Re: [Interest] QtQuick over Qt3D (Qt 5.15)

[Oleg Evseev]

By the way in Qt 5.14 there comes an option to use Scene3D as underlay
without FBO:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-qtquick-scene3d-scene3d.html#compositingMode-prop

I did tried this, but encountered with a problem when using together with
OnDemand:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-82861

чт, 1 апр. 2021 г. в 08:42, Paul Lemire via Interest <
interest@qt-project.org>:

> Hello,
>
> It sounds to me like Scene2D is what you want as it renders a QtQuick
> scene into an offscreen texture which can then be applied to a Qt 3D mesh.
> Unfortunately it can only be used from QML.
>
> https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qt3d.git/tree/examples/qt3d/scene2d
>
> That being said, nothing is stopping you from having 90% of the Qt3D code
> in C++ and just having a small part in QML that essentially only
> instantiates your 3D Scene and the Scene2D and provides the 3D scene with
> the Scene2D texture. I think that would be the easiest.
>
> If you want to do it purely in C++, another approach (but more complex to
> set up and that would have to be tested) is to use a QSharedGLTexture to
> tell Qt3D about an existing OpenGL texture by textureId. This means using
> the Qt shared OpenGL context, and manually rolling your own
> QQuickRenderControl to render QtQuick into a QOpenGLTexture, and then
> providing the QOpenGLTexture's id to the QSharedGLTexture. You'll also need
> to ensure proper synching using fences (QWaitFence/QSetFence) to ensure
> that Qt3D is not trying to render while the the shared texture is being
> updated. This would be more or less similar to one of the manual test we
> have in Qt3D
> https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qt3d.git/tree/tests/manual/sharedtexture?h=5.15.2
>
> I hope that helps,
>
> Paul
>
> On 3/29/21 12:28 PM, Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I want to overlay a QtQuick UI over a Qt3D scene I'm having, however (here
> comes the "but") I want to do it from C++. I don't want to get into
> instantiating Scene3D at all, I want to drive the Quick scene from Qt3D,
> not vice versa (i.e. I don't want to render the 3D content to an FBO, and I
> don't intend to depend on the QML engine to setup the Qt3D parts).
> Sound(ed) like a simple-enough task at first, but I'm having the worst time
> figuring it out.
>
> To start, I've set the Qt3D things up and I can show my mesh. For the
> second part, I read a lot of the sources around Scene3D, Scene2D and Qt3D
> examples but it doesn't appear this "obvious" thing to do is covered
> anywhere, notwithstanding half the Qt3D examples being broken (either
> segfaulting or not building at all).
>
> I was initially intending to get some ideas from Scene3D, but it appears
> it works directly with the private classes for one, and for two it forces
> synchronous rendering that's driven from the quick scene ... and as a
> typical QtQuick item it doesn't expose a public C++ class ...
> If I missed something there, please feel welcome to correct me.
>
> So after the next batch of sifting through Qt3D's own internals, the
> renderer plugin and such, I am relatively convinced the only reasonable way
> to do this is to render the UI offscreen to a texture and to just slap that
> texture on the screen on each Qt3D frame. Is this correct? If that's so,
> let's say I can render the quick scene to a texture, how do I go about
> putting it on the screen after the framegraph's been executed? I couldn't
> see a framegraph node that'd do that for me. Am I to write my own? Is it
> the case that I need to create a "fake" quad (i.e. a billboard) that I must
> reorient together with the camera? I saw in one of Florian Blume's
> repositories that he uses a second camera and another branch in the
> framegraph to put a background image in. Is this the way to do it, or is
> there some better way?
>
> Additional question(s):
> Do I spin my thread (which I sync manually) for rendering the quick scene?
>
> Thanks for any and all pointers.
>
> Kind regards,
> Konstantin.
>
> ___
> Interest mailing 
> listInterest@qt-project.orghttps://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
>
> --
> Paul Lemire | paul.lem...@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.fr
> KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
>
> ___
> 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

[Roland Hughes]

On 4/1/21 12:40 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:

On Sunday, 28 March 2021 04:54:56 PDT Roland Hughes wrote:

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.

The new major version happens when we need to do a binary compatibility break.
Until that is necessary, we will not make a new major version.

Dropping old platforms has been done since the early 2000s. Everyone who
adopted Qt since 3.0 has known of this. It's was not news then and it's not
now.


It is news now.

During Qt 3.x there were only a few customers, OS/2, and the KDE desktop 
on fledgling Linux distros.


Since then, Qt actively pursued the medical device and industrial 
controls markets. Currently it appears QtC is pursing the automotive 
market to the exclusion of all else. Despite someone ranting and calling 
that hearsay that's exactly what it looks like to the customers in the 
other markets.


