subject:"\[Interest\] the path forward \- that 7 year thing \- was, willy\-nilly"



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 need to upgrade in order
to deal with circumstances changing.

What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their
environment.

The terms of the Qt support with a commercial entity (being it TQC or
anyone else) have nothing to do with the Qt project decisions.


Yes, they do.

Is QtC providing code to Qt project? Is it providing hosting and 
distribution services for the OpenSource code? Is it providing any other 
financial support?


When the answer to any of these is yes, then what they need has a lot to 
do with your decisions. When they need to support a platform for 15+ 
years and you rip it out after 6-7 _that_ is a real problem.




And, by the way, we're describing scenarios where the environment*has*  
changed: new hardware, new platforms, new toolchains. You're negating

the premise, and thus the argument is a fallacy.


No, your argument is the fallacy (which is not unusual.)

They replaced a *monitor* with another computer monitor that the 
platform obviously supported. That's it. The video card obviously 
supported 4K as did the video driver. If the *environment* maxed out at 
1920xwhatever Scott wouldn't have been screwed. He and his company got 
screwed because the high DPI support with the Qt they have was not good. 
Between "good enough" and what they currently have his platform got dropped.


The platform already supported all of this. The Qt code did not.

--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly



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,
Robert Iakobashvili

Unknown. It is the SIG on my main email account.

--

Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-04-01 Thread coroberti

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 Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Volker Hilsheimer
 wrote:
>
> > 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 editors, or 
> >> something… :P
> >>
> >> "The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on 
> >> multi-country corporate applications before there was an Interent, to 
> >> stock exchange trading floor systems, desktop applications, and even 
> >> multiple medical devices."
> >>
> > The book was professionally edited. I put the page together with far less 
> > thought than I put into a post on here. You think it is a run-on sentence, 
> > so what?
>
> I assume you mean “Internet” when your page says “interent”.
>
>
> > The book still sells and I've done very little marketing. Other than the 
> > occasional mention when answering a question for free, none really.
>
> Congratulations.
>
>
> > When the justification for letting 12 year old bugs exist in the bug 
> > database is:
> >
> > that the code was too complex or that fixing the old bug would create new 
> > bugs
> >
> > The code had just as much review before check-in as the page that you 
> > looked at.
>
>
> That’s probably true; 12 years ago Qt was GPL/commercial only and not an open 
> source project with contributors outside of Trolltech. The Windows port was 
> commercial only, and we used perforce for version control. We didn’t do any 
> formal code reviews.
>
> Yes, there are bugs in Qt where a fix would break existing code that relies 
> on current behavior. And yes, there is code in Qt that is fragile, for 
> different reasons. The code I wrote 15+ years ago to support Windows XP menu 
> animations in Qt is probably not a shiny example of robustness.
>
> But most of it is pretty good, even some of mine, and it makes me proud to 
> have been able to contribute to Qt and to work with the incredibly talented 
> people in the Qt community for most of my professional career. I’m sorry that 
> you don’t like it.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Volker
>
> PS: yes, the oldest open bug in Qt is 
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-255, reported in 2006.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-04-01 Thread Volker Hilsheimer

> 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 editors, or something… :P
>> 
>> "The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on 
>> multi-country corporate applications before there was an Interent, to stock 
>> exchange trading floor systems, desktop applications, and even multiple 
>> medical devices."
>> 
> The book was professionally edited. I put the page together with far less 
> thought than I put into a post on here. You think it is a run-on sentence, so 
> what?

I assume you mean “Internet” when your page says “interent”.

> The book still sells and I've done very little marketing. Other than the 
> occasional mention when answering a question for free, none really.

Congratulations.

> When the justification for letting 12 year old bugs exist in the bug database 
> is:
> 
> that the code was too complex or that fixing the old bug would create new bugs
> 
> The code had just as much review before check-in as the page that you looked 
> at.

That’s probably true; 12 years ago Qt was GPL/commercial only and not an open 
source project with contributors outside of Trolltech. The Windows port was 
commercial only, and we used perforce for version control. We didn’t do any 
formal code reviews.

Yes, there are bugs in Qt where a fix would break existing code that relies on 
current behavior. And yes, there is code in Qt that is fragile, for different 
reasons. The code I wrote 15+ years ago to support Windows XP menu animations 
in Qt is probably not a shiny example of robustness.

But most of it is pretty good, even some of mine, and it makes me proud to have 
been able to contribute to Qt and to work with the incredibly talented people 
in the Qt community for most of my professional career. I’m sorry that you 
don’t like it.

Cheers,
Volker

PS: yes, the oldest open bug in Qt is 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-255, reported in 2006.

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly



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 makes a technology decision and choses Qt based on 
the policies of Qt "the Open Source” Project, then I’ll trust that they know 
what they are doing. And if they are not happy with how Qt “the Open Source” Project 
operates, then I’m sure they’ll check what The Qt Company can provide as a 
commercial service that fits their needs.

Perhaps that happens frequently already. That would explain the recent 
development of the Qt Company stock price...


What I'm seeing as a traveling consultant dealing with many medical 
device manufacturers is wholesale abandonment.


As everybody has learned during the Trump years, stock prices have no 
correlation with reality as long as the government is handing near zero 
dollar interest money to the brokerage firms and banks. Right now it is 
the world's largest Pump & Dump market.


You forget that I did two tours of duty writing trading floor systems 
for a major stock exchange.



Volker


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 editors, or something… :P

"The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on multi-country 
corporate applications before there was an Interent, to stock exchange trading floor 
systems, desktop applications, and even multiple medical devices."

The book was professionally edited. I put the page together with far 
less thought than I put into a post on here. You think it is a run-on 
sentence, so what? The book still sells and I've done very little 
marketing. Other than the occasional mention when answering a question 
for free, none really.


When the justification for letting 12 year old bugs exist in the bug 
database is:


that the code was too complex or that fixing the old bug would create 
new bugs


The code had just as much review before check-in as the page that you 
looked at.


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-04-01 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest


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 circumstances changing.

What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their
environment.


The terms of the Qt support with a commercial entity (being it TQC or 
anyone else) have nothing to do with the Qt project decisions.


And, by the way, we're describing scenarios where the environment *has* 
changed: new hardware, new platforms, new toolchains. You're negating 
the premise, and thus the argument is a fallacy.



--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-04-01 Thread Volker Hilsheimer

> 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 there were only a few customers, OS/2, and the KDE desktop on 
> fledgling Linux distros.
> 
> Since then, Qt actively pursued the medical device and industrial controls 
> markets. Currently it appears QtC is pursing the automotive market to the 
> exclusion of all else. Despite someone ranting and calling that hearsay 
> that's exactly what it looks like to the customers in the other markets.
> 
> When Qt pursued and penetrated these other markets it had to adjust to the 
> time lines of those markets. These are very long timelines. Fifteen years on 
> average.
> 
> Had Qt only pursued the phone and auto markets, it could have continued on 
> its merry way dropping things whenever the mood struck. The phone and auto 
> markets have about a six month life span before everything is abandoned for 
> the next platform.
> 
> They didn't. The medical device and industrial controls had the deeper 
> pockets. The means the policies and practices of the Qt project must adapt to 
> the market it pursued.

As *The Qt Company* we need to adapt our service offerings to the market we 
want to sell Qt into. We could for instance provide extended lifetime support 
for old Qt versions, and maintain special long-term-support branches of Qt that 
continue to build on old OS versions or hardware platforms or whatever for 
those customers that have deep enough pockets. Perhaps we do that already today 
(I know, I know, it’s April 1st...). Last year we made a reasonably recent Qt 5 
work on a rather ancient Windows XP Embedded setup. It might not have been 
cheap.

But why should the Qt Project have to care? The Qt Project doesn’t sell into 
the medical or industrial automation market.

If a medical device manufacturer makes a technology decision and choses Qt 
based on the policies of Qt "the Open Source” Project, then I’ll trust that 
they know what they are doing. And if they are not happy with how Qt “the Open 
Source” Project operates, then I’m sure they’ll check what The Qt Company can 
provide as a commercial service that fits their needs.

Perhaps that happens frequently already. That would explain the recent 
development of the Qt Company stock price...

Volker

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 editors, or something… :P

"The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on 
multi-country corporate applications before there was an Interent, to stock 
exchange trading floor systems, desktop applications, and even multiple medical 
devices."

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly



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 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 circumstances changing.


What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial 
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their 
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their 
environment.


At the crux of the issue is the extremely narrow project life cycle. You 
and others consider 7 years a long time. It's not. It's less than half 
of adequate. Companies that need adequate pay for a commercial license 
and support to get adequate, that's why they fork over the money. QtC 
(or whoever) even came out with Boot2Qt to encourage these markets into 
the Qt space.


Honestly, at this point, if Qt project/QtC wants to continue with its 
7-year-or-less window, it needs to put an official disclaimer on the 
project like Microsoft had to in some of their products.


"Not for use in medical devices or devices where SAFETY is a 
requirement/concern."


Not squirreled away in a doc file nobody looks at, but very publicly and 
everywhere.


That will solve the problem for the future because nobody will ever be 
able to get a product using Qt through regulatory approval from that 
point forward.Well, they might, but it will be __really__ expensive 
because the SOUP (Software Of Unknown Providence) research will turn up 
the "not for use" clause which will add a whole bunch of paperwork and 
testing requirements.


Scott will still be screwed. Sorry Scott. On the bright side you won't 
be screwed in the future because your company will have had to move to 
something else.


Existing medical device companies with licenses and contracts will have 
to abandon them then hold their breath some new HIPA/FDA tweak doesn't 
come down the pipe forcing them to bite a very bitter bullet.


The medical device companies using 4.x and earlier have already bitten 
that bullet.


As a project Qt cannot serve both the bleeding edge and the deep pocket 
medical device world that needs decades (plural) long support for an 
existing device. It needs to make a choice and officially rip the 
bandage off.


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly



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 when we need to do a binary compatibility break.
Until that is necessary, we will not make a new major version.

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 there were only a few customers, OS/2, and the KDE desktop 
on fledgling Linux distros.


Since then, Qt actively pursued the medical device and industrial 
controls markets. Currently it appears QtC is pursing the automotive 
market to the exclusion of all else. Despite someone ranting and calling 
that hearsay that's exactly what it looks like to the customers in the 
other markets.


When Qt pursued and penetrated these other markets it had to adjust to 
the time lines of those markets. These are very long timelines. Fifteen 
years on average.


Had Qt only pursued the phone and auto markets, it could have continued 
on its merry way dropping things whenever the mood struck. The phone and 
auto markets have about a six month life span before everything is 
abandoned for the next platform.


They didn't. The medical device and industrial controls had the deeper 
pockets. The means the policies and practices of the Qt project must 
adapt to the market it pursued.



--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-03-31 Thread Thiago Macieira

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 break. 
Until that is necessary, we will not make a new major version.

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.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , , willy-nilly

2021-03-30 Thread Roland Hughes



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.

*Before*?

I guess this thread, and the multiple others like it, are then
discussions on the variation in carrying capacity of English and
African swallows.


Shouldn't that be "... on the variation in carrying capacity of European
and African swallows."

Perhaps we need to start another thread to resolve this matter...


Per what the professional editors who edited my last book:

https://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/agile_book.html

told me.

"Discussions about the carrying capacity variations between English and 
African Swallows."


It appears neither can carry the weight of a proper code review.

--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-29 Thread Henry Skoglund


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 multiple others like it, are then 
discussions on the variation in carrying capacity of English and 
African swallows.




Shouldn't that be "... on the variation in carrying capacity of European 
and African swallows."


Perhaps we need to start another thread to resolve this matter...

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-29 Thread Matthew Woehlke


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 variation in carrying capacity of English and African 
swallows.


--
Matthew
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread David M. Cotter

> 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 looks like from the outside.

damm straight!
ya darn toot'n!
nailed it!


it's not just about what is ACTUALLY happening (which i do think we KNOW) 
it's also about the OPTICS. How does this look from the outside?
Qt should CARE about what this LOOKS like.

-dave
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread Bernhard Lindner


> 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 looks like from the outside.

So true!

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread Bernhard Lindner


> 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 people 
who don't
ruin it with greed. 

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly


Yeah,

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 looks like from the outside.


You need published bankable perpetual prices.

__AND__ you need a Qt that doesn't drop platforms mid-major release.

On 3/28/21 1:15 PM, Jason H wrote:

Tukka,

I'm open to being wrong, but I just spoke with them. One of us three is 
obviously in error, but I pushed back on the lack of the perpetuity clause, (it 
was present at my last company) and sales was clear, it was removed...

What would really help, is to get this documented out in the open... None of this 
"contact sales for pricing"




Sent: 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 Jason,

Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email 
below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution 
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...@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 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 revocation of the perpetuity clause 
in new licenses means we can no longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, 
just the ability to distribute what we had been...

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. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly turned off by now, and 
I can't say I would blame them.

It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 
2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest 
tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor.  So much so, 
that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull the 
plug because the licensing has changed so much.

At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to 
engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is 
noticed.

Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed:
https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3)
https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf
 (Tukka's own post)
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html 
(Not everyone was on board with the license change)
But it's now under the marketplace license?
https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/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] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , 
willy-nilly

“When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has 
abandoned them.”

I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long 
term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There 
are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere 
Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. 
Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently.

Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the 
transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and 
feedback to it still and help in the transition.

Yours,

Tuukka


Lähettäjä: Interest  käyttäjän Roland Hughes 
 puolesta
Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM
Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; 
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 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 day one with no 
extra API, not one bad

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

Tukka, 

I'm open to being wrong, but I just spoke with them. One of us three is 
obviously in error, but I pushed back on the lack of the perpetuity clause, (it 
was present at my last company) and sales was clear, it was removed...

