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

[Roland Hughes]

On 3/26/21 6:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> It doesn't make economical sense for Qt to provide support for 15 years. If
> you need Qt for that long, you should engage a consultancy that will sell you
> that contract, the same way that Red Hat sells support for RHEL 6 for 14 years
> total (2010-2024).
What you are really saying is that industries needing actual stability 
need to fork Qt into a different product.
>
>>> Anything coded to Qt 3.x needs to ported first to 4.8, before going to
>>> 5.0.
>>> Once you're in the 5.x series, port to 5.15 and fix the warnings. Once
>>> you're clean in a working build, port to Qt 6.
>> There is no one who went to a good school for their IT degree where they
>> made the person take Cost Accounting ever going to utter that as a valid
>> path forward.
>>
>> There is no MBA, even from a shit school like Keller, that is going to
>> sign off on such a project.
> That might be, but they may have a bigger cost instead when they need to port
> to what is current at the time.

This is completely wrong. The patient monitor I worked on went through 
the full process reusing many things from previous patient monitor and 
weighed in around $1.2 - $1.4 million. Client said that is roughly what 
every iteration costs. Your path, going 3.x to 4.8 ($1.2 million); 4.8 
to 5.0 ($1.2 million); 5.0 to 5.15 ($1.2 million); 5.15 to 6.8 [roughly 
when it sounds like everything will actually be there] ($1.2 million) 
for a grand total of $4.8 million using the low number for what each 
iteration costs.

3.0 to an API compatible 6.x ($1.2 million) 3.0 to one of the 5.x 
versions (because 6 no ready) $1.8 million.  The 3.0 version to 
different framework $1.4 million. Rough estimates were already done.

Iteration never "saves money"

>>> people when those releases were made and the warnings added?
>> Watching production systems continue to run and generate revenue or save
>> lives, sometimes both. Until management makes a decision to update,
>> there is nothing for them to do.
> I call that shortsighted: failing to learn from innovation and predict future
> changes. It saves money in the short term, as you readily state, no doubt.
You did read the part about the drug manufacturer looking for PDP 11 
system manager, correct? Last year of manufacture 1978. That _is_ short 
term for this industry.
>
>> That is spoken like someone who has always worked in the
>> x86-wanna-be-a-real-computer-when-I-grow-up hacking on the fly world. In
>> the regulated world, whether you ship a product or not doesn't matter.
>> The development process requires you create The Four Holy Documents up
>> front.. You have a full QA team with a formal and documented as executed
>> testing plan. Full formal code review with secretary and official form
>> filing. A full formal test by an authorized third party of the device
>> off the actual and formally certified production line. It can't be a
>> one-off or a "pilot" line. It has to be*the*  line that will produce
>> units for sale.
> I've never doubted that what you're saying does happen, in some industries.
>
> I'm saying that there are a lot of others where what you're saying does not
> happen. Those generate far more money for the actors involved here.
Qt pursued the embedded systems market then went for the flash in the 
pan markets.
>
> And if you look at my email address, you'll realise that "x86-wanna-be-a-real-
> computer" is insulting.

It's reality. You may not like reality, but it is reality.

How 'bout that Itanium? Yeah baby!

>>> Like I said, I can't help if feedback wasn't given at the time that there
>>> was time to accept such feedback. You may say that going away for 15
>>> years and then complaining is acceptable in some industries. It clearly
>>> isn't in this.
>> It clearly*is*  the case and the reason companies are abandoning Qt
>> wholesale.
> That's not a valid conclusion.
>
> I can accept that in some industries what you're saying is true. I can even
> accept that in those industries Qt was in use and now some companies in that
> industry (even all of them) are abandoning Qt.
I did not say "all" companies I said companies. Certainly the vast 
majority of medical device manufacturers have given it the heave hoe. 
Customers Qt actively pursued.
>>> So stop the FUD.
>> It's not FUD as others have pointed out. You didn't even know the stuff
>> Andre' needed was shot out of the saddle so quit claiming FUD. The
>> process is far more Willy-Nilly than measured. The decisions aren't
>> based on polling the customers and stuff is shot out of the saddle
>> without any viable replacement.
> It's not done polling customers because that is not the process. But there is
> a process. Again, you may not like the process, but there is one and therefore
> it's not willy-nilly.
>
> I do not deny we've removed stuff. I am asking that you stop calling it willy-
> nilly because:
>
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/willy-nilly
>>
>> 1*: *by compulsion *: *without choice
>>
>> 2 *: *in a haphazard or spontaneous manner
> Neither applies.

Both apply.

I also need to point out comments of others about justifying some 
removals because the code was poor/broken. The same "process" has been 
in place for what? More than a decade? Mostly same people?

The process is then the flaw.

>
>> The embedded systems world ***has*** to have a long life stability path.
>> Right now you are chasing the phone market where six months is ancient
>> history.*That*  is why companies with deep pockets are abandoning Qt
>> wholesale.
> The embedded systems world is also evolving into IoT. Not all companies and
> devices, clearly, but there's a very big industry that does connect to the
> Internet and therefore must keep up-to-date on their security.
>
> ("must" here should be read as "needs to be done", not "is properly done by
> everyone")

That's where you are wrong. Completely and undeniably wrong.

There is a small segment of the industry making disposable products. 
This includes phones and the completely insecure IoT world. Said IoT 
world is about to find itself under the same regulatory boot where 
medical and SAFETY devices exist. It's on the legislative agenda right 
behind the disinformation stuff being dealt with now.

Why?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=canonical&q=hacker+uses+security+camera+to+scare+little+girl&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZsJSDX0DfSA

Those are every day occurrences now and this

https://www.a10networks.com/blog/iot-and-ddos-cyberattacks-rise/

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/internet-of-things/ddos-iot-platform-security/

is an everyday threat.

The unregulated and completely insecure IoT world has become a national security problem for every nation. It is very shortly going to find itself under the same FDA type regulation. Same restrictions.

One of the major restrictions IoT is going to face is mandated use of a non-flashable self contained COMM module. The device itself has no out of device communication. Everything must route in a limited set of messages through the COMM module. The medical device industry is already doing this voluntarily and the few who aren't will find it mandatory very soon.

That free-wheeling space you are pursuing is going to have a lot fewer players within the next four years because it won't be "fun" anymore. They are going to be held to the same level of responsibility as medical device and SAFETY device manufacturers.

The Wild Wild West days of IoT are coming to a hard close. It's not just the DDOS attacks. With connected refrigerators, hackers can turn the things off while people are at work (post pandemic) and spoil the majority of food in a city the size of Chicago, New York, LA, etc. If they choose to do it in every major city at once it leads to massive food insecurity.

-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20210326/6c724e41/attachment.html>