Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

- Original Message -
From: "Dilwyn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> > which the QL I fear will not recover. I appreciate your
feelings,
> > along with those of Marcel, Roy, Dilwyn and others. But the
fact
> > remains if this continues, the end result will benefit no
one.  A
> Hmmm, I have stopped having feelings at all on this one, I'm
just fed
> up of it all and wish it would go away.

Very sensible, I am off to a place called Wales for some peace.

Best regards,
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.macnamaras.com


>
> --
> Dilwyn Jones
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
>
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Tony Firshman]

On  Sat, 15 Jun 2002 at 20:35:07, Roy Wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoff Wicks
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> In the short period in which the Grafs
>>> have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders to
>>> the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the
>>> Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would
>>> understand but it was unanimous.
>>
>>Not entirely true. I know as a trader I have no axe with the Grafs to grind,
>>but I had a lengthy and interesting conversation at Manchester with Claus.
>Oops sorry Geoff. I forgot you were there I should have said that
>differently. I should have said the majority of the traders.
>>
>>I had a difficult and unpleasant Manchester, but this was nothing to do with
>>the Grafs. I think it is a bit dangerous to make them the scapegoats for the
>>failure of a show that was difficult for all traders for other reasons.
>I did not really think it was a failure. My Hove Show the year before
>was worse and Paris..
I had a good Manchester (and Paris)

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
  tony@.demon.co.uk  http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Dilwyn Jones]

> Hi Roy, Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!! Here's a realaity check based on
> reality. Peter and Claus are great blokes to do business with.
This is nice to hear - you have a good working relationship which will
be essential in the longer term.

> the build (Derek used to do half)). Every Q60 built works
perfectly -
> zero failure rate.
Again good, positive news.

> issue go in this list. Please let me point out one small thing as an
> example. I have said nothing before but look at this, just as one
> example, ok? In an earlier email you said something like "Peter even
> refused to go to the AGM evening dinner". Where did you get that
> information from? Here is the News, read this: I told Peter and the
> others we were not going to the AGM dinner so we could have a
> confidential talk about important Q60 hardware developments covering
> the next 2 years. Peter wanted to go to the dinner - I stopped him.
At the risk of dragging myself into this, I can confirm Dennis did
mention most of this to me either at the show on sunday or immediately
afterwards (forgot which).

--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Dilwyn Jones]

> which the QL I fear will not recover. I appreciate your feelings,
> along with those of Marcel, Roy, Dilwyn and others. But the fact
> remains if this continues, the end result will benefit no one.  A
Hmmm, I have stopped having feelings at all on this one, I'm just fed
up of it all and wish it would go away.

--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Geoff Wicks]

- Original Message -
From: dndsystems1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

>
> Well D&D Systems with Peter and Claus had a great AGM. Trading was
> good and we had no spare time to walk round really. We were talking to
> people interested in the Q60 nearly all the time, where did the orders
> come from if we spoke to no one?? Sunday was slow we only sold 2 Q60.
> 3 or 4 customers actually collected their Q60 at the show as well,
> great stuff. Where was the bad bit?
>

Pleased to hear it Dennis! I think trading was more difficult for the longer
established traders, but then you are the most exciting new development for
the QL. Since I wrote my comment one or two traders have commented that it
was not so bad after all. I had a bad trading session at Manchester although
one person who I helped over problems with setting up WIN_ disks on his QPC
has since sent me a large order.

One of the problems is that the QL has tended to become more and more
concentrated in the South (East) of England, and frankly I know relatively
few Northern QL-ers. I missed the people at Manchester who normally come up
for a chat. That's how I get ideas for new projects.The answer is more shows
in the North, but probably better to keep them as 1 day shows.

Best Wishes,
Geoff Wicks.

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZN 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>OK, now that's really ENOUGH.
True - I just got a bit fed up back there.
-- 
Roy Wood
Q Branch, 20 Locks Hill Portslade. Sussex. BN41 2LB. UK
Tel : +44 (0)1273 386030 Fax : +44 (0)1273 430501 (New number!)
Mobile +44(0)7836 745501
Web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <003901c214aa$bca32700$bea8193e@asusone>, dndsystems1 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Hi Roy, Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!! Here's a realaity check based on
>reality. Peter and Claus are great blokes to do business with. The way
>I have organised the Q60 production is Peter supplies _all_ parts for
>constrution including _all_ plug-in components - I/O cards, network,
>memory, everything. All parts are new and a first class consistant
>build is ensured. I build all the motherboard myself (we used to share
>the build (Derek used to do half)). Every Q60 built works perfectly -
>zero failure rate. Peter supplies me with any extras I ask for
>immediately, he waits a long time for payment and demands nothing, a
>perfect business partner, efficient and correct. He's a great bloke so
>you must stop saying he is not, the more you say it the less people
>will belive you. You are having a bad effect on yourself. Let the
>issue go in this list.
I said nothing in my dealings with him that was not true and TF and 
Jochen will both back that up. Maybe he has learned a lesson.


-- 
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] Just another idea

[ZN]

OK, now that's really ENOUGH.
Could we please keep testimony about Peter Graf's character off the list
(or on the QL chat list?) - and I mean ALL sides!!!
I don't think any of this is relevant to SMSQ/E being licenced one way or
the other.

The fact of the matter is, D&D and P.G. can do business with the current
licence. If their (undisclosed as far as I can tell) developer(s?) will not
develop under it, they have to take it up with their developers, or ask
other people that will develop under the current licence - not require the
licence to be changed for them. The more so, since once they can all get
the source in their hands, most of the problems we have all read so many
objections about, can be worked around, or become no-issues with a few
relatively small strategical contributions. Now, If parties involved think
that the answer from alternative developers to develop for the Q40 will be
NO before they even ask, I think they should think about the reasons,
starting from themselves. In any case, ALL of this is something that can
really be done privately and off this list.

