Re: [Interest] L Word

[Jason H]

The problem isn't Qt, it's not dashboards or medical. It's all about how you mitigate the risk.

 

I think Qt is fine for dashboards and medical, if the risks are properly managed. I think it is ok that a desktop app does not have the same risk profile as a medical device. What is important from a Qt sales/usage perspective is that you can construct a solution that includes Qt AND mitigates the risks. People ARE using Qt for dashbaords and medical. 

 

I think Roland was big a bit hyperbolic there, but his point was correct that recent decicions of QtCo make Qt less attractive. 

 

 

 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2021 at 11:23 AM
From: eric.fedosej...@gmail.com
To: "'Benjamin TERRIER'" <b.terr...@gmail.com>, "'Bob Hood'" <bho...@comcast.net>
Cc: "'Qt Interest'" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] L Word

I find this whole argument that Qt is not appropriate for functional safety very puzzling. Aren’t vehicle dashboards QtC’s main market these days? What are vehicle dashboards if not safety critical?

 

If Qt is no longer appropriate for embedded medical devices, why is it still appropriate for vehicle dashboards?

 

From: Interest <interest-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin TERRIER
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 11:27 AM
To: Bob Hood <bho...@comcast.net>
Cc: Qt Interest <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] L Word

 

 

 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:15, Bob Hood <bho...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 4/29/2021 4:02 AM, Bernhard Lindner wrote:
 

Obviously, Qt has nothing to do with this type of software engineering. And it's obviously

not suitable for functional safety (at least not if you take it seriously).

If this statement is true and Roland's statement that TQC actively courted that industry is also true, then it seems to me that he has a valid grievance, regardless of how he presents it.

 

TQC actively courted that industry, but it does not mean that they intended Qt to be part of the functional safety stack.

As a proof to my above statement I bring you the Qt Safe Renderer. It is a commercial product from TQC targeted to functional safety industry, so yes TQC has courted this industry.

However, it also means that Qt itself was never meant to be a part of the functional safety stack and is not supposed to mess with it.

The issue at hand here is not that Roland has a valid grievance or not. At least some of the issues he raised are valid.

The issue is that his emails are numerous and have a very low signal/noise ratio, that he is borderline insulting to anyone who is out of his industry and that in the end it lowers the value users are getting from this mailing list.

And personally I'd add that he is so badly advocating for his grievance that I'd prefer him not to advocate for the points where I agree with him.

_______________________________________________ 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