Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:53:55 +0100 From: Gert Cuykens <gert.cuykens@gmail.com> To: tkelly-freebsd-questions@taborandtashell.net Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GTK vs QT Message-ID: <ef60af0905020820535d683d3b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <420991C1.2030808@taborandtashell.net> References: <ef60af090502081934648df9fa@mail.gmail.com> <1107920345.41909.2.camel@codegurus.org> <ef60af09050208195068c1798e@mail.gmail.com> <420991C1.2030808@taborandtashell.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:29:53 -0800, Tabor Kelly <tkelly-freebsd-questions@taborandtashell.net> wrote: > Gert Cuykens wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:39:05 +0000, Mick Walker <mwalker@codegurus.org> wrote: > > > >>Why would you make a statement like that without making points to back > >>it up? > > > > > > because i dont have points except that qt can kiss my $$$ :) > > > > no i am just wondering what you guy's think thats all i lookt around > > on the internet a bit but that was old stuff about gtk1 and so. > > I have read the QT is far more efficient and that the only reason anyone > uses GTK is for licensing reasons. Any comments? Also, not to mention > that QT is fully portable to M$ Windows. > i knew you where going to say that , let me fire some counter measures by saying that GTK2 + GIMP works excellent on windows XP
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef60af0905020820535d683d3b>