When Qt pursued and penetrated these other markets it had to adjust to 
the time lines of those markets. These are very long timelines. Fifteen 
years on average.


Had Qt only pursued the phone and auto markets, it could have continued 
on its merry way dropping things whenever the mood struck. The phone and 
auto markets have about a six month life span before everything is 
abandoned for the next platform.


They didn't. The medical device and industrial controls had the deeper 
pockets. The means the policies and practices of the Qt project must 
adapt to the market it pursued.



--
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

[Turtle Creek Software]

In general, I agree with Roland about the need for stability.  The past 20
years we've spent most of our programming time just keeping up with Mac OS
changes. Meanwhile the Windows competition has been adding features.

We want a platform that lets our C++ code be a cash cow, without all the
current upkeep. Stability for even longer than 15 years would be nice. Our
sales are about half Mac and half Windows, so cross-platform is the dream.
We want someone else to make the port to M1, and whatever Apple charges
into next. Then we can focus on solving problems for construction
companies, rather than rewriting GUI code just to stay in the same place.

Qt promises that, but the Qt team responses on this thread make me nervous
about it being delivered. When folks get defensive, that's often a bad sign.

I'm new to the Qt world, but the mix of an open-source project and a
profit-making company sounds extremely complicated.  Targeting everything
from medical devices to desktops sounds very complicated.

I hope this forum isn't muzzled. Critical comments on a list like this are
not libel. They provide useful information amongst the noise. Netiquette is
about courtesy between humans. Corporations and projects don't have
feelings to hurt, so they probably need less protection.

Casey McDermott
TurtleSoft.com

>
>
___
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

[Roland Hughes]

On 4/1/21 12:40 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:

I'm painting a scenario to understand how you'd have to handle such a
situation, when there isn't a company you can call upon to fix the problem for
you.

We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than a lot of other components that you may need to upgrade in order
to deal with circumstances changing.


What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial 
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their 
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their 
environment.


At the crux of the issue is the extremely narrow project life cycle. You 
and others consider 7 years a long time. It's not. It's less than half 
of adequate. Companies that need adequate pay for a commercial license 
and support to get adequate, that's why they fork over the money. QtC 
(or whoever) even came out with Boot2Qt to encourage these markets into 
the Qt space.


Honestly, at this point, if Qt project/QtC wants to continue with its 
7-year-or-less window, it needs to put an official disclaimer on the 
project like Microsoft had to in some of their products.


"Not for use in medical devices or devices where SAFETY is a 
requirement/concern."


Not squirreled away in a doc file nobody looks at, but very publicly and 
everywhere.


That will solve the problem for the future because nobody will ever be 
able to get a product using Qt through regulatory approval from that 
point forward.Well, they might, but it will be __really__ expensive 
because the SOUP (Software Of Unknown Providence) research will turn up 
the "not for use" clause which will add a whole bunch of paperwork and 
testing requirements.


Scott will still be screwed. Sorry Scott. On the bright side you won't 
be screwed in the future because your company will have had to move to 
something else.


Existing medical device companies with licenses and contracts will have 
to abandon them then hold their breath some new HIPA/FDA tweak doesn't 
come down the pipe forcing them to bite a very bitter bullet.


The medical device companies using 4.x and earlier have already bitten 
that bullet.


As a project Qt cannot serve both the bleeding edge and the deep pocket 
medical device world that needs decades (plural) long support for an 
existing device. It needs to make a choice and officially rip the 
bandage off.


--
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

[Volker Hilsheimer]

> On 1 Apr 2021, at 11:55, Roland Hughes  wrote:
> On 4/1/21 12:40 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Dropping old platforms has been done since the early 2000s. Everyone who
>> adopted Qt since 3.0 has known of this. It's was not news then and it's not
>> now.
> 
> It is news now.
> 
> During Qt 3.x there were only a few customers, OS/2, and the KDE desktop on 
> fledgling Linux distros.
> 
> Since then, Qt actively pursued the medical device and industrial controls 
> markets. Currently it appears QtC is pursing the automotive market to the 
> exclusion of all else. Despite someone ranting and calling that hearsay 
> that's exactly what it looks like to the customers in the other markets.
> 
> When Qt pursued and penetrated these other markets it had to adjust to the 
> time lines of those markets. These are very long timelines. Fifteen years on 
> average.
> 
> Had Qt only pursued the phone and auto markets, it could have continued on 
> its merry way dropping things whenever the mood struck. The phone and auto 
> markets have about a six month life span before everything is abandoned for 
> the next platform.
> 
> They didn't. The medical device and industrial controls had the deeper 
> pockets. The means the policies and practices of the Qt project must adapt to 
> the market it pursued.


As *The Qt Company* we need to adapt our service offerings to the market we 
want to sell Qt into. We could for instance provide extended lifetime support 
for old Qt versions, and maintain special long-term-support branches of Qt that 
continue to build on old OS versions or hardware platforms or whatever for 
those customers that have deep enough pockets. Perhaps we do that already today 
(I know, I know, it’s April 1st...). Last year we made a reasonably recent Qt 5 
work on a rather ancient Windows XP Embedded setup. It might not have been 
cheap.

But why should the Qt Project have to care? The Qt Project doesn’t sell into 
the medical or industrial automation market.

If a medical device manufacturer makes a technology decision and choses Qt 
based on the policies of Qt "the Open Source” Project, then I’ll trust that 
they know what they are doing. And if they are not happy with how Qt “the Open 
Source” Project operates, then I’m sure they’ll check what The Qt Company can 
provide as a commercial service that fits their needs.

Perhaps that happens frequently already. That would explain the recent 
development of the Qt Company stock price...


Volker


PS: Roland, I was looking at your 
https://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/agile_book.html page, and judging by 
this sentence, I think your review process is broken. You should probably ask 
for your money back from your professional editors, or something… :P

"The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on 
multi-country corporate applications before there was an Interent, to stock 
exchange trading floor systems, desktop applications, and even multiple medical 
devices."

___
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

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

On 01/04/2021 13:40, Roland Hughes wrote:


We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than a lot of other components that you may need to upgrade in order
to deal with circumstances changing.

What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their
environment.


The terms of the Qt support with a commercial entity (being it TQC or 
anyone else) have nothing to do with the Qt project decisions.


And, by the way, we're describing scenarios where the environment *has* 
changed: new hardware, new platforms, new toolchains. You're negating 
the premise, and thus the argument is a fallacy.



--
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

[Roland Hughes]

On 4/1/21 6:48 AM, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:


But why should the Qt Project have to care? The Qt Project doesn’t sell into 
the medical or industrial automation market.
That's the market that really made Qt. Nokia sure as Hell didn't. The 
market was pursued.


If a medical device manufacturer makes a technology decision and choses Qt based on 
the policies of Qt "the Open Source” Project, then I’ll trust that they know 
what they are doing. And if they are not happy with how Qt “the Open Source” Project 
operates, then I’m sure they’ll check what The Qt Company can provide as a 
commercial service that fits their needs.

Perhaps that happens frequently already. That would explain the recent 
development of the Qt Company stock price...


What I'm seeing as a traveling consultant dealing with many medical 
device manufacturers is wholesale abandonment.


As everybody has learned during the Trump years, stock prices have no 
correlation with reality as long as the government is handing near zero 
dollar interest money to the brokerage firms and banks. Right now it is 
the world's largest Pump & Dump market.


You forget that I did two tours of duty writing trading floor systems 
for a major stock exchange.



Volker


PS: Roland, I was looking at your 
https://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/agile_book.html page, and judging by 
this sentence, I think your review process is broken. You should probably ask 
for your money back from your professional editors, or something… :P

"The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on multi-country 
corporate applications before there was an Interent, to stock exchange trading floor 
systems, desktop applications, and even multiple medical devices."

The book was professionally edited. I put the page together with far 
less thought than I put into a post on here. You think it is a run-on 
sentence, so what? The book still sells and I've done very little 
marketing. Other than the occasional mention when answering a question 
for free, none really.


When the justification for letting 12 year old bugs exist in the bug 
database is:


that the code was too complex or that fixing the old bug would create 
new bugs


The code had just as much review before check-in as the page that you 
looked at.


--
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

[Volker Hilsheimer]

> On 1 Apr 2021, at 14:47, Roland Hughes  wrote:
>> PS: Roland, I was looking at your 
>> https://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/agile_book.html page, and judging by 
>> this sentence, I think your review process is broken. You should probably 
>> ask for your money back from your professional editors, or something… :P
>> 
>> "The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on 
>> multi-country corporate applications before there was an Interent, to stock 
>> exchange trading floor systems, desktop applications, and even multiple 
>> medical devices."
>> 
> The book was professionally edited. I put the page together with far less 
> thought than I put into a post on here. You think it is a run-on sentence, so 
> what?

I assume you mean “Internet” when your page says “interent”.


> The book still sells and I've done very little marketing. Other than the 
> occasional mention when answering a question for free, none really.

Congratulations.


> When the justification for letting 12 year old bugs exist in the bug database 
> is:
> 
> that the code was too complex or that fixing the old bug would create new bugs
> 
> The code had just as much review before check-in as the page that you looked 
> at.


That’s probably true; 12 years ago Qt was GPL/commercial only and not an open 
source project with contributors outside of Trolltech. The Windows port was 
commercial only, and we used perforce for version control. We didn’t do any 
formal code reviews.

Yes, there are bugs in Qt where a fix would break existing code that relies on 
current behavior. And yes, there is code in Qt that is fragile, for different 
reasons. The code I wrote 15+ years ago to support Windows XP menu animations 
in Qt is probably not a shiny example of robustness.

But most of it is pretty good, even some of mine, and it makes me proud to have 
been able to contribute to Qt and to work with the incredibly talented people 
in the Qt community for most of my professional career. I’m sorry that you 
don’t like it.


Cheers,
Volker

PS: yes, the oldest open bug in Qt is 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-255, reported in 2006.

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

Re: [Interest] the path forward

[Nuno Santos]

I don’t see Roland's emails anymore because I’ve blocked him. He is a kind of 
hater and lover of Qt at the same time. He loves when someone gives him a spark 
to set this email list on fire and then write long emails full of bullshit that 
only someone that has nothing to do has time to read.

I use Qt for more than 10 years now. I’ve started my company alone in 2014. 
Since then I’ve been building 7 products with Qt that I deploy for Windows, 
Mac, iOS and Android. 

I’ve had issues, bugs, but most of them were not show stoppers. When a show 
stopper bug appears I report it and it usually gets fixed. Some faster, some 
slower, but every single one had a fix. The last one was fixed in less than a 
month.

My experience with Qt is very good. It has been keeping stability over all this 
years and I’ve only mostly focused in building products.

Has issues? Has! But Apple has issues, Microsoft has issues as every single 
software company has issues, because software is constantly evolving. 

If it wasn’t Qt, I would be here giving this testimonial. It really helped me 
to do more with less. 

Big shout to the Qt Team, keep the awesome work!!!

Best regards,

Nuno Santos
Founder / CEO / CTO
www.imaginando.pt

> On 1 Apr 2021, at 12:05, Turtle Creek Software  wrote:
> 
> In general, I agree with Roland about the need for stability.  The past 20 
> years we've spent most of our programming time just keeping up with Mac OS 
> changes. Meanwhile the Windows competition has been adding features.
> 
> We want a platform that lets our C++ code be a cash cow, without all the 
> current upkeep. Stability for even longer than 15 years would be nice. Our 
> sales are about half Mac and half Windows, so cross-platform is the dream. We 
> want someone else to make the port to M1, and whatever Apple charges into 
> next. Then we can focus on solving problems for construction companies, 
> rather than rewriting GUI code just to stay in the same place.
> 
> Qt promises that, but the Qt team responses on this thread make me nervous 
> about it being delivered. When folks get defensive, that's often a bad sign.
> 
> I'm new to the Qt world, but the mix of an open-source project and a 
> profit-making company sounds extremely complicated.  Targeting everything 
> from medical devices to desktops sounds very complicated. 
> 
> I hope this forum isn't muzzled. Critical comments on a list like this are 
> not libel. They provide useful information amongst the noise. Netiquette is 
> about courtesy between humans. Corporations and projects don't have feelings 
> to hurt, so they probably need less protection.
> 
> Casey McDermott
> TurtleSoft.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

[coroberti]

It looks like some business case for Roland.

Sending many emails with the links to the owned/associated
books thru the Qt mail lists
and even openly advertising them - at least two cases just recently.

Is it in line with the list policy?

Kind regards,
Robert Iakobashvili


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Volker Hilsheimer
 wrote:
>
> > On 1 Apr 2021, at 14:47, Roland Hughes  wrote:
> >> PS: Roland, I was looking at your 
> >> https://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/agile_book.html page, and judging 
> >> by this sentence, I think your review process is broken. You should 
> >> probably ask for your money back from your professional editors, or 
> >> something… :P
> >>
> >> "The author of this title has spent over 30 years in IT working on 
> >> multi-country corporate applications before there was an Interent, to 
> >> stock exchange trading floor systems, desktop applications, and even 
> >> multiple medical devices."
> >>
> > The book was professionally edited. I put the page together with far less 
> > thought than I put into a post on here. You think it is a run-on sentence, 
> > so what?
>
> I assume you mean “Internet” when your page says “interent”.
>
>
> > The book still sells and I've done very little marketing. Other than the 
> > occasional mention when answering a question for free, none really.
>
> Congratulations.
>
>
> > When the justification for letting 12 year old bugs exist in the bug 
> > database is:
> >
> > that the code was too complex or that fixing the old bug would create new 
> > bugs
> >
> > The code had just as much review before check-in as the page that you 
> > looked at.
>
>
> That’s probably true; 12 years ago Qt was GPL/commercial only and not an open 
> source project with contributors outside of Trolltech. The Windows port was 
> commercial only, and we used perforce for version control. We didn’t do any 
> formal code reviews.
>
> Yes, there are bugs in Qt where a fix would break existing code that relies 
> on current behavior. And yes, there is code in Qt that is fragile, for 
> different reasons. The code I wrote 15+ years ago to support Windows XP menu 
> animations in Qt is probably not a shiny example of robustness.
>
> But most of it is pretty good, even some of mine, and it makes me proud to 
> have been able to contribute to Qt and to work with the incredibly talented 
> people in the Qt community for most of my professional career. I’m sorry that 
> you don’t like it.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Volker
>
> PS: yes, the oldest open bug in Qt is 
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-255, reported in 2006.
>
> ___
> 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