Nasta

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[dndsystems1]

- Original Message -
From: "Geoff Wicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea
>
> > In the short period in which the Grafs
> > have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders
to
> > the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the
> > Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would
> > understand but it was unanimous.
>
> Not entirely true. I know as a trader I have no axe with the Grafs
to grind,
> but I had a lengthy and interesting conversation at Manchester with
Claus.
>
> I had a difficult and unpleasant Manchester, but this was nothing to
do with
> the Grafs. I think it is a bit dangerous to make them the scapegoats
for the
> failure of a show that was difficult for all traders for other
reasons.
>
> By the way, Sarah and John, if you follow this list don't be put off
by
> these comments. You are right to insist that the QL needs a presence
in the
> north of England and the way we improve the atmosphere (and sales!)
at
> Manchester shows is by building up contacts so that the traders and
> (northern) punters know one another better.
>
> Geoff Wicks.

Well D&D Systems with Peter and Claus had a great AGM. Trading was
good and we had no spare time to walk round really. We were talking to
people interested in the Q60 nearly all the time, where did the orders
come from if we spoke to no one?? Sunday was slow we only sold 2 Q60.
3 or 4 customers actually collected their Q60 at the show as well,
great stuff. Where was the bad bit?

Dennis - D&D Systems

Dennis - D&D Systems

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[dndsystems1]

- Original Message -
From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> In message <001301c213a9$8e90a4c0$d299893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike
> MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> 
> >> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
> >> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
> >> so I have saved face and can accept it.
> >I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
> >capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
> >wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
> >situation.
> OK reality check here. What do you actually know about the
situation?
> When I was selling the Q40 Peter Graf had no financial commitment
apart
> from sourcing the parts. Tony Firshman and I paid for the parts. He
did
> pay for the circuit boards and the 'licence chips and we paid him
back
> for these. All of the financial burden was on our shoulders. Peter
would
> not give Tony Firshman the circuit diagram at  the start because 'he
> will steal my ideas' . (Oh did hear someone say Open Source ?).
>
> Peter would not change one thing in his design in spite of the fact
that
> Tony and I pointed out several advantages to making changes and a
few
> real problems. Peter made very little effort to solve any problems
that
> existed in our manufacture. Tony found and bought most of the parts
but,
> because it was me that turned around and said there would be no more
> money until he made some effort to help us solve the problems. The
parts
> became 'Roy's faulty parts'. In fact some of the problems were with
his
> faulty EPROM's and  2nd hand video ram. I refunded money and gave
away
> free copies of QPC2 (which I paid for) to a few users who waited for
> ages for a Q40 which I could not supply because Tony could not get
them
> to work. Peter Graf got 3 times the amount of money per board than
Tony
> or I received. Tony for doing a whole lot of work and me for putting
the
> documentation together, sorting and compiling support disks, testing
the
> code from TT and advertising. In fact Tony and I still have several
non
> working boards so we made a whopping loss. I sympathise with D&D.
>
> Peter Graf has a job which, as far as I was led to understand when
he
> was saying things like, 'my job is sending me to Hong Kong etc.'
pays
> well. The only losers here will be the users because there is
nothing to
> stop Peter doing business in the licence - it is just that he has to
> rely on people who will not do the work because he has alienated all
the
> others. A rod for his own back I believe.
> --
> 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
>
>

Hi Roy, Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!! Here's a realaity check based on
reality. Peter and Claus are great blokes to do business with. The way
I have organised the Q60 production is Peter supplies _all_ parts for
constrution including _all_ plug-in components - I/O cards, network,
memory, everything. All parts are new and a first class consistant
build is ensured. I build all the motherboard myself (we used to share
the build (Derek used to do half)). Every Q60 built works perfectly -
zero failure rate. Peter supplies me with any extras I ask for
immediately, he waits a long time for payment and demands nothing, a
perfect business partner, efficient and correct. He's a great bloke so
you must stop saying he is not, the more you say it the less people
will belive you. You are having a bad effect on yourself. Let the
issue go in this list. Please let me point out one small thing as an
example. I have said nothing before but look at this, just as one
example, ok? In an earlier email you said something like "Peter even
refused to go to the AGM evening dinner". Where did you get that
information from? Here is the News, read this: I told Peter and the
others we were not going to the AGM dinner so we could have a
confidential talk about important Q60 hardware developments covering
the next 2 years. Peter wanted to go to the dinner - I stopped him.
This is the opposite to what you announced, etc. etc. etc. Stop making
it up as you go along. Blimey!

Merry Christmas

Dennis - D&D Systems

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoff Wicks 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> In the short period in which the Grafs
>> have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders to
>> the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the
>> Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would
>> understand but it was unanimous.
>
>Not entirely true. I know as a trader I have no axe with the Grafs to grind,
>but I had a lengthy and interesting conversation at Manchester with Claus.
Oops sorry Geoff. I forgot you were there I should have said that 
differently. I should have said the majority of the traders.
>
>I had a difficult and unpleasant Manchester, but this was nothing to do with
>the Grafs. I think it is a bit dangerous to make them the scapegoats for the
>failure of a show that was difficult for all traders for other reasons.
I did not really think it was a failure. My Hove Show the year before 
was worse and Paris...
>
>By the way, Sarah and John, if you follow this list don't be put off by
>these comments. You are right to insist that the QL needs a presence in the
>north of England and the way we improve the atmosphere (and sales!) at
>Manchester shows is by building up contacts so that the traders and
>(northern) punters know one another better.
I agree with this. One problem with shows over the last few years has 
been the lack of new software to look at and buy. You are actually the 
prolific writer these days. People come to the shows and want to get new 
things. They are disappointed when there is little there and the whole 
scene suffers One of the great pleasures for me, long before I became a 
trader, was finding new and interesting things to do with my QL. We need 
to get that spirit back but we do lack software developers.

