[alwayslikethis]

I have another feeling that while what you say is likely true, in a world without Electron, we would have a lot less common software available on Linux with companies opting for native UI toolkits on Windows and Mac only. Qt, though better than electron, isn't that lean [1], and is available under only LGPL or an expensive commercial license. I also don't think Electron is entirely responsible for the slowness in many applications (Slack), but rather the bloated web design itself.

1. https://federicoterzi.com/blog/why-electron-is-a-necessary-e...

[guappa]

A lot less software on linux without electron?

I have been using linux for 20 years and I've yet to use one electron based software.

There is no problem with LGPL. From your link: " QT is free to use as long as you release your code as GPL"

That is false. It is free as long as you don't statically link qt, and you distribute your eventual changes to qt itself (which aren't needed in most cases).

Of course if we spread misinformation, we might draw different conclusions, which is why it is important to start from correct non-made-up premises.

[palata]

I agree, LGPL is totally fine.

But I also believe that most devs are not comfortable with linking/packaging/dependency management, and therefore don't really know how to handle LGPL (or to say it in a more politically correct manner: "don't have time to handle it properly"). Which is obviously a pity.

[rubymamis]

> most devs are not comfortable with linking/packaging/dependency management

Using `macdeployqt`, `windowsdeployqt` and `linuxdeployqt` takes care of that in mostly one click. I used to look at other open source apps workflows to figure it out. Now, others can look at my app's workflows for a complete packaging experience for Windows, Linux, and macOS[1]. Huge credit to contributors for my OSS app for implementing and perfecting it.

[1] https://github.com/nuttyartist/notes/tree/master/.github/wor...