Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Feb 2009 12:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 348982
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by tbscope2 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
If you say that a Qt license is expensive you do not now anything about managing a company, not anything about software licences, not anything about software development and not anything about economics.
The licenses of Qt are not expensive at all.
Of course, if you're just an amateur developer sitting in your bedroom, it IS expensive. But it is not for companies making software.
I can easily show you software that is 100 times more expensive PER USER than Qt. And even then, nobody leaves some sleep about purchasing it.
RE[4]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:38
in reply to "RE[3]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
If you say that a Qt license is expensive you do not now anything
Talk to Vivainio. I was paraphrasing his statement that:
"""
There has got to be *some* reason companies were willing to pay thousands of dollars PER DEVELOPER for Qt licenses
"""
Emphasis his and not mine. Confer with your own QT advocates and try to come up with a consistent argument.
Edited 2009-02-14 20:41 UTC
RE[4]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by leos on Sat 14th Feb 2009 23:31
in reply to "RE[3]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
Of course, if you're just an amateur developer sitting in your bedroom, it IS expensive. But it is not for companies making software.
The funny thing is, I was/am a developer sitting in my bedroom and I bought a Qt license. Yes it was fairly expensive, but it was an investment, and made my small business possible. I can say with 100% conviction based on my experience that without Qt I wouldn't have been successful with my software. Qt allowed me to produce something valuable with extremely limited resources (just me in my spare time, which isn't much). I tried other toolkits previously and they didn't allow that. It's that simple.
RE[3]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by darknexus on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:38
in reply to "RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
RE[3]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by segedunum on Sat 14th Feb 2009 22:26
in reply to "RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
RE[3]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by leos on Sat 14th Feb 2009 23:27
in reply to "RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
And there we have it. QT is *expensive*. Nice strategy, as the World teeters on the brink of a World-wide economic depression.
He was talking about the past. Qt was pricey and lots of people still thought it was worth it, despite alternatives available for free. That speaks to its quality. Now Qt is LGPL and thus free to use. Your intentional misunderstandings and hyperbole aren't convincing anyone.





Member since:
2005-07-24
And there we have it. QT is *expensive*. Nice strategy, as the World teeters on the brink of a World-wide economic depression.
Edited 2009-02-14 20:29 UTC