Re: [ql-users] Quanta Claus is coming...
On 7 Nov 2002, at 21:11, Michael Berger wrote: > > Hello Everybody! > > I am SO tired of that endless piracy discussion. Do you really believe anybody likes it? On the othe rhand, if there is really a problem like that, shouldn't you be told? (..) > This is my advice to the involved parties: get your duel pistons out, > involve lawyers, Let(s hope it doesn't come to that. > do whatever you want - but please stop using this > community like a hostage! I wasn't aware I was doing that. Telling the community about a problem in its midst is not holding it hostage, if believe. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 21:46, dndsystems1 wrote: > But he has asked you, correct. Not after the licence came into force correct... > You have not told him, correct. So I do > not know, correct. You are selling them. correct. You must ask correct. You didn't still correct. etc... > This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing > else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is deleted > as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list > nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught Dilwyn > Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the > wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) > address hoping they will catch on. How nice of you to explain this now And strange how you got all other email but mine... > If anyone wants to contact D&D Systems the front door is [EMAIL PROTECTED] > as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax & phone are all > included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact > bit? Simple - I used the email you use here. Of course, now you tell us that all other email goes in the bin... Also, don't forget to mention that I emailed Derek directly - he gave me a choice of 2 email addresses one of which I used. Had he told me to use only one, I'd have used that only. > Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used 2 > years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. It was used on 14th of june 2002 - which is where I got it from and emailed you. > My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? I think you have had his reply... > Dennis - D&D Systems > Just to make things clear - is the above email address, i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] the one you are asking me to use in reply to my earlier message on this list? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 23:21, Mike MacNamara wrote: > (...). Which license would it be under, old or new?? This would be the new licence. But, anyway, for the end user nothing much has changed, apart from the fact that, if they are technically literate, they can get the sources and tinker with them. Sorry Roy, I'm answering in your stead... Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
On 7 Nov 2002, at 17:07, Dave P wrote: (different possibilities on different machines) I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but, obviously it is something. I distinctly seem to remember that, as long as something is useful only for one machine, I see no problem in putting it in the code for that machine. COnversely, it does without saying that machines that don't have a facility (your example of mdvs is great) then they don't have it - Q60 or the Atari don't have mdv code and why should they? On the other hand, if some new functionality exists for a machine which can be useful for other platforms, why exclude it? Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
Dave P writes: <> > Of course, now he's going to get a bunch of emails from his devotees > telling him how wonderful he is. I really should get started on mine, so I > have to go now. <> I already sent mine. Looking forward to read yours ;) Per
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
At 00:19 08/11/2002, you wrote: ??? 7/11/2002 6:37:57 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >> I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the >>ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) >(8-)# > >... and I now have seven sheds. Hmmm a clear win for PM Blair's policies Maybe they should turn it into party motto... "We provide sheds to the shedless (less as in less than 7 ;-P Hmm I have a shed roof in my garden, but someone seems to have nicked the shed. Either that, or the roof is actually someone elses and a previous tenant at this place nicked the roof... BTW speaking of parties, which was that UK party? .. the one with the totally crazy name and the crazier members?? The Monster Raving Loony Party. Used to be led by Screaming Lord Sutch, until his untimely death (suicide by hanging). It is now led by his cat. Their website: http://www.omrlp.com/ Funnily enough, some of the policies they've put forward in the past have since become law... Maybe the lunatics really are running the asylum... -- Cheers, Ade. Be where it's at, B-Racing! http://b-racing.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
??? 7/11/2002 6:37:57 ??, ?/? Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >> I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the >>ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) >(8-)# > >... and I now have seven sheds. Hmmm a clear win for PM Blair's policies Maybe they should turn it into party motto... "We provide sheds to the shedless (less as in less than 7 ;-P BTW speaking of parties, which was that UK party? .. the one with the totally crazy name and the crazier members?? Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 20:52:36, Malcolm Cadman wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tarquin Mills ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> >>In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. >>In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch >>and the Grafs had split, so could not. >>In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I >>find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my >>message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms >>keep shooting themselves in the foot? >> >>P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. > >D&D have not notified there presence with the Q60. ... but after I sent the emailshot out they provided some in put for it, so they may well come. I hope so - the air needs clearing and text here is not the way. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 22:31:35, Bill Waugh wrote: (ref: <00c601c286ad$6ee41220$b06401d5@famwaugh>) > > >- Original Message - >From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:03 AM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > >> >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: >> (ref: <012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma>) >> >> >> >The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a >certain >> >other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of >publicly >> >ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) > >> I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# > > I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the >ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) (8-)# ... and I now have seven sheds. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In message <023001c286b2$90e7b480$91f4193e@asusone>, dndsystems1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Roy Wood - read this. From Peter reguarding never ending story from you about illeagl versions. It was a bug in the memory manager. TT told me that he was desperately searching but could not find it. We tried to help him and Richard finally located it, and after some tests for reliability I submitted the bugfix to TT at 22.03.2001. At 15.05.2001 TT informed me that he had included the fix into his version. TT did not inform me about a new version number for this fix so I called it "2.98 patched" instead of increasing the version number. Beyond that I have never distributed any patches. Is that clear? It is only a fix for a bug with the nickname of 'patched'. I told you about this bug fix face to face at Quanta Hove Feb 2002 and thought no more of it. Well? I was given a patched version at the Hove show which would not work on my Q 40. I was told 'buy a new Q60' - a verbatim quote. Not helpful to me and not helpful to the people who bought Q 40s from us and had problems. I suspect there were other changes in main chips on the Q40 after we sold them but that would be paranoia wouldn't it ? Whatever the point, this was still a change and therefore still illegal. It was never submitted to Wolfgang as source code. Not in the official release and therefore against the licence. You may say that TT said he had included it in his release but it was not in v 2.99 so he obviously didn't. As an official SMSQ/E reseller I was never passed this code as a new release. You actually had no rights to release it. Squirm how you want. -- 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 the QL is really all about
??? 7/11/2002 5:39:48 ??, ?/? "Bill Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > >- Original Message - >From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:44 AM >Subject: RE: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about > > >> >> Insert warm rosy glow here ! >> Well done Tony. > >Just what I said at the start of the current discourse? >" C'mon guys it's a hobby and a hobby that includes some nice people, >.." > Yep especially the ones that sell their Q40s to poor Europeans living in the US I have to add :-) Phoebus "Ahoy there mateys!" (Inside joke... Bill surely understands) :-D
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Bill Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003 > > > - Original Message - > From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:19 AM > Subject: RE: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003 > > > > > > What sort - naked QLs all over the place - with their 'bits' hanging > out :o) > > > > Uh won't you need a license to distribute it ? > I nominate Wofgang - he he (wicked stirring motion of hand) I like it, thats a prime candidate for the 'Quote of the month' Mike > > All the best - bill > > >
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Hi Roy Nice to hear from you, just one little point here which I don't think I missed. If D&D use SMSQ/E which you refer to in you other email, that was sold with Q40, and abide by that license, nobody would object. Yes. I was concerned by a remark by Wolfgang to the effect that if a copy of SMSQ/E was lost, like bread, a new copy had to be paid for. OK(maybe), but as the old license stood you upgraded, replaced, etc. We lost 2 complete systems to lightning last month, luckily we managed to recover most things from other machines, but if a 3rd machine had been on at the time that would not have been possible. Now, because of the new license I assume we would have to repurchase SMSQ/E (OK). Which license would it be under, old or new?? You stoutly deny revising SMSQ/E, I was talking about David Gillhams revision of the code, you were the seller. .Just putting record straight. nothing to do with money. Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > >Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree > >to be bound a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be > >right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue > >using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or > >updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) > You miss the point here, Mike. All software bought before the new > licence started is and always will be legal. You can continue to use it > as you see fit. All sales post the new licence are covered by it and > anyone who supplies a copy of SMSQ/E for any platform has to be an > accredited reseller and pay TT his due. > >> But, they are selling new versions now. > >According to D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item > >able to be used for the purpose it was purchased. If the Grafs > >have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely > >they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, if not, then > >they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was > >purchased. > Again a new, patched or fixed version must originate Wolfgang and him > alone. As the controlled of the code he will then pass it to the > resellers for distribution. Even to change the SMSQ/E string in the > config block would be a violation of the licence. No patch or change is > minor and all can have repercussions. > -- > 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 License
