Tweet
Originally posted by ssokolow
View Post
That's crystal clear to me.
-
Which details do you need? It says "discussions on various internet forums about the future of Qt open source ... do not reflect the views or plans of The Qt Company".
That's crystal clear to me. -
It's lawyer speak. It could just as easily mean "they think this is a bad thing and we don't".Originally posted by bug77 View Post
Any competent PR department would have said something more concrete yet still giving them plenty of wiggle room if they weren't trying to be deceptive.Comment
-
> What are you trying to prove here?
I'm not trying to prove anything here, he argued with a "it smells" and argued with another.
More specifically, he's saying "it smells [...]" while not speaking like the "KDE user and fan" and "diehard KDE user" he claims he is, not speaking like the new user he claims to be, but like someone very used to post there (92 posts in the 9 days he's been here). "It smells", as he says.Comment
-
Get off here and freaking move Your Crusade out of our sacred land.Originally posted by 144Hz View PostComment
-
That's not debunking; that's the equivalent of Trump yelling "Fake news!" when something damaging comes out.Originally posted by Nth_man View Post
Reminds me of the time Embarcadero wanted to prevent users of their Delphi PRO SKU from being able to access any databases, even via third-party library, via a EULA change to force users to purchase the next-highest SKU at twice the price. Third-party vendors leaked an email they'd received about the forthcoming license change. After days of silence and non-denial while the community boiled with rage, they finally said that the quoted email was only a draft letter and there was never going to be any EULA change. They insisted this in the face of community members pointing out that once an email is actually sent to other parties it's no longer a draft. :-)Comment
-
Which views were false? The ones where it sounded like they were open to some negotiation and were throwing out the 12 month delay as a bargaining chip? The one where they were talking about a 12 month delay, because really it's only going to be 11.5 months delay? The ones where people were talking about forking it (because that's not what Qt Company wants so it's not in their plans...)Originally posted by bug77 View Post
It's a statement so generalized it's entirely meaningless, because it can mean anything. It reads like a statement PR cooked up and then ran through a bunch of lawyers to water it down even further.Last edited by smitty3268; 13 May 2020, 12:28 AM.Comment
-
> babbling
In rumors maybe, that's why no one mentions any place where The Qt Company talks about those 12 months (and similar rumors), except that clear "There have been discussions on various internet forums about the future of Qt open source in the last two days. The contents do not reflect the views or plans of The Qt Company."Comment
-
I don't see anything being debunked here? In fact, its even more concerning that they don't specifically comment on the rumours and say it isn't so. If the rumours are false then why not just be specific. This is one of these vague and beloved corporate PR responses that says nothing of substance. It's neither clear nor specific.Originally posted by Nth_man View PostLast edited by simonsaysthis; 13 May 2020, 03:47 AM.Comment
-
I'm not an anti-Qt terrorist/conspiracionist, but I don't trust corporations.
Qt changed owners too many times before being Qt Company, every time they did weird and shady things.Comment
-
No, but point releases after 5.15.2 might be commercial only.Originally posted by tildearrow View PostComment
Comment