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.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
15:23:41 up 101 days, 23:06, 4 users, load average: 0.05, 0.16, 0.11
|
|
