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 348894
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why not QT?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 15:14 UTC 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[5]: Why not QT?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 16:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Why not QT?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

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

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[5]: Why not QT?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 18:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Why not QT?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 0