octorian
I'm just bitter about a couple of apps I use that are all permanently stuck on Qt4 where the vendor seems to have zero intention of caring to ever update them to a newer version of Qt. And ever since getting a HiDPI display, this has been continuously irritating me.
I have no idea if this is the case with P4V, but it absolutely is the case with a few other things I use.
The reason I use them, however, is because its more trouble than its worth to maintain build servers for the 3 platforms I care about (Windows, macOS, Linux) myself. Especially for projects that get built sporadically. I think one reason for this pain is that while you can easily run VMs for Windows and Linux on the same host, macOS is kinda its own special unicorn and might need a dedicated box. (But even that aside, maintaining machines you don't use every day can get annoying.)
But after trying the new Cosmic desktop, I basically ran screaming back to Gnome/X11 (with a couple of extensions to give me the old desktop experience from 22.04).
Once 26.04 drops, along with Cosmic Epoch 2, I may give it another serious try. Or I'll just go to KDE6/Wayland and see how that goes. (I do use KiCad from time to time, so I wonder how usable it'll be on Wayland down the line.)
(For reference, my biggest gripe with Cosmic right now is how it can't seem to figure out how to manage window focus. Modal dialogs can lose focus to their base window, and sometimes become covered by that base window. And focus-follows-mouse hasn't been done right ever. Both have issues written up, I just hope they get attention. Meanwhile, throngs of people seem to "swear" it "works fine for them.")
Do I struggle to turn them into actions? No.
Do I struggle to keep them organized for later reference? All the time.
Do I use Obsidian? No.
I actually use Joplin, which I switched to after deciding I needed to dump Evernote. And before then (and somewhat simultaneously with), I used a pile of disorganized text files (sometimes shared via DropBox).
In this space, Tesla does have competition (e.g. Rivian and Lucid), but nowhere near as much as they should.
In the past, when traveling, I'd be shocked at just how bare the rental cars were compared to my normal home experience. Fortunately that's no longer the case.
Often something that's easily brushed off by a support rep will ring a bell in the mind of a developer who has recently worked in the area of the code related to the issue.
There were plenty of times where it would have been useful to have someone providing real architecture/design guidance, but no such person functionally existed.
In some ways there's a similar situation with the F-22 vs F-35, though those two may have a bit more of a difference on roles and requirements.
I use Android Auto on rental cars all the time.
My daily driver is a Tesla (Model S /w MCU v2) that doesn't have it. And doesn't need it to provide a usable experience.
Sure, you can cover everything they can think of. But there are so many cases you can't predict, or which don't have an obvious solution, and it often comes down to a human judgement call that doesn't always have a programmatically-clear right answer.
And I wish this would be more broadly recognized. Every time there's a story about someone important freaking out about something related to autonomous driving, I'm at least somewhat afraid they'll use it as justification to deny me access to it for those specific use cases.
And honestly, those are the only use cases I really care about or feel comfortable with right now. Of course my car is also too old to support much more than that.
And then there's the constant begging for fewer restrictions and more things being permitted, to the point where you're basically screaming "no" in their face and want to smash the damn tablet.
Then it settles down, and starts up again a month later.
And yes, this whole "capitalism bad" mentality I see in tech does kinda irk me. Why? Because it was capitalism that gave them the tools to be who they are and the opportunities to do what they do.
Even if you are willing to spend that small fortune, good luck actually getting all the parts together without enterprise contracts.
Now all rental cars actually have some reasonable set of features, without you having to pay for any up-sells.
Another thing, which perhaps "grinds my gears" a lot more, is that this late-90's/early-00's shift to PCs happened before Linux was sufficiently taken seriously. So lots of high-end applications that started on UNIX migrated over to Windows NT. And once you're firmly on Windows, its much harder to go to Linux. (Whereas commercial UNIX to Linux is easy.)
So now there are whole markets (that used to support commercial UNIX) where Linux users get the middle finger, and as someone who hates Windows, this really ticks me off.
And wanting repairable products is something most consumers don't even think about at time of purchase. Its something that comes further down the line, when the purchase decision has already been made.
It would also cause a lot of confusion, where clueless older relatives would buy games for kids, not realize that an accessory was required (or have no idea if the kid actually had that accessory), and then the game wouldn't run.
We see this sort of problem happen a lot with computers of the 8-bit era as well, where add-on modules would fix a lot of the issues with the base system... then be supported by almost no software for these exact reasons.
Been following the issue for years, apparently it was marked as fixed a few months ago, but the issue is clearly still there. I wonder if this latest Qt Creator update will finally incorporate the fix, or if its not really fixed.
1. A literal phrase that's not very controversial on its own, which many automatically agreed with and stood by.
2. An organization with its own motives and agenda, which enjoyed a period of automatic support as a side-effect.
Most of the outpouring of support was likely for the phrase, whereas much of the pushback was likely against the organization. Not sure where all of this stands now, since its left the news cycle.
- It is driven entirely by formal requirements and specifications
- These requirements are approved by "the customer," which is a set of people completely independent from "the actual users."
- A requirements document cannot easily capture "the UI/UX doesn't suck," because that sort of thing often tends to be more subjective or not well thought out in advance.
- The developers often pat themselves on the back for meeting the requirements.
- The customer has to accept the software and foist it on the users, because it meets the requirements.
...and...
- The competition is entirely about who gets the contract to build the software, and not for which software is actually the best.
This really changed once they started including Technics pieces as structural parts of builds, rather than as a totally separate product line. Most things I've built in recent years are far more robust than what I built as a kid.