What would really help, is to get this documented out in the open... None of 
this "contact sales for pricing"



> Sent: 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 Jason,
> 
> Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email 
> below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution 
> 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...@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 
> 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 revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no 
> longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the 
> ability to distribute what we had been...
> 
> 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. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly 
> turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them.
> 
> It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 
> 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest 
> tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor.  So much so, 
> that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull 
> the plug because the licensing has changed so much.
> 
> At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to 
> engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is 
> noticed.
> 
> Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed:
> https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3)
> https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf
>  (Tukka's own post)
> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html 
> (Not everyone was on board with the license change)
> But it's now under the marketplace license?
> https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/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] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , 
> willy-nilly
> 
> “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has 
> abandoned them.”
> 
> I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long 
> term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There 
> are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. 
> Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain 
> about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with 
> Qt 5 currently.
> 
> Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the 
> transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and 
> feedback to it still and help in the transition.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Tuukka
> 
> 
> Lähettäjä: Interest  käyttäjän Roland Hughes 
>  puolesta
> Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM
> Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; 
> 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 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 day one with 
> > no extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never 
> > be updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. 
> > Updated to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding 
> > APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

I was just in contact with them, and shocked that the perpetual nature was 
removed...

I don't think I'm mistaken. 

> Sent: 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 Jason,
> 
> Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email 
> below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution 
> 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...@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 
> 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 revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no 
> longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the 
> ability to distribute what we had been...
> 
> 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. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly 
> turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them.
> 
> It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 
> 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest 
> tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor.  So much so, 
> that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull 
> the plug because the licensing has changed so much.
> 
> At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to 
> engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is 
> noticed.
> 
> Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed:
> https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3)
> https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf
>  (Tukka's own post)
> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html 
> (Not everyone was on board with the license change)
> But it's now under the marketplace license?
> https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/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] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , 
> willy-nilly
> 
> “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has 
> abandoned them.”
> 
> I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long 
> term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There 
> are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. 
> Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain 
> about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with 
> Qt 5 currently.
> 
> Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the 
> transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and 
> feedback to it still and help in the transition.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Tuukka
> 
> 
> Lähettäjä: Interest  käyttäjän Roland Hughes 
>  puolesta
> Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM
> Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; 
> 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 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 day one with 
> > no extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never 
> > be updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. 
> > Updated to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding 
> > APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of 
> > devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology 
> > from 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, 
> > you know, pay its developers. TQtC should rely

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread Tuukka Turunen

Hi Jason,

Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email 
below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution 
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...@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 
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 revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no longer 
do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the ability to 
distribute what we had been...

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. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly turned off 
by now, and I can't say I would blame them.

It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 
2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest 
tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor.  So much so, 
that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull the 
plug because the licensing has changed so much.

At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to 
engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is 
noticed.

Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed:
https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3)
https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf
 (Tukka's own post)
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html 
(Not everyone was on board with the license change)
But it's now under the marketplace license?
https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/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] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , 
willy-nilly

“When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has 
abandoned them.”

I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long 
term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There 
are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere 
Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. 
Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently.

Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the 
transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and 
feedback to it still and help in the transition.

Yours,

Tuukka

Lähettäjä: Interest  käyttäjän Roland Hughes 
 puolesta
Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM
Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; 
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 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 day one with no 
> extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be 
> updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated 
> to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding 
> APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of 
> devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology from 
> 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you know, 
> pay its developers. TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own 
> writings, have a 15 year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For 
> the record, I don't particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS 
> strategy.)

No. Not what I'm saying at all. I have no idea how you got there from
what I've said.

Stable API.  Nothing ever gets deleted until it has a direct or mostly
replacement *within* the existing product.

When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it
has abandoned them.

> I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical 
> device

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly



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
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread Christian Gagneraud

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 revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no 
> longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the 
> ability to distribute what we had been...
>
> 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. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly 
> turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them.
>
> It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 
> 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest 
> tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor.  So much so, 
> that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull 
> the plug because the licensing has changed so much.
>
> At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to 
> engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is 
> noticed.
>
> Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed:
> https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3)
> https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf
>  (Tukka's own post)
> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html 
> (Not everyone was on board with the license change)
> But it's now under the marketplace license?
> https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ 
> Marketplace license)
>
>
> Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans.

Yep, Qt's trying to become smth like Atlasians or alikes...
They (Digia or whoever) are not interested in the technology, they
just want to milk the cash cow with no long term plan.
Once the cows run out of milk, they'll chop it down like an old dead
tree (Dirty old town).

IMHO, Qt is not a technology to be put in the hands of hedge funds...

Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans too!
- Typos included -
For a typo-free version try our whiter-than-white plugin!
Only 99,99.99,99 per MB per second per ip per host per dev per
keystroke per wallet.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!
CALL NOW!!!
And we'll give you a darker-than-dark plugin, FOR FREE!!!
HOLD ON EVERYTHING
Special offer: you'll get 12 darker-than-dark plugins, absolutely free!
YES!!!
So that you can put one in your toilets, living room, bedroom, kids
room, in your car, and who cares, give some to your neighbours!

Chris
Didn't follow the whole discussion, it's getting ridiculous...
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly



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 organization. It is 
my
understanding that after our software development is done, we have to maintain
commercial licenses even when we are not_developing_  software in Qt. I think 
the previous
perpetuity licensing was appropriate.

**Seriously**

They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought
and paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K
for such a license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to
have a lot of lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down.


They can't just change your contract/license.


What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license.
I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal
jepordy because the license change only impacts new product.

This is correct, there is no more perpetuity license. This will likely
be a sticking point for the company I am currently at.

It's a sticking point at every medical device and industrial 
controls/SAFETY manufacturer I know about. The only projects still using 
Qt started long ago.


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest


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's no such thing as "Qt 5 documentation".




Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6 and Qt has been around twenty years so 
you will use Qt for the UI and much of the application."


Developers: "Okay. You're the boss." [...]


Wait, weren't you the guy saying that agile is bad and you should get 
324 documents cross-checked and triple stamped before writing one single 
line of code? I assume "trust inaccurate hearsay" and "make gross 
generalization" are in those documents?



Not amused at all,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-28 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest


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 on the marketplace is the 
convenience of being prebuilt, rather than building it from sources 
yourself.


HTH,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts



smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

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 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 revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the ability to distribute what we had been...

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. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them.

It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull the plug because the licensing has changed so much.

At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is noticed.

Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed:

https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3)

https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf (Tukka's own post)

https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html (Not everyone was on board with the license change)

But it's now under the marketplace license?

https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/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] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

“When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has abandoned them.”

I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently.

Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and feedback to it still and help in the transition.

