Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Zidlicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > >> No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a >> copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that >> many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed >> for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. >> Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does >> not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) > >lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang >received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be >called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix >after that will cause version 3.00 to be released? Many programs >expect the version to be a plain long word so you can't easilly >call it 2.99a or something like that. I would suggest the first version released under this licence be called v3.0 and be assigned as a free upgrade from all previous versions. TT had not intended to got v3.00 until some things had been added to the system but it would give us more room to manoeuvre. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Claus Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:06:31 +0100 >Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter >> Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >Roy Wood wrote: >> > >> >>>CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? >> >>Note that I said I 'was' in favour. >> > >> >Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. >> >I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. >> >I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. >> OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the >> nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many >> people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing >> disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You >> continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this >> list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I >> have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best >> belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people >> whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this >> is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not >> opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. >> -- >> Roy Wood > >Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed >to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a >reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person >is not how a discussion is held. If you are not able to suppress >your hate, leave the list. I se no hate in this. I have just said what has always been said by many others behind your back. Your brother has offended a good many people in the past few years and in the end every boomerang comes back. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
>Roy you are playing with fire. You might consider beeing more careful, >if the substance of your "disagreement" with Peter ever goes public it >might be not very favourable for you. No I am not playing with fire at all. I refused point blank to pay Peter some money I owed him. I agreed that I owed it to him and I refused to pay him. On the face of it this looks pretty bad doesn't it ? But then you only know what Peter chooses to tell you. After many attempts to get Peter to face up to some kind of support for his product when Tony Firshman had over half the boards not working and customers who had paid for them and did not have them I decided to refuse payment until he sorted it out. We went to Eindhoven to meet him to talk about it and show him some non working boards. He spent the entire show nuzzling up to TT and did not address the problem. We made him take the boards with him so we could find out about the problem. He took them and 18 months later he had made a few comments about a few parts which were not very good but these were not necessarily the root of the problem. We have found since that a lot of the problems were down to faulty video ram which he supplied. I wanted to use new parts. They would have cost more but the chance of problems would have been reduced. He said that, if I raised the price of the product to cover the cost of new, instead of second hand parts, he would raise his license fee. Tony and I agreed to take only 30 pounds per board as a profit. Peter took 250 DM (at the time 100 pounds). What price free software now ? I do have an ongoing dispute with Peter because, when I closed my shop, I was practically bankrupt. I have struggled to keep Q Branch going and to support the users. I told Peter that I would pay him the money I owed him because I was quitting the Q 40 and accepting the loss I had made on it but he had to wait until I had fulfilled my obligation to the general users and I gave him a date on which I would do that. I was a little late in the payment but I paid him most of what he was owed. There was a small matter of 1200 Dm outstanding at the time which he admitted to me in a letter. Part of the payment was to be the delivery of three working Q40s. At the time he still had the three boards and processors. When he took delivery of the three boards one did not work he just sent it back and accused me of trying to cheat him. I had never seen these three boards they came directly from Tony Firshman himself and were working when they were sent out. He returned the board and sent an email offering me to pay him 1200 to close the affair. This was timed neatly to expire before I came back from the US show. By the time I had read the email he had sued me for much more than he said I owed him. He won the case because I, incompetently, misread the date on the letter giving the court hearing date and trusting made an offer to mediate without a hearing which was ignored. I have seen many emails Peter has sent to other people in which has threatened many things. At the recent Manchester show none of the traders would talk to him and the feeling was so bad that he pulled out of the planned meal. I have no objection to this being out in the open. I have kept it quiet because I felt it would not be good for the QL scene for these matters to be aired in public but don't try to threaten me because it just won't work. I stand by the statement I made before. The general run of traders do not trust Peter because we have had a first hand experience of his behaviour. Even recently he has stated, when Tony Firshman offered to supply some parts to D&D, that he did not want any of Roy's defective parts. Funny that. Tony Bought all of the parts for the Q40 except those supplied by Peter himself and some of the SIMMs which I bought. Peter parts were the most defective including EPROMS that would not program, one defective processor, two low speed processor (which we never asked for but were charged for) and very shoddily recycled video ram which has caused many of the problems we have had. Next time you open your mouth try to find out a few facts. If you don't want to believe me ask Jochen Merz, ask Tony Firshman. > >Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* >discussion. No we should not. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] "disagreement"
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:34:55PM +0200, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote: > On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > >Roy you are playing with fire. > > Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire! > And I know what I'm talking about! > > >You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your "disagreement" >with Peter ever > >goes public it might be not very favourable for you. > > A threat remains a threat, even if packed in make-believe friendly words, Richard. > What is it that > you are crying for all these last weeks? > I have learnt throughout the last years that P. and C. Graf have an unappeasable >envy of Marcel > Kilgus and attack and threaten everyone who - in their paranoid minds - sympathizes >with him. Even > if it was only from business aspects, the means they use, are far beyond from how >healthy people > discuss or even argue with each other. > > But you, what is your interest? Why are you so mistrusting, who in the QL-community >has really > cheated you so much that this is necessary? > I am "only" a normal BASIC-programmer and still a convinced QL-fan. As far as I can >understand > the license, it could bring advantages and progress to all of us. Why is it that you >only and purely > see what could be wrong? > Who are all those "commercial" developpers you always mention? Thus people who >really can > cope with the code of SMSQ? I only know very very few and they cannot even earn >enough > money with it to pay the visits of QL-shows! > So, earnestly, what is this all about??? fine, try to fuel the fire if you have fun from it. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > >On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood replied to something I said: >Roy, you use phrases like "commercial extensions", "add your own modules" >etc. I am not talking about that, and know that can happen in a healthy >way under this license. What I am talking about is *replacing* modules, >using the source to create/reverse engineer an Open Source version of >SMSQ. At what point does work product stop being derivitive code and start >being clean, unlicensed code? Basically, any module that doesn't include >any original SMSQ code fits that requirement. The task of rewriting an OS >is not trivial, but with the source, it's certainly a lot easier. > This is all true and it has been the subject of some discussion. The root of the problem is that some people want it all for free and some want to be able to get some reward for their work. Both points are as equally valid as they are mutually exclusive. Somehow there has to be a middle ground which can be made to work, Yes writing these extra modules would be just as fragmenting as allow free modification and distribution but it would at least be something the user who has problems might remember to mention when reporting bugs. Along the lines of 'I remember I loaded xxx module' rather than 'oh yes I am running an unapproved version I got from Joe Bloggs via the Internet' . Not perfect I agree. I would rather see all modules added to the final approved code but, since we will not charging for upgrades to the system, we cannot pay the authors. >Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my >intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. >One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about >what form this license takes. Those who do not care, or to whom the >license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable >person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump >through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait >until they're adopted. No I do not doubt your intentions for one moment. We are struggling to find a decent solution here. > >People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives >are to improve the license for everyone's sake. It's when a person tries >to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet >that you have to worry. That is also something we have considered. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:53:52AM -0400, ZN wrote: > This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a > platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability > to add this support externally SHOULD. that would be nice. However we are in the position that all machine specific parts on the Q40 work fine, the problems are in the generic code. There is no way this problems could be fixed without fixing the generic part. > Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because > programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to > SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not > contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should > contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external > module, AND THAT'S IT. sort of BIOS? No problem but the problems with generic SMSQ remain. > * Problem: special platforms like emulators that may have parts of the OS > rewritten as native code. It would be in everyones best interest to devise > a standard way of doing this, not just for a speciffic case but as a > general resource (yes I am aware this is not easy!). I don't see rewriting parts of the OS as useful, only OS part where emulators spend noticeable time are screen drivers. I think the gain in speed is not worth the added effort and risk of subtle bugs - the most screen-demanding applications will use their own assembler code called through sd.extop and we can't rewrite that. > If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the > current licence the contribution has to be free. May I remind everyone that > by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code > that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It > logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution > must also be free. I agree. Essentially there is very little work to be done to the core OS, mostly bugfixes, a few missing features on various platforms and a better framework for supporting filesystems. I do not believe that this would require "commercial" development. If someone wants to tweak specific parts of the system like SBasic or write a new filesystem it could be very well done outside of the core system. > Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and > it is absurd to even ask this. sure. On the other hand, should the license explicitly prohibit someone from compiling and making the binaries available when noone else wants to support this platform or the master repository gets struck by a meteor? This is absolutely ridiculous and I am becoming tired of reading about buses and meteors as an excuse for poor license. Show me an open source project that would be so openly arrogant to the users as to create artificial hurdles if they wish to help themselves. Linux-Q40 is probably one of the less widespread branches of Linux and yet I have working up to date software like mozilla-1.0rc1, a few other browsers all, sorts of CD burning and riping software, email clients and at least 2 pretty useable wordprocessing systems. Fortunately there is nobody who could prohibit me from making the binaries available so I feel very strongly compelled to continue development in this direction. > A meteor could hit the exact spot where they > were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument > on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. > The core should be general, the platform-speciffic add-ons may (and > probably will) be associated with the 'manufacturer' of the platform are > the responsibility of the said 'manufacturer'. By having a general core > which 'everyone' needs, you guarantee it is available from multiple > distributors, so chances of it getting lost are reduced. > * Problem: a LOT of work needs to be done to SMSQ before it reaches that > stage. This work is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in the long run. Consider the Q40 hardware - all drivers except parts of keyboard handler and soundsystem are fully generic. You supply different constants for the IDE definitions, 16550A base address etc and it will work on every other machine that uses this HW components. Alltogether the Q40 specific sources are perhaps 300 lines of code plus various definitions. Unfortunately the bugs are elsewhere and we would need to fix them pretty soon. > Under the licence, the source can be distributed as long as it's not > charged for in any way. The distribution of binaries that is not free is > rather simple to get around as a problem by distributing a make file, an > assembler/compiler, and a means to run it. sure, but: - distributing source by snail is costly. I would be a complete idiot would I volunteer to port SMSQ to UQLX and then have 10 Euro expenses on each copy I would send out to anyone. - you can't "distribute" the
