On 4/12/21 8:56 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
>And who's "you" here? And how exactly did that sabotage a commercial
contract between you and whoever entity gives you commercial support on
RHEL6?
The "you" would be whoever participated in the decision to drop RHEL 6.
That should
On 12/04/2021 13:59, Roland Hughes wrote:
On 4/2/21 5:00 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
(Is there a conflict of intents here because of the massive support to
the Qt Project? I can't see how -- if anything, one could say that the
commercial decisions may drive the decisions in the Qt Project,
cer
On 4/2/21 5:00 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
(Is there a conflict of intents here because of the massive support to
the Qt Project? I can't see how -- if anything, one could say that the
commercial decisions may drive the decisions in the Qt Project,
certainly NOT that the Qt Project has the powe
On 4/2/21 5:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
I would expect Qt to query the version of X being used, say
multi-touch isn’t supported so the app cant support it. If my customer
complained that multi-touch works on the Windows, and CentOS 7 boxes, but not
CentOS 6.
The reasoning is clear, the defaul
On 01/04/2021 16:13, Roland Hughes wrote:
On 4/1/21 8:46 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
On 01/04/2021 13:40, Roland Hughes wrote:
We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than
On 4/1/21 8:46 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
On 01/04/2021 13:40, Roland Hughes wrote:
We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than a lot of other components that you may nee
On 4/1/21 8:36 AM, coroberti wrote:
It looks like some business case for Roland.
Sending many emails with the links to the owned/associated
books thru the Qt mail lists
and even openly advertising them - at least two cases just recently.
Is it in line with the list policy?
Kind regards,
Rober
It looks like some business case for Roland.
Sending many emails with the links to the owned/associated
books thru the Qt mail lists
and even openly advertising them - at least two cases just recently.
Is it in line with the list policy?
Kind regards,
Robert Iakobashvili
> On 1 Apr 2021, at 14:47, Roland Hughes wrote:
>> PS: Roland, I was looking at your
>> https://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/agile_book.html page, and judging by
>> this sentence, I think your review process is broken. You should probably
>> ask for your money back from your professional edi
On 4/1/21 6:48 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
But why should the Qt Project have to care? The Qt Project doesn’t sell into
the medical or industrial automation market.
That's the market that really made Qt. Nokia sure as Hell didn't. The
market was pursued.
If a medical device manufacturer ma
On 01/04/2021 13:40, Roland Hughes wrote:
We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than a lot of other components that you may need to upgrade in order
to deal with circumstan
> On 1 Apr 2021, at 11:55, Roland Hughes wrote:
> On 4/1/21 12:40 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Dropping old platforms has been done since the early 2000s. Everyone who
>> adopted Qt since 3.0 has known of this. It's was not news then and it's not
>> now.
>
> It is news now.
>
> During Qt 3.x th
On 4/1/21 12:40 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
I'm painting a scenario to understand how you'd have to handle such a
situation, when there isn't a company you can call upon to fix the problem for
you.
We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that
On 4/1/21 12:40 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Sunday, 28 March 2021 04:54:56 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
What is "the process" criteria for new major version number? I'm
curious. Why? Because I agree with Scott. Extinction of platforms needs
to be a mandating force.
The new major version happens
On Sunday, 28 March 2021 04:54:56 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> What is "the process" criteria for new major version number? I'm
> curious. Why? Because I agree with Scott. Extinction of platforms needs
> to be a mandating force.
The new major version happens when we need to do a binary compatibility
On 3/30/21 5:00 AM, Henry Skoglund wrote:
On 2021-03-29 21:29, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 28/03/2021 09.52, Jason H wrote:
The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not
how this
works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on
the forums /
lists.
*Befo
On 2021-03-29 21:29, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 28/03/2021 09.52, Jason H wrote:
The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not
how this
works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on
the forums /
lists.
*Before*?
I guess this thread, and the multip
On 28/03/2021 09.52, Jason H wrote:
The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this
works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the forums /
lists.
