>
> > Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
> >
> > > [snipped]
> >
> > >
> > > I'd like to add that some people think that
> closed-source software is
> > > justified in some areas. And why should commercial
> developers pay
> > > horrendous prices for writing software for KDE? And why
> should those folks
> >
> > I investigated the Qt license previously for a commercial
> product, and believe
> > me their pricing is anything but horrendous, especially
> considering that
> > their aren't any runtime royalties.
>
> Compared to everything else out there, it is. At least the
> other dev enviroments are actually dev enviroments and not just libs and
> mebbe a life preserver.
> This could be very well why Corel might be more interested
> in a winelib rather than a qtlib version of their office suite.
> qt is behind the times in this respect. One wonders how they
> make any money at all with such an approach (rather than concentrating on
> the ultimate devtools).
>
> Corel wants a winelib because it has to be compatible with their existing
> windows code. It's purely a function of economics.
It's hardly that simple. We're talking here about a comparison
between porting the UI of their apps vs. reverse engineering
some one else's API.
I'm sure the maturity of Linux dev tools from the point of
view of a Mac or Windows developer significantly factored
into the equation.
It's certainly relevant to the comparison.