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The possibility exists in the licence as it stands now that "new" > authors will want a financial retibution for the code that they have > added. I presume that this is what Peter calls "commercial > developpers". Anyone who submits a new source to me for > inclusion could tell me that they want xxx EUR for each copy of > SMSQ/E sold with their code included. yes. And you neglect the fact, that by the nature of accepting royalty payments you have a SPECIAL AGREEMENT with that particular developper so why did you deny that? Unfortunately, in order to be effective this special agreement would have to grant that developper special rights over the licence. For example someone requesting royalty payments could never agree to a licence change that would allow free distribution of binaries so you would have to ask this developper each time you would wish to change this license. This is a privilege that "normal" developpers will never have and I find this *extremely* unfortunate, effectively the copyright of SMSQ is tainted in a way that can't really do much good to anyone. > There is a questio here, that still needs to be resolved,a nd it > concerns Perter's wish to "buy out" the Q40/Q60 binaries. > As I understand it, Peter would "buy out" the official version as it stands now. > What about new versions as and when they come out. Would they > still fall under this "buy out"? > What if the new version, to which something wonderful might have > been added, wasn't a free upgrade? don't add wonderfull fancy things to the core OS, I can't think of any project that would - be large enough to be justifiably doable only commercial - could not be done very easilly as loadable addon. If you can think of something (anyone, not just Wolfgang!!!) then throw it in for discussion, otherwise please clarify the licence in the way that absolutely no added royalty payments will occur. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > > Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked > > into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in > > their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. > > What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a > racketeer? (not by you!) do you really think I called you a racketeer? If that is your impression than I am sorry but I don't think I have written this and I will of course clarify it in more detail if you wish. > (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands > now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing > features!). there are a few, to the point that the OS is almost unusable in some situations. > > I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) > > sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. > > I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, > but reflects what I understood from your posting. > > However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of > bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely > free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. Linux also works without any legal relationship. Considering how many features it has over SMSQ it works quite well. >However, > many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing > the binaries. wrong answer to the problem. If users require support sell them support contracts. Should be actually much more lucrative for the now resellers. > (snip) > > UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux > > users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. > > provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and > > makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source > > files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get > > you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). > > See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably > sufficiently "advanced" to tinker with the system. There is > ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this > way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. there is a *big* problem if I am supposed to pay 10 Euro p&p for each user I wish to supply with sources. Have I misunderstood that part of the license? > > > That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? > > > > > But what's to stop you? > > Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a > licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first > place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections sure it would. Merely the possibility that it could happen is enough to turn me away. > I don't know what other reassurances than those I have (vainly, it > seems) tried to give here in the past I could still give you. I cannot, > and will not, guarantee that nothing will never change, to do so > would be absurd. > I can only state that I still intend to make sure that every platform > on which SMSQ/E runs now will continue to have up to date > sources (and this binaries). ok, than add this as a preamble or something into the license. Otherwise there is nothing in the license that would suggest this, quite on the contrary the license leaves a few dangerous holes in that direction. > I thus see it as my main work to try to make sure that this doesn't > happen. ALL OF THE REST, including this debate about the > licence, is, to my mind, pretty much secondary - but it does show > how deep the feelings run, and how difficult my job will be made > because of them. it is because one of the "camps" apparently dictated the licence entirely to their liking and you aren't very open about it. Ban the possibility of added roaylty payments or special agreements, add the comitment not to lock out platforms, remove the useless restrictions about source and binary distribution and things will look completely different. > As to acting in an inclusive manner, I'm not sure what you mean by > that. Do yo mean that I will try to include all proposed changes into > SMSQ/E? YOU BET I WILL. I can go on record here for that. > > But, to be quite honest, I must also state something that will > probably make Richard howl with dispair: I don't believe that I will > get many contributions. saddly I am afraid you migt be right, unless you will clarify the licence to be acceptable to more people. >I also belive that most contributions I will > get will be from MArkus Kingus, who has a record of supporting, at > least, QPC, and also SMSQ/E. > I WOULD LIKE TO BE PROVED WRONG! Oh boy, how I would > like to be proved wrong. > Bit I have had, until now, not one single suggestion of what > anybody would act
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:18:26AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > May I remind everyone that > > by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code > > that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It > > logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution > > must also be free. > > That is the way I personally see it. than why do say in another email that you consider paying developpers royalties? I can't follow your logic. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > > > this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license > > has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original > > reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get > > the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. > > Well isn't that normal? it is absolutely not normal. In a normal world technically advanced users would be allowed to help those less technically capable by providing the binaries. You are really arrogant here, this is the best way to convince remaining users that they will get better support when they choose one of the many alternative OS. > I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you > buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. Nope. If Mandrake or Redhat goes bankrupt the user has all possibilities to donwload binary and source packages from elsewhere. Notably, noone of the packages those vendors distribute in their standard distribution has such ridiculous restrictions as to require an official reseller or prohibit distribution of the binaries. > Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour > reseller went "poof"? The situation for the software isn't different in > that respect. oh yes, it is *very much* different. If my HW goes poof I am free to go to an electrician around the corner and ask him to repair the HW.. I may be more or less lucky. However if my SMSQ is broken and I would go to the next IT consulting shop in Bamberg and pay them for compiling a SMSQ binary they would be acting illegaly if they would "distribute" the binary to me. Yes, I know I could also pay them to become official resellers of SMSQ but it is my money so I may not want this. Likewise anyone who would do me the favour of compiling SMSQ for free would do it illegally in your opinion? Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22/05/02 at 14:28 Dave wrote: >> The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have >> this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. >So who develops the kernel? That is a good question. It is really a cooperative effort, and the key to keeping it that way is finding a balance between the authority of the registrar and the contributors. The registrar has the final word on what goes in and what stays out, but this is balanced by the fact that he can only add what he is given in the form of contributions. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that the registrar will get feedback from people who get the new official core releases, and may consult others about his decisions, so that's another way his decisions can be influenced. This is why I mentioned that some reference to a set of guidelines will have to appear in the licence, the above needs to be formalized. It seems to me that one major concern is about how reasonable the registrar will be. The fact of the matter is, no regulations can guarantee a reasonable registrar - you can only implement a 'security measure' in the licence. One way you can do this is implicitly: if the registrar is unreasonable, the probability of someone sufficiently modifying or completely rewriting the OS using the source as a reference, to 'free' it from the constraints of the licence, and doing whatever they want with it, becomes higher. This possibility may not be such a bad thing (and it is extremely difficult to do anything against it anyway - with or without available source, availability of the source just makes it easyer. Another way is to do it explicitly: for instance, having someone/body that can veto the registrar's decision. If you want to expand that concept further, you can appoint a board of 'consultants', which then begs to define under which circumstances one can become a member, or stop being a member, etc (after all you have to guarantee that the board is reasonable too) - and you are well into red tape already. The reality of the matter is that the registrar is going to consult other people, and is more likely to consult some people than others. For one, the author of a contribution will be consulted if the contribution is unclear in some of it's elements. Then, people like TT, Jochen Merz, Marcel Kilgus, Joachim Van Der Auwera to name a few, are likely to have stronger voices than others. It would be very difficult to formalise a board of consultants right now, but effectively, some people are just that - people who are/were 'closer' to TT than others. The best you could do is to 'invite' a starter set of people and have that starter board vote in other members - and you would then have to include a possibility for a member to resign or be voted out. After that you get into conflict-of-interest issues with people who are developers and distributors, and defining wether it really is a conflict of interest or not, etc. The other way is sort of retroactive - through peer review, i.e. feedback. Anyone who gets the source can review all the inclusions, and provide feedback about them. It would even be possible to include, with the authors permission, contributions that are in the process of being decided about or even rejected, in a distribution, or even separately. This is really implied as, again, no part of the OS is 'the last word' and that includes contributios. As they say, there is always one last bug somewhere. This has repercussions to the notion of support as well. The registrar has to keep a trace on who contributed what. A contribution where no support (guaratees of absolute functionality, usage in life support systems, etc, etc) is intended or implied, is entirely possible. It would be up to the registrar to decide about this. Wether there is a board of consultants that gets to see this and can influence the registrar before the fact of inclusion, or it's negative feedback that gets it excluded (assuming it influences the registrar) is something to put in the guideline document mentioned above. >> Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing >> based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long >> as you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official >> release, it is not covered by the licence. >Aye. And if I send 100 Euros to TT, I can get SMSQ, mod it any way I see >fit, and sell those new versions under the first sale doctrine, outside of >the license, as they're licensed copies. Can of worms. :/ This is something that is ONLY up to TT. Wether he has surrendered rights to further licence SMSQ or not is something that has not been mentioned so far. This certainly needs qualification in the licence. My guess at this point would be that TT himself would have to work under this licence as well. It may give him the right to licence the current SMSQ 'snapshot' elsewhere, but it should not give him the right to suddenly proclaim something
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On 22.05.2002 20:44:07, Claus Graf wrote >Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed >to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a >reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person >is not how a discussion is held. If you are not able to suppress >your hate, leave the list. and not more than 14 minutes later, the same person wrote: >(OK, he who has no arguments starts to attack persons, a well known phenomena) :-))) Wolfgang Uhlig
Re: [ql-users] "disagreement"
On Wed, 22 May 2002 19:34:55 +0200 Wolfgang Uhlig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22.05.2002 14:47:27, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > >Roy you are playing with fire. > > Everyone who goes into discussion with P. or C. Graf, is playing with fire! > And I know what I'm talking about! Everyone who throws dirt on me may experience that it bounces back. My patience is not endless. > I have learnt throughout the last years that P. and C. Graf have an unappeasable >envy of Marcel > Kilgus and attack and threaten everyone who - in their paranoid minds - sympathizes >with him. Even > if it was only from business aspects, the means they use, are far beyond from how >healthy people > discuss or even argue with each other. I have learned during the last years that everyone who dares to have a different opinion than certain show-offs gets personally attacked (OK, he who has no arguments starts to attack persons, a well known phenomena) > Wolfgang Uhlig Claus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:06:31 +0100 Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter > Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Roy Wood wrote: > > > >>>CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? > >>Note that I said I 'was' in favour. > > > >Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. > >I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. > >I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. > OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the > nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many > people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing > disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You > continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this > list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I > have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best > belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people > whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this > is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not > opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. > -- > Roy Wood Come to your senses, Roy! This is not your list and you are not allowed to repeatedly throw dirt on others in public. If you cannot make a reasonable point, shut up. Telling lies and slander about a person is not how a discussion is held. If you are not able to suppress your hate, leave the list. Claus
Re: [ql-users] qdos-gcc
On Tue, 21 May 2002 08:35:29 +0100 Michael Grunditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > I have posted this on ql-developers, but I didnt get an answer . > > I have installed qdos-gcc in NetBSD/Arm32, on my RiscPC. Everything > seems fine , but when I transfer the executables to my Q40 with > qltool on floppy, I cant run them. If I execute them from "the shell" > I get return code -3. > > Any clue ? > > /Michael Do you get the same return code when starting with EW? Just to make sure it has nothing to do with the shell, Claus
Re: [ql-users] QDT and GUIs
Dilwyn Wrote:- > QDT is definitely something to look forward to. I also have a much > less ambitious one on the cards, which will work with QDOS systems > too, called Launchpad. I've kept quiet on this (been working on it for > several months) and it is basically an iconised front end for a QDOS > system (will work on SMSQ/E including GD2 but does not use the extra > colours). The program launcher part works, the file handler part works > interpreted but not yet compiled (the file handler is a standalone > program which will probably be released as freeware, working name > Q-Trans file transfer program - it's a split two window source and > destination file windows). The main thing causing a delay on Launchpad > is Darren Branagh's idea for a 'MyQL' section (3 guesses where he got > that idea from...aaarghhh!). The "My QL" idea came about as a QL version of "My Computer" in Windoze 9x etc, and will show all your various devices. IT will also have several log ins for different users, so the desktop will be different for each person using it. As Dilwyn says, its no QDT and doesn't aim to be, but its a quick alternative. I like it so far and I think a few people that saw it in Manchester did too. I'm quite excited about it Darren.
Re: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks
IBMdisk was buggy - I recall doing a review of it in one of the first QL today's. It worked OK I think on DD drives but gave dangerous problems on HD ones, or something like that. Thats why I had no problems doing the review and using it - I only had a Trump Card and twin DD's at the time. There are several other means - QLtools, Mtools, Discover and XOver. Darren BranaghDirector, Wicklow Web Centre LimitedComputer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales & Upgrades.Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks What is the best means currently of a standard QL with an old floppy disk interface reading PC formatted disks?? There used to be an old PD program IBMDisk or similar, but if I recall correctly, it was a bit dodgy.There must be something better nowadays for non SMSQ/E systems..Jochen's ATR device possibly - is it still available?? Are there any limits on its use?Rich Mellor RWAP Software7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JRTEL: 01977 614299http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, 22 May 2002, ZN wrote: > OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous. In some quarters, yes... > The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless > because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument. Some people are trying to win arguments. Some people are trying to express concerns... > The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have > this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. So who develops the kernel? > Under the licence, nothing prevents anyone from rewriting the whole thing > based on the source, and then doing anything you please with it. As long as > you don't submit it to the registrar and it's not added to the official > release, it is not covered by the licence. Aye. And if I send 100 Euros to TT, I can get SMSQ, mod it any way I see fit, and sell those new versions under the first sale doctrine, outside of the license, as they're licensed copies. Can of worms. :/ > The registrar will, if something really happens with all this and things do > take off, find himself overwhelmed with the task of actually having to know > and understand intimately every nook and cranny of the SMSQ sources, in > order to make decisions about it. And have the ability to test it on any and every hardware combination, or on hardware that may itself be under development and changing ten times a day. I agree with you 'mostly', that the emphasis of debate is on the wrong things, but the things you discuss are not worded in the license, and the things that *are* worded in the license are the rules under which we must work. It is only natural for someone to try and get the best working environment possible, be they user, developer, reseller or God! ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:06:31AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter > Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Roy Wood wrote: > > > >>>CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? > >>Note that I said I 'was' in favour. > > > >Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. > >I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. > >I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. > OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the > nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many > people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing > disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You > continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this > list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I > have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best > belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people > whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this > is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not > opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. Roy you are playing with fire. You might consider beeing more careful, if the substance of your "disagreement" with Peter ever goes public it might be not very favourable for you. Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* discussion. Richard
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:18:57AM +0100, Roy Wood wrote: > No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a > copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that > many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed > for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. > Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does > not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) lack of foresight? We are at version 2.98 now, the sources Wolfgang received are already different from 2.98 so they would have to be called 2.99 if they were released as a version. So the next bugfix after that will cause version 3.00 to be released? Many programs expect the version to be a plain long word so you can't easilly call it 2.99a or something like that. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22 May 2002, at 2:53, ZN wrote: (...) > There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions > to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons > to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and > presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has > the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it > will be included. Yes. > This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a > platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability > to add this support externally SHOULD. > Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because > programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to > SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not > contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should > contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external > module, AND THAT'S IT. I agree, sort of. I still would like the developpers to contibute under this licence - but I can live with the fact that external modules are used. > All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is > added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent > anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a > driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing > the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Yes, as I have already pointed out! (snip) > If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the > current licence the contribution has to be free. Not necessarily,see my other email. > May I remind everyone that > by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code > that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It > logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution > must also be free. That is the way I personally see it. (...) > The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's > persistence in the core, for a very good reason: As mentioned, I do have the last word in allowing code in or not. As also mentioned, if there is no reason not to include it, why should I exclude it? > no-ones contribution is > 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or > even completely replaced. ... even SMSQ/E itself - which is why we are discussiong all of this! (...) > * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development > is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria > for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules > should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a > reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should > be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered > for inclusion into the core. this is not going to be easy. Mainly because I can neither predict, nor force, a direction of development. All I can do is - ask a specific developper if he wouldn't like to work on some specific aspect - warn him that somebody else is already doing something similar. All of this development is based on collaboration. If somebody doesn't want to collaborate I can't, and really don't want to, force them in any way. I wouldn't even use the "threat" of not including their code in the source - the ultimate test has to be the usefulness. Let's just say that the remaining QL developpers, at least those I know, are often a strongheaded bunch (no criticism implied, just a statement of fact) - "steering" them, so to speak, will NOT be easy. > Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and > it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they > were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument > on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. And I have gone on record as saying that I attempt to have coherent versions of everything (for all machines). I CANNOT guarantee that all binaries will really be sold - that is NOT part of my function. But if somebody is afraid that binaries for his/her preferred machine will not be available, they could ask to become a reseller. Of course, then you have to supply support to the end user buying the binaries. So we come to the question of support again - this seems to be a bit of a problem in many people's mind, as it seems to me that some people refuse to become resellers because they are afraid of the burden of support they will have to supply. I have thought about this question a bit more now. Initially, I had in mind a very high standard of the support that would have to be granted, such as that currently supplied by Jochen Merz, who was my "ro
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Hi all, I just noticed that the batch of yesterday's replies, that I sent early this morning, has gone down the drain, through my own fault (I sent them with the wrong "from" address, and they are filtered from this list, rightly so). I don't keep copies of the emails I send, so if you haven't had a reply it's no wonder... I'll try to make this up over the next few days. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] qdos-gcc
On 21 May 2002, at 8:35, Michael Grunditz wrote: > Hi > > I have posted this on ql-developers, but I didnt get an answer . > > I have installed qdos-gcc in NetBSD/Arm32, on my RiscPC. Everything > seems fine , but when I transfer the executables to my Q40 with > qltool on floppy, I cant run them. If I execute them from "the shell" > I get return code -3. Are they still executables once transferred? (Do you have QPAC2 - you can check easily with that) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 22 May 2002, at 3:44, Dave wrote: > The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing* > module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the > fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control, > because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people > writing replacement sections of SMSQ. Of course not. I wouldn't even try. Of course you can write replacement modules on your own, and distribute them. Not only that, once you have the source code, you can even write small patches, to get around some limitation or other, or whatever. There is NOTHING to force you to submit your code to the registrar. You CAN rewrite the whole OS. For me, the question is: why would you want to? Why not use your energy to make the existing even better, instead of reinventing the wheel? If your reply then is that you can't do that because of the licence as it stands right now, then I heartily disagree. The only thing you can't do under this licence is distribute the binaries - you can use them for testing purposes, which was one of your concerns. Why not let the resellers handle the distribution of binaries- hell, become a reseller yourself. If, on the other hand, you ansolutely want an OS with which you are entirely free to do whatever you want - OK, use Linux. > It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a > thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the > reach and control of the registrar. A situation which I would regret - but I agree with you, there will always be those who won't be persuaded to collaborate. I don't belive, however, that 90 % of the development will be done in htis manner. > It would be in the majority of > developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad > out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as > in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about > it ;) sorry, a fee-based what? Upgrade? > Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my > intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. Why should I doubt your intentions? > One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about > what form this license takes. Yes, which is why I spend so much time on all of these emails. > Those who do not care, or to whom the > license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable > person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump > through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait > until they're adopted. Don't think your comments aren't welcome. I was, and am, well aware that the possibility to sell or give away your own add-on modules exist. But, as long as these modules don't contain any part of the original source code, not only don't I care, I can't even see on what grounds (other than moral) I would have the right to care (as Tim Swenson also pointed out) : it's your code... However, when it boils down to what really seems to be THE main point of the discussion, there seems to be an unreconcilable rift between those who fundamentally object to the fact that only the resellers can distribute the binaries on the one hand, and those who, like me, don't really understand what the fuss is all about in this respect. I can only say that, if my job as registrar, which I can see now will take far more time than I thought, leaves me some spare time, then I do intend to have a look at the code, and try to do some work on it. And, once done, if only the resellers can distribute the binaries for it - I DON'T CARE the least bit in the world. > People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives > are to improve the license for everyone's sake. I don't criticise anybody for criticising the licence. When things get personal, though, I object, someimes forcefully. >It's when a person tries > to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet > that you have to worry. But how do you know that the person stays "mysteriously" quiet instead of just not intervening? :-) > Yours constructively Thanks! Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 6:42, Peter Graf wrote: > Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > > There is no difference between the "free" and "non free" developper > > Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this > license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for > him by his resellers (which are also your "appointed resellers"). Not to my knowledge. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 7:19, Peter Graf wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > > > *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first > > > official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the > > > availability of non-commercial work. *** > > > >I must take the blame for that - it was always INTENDED that the > >binaries were not to be distributed other than through the resellers. > > I don't blame you for tolerating distribution of SMSQ/E executables for > free in the first statement. This is what Tony Tebby would have allowed us! > The public ought to know it, even if it was published unintended. Thanks, but the intention was, from the start, to limit distribution of the binaries. If that isn't clearly expressed, it was my fault. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered > response. And a VERY long reply... As long as you don't flame me, I don't flame you I don't think I did, at least, obviously you feel different... :-) > Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked > into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in > their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. What kind of reaction do you expect when I'l being called a racketeer? (not by you!) (...) > > So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. > > Nice. > > That is not what I said. With the best will in the world, the key word here > is "guarantee". I know from personal experience that Richard, (and probably > the others giving you grief on this list) provides exceptional support. You > must know, however, how many platforms (and OS's) UQLX runs under, and any > problems arising from unusual combinations of hardware and OS could take a > long time for any individual to bottom out, especially if he hasn't got the > access to that hardware. I imagine that similar guarantees are probably just > as problematical with QPC given the variety of hardware and software drivers > etc running Windows. Any such guarantees are essentially dishonest, and are > only ever "best efforts". That should be recognised, otherwise we should be > asking questions like "how quickly can we expect to get the bugs fixed?" We > don't because we are reasonable people. However some people when they read > the licence interpret it literally. Well isn't that a legitimate question? If you buy on OS that is bugged in some fundamental way, isn't it your right to expect the bugs to get fixed? In the situation as it was until now, when a new version of SMSQ/E came out, it sometimes did have bugs. The users then contacted the person they bought their SMSQ/E from, most probably Jochen, Roy or Peter. They passed on the reports to Tony (or Markus, if the problem was QPC related) and the bugs got fixed. Ok, they got fixed sooner or later only - but they did get fixed. (At least I'm not aware of any major bug in SMSQ/E as it stands now - and please peole, I'm talking about bugs, not missing features!). > I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) > sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. I didn't mean to offend you. The reply wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but reflects what I understood from your posting. However, the problem remains: How do you implement any kind of bugfix scheme in something like SMSQ/E if it becomes entirely free? Then there is no legal relationship whatsoever. However, many users require support. Hence the restriction on distributing the binaries. The reasoning I have always had is as follows: If anybody makes a change in the sources, then how will this be distributed? There is nothing that forces you to give your change to the registrar, if you don't want to - but then, you can only distribute your change as source code (if it contains original SMSQ/E code - if not, this licence doesn't concern you). If you give it away as source code, then, if the recipient can compile this and make himself a new SMSQ/E, then there is a fait chance that the recipient WILL NOT NEED ANY TECHNICAl SUPPORT, or at least, will know what the problems are. If the recipient can't compile everything, then he is more of a "simple user" - and he should not get untested binaries. He should buy SMSQ/E, or get an upgrade, from a reseller, who can supply support. (snip) > UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux > users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. > provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and > makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source > files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get > you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). See above - if they can compile it, then they are probably sufficiently "advanced" to tinker with the system. There is ABSOLUTELY no problem in distributing the source code in this way - the restriction lies in the distribution of the binaries. > We are still waiting on this list for a definition of "support". It seems to > be absolutely essental, but totally undefined! It seems, however to underpin > most of your defence of the approach being taken. Ok, lets address this question here: What kind of support would you, the simple user, like? According to you, who should supply it? (snip) > > That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? > > > But what's to stop you? Nothing. But, again, I don't see why one should suddenly change a licence that we have had so much trouble in setting up in the first place. That would only lead to outcries and rejections > I
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 21:54, Roy Wood wrote: > Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S, > in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be > uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR > code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these > modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give > them away the same applies. I'll graft myself on to this discussion, for another point: The possibility exists in the licence as it stands now that "new" authors will want a financial retibution for the code that they have added. I presume that this is what Peter calls "commercial developpers". Anyone who submits a new source to me for inclusion could tell me that they want xxx EUR for each copy of SMSQ/E sold with their code included. I would not exclude code just because of that aspect. Jowever, I don't want to be involved in the financial side of selling SMSQ/E (and I certainly DON'T want any momey for doing what I'm doing), so I would just be passing on this request to the resellers. There is a questio here, that still needs to be resolved,a nd it concerns Perter's wish to "buy out" the Q40/Q60 binaries. As I understand it, Peter would "buy out" the official version as it stands now. What about new versions as and when they come out. Would they still fall under this "buy out"? What if the new version, to which something wonderful might have been added, wasn't a free upgrade? What about retributions for authors who also want money? The above considerations MUST be addressed. Wolfgang > -- > Roy Wood > Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK > Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) > Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 > Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk > > >
Re: [ql-users] What do you want to do with the source to SMSQ ?
