Google snubs Qt; chooses Gtk for Chrome


Despite Qt's cross-platform credentials Google has opted to use Gtk+ with its Linux port of the Chrome browser. Ben Goodger (Chrome's Interface Lead) stated that this choice was to avoid using a framework which "limits what you can do" to its lowest subset, and to avoid more obscure problems when porting the program between platforms. Goodger describes the latter as the application "speaking with a foreign accent".

The Chromium team initially felt that a Windows clone would be acceptable for Linux users (eg via Wine), but was later convinced that this was not a permanent option. However, as one pundit (Alex Russell) said, the solution they need was one which "would work for *most* Linux users", because building a separate version for each platform was "out of the question". See for further analysis.

You should follow us on or Twitter

Your comments

Afraid of Nokia?

Wasn't the choice more directed by the fact that QT is now owned by Nokia?

The GTK+ version of Webkit

The GTK+ version of Webkit was the first one to pass Acid3 also as widely reported a year ago.

Though, the 'most users' thing - they just may be right. Gtk+ is installed in both gnome and kde enviroments, qt, only kde.

(yes, qgtkstyle does exist, and yes, it is buggy)

Nokia's influence.

It's certainly a possibility politics have played their part here, certainly.

GTK+ not part of KDE

@Anonymous Penguin
"Gtk+ is installed in both gnome and kde enviroments, qt, only kde."
Who cares if Qt or GTK is already installed or not? Your package manager will install whatever libraries are needed when you add a program. Besides, GTK is *not* installed with KDE anyway.

qgtkstyle is not needed to run Qt programs in GNOME. All it does is attempt to make Qt programs look like GTK programs. If it's buggy, you can just run Qt programs without it and have them look foreign, like a Windows program in Wine or a GTK program in KDE.

Personally, I'd much prefer a program to look slightly-foreign on all systems then to work well with one or two and look completely wrong on the others.

Shit =\

I thik it's politics!...
QT is realy clean and must to be used in this project!
They chosed realy hard way to make chrome...


This is absurd. Google Chrome and/or Chromium were supposed to be excellent browsers with and excellent framework. Now All we have is some strange GTK+ application needing some absurd libraries (.so.1d wth is this?!) that can't even pass the ACID3 100/100. Until someone with some dev skills doesn't sit down to make Google Chrome/Chromium the way they were supposed to, a.k.a. with Qt, I'm sticking with arora, lightweight and nice. Totally featureless when compared to Chrome but lightweight and at least hits 100/100 on the acid3 with execution time of 2,16 seconds, compared to Chrome with 6 failed tests and 2,96 execution time (94/100).
I really hope they figure out the way it should be.
Even Autodesk chose Qt for Maya and everyone knows that it's not your average program. My $0.02


That's just awful!
They should of chose QT
Gtk+ Stink!
Seriously it's like using some ancient mfc classes
literally it's a pain!
I'm horrified at the thought of a ugly gtk interface!
I mean seriously This is very embarrassing!
a QT port would be so nice!
It would also get so much more user input!
I'm so depressed...........
Google, what have you done?????
I hope this changes soon!

Totally 125% agree with the last comment!

GTK+ definitely the wrong choise

I don't know why so many is so fond of GTK+. I did some development with it in C#, it's even inferior to WinForms in C#, not to speak of WPF.

I can't tell about the programming-part of QT, but it's hard to believe anything is worse than GTK+... unless you go 10 years back in time of course.

It's definitely hard for me to imagine this as the right choice.

They honestly thought that

They honestly thought that GTK+ was powerful? Clearly Google's never actually worked with Qt. GTK+ needs a lot of work to actually be comparable to Qt. On top of this, Qt actually does a better job emulating other toolkits than GTK+ does. Anyone who has used KDE apps on GNOME and GNOME apps on KDE can plainly see this: GTK+ apps look like absolute crap in KDE when using the gtk-qt engine to "integrate" them, KDE apps actually manage to look GNOME-native with it built-in GTK-like engine.

As far as I can tell, gnome doesn't have its own native Qt-like engine, possibly part of why GTK+ apps look so craptastic in a Qt environment.

It's a shame Chromium isn't Qt-native in Linux. Because even GNOME users can't complain about how it would look, but KDE users get to be stuck with a browser whose controls render like a crap sandwhich. On top of that, Qt's just plan more powerful and flexible than GTK+ and its cross-platform implementation is eons ahead of GTK+.

Think politics

Qt is superior to GTK+ in any way. It is easier to delvelop, UI looks much nicier, it has cross-platform capabilities, the code is cleaner and runs faster, you name it. Both are GPLed under the same licence. I can think only of one Qt drawback but an important one. Qt is owned by Nokia and GTK+ is owned by community. I believe this reason may be important enough for Google to choose GTK+ over Qt. Think corporate politics. Other than that I can't see any explanation why Google choose GTK+ which is inferior to Qt.

What's the big deal?

I have gnome and CHrome works perfeectly, nice and fast, with full theme support. It seems to be perfectly fine with GTK. And on top of that it has it's own style so it doesn't even look like GTK. It looks like chrome no matter which OS you have.

I think Gnome needs more support for it's simplicity. KDE and QT seem to me to have waaaay too many features. Simplicity is good.

Chrome's Talented Developers

Oh, and the fact that GTK is not as "easy" to work with as GT makes one thing obvious: Chrome developers know what they're doing.

The people here who are

The people here who are complaining need to try developing (or at least understanding) both before they pass judgement. GTK is purely a widget toolkit whereas Qt is a full blown application framework.

Google opted to write their own core code instead of using a generalized framework. Big deal.

They pulled it off just fine. What difference does it make to all you cowboy coders which toolkit/framework they chose to use?

If I was going to write a browser to compete with Firefox, IE, Safari et al. and performance was number 1 priority, I would make exactly the same decision as Google have. There's no denying that purpose-specific code will always be lighter and faster than code built on top of a general purpose framework.

@trusktr I think you need to


I think you need to do a little research. Gnome is built using the GTK toolkit.

People here are seriously

People here are seriously confused and have blatantly never even tried to use GTK.

Let's make the distinction clear - you can either write your core code in C/C++ from scratch and make it "cross-platform" by writing a separate GUI for each platform or you can use a abstracted framework like Qt to handle it for you.

It really makes no difference whatsoever to the result if they do it properly. All it means is that the Chromium devs have to write and maintain more code from scratch but get complete control over their back-end code and performance optimizations.

One other trivial side effect of this choice is that their issue tracker gets inundated with retards who think that just because Qt have made an idiot-proof framework, it means Chromium can't live without it.

Get it through your thick heads - Chromium is already a very usable product and the core code and various GUI implementations are already there. What exactly do they stand to gain by re-writing this beautiful, lightweight code in a heavyweight framework like Qt?

I love Qt for the time it saves me and the ease of development but time and ease of use don't mean squat to the final product if you have resources like Google.

Google have stated their goals are centered around performance and using GTK helps achieve this goal better than using Qt - FACT. If people try to argue with me on that point they don't even deserve the right to call themselves developers.

> Google have stated their

> Google have stated their goals are centered around performance and using GTK helps achieve this goal better than using Qt - FACT. If people try to argue with me on that point they don't even deserve the right to call themselves developers.

I think you don't deserve to be called a developer stating something like that. What facts are you mentioning that states that GTK performs better than Qt? First of all, what version of Qt and GTK are you comparing? And second, what kind of performance are you referring to?

Several fan boys believe that GTK is faster just because it's written in C instead of C++. Just this fact highlights a great ignorance.

Agree w/ Ryan S.

Agree w/ Ryan S.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Username:   Password: