On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 12:29:24 -02 Roland Hughes wrote: > On 1/2/2019 4:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > I understand you're working with 4.8. I don't care. > > That would by why there are hundreds, possibly thousands of companies > all supporting their own fork of Qt and even more moving away from Qt. > > They choose to use Qt. > > Takes them 1-4 years to get a product out the door which has a 10-20 > year market life.
And in those 10-20 years, they're going to get 20-40 updates of Qt. > By then, Qt has abandon them. There are __many__ medical devices running > 4.8 out in the real world saving lives today. We've had this discussion > before. Most likely he is working on a medical device as well since 4.8 > seems to be the most popular in that world. Then they should acquire professional support for their devices, if they need to keep running on old, not-otherwise-supported versions. The community has limited resources and I'm not being paid a dime to support old versions, nor is the company I work for. If you're choosing to stick to an old version, you MUST have a support mechanism for all your software (not just Qt) because of security issues. For example, Qt 4.8 is contemporaneous with OpenSSL 1.0.0 and Linux 3.1, both of which are full of known security issues. So you must either have the knowledge in-house or you must have an external contract to update those with fixes. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. So why not the same for Qt? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
