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 349535
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: We're Stuck With It
by DrillSgt on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: We're Stuck With It"
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

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

Don't beat yourself up. For commercial development, up to just a couple months ago, there was a per seat charge for QT. QT has only very recently been released as LGPL. The fee was pretty steep as well, amounting to about $1500 per seat per platform. They offer 3 platforms, Windows, OS X, and Unix.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: We're Stuck With It
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 19:03 in reply to "RE[8]: We're Stuck With It"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

QT has only very recently been released as LGPL. The fee was pretty steep as well, amounting to about $1500 per seat per platform. They offer 3 platforms, Windows, OS X, and Unix.

So that would be $4500 if you want to take advantage of the cross-platform feature, effectively encouraging devs, for many years, to write for the fewest number of platforms possible.

It occurs to me that after years of arguing that GPL was better, the QT advocates are suspiciously forceful, even gleeful, about pointing out the impending license change for 4.5.

Edited 2009-02-17 19:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: We're Stuck With It
by DrillSgt on Tue 17th Feb 2009 20:24 in reply to "RE[9]: We're Stuck With It"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"So that would be $4500 if you want to take advantage of the cross-platform feature, effectively encouraging devs, for many years, to write for the fewest number of platforms possible."

Exactly. It was a very expensive proposition for commercial software. Not my toolkit of choice for OSS, though I may look at it again now.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: We're Stuck With It
by Lousewort on Tue 17th Feb 2009 19:12 in reply to "RE[8]: We're Stuck With It"
Lousewort Member since:
2006-09-12

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

Don't beat yourself up. For commercial development, up to just a couple months ago, there was a per seat charge for QT. QT has only very recently been released as LGPL. The fee was pretty steep as well, amounting to about $1500 per seat per platform. They offer 3 platforms, Windows, OS X, and Unix.



Many thanks. I understand now that this is a per-developer seat, which is sort of in the same price range as other dev toolsets. Steep, but probably reasonable. My previous understanding (prior correction) was that it was more like a royalty per customer.

Even so though, convincing a board of directors that we need to rig 20 developers at $1500 pers seat per platform

(or 1500*3 platforms*20 = $90 000),

they would go: "Are you nuts? how do you plan to recover those costs by not charging for your software? do you really need to target Max & Linux? why not just target WIN32 like you have for the past 15 years?"

I am very glad to hear QT has gone LGPL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: We're Stuck With It
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 19:17 in reply to "RE[9]: We're Stuck With It"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I am very glad to hear QT has gone LGPL.

I have not followed this closely, but I don't believe that QT 4.5 Final has been released. I think the first RC was released Feb 6 or so. So I do not think that it is LGPL yet.

Reply Parent Score: 3