What is wrong with Google?!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| AwesomeTux Feb 20, 2009 5:22 AM EDT |
"Unfortunately, more problems than first anticipated keep cropping up." People design free software from scratch, for GTK+, QT, and whatever the Windows graphical user interface is called. If these kinds of people can do it in their spare time, than why can freakin' Google!? There is starter kits, it's free and open source, and documentation galore. What the hell? |
| tracyanne Feb 20, 2009 5:30 AM EDT |
::Shrug:: I think Google Chrome is basically irrelevent, even the Windows version. |
| AwesomeTux Feb 20, 2009 5:37 AM EDT |
Agreed. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 20, 2009 6:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:... from scratch ... There's the problem. It's not too hard to write cross-desktop, cross-OS GUI applications from scratch. It is much harder to tack on support for other desktops and OSes after the fact. It's even harder if you want to go native instead of using a cross-platform UI toolkit like Qt. |
| AwesomeTux Feb 20, 2009 6:31 AM EDT |
@Sander_Marechal Good point, but, there has been other free and open source programs, that the developers of, later made cross platform and in GTK+, QT, and, native, without the 21.796 Billion dollar backing that is Google. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 20, 2009 7:23 AM EDT |
Yes, but even they have had a hard time. Take a look at Mozilla who went with native UIs in the Xulrunner that ships with Firefox 3. |
| dinotrac Feb 20, 2009 7:33 AM EDT |
And, FWIW, Google didn't claim that it can't do Chrome for Linux, or even that it's harder than others have faced. Their problem is deciding HOW to do Chrome for Linux. Look to the Mac discussion for a better understanding. They ruled out a simple Windows clone because the Mac has a well-defined and rich UI. A Windows clone would not be accepted. Linux is different. There is no Linux UI. There are a bunch of window managers and desktop environments, but no Linux UI. The choice, then, was in porting Google's WIndows library or doing something else. Something else seems to have won. |
| AwesomeTux Feb 20, 2009 7:39 AM EDT |
Mozilla only has 100+ employees, where as Google has 20,222. So, as "more eyes make better software" with the "open source" approach to software design (and not the free software way) Google should have it already taken care of, in fact, it should have released with GNU/Linux and Mac versions. |
| dinotrac Feb 20, 2009 10:18 AM EDT |
Awseome - Two facts of life intrude: 1. Projects don't scale the way you think. Why is it that Fred Brooks's The Mythical Man-Month remains mystery meat to so many people? A project has it's optimal size and adding too many people is more likely to slow it down and interfere with it's prospects for success than to speed it up and improve it. 2. Having 20,000 employees probably means that there are things for 20,000 people to do, not just Chrome. |
| DrDubious Feb 20, 2009 12:47 PM EDT |
I think part of the problem is as with most "lowest-common-denominator" Google projects lately, Google didn't consider "cross-platform" a planned feature (hence Google Chrome leaving beta with only a Microsoft(r) Windows(tm) version). Instead of planning for cross-platform support from the start, they figured they'd write a "windows" application and then somehow make a "different" version for other platforms. Doesn't work so well, apparently. Fancy that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!