Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Editorial 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 349497
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: We're Stuck With It
by Lousewort on Tue 17th Feb 2009 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: We're Stuck With It"
Lousewort
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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: We're Stuck With It
by segedunum on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:25 in reply to "RE[5]: We're Stuck With It"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I have had two civil responses already informing me as to my error.

Sorry, but given this:

"Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite..."

It gives the impression that you've already done your research and come to your conclusion based on this. It just doesn't come off as a genuine error.

Where did you actually read the above to make you think it was true?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: We're Stuck With It
by Lousewort on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:38 in reply to "RE[6]: We're Stuck With It"
Lousewort Member since:
2006-09-12

"I have had two civil responses already informing me as to my error.

Sorry, but given this:

"Were we to adopt QT, we would have to charge a fee for each instance of our application suite..."

It gives the impression that you've already done your research and come to your conclusion based on this. It just doesn't come off as a genuine error.

Where did you actually read the above to make you think it was true?
"

Oh, believe me, it was a real error. I cannot recall where I got my information; I have been under a mistaken impression about QT's license for a long long time.

Happily, I now stand corrected.

I have neglected even looking at QT as an option due to my previous belief that there was a per-seat license cost implication.

I think the real point I was trying to make is this:
The fact that customers already purchase the Microsoft GUI API/toolkit packaged with the OS makes it very hard for competitors to provide viable alternatives, even markedly better ones, at a price.

That's the real price we pay for a Microsoft monopoly.

Another way of saying it is:
The reason alternative GUI toolkits have to be free (as in beer), is that the most used WIN32API GUI toolkit as provided by Microsoft is bundled with the operating system, and is already a sunk cost for the prospective customer base.

I would personally have preferred a free market system for GUI toolkits. We might have seen way more innovation. It is only right that people (other than Microsoft) are compensated for their labor.

Right now, obvious choices for cross platform GUI development are IMHO QT, GTK+ & Java. Each have their good & bad points. Others like Ultimate++ etc. just don't make the grade.

I happen to like the GTK; not everything about it mind you- the model-view-controller approach in things like gtk_treeview/gtk_listview for example is just ridiculously and unnecessarily complex. I do like the ease with which it binds to C, or scripting languages though.

Reply Parent Score: 2