-- 
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] Just another idea

[Peter Graf]

Geoff Wicks wrote:


>- Original Message -
>From: Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea
>
> > In the short period in which the Grafs
> > have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders to
> > the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the
> > Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would
> > understand but it was unanimous.
>
>Not entirely true. I know as a trader I have no axe with the Grafs to grind,
>but I had a lengthy and interesting conversation at Manchester with Claus.

No, it was me :-)

All the best
Peter


>I had a difficult and unpleasant Manchester, but this was nothing to do with
>the Grafs. I think it is a bit dangerous to make them the scapegoats for the
>failure of a show that was difficult for all traders for other reasons.
>
>By the way, Sarah and John, if you follow this list don't be put off by
>these comments. You are right to insist that the QL needs a presence in the
>north of England and the way we improve the atmosphere (and sales!) at
>Manchester shows is by building up contacts so that the traders and
>(northern) punters know one another better.
>
>Geoff Wicks.

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Geoff Wicks]

- Original Message -
From: Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

> In the short period in which the Grafs
> have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders to
> the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the
> Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would
> understand but it was unanimous.

Not entirely true. I know as a trader I have no axe with the Grafs to grind,
but I had a lengthy and interesting conversation at Manchester with Claus.

I had a difficult and unpleasant Manchester, but this was nothing to do with
the Grafs. I think it is a bit dangerous to make them the scapegoats for the
failure of a show that was difficult for all traders for other reasons.

By the way, Sarah and John, if you follow this list don't be put off by
these comments. You are right to insist that the QL needs a presence in the
north of England and the way we improve the atmosphere (and sales!) at
Manchester shows is by building up contacts so that the traders and
(northern) punters know one another better.

Geoff Wicks.

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Tony Firshman]

On  Fri, 14 Jun 2002 at 23:28:18, Roy Wood wrote:
(ref: )

>
>In message <001301c213a9$8e90a4c0$d299893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike
>MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>>> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
>>> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
>>> so I have saved face and can accept it.
>>I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
>>capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
>>wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
>>situation.
>OK reality check here.

> Peter Graf got 3 times the amount of money per board than Tony or I
>received.
I have had no money for my work - hundreds of hours just on
construction.   Roy paid for most of the 100% new  parts I bought.
However I have to buy replacement eproms (for the faulty ones) and other
top up parts, and RAM sockets to replace the dodgy new CPC ones I
bought.  ... and I am £700 cash down on that.
> Tony for doing a whole lot of work and me for putting the
>documentation together, sorting and compiling support disks, testing
>the code from TT and advertising. In fact Tony and I still have several
>non working boards so we made a whopping loss. I sympathise with D&D.

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
  tony@.demon.co.uk  http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Hmmm
What do I say, its a very tangled web we weave, I remember you
mentioned something about a disagreement with PG way back when
you got our Q40, I didn't realise just how deep the problem ran.
Lets hope something can be salvaged from the situation, that can
benefit the QL with the minimum of damage all round.

Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> In message <019301c2133a$e851c8a0$9e6d893e@macnamarxmjd3y>,
Mike
> MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Still friends?
> Of course still friends. I just felt that you were not in
possession of
> the facts.
> Regards
> Roy
> --
> 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] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <019301c2133a$e851c8a0$9e6d893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike 
MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Still friends?
Of course still friends. I just felt that you were not in possession of 
the facts.
Regards
Roy
-- 
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] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <001301c213a9$8e90a4c0$d299893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike 
MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
>> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
>> so I have saved face and can accept it.
>I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
>capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
>wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
>situation.
OK reality check here. What do you actually know about the situation?
When I was selling the Q40 Peter Graf had no financial commitment apart 
from sourcing the parts. Tony Firshman and I paid for the parts. He did 
pay for the circuit boards and the 'licence chips and we paid him back 
for these. All of the financial burden was on our shoulders. Peter would 
not give Tony Firshman the circuit diagram at  the start because 'he 
will steal my ideas' . (Oh did hear someone say Open Source ?).

Peter would not change one thing in his design in spite of the fact that 
Tony and I pointed out several advantages to making changes and a few 
real problems. Peter made very little effort to solve any problems that 
existed in our manufacture. Tony found and bought most of the parts but, 
because it was me that turned around and said there would be no more 
money until he made some effort to help us solve the problems. The parts 
became 'Roy's faulty parts'. In fact some of the problems were with his 
faulty EPROM's and  2nd hand video ram. I refunded money and gave away 
free copies of QPC2 (which I paid for) to a few users who waited for 
ages for a Q40 which I could not supply because Tony could not get them 
to work. Peter Graf got 3 times the amount of money per board than Tony 
or I received. Tony for doing a whole lot of work and me for putting the 
documentation together, sorting and compiling support disks, testing the 
code from TT and advertising. In fact Tony and I still have several non 
working boards so we made a whopping loss. I sympathise with D&D.

Peter Graf has a job which, as far as I was led to understand when he 
was saying things like, 'my job is sending me to Hong Kong etc.' pays 
well. The only losers here will be the users because there is nothing to 
stop Peter doing business in the licence - it is just that he has to 
rely on people who will not do the work because he has alienated all the 
others. A rod for his own back I believe.
-- 
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] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> On 14 Jun 2002, at 13:25, Mike MacNamara wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Wolfgang
> >
> > OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you
appear
> > to have moved along with some others, but the problem is
becoming
> > intractable.  A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required,
if this
> > is to be resolved.
not necessarily from you!
>
> Ok, so no more talk of GPL etc... then?
I have never mentioned it.
>
>
> > There can be no winners in this situation, if my
> > livelihood was in the balance I would be looking for a way to
save
> > face here!
> >
> OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask
> yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes,
> so I have saved face and can accept it.
I did not think your livelihood was derived from QLs, or your
capital tied up in it, what I meant was if my back was to the
wall I would be looking to save face here, it is a no win
situation.

regards
Mike
>
>
>
> Wolfgang
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 14 Jun 2002, at 13:25, Mike MacNamara wrote:

> 
> Hi Wolfgang
> 
> OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you appear
> to have moved along with some others, but the problem is becoming
> intractable.  A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required, if this
> is to be resolved. 

Ok, so no more talk of GPL etc... then?


> There can be no winners in this situation, if my
> livelihood was in the balance I would be looking for a way to save
> face here!
> 
OK. Compare the first proposal with the actual licence. Ask 
yourself: did "the other side" make many/any concessions? Yes, 
so I have saved face and can accept it.



Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Hi Wolfgang

OK, ADSL now up and running, back to business. I know you appear
to have moved along with some others, but the problem is becoming
intractable.  A magnanimous gesture of some sort is required, if
this is to be resolved. There can be no winners in this
situation, if my livelihood was in the balance I would be looking
for a way to save face here!

Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> On 14 Jun 2002, at 1:08, Mike MacNamara wrote:
>
> > A locked room seems the only way forward.
> I'm not so sure about this at all...
> > I know you
> > feel you have all compromised and bent over backwards, and
probably
> > you have, but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in
tears.
> > The same must be said to the Grafs and anybody else who feels
a
> > grievance.( a bit like the middle east really)., if somebody
does not
> > move then disaster.
>
> Well, seen from my side, it is pretty simple: We came up with
an
> idea in Eindhoven, as set out earlier. this was aired here.
Many
> comments and criticisms were made. I have made many changes
> to the licence as a consequence, thus compromising and changing
> my initial positing.
> WHAT CHANGE IN POSITION HAS THERE BEEN FROM "THE
> GRAF CAMP"?
> NONE.
>
> It always takes two to compromise.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 14 Jun 2002, at 11:10, Mike MacNamara wrote:

> I hope I am not taking sides, it is sad there seems to be sides.

Yess!

> > I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is
> just as
> > important.
> I have already said to Marcel and Jochen that in the wee sma
> hours I should have used 'equally' instead of 'most'. 

Yes of course you did - my message went out before I had read 
your reply. Sorry.

> I think
> without Marcels contribution the user base would be drastically
> smaller than it is now. I was trying in my simple way to keep the
> discussion on the level of the costs incurred by hardware developers,
> by virtue of component and development costs, being greater than those
> incurred by others. QPC is very important, and I as a user can see the
> day when QPC is going to be about all we have.


 (lobby)
> Somebody else's word, not mine...

Ok, OK...
 

> Fine, no problem there, it is not your interpretation or decision that
> are the point. I don't know enough about the mechanics to venture an
> opinion, but must be guided by reasonable people. What appears to be
> the problem is the perception by some that all is MAYBE not as open as
> would be desired. That needs to be addressed, I know you are trying to
> do this, you really need to be a UN diplomat to sort it out. 

Well, what more can I do be be even more open?


> Fine, but again fuels the perception.
I'm sorry, but there I disagree with you totally. We DO have a 
discussion here, and a good forum to thrash things out. After the 
Eindhoven meeting and when this discussion was in full debate, 
there was a QL meeting somewhere in the UK, sorry forgot where. 
MAny of the protagonists were there (not me) - and dialogue just 
wasn't possible.
If we had a meeting, I'm not sure things wouldn't come to blows!
(I'm serious here!)

> Again the perception is about in
> some quarters, whether justified or not. To paraphrase someone" it is
> not enough to do right, one has got to be seen to do right" .

I agree with you on both counts. However, when you are in a 
situation where you will not be seen as doing anything right unless 
you do exactly what one party wants - there is no issue.


> >
> No
> I did not say that, I said listen, I think most QLers, including
> myself, trust you  completely in this matter, and will go  along with
> whatever you decide.

What a change! :-)

> What I have said is ,please don't let past 'bad
> blood' between parties cause a split in the QL community, a bit of
> diplomacy to smooth the perceptions of some may be all that can be
> done.
Again, I agree -especially as I think I can truely state that I wans't 
part of this "bad blood".
 But your comment then means that I have not been diplomatic 
enough until now, doesn't it? The problem is that diplomacy doesn't 
mean never saying "no". At some stage, a decision must be made, 
and since there are two contradictory lines are in play, the decision 
has to be in "favour" of one of them.
I do believe that I have listened, I have tried to answer all 
arguments, I have agreed to some suggestions, not to others 
because this is not possible.

