On 14/6/92 07:08 Wolfgang wrote
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea > > On 13 Jun 2002, at 22:09, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > > > > Any sensible person is not going to get involved or take sides in > > this, that is why Wolfgang is not hearing feedback from users, I > > think. > > Isn't there a difference between "getting involved" and "taking > sides"? I'm not asking anybody to take sides here, just to voice > their opinions. I hope I am not taking sides, it is sad there seems to be sides. > > > However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. > :-))) > > >So, from a user > > point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake, his > > is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only one > > developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his views are > > most important. > > I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is just as > important. I have already said to Marcel and Jochen that in the wee sma hours I should have used 'equally' instead of 'most'. I think without Marcels contribution the user base would be drastically smaller than it is now. I was trying in my simple way to keep the discussion on the level of the costs incurred by hardware developers, by virtue of component and development costs, being greater than those incurred by others. QPC is very important, and I as a user can see the day when QPC is going to be about all we have. > > > His is the financial investment, and D&D and Richard > > share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without them the QL is dead, > > and anything that puts obstacles in their way is not conducive to > > furthering SMSQ to the benefit of the user. After all the buyers > > of Q40/60 are QL users who are simply upgrading as we have constantly > > done since the first black box. This whole topic reminds me of Alan > > Sugar of Amstrad trying to block QL development for his own reasons. > > > > I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for > > Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see it, > > the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the Eindhoven > > license,. WHY NOT. > First of all, I don't think it is a "lobby" - let's avoid these words that > have been used in a rather bad context. Somebody else's word, not mine... > > I seem to remember that, at least, Peter Graf was fully aware of the > EIndhoven meeting. IIRC, he said here that he was too ill to come. > > . > > > Why are their views less important than those > > who sat at a 'round table' and cobbled together a license that > > suited them, > > THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE taken the views expressed here into > account. It is just that, on a fundamental level (totally free > binaries/restricted binary distribution) we don't agree. Fine, no problem there, it is not your interpretation or decision that are the point. I don't know enough about the mechanics to venture an opinion, but must be guided by reasonable people. What appears to be the problem is the perception by some that all is MAYBE not as open as would be desired. That needs to be addressed, I know you are trying to do this, you really need to be a UN diplomat to sort it out. > > > why were Quanta not at this meeting, > I don't know > > why not other > > meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people who are > > affected? > > Because, then, we would still be having meetings! Fine, but again fuels the perception. > > > It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about. > > Oh, poppycock! > I'm sorry, but this is just unbelievable. > The process of how this came about has been set out here - > several times IIRC. Again the perception is about in some quarters, whether justified or not. To paraphrase someone" it is not enough to do right, one has got to be seen to do right" > > >Wolfgang, if > > you don't listen to those who do not share your opinion, you will kill > > the patient that you are trying to save. > > Yes, that is true -but apparently, you (and others) and I have a > different opinion of what "listening" means. > Apparently, if I don't agree with some, then that is because I > haven't listened to them. No I did not say that, I said listen, I think most QLers, including myself, trust you completely in this matter, and will go along with whatever you decide. What I have said is ,please don't let past 'bad blood' between parties cause a split in the QL community, a bit of diplomacy to smooth the perceptions of some may be all that can be done. You asked for users opinions, I think I shall get on with installing the ADSL equipment that has just arrived. At least I shall be able to retreat more quickly. Good luck, sincerely, Mike > > Wolfgang >
