[olug] Chrome

[Adam Lassek]

If I had to take a guess, I would point out that QT is GPL and Google tends
to keep their open source code commercial friendly. They favor the BSD and
Apache licenses.

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM, T. J. Brumfield <enderandrew at gmail.com>wrote:

> Bringing it all full-circle, (and on topic) that is one of the rather
> nice things about QT 4.  Code once, and it largely just runs on BSD,
> Solaris, Linux, Mac, and Windows.  When KDE 4 moved to QT 4, it
> allowed KDE to work on all these platforms.  KDE 4 even went a few
> steps farther than QT 4 and made the API extremely simple with
> underlying technologies like Solid, Decibel and Phonon.  With a couple
> lines of code, you have a video player. Even better, that video player
> works on any platform, and you don't have to know anything about those
> platforms.  Phonon decides (with your input if you so desire) how to
> best output on your platform, with a variety of back-ends such as
> Gstreamer, Xine, Quicktime, etc.
>
> This is why I'm shocked that Chrome wasn't built on QT.  It would be
> multi-platform from day one.
>
> -- T. J.
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Will Langford <unfies at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In regards to multiplatform goodness... I'm unsure how truely enwrapped
> > within the win32 api it is... I don't have the time to dig through mb's
> of
> > foreign sauce.  If it's got a complete isolation/wrapper from some
> rendering
> > goodness ... then as a coder, I see it as a design decision to be able to
> > flex each architectures strengths rather than settling for the lowest
> common
> > denominator.... with the extra work possibly being worth it.
> >
> > -Will
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>