> You asked for users opinions, I think I shall get on with
> installing the ADSL equipment that has just arrived. At least I
> shall be able to retreat more quickly.
> 
> Good luck, sincerely,


Thanks.
Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

On 14/6/92  07:08
 Wolfgang wrote

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> On 13 Jun 2002, at 22:09, Mike MacNamara wrote:
>
> >
> > Any sensible person is not going to get involved or take
sides in
> > this, that is why Wolfgang is not hearing feedback from
users, I
> > think.
>
> Isn't there a difference between "getting involved" and "taking
> sides"? I'm not asking anybody to take sides here, just to
voice
> their opinions.
I hope I am not taking sides, it is sad there seems to be sides.
>
> > However nobody ever accused me of being sensible.
> :-)))
>
> >So, from a user
> > point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at
stake, his
> > is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
one
> > developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his
views are
> > most important.
>
> I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is
just as
> important.
I have already said to Marcel and Jochen that in the wee sma
hours I should have used 'equally' instead of 'most'. I think
without Marcels contribution the user base would be drastically
smaller than it is now. I was trying in my simple way to keep the
discussion on the level of the costs incurred by hardware
developers, by virtue of component and development costs, being
greater than those incurred by others. QPC is very important, and
I as a user can see the day when QPC is going to be about all we
have.
>
> > His is the financial investment, and D&D and Richard
> > share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without them the QL
is dead,
> > and anything that puts obstacles in their way is not
conducive to
> > furthering SMSQ to the benefit of the user.  After all the
buyers
> > of Q40/60 are QL users who are simply upgrading as we have
constantly
> > done since the first black box. This whole topic reminds me
of Alan
> > Sugar of Amstrad trying to block QL development for his own
reasons.
> >
> > I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for
> > Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see
it,
> > the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the
Eindhoven
> > license,. WHY NOT.
> First of all, I don't think it is a "lobby" - let's avoid these
words that
> have been used in a rather bad context.
Somebody else's word, not mine...
>
> I seem to remember that, at least, Peter Graf was fully aware
of the
> EIndhoven meeting. IIRC, he said here that he was too ill to
come.

>
> .
>
> > Why are their views less important than those
> > who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license
that
> > suited them,
>
> THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE taken the views expressed here into
> account. It is just that, on a fundamental level (totally free
> binaries/restricted binary distribution) we don't agree.
Fine, no problem there, it is not your interpretation or decision
that are the point. I don't know enough about the mechanics to
venture an opinion, but must be guided by reasonable people. What
appears to be the problem is the perception by some that all is
MAYBE not as open as would be desired. That needs to be
addressed, I know you are trying to do this, you really need to
be a UN diplomat to sort it out.
>
> > why were Quanta not at this meeting,
> I don't know
> > why not other
> > meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people
who are
> > affected?
>
> Because, then, we would still be having meetings!
Fine, but again fuels the perception.
>
> > It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about.
>
> Oh, poppycock!
> I'm sorry, but this is just unbelievable.
> The process of how this came about has been set out here -
> several times IIRC.
Again the perception is about in some quarters, whether justified
or not. To paraphrase someone" it is not enough to do right, one
has got to be seen to do right"
>
> >Wolfgang, if
> > you don't listen to those who do not share your opinion, you
will kill
> > the patient that you are trying to save.
>
> Yes, that is true -but apparently, you (and others) and I have
a
> different opinion of what "listening" means.
> Apparently, if I don't agree with some, then that is because I
> haven't listened to them.
No I did not say that, I said listen, I think most QLers,
including myself, trust you  completely in this matter, and will
go  along with whatever you decide. What I have said is ,please
don't let past 'bad blood' between parties cause a split in the
QL community, a bit of diplomacy to smooth the perceptions of
some may be all that can be done.

You asked for users opinions, I think I shall get on with
installing the ADSL equipment that has just arrived. At least I
shall be able to retreat more quickly.

Good luck, sincerely,

Mike
>
> Wolfgang
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 14 Jun 2002, at 1:08, Mike MacNamara wrote:

> A locked room seems the only way forward. 
I'm not so sure about this at all...
> I know you
> feel you have all compromised and bent over backwards, and probably
> you have, but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in tears.
> The same must be said to the Grafs and anybody else who feels a
> grievence.( a bit like the middle east really)., if somebody does not
> move then disaster. 

Well, seen from my side, it is pretty simple: We came up with an 
idea inEindhoven, as set out earlier. this was aired here. Many 
comments and criticisms were made. I have made many changes 
to the licence as a consequence, thus comprimising andchanging 
my initial positin.
WHAT CHANGE IN POSITION HAS THERE BEEN FROM "THE  
GRAF CAMP"? 
NONE.

It always takes two to compromise.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 13 Jun 2002, at 22:09, Mike MacNamara wrote:

> 
> Any sensible person is not going to get invoved or take sides in
> this, that is why Wolfgang is not hearing feedback from users, I
> think.

Isn't there a difference between "getting involved" and "taking 
sides"? I'm not asking anybody to take sides here, just to voice 
their opinions.

> However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. 
:-)))

>So, from a user
> point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake, his
> is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only one
> developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his views are
> most important.

I, personally, would dispute that statement. For me, QPC is just as 
important.

> His is the financial investment, and D&D and Richard
> share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without them the QL is dead, 
> and anything that puts obstacles in their way is not condusive to
> furthering SMSQ to the benfit of the user.  After all all the buyers
> of Q40/60 are QL users who are simply upgrading as we have constantly
> done since the first black box. This whole topic reminds me of Alan
> Sugar of Amstrad trying to block QL development for his own reasons.
> 
> I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for
> Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see it,
> the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the Eindhoven
> license,. WHY NOT.
First of all, I don't think it is a "lobby" - let's avoid these words that 
have been used in a rather bad context...

I seem to remember that, at least, Peter Graf was fully aware of the 
EIndhoven meeting. IIRC, he said here that he was too ill to come.

.

> Why are their views less important than those
> who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license that
> suited them, 

THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE taken the views expressed here into 
account. It is just that, on a fundamental level (totally free 
binaries/restricted binary distribution) we don't agree.

> why were Quanta not at this meeting,
I don't know
> why not other
> meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people who are
> affected? 

Because, then, we would still be having meetings!

> It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about. 

Oh, poppycock!
I'm sorry, but this is just unbelievable.
The process of how this came about has been set out here - 
several times IIRC.

>Wolfgang, if
> you don't listen to those who do not share your opinion, you will kill
> the patient that you are trying to save.

