[Development] Changes to Qt offering

[Benjamin TERRIER]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:02, Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer at qt.io>
wrote:

> > On 29 Jan 2020, at 15:20, Benjamin TERRIER <b.terrier at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 14:10, Cristián Maureira-Fredes <
> Cristian.Maureira-Fredes at qt.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> but for Windows/macOS this might have three solutions (maybe more):
> >> - Using package managers that provide Qt,
> >> - Download and compile Qt by themselves,
> >> - Create an account and use the installer.
> >
> >
> > How is any of these a solution to the fact that your a putting a barrier
> for new users?
> > These are just 3 bad solutions to a problem that did not exist yesterday
> and that we have to deal with
> > because you removed the 2 main points of entry for new Qt users: the
> offline installer and
> > the non-privacy-violating online installer.
>
> Hm, if the problem didn’t exist, then why did the solutions exist? Package
> managers on Windows and macOS provide Qt in the past, after all, and
>
> $ sudo apt-get install -y qtcreator
> PS C:\Users\vohi> choco install qtcreator
> $ brew install qt-creator
>
> give me a Qt development environment on Linux, Windows, and macOS.
>

That's a case of "I do it THIS way, why is anyone caring about THAT way?".
Well guess what, not everybody wants to use the Qt/QtCreator version that
comes from their package manager or wants to build Qt/Qt Creator on their
machine, especially given Qt compile time.

Also this type of arguments is meaningless. If the installers have no value
why does TQtC is making them a commercial only feature?
Why have we had them for years? Why are people, on this mailing list,
discussing which toolchains should be covered by the installers?

The answer is simple. These installers are used by a lot of people and they
bring value. And everyone knows that, otherwise TQtC would not
make them commercial only and the open source users would not be
complaining.



> You obviously don’t trust that TQtC will treat the data the
> online-installer either demands or requires with the appropriate
> confidence. So, shouldn't you build Qt from sources? Your IP address is
> PII, after all. Why did you trust that The Qt Company didn’t collect
> personal data from you previously - just because you didn’t have to enter
> your email address?
>
>
That's not the issue. Do not make me say what I have not said.
I have a Qt Account, I have used it on Jira and Gerrit. It is not a matter
of whether I trust the Qt Company with my email or not.
I have no issue of making an account for pushing commits and creating Jira
issues. Because it is a fair requirement.
In the same way I accept to share my IP address with websites I visit.
Because it is a fair requirement.
However, I do not see why I should provide my email to download binaries of
an open source project and I think this is abusive.

Also it is not a matter of thinking that TQtC was not collecting data from
me. They surely have some data on me and can surely associate some of the
downloads I made
with my email address through my IP address. But they surely cannot
associate ALL downloads I made with me and I do not see why they should be
able to do so.

And even if I was OK with the Qt account thing *for me*, I know that other
people do not agree and will try to find a way to make their own installers.
This will arm the community and how people see Qt. And I cannot be OK with
this.

BR,

Benjamin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20200129/c5995b62/attachment-0001.html>