Qt 6.6 Beta Released With New Qt Graphs Module, Text To Speech Improvements

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Qt 6.6 Beta Released With New Qt Graphs Module, Text To Speech Improvements

Working towards a stable release in September, today marks the release of the first Qt 6.6 Beta...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Qt-6.6-Beta

[ddriver]

Lemme guess, its gonna be commercial and GPL only?

[Danny3]

Cool!
I hope they will improve the integration and support for cool technologies like Wayland, Vulkan, PipeWire and HDR of course.
KDE and probably other developers too would have a bit less work to do if Qt would be able to solve some problems too.
Plasma for example, works is pretty slow on Intel's integrated GPUs and it craws and even freezes completely when there's heavy disk IO in the background.
Maybe Qt could've solve one or both this problems on its side.

BTW, what's the status of the license for open source projects that want to use Qt 6, can they use it freely?

[archkde]

Lemme guess, its gonna be commercial and GPL only?

Seems like it, like it's supposed to be.

[ssokolow]

Seems like it, like it's supposed to be.

Well, now that GNOME is using UI design to make GTK un-competitive, it's not as if Qt is feeling the pressure from it as an LGPL option.

[ddriver]

Seems like it, like it's supposed to be.

It also appears to be quite garbage in the context of dynamically changing data. Where a native model based implementation runs effortlessly at 60 FPS consistently, QtCharts somehow manages to pick off at around 20 FPS, before rapidly dropping to an unusable slideshow.

I am supposed to be lured into commercial license by such cabbage? If the company could somehow redirect its milkage efforts toward improving their product.

[archkde]

It also appears to be quite garbage in the context of dynamically changing data. Where a native model based implementation runs effortlessly at 60 FPS consistently, QtCharts somehow manages to pick off at around 20 FPS, before rapidly dropping to an unusable slideshow.

I have not looked at the current implementation at all, so I cannot speak about its technical merits.

I am supposed to be lured into commercial license by such cabbage? If the company could somehow redirect its milkage efforts toward improving their product.

You're not supposed to be "lured into commercial license" at all. Give back (i.e. make your software GPL as well) or pay.

[ddriver]

I have not looked at the current implementation at all, so I cannot speak about its technical merits.



You're not supposed to be "lured into commercial license" at all. Give back (i.e. make your software GPL as well) or pay.

Seems like too much work to use something lousy. I'd rather not.

And also, are you implying that the absence of LGPL licensing option from certain modules is not commercially motivated?

"obey or pay" - so not a lure, then what, extortion?

And finally, contributions are great and all, but Qt doesn't strike as overly appreciative of them. I've bothered to isolate, reproduce and report scores of bugs for example, and they haven't even fix a tenth of that. At some point you can't help but ask yourself "why even bother"...

[archkde]

Seems like too much work to use something lousy. I'd rather not.

And also, are you implying that the absence of LGPL licensing option from certain modules is not commercially motivated?

I don't even deny that the Qt company has a commercial motivation to not make available some of their software under the LGPL. But insistence on getting an LGPL license smells commercially motivated to me as well (you want to make proprietary software using Qt without payment).

"obey or pay" - so not a lure, then what, extortion?

Just a regular licensing scheme. What is GPL-only software (e.g. Linux kernel) in your eyes, blackmail with legal threat?

And finally, contributions are great and all, but Qt doesn't strike as overly appreciative of them. I've bothered to isolate, reproduce and report scores of bugs for example, and they haven't even fix a tenth of that. At some point you can't help but ask yourself "why even bother"...

This does not prove that they don't appreciate your contributions. You are not entitled to having other people fix the bugs you reported for free. If you want to see your contributions appreciated, submit a fix yourself or pay someone to do it for you.

[ddriver]

This does not prove that they don't appreciate your contributions. You are not entitled to having other people fix the bugs you reported for free. If you want to see your contributions appreciated, submit a fix yourself or pay someone to do it for you.

I never said I was entitled, I merely said I was giving them the issues and they weren't fixing them. Luckily I do not wait for bugs to be solved, I work around, otherwise I'd still be stuck cuz they don't even fix critical bugs for years...

Also, I do put in from my personal time, to investigate and report issues with THEIR product, the thing they are PAID to develop and I'd say is in their interest to IMPROVE. It is contribution enough to report issues their QA process is missing, and it is unprofessional and unethical of them to under-appreciate it. Which is why they have now lost my future contributions, by not fixing issues they are rendering it a wasted effort to report them... quite dumb of them but whatever. Not to mention their perhaps even worse practice of occasionally sweeping old open issues under the rug en masse, cuz that open issues counter is getting embarrassingly high, another great contribution to their product quality..

All in all, I cannot honestly say that the "Qt company" is overly interested in contributions to Qt in a community context. They openly, shamelessly and increasingly deprive the open source community of functionality. They appear to only see Qt as a product to monetize, so they develop it in direction of theirs rather than the community interests.

It is outright ridiculous to say I should also go and do their actual jobs for them, no doubt in appreciation of what upstanding company they are. Come on now, shill much?