Of course; I think there are a number of developers here that use Qt under an Open Source license though, and perhaps even a few that, while having various reasons not to use Qt under an Open Source license, still wouldn't mind contributing with patches.
Volker > On 24 Feb 2022, at 17:17, Nelson, Michael via Interest > <interest@qt-project.org> wrote: > > A fair question perhaps for OSS community but many on this list pay for > licensing and support precisely because we don't have time to fix everything > ourselves. > > MIke > > > Confidential - Company Proprietary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Volker > Hilsheimer > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 10:39 AM > To: Qt Interest <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] Is there a good alternative to the QML Controls in > Qt6 for native desktop integration purposes? > >> On 22 Feb 2022, at 00:34, Mark Gaiser <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mo, 2022-02-21 at 16:42 +0100, Mark Gaiser wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm facing so many bugs in QML Controls in Qt6 (they used to be >>>> Controls V2 in the Qt 5.x >>>> days) that I don't want to use them at all anymore. They are bugged >>>> beyond repair and downright unusable for native desktop integration >>>> purposes. >>>> >>>> Is there another good open source component set out there that >>>> integrates with the desktop. Specifically with Windows but preferably also >>>> with Linux (kde and gnome) and Mac. >>>> >>>> Using QWidgets should not be an alternative as it slows down >>>> development a lot. But given the crap that QML Controls is makes me >>>> consider switching to QWidgets instead. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:11 PM Bernhard Lindner >>> <priv...@bernhard-lindner.de> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> QML is nice for basic applications but widgets is important for >>> professional, technical and high-density applications. >>> >>> But that doesn't matter. From my point of view Qt stopped being >>> developed as a desktop framework a long time ago. Other industries seems to >>> have priority now. >> >> Well, it was nearly good enough in the Qt5 days with Controls V1. >> All they needed was a better set of controls to accommodate mobile more and >> reduce complexity in V1. >> >> What they did - conceptually - with V2 was good. >> But it seems like they just left it in alpha quality and call it "ok" to >> replace V1.. That was a mistake. >> It needed much more development time to be a proper replacement. >> >> We're now like ~8 years past the introduction of the V2 set... >> And it still has really severe bugs that just interrupt usability. 8 years... >> So I doubt it will be getting any better at all. >> > > > Hi All, > > Thanks for keeping it civilised. > > Yes, Qt Quick Controls - and largely the entire Qt Quick framework - were > originally designed for mobile and embedded platforms, and indeed, that shows > when using them for the desktop. > > I’m happy that at least in The Qt Company we are now in a position that > allows us to put more focus on the desktop, and that we are are able to do > more than maintenance and catching up with what’s happening on the underlying > platforms. That includes the journey of making Qt Quick Controls a great > toolkit for the desktop as well. In Qt 6 so far we have had first > implementations of the native styles - yes, those require more work; we have > made a number of improvements to item views, including a TreeView now in Qt > 6.3; a first set of standard dialogs is in Qt 6.2 and more are coming in 6.3. > We have worked on some architectural issues that are problematic on the > desktop, such as keyboard navigation and focus handling, and there is a fair > amount of more work needed there as well. > > I’m not going to claim that all things will be wonderful any moment now; > there’s plenty of work that needs to be done. But things do get better, both > with Qt Quick Controls, and with Qt Widgets as well. > > What keeps confusing me personally is how few people in the community seem to > find it interesting to contribute to either of our UI frameworks in Qt. If I > take one of the QtWidgets issues that came up in this thread: "QTBUG-6864 is > 12 years old, has 47 votes”. I sat down on Tuesday evening to check what it > would take to implement hiding of rows in a QFormLayout; after a few hours I > had a working implementation, which is right now on its way into the dev > branch. The hardest part, as it so often is, was writing a unit test. > > Now, I understand that not everybody finds it fun to do that kind of thing on > a Tuesday evening. But given the apparently high interest in this feature, > that nobody seems to have tried to give it a shot in 12 years is really > puzzling me. When Nokia acquired Trolltech, it didn’t take a crystal ball to > see that the focus won’t be the desktop. And one answer to this was to move > Qt under Open Governance so that anyone could contribute to Qt and make sure > that it stays awesome also for domains that Nokia won’t care much about. > > Evidently, the people commenting in this thread care deeply enough about Qt > on the desktop to participate in the discussion. And I suppose most of us on > this list are software engineers, many perhaps for more reasons than to put > food on the table. My question to you is: how can we make it easier, or more > fun, or more motivating to contribute to Qt, and to help with making things > better? > > > Volker > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.qt-2Dproject.org_listinfo_interest&d=DwIGaQ&c=9mghv0deYPYDGP-W745IEdQLV1kHpn4XJRvR6xMRXtA&r=gqkHidFt_OznI1nBLNO0BnY0UT1ILkTMEW_qQQbTmCk&m=6kk3sQvvvz1011PByVAvFxxNcyPPp96abBsEBSloS6r7mSXo0RzTJ0gdg8iuMTyU&s=cPvDibURJiNDcFhAEyoU7IpF8AIQQ-vBR0aYF4emUP8&e= > Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If > you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to > the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of > this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any > agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect > of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is > included in any attachment. > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