On 21 May 2002, at 19:40, Timothy Swenson wrote: > I think I would find it useful to see the comments and hopefully they will > document parts of SMSQ/E that is not fully documented. The code might shed > some light on particular areas that I might have questions on. As I am not > an assembly programmer, I don't know how readable the code will be to me. I would like to be able to answser that - unfortunatley, the time spent on the licening stuff has, up to now kept me from looking at the code! However, I CAN tell you from experience that you will need some knowledge of assembler to understand the code. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license > has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original > reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get > the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Well isn't that normal? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. (unless you have action, e.g., against the manufacturer). Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour reseller went "poof"? The situation for the software isn't different in that respect. > Surely no other reseller will > be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for > p&p costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the > binaries for this obsolete platform. Oh,no, I'm not. I WANT to compile the sources for the "obsoltet" platforms - but remember, I don't supply binaries directly to anyone but the resellers. (rest snipped) Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
OK, this has now officially gone well into the ridiculous (I'm using a fair bit of energy to stop myself from using a much stronger word). The fact of the matter is, this argument over the licence is pointless because no one can nor should win it, because it's the wrong argument. There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and presents an added value to the core (and here is where the Registrar has the last word, which may well be the most difficult part of that job!), it will be included. This is equally true for support of speciffic platforms. The support for a platform per se is not nor should ever be part of an OS core - the ability to add this support externally SHOULD. Arguments about a platform not being able to be supported because programmers writing the support will not want to contribute the support to SMSQ under the current licence are invalid because they should not contribute that support in the first place. The part that they should contribute are the changes necessary to have this support as an external module, AND THAT'S IT. All that has to be done is show the registrar that this contribution is added value to the core in general. There is however nothing to prevent anyone from contributing the source to a speciffic add-on (for instance, a driver) to be distributed alongside the official distribution (i.e. sharing the same media) but that does not have to fall under this licence! Arguments that basically 'appropriate' the OS under excuse of the added support for a platform, in order to leverage a specific model of code distribution are flawed because they are based on a notion that platform support can only and therefore must be an integral part of the OS and should be distributed as one lump binary (or source). * Problem: special platforms like emulators that may have parts of the OS rewritten as native code. It would be in everyones best interest to devise a standard way of doing this, not just for a speciffic case but as a general resource (yes I am aware this is not easy!). If a contribution becomes a part of the official distribution, under the current licence the contribution has to be free. May I remind everyone that by gaining access to the source, you will essentially be able to use code that someone somewhere has paid for to be written, essentially for free. It logically follows that any contribution added to the official distribution must also be free. Also, if we are talking about the resultant official distribution still being SMSQ, since SMSQ is (c)TT, so is every subsequent version. Anyone can write a functionally equivalent system, not call it SMSQ and have it be (c) whoever. It's been done with Minerve and there were no problems there. Cases where you want to retain (c) should be handled by only submitting the absolutely necessary part as an extension to the OS core (like in the case of platform support, see above). The registrar should not guarantee inclusion of anything, nor it's persistence in the core, for a very good reason: no-ones contribution is 'the last word' in programming, never to be improved or expanded on - or even completely replaced. There has to be a means to do 'garbage collecting'. The best way to insure that a contributed extension stays there, is to design it well, and in the best interest of everyone and not just a speciffic group. If someone wants to engage in conspiracy theories, thay may find more fertile ground for that by submitting them as scripts for 'The X files' (even though the series has ended) rather than clogging up this list. * Problem: there has to be a means to decide which direction of development is preferred and who decides this, this is where the registrar's criteria for inclusion/exclusion comes from. This does not mean that the rules should be included in the licnece, instead, there MUST at least be a reference to some document containing the rules in the licence. That should be the basis of any guarantee to fairness when a contribution is considered for inclusion into the core. Availability of the binaries in any circumstance cannot be guaranteed, and it is absurd to even ask this. A meteor could hit the exact spot where they were kept and they would be lost (If you get my hint). Much of the argument on this is again based on the notion of binaries for a specific platform. The core should be general, the platform-speciffic add-ons may (and probably will) be associated with the 'manufacturer' of the platform are the responsibility of the said 'manufacturer'. By having a general core which 'everyone' needs, you guarantee it is available from multiple distributors, so chances of it getting lost are reduced. * Problem: a LOT of work needs to be done to SMSQ before it reaches that stage. This work is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in the long run. Under the lice
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > Yes but it is not your concern as a reseller. I agree that we do not > want to lose any contribution but some people will not contribute > because they have already fixed an attitude which is against what we are > doing. This has always been the way of things. Criticism of this license is not criticism of you, or Jochen, or anyone else involved in drafting it. It is a work which you hopefully consider to be a work in progress. If you feel it should stand as it is, that's ok. If it is adopted as is, people will walk elephants through the holes - let's close those holes and make the letter match the intent? > The licence does not exclude a developer writing some code that can be > added to SMSQ/E as a module and which can be charged for as far as I > know. The license only specifies one mechanism for having code added to the official SMSQ tree - to surrender the right to charge for it, remove it, etc. If someone wishes to charge for a module, they are not given an avenue to do so under the current wording, unless they keep their module separate from the SMSQ binary distribution, which ensures marginal adoption at best, and certainly encourages commercial developers to further fragment the code base. [snip large paragraph about why I know this is true from personal experience] [snip rest of my latest comments, for being philosophical and not really pertinant to the issue at hand] And maybe other people might like to exercise a little self-censorship too, in the hope that we may lift this vital discussion up to a higher level, where good things happen? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood replied to something I said: > >I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use > >them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and > >release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a > >GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the > >distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new > >self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the > >license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this > >is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to > >the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as > >long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a > >derivitive work > Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S, > in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be > uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR > code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these > modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give > them away the same applies. Roy, you use phrases like "commercial extensions", "add your own modules" etc. I am not talking about that, and know that can happen in a healthy way under this license. What I am talking about is *replacing* modules, using the source to create/reverse engineer an Open Source version of SMSQ. At what point does work product stop being derivitive code and start being clean, unlicensed code? Basically, any module that doesn't include any original SMSQ code fits that requirement. The task of rewriting an OS is not trivial, but with the source, it's certainly a lot easier. The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing* module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control, because they would have no legal basis to do so. Even TT can't stop people writing replacement sections of SMSQ. It's human nature - I am certain beyond all doubt that there will be a thriving development scene for SMSQ, and 90% of it will be beyond the reach and control of the registrar. It would be in the majority of developer's interest NOT to contribute their efforts, but to simply pad out what is required and do a fee-based (not commercial, but fee-based, as in resellers are not doing this commercially, but fee-based, think about it ;) Finally, I would like to say, as a moderate critic, that if you doubt my intentions, I would like you to consider my thinking for a brief moment. One who truly cares about the future of the scene will care greatly about what form this license takes. Those who do not care, or to whom the license is irrelevant, will remain silent. If I were a less honourable person, I would not point out the obvious flaws and weaknesses, or jump through the holes. I would leave them as wide open as possible and wait until they're adopted. People may be critical, but that is a positive thing if someone's motives are to improve the license for everyone's sake. It's when a person tries to change the license for their own benefit, or stays mysteriously quiet that you have to worry. Yours constructively Dave
Re: [ql-users] What do you want to do with the source to SMSQ ?
At 09:18 AM 5/21/2002 +0100, Norman wrote: >So, what do you want to do with the source code when it gets released ? I think I would find it useful to see the comments and hopefully they will document parts of SMSQ/E that is not fully documented. The code might shed some light on particular areas that I might have questions on. As I am not an assembly programmer, I don't know how readable the code will be to me. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Hi Wolfgang, > >> > *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first >> > official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the >> > availability of non-commercial work. *** >> >>I must take the blame for that - it was always INTENDED that the >>binaries were not to be distributed other than through the resellers. > >I don't blame you for tolerating distribution of SMSQ/E executables for >free in the first statement. This is what Tony Tebby would have allowed >us! The public ought to know it, even if it was published unintended. Note the 'other than through the resellers' part of the sentence Peter. He is talking about upgrades as you well know. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > >> This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want >> to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a > >One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private or otherwise, >decides not to do work they might otherwise do for SMSQ, it is my problem, >your problem, and a problem for everyone in the entire SMSQ-using >community who is deprived of that contribution. Yes but it is not your concern as a reseller. I agree that we do not want to lose any contribution but some people will not contribute because they have already fixed an attitude which is against what we are doing. This has always been the way of things. >> I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non >> commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the >> commercial scene. > >Under this license, there are no commercial developers - everone has to do >it for free. You have no commitment to any developer? I don't think you >mean that - do you? > The licence does not exclude a developer writing some code that can be added to SMSQ/E as a module and which can be charged for as far as I know. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Zidlicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions >> were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and >> where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this >> without charging for anything except the postage for sending it out. > >this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license >has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original >reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get >the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Surely no other reseller will >be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for >p&p costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the >binaries for this obsolete platform. Actually that is exactly what happens. I provide upgrades at cost for the Qubide. And that is what would happen in the case you propose. You are either very mistrustful or like to pick holes in things. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Roy Wood wrote: > >>>CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? >>Note that I said I 'was' in favour. > >Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. >I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. >I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. OH I am interested in a solution and I may also have misunderstood the nature of your intentions but, owing to your previous actions, many people now do not trust you. I had thought that, because of our ongoing disagreement, it was just me but it seems evident that it is not. You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best belligerent and at worst blackmail. This has made many of the people whose opinions are courted on these matters hostile to you. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of your nature. I don't know. As I said. I was not opposed to your suggestion until the downside was pointed out to me. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use >them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and >release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a >GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the >distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new >self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the >license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this >is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to >the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as >long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a >derivitive work > >But then, that would mean the license is encouraging people to behave in a >way contrary to what was intended. Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S, in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR code into SMSQ/E and you can add your own modules. If we can sell these modules we would be very happy to do it and if the people want to give them away the same applies. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy Wood wrote: >>CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? >Note that I said I 'was' in favour. Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. I seriously thought you were interested in a solution. I'm sure all Q40 and Q60 users will appreciate your helpful attitude. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code > On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > > Wolfgang, A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered response. .snip > > > I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have > > understood. > Thanks.Why is it that I'm not supposed to have understood things > when I just don't agree with the opinions expressed. Because instead of answering in a civil an unemotional way you get provoked into escalating the flame wars, and often don't address the legitimate (in their minds) concerns of some of those that ry to debate this. ...snip >>..He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to > fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes > the information available so that technically advanced users can help > themselves. > So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. > Nice. That is not what I said. With the best will in the world, the key word here is "guarantee". I know from personal experience that Richard, (and probably the others giving you grief on this list) provides exceptional support. You must know, however, how many platforms (and OS's) UQLX runs under, and any problems arising from unusual combinations of hardware and OS could take a long time for any individual to bottom out, especially if he hasn't got the access to that hardware. I imagine that similar guarantees are probably just as problematical with QPC given the variety of hardware and software drivers etc running Windows. Any such guarantees are essentially dishonest, and are only ever "best efforts". That should be recognised, otherwise we should be asking questions like "how quickly can we expect to get the bugs fixed?" We don't because we are reasonable people. However some people when they read the licence interpret it literally. I was making a serious point and received an unwaranted (in my opinion) sarcastic glib response. This really is not necessary. > > >. > > > He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended > > commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors > > would do. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing > > patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed > > by the proposed licence. > We are looking into the email aspect. > Moreover, I think your comments very clearly outline one of the > aspects I care about. > He 'or anybody else) can send the source code to interested > parties. If they can compile the source code, then they probabbly > will only need minimal support, if any at all. > However, the "normal" end user won't be able to compile it - but he > would need support. UQLX is distributed as source, and in my experience most if not all Linux users are familiar with make-files. So lets see.. provided the developer provides the necessary compiler/cross-compiler and makefile(s) for the platform, he can freely distribute it as a set of source files. Sounds like open source to me. Only leaves the problem of how to get you to accept it into an official version (don't flame -see later comments). >So he doesn't get access to the binaries in > the first case - and won't need support either. The scheme as it > stands now provides for both cases - you can't just let the binaries > out in the open, have end users play around with it and them leave > them without support. We are still waiting on this list for a definition of "support". It seems to be absolutely essental, but totally undefined! It seems, however to underpin most of your defence of the approach being taken. > > Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if > > he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide > > the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up . > That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? > But what's to stop you? I think that part of your role is to provide the reassurance that you are aiming to act in an inclusive manner, not exclusive; also to provide objective criteria for inclusion of new offerings. e.g. coding style, completeness, compatibility, maintainability, documentation, personality (just kidding - but without any of the other information how do we know what criteria will be used?). It is very clear to me that you accept input from some people on this list (Tim Swenson, for example) extremely civilly, and do actually take some of their comments on board. Others, you see
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
- Original Message - From: "Ron Dunnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > Hi Mike, > > Yes I'm still here, but only as an onlooker now, dont have any QL equipment > at all now. Nice to hear from you, trust all is well. Surprised you haven't jumped into the 'debate' that is taking place on here. > > Gold Card has a 68000 processor on board and Super Gold Card has a 68020 on > board so the 68008 is defunct when either of these are plugged in to a > standard QL. Yes, you'll will be right, our problems with the gold cards, was fixed by fitting SGC in the machines. > > Mr Verbeek didnt mention if he had a Yellow boarded Gold Card or a Red > boarded Gold Card, cos there is a difference as noted in the Qubide manual. > > Ron > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike MacNamara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:39 PM > Subject: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > Hi > > I thought removing the 68008 only applied to Super Gold Card, but > > was still required on the Gold Card? > > > > Nice to hear your still there Ron > > > > Regards > > > > Mike > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > www.macnamaras.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "henk verbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:46 AM > > Subject: RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > > > > I did this but i still have got the same problem. I also tried > > another power > > > supply but all i get is a blank screen after the first reset. > > Could it be > > > the ql is not getting enough power ? Has anyone got a setup > > like mine > > > working ? > > > > > > Henk Verbeek. > > > > > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Ron Dunnett > > > Verzonden: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:03 > > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > > > > > > Remove the 68008 it is not needed anymore if you have a Gold or > > Super Gold > > > Card. > > > > > > That normally cures the problem you are having. > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "henk verbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:36 PM > > > Subject: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > I have a standard ql with a qubide and a gold card. If i > > connect the gold > > > > card or the qubide separatly they work fine but as soon as i > > put them > > > > together (quibide first and after this the gold card at the > > left hand slot > > > > of my classic ql) the ql doesn't boot up anymore. > > > > I already tried the jumpersettings j3+j4+j5 and j3+j4 only > > but it still > > > > doesn't work. I know its possible to let them work together > > but how? Does > > > > anyone have a clue ? or do i have to buy an mplane or > > something like that > > > ? > > > > > > > > Henk Verbeek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks
On Tue, 21 May 2002 22:26:51 +0100 "Bill Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the best means currently of a standard QL with an old floppy disk >interface reading PC formatted disks?? There used to be an old PD program IBMDisk or >similar, but if I recall correctly, it was a bit dodgy. > > There must be something better nowadays for non SMSQ/E systems.. > > > I came across this problem with some QL-2-PC users, but it was some time ago. >The best program was from the QUANTA library and I believe it was called QLIBM_exe. >It is a pointer program. The two main problems were the manual, which described an >older version, and the copyright situation. It was uncertain if it could be >distributed to non-QUANTA members. > > Sorry I have no time to thoroughly search all my records, but I know I tested it >thoroughly before recommending it. > > Geoff Wicks > > There was an ext for Atari QL emulators that would read PC disks (being similar >format) ATR_DIR might have been the name or something like that, I think it was PD >not sure though Jochen would maybe know. > > All the best _ Bill > Why not mtools? Some good soul ported it to QDOS (the probability is high that it was Jonathan Hudson?!), Claus
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
Hi Mike, Yes I'm still here, but only as an onlooker now, dont have any QL equipment at all now. Gold Card has a 68000 processor on board and Super Gold Card has a 68020 on board so the 68008 is defunct when either of these are plugged in to a standard QL. Mr Verbeek didnt mention if he had a Yellow boarded Gold Card or a Red boarded Gold Card, cos there is a difference as noted in the Qubide manual. Ron - Original Message - From: "Mike MacNamara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > Hi > I thought removing the 68008 only applied to Super Gold Card, but > was still required on the Gold Card? > > Nice to hear your still there Ron > > Regards > > Mike > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.macnamaras.com > - Original Message - > From: "henk verbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:46 AM > Subject: RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > I did this but i still have got the same problem. I also tried > another power > > supply but all i get is a blank screen after the first reset. > Could it be > > the ql is not getting enough power ? Has anyone got a setup > like mine > > working ? > > > > Henk Verbeek. > > > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Ron Dunnett > > Verzonden: vrijdag 17 mei 2002 20:03 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > > > Remove the 68008 it is not needed anymore if you have a Gold or > Super Gold > > Card. > > > > That normally cures the problem you are having. > > > > Ron > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "henk verbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:36 PM > > Subject: [ql-users] gold card and qubide > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > I have a standard ql with a qubide and a gold card. If i > connect the gold > > > card or the qubide separatly they work fine but as soon as i > put them > > > together (quibide first and after this the gold card at the > left hand slot > > > of my classic ql) the ql doesn't boot up anymore. > > > I already tried the jumpersettings j3+j4+j5 and j3+j4 only > but it still > > > doesn't work. I know its possible to let them work together > but how? Does > > > anyone have a clue ? or do i have to buy an mplane or > something like that > > ? > > > > > > Henk Verbeek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks
- Original Message - From: Geoff Wicks To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks What is the best means currently of a standard QL with an old floppy disk interface reading PC formatted disks?? There used to be an old PD program IBMDisk or similar, but if I recall correctly, it was a bit dodgy.There must be something better nowadays for non SMSQ/E systems.. I came across this problem with some QL-2-PC users, but it was some time ago. The best program was from the QUANTA library and I believe it was called QLIBM_exe. It is a pointer program. The two main problems were the manual, which described an older version, and the copyright situation. It was uncertain if it could be distributed to non-QUANTA members. Sorry I have no time to thoroughly search all my records, but I know I tested it thoroughly before recommending it. Geoff Wicks There was an ext for Atari QL emulators that would read PC disks (being similar format) ATR_DIR might have been the name or something like that, I think it was PD not sure though Jochen would maybe know. All the best _ Bill
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
> > >and here the problems start. The people have already paid for > >SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute > >upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting > >for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much > >for an upgrade. > Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions > were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and > where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this > without charging for anything except the postage for sending it out. this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. Surely no other reseller will be delighted to fill the gap and provide both upgrades and support for p&p costs. Ironically, Wolfgang is forced by the license to compile the binaries for this obsolete platform. > >So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly > >sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. > If you are waiting for market forces then the whole thing would have > died out years ago. I can count the number of new SMSQ/E users over the > past two years on one hand. I have not had a single enquiry about buying > it since we halved the price. > >Your license doesn't > >say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide > >support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider > >the "get support in exchange for paying binaries" in favor of > >normal support contracts? > Jochen and I have been supporting SMSQ/E for the last six years. I > expect that, even if I stopped selling QL products now I will still get > called an emailed and, believe or not, I would still try to help out. I > fully believe the same goes for Jochen. Maybe your market forces would > produce a shallower trader. I mostly share your opinion about market forces here, it was Wolfgang' idea I was replying to. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks What is the best means currently of a standard QL with an old floppy disk interface reading PC formatted disks?? There used to be an old PD program IBMDisk or similar, but if I recall correctly, it was a bit dodgy.There must be something better nowadays for non SMSQ/E systems.. I came across this problem with some QL-2-PC users, but it was some time ago. The best program was from the QUANTA library and I believe it was called QLIBM_exe. It is a pointer program. The two main problems were the manual, which described an older version, and the copyright situation. It was uncertain if it could be distributed to non-QUANTA members. Sorry I have no time to thoroughly search all my records, but I know I tested it thoroughly before recommending it. Geoff Wicks
Re: [ql-users] Test message
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Dave wrote: > This is a test of the emergency broadcast system (or if ntnu.no is still > filtering with SPEWS) Ok, I did a good working copy of a harridan (modelled on my wife) and convinced the admin at ntnu.no to specifically allow my IP, so I can no post to the list even though my IP range is blocked. Wahey! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks
Despite its age, I still use Discover from Dave Walker. Not pointer driven - works on just about any system with disks and direct sector access. It's shareware though. Try one of Jonathan Hudson's disk readers, QLTools or similar. Not 100% sure but I think ATR_rext didn't support level 2 directories - might be OK on non level 2 interfaces of course. Dilwyn - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 21 May 2002 16:19 Subject: [ql-users] Reading PC formatted disks > What is the best means currently of a standard QL with an old floppy disk > interface reading PC formatted disks?? There used to be an old PD program > IBMDisk or similar, but if I recall correctly, it was a bit dodgy. > > There must be something better nowadays for non SMSQ/E systems.. > > Jochen's ATR device possibly - is it still available?? Are there any limits > on its use? > > Rich Mellor > RWAP Software > 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR > TEL: 01977 614299 > http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware >
Re: [ql-users] QDT and GUIs
> All to the good ... what does the Q-Trans part do ? > File copying. It has a left and right window with two arrow icons between them. Select drives/directories at the top, select files in these two windows, click on the left or right arrows to indicate which list to copy from and to and off you go! It has rename/delete/format/make_dir/sort/print etc facilities. A bit like a cross between QPAC2 files menu and Jonathan Hudson's wxqt2 (in terms of having two windows one listing files on one drive, the second another drive, with quick and easy copying between them). -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra > commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part > of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of > someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, > not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are > something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both > models. I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a derivitive work But then, that would mean the license is encouraging people to behave in a way contrary to what was intended. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want > to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private or otherwise, decides not to do work they might otherwise do for SMSQ, it is my problem, your problem, and a problem for everyone in the entire SMSQ-using community who is deprived of that contribution. > I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non > commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the > commercial scene. Under this license, there are no commercial developers - everone has to do it for free. You have no commitment to any developer? I don't think you mean that - do you? I'm not criticising, just confused because the words don't say what I believe you were trying to say. Please could you restate this? Thanks Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Cable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that >occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for >their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we >would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a >silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in >the hopes >that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core >operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software >developers would really have something to work with. I think that is what is being offered. > >I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is >there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over >and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ >that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. > We don't expect there to be any significant sales of SMSQ/E and there is no question of requiring anyone to buy it a second time. >In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate >in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a >fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts >who want to >do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need >that. If I >were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away >free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its >inclusion in SMSQ >under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. >The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run >on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value >to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact >that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. Strange this. On the one hand we have someone saying they cannot use this licence because it does not allow them to charge for their work and complaining because they have to give it away for free and on the other we have someone saying the licence does not make the code open and free. As far as I can see the licence says that, if you want your code to be included into the system you have to give it away for free ( I am not sure if there is an obligation to make the included code part of the freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both models. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
>and here the problems start. The people have already paid for >SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute >upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting >for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much >for an upgrade. Most upgrades to SMSQ/E have been provided free. The only exceptions were for the systems where there were colour driver implementations and where the actual version number changed. Jochen and I have done this without charging for anything except the postage for sending it out. >So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly >sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. If you are waiting for market forces then the whole thing would have died out years ago. I can count the number of new SMSQ/E users over the past two years on one hand. I have not had a single enquiry about buying it since we halved the price. >Your license doesn't >say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide >support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider >the "get support in exchange for paying binaries" in favor of >normal support contracts? Jochen and I have been supporting SMSQ/E for the last six years. I expect that, even if I stopped selling QL products now I will still get called an emailed and, believe or not, I would still try to help out. I fully believe the same goes for Jochen. Maybe your market forces would produce a shallower trader. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
>> Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E > >If you say so, OK, I seem to remember a few years ago a big >conflab about using the Quanta funds to pay for a new OS(SMSQ?) >On the other points, as I say you have always had my support, as >have the other traders past and present., and my sympathys. It has been suggested as a good use of Quanta's money but each time it was turned down. I last raised the issue at the QL 2000 meeting at which I suggested that Quanta bought the rights to distribute the non colour version of SMSQ/E for free. A similar argument about open code ensued. I just thought it would be good to get a lot of people using the same O/S since that would make things uniform and make it easier for programmers. As I said it was turned down. > >One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, >why then all this fuss over a license for something people just >want to play with.? The point is, as I have said several times before, that it is in everyone's interest that the O/S be as stable and reliable a platform as we can make it. Without the restrictions on the distributions of non approved code no-one can rely on anything working as it should. This would lead to the few commercial programmers abandoning the system and more customer dissatisfaction. When a program does not work people often blame the program and not necessary the patched, hacked and messed about O/S they are running it on. TT asked for a degree of protection to his copyright, I believe, so a licence of sorts had to be arranged and it all spread from there. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I have asked a simple question, no answer. OK I make it even simpler: >Can I have Roy's above statement, without additions that make it void, >from you ??? What are the additions that make it void ? If you want to a reseller, apply. If you are accepted you can sell it at what ever price you want to. We have not fixed the price at all as far as I can see. Your selling SMSQ/E will add 10 euros to the price of one of your systems that is al. l > >A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to >non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights >should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them >to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a reseller you supply SMSQ/E as it is, you supply updates when they are released, you try to get the bugs fixed when it is possible and you are available to answer questions and provide help. This is what Jochen and I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the commercial scene. If they are so against this then they can write their own system and give it away for free. You already said they could do that. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
>>I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the >>code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial >>version. > >Wolfgang, please also have a look! > >ROY AND I SEEM TO ALMOST AGREE! (a rarity :-) >CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? Note that I said I 'was' in favour. > >I have no objections that freely distributed executables are restricted >to the official versions! I agree to destroy "patched" versions then. >It was only meant to help. But no need for that, if "official" work is >acceptable, also for us Qx0 folks. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Thanks Bill, I am glad to see I an not alone in my views Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Bill Cable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "QL Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code > I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that > occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for > their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we > would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a > silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in the hopes > that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core > operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software > developers would really have something to work with. > > I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is > there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over > and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ > that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. > > In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate > in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a > fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts who want to > do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need that. If I > were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away > free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its inclusion in SMSQ > under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. > The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run > on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value > to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact > that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. > > I do wish Quanta would take up this issue in a big way as they should be > unbiased and have some influence. I realize there are limits depending on what > TT is willing to do but I don't think this has been designed to get near the > benefits possible. And I really don't care whether the core system is SMSQ or > Minerva. I just want to see an open core system. This does seem to be a rare > crossroad where we could vastly improve our future or continue on the same slow > fragmented decline. > > -- Bill > > >
Re: [ql-users] Mailing List Change
Thanks Bruce. John in Wales
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I do enjoy the diversity of opinions and the glimpses of personalities that occur in the give and take on this issue. And I do not think bad of anyone for their position but it is surprising how different they can be. I would think we would want to give the source code to anyone who would want to look at it on a silver plater and allow them to do anything they would want with it in the hopes that Wolfgang Lenerz could merge the good stuff into an ever improving core operating system that is predictable and documented. Then hardware and software developers would really have something to work with. I bet 90% of us have already given our donation to TT for SMSQ so what more is there to give. He has been paid for his work. Do we have to keep buying it over and over or are we renting it? Unless there is some unforeseen demand for SMSQ that draws in new users there will be no more new buyers of SMSQ. In the past some of the most talented contributors have refused to participate in the SMSQ side of things precisely because of its closed nature and we have a fragmented community. Now we might lose another batch of enthusiasts who want to do good things for the QL. This license is strange and we do not need that. If I were a developer I would not participate. I would not mind giving my work away free to help the QL community but I would resent like hell its inclusion in SMSQ under the proposed agreement. The core system needs to be really free and open. The software developers who want to make money write programs we want that run on that core system. The traders stock the software for us to buy and add value to the core operating system that we will buy. There is no way around the fact that this is a hobby system and making much money is not possible. I do wish Quanta would take up this issue in a big way as they should be unbiased and have some influence. I realize there are limits depending on what TT is willing to do but I don't think this has been designed to get near the benefits possible. And I really don't care whether the core system is SMSQ or Minerva. I just want to see an open core system. This does seem to be a rare crossroad where we could vastly improve our future or continue on the same slow fragmented decline. -- Bill
RE: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
I think Vlaams = Dutch (spoken in NL, Belgium and France) -Message d'origine- De : Dilwyn Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : lundi 20 mai 2002 19:19 À : QL Users List Objet : [ql-users] qtyp dictionary On a disk I have here, I've found a file called QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS - does anyone have any idea (a) what language is it (Dutch?) and (b) what it might be (i.e. content)? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
RE: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
A rudimentary tool that can edit such files would be welcome (so that evryone could produce such help files) Claude -Message d'origine- De : James Hunkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : lundi 20 mai 2002 02:32 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : [ql-users] basic HTML viewer? Guys, I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to look at (if there are any) that give the following: 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) 4) can display some graphics Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a basic capability (tables and figures at the most). Thanks for the help, Jim
RE: [ql-users] Mailing List Change
Cheers Bruce. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Nicholls, Bruce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:28 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ql-users] Mailing List Change Owing to the Anti-spamming policies of the current list hosting company I will be changing the list over to a new address within the next few days. I will be migrating every user on the current list to the new list & will make sure any new subscribers will be added to the new list & not the old list, any messages sent to the old list will also be redirected to the new list. All the best, Bruce Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Source Code
Richard, Linux Format November 2001. Simon is doing a series of articles on the various emulators available under Linux. The Sinclair machines were covered in that issue - as was your masterpiece. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Richard Zidlicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 11:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code >> Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux >> magazine (don't ask me which). This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Dave wrote: >Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it >mildly, like me. True, but you have it easier disagreeing just midly than we. For us it is not only a question of wasted work or time, but we have extremely expensive stuff on the shelf. Just for example the CPUs for the 80 MHz version costs more than EUR 600 each! I depend on Tony Tebby working for me, or, as he would allow, free developers doing the thing. Now if someone else cuts us off development for our machine we're losing out. That's one of the reasons, why I can't be as relaxed as you. What can I do? Push development for QDOS Classic and Minerva? Maybe. But that would take long and comes at a terrible cost of work, that is needed elsewhere. Peter
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Hi Wolfgang, > > *** Distribution of executables for free was *not* forbidden in the first > > official statement! This has changed and caused severe implications on the > > availability of non-commercial work. *** > >I must take the blame for that - it was always INTENDED that the >binaries were not to be distributed other than through the resellers. I don't blame you for tolerating distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free in the first statement. This is what Tony Tebby would have allowed us! The public ought to know it, even if it was published unintended. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy Wood wrote: >As I said I was in agreement with your proposals. Others were not and did >not trust you. I have not decision in this. I was asked my opinion and I >gave it. Thanks. It's kept in secret who exactly turned me down, but it's good to know that at least on of the persons ruling in the background is open for a compromise. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > There is no difference between the "free" and "non free" developper Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for him by his resellers (which are also your "appointed resellers"). The free developers (the majority) have only this license, which does NOT make sure their executables won't be lost, does NOT make sure it will be distributed for free, ONLY MAYBE it is sold for the commercial purposes of others, for unknown money. > What separate agreements are we atlking about here? See above. Peter
Re: [ql-users] More C68 help - pointer env; positioning windows
Here's the other question, as another refloat for anyone who missed it. Any suggestions more comments/suggestions anyone? Thanks, Jim On Thursday, May 16, 2002, at 12:12 AM, James Hunkins wrote: > Here's another question while I am at it. > > Normally when I position a window at an absolute location in the > pointer environment, it goes where it belongs. However, I am resizing > a window (I manually remove the definition, reset the data structure, > and reopen it) and it goes where it belongs every other time. The off > times it shoots to the left of the screen, pretty much in parallel with > its correct location. The next resize sends it back to where it > belongs. > > It has been suggested that it is because the window position is > relative to the cursor, even when I do an absolute address. This > sounds familiar and I think that I had this problem before and figured > it out. However, I seem to be stuck again. > > Could someone walk me through the peculiarities of window positioning > within the pointer environment. I do not want to set the window > relative to the pointer but instead in an absolute location. > > Thanks guys, > Jim >
Re: [ql-users] Event help in C68?
I would like to refloat this (seems that a couple of people missed these questions last weekend). Below is my original request for help on eventlists and communicating between jobs. I did get the note to look at Jonathan's CSM and will do so. But any advice on using events such as the pointer environment is set up to do would be great. Thanks, Jim On Thursday, May 16, 2002, at 12:01 AM, James Hunkins wrote: > Hey Guys, > > I have finally decided to join this list as my work on QDT progresses > (thanks Marcel for recommending that I try this). Was putting it off > due to time constraints but now seems like a good time with a cry or > two for help. > > I could use some assistance in using C68 in the pointer environment in > passing an event from one job to another, which I can not currently get > to work. > > I have tried two scenarios. > 1) using sms_sevt and sms_wevt >- I used the job ID received back as an integer from sms_info for > each job > . when these were checked they matched the job ID listed with the > SBASIC command jobs but did not include any tag info, etc. > ? is this the correct job id to use in these calls? If not, how > can I obtain the correct ID? >- I set the eventlist for sms_wevt = 0xFF so that it would accept > any event sent it >- sent an event with sms_sevt to the sms_wevt program >- nothing received > > 2) using iop_rptr (enhanced for the upper 8 bits for vectors) and > sms_sevt > - same job ID as described in 1) > - assumed that sms_sevt is actually using the upper 8 bits of the > vector list that iop_rptr checks > - sent event > - nothing received (checked both upper and lower bytes) > > Can anyone help me with this? If not in C68, then in assembly. I > should be able to match the two. > > I need to do this to communicate between my icon objects and their > associated folder in QDT. > > Thanks, > Jim >
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
Lots of ideas, thanks guys. Basically, the two things that I need it to do is different font sizes (CSize is just fine), some form of graphics (compressed), hyperlinks, and tables. Frames is an option but not really necessary, at least for first round. If it is ready to go great, but am expecting to have to do some work on it so the source code is very good. I am also concerned with size of the code and speed. You all gave me a lot of options so I will start looking at them, probably on the plane on the way to the US QL show. I guess we are still waiting for a response from Tarquin on his efforts. Again, thanks for the input. Any other ideas or advice will of course be appreciated. I will let everyone know what I find. Jim On Monday, May 20, 2002, at 06:01 PM, Timothy Swenson wrote: > At 10:40 AM 5/20/2002 +0100, you wrote: >> Hi James. >> >> There was an HTML browser for the QL going around some time back, >> written in >> SuperBasic. The last I heard was that there were a couple of problems >> with >> it, and I haven't heard much since then. (Was it Tarquin ?) > > I believe you are talking about Hyperbrowse. There was also an earlier > browser written by somebody in Italy. They used CSIZE to show the > different font sizes from HTML. I've got a copy around but I don't > know if the source code was distributed. > > Tim Swenson >
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Mike MacNamara wrote: > One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, > why then all this fuss over a license for something people just > want to play with.? Mike, Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it mildly, like me. Some people like it. Some people are panting in anticipation for it. Why all the fuss? Because unless Minerva is made open source fairly soon, SMSQ will be THE future of the QL, and the future requires software and hardware development. As long as SMSQ is run on hardware that runs 1/10th the speed of bottom end PCs, and as long as software is written in a discouraging environment, the QL scene will continue to contract. I was drawn back in and decided to develop a few things. Not with an intent to make money (indeed, I am already several $000's out of pocket) but to provide what the market needs. I considered developing a custom hardware platform, specifically for uQLx, which would allow people a higher performance, lower cost upgrade path with consistent and compatible hardware. Unfortunately, it rapidly became clear that uQLx was hampered by the lack of SMSQ support (through no fault of uQLx). When this offer came up I thought it was great. But the license is quite subtle, and in other ways quite blatantly unbalanced. If I were to write something revolutionary for SMSQ, I would have to surrender any income for it, to the official resellers. If I wanted to sell SMSQ with my hardware product, I would have to either be a reseller, or have a version of SMSQ for uQLx on ARM specially sanctioned by the Registrar, and supported by the official resellers. The issues are various and many. Liability for contributed bugs. Synchronising of sources between various developers aka the distribution limitation. Discouragement to produce based on lack of return funding. This license protects the interests of resellers by not allowing others to sell it (fair) and requires the contributors to accept no compensation for their development efforts (unfair) whilst forcing them to go to unnecessary lengths to acquire current sources. What is reasonable for a developer to expect from this license? It's reasonable to expect fast communication and delivery/exchange of sources with the registrar and other developers. It's reasonable that if they produce hardware, they should be able to create approved binaries to include with the product and pay directly to the registrar the 10 euro fee. It's reasonable that the resellers should be allowed to sell the approved versions also. What is it reasonable for a user to expect from this license? It's reasonable to expect current binaries and/or sources, which you cannot sell, except in their entirity (first sale doctrine). That you get support, and a period of free upgrades, or upgrades at a cost which is not an obstacle to upgrading. That if the OS/upgrades are tied to hardware, you can go direct to the hardware seller to get them, or for support. That you receive good quality, complete documentation. What is reasonable for the authorised resellers to expect from this license? It is reasonable to expect that the registrar will keep you informed of current sources/executables. It is reasonable that you make a profit from selling SMSQ. It is reasonable that you forward inquiries to developers if they are better able to assist, and that they do so. What is reasonable for the Registrar to expectf rom this license? The registrar role is key to this exercise. The work has competing interests and priorities - you must have the patience of a God, the stamina of an athlete and the knowledge of Einstein. Also, you must maintain records. Meticulous records. You must track incoming and outgoing patches and updates, act as a communications hub between developers, resellers and beta testers. Also, you must keep a central database of who bought what, when, and from who. Resellers will change over time, and it is vital to know who is supported and who is not. You need a way to share information with a reseller about whether a copy was legitimately purchased by a user, so any reseller can tell if they should be charging the upgrade or full fee. Also, with conflicts like those between (for example) the current resellers and the Qx0 developers, you will need to ascertain whether copies are being legitimately sold and supported, or unreasonably witheld. There's more to it than that, but you, dear Registrar, have the toughest job of all. The current license satisfies the needs of the resellers, who are given rights but no responsibilities, (though the resellers are GOOD people and take on those responsibilities willingly, they are not required to do so) and the developers, who have responsibilities but no rights (the right to withdraw code if a bug is found, the right to make a small sum for their possibly extensive work, etc) The users will be satis
