| |||||||||||||
Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"Posted Feb 6, 2013 15:17 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?" by ovitters Parent article: Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"
It's out of date now but I was thinking of Miguel's blog post where he points out that many third parties (ISVs) develop against Qt but few against KDE; many against GTK+ but few against GNOME; and that lack of backward compatibility is the main reason for this.
While there are programs written against GTK+ 1.x which needed porting work to 2.x, and some (such as my former preferred web browser, Dillo) which were 'lost' to the GTK+ world in this way, that's not really a fair point to make in a comparison against Qt because Qt 1.x is equally obsolete.
So I take back what I wrote; I really meant to defend Qt as having a good backwards-compatibility track record, rather than denigrate GTK+ and GNOME.
(Log in to post comments)
Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?" Posted Feb 6, 2013 15:33 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I thought the lack of permissive licensing was the principal reason given by De Icaza for a lack of ISV support for Desktop Linux, although there was a much more recent blog post that also mentioned backwards-compatibility as well, as I recall (and to which you are probably referring).
Certainly, lots of people still seem to develop against Qt (despite Nokia trying to eliminate the business of supporting and developing it sustainably), and backwards-compatibility has a lot to do with that, alongside a long track-record of support for the technology actually being available.
|
|||||||||||||