[Interest] Retrieving view scale factor when painting a QGraphicsItem in Qt 6
Hi list, While attempting to port an application to Qt 6, I've hit a dead end. In the Qt 5 code we use the QStyleOptionGraphicsItem::matrix value in the paint override in order to determine the current view scaling, and then generate images using the corresponding dpi. We do this to avoid unnecessary work -- if the view is scaled out to 50%, then it's pointless generating the images at the same number of pixels as when the view is scaled to 100%. Now, in qt 6 QStyleOptionGraphicsItem::matrix has been removed, and I am struggling to find any alternative approach to handling this situation. There's horrible hacks you can do where you could retrieve views using QGraphicsScene::views(), but that method only works if a scene is used in a single view... because otherwise you still have no way of knowing from QGraphicsItem::paint exactly WHICH view the item is currently being painted for. (I can't use the "widget" argument of QGraphicsItem::paint because a QGraphicsEffect is set for the item, so the widget argument is always a nullptr value). How can this situation be handled in Qt 6? Nyall ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38
Here is why upgrading to Qt would be important. The monitor on a perfectly working machine, dies. They put in a new monitor for the engineer. IT dept has decided the 4k monitor for 300 bucks is the standard. Now the application which LOOKED and worked great, now looks like crap, because the version of Qt its built on, doesn’t have fully working high DPI support. Some of their tools work great, others look like total crap. They notify vendors, we need high DPI support. Multiple vendors stuck on Qt 5.12.9 are fubar, customer sends letter out, fix it, and drop Qt if necessary. (Yes we have gotten that in writing) if Qt GUI cant support high DPI monitors. The response of, its fully supported on CentOS 7 with zero issues. Worked until they had other tools that were working fine (not Qt based) Scott -Original Message- From: Interest On Behalf Of Hamish Moffatt Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 5:49 PM To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38 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 ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 39
Short answer from the customer (yep commercial version here) is no. We were told by support, here is what YOU will have to get working. Scott -Original Message- From: Interest On Behalf Of Roland Hughes Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 3:24 AM To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 39 So, Just to be clear. You are saying QtC has the latest version of Qt 5.x compiling and running on Scott's RHEL version though Qt-project does not? That somewhere inside QtC all the compiler and OS versions abandoned by Qt-project mid Qt 5 have shiny happy versions of the latest 5.x? If one defines "platform" as compiler version + OS version (to make wording simple) it would seem to me that one Qt-project abandoned it and started writing to newer compiler and platform version it would become impossible to make a working fork. We had this problem with compiler standards quite a few years ago. C++11 was supposed to be the minimum supported but the CI was (and probably still is) compiling with only the latest standard. I ran headlong into this when people were using stuff from from a much later C++ standard in the examples and I think a few other places. Once they start using things that don't exist, or worse, exist differently, getting there from here is a very difficult journey. On 3/27/2021 3:23 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote: > “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has > abandoned them.” > > I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long > term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There > are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. > Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain > about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with > Qt 5 currently. > > Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the > transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and > feedback to it still and help in the transition. -- 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@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 38
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 On Behalf Of Roland Hughes Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 3:04 AM To: interest@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-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? -- 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@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
> hush-hush "call for pricing" is a truly bogus business practice usually > utilized by scams and used car dealers. > > This "gouge them for all they are worth in private" business model really > isn't valid. Even if you adamantly claim that isn't what is going on, that is > __exactly__ what it looks like from the outside. damm straight! ya darn toot'n! nailed it! it's not just about what is ACTUALLY happening (which i do think we KNOW) it's also about the OPTICS. How does this look from the outside? Qt should CARE about what this LOOKS like. -dave ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
> hush-hush "call for pricing" is a truly bogus business practice usually > utilized by scams and used car dealers. > > This "gouge them for all they are worth in private" business model > really isn't valid. Even if you adamantly claim that isn't what is going > on, that is __exactly__ what it looks like from the outside. So true! -- Best Regards, Bernhard Lindner ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
> What would really help, is to get this documented out in the open... None of > this > "contact sales for pricing" You have not yet received the most important and most common advice in this ML: "Ask a lawyer"! LOL SCNR But seriously, what would really help would be giving the technology to people who don't ruin it with greed. -- Best Regards, Bernhard Lindner ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 42
On 28/03/2021 20:39, Roland Hughes wrote: On 3/28/21 12:54 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: Il 28/03/21 13:54, Roland Hughes ha scritto: There is documentation and Web pages that have replicated all over stating Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. You made something that cannot be effectively erased untrue. The documentation in question states that_specific_ Qt 5.x versions support RHEL 6. There's no such thing as "Qt 5 documentation". And ___THAT___ is the documentation and glossies management looked at when it made the decision to use Qt in the first place. It got specified in the Software Architecture Document. And T H A T documentation states which Platforms are Supported by a given version of Qt, and also for how long that given version of Qt is supported by the Qt project itself. Anyone over-promising based on that information has only themselves to blame. So what is this thread about, again? A bunch of fancy acronyms? -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
Yeah, hush-hush "call for pricing" is a truly bogus business practice usually utilized by scams and used car dealers. This "gouge them for all they are worth in private" business model really isn't valid. Even if you adamantly claim that isn't what is going on, that is __exactly__ what it looks like from the outside. You need published bankable perpetual prices. __AND__ you need a Qt that doesn't drop platforms mid-major release. On 3/28/21 1:15 PM, Jason H wrote: Tukka, I'm open to being wrong, but I just spoke with them. One of us three is obviously in error, but I pushed back on the lack of the perpetuity clause, (it was present at my last company) and sales was clear, it was removed... What would really help, is to get this documented out in the open... None of this "contact sales for pricing" Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 7:53 PM From: "Tuukka Turunen" To: "Jason H" Cc: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly Hi Jason, Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution licensing at least partially. Yours, Tuukka Lähettäjä: Jason H Lähetetty: sunnuntaina, maaliskuuta 28, 2021 4:52 ip. Vastaanottaja: Tuukka Turunen Kopio: Roland Hughes; interest@qt-project.org; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that code. The revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the ability to distribute what we had been... The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the forums / lists. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them. It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull the plug because the licensing has changed so much. At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is noticed. Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed: https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3) https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf (Tukka's own post) https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html (Not everyone was on board with the license change) But it's now under the marketplace license? https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ Marketplace license) Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:23 AM From: "Tuukka Turunen" To: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has abandoned them.” I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently. Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and feedback to it still and help in the transition. Yours, Tuukka Lähettäjä: Interest käyttäjän Roland Hughes puolesta Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of years making/maintaining software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't understand. What you are saying is that Qt was designed "perfectly" from day one with no extra API, not one bad
Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 42
On 3/28/21 12:54 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: Il 28/03/21 13:54, Roland Hughes ha scritto: There is documentation and Web pages that have replicated all over stating Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. You made something that cannot be effectively erased untrue. The documentation in question states that_specific_ Qt 5.x versions support RHEL 6. There's no such thing as "Qt 5 documentation". And ___THAT___ is the documentation and glossies management looked at when it made the decision to use Qt in the first place. It got specified in the Software Architecture Document. I know of no other package that thinks it is okay to drop platforms mid major release. Even Zinc didn't do that. Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6 and Qt has been around twenty years so you will use Qt for the UI and much of the application." Developers: "Okay. You're the boss." [...] Wait, weren't you the guy saying that agile is bad and you should get 324 documents cross-checked and triple stamped before writing one single line of code? I assume "trust inaccurate hearsay" and "make gross generalization" are in those documents? Not amused at all, You can be "no amused" all you want. The last two years with Qt have been a __complete__ debacle. What do you think ___starts___ the process of creating The Four Holy Documents? A *Work Initiation Document*. It's a formal SDLC document that generally contains at least one, if not more, grouped requests/features management wants in the next release. From there the SDLC process follows: 1. Business Requirements Document (BRD) 2. System Requirements Document (SRD) 3. System Architecture Document (SAD; a.k.a. System Architecture Specification or SAS) 4. System Specification Document (SSD; a.k.a. Functional Specification; or System Functional Specification – SFS; or System Design Specification – SDS) 2&3 can, and often are, created side by side. *This* is where you find out that, unlike other major software products, mid-major-release number, platforms were dropped. That's when the conversation from System Architect and developers go back to management. When management has already sold it to the customer and pre-spent their bonus check is when the relentless head slamming starts. Yeah, I've been on the other side of that. Nothing like management promising features to the outside world without first checking with development. Usually promised in the next major release too. Back in 2014 got to dynamically generate a spreadsheet image on a graphics scene that updated with real-time test data because someone had mocked up an image and promised customers a spreadsheet like display with angled headers and flick scrolling with zoom. All on an under powered embedded system. That's how stuff like this happens in the real world. Nothing AGILE about it. Management decides what will be in the next release. If they've already sold it (and in most cases they have) there is no talking them out of it. https://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=%22changes+are+free%22 -- 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
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
Tukka, I'm open to being wrong, but I just spoke with them. One of us three is obviously in error, but I pushed back on the lack of the perpetuity clause, (it was present at my last company) and sales was clear, it was removed... What would really help, is to get this documented out in the open... None of this "contact sales for pricing" > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 7:53 PM > From: "Tuukka Turunen" > To: "Jason H" > Cc: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" > , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" > > Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , > willy-nilly > > > Hi Jason, > > Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email > below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution > licensing at least partially. > > Yours, > > Tuukka > > > Lähettäjä: Jason H > Lähetetty: sunnuntaina, maaliskuuta 28, 2021 4:52 ip. > Vastaanottaja: Tuukka Turunen > Kopio: Roland Hughes; interest@qt-project.org; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net > Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly > > Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the > license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no > longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that > code. The revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no > longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the > ability to distribute what we had been... > > The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this > works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the > forums / lists. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly > turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them. > > It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since > 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest > tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, > that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull > the plug because the licensing has changed so much. > > At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to > engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is > noticed. > > Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed: > https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3) > https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf > (Tukka's own post) > https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html > (Not everyone was on board with the license change) > But it's now under the marketplace license? > https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ > Marketplace license) > > > Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans. > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:23 AM > From: "Tuukka Turunen" > To: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" > , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" > > Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , > willy-nilly > > “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has > abandoned them.” > > I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long > term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There > are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. > Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain > about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with > Qt 5 currently. > > Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the > transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and > feedback to it still and help in the transition. > > Yours, > > Tuukka > > > Lähettäjä: Interest käyttäjän Roland Hughes > puolesta > Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM > Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; > mike.jack...@bluequartz.net > Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly > > > On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > > I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to > > disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of years making/maintaining > > software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't > > understand. > > > > What you are saying is that Qt was designed "perfectly" from day one with > > no extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never > > be updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. > > Updated to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding > > APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
I was just in contact with them, and shocked that the perpetual nature was removed... I don't think I'm mistaken. > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 7:53 PM > From: "Tuukka Turunen" > To: "Jason H" > Cc: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" > , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" > > Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , > willy-nilly > > > Hi Jason, > > Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email > below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution > licensing at least partially. > > Yours, > > Tuukka > > > Lähettäjä: Jason H > Lähetetty: sunnuntaina, maaliskuuta 28, 2021 4:52 ip. > Vastaanottaja: Tuukka Turunen > Kopio: Roland Hughes; interest@qt-project.org; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net > Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly > > Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the > license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no > longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that > code. The revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no > longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the > ability to distribute what we had been... > > The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this > works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the > forums / lists. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly > turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them. > > It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since > 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest > tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, > that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull > the plug because the licensing has changed so much. > > At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to > engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is > noticed. > > Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed: > https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3) > https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf > (Tukka's own post) > https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html > (Not everyone was on board with the license change) > But it's now under the marketplace license? > https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ > Marketplace license) > > > Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans. > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:23 AM > From: "Tuukka Turunen" > To: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" > , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" > > Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , > willy-nilly > > “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has > abandoned them.” > > I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long > term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There > are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. > Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain > about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with > Qt 5 currently. > > Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the > transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and > feedback to it still and help in the transition. > > Yours, > > Tuukka > > > Lähettäjä: Interest käyttäjän Roland Hughes > puolesta > Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM > Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; > mike.jack...@bluequartz.net > Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly > > > On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > > I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to > > disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of years making/maintaining > > software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't > > understand. > > > > What you are saying is that Qt was designed "perfectly" from day one with > > no extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never > > be updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. > > Updated to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding > > APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of > > devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology > > from 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, > > you know, pay its developers. TQtC should rely