[ekke]

+1
Qt (thx to the team which developed QtQuickControls2) has helped me to 
help my customers to find a way from BlackBerry10 to Android / iOS and 
last years I developed some very ambitious multi-platform business apps 
in different domains. Qt enables me as an independent software developer 
to do my work.


ekke

Am 01.04.21 um 15:25 schrieb Nuno Santos:
I don’t see Roland's emails anymore because I’ve blocked him. He is a 
kind of hater and lover of Qt at the same time. He loves when someone 
gives him a spark to set this email list on fire and then write long 
emails full of bullshit that only someone that has nothing to do has 
time to read.


I use Qt for more than 10 years now. I’ve started my company alone in 
2014. Since then I’ve been building 7 products with Qt that I deploy 
for Windows, Mac, iOS and Android.


I’ve had issues, bugs, but most of them were not show stoppers. When a 
show stopper bug appears I report it and it usually gets fixed. Some 
faster, some slower, but every single one had a fix. The last one was 
fixed in less than a month.


My experience with Qt is very good. It has been keeping stability over 
all this years and I’ve only mostly focused in building products.


Has issues? Has! But Apple has issues, Microsoft has issues as every 
single software company has issues, because software is constantly 
evolving.


If it wasn’t Qt, I would be here giving this testimonial. It really 
helped me to do more with less.


Big shout to the Qt Team, keep the awesome work!!!

Best regards,

Nuno Santos
Founder / CEO / CTO
www.imaginando.pt 

On 1 Apr 2021, at 12:05, Turtle Creek Software 
mailto:supp...@turtlesoft.com>> wrote:


In general, I agree with Roland about the need for stability.  The 
past 20 years we've spent most of our programming time just keeping 
up with Mac OS changes. Meanwhile the Windows competition has been 
adding features.


We want a platform that lets our C++ code be a cash cow, without all 
the current upkeep. Stability for even longer than 15 years would be 
nice. Our sales are about half Mac and half Windows, so 
cross-platform is the dream. We want someone else to make the port to 
M1, and whatever Apple charges into next. Then we can focus on 
solving problems for construction companies, rather than rewriting 
GUI code just to stay in the same place.


Qt promises that, but the Qt team responses on this thread make me 
nervous about it being delivered. When folks get defensive, that's 
often a bad sign.


I'm new to the Qt world, but the mix of an open-source project and a 
profit-making company sounds extremely complicated.  Targeting 
everything from medical devices to desktops sounds very complicated.


I hope this forum isn't muzzled. Critical comments on a list like 
this are not libel. They provide useful information amongst the 
noise. Netiquette is about courtesy between humans. Corporations and 
projects don't have feelings to hurt, so they probably need less 
protection.


Casey McDermott
TurtleSoft.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



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

Re: [Interest] the path forward

[Kyle Edwards via Interest]

On 4/1/21 9:40 AM, ekke wrote:

+1
Qt (thx to the team which developed QtQuickControls2) has helped me to 
help my customers to find a way from BlackBerry10 to Android / iOS and 
last years I developed some very ambitious multi-platform business 
apps in different domains. Qt enables me as an independent software 
developer to do my work.


My company also uses Qt for most of its GUI tools (including the CMake 
GUI), and it enables us to write robust GUI code for macOS, Windows, and 
Linux. Yes, we occasionally encounter snags, but overall our experience 
with Qt has been good. Thank you Qt!


Kyle

___
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

[Roland Hughes]

On 4/1/21 8:36 AM, coroberti wrote:

It looks like some business case for Roland.

Sending many emails with the links to the owned/associated
books thru the Qt mail lists
and even openly advertising them - at least two cases just recently.

Is it in line with the list policy?

Kind regards,
Robert Iakobashvili

Unknown. It is the SIG on my main email account.

--

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

[Roland Hughes]

On 4/1/21 8:46 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:

On 01/04/2021 13:40, Roland Hughes wrote:

We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than a lot of other components that you may need to upgrade in order
to deal with circumstances changing.

What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their
environment.

The terms of the Qt support with a commercial entity (being it TQC or
anyone else) have nothing to do with the Qt project decisions.


Yes, they do.

Is QtC providing code to Qt project? Is it providing hosting and 
distribution services for the OpenSource code? Is it providing any other 
financial support?


