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