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
Hi Jason, Please contact our sales to discuss commercial licensing. Based on the email below you seem to misunderstand the commercial development and distribution licensing at least partially. Yours, Tuukka Lähettäjä: Jason H Lähetetty: sunnuntaina, maaliskuuta 28, 2021 4:52 ip. Vastaanottaja: Tuukka Turunen Kopio: Roland Hughes; interest@qt-project.org; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that code. The revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the ability to distribute what we had been... The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the forums / lists. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them. It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull the plug because the licensing has changed so much. At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is noticed. Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed: https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3) https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf (Tukka's own post) https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html (Not everyone was on board with the license change) But it's now under the marketplace license? https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ Marketplace license) Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:23 AM From: "Tuukka Turunen" To: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has abandoned them.” I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently. Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and feedback to it still and help in the transition. Yours, Tuukka Lähettäjä: Interest käyttäjän Roland Hughes puolesta Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to > disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of years making/maintaining > software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't understand. > > What you are saying is that Qt was designed "perfectly" from day one with no > extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be > updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated > to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding > APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of > devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology from > 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you know, > pay its developers. TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own > writings, have a 15 year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For > the record, I don't particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS > strategy.) No. Not what I'm saying at all. I have no idea how you got there from what I've said. Stable API. Nothing ever gets deleted until it has a direct or mostly replacement *within* the existing product. When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has abandoned them. > I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical > device
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
On 3/28/21 10:37 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: Chris Didn't follow the whole discussion, it's getting ridiculous... It's a lng way from ridiculous for companies choosing development tools for a device that will generate $50+Million over the next decade. -- 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
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 02:54, Jason H wrote: > > Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the > license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no > longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that > code. The revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no > longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the > ability to distribute what we had been... > > The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this > works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the > forums / lists. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly > turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them. > > It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since > 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest > tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, > that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull > the plug because the licensing has changed so much. > > At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to > engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is > noticed. > > Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed: > https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3) > https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf > (Tukka's own post) > https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html > (Not everyone was on board with the license change) > But it's now under the marketplace license? > https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ > Marketplace license) > > > Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans. Yep, Qt's trying to become smth like Atlasians or alikes... They (Digia or whoever) are not interested in the technology, they just want to milk the cash cow with no long term plan. Once the cows run out of milk, they'll chop it down like an old dead tree (Dirty old town). IMHO, Qt is not a technology to be put in the hands of hedge funds... Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans too! - Typos included - For a typo-free version try our whiter-than-white plugin! Only 99,99.99,99 per MB per second per ip per host per dev per keystroke per wallet. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!! CALL NOW!!! And we'll give you a darker-than-dark plugin, FOR FREE!!! HOLD ON EVERYTHING Special offer: you'll get 12 darker-than-dark plugins, absolutely free! YES!!! So that you can put one in your toilets, living room, bedroom, kids room, in your car, and who cares, give some to your neighbours! Chris Didn't follow the whole discussion, it's getting ridiculous... ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