*Before*?
I guess this thread, and the multiple others like it, are then
discussions on the
> hush-hush "call for pricing" is a truly bogus business practice usually
> utilized by scams and used car dealers.
>
> This "gouge them for all they are worth in private" business model really
> isn't valid. Even if you adamantly claim that isn't what is going on, that is
> __exactly__ what it
> hush-hush "call for pricing" is a truly bogus business practice usually
> utilized by scams and used car dealers.
>
> This "gouge them for all they are worth in private" business model
> really isn't valid. Even if you adamantly claim that isn't what is going
> on, that is __exactly__ what i
> What would really help, is to get this documented out in the open... None of
> this
> "contact sales for pricing"
You have not yet received the most important and most common advice in this ML:
"Ask a
lawyer"! LOL SCNR
But seriously, what would really help would be giving the technology to p
t: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 7:53 PM
From: "Tuukka Turunen"
To: "Jason H"
Cc: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org"
, "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net"
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, ,
willy-nilly
Hi Jas
> licensing at least partially.
>
> Yours,
>
> Tuukka
>
>
> Lähettäjä: Jason H
> Lähetetty: sunnuntaina, maaliskuuta 28, 2021 4:52 ip.
> Vastaanottaja: Tuukka Turunen
> Kopio: Roland Hughes; interest@qt-project.org; mike.jack...@b
nterest@qt-project.org"
> , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net"
>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, ,
> willy-nilly
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email
> below
, maaliskuuta 28, 2021 4:52 ip.
Vastaanottaja: Tuukka Turunen
Kopio: Roland Hughes; interest@qt-project.org; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net
Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the
lice
On 3/28/21 10:37 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
Chris
Didn't follow the whole discussion, it's getting ridiculous...
It's a lng way from ridiculous for companies choosing development
tools for a device that will generate $50+Million over the next decade.
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logika
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 02:54, Jason H wrote:
>
> Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the
> license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no
> longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that
> code. The rev
On 3/28/21 8:27 AM, Jason H wrote:
On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote:
Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have rights
to use whatever versions were current when we had the license. Previously, we
could use
it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new
Il 28/03/21 13:54, Roland Hughes ha scritto:
There is documentation and Web pages that have
replicated all over stating Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. You made something
that cannot be effectively erased untrue.
The documentation in question states that _specific_ Qt 5.x versions
support RHEL 6. There'
Il 28/03/21 15:52, Jason H ha scritto:
But it's now under the marketplace license?
https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/
Marketplace license)
QtPdf is still LGPLv3:
https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-labs/qtpdf.git/tree/
AFAICS, the only thing you're paying for o
ts/qtpdf ($49/ Marketplace license)
Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans.
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:23 AM
From: "Tuukka Turunen"
To: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net"
Subject: Re: [Interest] t
> On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote:
> > Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have rights
> > to use whatever versions were current when we had the license. Previously,
> > we could use
> > it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new organization.
> > I
On 3/28/21 5:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 26 March 2021 17:23:38 PDT Scott Bloom wrote:
To me, Qt should continue to support OS's/Compilers for the life of a Major
version of Qt. if it built on Qt 5.0 it should build on that OS/Compiler
in 5.15
If Qt decides that modern C++ was mo
On Friday, 26 March 2021 17:23:38 PDT Scott Bloom wrote:
> To me, Qt should continue to support OS's/Compilers for the life of a Major
> version of Qt. if it built on Qt 5.0 it should build on that OS/Compiler
> in 5.15
>
> If Qt decides that modern C++ was more important in 5.13, and the compile
On Friday, 26 March 2021 06:13:13 PDT Jason H wrote:
> Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have rights
> to use whatever versions were current when we had the license. Previously,
> we could use it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new
> organization.
t@qt-project.org; jh...@gmx.com
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote:
Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have
rights to use whatever versions were current when we had the license.