Yours,

Tuukka

Lähettäjä: Interest käyttäjän Roland Hughes puolesta
Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM
Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; 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 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 day one with no extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology from 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you know, pay its developers. TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own writings, have a 15 year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For the record, I don't particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS strategy.)

No. Not what I'm saying at all. I have no idea how you got there from
what I've said.

Stable API. Nothing ever gets deleted until it has a direct or mostly
replacement *within* the existing product.

When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it
has abandoned them.

> I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical device from 20 years ago with the latest and greatest toolkits. I can't imagine anything electronic from 20 years ago being able to actually load and run anything like Qt? How is the hardware even powerful enough to do this? You can't convince me that the medical hardware device manufacturers were thinking 15 years into the future for the next upgrade, 15 years ago.
The surgical robots being sold today will require 20 year support
lifespans. Many of the devices sold over the past decade were sold with
a minimum 10 year support and maintenance

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, 
> > we could use
> > it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new organization. 
> > It is my
> > understanding that after our software development is done, we have to 
> > maintain
> > commercial licenses even when we are not_developing_  software in Qt. I 
> > think the previous
> > perpetuity licensing was appropriate.
>
> **Seriously**
>
> They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought
> and paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K
> for such a license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to
> have a lot of lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down.


They can't just change your contract/license.

> What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license.
> I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal
> jepordy because the license change only impacts new product.

This is correct, there is no more perpetuity license. This will likely
be a sticking point for the company I am currently at.

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly



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 more important in 5.13, and the compilers
available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its
time to move to Qt 6

That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying you're unable to
upgrade past 5.12 because a given compiler version became unsupported (that
happened because those compilers were actually broken, not for lack of feature
support, unlike the 5.6/5.7 change which was C++11). And you're saying the
solution is to rename the next version 6.0.

But you're not using that version, so what it is called is completely
irrelevant. Meanwhile, those who can upgrade are thankful for not having to
deal with the inevitable dot-oh issues.


It's a distinction that is a difference. Dropping platforms mid-major 
version is never good. Think of all the disinformation you create the 
instant you do that. 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.


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.


Here's what happens when you are on one of those decade+ long support 
projects.


Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6 and Qt has been around twenty years so 
you will use Qt for the UI and much of the application."


Developers: "Okay. You're the boss."

Project gets developed and launched. OS cannot be changed because of all 
the custom device drivers *or said items are specifically identified in 
the clinical trial protocol.*


When y'all see "5yr MTB" listed with a hard drive, do y'all realize 
that's a SWAG? (Silly Wild Ass Guess) When entities need to know the 
_actual_ 20 or 30 year effects of something they create protocols and 
run for the entire 20-30 years required. There used to be a military 
base in OH that closed within the past decade. There was also a used DEC 
equipment vendor near there. He was always badgering the community to 
unearth working 20-30 year old equipment or new parts to fix it with. 
Why? That base was where long duration trials were being run. Of what I 
neither know nor care.


User: "I want to see this group of values on the screen in this type of 
widget"


Protocols generally only care about the test itself and how data is 
recorded in the data store. They rarely if ever care about screens for 
point in time data viewing as that is not part of the control.


If I have the wrong RHEL number, I'm sorry. I seemed to remember 6.

Management: "Well Qt 5.15 has that very widget I just saw a four-color 
glossy on it just yesterday! I'll tell the developers to do it."


Developers: "Qt 5.15 doesn't run on RHEL 6."

Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. Install Qt 5.15 and deliver the 
feature to the customer."


Developers: "Qt 5.15 doesn't run on RHEL 6."

Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. Install Qt 5.15 and deliver the 
feature to the customer."


...


The difference, though, is this:


There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain
time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported
and new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.

Right. The lack of 5.15 updates right now is a problem.


Not for Scott.

Developers: "Qt 5.15 doesn't run on RHEL 6."

The difference is Scott and everybody else in this situation doesn't 
have to this never ending slam head against the desk conversation with 
management because they will find the last Web site never patched or 
taken down that lists RHEL 6 as being supported by Qt 5.


Whenever there is to be platform extinction the major version number 
must change so developers don't have to go through this with management 
time and time again. The same set of platforms have to work with that 
version from beginning to end.


Had the project just badged the release where extinction occurred as a 
shiny new major version with a shiny new list of supported platform (or 
just the old list with a few platforms dropped) great angst and hardship 
would be avoided by the community. The supported platform lists and 
other marketing data replicate like a virus on the Internet. When they 
are only "partially correct" or "correct until" that causes real problems.


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

2021-03-27 Thread Thiago Macieira

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 compilers
> available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its
> time to move to Qt 6

That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying you're unable to 
upgrade past 5.12 because a given compiler version became unsupported (that 
happened because those compilers were actually broken, not for lack of feature 
support, unlike the 5.6/5.7 change which was C++11). And you're saying the 
solution is to rename the next version 6.0.

But you're not using that version, so what it is called is completely 
irrelevant. Meanwhile, those who can upgrade are thankful for not having to 
deal with the inevitable dot-oh issues.

The difference, though, is this:

> There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain
> time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported
> and new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.

Right. The lack of 5.15 updates right now is a problem.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

2021-03-27 Thread Thiago Macieira

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. It is my understanding that after our software development is
> done, we have to maintain commercial licenses even when we are not
> _developing_ software in Qt. I think the previous perpetuity licensing was
> appropriate.

Well, maintaining is developing. If you're making adaptations to keep your 
software running, that probably counts.

But I can't help you with the commercial licensing terms (which I've never 
seen). I suggest reaching out to your sales rep and informing of this issue.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering



___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-03-27 Thread Roland Hughes


Thanks Scott!

Yeah, I was thinking about this as I woke up this morning. Trying to 
retroactively invalidate all existing perpetual licenses would be 
illegal. Not just "pay a fine" illegal, go to prison illegal.


On 3/26/2021 7:30 PM, Scott Bloom wrote:

 From the Qt blog post https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020

"These changes will not have any effect on existing commercial licensing or services 
agreements."

Now, it doesn’t talk about the notion that if you built and produced your code 
against a commercial license, it has to remain in force for you to be 
considered licensed.

As you say Roland, I have no idea how that could be possible for an existing 
contract, but going forward its not an uncommon licensing strategy.

Scott
-Original Message-
From: Interest  On Behalf Of Roland Hughes
Sent: Friday, March 26, 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 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 understanding that after our
software development is done, we have to maintain commercial licenses
even when we are not_developing_  software in Qt. I think the previous 
perpetuity licensing was appropriate.

**Seriously**

They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought and 
paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K for such a 
license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to have a lot of 
lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down.

What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license.
I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal jepordy 
because the license change only impacts new product.

I'm not a lawyer, but if you bought a license, they (QtC) can't just 
arbitrarily end said license. Companies will be suing for return of license 
fees and for damages.

