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