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it discourages development. We never said they have to be identical just 'coherent'. Code that works on all platforms should be common and code that is specific need not. The thing is that all calls to platform specific code should be handled by the other platforms without a crash and the whole O/S should maintain integrity. This can only be done if the code is controlled and that is the post the Wolfgang has taken on. We all want development we also want it to work. -- 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 the QL is really all about
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about > > Insert warm rosy glow here ! > Well done Tony. Just what I said at the start of the current discourse? " C'mon guys it's a hobby and a hobby that includes some nice people, .." All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Dave P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > You cannot be serious, man. We have a contracted agreement with Quanta > > to supply complete working motherboards as a minimum and that includes > > some kind of O/S, as we have stuck rigidly to the contract conditions > > the answer is er... no! Quanta have in effect granted us overdraft > > facilities so we never go into the red at D&D and can afford to invest > > in massive hardware projects like er... oh yes, the Q60. If your CPU > > is any good? you might be able to sell it to Peter Graf who could > > supply it to us and we could sell it to you :-) > > Hehehe :o) > > Sounds kinda contorted. Does this mean you're not allowed to sell spares? > If someone's Q60 breaks and it's outside the warranty period, do they have > to buy a whole new Q60? GO WRONG ! you cannot be serious, man! The Q60 is very, very robust and very repairable, no sweat. It is designed so that you cannot lose all of it. If you crushed half of it we could re-use the bits on the other half, good thinking design-wise. Spares: off the shelf but of course dusty. > > I have lost a complete evenings work messing about with is silly email > > stuff instead of working. > > I know how it goes. I have lost about 2 hours of ARM/E development time in > the process of spitting fire at the unpolitik of it all! > > Dave > > Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? Roy Wood - read this. >From Peter reguarding never ending story from you about illeagl versions. It was a bug in the memory manager. TT told me that he was desperately searching but could not find it. We tried to help him and Richard finally located it, and after some tests for reliability I submitted the bugfix to TT at 22.03.2001. At 15.05.2001 TT informed me that he had included the fix into his version. TT did not inform me about a new version number for this fix so I called it "2.98 patched" instead of increasing the version number. Beyond that I have never distributed any patches. Is that clear? It is only a fix for a bug with the nickname of 'patched'. I told you about this bug fix face to face at Quanta Hove Feb 2002 and thought no more of it. Well? Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
In message <005201c2864a$e385e4e0$0d5c933e@tony>, TonyTebby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes "Confidential in as much as you will not pass information on to any other interested party, this way I can speak freely and as I want. Don't tell Wolfgang, Marcel, Jochen etc. etc. On my part I must tell Derek all (partner) and allow Peter Graf (associate) at least to have some information (maybe all) of what is happening." Who do you think has been refusing to communicate? -- The Q60 - licence fee (royalties) Dennis Smith states that "We have been producing the Q60 for over a year" and "Licence money has been paid" - who was this licence money paid to? I certainly did not get it. --- More in sorrow& I accept the blame for writing QDOS and the consequences, but what have Wolgang Lenerz, Jochen Merz and others done to merit the treatment they are getting - they deserve to keep their fingers. Tony Tebby I think that this says it all really and anyone who has any cause to doubt the honesty of those who have striven to keep SMSQ/E on course should take note. I personally feel I owe a debt of gratitude to TT for all of his work over these years. His enthusiasm on the occasions when we met certainly played a large part in keeping my interest in the QL going. Tony's statements have backed up many of the things that we have been saying over the last few months and should really blow the cobwebs away from those who doubted. Still, given the way some people seem to react, I suppose there will be those who do not believe him either. -- 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] Re-subscribed
In article , Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Hmmm I hope majordomo likes this address more than my dokos-gr.net one... >It took up to 2 hours to resend the messages... we'll see how this one works Well ... you're on the board :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 6 Nov 2002, at 22:26, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > Peter has paid the licences in advance of sales. Sales to the end of > > the year need to be paid at year end. Peter has asked Wolfgang for the > > bank account to pay licence fees and although Peter has had replies > > from Wolfgang on other matters the bank account is still a mystery to > > Peter and therefore me. I formed the impression that the acount might > > not have set up yet, I don't know. > > He has not asked me for that informationsince the licence has > become in force! > He has Tony's bank account, of ourse and canpay him directly, if > he so wishes. > He could send tony a cheque (or me). > etc > > Wolfgang But he has asked you, correct. You have not told him, correct. So I do not know, correct. I know from what you have said that you have used [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a redundant address that I use for reading this list, nothing else. If anything other than this list tries to come in it is deleted as spam automatically. If I use another computer to read the list nothing gets deleted and I can see all. This is when I caught Dilwyn Jones, Tony Tebby, Alex Wells and maybe one or two others using the wrong address. I always try to reply using my correct (different) address hoping they will catch on. If anyone wants to contact D&D Systems the front door is [EMAIL PROTECTED] as in all advertising for over a year. Postal, fax & phone are all included. Look on the web www.q40.de. Where is the hard to contact bit? Nobody has been given the Supanet address above to use. It was used 2 years ago for a different purpose, it has never been public. My Email to Tony Tebby was on 08.10.02 18:44 ? Now what? Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: > > > That is the wrong address you fool and you know it. > > Hmm, it's the address YOU use to post on here. > Since it is foolish to use - what? > > > > Do you think I > > have not searched through that address, you have been informed of the > > correct address to use but you will not use it, why? Even now you have > > not contacted me on the D&D address but you have had me waiting for > > over a week expecting it to come in, what can I do if you will not > > send it. Everyone else around the world contacts us but you do not > > know how to do it. > > YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A WEEK? > Ha! > This is so ridiculous, it had me laughing for a minute. > Let's set seom things straight, hmmm? > First of all, I don't have to contact you. > YOU have to initiate contact - after all, YOU are selling something > that doesn't belong to you. > Second I contaced you at the email address you used here in this > list. Reply : silence. > Third, I replied to an email (in JULY!) sent to me privately on a > totally other matter by Derek, asking about this. Reply: silence. > Fourth, after Tony Firshman made enormous efforts to get to you, > Derek finally emailed me, giving me a choice of 2 email addresses. > I used the first one he gave me. I sent you (D&D) a long email to > that address, containing a copy of the one I later sent to the > list,and telling you that I intened to put this email on the list. reply : > achnowledgement of receipt - then silence. > About a week later, I reminded you and asked for your reply. > Reply : please use "proper channels". > Guess what - at that time, I thought that the proper channel was > this here list. > As you will see in my other email you are using the wrong address. Derek emailed you and told you to send directly to me using the correct address. > > > I have contatced DEREK on the email he GAVE me for > > > correspondence on this matter. > > > > > > You have had a copy of this email for a week on this. > > > If you want to deny this, that's fine by me. > > > > > > > Licence money has been paid. > > > TO WHOM? > > > WHEN? > > (no reply here...) Peter paid Jochen, so? > > > > > > > >I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to > > > > me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. > > > > > > Hmm, that's NOT what Tony said to me. > > > > > > > > > > > We have sold machines that do not have SMSQ/E - they boot into > > QDOS > > > > Classic instead but then you already know that fact?? > > > > > > On ROM? > > (no reply here) > > (...) Of course on ROM > > > > > > If you sell SMSQ/E without a licence you are breaking the law - not > > > me as you are trying to make out. > > > > > > Wolfgang > > > > Derek does not deal with this, that is why I asked him to point you to > > me _after_ Tony Firshman assured me email(s) were coming in my > > direction but they never did, did they? > Why do youask Derek to point me to you - why don't you contact > me, Are you trying to say that Derek never mlentioned my emails > to you? > > > Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - > > do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will > > work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, > > just use it. > > It's the one you have use in this list, of course, isn't it? No, never, do not use it. See other email. > Please note that these are not my concerns, but yours. > > You are breaking tha if you are selling SMSQ/E without any > licence. > > Wolfgang You have a fault, it is between advertising for sales and actually selling something, they are 2 different things. We have not worked on the Q60 very much all summer, in other words we have had a break from the work including sales, now demand is high again we are in production and no you cannot buy one until we start to release them, see, no sales of this production run yet. Dennis - D&D Systems
Re: [ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
Την 7/11/2002 4:28:35 ��, ο/η Malcolm Cadman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> έγραψε: > >Looks like you got yourself sorted out ... with Arachne ... Now you can call me Spiderman... > >I just what to know who this 'Quantum Leap' organisation is :-) Oh just me... check http://www.dokos-gr.net/ >to find out :-) Phoebus (Writing under Windoze again)... Damn I have to fire up QNX and run Opera under there :-) BTW: Malcolm, I found someone to take care of our matter... I will send you an email soon :-) (And finally found a sensible and safe -and cheap- way to send money to England)
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:19 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003 > > What sort - naked QLs all over the place - with their 'bits' hanging out :o) > Uh won't you need a license to distribute it ? I nominate Wofgang - he he (wicked stirring motion of hand) All the best - bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
