[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38

[Scott Bloom]

This is correct.  They are stuck on the OS, if we are not in of the internet mode (ie once a product has shipped, they create a machine with a given OS, and all software necessary to re-produce the produce, and its then taken off the internet and put in a black box, sneakernet only room.

But, before that stage, it is often necessary to have every version of every piece of software put on the system approved, but the OS doesn’t change.   If its working with version X of tool Y, they are not going to update the OS and put other tools at risk, because of an update for your tool.

Its just not going to happen.  Their dev cycle can be 6-15 years.  They pick an OS at the beginning, usually its already 1-2 (or 4 or 5) years old, because they had to test the hell out of it, and confirm the tools they need for the new project will work on it.  Once decided its frozen, except for approved patches.
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Interest <interest-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Roland Hughes
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 3:04 AM
To: interest at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38

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

_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest at qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest