[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38

[Hamish Moffatt]

On 27/3/21 9:04 pm, Roland Hughes wrote:
> 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?
>

None of that was an argument for upgrading Qt, just for not upgrading 
the rest.



Hamish