- Original Message - From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: > (ref: <012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma>) > > > >The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a certain > >other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly > >ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) > I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# I would have thought a property magnate ( sheds ) with access to the ear of Radio 4 would have been a natural (;-) All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
- Original Message - From: "TonyTebby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep You sent this to the Supanet address so it is auto deleted, there is the fault, see other email. I have never seen your reply to me. I should have told you to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dennis Smith states that "We have been producing the Q60 for over a year" > and "Licence money has been paid" - who was this licence money paid to? I > certainly did not get it. Jochen, and at year end you can have some more if I can find out what the starting date of this new licence is supposed to be. --- More in sorrow. I accept the blame for writing QDOS and the consequences, but what have Wolgang Lenerz, Jochen Merz and others done to merit the treatment they are getting - they deserve to keep their fingers. Tony Tebby
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jochen Merz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >No - I would not even consider doing it again if I could charge for it. >Pity, I liked the idea when I started it, and I'd done it every year >if it worked out OK - but after THIS experience - no, thanks, >it was too disappointing. Shame you had a bad experience. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Phoebus wrote: >I just installed a 33MHz 68040 (no EC) on my QXL-II and I have the other >one (68EC040-25) as a spare. If anyone wants it, please let me know :-) Did you just invalidate yer warranty? :o) I hope you stuck a good heatsink on the logic. Dave
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
In article <012501c285fd$2ce12d50$0100a8c0@gamma>, P Witte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Malcolm Cadman writes: > >> Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? > >Ill vote for you to be Mr January 2003 ;) Thanks :-) ... I am up for the digital camera photo ... at the London Show this coming Sunday 11th November 2002. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 10:19:23, Norman Dunbar wrote: >(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >>From: Malcolm Cadman [mailto:ql@;mcad.demon.co.uk] >>>Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:06 PM >>>Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? >>> >>What sort - naked QLs all over the place - with their 'bits' hanging out :o) >(8-)# >I had assumed he was talking about an event calendar. No, an illustrated calendar ... see other emails. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tarquin Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >In 2000 I went to the London workshop, I saw the Q40 and liked it. >In 2001 I went to the Byfleet workshop, tried to purchase a Q40 but QBranch >and the Grafs had split, so could not. >In 2002 I will go to the London workshop, I was going to buy a Q60 but now I >find out that they seem to be illegal. Do not say,"use QDOS Classic", my >message is simple and stark, sort it out! Why do non Wintel platforms >keep shooting themselves in the foot? > >P.S. I am bringing 4 new keyboard membranes for sale. D&D have not notified there presence with the Q60. However, lots to see and people to meet. Plus lots of second user QL equipment, books, and a large Spectrum donation to sort through. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QDT web sight update
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Hunkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >If anyone wants to take a look, it is at: > > http://www.jdh-stech.com > >I am working on the installer now and have a list of things still to >do. If all goes well, I will release QDT into a very limited Beta >around the end of the year. > >Progress is slow due to my many conflicting responsibilities, etc. but >I continue to plod along. Good luck with the 'plodding' ... I will take a look at your site this evening. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about
In article <016e01c285e4$89b874c0$2901a8c0@pc119>, Darren Branagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Excellent Tony. Nice to hear something like this for a change. > >Have we truly forgotten why the hell we all keep this up? I haven't. > >I lug a huge bloody suitcase full of QL stuff across the Irish sea half a >dozen times a year usually. I do it to help keep the QL scene alive, and to >meet people I regard as close and dear friends. I can vouch for that suitcase being not also huge, but very heavy :-) Attend the London Show, if you can, and show your appreciation ... -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED] uk>, Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >What sort - naked QLs all over the place - with their 'bits' hanging out :o) Only if YOU volunteer first, Norman :-) ... Everyone seems obsessed with those northern ladies ... A QL Calendar could be a serious one or a fun one. Any ideas ? >-Original Message- >From: Malcolm Cadman [mailto:ql@;mcad.demon.co.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:06 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003 > >Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? > -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
In article <005201c2864a$e385e4e0$0d5c933e@tony>, TonyTebby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >While walking on the fells, I came across a sheep with its horns entangled in a >wire fence. With great difficulty I managed to free it and, by way of reward for >saving it from a certain, lingering death, it tried to take my fingers off. Interesting analogy :-) It seems like the people involved will have to come to sensible agreements. Nice to see that you read the list, though. The energy should go into improving SMSQ ... let's hope this can be a catalyst for that to begin to happen. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:24:54, P Witte wrote: >(ref: <012501c285fd$2ce12d50$0100a8c0@gamma>) > >> >>Malcolm Cadman writes: >> >>> Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? >> >>Ill vote for you to be Mr January 2003 ;) > >I don't think anyone has beaten the Women's Institute one baring all. A news item on the radio gave me the thought. It was about a calendar just showing roundabouts in various parts of England. Which is apparently selling very well. People like it because the subject matter is essentially boring. >Seriously though, a rolling ql-users email (and also web based) is a >pretty good idea. > >I could also include a link on my regular emailshots. That could be a good outlet too ... -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Hi all, >I just installed a 33MHz 68040 (no EC) on my QXL-II and I have the other >one (68EC040-25) as a spare. If anyone wants it, please let me know :-) > >Phoebus >-- This mail was written using The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ >Running under FreeDOS beta (Nikita) - Kewl! Don't need Windoze anymore! > >-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ Looks like you got yourself sorted out ... with Arachne ... I just what to know who this 'Quantum Leap' organisation is :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
[ql-users] Re-subscribed
Hmmm I hope majordomo likes this address more than my dokos-gr.net one... It took up to 2 hours to resend the messages... we'll see how this one works Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
You are quite welcome to a copy of the free version of SMSQ which was supplied with it. I can email it to you if want. SMSQ/E was always a paid version and you can buy that if you want. Thank you for the offer but you didn't supply the QXL and I still have a debt to the person who did. Irrelevant it is free software and always was. -- 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 License
??? 7/11/2002 3:19:18 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > >This is an *operating system* we're talking about, a way for software to >use the hardware. If code running on radically different hardware cannot >be modified to take into account features of that specific hardware, that >really limits the development of hardware, and of software that runs on >it. > See my other response on the matter >The notion that all versions should have identical features could be >replaced with the notion that all versions should have compatible >features, even if the capability is different. EG: an ARM-QL could support >1600x1200 on a CRT, or 2048x1640 on a LCD. With touch screen support. And >USB. And ethernet. Things that should be included in a monolithic OS. > > Oh but SMSQ/E does allow that and it is by no means "monolithic" under the strict sense of the word... It is the fact that it has been used as such that confuses :-) And USB is not that difficult to implement (or even PCI as there is an implementation already for FreeMiNT/SpareMiNT specifically for Motorola Processors), once you get your "metadriver" system in place... Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
??? 7/11/2002 1:02:47 ??, ?/? "ZN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >Then what you really want to say in the licence would be that additions to >SMSQ/E to add a feature of capability to one platform will not be accepted >if it may seriously hinder or even prevent adding an equivalent feature or >capability on another. Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such >feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need), >but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get >'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremenodous problems >with writing applications and further additions to SMSQ/E. > >Nasta While your original proposition (ca. 1995 IQLR) would already have solved the problem... Not to mention that with the exception of writing a Memory Manager, a Driver API or an internal IP stack (for other purposes eg. making it an embedded OS for Internet devices and even that wouldn't really qualify), nothing extremely new can be done to improve SMSQ/E which is extremely robust as it is... Mind you that I believe that the following are not (and should not) be part of the OS core: Drivers (keyboard/screen/serial/disk/sound etc.) S*Basic PE Command line I/F (although for obvious -and historical- reasons these are included and perceived as a part of the OS and this illusion isn't really bad) File System (although some may disagree, but for me the FS isn't nothing more than the root object on where other objects (devices) are attached - Again SMSQ/E does provide object functionality, just doesn't call it that ;-)) IMHO what SHOULD BE part of the os ONLY: Scheduler I/O API (The drivers framework) Housekeeper (process manager) Job communication (Call them pipes or what ever you like) Object Manager (The Thing system) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License, Metadrivers and other nice stories
??? 7/11/2002 12:07:12 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > >Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the >utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view >for so long. Thanks. Please here note that if TT had made a different point in his email my objections would still stand on the license... It's just that up until now, I regarded the SMSQ/E license under a different light. Truth be told that a program developed continuously since 1983 at a certain point stops being a product and becomes a labour of love (it's art in its own right). This fact I overlooked. Regarding the rest of the OSS world however, I stand by my original opinion, which isn't that much unlike Dave's :-) > > >The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must >be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it >discourages development. > I would disagree on that. I don't believe that the license's intent to make everything identical. It's intent as I perceive it to make non-hardware specific functions behave the same. In that sense, if you are writing a program that's graphics oriented (to come back to my favourite subject), its useless if on a specific platform the same calls do different things. In the case of graphics for example I would say that you are confusing functionality with output. SMSQ/E achieves that as it stands now in the sense that even non-colour aware versions of SMSQ/E (later ones granted) can understand the colour specific commands even if the hardware (or the specific version's drivers) can't display them. That's not bad. It does ensure a level of compatibility which is not perfect but better than nothing Before something jumps in and says that I said to Roy that if totally new features were introduced that made older software incompatible that was okay... please note that these features should be available EVERYWHERE... therefore making SMSQ/E for ALL platforms incompatible, not just one :-) >For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may >not be supported by other platforms, *as long as it is an addition*, and >the software style guide states that if the feature is used in software >released for all platforms, the equivalent functionality should be >included (if possible) for other platforms too. Exactly my point :-) And also at least the other be aware of the extra functionality and not crash... This cannot be possible with patches (which in the specific Q60 case may or may not be affecting code functionality on other platforms, but that's besides the point here) but only with incorporation in the main source tree... >For example, say a machine is released that requires different code to >operate an IDE interface. That version should be allowed to exclude code >which is simply not relevant, like microdrive-related code, if microdrives >could never be attached to the machine. (this may be a bad example) > >That IDE code may for hardware reasons be entirely irrelevent to every >other version, but be required for this version just to achive the same >functionality. See here you are partially wrong and I will tell you why too. (I owe this explanation to Nasta btw) The problem with QDOS/SMSQ so far (and I believe its the most serious problem) is that in reality its "drivers" are really custom pieces of code (as in code that someone would write only to support a specific hardware/software combination and that wouldn't be available elsewhere in the OS) that really have nothing to do with the OS itself (the famous metadrivers discussion again). While QDOSMSQ provides us with the necessary functionality to do these things (and more... Really if we think about something "new" chances are that SMSQ/E already has it... problem is Tony never really "told" us about it... but more on that in a second), no one really sat down to write a driver framework (Objects, Methods and Classes... yes in reality SMSQ/E is a truly Object Oriented OS) and thus eliminating the need to keep "drivers" in the source tree. If such a framework is introduced, first of all, all discussion on how drivers and hardware specific functionality is implemented will immediately cease. (A very basic level of a "BIOS" equivalent with a quasi-driver of course will have to be maintained in the source tree in order for one to be able to boot the machine... that's understandable but the drivers in that case being what they should be wouldn't cause either controversy or incompatibilities ;-). > >Dealing with the machine at a hardware level, it seems silly to require >that all those patches be included in all versions of SMSQ/E, and/or that >additional features to support extra hardware be globally applied even if >other machines could never support the hardware. > True (see my take on the subject above :-) but in any case that wouldn't matter... as the interface would be there, just no
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
??? 7/11/2002 2:26:05 ??, ?/? Marcel Kilgus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: >Quick, somebody give that man some crayons! > Nah he won't like them unless they have an ARM processor and embedded Linux in them ;-) Phoebus
Re: QRe: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Roy, as I said I will not comment on the matter, but I do want to comment on the "lost email" thing as I do have personal experience... More than once I've sent email to demon.co.uk users and it got lost or bounced. I'm not sure what's wrong (Adelphia tells me that's demon's fault.. maybe so as adelphia has a lot of spammers amongst its users...) nonetheless, it is a situation that is possible. Remember how I had to contact you through a third party sometimes? I had trouble with Tony's email as well (and other demon users)as he had with mine (the multitude of my email addresses non-withstanding). Trouble is I have seen D&Ds replies to Tony which he forwarded. 'Get out of that without moving' as a well know comedy duo used to say. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: Funnily enough that evil commercial software developer Marcel Kilgus has put all of his changes to SMSQ/E into the source code that Wolfgang is distributing for free whereas the free spirits of open source have not. 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. Wrong. SMSQ/E can be, and indeed has to be, different on different platforms. It just has to be documented and approved. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. ? This does not make sense to me as a sentence. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. No it makes development a bit slower but stops us from chasing our tails looking for bugs in undocumented revisions. As I have said before on this list I have seen many versions of SMSQ/E which were release candidates where TT changed a small bit of code in one place only to find something going really wrong somewhere else. I was one of the beta testers for all of the versions except the Atari ones because I had all of the machines set up here so I know a lot more about this than you may assume. I was also one of the most vocal (ask Jochen) in reporting little things that were wrong. -- 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] Development
- Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:42 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Development > > Bill, > > plastic is nothing - well, it not 'kosher' is it, but you know. In the UK > now there are Vegetarian Haggis and even Vegan Haggis. These people are > taking the mickey! The whole point of haggis is 'there is meat in it' - > well, lungs, barley, onion, spice etc etc etc. I'm not going there, last time I made mt thought about veggies public I got severly flamed ( not char grilled mind you) > > And, they are so cute when you see them in the wild. The best ones are the > wild caught ones - less fat and a more gamey taste. The farmed ones are > quite bland really. > God they'll be GM next All the best - Bill
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
Sorry to labour the point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Just to put the record straight here. I have never altered, debugged or otherwise changed any of the software I have sold. For one thing I completely lack the knowledge to be able to do it. Interesting that the Q40 would not work without this change that has now been made. When Tony and I said there were problems with the Q 40 we were called liars. -- 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] Software pirates in our midst?
Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) You miss the point here, Mike. All software bought before the new licence started is and always will be legal. You can continue to use it as you see fit. All sales post the new licence are covered by it and anyone who supplies a copy of SMSQ/E for any platform has to be an accredited reseller and pay TT his due. But, they are selling new versions now. According to D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used for the purpose it was purchased. If the Grafs have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, if not, then they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Again a new, patched or fixed version must originate Wolfgang and him alone. As the controlled of the code he will then pass it to the resellers for distribution. Even to change the SMSQ/E string in the config block would be a violation of the licence. No patch or change is minor and all can have repercussions. -- 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] The Wall, etc, etc
Peter Fox wrote: > Pardon my ignorance, How does one enable sound and where?? Using MenuConfig on SMSQE.BIN. I somehow doubt this helps much, but it's at least worth a shot. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Quanta Claus is coming...
Michael Berger wrote: > I am SO tired of that endless piracy discussion. So is (almost?) everyone involved. Any suggestion how the discussion could have been prevented? No? Like it or not, some issues just have to be solved. > get your duel pistons out, involve lawyers, do whatever you want - but > please stop using this community like a hostage! Very funny. > I really would like to contribute to the effort to create one. Could > we start a discussion on that subject??? Good luck. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
Dave P wrote: > Some top guy at Microsoft did this on stage at a developers conference, > and came off sounding a bit loony! Ah, the ape. I actually saw that one. > Nah. I'm more famous to more people than TT, and I really crave the > anonymity he has. Never be in the music business :/ Right. I already thought "Dave P" sounds like a rapper. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
> Jochen did one as a freebie in QL Today a couple of years ago, and I don't > think he will ever do one again. It's much more work than you think and in > spite of clear instructions about size and format of adverts, many traders > did not stick to these. Well, correct. It was totally free - free giveaway with the magazine, free for every dealer. And it was a total nightmare too. The email problems I described in the previous issue already existed, and even though I asked for a monochrome GIF with the exact pixel size, I got all sort of things, true-color 100 times too high resolution graphics which looked awful when scaled down etc. No - I would not even consider doing it again if I could charge for it. Pity, I liked the idea when I started it, and I'd done it every year if it worked out OK - but after THIS experience - no, thanks, it was too disappointing. Jochen
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
> > I hope we can continue to build on this glorious system, to continue to > improve it to meet our changing needs/demands, and to strive towards that > elusive system that allows us to do what each of us wants, the way we want. > QL-users should realise that we are in a unique position to have such a > possibility. Lets not foul up here! Lets forget our disagreements and try to > work together! Well said! It could have been so easy - and even on the risk that I repeat myself: the license offers those who complained most about it more than anybody else ... So there's less royalty payment for the re-sellers, lower prices for the customers, there's more flexibility and the chance to do something - together! Jochen
Re: [ql-users] The Wall, etc, etc
Thanks for the help Marcel, but: Pardon my ignorance, How does one enable sound and where?? Regards, Peter In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcel Kilgus) wrote: > > Peter Fox wrote: > > The sound is rather like grinding gears and also happened when I had > > problems with flp1_ running QPC2 3.03 under XP. > > There seems to be a bug in DirectSound which can affect the first few > milliseconds of a sound. To circumvent this you can try to configure > "Enable sound" to "automatic". > > > Or will we all have to wait until you are less pressured? > > "we all"? Are there more people with sound problems? > > Ciao, Marcel >
[ql-users] Quanta Claus is coming...
Hello Everybody! I am SO tired of that endless piracy discussion. The only highlight of the last days was the nice story of that old lady which Tony told. But that is just one drop of normality in an endless ocean of rubbish. This is my advice to the involved parties: get your duel pistons out, involve lawyers, do whatever you want - but please stop using this community like a hostage! I remember someone asked if someone would prepare a QL calendar for next year (unfortunately I deleted all ql-users mails recently, because I was so frustrated by all those tons of ...). But anyways - that IS a good question, isn't it? My spontaneous answer would have been: Quanta Claus - who else? But since we are all adults (more or less) we know that Quanta Claus does not really exist. Must admit at the moment I do only have a very rough idea how such a calendar could be like (I never had one before because I just started into the QL adventure this summer). I really would like to contribute to the effort to create one. Could we start a discussion on that subject??? Kind Regards! Michael
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > > I was waiting for him to go to Eindhoven and jump up and down on > > stage screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers!" :o) > > Is this some obscure reference I don't get? A joke? Or just > extraordinary sense? Some top guy at Microsoft did this on stage at a developers conference, and came off sounding a bit loony! > > Of course, now he's going to get a bunch of emails from his devotees > > telling him how wonderful he is. > > Jealous? Nah. I'm more famous to more people than TT, and I really crave the anonymity he has. Never be in the music business :/ > Quick, somebody give that man some crayons! Assokay, my boss just brought me some. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
TonyTebby writes: <> Well, I think this sorts the sheep from the goats ;) Id like to take this opportunity to thank Tony Tebby, and also many others, some of whom he has mentioned in his mail, for all you have done for QL-users! Id like to assure you that your ingenuity, time and effort has given us many hours of good clean fun, as well as made significant contributions to many aspects of our work and leisure activities over the years. Thank you very much! An operating system is a rather special piece of software: Its job is to create a firm, understood and stable environment out of a disparate and confusing array of platforms. This then is the foundation on which we can let our diverse imaginations run riot to do all those wierd and wonderful things we want to do. "Freedom through dicipline" sounds just about right. The dicipline demanded of us is to work within the License - there can be no doubt now about the terms under which we have the right to continue to develop SMSQ-E. Once the foundation is secure we can enjoy the freedom this gives in full measure. I hope we can continue to build on this glorious system, to continue to improve it to meet our changing needs/demands, and to strive towards that elusive system that allows us to do what each of us wants, the way we want. QL-users should realise that we are in a unique position to have such a possibility. Lets not foul up here! Lets forget our disagreements and try to work together! Per
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
- Original Message - From: "Malcolm Cadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003 > > Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? > Jochen did one as a freebie in QL Today a couple of years ago, and I don't think he will ever do one again. It's much more work than you think and in spite of clear instructions about size and format of adverts, many traders did not stick to these. Geoff Wicks
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
Dave P wrote: > I don't want common sense. I want extraordinary sense! I'd already be satisfied with common sense after the mails within the last few days. Makes me stop wanting to bang my head against the wall. > I was waiting for him to go to Eindhoven and jump up and down on > stage screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers!" :o) Is this some obscure reference I don't get? A joke? Or just extraordinary sense? > Of course, now he's going to get a bunch of emails from his devotees > telling him how wonderful he is. Jealous? > PS: Sorry about the email, they don't allow crayons in here. Quick, somebody give that man some crayons! Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, ZN wrote: > Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such > feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need), > but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get > 'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremenodous problems > with writing applications and further additions to SMSQ/E. Or does it? My vision is: Someone writes a spiffy new [item] and it gets included on that version of SMSQ, because [XYZ] couldn't/wouldn't support it anyway. The feature is now available if people need it, and they can write applications (remember when we used to call them programs?) that can benefit from the feature. Now, your average software author writing for the market can use the feature if he wants to, but wouldn't want to limit his market to that platform alone. This is an *operating system* we're talking about, a way for software to use the hardware. If code running on radically different hardware cannot be modified to take into account features of that specific hardware, that really limits the development of hardware, and of software that runs on it. The notion that all versions should have identical features could be replaced with the notion that all versions should have compatible features, even if the capability is different. EG: an ARM-QL could support 1600x1200 on a CRT, or 2048x1640 on a LCD. With touch screen support. And USB. And ethernet. Things that should be included in a monolithic OS. imvvvho Dave
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > May common sense return to the land of the sheep, Baa! I don't want common sense. I want extraordinary sense! Yes, TT surely clarified the situation. I read it in my mind's ear in a God-like voice. I was waiting for him to go to Eindhoven and jump up and down on stage screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers!" :o) Of course, now he's going to get a bunch of emails from his devotees telling him how wonderful he is. I really should get started on mine, so I have to go now. Dave PS: Sorry about the email, they don't allow crayons in here.
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
TonyTebby wrote: > [much] Thanks a lot for clarifying the issue. I think this was really necessary. May common sense return to the land of the sheep, Marcel
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
On 07/11/02 at 17:07 Dave P wrote: >The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must >be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it >discourages development. > >For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may >not be supported by other platforms, *as long as it is an addition*, and >the software style guide states that if the feature is used in software >released for all platforms, the equivalent functionality should be >included (if possible) for other platforms too. > >For example, say a machine is released that requires different code to >operate an IDE interface. That version should be allowed to exclude code >which is simply not relevant, like microdrive-related code, if microdrives >could never be attached to the machine. (this may be a bad example) Then what you really want to say in the licence would be that additions to SMSQ/E to add a feature of capability to one platform will not be accepted if it may seriously hinder or even prevent adding an equivalent feature or capability on another. Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need), but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get 'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremenodous problems with writing applications and further additions to SMSQ/E. Nasta
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 15:43, Dave P wrote: > Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual > property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include > the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless > then two things happen: Well if it is in the binary only, then it won't be in the other versions, will it? However, to act like that would, of course, defeat the entire enterprise of havung a unified version of SMSQ/E... I would be pretty hesitant to include something like that in the official version since I think it would go against my very mission... > 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the > least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. > 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to > run it. Let's distinguish between two cases here. Take the example of the "MOVEP' instruction, which Fabrizio Diversi is taking out of the code. This will benefit, practcally, the Q60 only. I would , therefor,include it without any qualms in the Q60 version - it is Q60 specific. So, no lowest common denominator. If now another development were done, perhaps like P. Witte's idea of a home directory, i.e. something from which everybody would profit,that and this would be given to me under the proviso that it must be included only in one version, I would look very hard at including it but exluding it from other versions - don't you think I would be right to?. The difference is always, that MY perspective is to advance SMSQ/E on all machines, if feasible. Moreover, to be quite frank, I think that this discussion is VERY theoretical. Why? Because those who would want to exclude code from the benefit for other machines, are seemingly also those that have put themselves outside of the whole idea of developping software for SMSQ/E anyway. Where are all the hordes of programmers wishing to do something for SMSQ/E. Oh, sorry I forgot - none of them likes the licence so they prefer not to do anything (or do it out of sight)! > This hinders development of SMSQ/E. THAT hinders development of SMSQ/E. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 13:37, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > Wolfgang > > I understand where you are coming from, err .. Germany? :- > and I am not taking > sides, but with tongue in cheek. As I already said - do take side. No problem with me I don't hold grudges for something (politely) said in a discussion. > Don't you think this can get out of hand? See below > > As did I, from Qbranch, but was the code 'debugged' or 'repaired' > minor or otherwise?. It must have been if Q40/60 won't operate > without it, That makes us both pirates, and poor Roy a criminal > as well. THAT is simply not true. The Q60 comes (or at least came) with an SMSQ/E that didn't need to be "patched". At least, I got one of those! > Hmmm.. SMSQ.Gold , by a non registered person, was long before a > new license, was it 'unofficial' ??? Well, first of all, if it was before the new licence, that means that it isn't concerned by this debate. Of course, before the new licence was drafted, there were copies of SMSQ/E sold for various machines - they were sold under the lincence as it existed then ( a FAR MORE restrictive licence then the one we have now). I know, I bought some for my Atari and Gold Card QL, too (and yes, I paid for each version). All perfectly legal. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
> Tony Tebby wrote: (rest of message clipped). I just hope that this put some doubts to rest. And again I appeal to D&D - let's get on with it, correct the situation, it isn't too late yet. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ...