--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593  (cell)
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly

2021-03-27 Thread Tuukka Turunen

“When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has 
abandoned them.”

I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long 
term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There 
are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere 
Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. 
Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently.

Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the 
transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and 
feedback to it still and help in the transition.

Yours,

Tuukka

Lähettäjä: Interest  käyttäjän Roland Hughes 
 puolesta
Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM
Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; 
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 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 day one with no 
> extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be 
> updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated 
> to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding 
> APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of 
> devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology from 
> 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you know, 
> pay its developers. TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own 
> writings, have a 15 year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For 
> the record, I don't particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS 
> strategy.)

No. Not what I'm saying at all. I have no idea how you got there from
what I've said.

Stable API.  Nothing ever gets deleted until it has a direct or mostly
replacement *within* the existing product.

When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it
has abandoned them.

> I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical 
> device from 20 years ago with the latest and greatest toolkits. I can't 
> imagine anything electronic from 20 years ago being able to actually load and 
> run anything like Qt? How is the hardware even powerful enough to do this? 
> You can't convince me that the medical hardware device manufacturers were 
> thinking 15 years into the future for the next upgrade, 15 years ago.
The surgical robots being sold today will require 20 year support
lifespans. Many of the devices sold over the past decade were sold with
a minimum 10 year support and maintenance requirement. The development
effort on these devices runs into the millions. You can't make a bet
like that and find out a year later the supplier flew off to the Cayman
Islands with Ted Cruz and your money.
> 50 Year Old equipment. You make the case even more for TQtC to pursue 
> customers with a much shorter timeline. If TQtC concentrated on markets with 
> 20-50 year timelines for updates how much revenue do you think they would 
> make? Enough to sustain Qt development in any real capacity? Doubtful.

Okay. There's an education situation here.

I've never worked for a one-trick-pony medical device company. For
certain there are the grant/research funded things coming out of college
labs. That Phd. student doesn't take it to production. A Baxter,
Hill-Rom, GE, etc. type player will be who said thing gets sold to. They
will take it through FDA approval and to full production. Usually they
end up hiring the person or small college team that created it.

Baxter (and I imagine all the rest) actually invest in many tiny startup
medical device companies if there is a good idea that has already had
some fundamental work. They invest with the intent of consuming some/all
of it when it is obvious the thing will work. Here, this might help.

https://www.gehealthcare.com/products/accessories-and-supplies/clinical-accessories-and-supplies

Click on Products & Services and then click Equipment and follow across.
Those are just the devices GE puts out under its *own* brand. It owns
whole or in part lots of other little companies putting out medical
devices under their own brand. Hill-Rom is much the same from that
perspective.

You are thinking in terms of the x86 world where there are oceans of
one-trick-ponies. Companies like Install-Shield that had one big hit
followed by some flame-outs. Last I heard they were still just a one
product company. It's a cultural thing tied to that platform.

Here's reality in the medical device world.

Year one you get

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

2021-03-26 Thread Hamish Moffatt


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 where previous version is so different than the new 
one, that the same Qt code needs a #ifdef XXX version, so be it.

Yes, its more work.



It's a runtime issue on macOS too, not just development. Recent macOS 
won't run anything compiled with an SDK earlier than the 10.9 version 
(due to their notarization requirements), so you can't keep compiling 
with an ancient toolchain. I don't know if you can use Qt 5.0 with the 
10.9 SDK, but I doubt it because Apple is quite aggressive about API 
deprecation.


I still haven't seen any convincing argument on why you expect to use a 
brand new Qt with ancient compilers/OSs?



Hamish

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

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 where previous version is so different than 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 - was willy-nilly

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++ was more important in 5.13, and the 
> compilers available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then 
> frankly, its time to move to Qt 6
>
> There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain 
> time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported 
> and new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.
>
> I do NOT expect to start a project in Qt3 on CentOS 3/4 (or whatever 
> it was) to be able to trivially rebuilt in Qt 4, or 5 when I move to 
> CentOS 7
>
> But If Im still using Qt 5.9 LTS, and decide to move to Qt 5.15 
> (skipping 12), I don’t expect my OSes to no longer be supported.  If 
> there was functionality being added to 13 that made a version of a 
> compiler/OS no longer valid to target? Make that functionality/code 
> for Qt 6

I'm not sure what you're asking is even possible on macOS. They churn the 
compiler and the SDK so quickly compared to the 8 year development life of Qt 5.

I would ideally like Qt to support deployment on macOS versions slightly older 
than they do. Not all the way back to what was supported in 5.0 though.

I don't see any compelling reason to be compiling with the latest Qt on ancient 
compilers/OSs though.

Hamish

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

2021-03-26 Thread Hamish Moffatt


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++ was more important in 5.13, and the compilers 
available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its time 
to move to Qt 6

There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain 
time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported and 
new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.

I do NOT expect to start a project in Qt3 on CentOS 3/4 (or whatever it was) to 
be able to trivially rebuilt in Qt 4, or 5 when I move to CentOS 7

But If Im still using Qt 5.9 LTS, and decide to move to Qt 5.15 (skipping 12), 
I don’t expect my OSes to no longer be supported.  If there was functionality 
being added to 13 that made a version of a compiler/OS no longer valid to 
target? Make that functionality/code for Qt 6



I'm not sure what you're asking is even possible on macOS. They churn 
the compiler and the SDK so quickly compared to the 8 year development 
life of Qt 5.


I would ideally like Qt to support deployment on macOS versions slightly 
older than they do. Not all the way back to what was supported in 5.0 
though.


I don't see any compelling reason to be compiling with the latest Qt on 
ancient compilers/OSs though.



Hamish

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

Forgot to mention this.

I do not expect something that built against Qt3/4/5 to build under Qt4/5/6 on 
the same OS/Compiler.

If Im changing OS, or compiler.  I hope to find a Qt that works on the new 
combo, (that’s rarely ever been an issue) but, my old version of Qt? if the 
major version is different, no I have no expectation.

My view, I would have made Qt 5.13 (or 14) "Qt 6.0" since there were many 
compiler versions dropped on that version  Then I would have ZERO concerns 
about moving to the latest and greatest Qt 5.x knowing my customers OSes would 
be fully supported.

If there is functionality fixes that the Qt team decides needs to be put into 
Qt 5.x, then they may have to code them twice, one using the 5.x and once using 
6.x code standards.  This is what Scintilla does between 2.x and 3.x (a much 
smaller project of course).

Scott

-Original Message-
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 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 compilers 
available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its time 
to move to Qt 6

There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain 
time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported and 
new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.

