Qt 5.15 Reaches Beta

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Qt 5.15 Reaches Beta

The Qt Company has released their first beta of the forthcoming Qt 5.15 tool-kit...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Qt-5.15-Beta-1

[GdeR]

Apparently they're so eager to release their new commercial-only LTS. Those f*ckers.

[240Hz]

Say no to drugs

Case and point , 144Hz.Taking dangerous hormone therapy drugs have damaged your mind beyond repair.

[Nth_man]

As cochise wrote:
- Qt didn't have a LTS release until 2011 (4.8), and that was OK.
- GTK didn't have a LTS release, and that was OK.
- Distros backport manually almost all fixes themselves for all projects since forever.
- LTS releases are for business that ship their own Qt copy [and that comes handy to pay developers].

[Nth_man]

Well, he should have said "GTK didn't have a LTS release, and that was OK".

[tildearrow]

GdeR CLA projects all age like milk. OpenOffice, MySQL, Mono and now this..

Say no to drugs, say no to CLA.

, say no to 144Hz.

[board]

To everyone complaining about LTS no longer being available, here is my personal experience:

Qt is a large framework and thus prone to having bugs, not show-stoppers (can be worked around) but still annoying deficiencies and regressions here and there. They pop up occasionally and disappear after a minor release or two. That's the thing, they usually don't go away in the same minor release, even with LTS. As long as I can remember it has always taken me at least one minor-release number to get rid of regressions. I thought staying on 5.6 or 5.12 would help, but nope. You don't just miss out on a lot of bug-fixes, but also on a lot of helpful features that get introduced frequently into the Qt family of libraries. Also the API is very stable, it wont require a lot of editing on your part. The only thing to watch out for is new bugs and breakage of current workarounds (if any).

So LTS is not that useful in my experience. I don't worry that much that it's gone, and if this keeps the Qt Company going, I'm all for it.

[CommunityMember]

So LTS is not that useful in my experience. I don't worry that much that it's gone, and if this keeps the Qt Company going, I'm all for it.

I am not convinced moving to LTS binary releases for paying customers only will be a substantial new revenue stream, but I understand the goal of not having the wikipedia entry changed to "The Qt company *was* a software company....." so I hope they do find a funding model that works (whether this one is it or not we shall see).

[Nth_man]

By the way, there is no mention of any GTK LTS (nor any similar term) in the GTK main page (https://www.gtk.org/) nor in the downloads pages (like https://www.gtk.org/docs/installations/linux/), etc. It makes you wonder if it exists.

[cochise]

Nth_man GTK 3.24 is long term support.

Yes. After a whole s***storm about breaking compatibility every small release, 3.24 was made a non-labelled LTS while they develop 4.0.
As a non-labelled, LTS there is some gotchas:
- They don't say what is the support timeframe.
- They moved the development to another branch, so, there will no 3.26, but 4.0. Is more like life support than LTS of a healthy product.

And my previous comment in another thread is not about how one or another is superior, but about how this whole drama is political use of something that is almost irrelevant.