Previously
;
mike.jack...@bluequartz.net
Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to
> disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of y
On 27/3/21 11:47 am, Scott Bloom wrote:
Sorry for top posting...
But I disagree here. Even for mac, Qt 5 is 9 years old, 4 lived 6 (4.0->4.8
LTS initial release, 4.8 lived for 3 years)
Im not saying we go to a Qt Major version for every mac system style change.
But if they produce a SDK whe
han the new
one, that the same Qt code needs a #ifdef XXX version, so be it.
Yes, its more work.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Hamish Moffatt
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 17:40
To: Scott Bloom ; interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing -
On 27/3/21 11:23 am, Scott Bloom wrote:
To be clear. Roland and I are talking about very different issues.
To me, Qt should continue to support OS's/Compilers for the life of a Major
version of Qt. if it built on Qt 5.0 it should build on that OS/Compiler in
5.15
If Qt decides that modern C
-
From: Interest On Behalf Of Scott Bloom
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 17:24
To: Hamish Moffatt ; interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly
To be clear. Roland and I are talking about very different issues.
To me, Qt should continue
6, 2021 14:33
To: interest@qt-project.org; jh...@gmx.com
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote:
> Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have
> rights to use whatever versions were current
t.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly
On 26/3/21 6:38 am, Roland Hughes wrote:
> According to the FDA fact sheet.
>
> https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance
>
> There are currently 25,864 registered FDA medical devic
On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote:
Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have rights
to use whatever versions were current when we had the license. Previously, we
could use
it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new organization. It is
my
understandi
On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote:
I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to
disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of years making/maintaining
software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't understand.
What you are saying i
Roland,
I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to
disagree. I acknowledge that you have a *lot* of years making/maintaining
software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't understand.
What you are saying is that Qt was designed "perfectly" from
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
On 3/26/21 9:23 AM, eric.fedosej...@gmail.com
<mailto:eric.fedosej...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are much worse possible outcomes than spoiled food. “App-controlled”
smart ovens are now all the rage. Even if the
On 3/26/21 9:23 AM, eric.fedosej...@gmail.com wrote:
There are much worse possible outcomes than spoiled food.
“App-controlled” smart ovens are now all the rage. Even if there are
safety measures to prevent remotely burning down your house, what
fraction of ovens in a community do you need t
There are much worse possible outcomes than spoiled food. “App-controlled”
smart ovens are now all the rage. Even if there are safety measures to prevent
remotely burning down your house, what fraction of ovens in a community do you
need to simultaneously preheat to bring down the entire electri
On 3/26/21 6:00 AM, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I really don't understand your arguments Roland. You say you need Qt
support for 15 years, but you can't actually change one bit of your
software without FDA approval, so presumably this means you aren't
upgrading Qt anyway. Then after 15 years you want
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 9:41 PM
> From: "Thiago Macieira"
> To: interest@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly
>
> On Thursday, 25 March 2021 12:38:56 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> &g
On 3/26/21 6:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
It doesn't make economical sense for Qt to provide support for 15 years. If
you need Qt for that long, you should engage a consultancy that will sell you
that contract, the same way that Red Hat sells support for RHEL 6 for 14 years
total (2010-2024).
W
On 26/3/21 6:38 am, Roland Hughes wrote:
According to the FDA fact sheet.
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance
There are currently 25,864 registered FDA medical device facilities.
Not one of them can change a single approved process without going
through the FDA appr
On Thursday, 25 March 2021 12:38:56 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:
> > Qt's horizon is about 7 years.
>
> That's 8 years too short.
For this industry, sure. But it's not Qt's promise. The fact that some
industries require a higher standard of support or coding practices or
stability does not immediat
Breaking this off into its own topic. Roping in some of Andre' and Scott
Bloom too.
On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 09:58:50 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
The exact opposite is the correct thing:
- deprecation messages while compiling the source code are correct
- messages to the mailing list are no
55 matches
Mail list logo
