At 03:06 ìì 1/2/2001, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Subject: Re: [ql-users] QPC2v2 again
>
>Hehe I kind of anticipated this email Geoff (although I don't know you
>personally I do admire your work).
>It wasn't directed to you directly but yours was the first name to come in
>my mind.
>
>No offence taken. I realised you were making a generalisation, and
>flattering to know I was the first name to come into mind!
Hehe, the reason was your really useful work software. (It is not useful to
me as my needs do not include english (and thesaurus or spell checking
algorithms are generally unusable for a language as mine ;-) - That's why I
haven't bought anything from you -Although I do feel kind of bad about it :-)
>The point I wanted to make is that we are a "Broad Church" in the QL
>Community. That is, we embrace a wide range of people and opinions. To
>survive we have to have a high degree of tolerance. We need both QPC and the
>Q40 as well as those people who buy neither new hardware or software.
Indeed we are a Broad Church (and thank you for bringing back the old
meaning of Church) nevertheless, IMHO people that do not need new software
or hardware do not contribute at all in the evolution of our platform.
Change is a product of involvement and when you just don't care nothing
exciting happens (Ok maybe something happens... look at the recent US
elections ;-) hehe )
>Personally I have no interest in the Q40, but I recognise Peter's
>achievement. As I write in the next QL Today, many people feel the Q40 has
>helped to arrest the decline in the QL.
The problem IMHO is that in the case of program development, no interest
means no support.
And no support of one program for a more sofisticated machine like the
Q40/60 means less ppl that are interested in that program will be likely to
buy this platform. It's a vicious circle unfortunately, and IMHO (again) it
can be broken only at the developer level.
>Perhaps a better example than Just Words! software would be the future
>internet capabilities of the QL. Is there much sense in running QL internet
>software on a PC emulator? (Hope this sets off a fierce discussion!).
Pretty much none except for the sharing of files (email archives etc)
>Finally, another important point. In one sense Marcel has it easier than
>Peter. The infrastructure for software is already there in the form of the
>QL and PC. A hardware developer often has to produce his own infrastructure,
>no easy task with instability in component prices, the need to find a
>manufacturer and difficulties in international currency transactions. Small
>wonder the Q40 has had logistical and financial problems beyond Peter's
>control.
Well for that I have to disagree in part. Marcel does have programming
tools that are not available in the QL world,
but I'll have to admit, programming a system as complex as QPC can be as
difficult as a hardware design.
However where financial aspects come into play, not knowing of course what
the costs of Marcel are (please excuse me for any false assumptions Marcel)
I would agree with you. At least (as far as I know) Marcel gets compensated
(at least in part because you can't really put a price on creative work)
although we enter a huge discussion here and I wouldn't want to make false
assumptions (again repeating my self). Nevertheless if you take out the
hour cost you end up with the plain cost of hardware which in Peter's case
(as well as in Nasta's etc) I think is a cost huge enough by itself and if
you add up selling machines and not getting paid for... well we have a
saying in Greece.... "NOBODY works for the sake of his mother's soul"!
Phoebus
>Geoff Wicks.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://members.tripod.co.uk/geoffwicks/justwords.htm
