On 16.07.2012 16:06, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> No, going through 443 is _not_ an option of the firewall, it's like >> lock-picking a useless lock. > > No, the firewall and the whole establishment have the option to go out > over the port 443.
So, you are saying, the implementer of such a firewall thinks, it's a good idea and a valid option, to tunnel all kinds of traffic through port 443? I would like to talk to that person. Well, maybe better not... ;-) >> It's not a fix at all. It's a workaround. Important difference! > > My whole point is that, let us leave the decision to the companies, if > it is a workaround for them or fix. It is *them* deciding about > *their* policies and approvals. The Qt Project should get as much > support as possible from outside, especially now. Company policies and > decisions are not the target of the Qt Project after all. It can just > aid them as much as possible. > > Some companies will open ports up, some will not. The latter might > give up the contribution to the Qt Project, and will implement their > own internal solution on top of Qt (not in) without contributing back. > That would be a pity... That's why we all agreed, that the workaround should be established. What confuses us is (well, me at least), that you seem to support these broken policies. Sven _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