Yes, that is true -but apparently, you (and others) and I have a 
different opinion of what "listening" means.
Apparently, if I don't agree with some, then that is because I 
haven't listened to them.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[wlenerz]

On 14 Jun 2002, at 0:33, Jochen Merz wrote:

> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
(usw...)

Super!

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Jochen Merz]

Hi Mike,

> Jochen says that Q60 and QPC are not QLs, that may be
> so, but to me anything I can run QL software on qualifies as a
> QL. and should be supported.
Correct. Everything should be supported, I stated this several
times in several emails. But, as clarified before, you missed out 
Marcel in the first sentence, and also in the next one - if 'QL' is
everything that can run QL software, then I think Marcel counts
here very much too: 

Quoting you: "So, from a user
point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake,
his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
one developing the 'QL' "

Just as Roy pointed out - it all reads as if Marcel would not count
at all, thats why I said both Q60 and QPC are not QLs. Your definition
includes everything as you explained the correction, I understood, 
that's settled.  :-)

Cheers   Jochen

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Jochen Merz]

Hi Mike,

> Did I say Marcel did not count, I think not, as I replied to him,
> I use his software, and no doubt will for a long time to come. I
> should have said 'equally' instead of 'most', mea culpa. 
It was the "most" which I thought was not adequate at all.

> The end result of which is going to be a split from
> which the QL I fear will not recover.
No need to, really. That has been said so many times

> I know you feel you have
> all compromised and bent over backwards, and probably you have,
> but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in tears. The
> same must be said to the Grafs and anybody else who feels a
> grievence.( a bit like the middle east really)., if somebody does
> not move then disaster. 
The difference is that most of us have moved along with Wolfgangs
modifications to the license ... so is it unreasonable to expect
the Grafs to at least make ONE move NOW?

And remember - nobody is in a position to demand anything 
(including myself) - we have to work together. We should try
to make the best out of Tonys generousity, and do it in a way
he'd like to see it ... via Wolfgang, and not by skipping 
Wolfgang again and again. 

> thanks for explaining again your views,
> I can understand where you are coming from, and that you  realise
> this must be resolved, if at all possible, SOON.
Indeed - this is what more or less everybody is saying, except ...
you know. 

Cheers   Jochen

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Roy,

I have not criticised Jochen, Marcel or you. I think you get
weary of it. All this tearing apart must stop, it does no good.
If there is not an answer, then only the QL and its supporters
suffer, you don't want to see years of effort come to nought over
this, do you?
I know how much Marcel and Jochen have put in, it is appreciated
by us all.  Jochen says that Q60 and QPC are not QLs, that may be
so, but to me anything I can run QL software on qualifies as a
QL. and should be supported. Perhaps Wolfgang is right to
proceed, and then come back to this problem when all the ruffled
feathers have subsided.  Norman D was wondering on QL chat why no
women are using QLs, I think we could do with some input from the
fairer sex ASAP.

Still friends?

Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: "Roy Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> In message <011c01c2131e$92e84f40$9e6d893e@macnamarxmjd3y>,
Mike
> MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> 
> >However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. So, from a
user
> >point of view,

>He has never accused people of conspiring against him or
> had a bad word for anyone. Now put that against what you have
above. I
> hope you feel ashamed. We have been friend for a long time Mike
and you
> were a strong supporter of the QL for a long time. I am very
sorry if
> the above offends you but you are wrong in almost every
sentence.
> --
> 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] Just another idea

[dndsystems1]

- Original Message -
From: "Marcel Kilgus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ql-users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea
< snip>

> When I announced that I'll come to Eindhoven I was told that Peter
> (who already said that he'll attend) won't come now because he
doesn't
> want to be in the same room with me. Later on this list he said that
> he got the flue or something. Anyway, everybody knew that meeting
was
> there and what purpose it will have. I did free my weekend by short
> notice and paid at least 3 sold QPCs worth of money to the German
> railway company just to get there. If the Q40 lobby couldn't make it
> this is not our or my fault. So please ask THEM why they didn't
> attend.
> Marcel
>

The exact answer to this is as folows:

Peter asked D&D Systems if we could wait a week or so for a delivery
from him as he was unable to work (and unable to go to work) due to
very bad influenza. This lasted over a 3 week period as far as I know.
Peter did not email us very much and I did not press him for work to
be done. He never told us that a very important meeting regarding the
O/S was about to take place in Eindhoven and for a very good reason,
he thought it was another same old thing 'have a chat around a table'.
Wether or not he wanted to go, he could not. He did not know it was
important so he did not tell us. This does not matter because if an
important meeting was being called D&D Systems would of course be
notified as we are the major QL hardware manufacturer and had been for
6 months.

We were never informed about this meeting - Why?

Non of our O/S writers were present but it is still ok to make major
decisions - why?

Nobody was able to represent the latest hardware development at the
meeting but still the meeting was valid - why?

The meeting was a non-event for us so we can correct this by having a
proper meeting with the relevant people attending, not a select few.
This initial open source for SMSQ/E proposal is for the good of all
'users of the code'. The first step should be to talk to as many
potential O/S writers and hardware developers as possible and develop
a common workable theme then ask the public for opinions then write a
draft based upon previous agreements. In this open way the draft would
nearly write itself. However the method used has produced the mess we
are in. Start again from scratch and do it democratically.

