[Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , , willy-nilly
giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com
Mon Apr 12 15:32:11 CEST 2021
On 12/04/2021 13:59, Roland Hughes wrote:
> 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.
And who's "you" here? And how exactly did that sabotage a commercial
contract between you and whoever entity gives you commercial support on
> 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.
How about trying triple cooked chips?
Not just conditionally double cooked chips. Not just pre-fried chips.
Fully triple cooked, first simmered, then deep fried at low temperature,
then deep fried at high temperature.
I'm sure Opensource Qt would thrive with some triple cooked chips added
to 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.
It is. Triple stamped, no erasies, touch blue make it true.
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.
> > 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
> That statement makes it painfully obvious you never learned Software
Oh, so we're back at the personal insults, I see.
> 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.
Good. Then run the 4K display in full HD, it will look like crap, but
not meet the definition of RISK so nothing to complain about.
Or run it in 4K, don't enable HiDPI, it will look like crap, but not
meet the definition of RISK so nothing to complain about.
Note for readers of the list: the above was sarcasm. Not only changing a
monitor is changing the environment, it's also something that may simply
not work out of the box. (But what do I know, I've never learned True
To give you an idea: 4k MST displays may require Xorg and kernel
upgrades on older systems, without which they may not work at all / work
only at limited resolutions or refresh rates / appear as two monitors
instead of one, confusing WMs and applications / display an image on
just one half of it rather than the entire monitor. So purchasing a
random 4k monitor, and calling it "low risk", is a total falsehood.
Still wondering why the moderators are sleeping,
Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dangelo at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4329 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Interest