OSNews

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.

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'.

My perception has been that Chrome was always intended to be cross-platform, but that getting the Windows version out was the highest priority. As a strong advocate of Linux, who doesn't even allow Windows into my home, I agree with their priorities. Getting another standards compliant, WebKit-based browser out there to the unwashed, Windows-using masses likely helps us more than it helps the unwashed masses themselves.

I also happen to believe that they made a good choice in going with GTK+ for Linux. And it's also pretty apparent to me that while it is easy to run a Linux system without QT, it is much, much harder to get along without GTK+. Shall we have a look over the default packages included by various distros to see how QT apps and libs actually fare against GTK+ apps and libs? Even if you run KDE you need GTK+.

Edited 2009-02-14 16:42 UTC

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.

A very interesting reply, all things considered. And your interest in this is? Looking over your posting history it's pretty clear that you are interested in stirring up controversy within communities of which you are not a part.

Citation? Here:

http://osnews.com/user/uid:16767/comments

Do you have some *legitimate* interest in this thread?

Edited 2009-02-14 18:49 UTC