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

[Nelson, Michael]

+1 for idea that mobile support has not been the priority in QtCo's mind that I need it to be.
+1 for idea that filing bug reports and voting for them did not result in my concerns being addressed. UX with QML across mobile and desktop platforms could be better but many issues simply sit unaddressed.

Still, cross-platform support is nevertheless strong and QML is indeed a great language for UI, so I'm still a paying customer, for now. Keeping an eye on Flutter, though. 😊

Best regards,


MICHAEL NELSON | Sr. Software Engineer
T  703-406-2800, 341
michael.nelson at otthydromet.com | www.otthydromet.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Interest <interest-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Jason H
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Roland Hughes <roland at logikalsolutions.com>
Cc: interest <interest at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] The willy-nilly deletion of convenience, methods (was: Mixing Commercial and Open...)

>
> 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 It isn't the FUD that is obsolete, just the management of Qt.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.
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest at qt-project.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.qt-2Dproject.org_listinfo_interest&d=DwIGaQ&c=9mghv0deYPYDGP-W745IEdQLV1kHpn4XJRvR6xMRXtA&r=gqkHidFt_OznI1nBLNO0BnY0UT1ILkTMEW_qQQbTmCk&m=8eAioAP_sVFxZBs09SfrVELmNNKGDfcu3_znNi5BQuE&s=EJGZhrEuvpS6kt2IyI31RZNxODe8TUxAk6KWuVInpiY&e=
Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment.