[josteink]

Not a Flutter-fan myself, but this argument is flawed:

> As we have touched on previously, there are already enough UI toolkits available for the Linux desktop. Most notably among those are Qt and GTK

The aim for Flutter is not to just support the Linux desktop, but also Mac, Windows, iOS and Android, tablets and phones.

Something tells me you won’t find neither Qt nor GTK a popular option for delivering cross-platform applications to all those targets.

[teh_klev]

It's also a bit of a short sighted, if verging on arrogant viewpoint. I thought the whole ethos of FLOSS (I did check the license which is a 3-clause BSD) was to have choice? Adding another UI toolkit to just a handful existing frameworks doesn't seem like adding to an already overcrowded space.

Sure Google might discontinue their interest but it can be forked and carry on if there's enough momentum.

[squiggleblaz]

>It's also a bit of a short sighted, if verging on arrogant viewpoint. I thought the whole ethos of FLOSS (I did check the license which is a 3-clause BSD) was to have choice?

The ethos of FLOSS is to be able to change software and give it to your colleagues and friends. Gnome -- one of the major competitors to Flutter for Linux desktop programs -- is famously an example of a choice-unfriendly floss project.

[teh_klev]

Then pick something else. I binned Gnome after they did all that Apple like dock nonsense and went all Fisher-Price. Today, and for a few years now, I've been running LXDE. I did try KDE for a couple of years (Plasma etc) but we just didn't get on. LXDE does just enough for a quality of life desktop experience.

Also I don't think I even mentioned Gnome. Also isn't Flutter just an app UI toolkit, ala, Electron, Qt etc? Just because there's a Flutter app I want to run doesn't mean I need to change my desktop manager.

[yawaramin]

It's not just about choice. This article is likely a response to Ubuntu betting on Flutter for desktop apps: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/03/ubuntu-building-apps-wit...

A bet like that is putting a large part of Linux desktop app development in the hands of Google, which as a history of killing or deprecating their projects. Sure it can be forked if there's 'enough momentum', but that would suddenly dump a huge burden on the Linux ecosystem that it doesn't need. Why not stick with established players like Qt, who actually have a proven sustainable business model (dual OSS+commercial) for decades now, or a classic like FreePascal+Lazarus, which is also established for decades?

[saurik]

I guess they could alternatively bet on Gnome; they certainly don't have a history of arbitrarily deprecating large swaths of API and functionality while spending most of their time chasing the dream of replicating whatever "new shiny" Microsoft has come up with. /s ;P

As for Qt, they have continuously pushed their OSS branch down on their priorities over time, with the latest (that I know of) round of changes from last year being that if you want to download official Qt binaries--ones that are at all supported by them--you have to have a Qt account; offline installers and LTS access are now commercial-only.

This is way worse than Flutter; and, as much as I hate hate hate Google in general and am a very big complainer about their shut downs of everything, Flutter feels more like Android or Chrome--both of which I feel will be safe for quite a while, at least as supported products if not ones that are mostly open source--than like all the other long list of things Google has killed (which certainly has included developer tooling).

[yawaramin]

> I guess they could alternatively bet on Gnome

Yeah, except Gnome looks pretty crappy on every other OS (and only marginally less crappy on Linux). Meanwhile, Lazarus Component Library looks native on every desktop.

> if you want to download official Qt binaries--ones that are at all supported by them--you have to have a Qt account; offline installers and LTS access are now commercial-only.

I was just now able to download the installer for open source usage without a Qt account from https://www.qt.io/download-open-source , so that seems very questionable. By the way, of course Qt is not going to provide production level support for free for open source software, why should they be expected to?

[teh_klev]

> A bet like that is putting a large part of Linux desktop app development in the hands of Google

Sure, but other Linux distributions are available. I'm not trying to respond in a facetious way, but since I started using Linux in around 1993-94 (Slackware), that was how you voted, with your feet, when something really annoyed you.

> Why not stick with established players like Qt, who actually have a proven sustainable business model...etc

Well, if you're a developer then keep using Qt, you're free to do so. Isn't this how it's supposed to work?

[viraptor]

They may not be popular, but Qt does support them all. See Qt for iOS https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/ios.html - it even supports watches.

[yawaramin]

> you won’t find neither Qt nor GTK a popular option for delivering cross-platform applications to all those targets.

Neither is Flutter, so that's not really an argument. And in case you're arguing that they don't support those targets, here's a reference of Qt's supported platforms: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/supported-platforms.html