, is a world of hurt and pain we have already been through with Firefox and SWT on Linux.

You end up being a third class citizen behind the platforms and operating systems that have the most users ;-).

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by abraxas on Sat 14th Feb 2009 15:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

What native toolkit would this be, as Chrome by definition doesn't have one as a cross-platform application?


Chrome isn't cross platform...yet. It was built with a lot of Windows specific libraries.

While I won't debate the number of users thing (not really at issue here), it doesn't get away from the fact that porting a cross-platform application to specific native platforms, and have it work in the same way, is a world of hurt and pain we have already been through with Firefox and SWT on Linux.


I think you're confused. Firefox and SWT suffered from emulating GTK+, not implementing it. From what I gather from the article Chrome will be using native GTK+ which will make the interface much more consistent with other GNOME/GTK+ applications.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why not QT?
by silix on Sat 14th Feb 2009 15:15 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

They didn't say that QT was bad... they said they wanted to use the native toolkit. So the question is: what is the native toolkit on Linux?
interestingly, the answer is none, since unix' (and then linux') gui system has been designed the way it is (i.e. as modular as it can be, with widget look and feel implemented at the toolkit level) just to avoid being tied to a single toolkit, thus to have no "native", privileged, toolkit

if there's a native toolkit on unix/linux, that may have been AWT, but nobody has used it for ages and it has afaik been deprecated in 7.x Xorg releases -
apart from that, the next layer in the stack, ie the X11 protocol binding (Xlib or XCB )used to be considered the native gui library
but at a time high level widget libraries are designed to be crossplatform, and are given non-X11 rendering backends even on linux, that doesnt hold true any longer

Edited 2009-02-14 15:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by steogede2 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

if there's a native toolkit on unix/linux, that may have been AWT

Isn't AWT the Java Abstract Windowing Toolkit? or is there some other AWT that I am not aware of?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why not QT?
by puelocesar on Mon 16th Feb 2009 11:52 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
puelocesar Member since:
2008-10-30

Actually Qt looks "native" on KDE and on Gnome/Xfce, while Gtk+ looks native on Gnome/Xfce but looks like trash on KDE, so I still believe Qt should be a better option.

By the way, just compare how gtk emulates Qt looks, on how Qt emulates gtk looks:

gtk-qt-engine:
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/GithzeraiKDE/OOo.png

QGtkStyle from Trolltech:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/05/qgtkstyle-makes-kde...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Why not QT?
by steogede2 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not QT?"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

I've not used a Qt app. under KDE for a while, but I always used to find that pure Qt apps always looked like pure Qt apps and not KDE apps. Pure GTK apps, look (to my eyes) the same as any other Gnome app.

Personally, I don't like Chrome so I don't care which toolkit they choose. Having said that, I have to agree that I find their statement, which implies that GTK+ is the native toolkit for Linux, is a little off putting. It isn't even necessarily a native toolkit for Linux, it is cross platform toolkit just like Qt. Though I suppose you could argue that it is the native toolkit for GNOME it is, after all, the GNOME Tool Kit. And we all know that GNOME is the native WM for Ubuntu - and ofcourse Ubuntu === Linux, so I guess they weren't wrong after all.

BTW, to all those arguing that GTK+ is the native toolkit, just because you believe that GNOME has more users - having more users != native. Though I suppose you could say it is "native" for more users.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Why not QT?
by pixel8r on Tue 17th Feb 2009 04:17 in reply to "RE: Why not QT?"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

They didn't say that QT was bad... they said they wanted to use the native toolkit. So the question is: what is the native toolkit on Linux? While it's not as clearcut as windows or mac os x, gtk/gnome has more users than qt/kde, so it makes sense to use that as "native".


Qt is the native toolkit every bit as much as GTK is.
The number of users is irrelevant since both KDE and GNOME have millions of users.

Not that it matters which one is used, but the obvious choice would have been Qt. And since they are now doing more work to port to GTK, the question of "why not Qt" is a very valid one IMO.

No big deal really - and should be easy for folks to port it regardless.

Reply Parent Score: 3