On 3/28/21 8:27 AM, Jason H wrote: On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote: Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have rights to use whatever versions were current when we had the license. Previously, we could use it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new organization. It is my understanding that after our software development is done, we have to maintain commercial licenses even when we are not_developing_ software in Qt. I think the previous perpetuity licensing was appropriate. **Seriously** They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought and paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K for such a license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to have a lot of lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down. They can't just change your contract/license. What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license. I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal jepordy because the license change only impacts new product. This is correct, there is no more perpetuity license. This will likely be a sticking point for the company I am currently at. It's a sticking point at every medical device and industrial controls/SAFETY manufacturer I know about. The only projects still using Qt started long ago. -- 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
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
Il 28/03/21 13:54, Roland Hughes ha scritto: There is documentation and Web pages that have replicated all over stating Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. You made something that cannot be effectively erased untrue. The documentation in question states that _specific_ Qt 5.x versions support RHEL 6. There's no such thing as "Qt 5 documentation". Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6 and Qt has been around twenty years so you will use Qt for the UI and much of the application." Developers: "Okay. You're the boss." [...] Wait, weren't you the guy saying that agile is bad and you should get 324 documents cross-checked and triple stamped before writing one single line of code? I assume "trust inaccurate hearsay" and "make gross generalization" are in those documents? Not amused at all, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
Il 28/03/21 15:52, Jason H ha scritto: But it's now under the marketplace license? https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ Marketplace license) QtPdf is still LGPLv3: https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-labs/qtpdf.git/tree/ AFAICS, the only thing you're paying for on the marketplace is the convenience of being prebuilt, rather than building it from sources yourself. HTH, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts smime.p7s Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly
Tukka, you (Digia, aka "QtCo") no longer offer the perpetuity clause of the license. Which is absolutely insane for a commercial customer. If we are no longer developing that code, we should still be able to "distribute" that code. The revocation of the perpetuity clause in new licenses means we can no longer do that. We aren't even asking for support in perpetuity, just the ability to distribute what we had been... The developers at Qt Co need to push back and tell Digia "that's not how this works" before we get to the points of users revolting in threads on the forums / lists. It's a bad look. Anyone investigating Qt would be throughly turned off by now, and I can't say I would blame them. It's really sad it's gotten this far. I've been licensing Qt off and on since 2005 and watching it erode this whole time. I still think it's the greatest tech, but the licensing is quickly becoming the limiting factor. So much so, that I have Qt in consideration at another company, and I am about to pull the plug because the licensing has changed so much. At some point the business people have to realize that they are selling to engineers, and this is a much more nuanced field, and this license erosion is noticed. Yeah, we noticed when QtPdf license changed: https://www.qt.io/blog/2017/01/30/new-qtpdf-qtlabs-module (LGPLv3) https://www.qt.io/blog/change-in-open-source-licensing-of-qt-wayland-compositor-qt-application-manager-and-qt-pdf (Tukka's own post) https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-October/037698.html (Not everyone was on board with the license change) But it's now under the marketplace license? https://marketplace.qt.io/collections/most-popular/products/qtpdf ($49/ Marketplace license) Shenannigans. I declare shenannigans. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:23 AM From: "Tuukka Turunen" To: "Roland Hughes" , "interest@qt-project.org" , "mike.jack...@bluequartz.net" Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly “When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has abandoned them.” I would like to point out that this is not a true statement. We do offer long term support and also extended support for those customers who need it. There are some who every now and then still need something related to Qt 3. Somewhere Qt 2 is still in use. Perhaps Qt 1 even, but personally not certain about that. Qt 4 based systems of course and majority of customers are with Qt 5 currently. Each of these versions has changed API and we have tried our best to make the transition from Qt 5 to Qt 6 smooth. We are happy to get suggestions and feedback to it still and help in the transition. Yours, Tuukka Lähettäjä: Interest käyttäjän Roland Hughes puolesta Lähetetty: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:47:34 PM Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org ; mike.jack...@bluequartz.net Aihe: Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, , willy-nilly On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: > I'll start off by acknowledging your points, but we will just agree to disagree. I acknowledge that you have a*lot* of years making/maintaining software for medical devices. But I'm with Hamish on this. I don't understand. > > What you are saying is that Qt was designed "perfectly" from day one with no extra API, not one bad API implementation and no cruft. Qt should never be updated to run on modern compilers against modern C++ specifications. Updated to run on modern operating systems. Qt should not explore adding APIs/Toolkits to the Qt ecosystem to allow Qt to be used on the billions of devices that we use every day. Qt should just stick with its technology from 20 years ago. TQtC shouldn't go after paying customers in order to, you know, pay its developers. TQtC should rely solely on an industry that, by your own writings, have a 15 year horizon. Not much of a business case for that. (For the record, I don't particularly agree with TQtC current licensing or LTS strategy.) No. Not what I'm saying at all. I have no idea how you got there from what I've said. Stable API. Nothing ever gets deleted until it has a direct or mostly replacement *within* the existing product. When Qt chased these markets it knew what the lifetimes would be. Now it has abandoned them. > I also don't understand your argument that you want to update a medical device from 20 years ago with the latest and greatest toolkits. I can't imagine anything electronic from 20 years ago being able to actually load and run anything like Qt? How is the hardware even powerful enough to do this? You can't convince me that the medical hardware device manufacturers were thinking 15 years into the future for the next upgrade, 15 years ago. The surgical robots being sold today will require 20 year support lifespans. Many of the devices sold over the past decade were sold with a minimum 10 year support and maintenance
