[Interest] L Word
b.terrier at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 17:26:38 CEST 2021
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:15, Bob Hood <bhood2 at comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2021 4:02 AM, Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> Obviously, Qt has nothing to do with this type of software engineering. And it's obviously
> not suitable for functional safety (at least not if you take it seriously).
> If this statement is true *and* Roland's statement that TQC actively
> courted that industry is also true, then it seems to me that he has a valid
> grievance, regardless of how he presents it.
TQC actively courted that industry, but it does not mean that they intended
Qt to be part of the functional safety stack.
As a proof to my above statement I bring you the Qt Safe Renderer. It is a
commercial product from TQC targeted to functional safety industry, so yes
TQC has courted this industry.
However, it also means that Qt itself was never meant to be a part of the
functional safety stack and is not supposed to mess with it.
The issue at hand here is not that Roland has a valid grievance or not. At
least some of the issues he raised are valid.
The issue is that his emails are numerous and have a very low signal/noise
ratio, that he is borderline insulting to anyone who is out of his industry
and that in the end it lowers the value users are getting from this mailing
And personally I'd add that he is so badly advocating for his grievance
that I'd prefer him not to advocate for the points where I agree with him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Interest