[Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
roland at logikalsolutions.com
Thu Apr 1 16:13:32 CEST 2021
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
> 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
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
More information about the Interest