RE: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
At 10:40 AM 5/20/2002 +0100, you wrote: >Hi James. > >There was an HTML browser for the QL going around some time back, written in >SuperBasic. The last I heard was that there were a couple of problems with >it, and I haven't heard much since then. (Was it Tarquin ?) I believe you are talking about Hyperbrowse. There was also an earlier browser written by somebody in Italy. They used CSIZE to show the different font sizes from HTML. I've got a copy around but I don't know if the source code was distributed. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code > In message <005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau>, Mike > MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed > >to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an > >official version, and as members will no doubt want to help > >develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. > Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E If you say so, OK, I seem to remember a few years ago a big conflab about using the Quanta funds to pay for a new OS(SMSQ?) On the other points, as I say you have always had my support, as have the other traders past and present., and my sympathys. One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, why then all this fuss over a license for something people just want to play with.? mike > -- > Roy Wood > Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK > Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) > Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 > Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk > > >
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > (...) > > > so don't comment private correspondence and answer the > > questions. > So rephrase the questions without reference to private > correspondence. someone else happened to ask the same question so I will wait whether you answer his question. > > I could read the disassembly before you had the idea > > that this is illegal. > > And the fact that I had this "idea" now changes that? sure. > > > As are all licences. > > > > nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that > > can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding > > fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version > > of the license would turn into Microsoft "shared source" > > license. > > Your license doesn't qualify either way. > Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable > rights... interesting... so you sell someone a car and later modify the contract to the extent that you only sold him a bicycle? You must be a really cool lawyer. > > > Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't > > > want it. > > > > not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you > > want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? > > What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient > reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new > features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would > complain if you also had new features? so is it thrown in for free or does it cost extra money? > > I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements > > Nice. Which ones are you referring to? should I refer to private mail again? > > Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the > > cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). > > I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. keeping a cc is trivial, where is the problem? > > > > Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. > > > > > > Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? > > > If not me, then whom? > > > > you should have taken the past development (for which you > > are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns > > into account - it is important part of preconditions when > > considering a new license. > > 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. haven't I? << > > In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the > > whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence > > "Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* > > that I am wrong." >> I really considered the case was purely rhetorical but maybe it is too early to judge. > 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account "past > developments" for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way > developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up > with TT. > > Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How > can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the > past? > > Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that : > > - the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work > > - Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ, > > nonregarding whether the now official resellers > > are willing or able to futher support it. > > Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to > make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing > bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the > office of the registrar. you are taking a lot of responsibility on you. With an open source license nobody would even get the idea to make you responsible for something like that. If you insist to obfuscate development by the means of a restrictive licence more people might consider you responsible for the failure. Sorry, but my impression is that your license is not at all in the best interest of the users who need good support pretty desperately. You know, the users care about such trivial things like partitioning hard drives. > > Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as > > Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your > > license does make it impossible for a few people to support > > SMSQ so you should see how you want to fill the holes. > > Thanks for not holding me responsible - now be a good sport and > bar the "normally". than why do you insist on this strange license? > > Your license also leaves the question of availablity for > > specific platforms completely unresolved, hence my concern > > about Q40/Q60 SMSQ availability. > > Is that too much asked? You can also try to convince me > > with a different license. > Guess what ? I don't have to "convince" you. > Availability for specific platform is simply done via the resellers. If a > specific platform isn't catered for, then a new reseller can do this. so in the worst case the poor users have t
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline > > by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like > > to help and leaves too many important points wide open. > > I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: > > > > << you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as > > - you accept this copyright > > - you leave this copyright message intact and don't > > place any additional restrictions on the code > > - you don't sell this source or anything derived from > > this source, including binaries > > - you don't branch the code. > >licensing for commercial purposes is available under > >following conditions: > > ... > > ... > > >> > Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, > of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? even if you include this restriction it would be an improvement. But what was your reasoning that you desperately need this restriction again? ( ..since you have asked me not to refer to private email) Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: > > > Wolfgang, > > > > I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with > > Richard's comments on the proposed licence. > I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is > made to private correspondence. sorry, didn't know this detail was in any sensitive. > > Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if > > he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide > > the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. > That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? so if it is not at all in your interest, why don't you give everyone reasonable guarantee that this won't happen? > > This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and > > capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness > > their talents to our mutual benefit. > > Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an > unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for > a wider audience? I've been contacted from SuSE, Jakub Jelinek is himself an ex-ql user. Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux magazine (don't ask me which). Compare it with the publicity SMSQ had in mainstream media in the last few years. Yes, I do believe that you could easilly double the user base within a year with a reasonable license. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The > > bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? > > There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, > > so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. > > Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless > > they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. > > Well, believers in free market forces unite. If there still is a market, > then somebody else will step in. and here the problems start. The people have already paid for SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much for an upgrade. So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. Your license doesn't say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider the "get support in exchange for paying binaries" in favor of normal support contracts? > Moreover, if the seller is not there any more, who will sort you the > user's hardware problem? some people on this mailing list are really great in helping such cases. Richard
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
>I guess the point I was trying to make was that the 38 page guide was >no where near comprehensive enough to document a full OS. I'm sure >that it assumed that the user was already familiar with QDOS. The Gold >Card/TKII manual was a little more in depth, as it only covered some >extensions to the OS. The original poster said something about a >"printed handbook" for SMSQ/E and I would expect a little more than a >38 page guide that barely covers the topics. This is a little bit more revealing than the comment you originally made. I gave with each Q 40 I sold (and the US ones were mostly sent out by TF but I am sure he also sent the documentation too) all of the documentation I could lay my hands on. A few people (three) bought Q 40s with no prior knowledge of the QL or SMSQ/E I spent a bit of time with them getting them up and running both in person at my house and on the phone / Internet. There was no poster just an ad in QL Today and you received documentation on the hardware too. You do know about TK II and I do agree that the state of the SMSQ/E documentation is really just an upgrade notice but none of us have the resources to do anything else. At the end of the day we did our best and we were there to support you as we have been for all users over the years. Yes it was buggy and it still is. We all tried to get it fixed and make it better but TT was the only person available to do that. If we all stop this argument and get on with it maybe we could make it better. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >>We will make no money from this. > >Of course you will, if you offer nice support and handbooks. Folks have >no other way to get your support and handbooks except purchasing the >binary from you!!! Don't underestimate that. There are thousands of >companies working this way in the "real world". This way they benefit >from the fact that plenty of non-commercial work is done, which they >can sell. No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) Most people who want SMSQ/E already have it. I have sold maybe two or three copies of SMSQ/E for the Gold Card, one copy for the QXL and none for the Atari in the last year. Some I can retire now can I ? Wake up! > >>>(Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown >>>persons who influence the decisions of the "registrar". But maybe >>>some public help will allow him to reconsider.) >>Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even >>the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your >>favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a >>'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. > >OK. I have no objections the freely distributed code is restricted to >the official versions. I can also destroy anything 'patched', if my >proposal is accepted. Do you think we can agree on my proposal, then? As I said I was in agreement with your proposals. Others were not and did not trust you. I have not decision in this. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message <005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau>, Mike MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed >to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an >official version, and as members will no doubt want to help >develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E -- Roy Wood Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!) Mobile +44(0)7836 745501 Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
>I do not agree, the QL has progressed to where it is by tinkerers >playing about with it, and then making their efforts available, >with or without charge, to the community. No other software >carries these restrictions, and now that suspicion has entered >the debate, it is not going to leave in a hurry. Here in Scotland >we have a saying " He who pays the piper calls the tune.", the >END USER pays the piper. Well that is not entirely supported by the real facts. True there have been quite a few nice applications and a lot of free software which had no front end and which was of no use to anyone except those who were able to write this for themselves. The bulk of the work was done by solid commercial programmers who have gradually left the scene because there was not enough sales to make their efforts worthwhile. I don't really understand the 'suspicion' thread of all of this. > >> >and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the >> >support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still >> >been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each >year >> >with traders, to TTs benefit. >> I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the >rumours >> about what was about to appear spread very fast. > >When I bought SMSQ, Qubides, etc. We were told Colour Drivers are >being written, along with other refinements, memory, CD support >etc. This encouraged the purchase of Auroras, etc ,etc. Not only >to support development, but in anticipation of machines that >could live in a modern world. Whatever reasons TT had for not >fulfilling his agreement to supply these for qubides, he has cut >off his nose to spite his face, as the loss in serious user base >was substantial, better he had done the work and quibled later. >The result being we feel, as END USERS badly let down and, not to >put to fine a point on it, conned. > OK TT had no hand in the Qubide. The design was by Nasta, the sales by Qubbesoft and the software by Phil Borman so lets leave that out of the discussion. There was some talk of colour drivers by Qubbesoft. As far as I know TT claims that he had never committed to write them. All of TT's work has been commercial. If he was paid he did the job. He also put in many hours into support, mostly unpaid. QLCF, the French user group, paid for the colour drivers for the QXL. QPC2 users paid for the colour drivers for that when they upgraded and Peter claims to have paid for the colour drivers for the Q 40 etc. (I have no direct evidence of this but I do not disbelieve it). TT did what was asked of him over and beyond the amount of money he was paid to do it so all this accusation is as misinformed as it is pointless. The problem with the QL is not in the lack of software support but the physical limitations of the hardware itself. If you want to compare the system with a PC you have to accept that the whole of the PC market is geared up to a different standard and is driven by wholly different forces. A 15MHz, 4Mb QL with a SGC is never going to compete with a 1.6GHz 512Mb P4. We do not have the resources to keep up and the user base was already to small to do so in the mid nineties. On the whole we keep going because we enjoy playing around with the system and because it is a platform we have chosen to support. I am about to go to the S show. I will sell nothing there. I go because of a commitment to The US users to be there and it will cost me around £ 600 to do this. Jochen and I combine it with a short holiday to ease the cost but we would not be going if there was no show. This is commitment. >What srious development, the Q40, which you promised all the >above were just round the corner, still waiting. The Q40 is still being developed. I gave up on it because I, like many others, fell out with Peter Graf. I wish them well of it but it is a hobbyists market and it always will be. >Roy, I sympathise with you trying to exist in a shrinking market, >indeed I think we have supported you and Tony in any way we >could. But you have to ask why a shrinking user base, not so >Linux, in fact the oposite is the case. Lessons should be >learned, if its not to late. Again LINUX is running on standard PC parts. We are running on specialist parts which cost too much because they are manufactured in too small quantities and we have too few programmers who are willing to do anything about it. >> I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no >money being >> made on SMSQ/E. > >Money is not the question, it is freedom to use the system as the >Users see fit. Not as a self appointed commitee would like to >legislate No money is everything to do it. I have a nine to five, five day a week job and a young family. I spend a lot of time writing for the magazine, going to shows and doing support for the QL. Just recently I have spent hours each night answering people who choose to attack the system as it is. >WHY are we a small community, computin