When the answer to any of these is yes, then what they need has a lot to 
do with your decisions. When they need to support a platform for 15+ 
years and you rip it out after 6-7 _that_ is a real problem.




And, by the way, we're describing scenarios where the environment*has*  
changed: new hardware, new platforms, new toolchains. You're negating

the premise, and thus the argument is a fallacy.


No, your argument is the fallacy (which is not unusual.)

They replaced a *monitor* with another computer monitor that the 
platform obviously supported. That's it. The video card obviously 
supported 4K as did the video driver. If the *environment* maxed out at 
1920xwhatever Scott wouldn't have been screwed. He and his company got 
screwed because the high DPI support with the Qt they have was not good. 
Between "good enough" and what they currently have his platform got dropped.


The platform already supported all of this. The Qt code did not.

--
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 38

[Scott Bloom]

> I would expect Qt to query the version of X being used, say 
> multi-touch isn’t supported so the app cant support it. If my customer 
> complained that multi-touch works on the Windows, and CentOS 7 boxes, but not 
> CentOS 6.
> The reasoning is clear, the default X for CentOS 6 doesn’t support it.  
> I could then point them to the newer X and say have your IT dept move 
> your CentOS to the X.Y.Z version of X (which they wont be able to do) 
> and it will work.
 
Well, that's your answer there: the feature you want isn't supported on the OS 
you have. So why is Qt any different?

I'm painting a scenario to understand how you'd have to handle such a 
situation, when there isn't a company you can call upon to fix the problem for 
you.

We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the 
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less 
critical than a lot of other components that you may need to upgrade in order 
to deal with circumstances changing.

--
That doesn’t mean that Qt cant support it, its that Qt needs to be able to 
compile without it.  And if you cant, rev the major version

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

Re: [Interest] the path forward

[Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)]

> On 4/1/21, 7:08 AM, "Interest on behalf of Turtle Creek Software" 
>  wrote:

Hi Casey, welcome to the ML.  I'd like to respond to some of your comments.  I 
hope you don't mind me addressing them out-of-order.

> Qt promises that, but the Qt team responses on this thread make me nervous 
> about it being delivered. When folks get defensive, that's often a bad sign.

Having been on the ML for a long time (probably since the Qt 4 -> 5 
transition), I think The Qt Company has been mostly quiet on this thread.  Most 
consider Roland a troll, with the general advice of "don't feed the troll" 
applying.  There seems to be no statement that mentions him that he won't write 
many paragraphs and emails in response to.  I think most of the replies have 
been from people that aren't employees of The Qt Company.  I don't work for Qt.

The following comment was made just yesterday on a `QtQuick over Qt3D (Qt 
5.15)` thread (by Konstantin Shegunov):
> The Roland thread(s)™ are epic enough and I've been keeping quiet on purpose.

>  I'm new to the Qt world, but the mix of an open-source project and a 
> profit-making company sounds extremely complicated.

The dual/multi license and the Contributors License Agreement allow for the 
same code to be used for both, so it probably isn't as complicated as you think.

>  Targeting everything from medical devices to desktops sounds very 
> complicated.

Indeed.  And this is the crux of the discussion.  There is an inherent tension 
between stability and progress (whether progress is new features or keeping up 
with underlying changes - like Mac's M1).  If you've coded for 20 years, you'll 
understand that supporting something new while continuing to supporting 
everything old (without anything breaking) is hard.  As with all tensions, 
compromises need to be made, in this case which new features are supported and 
how far back stability is maintained.  These are choices, and they get 
discussed - here, on the developer mailing list, and in the Qt Contributor's 
Summit.

>  In general, I agree with Roland about the need for stability.

What drew me to Qt _was_ its stability - the stability of APIs.  While MS 
changed their UI technology every few years (MFC, WPF, Windows Forms), Qt 
didn't (I thought there was a cool video of someone porting Qt1 or Qt2 code to 
Qt5, but I can't find it).  Porting code to new versions of Qt is painless in 
many cases, and where there are challenges, there are valid reasons for them 
(RHI, QList/QVector, etc).

Roland's view is extreme.  It may _sound_ reasonable, but if you look, you will 
find it isn't reasonable.  His definition of "stable" is being able to update 
the Qt version, but on a 15 year old piece of hardware that is using a 15 year 
old OS, and everything should build without any porting.

If you are updating Qt and the underlying OS, and _some_ porting is acceptable, 
you will find Qt meets that definition of stable.  There is an inherent tension 
between supporting M1 Macs and RHEL 6.  Specific issues do get discussed (more 
on the developer ML), and there are options for commercial support as well.