No worries, glad it was something simple. Cheers, Norman. PS. Of course, this means that various Haggis Hunting scenarios might just appear on QL users instead :o) But then again, maybe not ! - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Dave P [mailto:dexter@;spodmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:57 PM To: QL (E-mail) Subject: Re: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ... On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: > is ql chat still online ? > I got the following back when I sent a message to it just now : Thanks Norman. I moved the mail server to a new machine and that was the first post using a mailing list since then. I'll get it patched up and running within the day. Thanks for the alert! 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] SMSQ/E License
Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view for so long. On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, [windows-1253] Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: > If someone has copies of the list in-or-around '98 he will remember that > I had a huge discussion with Roy where we "agreed on dissagreeing" on > what open software is all about and why it should be supported, I did > use at that time the same analogy Tony Tebby used (the author and the > book) now... I like the intent of the new license - it's just a couple of specific areas I have trouble with. The license fee isn't one of them and never has been. The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it discourages development. For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may not be supported by other platforms, *as long as it is an addition*, and the software style guide states that if the feature is used in software released for all platforms, the equivalent functionality should be included (if possible) for other platforms too. For example, say a machine is released that requires different code to operate an IDE interface. That version should be allowed to exclude code which is simply not relevant, like microdrive-related code, if microdrives could never be attached to the machine. (this may be a bad example) That IDE code may for hardware reasons be entirely irrelevent to every other version, but be required for this version just to achive the same functionality. Dealing with the machine at a hardware level, it seems silly to require that all those patches be included in all versions of SMSQ/E, and/or that additional features to support extra hardware be globally applied even if other machines could never support the hardware. I hope I explained this properly - it's a difficult thing to explain when I'm tired and can't find the words. Dave
Re: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ...
Funny that Norman, I was fiddling with a power supply on the ADSL, then nothing would download although all Leds showed green, IE was affected to. Reloaded drivers and all appears OK. perhaps it is BT line problem. Haggis You affluent Anglos wallowing in luxury, while we poor stay at home suffer in silence. Freezers, indeed, we just lay them under a stone outside in the permafrost. Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "QL (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:34 PM Subject: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ... > > Dave, > > is ql chat still online ? > I got the following back when I sent a message to it just now : > > > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > > pipe to |/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l ql-chat > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Child process of address_pipe transport returned 69 (could mean service > or program unavailable) from command: > /usr/local/majordomo/wrapper > > > > Cheers, > Norman. > > - > Norman Dunbar > Database/Unix administrator > Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. > mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk > Tel: 0113 289 6265 > Fax: 0113 289 3146 > URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com > - > 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. > >
[ql-users] SMSQ/E License
Hi all, everyone knows that I was against the SMSQ/E license from the get-go... However after receiving TT's opinion on the matter (which is best so we now know where all interested parties stand at), I have to say that although I retain some minor reservations on the matter, I now stand behind his opinion and therefore I do support the SMSQ/E license as it stands. If someone has copies of the list in-or-around '98 he will remember that I had a huge discussion with Roy where we "agreed on dissagreeing" on what open software is all about and why it should be supported, I did use at that time the same analogy Tony Tebby used (the author and the book) now... In essence my objections up to now were to the fee if SMSQ/E was perceived as a product. It was an ommission on my part not to see it as a "special " work of art which is enduring... After the artist is done with it he releases it to the public but still retains rights to it... he didn't have to do it but he did it nonetheless so... yeah pay a fee, why the hell not? :-) It's a shame really I was looking at the tree and I was missing the forest... (I was blind but now I see *Heavenly music sounds in the background* :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ...
??? 7/11/2002 10:57:22 ??, ?/? Dave P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ??: > > > >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: > >> is ql chat still online ? >> I got the following back when I sent a message to it just now : > >Thanks Norman. I moved the mail server to a new machine and that was the >first post using a mailing list since then. > >I'll get it patched up and running within the day. > >Thanks for the alert! > >Dave > I tried it in the past myself and didn't work... but didn't say anything tho ;-) Phoebus > >
Re: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ...
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: > is ql chat still online ? > I got the following back when I sent a message to it just now : Thanks Norman. I moved the mail server to a new machine and that was the first post using a mailing list since then. I'll get it patched up and running within the day. Thanks for the alert! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This also requires them to contribute their > > changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their > > intellectual property. > NO. Read the licence again. > quote: > When such a proposal is made, the person proposing it may state > whether its change/addition/modification is to be : > > - distributed in the official versions of the source and binary > codes, or > - distributed in the official versions of the binary codes only, or > - not distributed in the official versions, but alongside them. > > If it is in the binary only, nobody (apart from me) gets to see it. Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. Dave
RE: [ql-users] Development
Mike, I've moved over to ql-chat - just in case ! Hungry, me ? I'm afraid that I don't actually have to hunt to eat. I have a perfectly good set of local farm shops, and farmer's markets which I frequent when the need to feed the freezer arises. As for digging a trench - you've abviously never tried digging a trench through Heather roots, if you had, you'd know better than to suggest it. Too much like hard work. I did try decoying them once, but mixed results - it seems to work best in the breeding season, but then, you're not allowed to kill them then - and for good reason. Seems that when the season starts proper, the little beggars know and seem to be able to recognise the decoys. I tend to prefer stalking them - I've had better results that way, and it's more 'man against nature' as well. :o) Norman. PS. How long before someone else chimes in I wonder ... - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Mike MacNamara [mailto:ql@;macnamaras.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development norman you must get hungry, try digging a narrow trench, 6" wide x about 2' deep on the south facing side of a steep hill, put some treacle mixed with oats in the bottom, and leave overnight. You will find this catches them, once in the hole they can't walk backwards. You can then dispatch them with the bow and arrow. 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] Software pirates in our midst?
Wolfgang I understand where you are coming from, and I am not taking sides, but with tongue in cheek. Don't you think this can get out of hand? See below Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 7 Nov 2002, at 11:53, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > > > > Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to > > be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I > > have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, > > while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under > > warranty, ( sale of goods acts) > Ooops, again I seem to have been unclear. > snip> > > If the Grafs have purchased a > > license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that > > works with that platform, > > I get a Q40 quite some time ago - it had a working copy iof the OS > in it, that did everything it was advertised as doing. As did I, from Qbranch, but was the code 'debugged' or 'repaired' minor or otherwise?. It must have been if Q40/60 won't operate without it, That makes us both pirates, and poor Roy a criminal as well. > > > if not, then they have been sold something > > unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the > > point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple > > copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't > > tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been > > altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. > > Roy Wood asked to become a reseller and he is one. > No probllem there. Hmmm.. SMSQ.Gold , by a non registered person, was long before a new license, was it 'unofficial' ??? regards Mike > > Wolfgang > >
RE: [ql-users] Development
Mike, I've moved over to ql-chat - just in case ! Hungry, me ? I'm afraid that I don't actually have to hunt to eat. I have a perfectly good set of local farm shops, and farmer's markets which I frequent when the need to feed the freezer arises. As for digging a trench - you've abviously never tried digging a trench through Heather roots, if you had, you'd know better than to suggest it. Too much like hard work. I did try decoying them once, but mixed results - it seems to work best in the breeding season, but then, you're not allowed to kill them then - and for good reason. Seems that when the season starts proper, the little beggars know and seem to be able to recognise the decoys. I tend to prefer stalking them - I've had better results that way, and it's more 'man against nature' as well. :o) Norman. PS. How long before someone else chimes in I wonder ... - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Mike MacNamara [mailto:ql@;macnamaras.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development norman you must get hungry, try digging a narrow trench, 6" wide x about 2' deep on the south facing side of a steep hill, put some treacle mixed with oats in the bottom, and leave overnight. You will find this catches them, once in the hole they can't walk backwards. You can then dispatch them with the bow and arrow. 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] What the QL is really all about
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 11:55:07, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >Tony, > >Our email system is Exchange, and when I got the email in from the list, >there was no attachemnet and the format is 'plain text' (I hate HTML and RTF >emails - just so someone can have their signiture embedded etc !). The >headers are as follows (from the message I got send) : > > > >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:44:53 - >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; > >It says above 'plain text' - which is how I have my email configured anyway. > >I'm puzzled now. Don't worry. I think your 'attachment' is basically plain text. It must though contain some control characters as Turnpike treats is as an 'attachment' with header and footer and action bars. I suspect it some chrs <26 which shouldn't worry even a text mailer. Sorry for worrying you (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
[ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ...