Re: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
Dilwyn Jones wrote: >QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS is probably a spelling dictionary. Geoff Wicks >told me there was such a dictionary around somewhere, but I never saw > it. > If you want to see it, I can email it to you, it's freeware. > -- > Dilwyn Jones Yes, please. Thank you! François Van Emelen
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 05:31:38PM -0700, James Hunkins wrote: > Guys, > > I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for > the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to > look at (if there are any) that give the following: > > 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) > 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) > 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) > 4) can display some graphics > > Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from > the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a > basic capability (tables and figures at the most). from Unix world I could recommend w3m, links and dillo. Former two are pure text apps (similar to lynx but way better), dillo has full support for graphics. All of them do tables but dillo doesn't do frames. As of the complexity.. not easy to judge. I guess sooner or later we will have to port GTK but it hasn't been done yet so you would need a detailed look at how much of it needs to be emulated to get the basic rendering in dillo done. Richard
Re: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
- Original Message - From: Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary > On a disk I have here, I've found a file called > QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS - does anyone have any idea (a) what language > is it (Dutch?) and (b) what it might be (i.e. content)? > "Vlaams" is indeed Dutch, or more accurately Flemish. I think I know the dictionary. About 10 years ago the only available Dutch QTYP dictionary was obviously written by a Belgian, and I think this will be the one you have. Unfortunately it did have numerous mistakes, which was a pity as the author had tried to be very thorough. In 1995 I merged it with my Spellchecker dictionary word list, which was also full of mistakes, and corrected it to conform with a major spelling revision. In practice there is little difference between Flemish and Dutch and the spelling is determined by a committee of Belgians and Dutch so there is no need for separate QTYP dictionaries. If you like I can take a look at it, but will promise no quick answer. I have almost forgotten what a QL looks like, as I have been working on a project that means I have had to get up at 5.00 a.m. for the last couple of months. It is one of the worst projects I have ever worked on, but the client keeps asking for more and is willing to pay, we are all happy as the money keeps coming in. There is a delightful typing error in one of the Dutch documents, so that instead of asking if a firm has a "Unified Messaging Service" we ask if they have a "Unified Massaging Service". Geoff Wicks
Re: [ql-users] QDT and GUIs
In message <014701c20031$6967c100$97075cc3@default>, Dilwyn Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> QDT seems a very interesting development. A GUI would put 'QL_ware' >> into the frame with modern OS's. >> >> I learn't computing on non-GUI machines, yet I now use the GUI's >> available for other OS's all the time. >> >> I haven't commented on QDT before ... yet if you need any help with >user >> testing, then I could oblige. >QDT is definitely something to look forward to. I also have a much >less ambitious one on the cards, which will work with QDOS systems >too, called Launchpad. I've kept quiet on this (been working on it for >several months) and it is basically an iconised front end for a QDOS >system (will work on SMSQ/E including GD2 but does not use the extra >colours). The program launcher part works, the file handler part works >interpreted but not yet compiled (the file handler is a standalone >program which will probably be released as freeware, working name >Q-Trans file transfer program - it's a split two window source and >destination file windows). The main thing causing a delay on Launchpad >is Darren Branagh's idea for a 'MyQL' section (3 guesses where he got >that idea from...aaarghhh!). All to the good ... what does the Q-Trans part do ? >As I said, it's far less ambitious than Jim Hunkins's QDT, so if you >want the best, go for QDT. If you just want a nice simple no frills >system, try Launchpad. Likely that both will be out about the same >time - I'll most likely release a demo version too. > >Not in competition with Jim in any way or form (like I said from what >I've seen his system will be far better specified), just providing a >simpler alternative which will also work on traditional QDOS systems >with pointer environment. If we are lucky, Launchpad will introduce >people to GUIs on a QL system and they'll progress to glorious >technicolour GD2, SMSQ/E QDT and all other things wonderful! ... and, very importantly encourage users to use the OS with ease. This is why OS's with GUI's are so successful and have many users. >(Not vapourware, Launchpad was demoed at the Manchester Quanta AGM >though it wasn't very stable then!) 'Welshware' then ... :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
> Another system you may want to look at is the lastest version of Dilwyn > Jones VIEWER program - this has a links ability in it, not really HTML, but > works beautifully. Can link to items within the same document via the line > its on just by putting the cursor over it and ENTERing, on load in another > doc by using a different kind of link which you pre-embedd in the text. You are welcome to use it (I think QBranch used it for the help or instructions in PD3/S when they were selling that), but as QDT is a nice modern GUI and Viewer isn't even pointer driven, there doesn't seem much attraction to use it. Better I think to go for a fairly basic levl of HTML, that way people could even create their own help files with their favourite HTML editor, or something as simple as Text2Exp or Doc2Html from me, or even use Jack Mitchell's Xchange HTML printer_dat or xchange_dat which if you print output from Xchange Quill, it's written as an HTML file (just adds the etc tags which are sadly too long for ordinary QL Quill's more limited printer_dat) > I'm using it to convert a freeware encyclopedia for the PC to the QL which > has links in it, which is about half done. Oh, are you now??? ;-)) Not Probert encyclopedia by any chance as that's something I sat on my hard drive waiting to be done too - in fact I'd considered using Q-Mosaic to front it if ever I got the time. ;-)) -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
>> On a disk I have here, I've found a file called >> QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS - does anyone have any idea (a) what language >> is it (Dutch?) and (b) what it might be (i.e. content)? >Vlaams = Flemish. Language spoken by +65% of the Belgian population. >Although the official language (administration, schools, ...) is Dutch, >most people in Flanders use their own Flemish dialect. He he, I thought Vlaam or Vlam was Dutch for flame ;-) now that would have been good - a Flaming Dictionary. >QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS is probably a spelling dictionary. Geoff Wicks >told me there was such a dictionary around somewhere, but I never saw it. If you want to see it, I can email it to you, it's freeware. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
RE: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
You are right the gold card manual say's the gold card doesn't work with the Qpower regulator but it doesn't explain why. Henk Verbeek -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Dilwyn Jones Verzonden: maandag 20 mei 2002 20:11 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide >I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each >including postage if anyone is interested.. I seem to remember QPower regulators didn't work properly with Gold Cards (OK with TrumpCard). Can't remember the reason, perhaps it was that Gold Card needs a rapid burst of power at startup which QPower regulator doesn't allow too well. Anyone know if I'm right or wrong or what is the correct answer? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Dilwyn Jones wrote: >Peter, one other possibility with this is NOT to sell the binaries as >such. Rather, if you want support, you buy a support contract and are >given a unique identifier you quote when you want help from Roy or >Jochen or D&D or Claus/Peter, plus the OFFICIAL SMSQE the only one for >which you'll get support. That way, the binaries could be distributed >for free, but the traders would still make money from the support side >of things. And part fo the money could still go to Tony and perhaps >the Registrar would also get a little money for his work in >maintaining the 'official' distribution. > >Just a thought... Nice idea, fine by me! The license must say that, though. If it's not in the license, the developers won't work under it. Thanks a lot! Peter
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
Hi Jim, Another system you may want to look at is the lastest version of Dilwyn Jones VIEWER program - this has a links ability in it, not really HTML, but works beautifully. Can link to items within the same document via the line its on just by putting the cursor over it and ENTERing, on load in another doc by using a different kind of link which you pre-embedd in the text. I'm using it to convert a freeware encyclopedia for the PC to the QL which has links in it, which is about half done. Darren Branagh Director, Wicklow Web Centre Limited Computer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales & Upgrades. Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: James Hunkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:31 AM Subject: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer? > Guys, > > I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for > the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to > look at (if there are any) that give the following: > > 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) > 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) > 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) > 4) can display some graphics > > Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from > the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a > basic capability (tables and figures at the most). > > Thanks for the help, > Jim >
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
>I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each >including postage if anyone is interested.. I seem to remember QPower regulators didn't work properly with Gold Cards (OK with TrumpCard). Can't remember the reason, perhaps it was that Gold Card needs a rapid burst of power at startup which QPower regulator doesn't allow too well. Anyone know if I'm right or wrong or what is the correct answer? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
> 1, QMOSAIC - I think this was a UNIX port, and a bit buggy. Available in > the freeware libraries (Dilwyn?) and probaby the QUANTA library. Yes, my disk GE62. That is version 0.80a, described as SMSQ/E compatible. Q-Mosaic is by FTS Software in Italy. > 2. LYNX - A text only HTML browser ported by Jonathan Hudson from the > unix/linux sources. Available from his Website (follow the link from > Dilwyn's Page) This could even run from a disk on gold card systems if I > recall, and was basic but worked. This is probably your best bet, but it is > pretty big I think. www.daria.co.uk - as you say, a bit big and large numbers of files and directories, though there is the cut-down Tim Swenson version with just what you need to get going. Both are text only browsers IIRC. > 3. HYPERBROWSER - What norman was talking about, by Tarquin Mills. I don't > know if this was ever finished (tarquin?) Not fully finished, but worked reasonably well, only trouble was you had to register it I think, though I'm not sure of the early demo versions allowed any useability. It had the facility to use Photon to view graphics by clicking on the link or filename of the graphic IIRC. > 4. DOC2HTML - A useful utility that converts quill doc's to HTML - Written > by Dilwyn Jones and available on his web page. Not a browser though - just lets you use Quill to create HTML pages with some extra features like links and so on. There's also Roy's HTML Machine for creating tags in just about any text editor as long as PE is there (needs stuffer buffer) > There is always the Prowess reader, but as you said, not all people are > running prowess. Irrespective of how good Prowess is (and it is good) it takes a while to get used to and get the best out of it. Slight lack of time in the Dilwyn household which is why the Q60 under the desk isn't yet as used as it ought to be! Back to my soapbox...I WANT SOQL!!!
Re: [ql-users] QDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Hunkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> QDT seems a very interesting development. A GUI would put 'QL_ware' >> into the frame with modern OS's. >> >> I learn't computing on non-GUI machines, yet I now use the GUI's >> available for other OS's all the time. >> >> I haven't commented on QDT before ... yet if you need any help with user >> testing, then I could oblige. > >Actually, while QDT started, as you say, as a desktop GUI, it is growing >rather dynamically. It turns out, as most of us realize, there are a >lot of capabilities available for the QL thanks to different people who >developed things like FileInfo, Scratch, Screen Dazzler, pointer >environment, etc. However, many users (including myself) have not taken >advantage of all of them due to knowledge limits and/or time constraints. Indeed ... it is very capable when it is all put together. I second the time constraints ... :-) >So QDT will be trying to give easy and clear access to many of these >capabilities under its desktop GUI environment. That is exactly what is required ... EASY ACCESS to features that currently only appear to be available to experienced users. >After the US QL show in a couple of weeks, I will start working on >updating my websight. The update will show hints at a lot of the 'new' >interfaces to the different QL capabilities. I suspect that it will >take 3-4 weeks after the show and I will let everyone know when the >update is completed. I will be showing some of the interfaces at the US >show for those who can attend. > >The beta testing will be done by a small and tightly 'controlled' group >(resources and time are a huge problem for me - as they are for most >people). I will keep your offer in mind when the time approaches. OK. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST -
I have one Cumana v1.14 interface. In theory, I have a manual but don't know where to find it yet. Yours for cost of postage if you want it. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 19 May 2002 11:20 Subject: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST - > There seems to be a dire shortage of these at the moment. Roy is not > responding to my emails, so I do not know if he is getting them and has any > disk interfaces left!! > > Does anyone else have any for sale?? > > Rich Mellor > RWAP Software > 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR > TEL: 01977 614299 > http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware >
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Peter, one other possibility with this is NOT to sell the binaries as such. Rather, if you want support, you buy a support contract and are given a unique identifier you quote when you want help from Roy or Jochen or D&D or Claus/Peter, plus the OFFICIAL SMSQE the only one for which you'll get support. That way, the binaries could be distributed for free, but the traders would still make money from the support side of things. And part fo the money could still go to Tony and perhaps the Registrar would also get a little money for his work in maintaining the 'official' distribution. Just a thought... -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html Peter Graf wrote: > I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of > Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: >
Re: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
Dilwyn Jones wrote: > On a disk I have here, I've found a file called > QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS - does anyone have any idea (a) what language > is it (Dutch?) and (b) what it might be (i.e. content)? > > -- > Dilwyn Jones > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html > > > Hi, Vlaams = Flemish. Language spoken by +65% of the Belgian population. Although the official language (administration, schools, ...) is Dutch, most people in Flanders use their own Flemish dialect. QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS is probably a spelling dictionary. Geoff Wicks told me there was such a dictionary around somewhere, but I never saw it. What a relief after all those frustrating 'Open Source' messages. François Van Emelen
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy wrote: >>I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of >>Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: >> >>Proposal 1: >> >>Keep the "appointed resellers". Make sure that nobody can get their >>support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done >>by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants >>their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the >>resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free >>distribution of executables again (first "license"), so non-commercial >>developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The "appointed >>resellers" will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They >>are allowed to sell it! >[...] >I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code >official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. Wolfgang, please also have a look! ROY AND I SEEM TO ALMOST AGREE! (a rarity :-) CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? I have no objections that freely distributed executables are restricted to the official versions! I agree to destroy "patched" versions then. It was only meant to help. But no need for that, if "official" work is acceptable, also for us Qx0 folks. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Documentation
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > Sorry we are not certified SMSQ/E resellers. > >THIS IS UNFAIR. Your remark is unfair. I just showed: No need to become "appointed reseller" under this socalled "license" to do a good job. That's a valid point. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > Just imagine today's "license" situation had already existed when Q40 > > hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. > >Untrue. Rubbish. None of the guys who wrote operating systems for Q40 would ever do the same under this socalled "license". Peter
