Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Late last week we ran a story on how the Google Chrome team had decided to use Gtk+ as the graphical toolkit for the Linux version of the Chrome web browser. It was a story that caused some serious debate on a variety of aspects, but in this short editorial, I want to focus on one aspect that came forward: the longing for consistency. Several people in the thread stated they were happy with Google's choice for purely selfish reasons: they use only Gtk+ applications on their GNOME desktops. Several people chimed in to say that Qt integrates nicely in a Gtk+ environment. While that may be true from a graphical point of view, that really isn't my problem with mixing toolkits. The issue goes a lot deeper than that.
Thread beginning with comment 349308
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[4]: We're Stuck With It
by mtilsted on Mon 16th Feb 2009 19:55
in reply to "RE[3]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:2006-01-15
RE[5]: We're Stuck With It
by sachindaluja on Wed 18th Feb 2009 04:12
in reply to "RE[4]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:2007-02-15
RE[4]: We're Stuck With It
by leos on Mon 16th Feb 2009 20:03
in reply to "RE[3]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:2005-09-21
We develop a suite of apps for our local investor community. We don't charge for the software, but provide it as a means to accessing the exchange data which we do sell.
Our current target platform is Windows. Of course, the platform and libraries do come at a cost, but it's a cost the customer is very willing to pay. They take it for granted.
[q] Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite; where our customers pay nothing right now, the QT app would cost them more than the Microsoft one- guess which one they would choose?
You are mistaken. Qt does not and has never had a runtime/distribution license. Once you own the toolkit you can distribute as many copies of your app as you want.
You could have even made it open source and used Qt free of charge (since you're not charging for your software anyway).
This whole issue is in the past with the new Qt license anyway.
RE[5]: We're Stuck With It
by sbergman27 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 20:14
in reply to "RE[4]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:2005-07-24
RE[4]: We're Stuck With It
by segedunum on Tue 17th Feb 2009 14:27
in reply to "RE[3]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:2005-07-06
Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite; where our customers pay nothing right now, the QT app would cost them more than the Microsoft one- guess which one they would choose?
When you have a clue what you're talking about, and things called facts, give us a call. A royalty has never been a part of Qt's licensing model. Only developer fees have, and the latest version 4.5 has now been relicensed under the LGPL so even that has gone.
RE[5]: We're Stuck With It
by Lousewort on Tue 17th Feb 2009 16:12
in reply to "RE[4]: We're Stuck With It"
Member since:2006-09-12
"Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite; where our customers pay nothing right now, the QT app would cost them more than the Microsoft one- guess which one they would choose?
When you have a clue what you're talking about, and things called facts, give us a call. A royalty has never been a part of Qt's licensing model. Only developer fees have, and the latest version 4.5 has now been relicensed under the LGPL so even that has gone. "
I have had two civil responses already informing me as to my error. The tone of your response is arrogant, as if you cannot make mistakes. I would appreciate it if you would get off your high horse and join the rest of humanity.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-09-12
It's one of the reasons given, but I've seen no Windows or Mac development companies getting interested in GTK+ because of the license. It was a really rather sad argument to make. "
Call it sad if you will, but QT license does get in the way;
We develop a suite of apps for our local investor community. We don't charge for the software, but provide it as a means to accessing the exchange data which we do sell.
Our current target platform is Windows. Of course, the platform and libraries do come at a cost, but it's a cost the customer is very willing to pay. They take it for granted.
Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite; where our customers pay nothing right now, the QT app would cost them more than the Microsoft one- guess which one they would choose?
Conversely, our adopting the GTK allows us to continue to provide the app at zero cost to our client base; the choice is up to them whether they run Microsoft or Linux, without any cost implication.
I strongly suspect a similar reasoning for Google-Chrome.
Edited 2009-02-16 18:37 UTC