Regards,
Brett

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

Re: [Interest] the path forward

[Elvis Stansvik]

Den tors 1 apr. 2021 kl 15:31 skrev Nuno Santos :
>
> I don’t see Roland's emails anymore because I’ve blocked him. He is a kind of 
> hater and lover of Qt at the same time. He loves when someone gives him a 
> spark to set this email list on fire and then write long emails full of 
> bullshit that only someone that has nothing to do has time to read.
>
> I use Qt for more than 10 years now. I’ve started my company alone in 2014. 
> Since then I’ve been building 7 products with Qt that I deploy for Windows, 
> Mac, iOS and Android.
>
> I’ve had issues, bugs, but most of them were not show stoppers. When a show 
> stopper bug appears I report it and it usually gets fixed. Some faster, some 
> slower, but every single one had a fix. The last one was fixed in less than a 
> month.
>
> My experience with Qt is very good. It has been keeping stability over all 
> this years and I’ve only mostly focused in building products.
>
> Has issues? Has! But Apple has issues, Microsoft has issues as every single 
> software company has issues, because software is constantly evolving.
>
> If it wasn’t Qt, I would be here giving this testimonial. It really helped me 
> to do more with less.
>
> Big shout to the Qt Team, keep the awesome work!!!

+1

I've also had a Roland-filter in place since early 2019. Should
frankly have added it much earlier. There are more productive things
to do than read his tantrums.

Elvis

>
> Best regards,
>
> Nuno Santos
> Founder / CEO / CTO
> www.imaginando.pt
>
> On 1 Apr 2021, at 12:05, Turtle Creek Software  wrote:
>
> In general, I agree with Roland about the need for stability.  The past 20 
> years we've spent most of our programming time just keeping up with Mac OS 
> changes. Meanwhile the Windows competition has been adding features.
>
> We want a platform that lets our C++ code be a cash cow, without all the 
> current upkeep. Stability for even longer than 15 years would be nice. Our 
> sales are about half Mac and half Windows, so cross-platform is the dream. We 
> want someone else to make the port to M1, and whatever Apple charges into 
> next. Then we can focus on solving problems for construction companies, 
> rather than rewriting GUI code just to stay in the same place.
>
> Qt promises that, but the Qt team responses on this thread make me nervous 
> about it being delivered. When folks get defensive, that's often a bad sign.
>
> I'm new to the Qt world, but the mix of an open-source project and a 
> profit-making company sounds extremely complicated.  Targeting everything 
> from medical devices to desktops sounds very complicated.
>
> I hope this forum isn't muzzled. Critical comments on a list like this are 
> not libel. They provide useful information amongst the noise. Netiquette is 
> about courtesy between humans. Corporations and projects don't have feelings 
> to hurt, so they probably need less protection.
>
> Casey McDermott
> TurtleSoft.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
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

Re: [Interest] the path forward

[Turtle Creek Software]

>> Hi Casey, welcome to the ML.  I'd like to respond to some of your
comments.  I hope you don't mind me addressing them out-of-order.

Thanks, that is very helpful.  I guess after a few years one gets to know
the personalities!

My definition of stability would be a platform that lets existing code
update for new devices without much pain.  It took us a month to go from
Mac OS 9 to X, which was reasonable. PPC to Intel 2 months, but we already
had byte-swapping for the Windows version. Apple could have made it easier
but it was still reasonable.  However, we wasted 3 years going Carbon to
Cocoa and only getting 1/2 way. That was too much. Working in Objective-C
really made me appreciate C++.

Wanting to go back and run new code on old machines?  Yeah, that is just
for masochists.  However, I have learned a lot about the medical device biz
in the past month!

Are there lists other than Develop and Interest?  Splitting this one might
help.  One to discuss future changes civilly, one for support, one for
flames and arguments...

Casey McDermott
TurtleSoft.com
___
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

[Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest]

On 01/04/2021 16:13, Roland Hughes wrote:


On 4/1/21 8:46 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:

On 01/04/2021 13:40, Roland Hughes wrote:

We keep discussing the ability to upgrade Qt but not upgrade the rest of the
OS. I understand that Qt is a central component of the UI, but it's no less
critical than a lot of other components that you may need to upgrade in order
to deal with circumstances changing.

What you are describing is __exactly__ why companies buy commercial
licenses and pay for support contracts. They pay to have their
environment supported and not be told that they have to replace their
environment.

The terms of the Qt support with a commercial entity (being it TQC or
anyone else) have nothing to do with the Qt project decisions.


Yes, they do.

Is QtC providing code to Qt project? Is it providing hosting and
distribution services for the OpenSource code? Is it providing any other
financial support?

When the answer to any of these is yes, then what they need has a lot to
do with your decisions. When they need to support a platform for 15+
years and you rip it out after 6-7 _that_ is a real problem.


