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 348984
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 UTC 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[5]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by segedunum on Sat 14th Feb 2009 22:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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
"""

Why do you think a few thousand dollars for development tools is expensive when a software vendor will spend hundreds of thousands on salaries, office space, equipment and hardware - and those aren't even the tools they'll be using to make the very thing (software) that will put food on their table?!

You basement programmers feeding yourselves via the licenses from some hypothetical shareware application that no one pays for make me laugh my ass off every time. It's one of the reasons why I loiter on here really :-).

Confer with your own QT advocates and try to come up with a consistent argument.

The argument is the same. Why has KDE 4 got resolution independence and has moved on in the way it has and other open source desktops haven't? Given that we have so many brilliant cross-platform tools that allow you to develop for nothing according to people around here, why would Trolltech have been in business as an independent company for such a long time? I mean, what idiots actually pay for development tools? ROTFL.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by evangs on Mon 16th Feb 2009 07:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Trolltech used to charge $1500 per developer seat for one platform, and then that would increase to about $3300 for a Windows/Mac/Linux bundle. They've since removed the price from their website so it's not easy to see the price anymore.

However, $3300 for a crossplatform toolkit that works is pocket change. That's less than a months salary for a software developer. To put it in other words, that's less worth around 20 man days.

I can't write a cross platform toolkit in a month. Porting any major piece of code from one platform to another is going to take longer than a month. Hell, Qt is cheap for what it does.

Reply Parent Score: 4

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[5]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by abraxas on Sun 15th Feb 2009 00:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

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.


Yeah it's that simple if you have thousands of dollars to throw around on licesning costs but most small business owners don't. A QT license is so expensive that forgoing that expense would leave you enough money alone to start a small business and then some.

Reply Parent Score: 2