Of course it has use, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm actually
not sure what I was getting at, when I wrote that... hmm.

On 10/21/06, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <friedrich.w.h@kossebau.de> wrote:
> Hi Branan,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2006 20:27, schrieb Branan Riley:
> > Anyway, moving back to this thread, I think the big reason to stick
> > with pure Qt4 is that it works in KDE, MacOS, Windows, and even
> > embedded systems based on Qt. I think I read somewhere that there
> > would be an attempt to make KDE4 work on all platforms, but is that a
> > guarantee yet?
>
> There is no quarantee yet, but a lot of people seem to work towards making
> KDE(libs) for these platforms a reality. (No idea about embedded systems
> supported by Qt, but from a API point of view most should not be that
> different from Posix, may I put a wild guess here).
> Having even already a kdelibs 3 port to the Windows world (see kdelibs.com) I
> would be really surprised if there won't be one for kdelibs 4, given that
> here no longer Qt license problems are a stopper for some.
>
> > Even if it is, KDE depends on Qt, so why use the extra
> > library layer if you don't have to?
>
> Because this layer has some values? Or why is it developed at all?
>
> > On 10/19/06, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <friedrich.w.h@kossebau.de> wrote:
> > > Why should anyone stay with pure Qt4, once KDE4 libs are available? KDE
> > > might do something wrong if people still stay with Qt4 only, no?
>
> Friedrich
>