Dave, is ql chat still online ? I got the following back when I sent a message to it just now : This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: pipe to |/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l ql-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Child process of address_pipe transport returned 69 (could mean service or program unavailable) from command: /usr/local/majordomo/wrapper Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - 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] Development
norman you must get hungry, try digging a narrow trench, 6" wide x about 2' deep on the south facing side of a steep hill, put some treacle mixed with oats in the bottom, and leave overnight. You will find this catches them, once in the hole they can't walk backwards. You can then dispatch them with the bow and arrow. Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Development > > Hi Mike, > > I used to find this as well, but I changed over to nickel for a while - but > got bored. Using a shotguyn on such a small creature was a bit (lot) > unsporting. I only use a bow and arrow now - makes it difficult to get as > many, but more skilled on my part - and much more fun. > > Cheers, > Norman. > > - > Norman Dunbar > Database/Unix administrator > Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. > mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk > Tel: 0113 289 6265 > Fax: 0113 289 3146 > URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com > - > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike MacNamara [mailto:ql@;macnamaras.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development > > > > Norman > > Wild might taste better, but the lead shot really ruins them for > me. > > Regards > > Mike > > 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] Pirates and mad sheep
Tony Tebby wrote: > Dennis Smith states that "We have been producing the Q60 for over a > year" and "Licence money has been paid" - who was this licence money > paid to? I certainly did not get it. As one of the punters who paid D&D Systems an extra 30ukp to supply SMSQ/E with my Q60, I am dismayed at the suggestion that I have been using unlicensed software, albeit unwittingly. I hope that when the current confusion is cleared up, D&D Systems will issue a short public statement confirming that their customers possess legal copies of SMSQ/E... John -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 7 Nov 2002, at 11:53, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to > be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I > have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, > while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under > warranty, ( sale of goods acts) Ooops, again I seem to have been unclear. When you buy a copy of SMSQ/E, youbuy it under the licence as exists at that time. You can continue using it under that licence. If the licence changes and you but a new copy of the software, then you must comply (for that copy) with the new version. The situationis silghtly different if you are a reseller - you but a licence from the licence holder and sell the copy under that licence. Then you buy the next one etc (or you buy them in bulk). But when you buy a new copy of the licence and the licence has changed and you don't like the licence, you have two options: refuse to buy (and sell) the software under that licence and walk away. Agree to do so (as a third option, you could also try to negotiate & change the licence...) >According to > D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used > for the purpose it was purchased. There are no "minor" repairs. > If the Grafs have purchased a > license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that > works with that platform, I get a Q40 quite some time ago - it had a working copy iof the OS in it, that did everything it was advertised as doing. > if not, then they have been sold something > unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the > point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple > copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't > tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been > altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Roy Wood asked to become a reseller and he is one. No probllem there. Wolfgang
RE: [ql-users] Development
Hi Mike, I used to find this as well, but I changed over to nickel for a while - but got bored. Using a shotguyn on such a small creature was a bit (lot) unsporting. I only use a bow and arrow now - makes it difficult to get as many, but more skilled on my part - and much more fun. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Mike MacNamara [mailto:ql@;macnamaras.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development Norman Wild might taste better, but the lead shot really ruins them for me. Regards Mike 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] Development
Norman Wild might taste better, but the lead shot really ruins them for me. Regards Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:42 AM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Development > > Bill, > > plastic is nothing - well, it not 'kosher' is it, but you know. In the UK > now there are Vegetarian Haggis and even Vegan Haggis. These people are > taking the mickey! The whole point of haggis is 'there is meat in it' - > well, lungs, barley, onion, spice etc etc etc. > > And, they are so cute when you see them in the wild. The best ones are the > wild caught ones - less fat and a more gamey taste. The farmed ones are > quite bland really. > > :o) > > Norman. > > - > Norman Dunbar > Database/Unix administrator > Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. > mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk > Tel: 0113 289 6265 > Fax: 0113 289 3146 > URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com > - > > > -Original Message- > From: Bill Waugh [mailto:bill.waugh@;btinternet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development > > > > > Only joking I love a good haggis unfortunately there are a lot of poor > one's ( plastic skin, grizzle and spice ) > > All the best - Bill > 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] What the QL is really all about
Tony, Our email system is Exchange, and when I got the email in from the list, there was no attachemnet and the format is 'plain text' (I hate HTML and RTF emails - just so someone can have their signiture embedded etc !). The headers are as follows (from the message I got send) : Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Norman Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:44:53 - MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; It says above 'plain text' - which is how I have my email configured anyway. I'm puzzled now. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - 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] Software pirates in our midst?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.macnamaras.com - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? > > On 7 Nov 2002, at 0:52, Mike MacNamara wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks > > I was going to keep out of this, I am not going to takes sides. > > BUT, there seems to be an opinion that the License controlled by > > Wolfgang is a final solution to the SMSQ debate. > > Well, legally - yes. > > > I would just like to note that several folks have not agreed to > > this license, > Indeed. > > > else they would have asked Wolfgang to be a > > reseller, surely then, as they do not wish to agree to new terms, they > > must be legally able to continue as they did before the license was > > envisaged, > > No, sorry, this is wrong. If you don't agree with the licence, then > you stop. Do you mean that the many copies I have of SMSQ, if I don't agree to be bound a a new imposed license, are illegal. That can't be right, I have bought an item, and must surely be able to continue using it, while still being entitled to expect it is repaired or updated under warranty, ( sale of goods acts) > > > in other words before they can be held to have to comply > > with a new set of rules, they would have to agree these changes. > > NO. Sorry,, this sounds harsh, but the licence holder may change > the licence. If you don't agree wiht the licence, then you just must > walk away. Not when he has been paid for and concluded the sale. > > > Otherwise the new license would not apply to them. You can't decide to > > change the terms of sale, long after you sold the item, without the > > consent of the buyer. > True - so nothing changes WITH THE ITEMS THEY HAVE SOLD > UNDER THE OLD LICENCE. > > > If they don't want to be held liable to this > > license, why should they pay a new charge, they will be able to > > continue with the contract they already have > In this respect, you are right. > > But, they are selling new versions now. According to D&Ds post, the 'repair' was minor, to make the item able to be used for the purpose it was purchased. If the Grafs have purchased a license to use SMSQ with Q40/60, then surely they must get SMSQ/E that works with that platform, if not, then they have been sold something unsuitable for the purpose it was purchased. Sorry to labour the point, not only I, but hundreds of others, have purchased multiple copies of SMSQ/E with various bits and bobs over many years. Don't tell me now that the copies Roy Wood sells of SMSQ Gold which has been altered (not just repaired) is illegal, and that I am a pirate. Regards Mike > > > Wolfgang > >
Re: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 10:44:53, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > >Insert warm rosy glow here ! >Well done Tony. ... but text only readers will not have a glow about your 'attachment' of my original message (8-)# Is there no way of persuading 'Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)' which is your mailer, to use 'text only' and even better to indent enclosed messages with '>' ? -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 10:19:23, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >From: Malcolm Cadman [mailto:ql@;mcad.demon.co.uk] >>Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:06 PM >>Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? >> >What sort - naked QLs all over the place - with their 'bits' hanging out :o) (8-)# I had assumed he was talking about an event calendar. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On 6 Nov 2002, at 21:23, dndsystems1 wrote: > Whatever is said from now on I am going to offer you an olive branch - > do you understand? - you nicely email me with your concerns and I will > work through them with you. You must know the correct address by now, > just use it. I've read this passage again - oh dear what logical faults. Let's try to straighten things out. How can I know the correct address? You haven't mlentioned it here, have you? Now, in his last email, Derek gave me another address. But you see, either Derek speaks for D&D, and then the emails I sent him were sent to the correct address (why send them to another address?), or he doesn't, then of course, I fail to see how the email adress he gave me could be of any help since I can't know whether it truely is D&D's address... As to the Olive branch, it seems that you still don't understand the situation. It is up to you, as a potential reseller to request to become one. Failure to do so simply means you aren't a reseller and are not allowed to sell SMSQ/E. So it is up to you to contact me. However, guess what. I'm not that formal a guy and am quite willing to (re-) initiate contact even though, again, it is NOT up to me. So here it is. You give me, either privately, or (preferrably) on this list, the "correct" email address at which I can formally ask D&D what the hell is going on. I will then do that - but I'm already warning you that I'll send copy of the email to you also to this list. Perhaps we can then work things out and you may then sell SMSQ/E legally. However let me remind you that as a reseller, you must sell only official versions and pay 10 EUR to TT for each copy sold. Wolfgang
RE: OT: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development)
Rocky Mountain Oysters anyone ? :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: paul holmgren [mailto:paulholm@;ameritech.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Sheep (Was: [ql-users] Development) Well, ever has chittlens or KY's while in the states??? 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] Development
Bill, plastic is nothing - well, it not 'kosher' is it, but you know. In the UK now there are Vegetarian Haggis and even Vegan Haggis. These people are taking the mickey! The whole point of haggis is 'there is meat in it' - well, lungs, barley, onion, spice etc etc etc. And, they are so cute when you see them in the wild. The best ones are the wild caught ones - less fat and a more gamey taste. The farmed ones are quite bland really. :o) Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Bill Waugh [mailto:bill.waugh@;btinternet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development Only joking I love a good haggis unfortunately there are a lot of poor one's ( plastic skin, grizzle and spice ) All the best - Bill 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.
[ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
While walking on the fells, I came across a sheep with its horns entangled in a wire fence. With great difficulty I managed to free it and, by way of reward for saving it from a certain, lingering death, it tried to take my fingers off. More about mad sheep and fingers later. This note is written in response to some very strange comments that have been published in this list and elsewhere. Before attempting to set the record straight, I shall try to explain the principle of royalties (or licence fees). The principle is that an author devotes a few hours, a few months or many years creating what the law considers, rather quaintly, to be a "work of art". A "work of art" is not like other commodities. If you buy a book, the author gets a royalty on the sale, but, if you do not like the story, or if there are fatal flaws in the story line or even grammatical errors, you cannot get your money back. If an author is lucky or has a good agent (being a good author has almost nothing to do with it) his book becomes a best seller and the author pockets royalties out of all proportion to the effort that went into the book. Usually, the author (or the painter, the composer etc.) is unlucky. In all cases, however, the royalties only come some time after the work has been done. The royalties are a recognition of the work that has already been done. An author does not receive royalties to pay for new "works of art" or to improve existing works of art. Royalties are a payment for work that has already been done and nothing else. Royalties are due by anyone who makes a copy of a "work of art". A licence is slightly different - it is the permission to copy a "work of art". Making a copy without a licence is a criminal act. A licence may be tied to a support contract, but in the case of SMSQ-E, the "licence fee" has always be pure author's royalties (legally and fiscally). I wrote QDOS for the QL, it was not perfect, but it sort of worked. It was not the operating system that I would have liked to write, but it was the operation system I was paid to write. After the demise of Sinclair, I was under considerable pressure to provide a legal, maintainable alternative to pirated copies of QDOS (there are still pirated copies of QDOS being sold 16 years later). No one was prepared to pay me to do it, but I gave in and did it anyway. If you take all the royalties I have received for SMSQ-E and multiply by 10, it would still not pay for the development that was done for the various machines SMSQ-E was made available on. The only payments that I have received for support have been from a small number of generous people or groups who have contributed to the development of specific improvements that were made available to everyone. I never really thought releasing SMSQ-E would be worthwhile, but I was naïve enough to think that it might save my fingers. It didn't. == Now for setting the record straight. Wolfgang Lenerz About a year ago, suggestions started to be made seriously to make it possible for development to continue by making the SMSQ-E source publicly available. Nothing particularly radical about that, authors of books do it all the time, and I had already communicated complete or partial sources to various people who had requested them. Wolfgang Lenerz consulted me before setting off to Eindhoven to discuss the proposals with "interested parties". I do love to say "I told you so". I told him that if he went to Eindhoven, he would be "voted" to run the whole show, and what this was likely to do to his life. But he went anyway. Wolfgang Lenerz has been working (unpaid) to try to discourage aggressive lockout policies designed try and capture a larger share of the QL "market" at the expense of QL users. I.e. he has been trying to maintain a coherent cross platform environment. It is possible that you may have different ideas on how this can be achieved, but Wolfgang Lenerz has no personal or commercial stake - he has been working for the benefit of QL users and anyone who says otherwise is LYING. I suggest you think very carefully about the mentality of those who have thrown the insults that Wolfgang Lenerz has been receiving. The 10 Euro ($10) royalty In Wolfgang Lenerz's message in the list he states "Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold." I did not actually negotiate this but it was offered and I agreed. But think very carefully about it. This is a royalty as payment for the original development. It is not a payment for services, further developments etc. Before this arrangement came into force, Jochen Merz collected licence fees as my agent. He kept a share for providing support and passed on the rest as royalties (but
RE: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about
Insert warm rosy glow here ! Well done Tony. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:tony@;firshman.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] What the QL is really all about After the recent unfortunate, sometimes uninformed, and sometimes downright silly emails in ql-users about the SMSQ/E license, I was absolutely delighted to get a letter from an 'octogenarian' customer (one of the very few customers of any age this year) this morning to remind me what I like about the QL scene, and why I am still around. 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] Development
Depends how small you chop them up I suppose ! Dyslexic fingers strike again :o) Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:tony@;firshman.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Development ha ha - how many Englishmen then can you fit in a 'hose'. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG 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] Software pirates in our midst?
Doesn't everyone ? :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:tony@;firshman.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst? I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# 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] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
I believe, with my very limited hardware knowlege, that EC stands for Embedded Controller. It is a version of a chip designed to be put into some gizmo or other, and just left to get on with it. Usually a cut down version of the full blown chip. HTH - and if I'm wrong, at least I'll get told :o) Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Jerome Grimbert [mailto:jerome.grimbert@;atosorigin.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040 'EConomic' ? EC models have no FPU and no MMU, IIRC. 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] QL Calendar for 2003
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:24:54, P Witte wrote: (ref: <012501c285fd$2ce12d50$0100a8c0@gamma>) > >Malcolm Cadman writes: > >> Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? > >Ill vote for you to be Mr January 2003 ;) I don't think anyone has beaten the Women's Institute one baring all. Seriously though, a rolling ql-users email (and also web based) is a pretty good idea. I could also include a link on my regular emailshots. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
RE: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003
What sort - naked QLs all over the place - with their 'bits' hanging out :o) Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:Norman.Dunbar@;LFS.co.uk Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Malcolm Cadman [mailto:ql@;mcad.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] QL Calendar for 2003 Has anyone thought of doing of doing a QL Calendar ? -- Malcolm Cadman 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] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 01:28:45, P Witte wrote: (ref: <012601c285fd$2d6ddcf0$0100a8c0@gamma>) >The "simple and stark" message, that incidentally also applies to a certain >other beleaguered minority interest group in the painful process of publicly >ripping itself apart, must be: Unite or Die ;) I object to being linked to the UK Tory party (8-)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 02:01:09, Jeremy Taffel wrote: (ref: <007e01c28601$8a88b6e0$afba0050@taff3>) > > >One thing that puzzles me; Dennis states that Wolfgang used the wrong >address so he never received it. However the "wrong" address seems to be the >one that Derek uses to contact this list. I keep making the same mistake too - because of the two Ds (8-)# It was Dennis who said this. > I've never come across a "send >only" email address before. Reading between the lines, I think Dennis must have problems getting at this received mail. However the bottom line is that _Derek_ got all the mail (packaged into one) by Wolfgang. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
RE: [ql-users] QDT web sight update
I absolutely agree. And QDT seems a high quality product -Message d'origine- De : François Van Emelen [mailto:francois.vanemelen@;chello.be] Envoyé : jeudi 7 novembre 2002 10:41 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: [ql-users] QDT web sight update James Hunkins wrote: (...) > > At last some positive news on list list François Van Emelen
Re: [ql-users] QDT web sight update
James Hunkins wrote: Guys, I finally got my web sight for QDT converted to my new web publishing tool. It now has two new images and progress table updates. hi color notebook page [updated] QDT installer [new] If anyone wants to take a look, it is at: http://www.jdh-stech.com I am working on the installer now and have a list of things still to do. If all goes well, I will release QDT into a very limited Beta around the end of the year. Progress is slow due to my many conflicting responsibilities, etc. but I continue to plod along. Jim At last some positive news on list list François Van Emelen
