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

[Roland Hughes]

On 4/2/21 5:00 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> (Is there a conflict of intents here because of the massive support to
> the Qt Project? I can't see how -- if anything, one could say that the
> commercial decisions may drive the decisions in the Qt Project,
> certainly NOT that the Qt Project has the power to "sabotage" the
> commercial decisions!)

Well, when you dropped RHEL 6 you sabotaged commercial support for it.

Try fully ripping out QML. Not just conditionally compiled out. Not just 
"don't use it." Fully rip it out of the OpenSource product and all 
support for it such that QtC has to add it back in for every release.

 >The combination of monitor+Qt is by definition part of the environment 
(as far as the end-user application is concerned). Changing a monitor is 
changing the environment.

No, it's not.

 > But wait, don't your practices tell you that you should've run a risk 
analysis, filed in the holy 29 documents (all named with fancy 
acronyms,I'm sure), get an independent certification and applied the new 
cover sheet on your TPS reports (didn't you get the memo?) before 
approving the purchase of a new monitor model on a life-critical 
workstation?

That statement makes it painfully obvious you never learned Software 
Engineering.

No. Replacing one monitor with one of equal or higher capability does 
not meet definition of RISK. "Screens look like crap" does not meet the 
definition of RISK.

"Unable to read data placing patient at risk" does meet the definition 
of RISK.

Replacing with a lesser capability monitor does meet the definition of 
RISK because a 640x480 screen may not fit everything that was on the 
larger monitor.

-- 
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