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 348883
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why not QT?
by kragil on Sat 14th Feb 2009 14:47 UTC 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[4]: Why not QT?
by Kokopelli on Sat 14th Feb 2009 15:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not QT?"
Kokopelli Member since:
2005-07-06

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


There you go. The way Kragil sees it, Chrome was meant for windows. That is the marvelous quality of language where when you make clear something is a personal opinion on motivation of others it is capable of self-citation. "The way I see it GTK is better than QT." is an opinion and stands fine on its own.

When an expression is quantifiable however this ability to state opinion is weaker. "GTK is the native toolkit for linux because Gnome has more users than KDE" is a questionable and contentious statement on multiple levels.

The original Chrome was written for Windows with strong ties to Windows API's. Chrome was probably intended to be cross platform from the beginning; it is proving to take a large amount of effort to port to Linux and OS X however. This tends to lend credence to the opinion that it was written for a specific platform with the philosophy that they would worry about how to port to other platforms at a later time.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[4]: Why not QT?
by andrewg on Sat 14th Feb 2009 16:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not QT?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Citation needed.
"

Citation not needed as this was an opinion.
Gnome having more users and KDE was referencing an objective fact. I would also add that clearly Chrome was meant for Windows first. I mean its obvious they only began porting to other platforms after Chrome was released for Windows. I am sure they knew they would have to create versions for other platforms but it hardly seemed a priority for them, at least initially. Emphasis on 'seemed'.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Why not QT?
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 14th Feb 2009 17:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not QT?"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Citation needed.


You're demanding a citation of someone's opinion?

How about this:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?348883

You know, it's generally a good idea to read a post before replying to it. Just a thought.

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[4]: Why not QT?
by ardor on Sun 15th Feb 2009 11:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not QT?"
ardor Member since:
2009-02-15

Technically, Qt is far superior to Gtk. QGraphicsView alone is one thing that you cannot do in Gtk without a significant amount of extra effort. The API, the tools (designer, linguist, creator..) and documentation are lightyears ahead of Gtk.

Also, what "unnecessary vendor lock ins" are there? You do realize that starting with 4.5, Qt will be LGPLed, right?

I have been writing scientific visualization software using Qt as the toolkit and OpenGL for real-time previews and editing. I would NEVER use the X protocol for network transparency. Instead, I wrote the application itself in a distributed way. There is no way you can use DRI OpenGL and X network transparency at the same time without ugly hacks. (And you *want* DRI with OpenGL.) Relying on the X protocol for heavy rendering is just *wrong*.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[4]: Why not QT?
by steogede2 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 15:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not QT?"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

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.


Do you believe your websites are representative of the whole world? They may appeal to a wide range of Linux users, but do they appeal to all Linux users. If your site was available in Spanish or Portuguese (I presume it isn't), you might find you had more Mandriva (primarly KDE) users (given the Conectiva heritage) - likewise if you had German content you might find you had more SUSE (again primarily KDE) users.

Ignoring all that, I don't see how having more users makes one system any more native than the other. To me, the whole thing smacks of measuring willies - just because you have the biggest willy, it doesn't mean that yours the willy.

Edited 2009-02-16 15:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

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