> 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
?? http://archive.raspbian.org/raspbian/pool/main/q/qtbase-opensource-src/ kind regards, jm On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:23 PM Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > > 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 It isn't the FUD that is obsolete, just the management of Qt.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@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest