[Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

[Frank Hemer]

On Montag, 22. März 2021 15:22:37 CET Jason H wrote:
> > Even Jason's company, you remember Jason right? QML's biggest, and
> > possibly __only__, fan. Even his company dumped Qt. The medical device
> > clients I've worked for have also dumped Qt.
> > 
> > It isn't the FUD that is obsolete, just the management of Qt.
> 
> I'm apparently Qt's biggest fan boy? Yes, I still think Qt (and yes, QML) is
> rockstar technology. My problems aren't with the API. It's that QtCorp has
> chipped away at the LGPL license from Nokia. And the stuff I wanted Qt to
> do, it didn't, even when under a commercial license.
> 
> Qt completely delivered is promise in us getting something to market, but
> when it was finally feature complete,  that something had more native code
> in it than Qt, because we were using using Qt just for the UI. Taking that
> and writing a UI abstraction to native was not that hard.
> 
> Qt *could have* made that port away so much harder, but because it's mobile
> support was so lacking, it was actually quite easy once we put our heads in
> it.
> 
> I'm also at a new company and I've suggested Qt up for evaluation, to
> replace the patchwork of libraries they are currently using.  We will see
> how the talks go... I doubt we will be using Qt6, regardless. Roland, what
> did those companies move to?
> 
> The problems I want fixed aren't technical. It's with the project's
> direction and management. "Open Governance" has not manifest the way I
> thought it would. Filling bugs and voting for them got my issues neglected.
> The constant relicensing to, of what was LGPL, to be under GPL 3. But these
> are issues that can be fixed with the stroke of a pen, or banging on a
> keyboard for a bit.
> 
> Some other inexplicable decisions are why there isn't Qt for Raspberry Pi as
> a supported platform? A debian package would go along way to introduce
> people to Qt there in the hobbyist sector, but it's a
> compile-it-for-yourself situation. Qt continues to get beat by HTML5, but
> it shouldn't. Especially giving the WebGL plugin. But there just isn't that
> effort to enable that segment. There is no grass roots support for Qt as a
> result. And with the licensing issues of late, they've ensured that there
> won't be. This means that they have to rely on and cater to the big
> spenders boys in the market.

+1