I do NOT expect to start a project in Qt3 on CentOS 3/4 (or whatever it was) to 
be able to trivially rebuilt in Qt 4, or 5 when I move to CentOS 7

But If Im still using Qt 5.9 LTS, and decide to move to Qt 5.15 (skipping 12), 
I don’t expect my OSes to no longer be supported.  If there was functionality 
being added to 13 that made a version of a compiler/OS no longer valid to 
target? Make that functionality/code for Qt 6

Scott

-Original Message-
From: Interest  On Behalf Of Hamish Moffatt
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 22:06
To: interest@qt-project.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 device facilities. 
> Not one of them can change a single approved process without going 
> through the FDA approval process for said change. That is __NOT__ a 
> sprint nor is it cheap. Within the past 18 months a drug manufacturer 
> in high priced California put out a cattle call for a PDP 11/44 (might 
> have been 24) system manager. Those machines were last made around 
> 1978. There is a group of them still making necessary drugs in California.
>
> Once something is in place it stays there because it is incredibly 
> expensive to replace.
>
>> Qt's horizon is about 7 years.
> That's 8 years too short. 
>> Anything coded to Qt 3.x needs to ported first to 4.8, before going to 5.0.
>> Once you're in the 5.x series, port to 5.15 and fix the warnings. 
>> Once you're clean in a working build, port to Qt 6.
>
> There is no one who went to a good school for their IT degree where 
> they made the person take Cost Accounting ever going to utter that as 
> a valid path forward.
>
> There is no MBA, even from a shit school like Keller, that is going to 
> sign off on such a project.
>

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 to work on a new model of the device, starting with 
your existing code, and you expect it to compile with the latest Qt unchanged?

Someone else was talking about support for RHEL 6. Why do you expect to use the 
latest Qt with an ancient OS? Is it reasonable to expect to use new Qt with an 
ancient OS?

I see that the latest Microsoft Visual C++ compiler toolset (v142) doesn't 
support building for Windows XP. You can still use an older compiler. That 
seems like a reasonable compromise.

Hamish

___
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
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

From the Qt blog post https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020

"These changes will not have any effect on existing commercial licensing or 
services agreements."

Now, it doesn’t talk about the notion that if you built and produced your code 
against a commercial license, it has to remain in force for you to be 
considered licensed.

As you say Roland, I have no idea how that could be possible for an existing 
contract, but going forward its not an uncommon licensing strategy.

Scott
-Original Message-
From: Interest  On Behalf Of Roland Hughes
Sent: Friday, March 26, 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 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 understanding that after our 
> software development is done, we have to maintain commercial licenses 
> even when we are not_developing_  software in Qt. I think the previous 
> perpetuity licensing was appropriate.

**Seriously**

They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought and 
paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K for such a 
license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to have a lot of 
lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down.

What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license. 
I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal jepordy 
because the license change only impacts new product.

I'm not a lawyer, but if you bought a license, they (QtC) can't just 
arbitrarily end said license. Companies will be suing for return of license 
fees and for damages.

--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
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

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 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 compilers 
available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its time 
to move to Qt 6

There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain 
time.  Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported and 
new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out.

I do NOT expect to start a project in Qt3 on CentOS 3/4 (or whatever it was) to 
be able to trivially rebuilt in Qt 4, or 5 when I move to CentOS 7

But If Im still using Qt 5.9 LTS, and decide to move to Qt 5.15 (skipping 12), 
I don’t expect my OSes to no longer be supported.  If there was functionality 
being added to 13 that made a version of a compiler/OS no longer valid to 
target? Make that functionality/code for Qt 6

Scott

-Original Message-
From: Interest  On Behalf Of Hamish Moffatt
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 22:06
To: interest@qt-project.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 device facilities. 
> Not one of them can change a single approved process without going 
> through the FDA approval process for said change. That is __NOT__ a 
> sprint nor is it cheap. Within the past 18 months a drug manufacturer 
> in high priced California put out a cattle call for a PDP 11/44 (might 
> have been 24) system manager. Those machines were last made around 
> 1978. There is a group of them still making necessary drugs in California.
>
> Once something is in place it stays there because it is incredibly 
> expensive to replace.
>
>> Qt's horizon is about 7 years.
> That's 8 years too short. 
>> Anything coded to Qt 3.x needs to ported first to 4.8, before going to 5.0.
>> Once you're in the 5.x series, port to 5.15 and fix the warnings. 
>> Once you're clean in a working build, port to Qt 6.
>
> There is no one who went to a good school for their IT degree where 
> they made the person take Cost Accounting ever going to utter that as 
> a valid path forward.
>
> There is no MBA, even from a shit school like Keller, that is going to 
> sign off on such a project.
>

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 to work on a new model of the device, starting with 
your existing code, and you expect it to compile with the latest Qt unchanged?

Someone else was talking about support for RHEL 6. Why do you expect to use the 
latest Qt with an ancient OS? Is it reasonable to expect to use new Qt with an 
ancient OS?

I see that the latest Microsoft Visual C++ compiler toolset (v142) doesn't 
support building for Windows XP. You can still use an older compiler. That 
seems like a reasonable compromise.

Hamish

___
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

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, we 
could use
it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new organization. It is 
my
understanding that after our software development is done, we have to maintain
commercial licenses even when we are not_developing_  software in Qt. I think 
the previous
perpetuity licensing was appropriate.


**Seriously**

They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought 
and paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K 
for such a license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to 
have a lot of lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down.


What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license. 
I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal 
jepordy because the license change only impacts new product.


I'm not a lawyer, but if you bought a license, they (QtC) can't just 
arbitrarily end said license. Companies will be suing for return of 
license fees and for damages.


--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

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 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 day one with no
extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be updated to run
on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated to run on modern operating
systems. Qt should not explore adding APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be
used on the billions of devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its
technology from 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you
know, pay its developers. TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own
writings, have a 15 year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For the record,
I don't particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS strategy.)

No. Not what I'm saying at all. I have no idea how you got there from
what I've said.

Stable API. Nothing ever gets deleted until it has a direct or mostly
replacement *within* the existing product.

When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it
has abandoned them.

I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical device
from 20 years ago with the latest and greatest toolkits. I can't imagine
anything electronic from 20 years ago being able to actually load and run
anything like Qt? How is the hardware even powerful enough to do this? You
can't convince me that the medical hardware device manufacturers were thinking
15 years into the future for the next upgrade, 15 years ago.
The surgical robots being sold today will require 20 year support
lifespans. Many of the devices sold over the past decade were sold with
a minimum 10 year support and maintenance requirement. The development
effort on these devices runs into the millions. You can't make a bet
like that and find out a year later the supplier flew off to the Cayman
Islands with Ted Cruz and your money.

50 Year Old equipment. You make the case even more for TQtC to pursue customers
with a much shorter timeline. If TQtC concentrated on markets with 20-50 year
timelines for updates how much revenue do you think they would make? Enough to
sustain Qt development in any real capacity? Doubtful.

Okay. There's an education situation here.

I've never worked for a one-trick-pony medical device company. For
certain there are the grant/research funded things coming out of college
labs. That Phd. student doesn't take it to production. A Baxter,
Hill-Rom, GE, etc. type player will be who said thing gets sold to. They
will take it through FDA approval and to full production. Usually they
end up hiring the person or small college team that created it.

