After takin' a swig o' grog, Homer belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> Huh? Maybe they've just written a good engine, so that creating the
>> front-ends is less of a problem.
> Those front-ends still represent three entirely different codebases that
> Google has to maintain, rather than the potential /one/ they /could/
> have maintained using Qt.
> I'm not suggesting people should be discouraged from writing alternative
> UIs, but Google are not doing this because they want alternatives,
> they're doing this out of ignorance, and because they favour Windows
> (the "lowest common denominator"). The result will be three distinct
> groups of contributors, three times the work, three times the bugs, and
> a browser which potentially lacks parity across all three platforms. The
> Linux port is already trailing ... this decision won't alleviate that.
> Joe Bloggs writing a light-weight FLTK GUI for Chrome (a la Dillo), is
> one thing, but Google's decision is vacuous and nonsensical, and
> ultimately puts the GNU/Linux port at a disadvantage.
Maybe. At the same time, I'm not sure I would commit to any single
"framework" for Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, and the BSDs. It is very
likely that the framework would have some issues, depending on the hardware
and OS platform.
Anyway, remember the old saw: You want something done right, you gotta do
A lawyer with a roving commission.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"