Skip to content

Comment on Libvirt: Adoption of GLib library to replace GNULIB and home grown codeparent

Comments

I worked on some Linux apps in another life. I switched to Qt at some point. It was a breath of fresh air! Qt is very reliable and well documented. One can be very productive with it.

I think a lot of people have a bad opinion about it as they confuse it with KDE. While KDE does use Qt, the two projects are otherwise independent.

I’ve also looked inside the Qt code base a few times. It’s very tidy and quite easy to read. You can tell that their team is very experienced. I used to read their blog as well, they had a lot of good articles.

I really hope that they can continue to survive financially. Selling a mostly open source library is not very profitable.

The problem with Qt is The Company. They have a tendency to cater to their exclusive needs and not bothering much with Linux. A bit like Mozilla. Yet they're claiming to be fully cross-platform. They pushed 6 with regressions.

Qt is undoubtedly interesting but really have steering issues.

Here is the thing, GNU/Linux desktop developers aren't those who pays their bills, so they cater to the OS vendors and OEMs that actually pay them.

And I fine with that. But then drop the multi-platform bullet point from the marketing brochure. It becomes a lie at some point.

They pushed 6 with regressions.

Gtk pushes every minor version with regressions.

Qt looks quite good in comparison.

Well if you don't count missing modules as regression, sure ...

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.