Does TQC provide hosting and other technological services for the Qt 
project? Yes, they do (thanks TQC!).


Does TQC provide the majority of code in the Qt project, and employ the 
biggest work force, therefore having a significant say in the Qt Project 
decisions? Yes.


Does TQC also provide commercial support contracts? Yes.

(Is there a conflict of intents here because of the massive support to 
the Qt Project? I can't see how -- if anything, one could say that the 
commercial decisions may drive the decisions in the Qt Project, 
certainly NOT that the Qt Project has the power to "sabotage" the 
commercial decisions!)


But the terms of your commercial Qt support with TQC (or with anyone 
else for that matter) don't change depending on the Qt Project 
decisions. (And even if they did, then you've got nothing to complain 
about -- you _signed_ for that.) If your contract with TQC says that you 
have the right of getting 15+ years of support for some given Qt 
versions on some given platforms, then you get those, or you go to 
court. This has nothing to do with what the Qt Project decides to do in 
the meanwhile, including dropping those platforms after 6-7 years.







And, by the way, we're describing scenarios where the environment*has*
changed: new hardware, new platforms, new toolchains. You're negating
the premise, and thus the argument is a fallacy.


No, your argument is the fallacy (which is not unusual.)

They replaced a *monitor* with another computer monitor that the
platform obviously supported. That's it. The video card obviously
supported 4K as did the video driver. If the *environment* maxed out at
1920xwhatever Scott wouldn't have been screwed. He and his company got
screwed because the high DPI support with the Qt they have was not good.
Between "good enough" and what they currently have his platform got dropped.

The platform already supported all of this. The Qt code did not.



The combination of monitor+Qt is by definition part of the environment 
(as far as the end-user application is concerned). Changing a monitor is 
changing the environment. If the definition of "supported" is "I connect 
it and it runs at 4K", then of course it's supported: you get the 
_native_ 4K from your Qt application, and no hidpi scaling.


But wait, don't your practices tell you that you should've run a risk 
analysis, filed in the holy 29 documents (all named with fancy acronyms, 
I'm sure), get an independent certification and applied the new cover 
sheet on your TPS reports (didn't you get the memo?) before approving 
the purchase of a new monitor model on a life-critical workstation?



(In all seriousness, of course I'm unhappy as the next person about the 
status of hidpi and Qt, and not too happy that one needs 5.15 for 
getting the bugfixes, which in turn has higher platform requirements. 
But this has nothing to do with someone having a commercial contract for 
pre-5.15 and thus with the power to get their commercial partner to 
backport those bugfixes or improvements.)



--
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

[Jason H]

I've called Qt "top secret rockstar tech" multiple times and I plan on calling it that for a bit more. I've had 5 companies buy licenses since 2005.  Qt has delivered on getting my products to market in record time, even if that was a process frought with far more native code than it should have been. At the very least having a cross-platform UI saved some effort, and provided consistency, rather than having to target Android's stacks AND AVFoundation seperately.

 

What I don't like is the erosion of the LGPL that Nokia set in place. I think it's shortsighted, and contributes to the decline of Qt overall. I feel that while Qt stock has done well, volume is thin, and something as technical as having BSD or LGPL could be beneficial for the volume. Qt is a project of declining hobbiest popularity, even when there are big companies buying into it. Compare it with say, ReactJS/Electron. Everyone knows about that, Qt not so much... Maybe the big player interest will circle back around as it comes up on job postings... I'd personally launch a head on WebGL offensive if I could I think there's a lot of untapped potential there!

 

Also, I think Qt should be on a US stock market, but I am biased. ;-) There's some pink sheets version of Qt stock which is even thinner volume. 

 


 

Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 9:25 AM
From: "Nuno Santos" 
To: "Turtle Creek Software" 
Cc: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] the path forward


I don’t see Roland's emails anymore because I’ve blocked him. He is a kind of hater and lover of Qt at the same time. He loves when someone gives him a spark to set this email list on fire and then write long emails full of bullshit that only someone that has nothing to do has time to read.
 

I use Qt for more than 10 years now. I’ve started my company alone in 2014. Since then I’ve been building 7 products with Qt that I deploy for Windows, Mac, iOS and Android. 

 

I’ve had issues, bugs, but most of them were not show stoppers. When a show stopper bug appears I report it and it usually gets fixed. Some faster, some slower, but every single one had a fix. The last one was fixed in less than a month.

 

My experience with Qt is very good. It has been keeping stability over all this years and I’ve only mostly focused in building products.

 

Has issues? Has! But Apple has issues, Microsoft has issues as every single software company has issues, because software is constantly evolving. 

 

If it wasn’t Qt, I would be here giving this testimonial. It really helped me to do more with less. 

 

Big shout to the Qt Team, keep the awesome work!!!

 

Best regards,





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