Baxter (and I imagine all the rest) actually invest in many tiny startup
medical device companies if there is a good idea that has already had
some fundamental work. They invest with the intent of consuming some/all
of it when it is obvious the thing will work. Here, this might help.

https://www.gehealthcare.com/products/accessories-and-supplies/clinical-accessories-and-supplies

Click on Products & Services and then click Equipment and follow across.
Those are just the devices GE puts out under its *own* brand. It owns
whole or in part lots of other little companies putting out medical
devices under their own brand. Hill-Rom is much the same from that
perspective.

You are thinking in terms of the x86 world where there are oceans of
one-trick-ponies. Companies like Install-Shield that had one big hit
followed by some flame-outs. Last I heard they were still just a one
product company. It's a cultural thing tied to that platform.

Here's reality in the medical device world.

Year one you get told to create a new patient monitor that looks like
any of the ones in this list of images.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=canonical=patient+monitor+image=images=images

It has a pump for blood pressure cuff, SP/O2, thermometer, and ability
to record/display some patient info like weight and body mass. The UX
team comes up with a style, fantastic graphics, even a custom font to
support all of the supported languages. Management tells you what they
are going to buy for a processor and RAM. They put a stake in the ground
on battery life and recharge time, etc.

You work like dog for 6-8 months. Product goes off for FDA approval. The
day __after__ everybody goes out for drinks management team tells
hardware team to split into two groups.

Group 1: Design and build a new & improved hospital bed with built in
scale so nursing homes don't have to get immobile people up to weigh
them. (For those who don't know, they are required to record resident
weight at least monthly. One of the dead give-aways

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-03-26 Thread Michael Jackson

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 day one with no 
extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be 
updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated 
to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding APIs/Toolkits 
to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of devices that we 
use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology from 20 years ago. TQtC 
shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you know, pay its developers. 
TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own writings, have a 15 
year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For the record, I don't 
particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS strategy.)

I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical device 
from 20 years ago with the latest and greatest toolkits. I can't imagine 
anything electronic from 20 years ago being able to actually load and run 
anything like Qt? How is the hardware even powerful enough to do this? You 
can't convince me that the medical hardware device manufacturers were thinking 
15 years into the future for the next upgrade, 15 years ago.

50 Year Old equipment. You make the case even more for TQtC to pursue customers 
with a much shorter timeline. If TQtC concentrated on markets with 20-50 year 
timelines for updates how much revenue do you think they would make? Enough to 
sustain Qt development in any real capacity? Doubtful.

Some of us like to create cross platform desktop applications that inspire our 
users to create the next cool thing. For that Qt is just about the only viable 
toolkit out there although others are coming on strong. We would like to see Qt 
keeping up with the latest C++ specs so we can use all the cool new APIs. Both 
our software development worlds are important to each of us. We are almost 
diametrically opposed in what we want from the same toolkit. Neither is 100% 
right and neither is 100% wrong. Only TQtC can decide where to put their 
resources so that they make enough revenue to continue the development of Qt.

I'm not going to comment on the Fortran thing. It isn't relevant to this 
conversation.

Again, this is *not* an endorsement of the current licensing issues with Qt 
5.15 and 6.0. I'm just enough put off to find something else after 15 years of 
using Qt.
--
Michael Jackson | Owner, President
  BlueQuartz Software
[e] mike.jack...@bluequartz.net
[w] www.bluequartz.net

On 3/26/21, 9:45 AM, "Interest on behalf of Roland Hughes" 

wrote:

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 to work on a new model
> of the device, starting with your existing code, and you expect it to
> compile with the latest Qt unchanged?

Stable API.

By definition a Stable API only has additions. In incredibly rare 
isolated cases things get deleted ___AFTER__ they have a direct or 
mostly direct replacement.

I was involved in a discussion a couple months ago with someone who just 
that morning cracked open 50 year old FORTRAN that compiled with the 
latest FORTRAN compiler just fine. The code had been running in 
production unchanged for 50 years. That's ordinary in the deep pockets 
world, not an exception, the rule.

> Someone else was talking about support for RHEL 6. Why do you expect to
> use the latest Qt with an ancient OS? Is it reasonable to expect to use
> new Qt with an ancient OS?

Qt actively pursued these markets and then abandoned them. Multi-million 
dollar investments (if I remember what Scott wrote correctly, a billion 
with a B dollar investment) on long term projects. Well, ordinary term 
for our worlds but beyond the Arc of Time for what Qt now pursues. These 
investments got made because the stuff was supposed to be supported for 
the duration.

Our worlds last longer than a gallon of milk and they were actively pursued.

>
> I see that the latest Microsoft Visual C++ compiler toolset (v142)
> doesn't support building for Windows XP. You can still use an older
> compiler. That seems like a reasonable compromise.
>
When you come from a short lived world, that would seem reasonable. We 
walk in worlds where stuff routinely runs 30-50 years. It's a requirement.

The gist of this thread seems to be, from Thiago and others, is that 
those who need Qt to be a viable

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-03-26 Thread eric.fedosejevs

The FitBit and its many fly-by-night knockoffs are a great example. Its “food 
plan” app will probably soon have privileged access to all of your kitchen 
appliances. And it can even be used to monitor when the supervisor at your 
local nuclear power plant goes on his daily constitutional.

 

From: Roland Hughes  
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:52 AM

 

Because even something like a FitBit, if it connects to the Internet, can be 
used as part of a swarm for an attack.

 

From: Roland Hughes  
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:52 AM
To: eric.fedosej...@gmail.com; interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

 

 

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 to simultaneously preheat to bring down the entire electrical grid? 
Probably not too many. The grid is designed for small and continuous changes in 
demand, not large and coordinated changes due to an IoT attack. Once the grid 
is down, it can take a long time to bring back up due to a lack of investment 
in black start capacity.

 

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/06/madiot-home-appliances-power-grids/

 

Qt Co. is in for quite the surprise when new regulations are introduced and 
Agile development/subscription toolkit licensing are driven out of the IoT 
market. But is current management capable of looking that far ahead?

 

Agreed. I just didn't want to go too deep on the "why" said regulation is 
coming. Every country that currently has regulations on medical and SAFETY 
devices will impose regulation on the IoT market and it will be the same 
draconian (by some descriptions) stuff imposed on the human/animal life world. 
Why? Because even something like a FitBit, if it connects to the Internet, can 
be used as part of a swarm for an attack.

Thank God none of the nuclear power plants in America have any connection to 
the Internet. At least the control systems don't.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/edwin-lyman/6-things-to-know-about-the-2020-cyberattack-and-nuclear-power-plants

The electrical grid, however, is not so well protected.

