4 ms·
What makes it complicated to judge their pricing policy, and may explain why different people have such contrasted views on this, is that many of us need Qt for
by rixed 7y ago
What makes it complicated to judge their pricing policy, and may explain why different people have such contrasted views on this, is that many of us need Qt for very basic things only (reasonably portable set of widgets for simple desktop apps) while a few industrial users have rare but imperious needs (such as support for fancy animations, modern or custom look and feel, support for embedded devices, professional hot line, IDE with support for enterprisy workflows etc).
What I need Qt for requires very few engineers, just enough to maintain the same set of widgets that were already developed 20 years ago for most of them. Rather than paying a license I would use a Qt fork such as https://www.copperspice.com/ https://www.copperspice.com/ or use gtk or wait until revery is ready.
Should they donate qwidgets to a foundation I might consider contribute code and fund, though.
- GnarfGnarf 7y agoI would use a Qt fork such as https://www.copperspice.com https://www.copperspice.com I can see your point. However, who knows what crazy curves Microsoft or Apple are going to throw into their O/S'es in the future? I would still feel safer depending on a team of full-time, paid, commercial engineers to stay abreast.
- hermitcrab 7y agoQt has got really big and I probably only use 20% of it. But the 20% I use might be quite different to the x% you use. Also Apple likes to nuke its developer ecosystem from orbit every 5 years. Qt struggles to keep the Mac classes stable and working in the face of this. I'm not sure an unfunded open source team is going to do any better.