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
> On 3/26/21 1:39 PM, Jason H wrote: > > Thiago, apparently, even with a commercial license, we no longer have rights > > to use whatever versions were current when we had the license. Previously, > > we could use > > it in perpetuity. This is probably a deal breaker at my new organization. > > It is my > > understanding that after our software development is done, we have to > > maintain > > commercial licenses even when we are not_developing_ software in Qt. I > > think the previous > > perpetuity licensing was appropriate. > > **Seriously** > > They are trying to end a 5.x perpetuity license that was already bought > and paid for? Nah. Can't be. I know a customer that paid north of $600K > for such a license and the device isn't yet out the door. They happen to > have a lot of lawyers too. I can't believe they would take that lying down. They can't just change your contract/license. > What I "thought" was said was you could no longer obtain such a license. > I don't agree with that, but that policy doesn't place QtC in legal > jepordy because the license change only impacts new product. This is correct, there is no more perpetuity license. This will likely be a sticking point for the company I am currently at. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] the path forward - that 7 year thing - was, willy-nilly
On 3/28/21 5:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: On Friday, 26 March 2021 17:23:38 PDT Scott Bloom wrote: To me, Qt should continue to support OS's/Compilers for the life of a Major version of Qt. if it built on Qt 5.0 it should build on that OS/Compiler in 5.15 If Qt decides that modern C++ was more important in 5.13, and the compilers available on an OS/Compiler are no longer compiling Qt, then frankly, its time to move to Qt 6 That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying you're unable to upgrade past 5.12 because a given compiler version became unsupported (that happened because those compilers were actually broken, not for lack of feature support, unlike the 5.6/5.7 change which was C++11). And you're saying the solution is to rename the next version 6.0. But you're not using that version, so what it is called is completely irrelevant. Meanwhile, those who can upgrade are thankful for not having to deal with the inevitable dot-oh issues. It's a distinction that is a difference. Dropping platforms mid-major version is never good. Think of all the disinformation you create the instant you do that. There is documentation and Web pages that have replicated all over stating Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. You made something that cannot be effectively erased untrue. What is "the process" criteria for new major version number? I'm curious. Why? Because I agree with Scott. Extinction of platforms needs to be a mandating force. Here's what happens when you are on one of those decade+ long support projects. Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6 and Qt has been around twenty years so you will use Qt for the UI and much of the application." Developers: "Okay. You're the boss." Project gets developed and launched. OS cannot be changed because of all the custom device drivers *or said items are specifically identified in the clinical trial protocol.* When y'all see "5yr MTB" listed with a hard drive, do y'all realize that's a SWAG? (Silly Wild Ass Guess) When entities need to know the _actual_ 20 or 30 year effects of something they create protocols and run for the entire 20-30 years required. There used to be a military base in OH that closed within the past decade. There was also a used DEC equipment vendor near there. He was always badgering the community to unearth working 20-30 year old equipment or new parts to fix it with. Why? That base was where long duration trials were being run. Of what I neither know nor care. User: "I want to see this group of values on the screen in this type of widget" Protocols generally only care about the test itself and how data is recorded in the data store. They rarely if ever care about screens for point in time data viewing as that is not part of the control. If I have the wrong RHEL number, I'm sorry. I seemed to remember 6. Management: "Well Qt 5.15 has that very widget I just saw a four-color glossy on it just yesterday! I'll tell the developers to do it." Developers: "Qt 5.15 doesn't run on RHEL 6." Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. Install Qt 5.15 and deliver the feature to the customer." Developers: "Qt 5.15 doesn't run on RHEL 6." Management: "Qt 5 supports RHEL 6. Install Qt 5.15 and deliver the feature to the customer." ... The difference, though, is this: There are many open source tool sets, that have parallel paths for a certain time. Qt 4 is a good example. The late stage Qt4 was still being supported and new patch versions being put out as Qt 5 was rolling out. Right. The lack of 5.15 updates right now is a problem. Not for Scott. Developers: "Qt 5.15 doesn't run on RHEL 6." The difference is Scott and everybody else in this situation doesn't have to this never ending slam head against the desk conversation with management because they will find the last Web site never patched or taken down that lists RHEL 6 as being supported by Qt 5. Whenever there is to be platform extinction the major version number must change so developers don't have to go through this with management time and time again. The same set of platforms have to work with that version from beginning to end. Had the project just badged the release where extinction occurred as a shiny new major version with a shiny new list of supported platform (or just the old list with a few platforms dropped) great angst and hardship would be avoided by the community. The supported platform lists and other marketing data replicate like a virus on the Internet. When they are only "partially correct" or "correct until" that causes real problems. -- 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
Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 114, Issue 41
On 3/28/21 5:00 AM, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On 27/3/21 9:04 pm, Roland Hughes wrote: 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. If you __have__ to open the hood you try to upgrade the UI library to get the performance improvements and any new features. That is the reason at least in the medical device world. -- 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
