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 349537
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: We're Stuck With It
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 19:03 UTC 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