[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38

[Roland Hughes]

If I read Scott's original posts correctly, the compelling reason is a 
roughly $1 billion multi-year project was started and the OS physically 
cannot be changed out until that many year project is over. The UI can 
be updated and new functionality added.

You get such projects in the industrial controls world. Generally custom 
device drivers for custom devices that are part of a production process. 
It is too expensive in terms of down time and development costs to 
switch to a new OS version.

If memory serves he is talking about chip fabrication. Downtime is most 
likely measured at > $1 million per day.

In the medical device world it is almost impossible to change out an OS 
without having to go down the "new product" approval process. That is 
lengthy and expensive.

You can, because the design of the device mitigates RISK the UI could 
pose to patient safety/health, change out the UI library and go down the 
"minor enhancements" (I forget the correct name) FDA approval path. This 
is by no means free, but it is far less expensive and time consuming.

If you __have__ to open the hood for a regulatory change, like the 
service password example I gave, most companies will try to freshen up 
the screen library to get better graphics and performance improvements. 
Every performance improvement can help extend battery life.

On 3/26/2021 10:13 PM, interest-request at qt-project.org wrote:
> I still haven't seen any convincing argument on why you expect to use a
> brand new Qt with ancient compilers/OSs?

-- 
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593  (cell)
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com