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 348982
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

There has got to be *some* reason companies were willing to pay thousands of dollars PER DEVELOPER for Qt licenses,

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

Reply Parent Score: -1

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+?"
tbscope2 Member since:
2009-02-14

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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+?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

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+?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

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+?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And there we have it. QT is *expensive*. Nice strategy, as the World teeters on the brink of a World-wide economic depression.

I think the correct tense would be "was." QT 4.5 has been LGPLed, remember?

Reply Parent Score: 3

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+?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And there we have it. QT is *expensive*. Nice strategy, as the World teeters on the brink of a World-wide economic depression.

Yer, and the developer tools market is still one worth billions upon billions of dollars. Go figure.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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+?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5