I was in a 20-something floor apartment that weekend day when a Chicago power 
station detonated. Just a few blocks away from where I was at "they" actually 
talked someone into holding a fire hose and continuously spraying that power 
station to keep it from going up.

Power station may be the incorrect term. I didn't look up the proper name. Am 
to this day floored that someone could be talked into spraying water on 
electrical equipment with something like a Terawatt of power going through it.

 

-- 

Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593
 
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

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 to simultaneously preheat
to bring down the entire electrical grid? Probably not too many. The
grid is designed for small and continuous changes in demand, not large
and coordinated changes due to an IoT attack. Once the grid is down,
it can take a long time to bring back up due to a lack of investment
in black start capacity.

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/06/madiot-home-appliances-power-grids/

Qt Co. is in for quite the surprise when new regulations are
introduced and Agile development/subscription toolkit licensing are
driven out of the IoT market. But is current management capable of
looking that far ahead?

Agreed. I just didn't want to go too deep on the "why" said regulation
is coming. Every country that currently has regulations on medical and
SAFETY devices will impose regulation on the IoT market and it will be
the same draconian (by some descriptions) stuff imposed on the
human/animal life world. Why? Because even something like a FitBit, if
it connects to the Internet, can be used as part of a swarm for an attack.

Thank God none of the nuclear power plants in America have any
connection to the Internet. At least the control systems don't.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/edwin-lyman/6-things-to-know-about-the-2020-cyberattack-and-nuclear-power-plants

The electrical grid, however, is not so well protected.

I was in a 20-something floor apartment that weekend day when a Chicago
power station detonated. Just a few blocks away from where I was at
"they" actually talked someone into holding a fire hose and continuously
spraying that power station to keep it from going up.

Power station may be the incorrect term. I didn't look up the proper
name. Am to this day floored that someone could be talked into spraying
water on electrical equipment with something like a Terawatt of power
going through it.

Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly

2021-03-26 Thread eric.fedosejevs

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 electrical grid? 
Probably not too many. The grid is designed for small and continuous changes in 
demand, not large and coordinated changes due to an IoT attack. Once the grid 
is down, it can take a long time to bring back up due to a lack of investment 
in black start capacity.

 

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/09/06/madiot-home-appliances-power-grids/

 

Qt Co. is in for quite the surprise when new regulations are introduced and 
Agile development/subscription toolkit licensing are driven out of the IoT 
market. But is current management capable of looking that far ahead?

 

From: Interest  On Behalf Of Roland Hughes
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 7:44 AM

 
The Wild Wild West days of IoT are coming to a hard close. It's not just the 
DDOS attacks. With connected refrigerators, hackers can turn the things off 
while people are at work (post pandemic) and spoil the majority of food in a 
city the size of Chicago, New York, LA, etc. If they choose to do it in every 
major city at once it leads to massive food insecurity.
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly



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 to work on a new model
of the device, starting with your existing code, and you expect it to
compile with the latest Qt unchanged?


Stable API.

By definition a Stable API only has additions. In incredibly rare 
isolated cases things get deleted ___AFTER__ they have a direct or 
mostly direct replacement.


I was involved in a discussion a couple months ago with someone who just 
that morning cracked open 50 year old FORTRAN that compiled with the 
latest FORTRAN compiler just fine. The code had been running in 
production unchanged for 50 years. That's ordinary in the deep pockets 
world, not an exception, the rule.



Someone else was talking about support for RHEL 6. Why do you expect to
use the latest Qt with an ancient OS? Is it reasonable to expect to use
new Qt with an ancient OS?


Qt actively pursued these markets and then abandoned them. Multi-million 
dollar investments (if I remember what Scott wrote correctly, a billion 
with a B dollar investment) on long term projects. Well, ordinary term 
for our worlds but beyond the Arc of Time for what Qt now pursues. These 
investments got made because the stuff was supposed to be supported for 
the duration.


Our worlds last longer than a gallon of milk and they were actively pursued.



I see that the latest Microsoft Visual C++ compiler toolset (v142)
doesn't support building for Windows XP. You can still use an older
compiler. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

When you come from a short lived world, that would seem reasonable. We 
walk in worlds where stuff routinely runs 30-50 years. It's a requirement.


The gist of this thread seems to be, from Thiago and others, is that 
those who need Qt to be a viable product with a stable API need to fork 
it into a completely separate project that doesn't delete anything 
without querying the installed base. You want to see how viable 
companies and products are managed.


===



Hi Roland,


We'll soon be making decisions about Synergy/DE product direction in a 
number of areas, as well as about potential new products, and we're very 
interested in your input. Please complete this brief survey to help us 
determine our priorities and future development direction.


Start Survey


Or use this link: https://survey.sogosurvey.com/k/QsQWSXRSsRWsSUXUSWVQTsP


SURVEY DEADLINE: Tuesday, March 30 (end of day)

Everyone who completes the survey will be entered into a raffle to win a 
$250 gift card.


Thank you for participating,
The Synergex Team

===

I haven't done squat with DIBOL in years. I did write Synergex a nice 
"how to use it on VMS" chapter some years ago that they are free to use 
however they want. Every time they are ready for major changes one of 
these things comes out. They understand that the care and feeding of the 
installed base is what keeps a roof over their head and food on their 
table. That once you pursue an industry and get it to invest in your 
product, you don't abandon it.


The mantra from the Qt project, and Digia for that matter, is "Sucks to 
be you!"


You want the Cliff Notes response?

Qt as a community and commercial product pursued the medical device and 
SAFETY industries because of their deep pockets. They pursued these 
industries knowing full well that, baring a product with adverse 
outcomes, 15 years would be the soonest redevelopment would happen.


From time to time we get hit with new industry regulations and have to 
tweak something. During those times we tend to update any libraries 
because we are going to have to bite the bullet on some level of 
approval anyway. We can successfully do this when we have a stable API. 
What you can't generally do is slip in a new OS.


Here is a real life real world example.

Most every medical device manufacturer that had touch screens on their 
devices had super secret field service screens on the device. When the 
devices had an external USB or other connection it was customized to 
have extra pins and those screens couldn't be accessed unless you had 
the "key" so to speak. In addition to the "key" you had to know the 
field service access code. Usually a 4-6 digit code. For devices that 
didn't have external ports you had to have the proper tool to crack up 
the case so you could install the field service card that had the port.


Most considered bifurcated security good enough. Everybody overlooked 
the fact that XYZ corporation's products all used 1709 as their access 
code and Harry Widgets medical devices all used 4591. Not just one 
model, all models.


In the Post 9/11 cyber security changes that started coming down the FDA 
decided that each customer should be able to set their own field service 
code and

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was willy-nilly

2021-03-26 Thread Jason H

> 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:
> > > 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 immediately mean that it must be done in all software.
>
> 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).

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
understanding that after our software development is done, we have to maintain
commercial licenses even when we are not _developing_ software in Qt. I think 
the previous
perpetuity licensing was appropriate.

___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly