On 1 Feb 2001, at 20:06, Geoff Wicks wrote:
> 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.
Sutre, but that doesn't stop us from arhuing (hotly) about the rights
and wrongs...
> 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.
Actually, I agree.
> 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!).
No, because there is one good reason why this might make sense:
security. There seem to be so many security loopholes in MS
exploder and NS Circumnavigator, that usiong an unknown browser
might actally be a good idea!
> 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, I'd say that a hardware developper has hardware problems,
and a software developper has software problems... I don't think
that developping either QPC or the Q40 was a mean feat!
Wolfgang