Dennis - D&D Systems

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

- Original Message -
From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


Hi Jochen

Did I say Marcel did not count, I think not, as I replied to him,
I use his software, and no doubt will for a long time to come. I
should have said 'equally' instead of 'most', mea culpa.  Both
yuo and Marcel are reasonable people, as I am sure the Grafs are.
It is very sad for folk like me, who have enjoyed the QL and its
deriveritives for many years, to see all this public 'blood
letting'. The end result of which is going to be a split from
which the QL I fear will not recover. I appreciate your feelings,
along with those of Marcel, Roy, Dilwyn and others. But the fact
remains if this continues, the end result will benefit no one.  A
locked room seems the only way forward. I know you feel you have
all compromised and bent over backwards, and probably you have,
but if you don't go that extra yard, it may end in tears. The
same must be said to the Grafs and anybody else who feels a
grievence.( a bit like the middle east really)., if somebody does
not move then disaster.  thanks for explaining again your views,
I can understand where you are coming from, and that you  realise
this must be resolved, if at all possible, SOON.

Best wishes


Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com


>
> Hi Mike,
>
> > So, from a user
> > point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at
stake,
> > his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the
only
> > one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore
his
> > views are most important.
> So Marcel does not count? He's not important?
>
> > Good luck to them, without
> > them the QL is dead
> Sorry, Q40/Q60 is not QL, nor is QPC. Without QPC, the QL
> would be dead.
>
> > As a user, as I see it,
> > the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the
Eindhoven
> > license,. WHY NOT.
> Peter was invited, and he initially said it would come.
> Also, what was discussed at Eindhoven was a base, open for
> discussion. No final decision there, so no problem anyway.
>
> > Why are their views less important than those.
> Who said that? Views of everybody are going around here
> on the list for quite a while - the license has changed
> because of various views.
>
> > who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license
that
> > suited them
> ... you probably deleted the mail then, where it was said.
>
> , why were Quanta not at this meeting, why not other
> > meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people
who
> > are affected?
> So there was no input here in the list for the last few weeks
...
> er, months?
>
> The meeting was open, and everybody who would DIRECTLY be
> affected was there, or could have been there.
> Marcel (contract with Tony), me (contract with Tony), Roy
> (English SMSQ/E reseller), Peter (Q60 SMSQ/E reseller ... he
> bought SMSQ/E licenses off me - something he does not need
> to do anymore with the new license, provided he accepts them
> and he (and/or D&D now) become resellers).
>
> You seem to think SMSQ/E was just a giveaway? Who said that?
> I am doing business with Tony longer than anybody else ...
> well, what sort of person would Tony be to scrap the contracts
> just like that?
> This is exactly why he wanted us to get together at Eindhoven,
> all the people being directly involved (including Wolfgang).
> He wants the people involved to get something out sorted
> together. Yes, the important word "together" again.
> Any kind of split is not useful.
> The QL world not only consists of a Peter Graf and everybody
> has to accept it the way he wants it or no other way.
>
> Tony is wise enough not to change his mind because of some
money
> offered by Peter because this will screw the license and
everybody
> will lose out in the end (as mentioned before).
> Joachim has discovered this in a recent email too.
>
> So, there are all those people who got an idea together,
> set it out in public for discussion, change the license
> accordingly where it makes sense, get it into a state where
> nearly everybody says: OK - I go along with it, not perfect,
> but acceptable ... you see, there is this "together" I was
> talking about some time ago, even with people I (and probably
> Wolfgang too) have (unfortunately) never met in my life before
> at any QL show etc.
>
> Well, and what happens: there's somebody complaining
> "No, this is not  exactly the way *I* want it".
>
> Mike, nobody planned to put Peter outside, that was and is not

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Roy Wood]

In message <011c01c2131e$92e84f40$9e6d893e@macnamarxmjd3y>, Mike 
MacNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. So, from a user
>point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake,
>his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
>one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his
>views are most important.
Not necessarily. In fact, if he is still extracting a 'licence fee' of 
100 pounds per machine as he did with the Q 40 he has the most to gain. 
I agree that he will have problems with development if Richard will not 
write the code for him under this licence but that is not the main 
problem. It really lies with the polarisation of those who will only 
work for the 'open source - free for all' scene and those who will want 
to see some reward for their work. Unfortunately this is what is tearing 
the discussion apart. Unfortunately also that only the ones who will 
only work for free are doing the most bleating.
>His is the financial investment, and
>D&D and Richard share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without
>them the QL is dead,  and anything that puts obstacles in their
>way is not condusive to furthering SMSQ to the benfit of the
>user.
Again this is not at all true. In the short period in which the Grafs 
have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders to 
the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the 
Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would 
understand but it was unanimous.
>After all all the buyers of Q40/60 are QL users who are
>simply upgrading as we have constantly done since the first black
>box. This whole topic reminds me of Alan Sugar of Amstrad trying
>to block QL development for his own reasons.
No one is blocking any development. Marcel as been working for free to 
implement the colour drivers into the Window manager and this will, when 
it is ready, become part of the kernel available for all versions of 
SMSQ/E. The difference here is he is not standing on a pedestal showing 
off his stigmata.
>
>I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for
>Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see it,
>the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the Eindhoven
>license,. WHY NOT.
Because, in spite of the fact they knew it was happening and had 
announced they would be there they did not turn up. The reason they gave 
was they did not want to meet up with Marcel (is he that frightening?) 
strange it is now 'a cold' isn't it ?
>Why are their views less important than those
>who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license that
>suited them, why were Quanta not at this meeting, why not other
>meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people who
>are affected?
It was announced. No one else came. The meeting was not binding but was, 
at TT's behest, convened to take into account the people who had been 
involved in the SMSQ/E project from the start. In fact Wolfgang had no 
reason to tell anyone else  about it but he did. Quanta have not 
attended an Eindhoven meeting in ages but Robin Barker was there too.
> It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about.
Only by people who do not know what they are talking about.
>Wolfgang, if you don't listen to those who do not share your
>opinion, you will kill the patient that you are trying to save.
In an email direct from TT he said it all. Jochen Merz has been the 
person who has done the most to  hold the QL community together  for the 
last twelve years. He has run the bulk of QL Today for the last seven 
years at much  personal cost in time, worry and frustration. (Not to 
belittle Dilwyn Jones' staunch support and duty as editor but it is 
Jochen who gets the magazine in shape,  to the printer and to the 
customer) Where would we have been without his taking over when IQLR 
folded ? He has done all of this without complaint, demands for special 
attention or accusations of any kind. He has also pushed through 
developments of  SMSQ/E from the beginning. It is my understanding that 
there would be no SMSQ/E if it were not for him because he got TT to 
develop the work he did for the QXL into a better shape and released for 
all platforms. He has never accused people of conspiring against him or 
had a bad word for anyone. Now put that against what you have above. I 
hope you feel ashamed. We have been friend for a long time Mike and you 
were a strong supporter of the QL for a long time. I am very sorry if 
the above offends you but you are wrong in almost every sentence.
-- 
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] Just another idea

