Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qt 6.2 Enters Feature Freeze With More Qt5 Modules Ported To Qt6

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    skeevy420 I don’t care about Qt6 porting. Do you have an opinion on KDAB, Blue Systems and those who claimed the free foundation would prevent anything like this?
    No, because there is no technical violation and they agreed to this scenario in 2015. That's the latest Agreement between The KDE Free Qt Foundation and The Qt Company. The agreement is in the gibberish between pages 5 and 10. Upstream Qt is still technically FOSS. As long as that stands then there is no violation. Outside of that and what's Here I have no idea what anyone has said on the matter.

    All The Qt Company has to do is keep a subset of Qt as FOSS and they're good to go. If KDE and others use more than that subset then that's on them.

    Was it a dick move pulling 5.15.X releases out from under them? Yes. That's obvious. They could have waited, should have waited, until 6 was ready. Yanking bug support like that in the age of SpectreMelt with two all beef patties is fucked up.

    So now that we've addressed that it can only be seen as a violation of spirit but not a violation of contract; that this was an unfortunate scenario that was agreed to years ago -- Does it make sense to fork Qt 5.15.X permanently like yourself and others keep suggesting or does it make sense to get the remains of 5.15.X over to 6.X while keeping a temporary 5.15.X bug fix fork like KDE's doing now?

    And if you post links to what they've said I might read them. I'm not gonna go off on a wile goose chase for comments I don't think I've read from places I may or may not have been to.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    IMHO they should have waited until now and did the LTS freezing stuff with this release. I don't have an issue with the paid LTS freeze itself, but how and when they did it was a real dick move.
    The timing was bad, but there was a pandemic last year...
    Anyway, the situation with LTS releases is not ideal, but KDE and open source has found a way to deal with it like intelligent, mature adults, with their own patch collection relevant to open source projects. A full fork of Qt is not necessary. It would be a drastic overreaction and a monumental waste of time/effort/$$. Now if Qt tried to close the source completely, that would be the time to invoke the GPL fork clause (i.e. the nuclear option). Until then, all this nonsense about a full fork because of the LTS policy is just a bunch of FUD, drama, making a mountain out of a molehill, etc.

    Originally posted by TROLL
    I don’t care about Qt6 porting. Do you have an opinion on KDAB, Blue Systems and those who claimed the free foundation would prevent anything like this?
    We do care about Qt6 porting. That should be what this thread is about, instead of asking irrelevant rhetorical questions to create a false narrative and further the trolling agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    skeevy420 So what about KDAB and Blue Systems? They just validated Qt’s actions. The chances of a free fork is now nonexistent.

    What about those claiming the KDE Free Qt foundation would stop anything like this? They also knew it was a lie.
    Technically it doesn't violate anything. KDE is still free to use the upstream Qt Stable release. The problem is the transition time to get KDE off of 5.X and onto 6.X. I say 6.X because we're at 6.2 and apparently it still isn't ready for 1:1 5.X porting.

    There does seem to be a lot of grey area where when 5.15 LTS was released 6.X wasn't production ready leading to KDE (and anyone else) not being able to transition to 6.X in a timely manner and how that breaks good faith. I think a good lawyer could make an argument around that.

    Also, Qt is so big that you'd have to be Google, Tesla, Apple, Amazon, etc to be able to fork it and upkeep it for the long term. There are something like 65 Qt modules. If each one has 2 developers then that's $100K to $200K per year per module (50-100K per dev per year); 6.5 to 13 million per year paying low-ball developer costs. Unless you have about $100M+ to cover the next 10 years development costs as well as a way to make it back and then some to cover the 10 years after that you probably shouldn't think about forking Qt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nth_man
    replied
    Originally posted by DarkCloud View Post
    Maybe it's not forked because 99.9% of the user base that use it for free are okay with a company holding something back so they can pay the 50 engineers , the dozen QA people and the half dozen managers used to create such a quality product. But seeing that your not, feel free to take your force of one and fork it.
    Please, don't try that the usual troll in those threads understands those concepts, he has no ever started a business (he doesn't even have a real job, which enables him to come immediately to hijack every Qt or KDE news).

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    skeevy420 KDE depends on Qt5. Qt keeps back important fixes. That’s wrong and unethical. The only good thing is that we all know by now. No one can hide the facts.
    It was pretty wrong; especially from an open source user's perspective. IMHO they should have waited until now and did the LTS freezing stuff with this release. I don't have an issue with the paid LTS freeze itself, but how and when they did it was a real dick move.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    Until then they will have to deal with being stuck on a old unsupported Qt 5.x version without even security fixes.
    You seem to have forgotten about this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...tch-Collection
    Which is hilarious, because you were all over that thread. You've been drinking too much of The Troll's Kool-Aid and it's gotten to your memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Oh, good. The Troll and His Disciple early-birded the thread and derailed it. Sadly, this was all predictable.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
    No forks yet. Looks like Qt came out on top. Sadly this was all predictable.
    What's the point? AFAIK no Linux distribution or software uses Qt LTS so there's no reason to fork that branch. That's mainly used by businesses wanting a long-term supported cross-platform GUI & More framework. The rest of the world uses Qt Stable which is open source and accepts pull requests. If they're willing to work with a person, accept pull requests, forking seems like a wasted effort.

    Oh, I can replace Qt with any other open source project and it still works:

    No forks yet. Looks like KDE came out on top. Sadly this was all predictable.

    No forks yet. Looks like GNOME came out on top. Sadly this was all predictable.

    No forks yet. Looks like Linux came out on top. Sadly this was all predictable.

    No forks yet. Looks like Haiku came out on top. Sadly this was all predictable.

    And now I just earwigged myself with Korn - Predictable.
    Last edited by skeevy420; 07 June 2021, 11:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alexmitter
    replied
    I will keep my eyes open how much KDE will benefit in the 5 years it will take them to be ported over. Until then they will have to deal with being stuck on a old unsupported Qt 5.x version without even security fixes. The Qt Company won, unsurprisingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alexmitter
    replied
    Originally posted by DarkCloud View Post
    Maybe it's not forked because 99.9% of the user base that use it for free are okay with a company holding something back so they can pay the 50 engineers , the dozen QA people and the half dozen managers used to create such a quality product. But seeing that your not, feel free to take your force of one and fork it.
    The Qt Company can paid its staff from the money they make selling code that was supposed to be and stay free under a proprietary license.
    There is absolutely no reason to treat the community that is the sole reason why Qt is still relevant in some parts of the industry like the absolute worst trash, the Qt company does it anyways.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X