[Jochen Merz]

Hi Mike,

> So, from a user
> point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake,
> his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
> one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his
> views are most important.
So Marcel does not count? He's not important?

> Good luck to them, without
> them the QL is dead
Sorry, Q40/Q60 is not QL, nor is QPC. Without QPC, the QL
would be dead.

> As a user, as I see it,
> the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the Eindhoven
> license,. WHY NOT.
Peter was invited, and he initially said it would come.
Also, what was discussed at Eindhoven was a base, open for
discussion. No final decision there, so no problem anyway.

> Why are their views less important than those.
Who said that? Views of everybody are going around here 
on the list for quite a while - the license has changed
because of various views.

> who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license that
> suited them
... you probably deleted the mail then, where it was said.

, why were Quanta not at this meeting, why not other
> meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people who
> are affected?
So there was no input here in the list for the last few weeks ...
er, months?

The meeting was open, and everybody who would DIRECTLY be
affected was there, or could have been there.
Marcel (contract with Tony), me (contract with Tony), Roy
(English SMSQ/E reseller), Peter (Q60 SMSQ/E reseller ... he
bought SMSQ/E licenses off me - something he does not need
to do anymore with the new license, provided he accepts them
and he (and/or D&D now) become resellers).

You seem to think SMSQ/E was just a giveaway? Who said that?
I am doing business with Tony longer than anybody else ...
well, what sort of person would Tony be to scrap the contracts
just like that?
This is exactly why he wanted us to get together at Eindhoven,
all the people being directly involved (including Wolfgang).
He wants the people involved to get something out sorted
together. Yes, the important word "together" again.
Any kind of split is not useful.
The QL world not only consists of a Peter Graf and everybody 
has to accept it the way he wants it or no other way.

Tony is wise enough not to change his mind because of some money 
offered by Peter because this will screw the license and everybody
will lose out in the end (as mentioned before).
Joachim has discovered this in a recent email too.

So, there are all those people who got an idea together,
set it out in public for discussion, change the license
accordingly where it makes sense, get it into a state where
nearly everybody says: OK - I go along with it, not perfect,
but acceptable ... you see, there is this "together" I was
talking about some time ago, even with people I (and probably
Wolfgang too) have (unfortunately) never met in my life before 
at any QL show etc.

Well, and what happens: there's somebody complaining 
"No, this is not  exactly the way *I* want it".

Mike, nobody planned to put Peter outside, that was and is not 
the idea. Everybody involved tried to be reasonable and find
something which suits everybody to a high degree - a compromise.
Wolfgang has done a very good job, and Tony still says that
if whatever is OK by Wolfgang, Marcel and me (because of
the existing contracts) is OK for him.
I am happy with the license Wolfgang put together in the
end, and apart from the discussion at Eindhoven I went along
with all the changes brought in from the list discussion.
Honestly, we're all doing it to keep SMSQ/E alive on all
the various systems. Most Q40/Q60 customers are QPC customers
too, most are software customers as well. Why the hell should
we try to separate them? We would be killing our user base
for future upgrades (which will happen if all the trouble here
stops finally, Marcel gets the new colour window manager out 
etc. etc.) - I am sure you understand the point.

I have repeatedly said: "together" is the key word, and more
or less everybody on this list has seen that there is a lot
of together except from a certain corner.

Although I have said it several times: Peter, please try to
get reasonable and give the license a chance. Spend your time
in convincing people that a joined work, "even under the
current license", will be much better for your products and
the users in general.

Jochen

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Marcel
OK, I can understand that a lot of feeling has existed for a long
time, but its affecting the users. It does not really matter( in
a QL context) whom likes who. I like QPC and the work you do, I
use it. I also had a Q40, I have Aurora and various
configurations. It does not mean I exclude ant other hardware.
Instead of 'most' important (not THE most) I should have said
'equally important'. It was not only the Grafs who were not at
Eindhoven, the vast majority of QL users were not there. If you
said we are having a meeting on the Moon, most of us would have
more chance of getting there, it is just one flight after all.
In the long term, if there are any users left, I will probably
use QPC2, simply because it does the job, and it is on the
machine I use all day, although the Q60 and GF have appeal. So I
would like all options left open and developed.  However, that
does not get away from the problem. Perhaps, you should ALL be
locked in a room together, without food  or water till you reach
an agreement, then after the white smoke appears, we will know we
can get back to reality. One could live in the hope you might
find you have a lot in common.


Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: "Marcel Kilgus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ql-users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> Mike MacNamara wrote:
> > However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. So, from a
user
> > point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at
stake,
> > his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the
only
> > one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore
his
> > views are most important.
>
> Ah, really?
>
> ... sorry, I currently don't find the words for a more
appropriate
> answer.
>
> > I am completely neutral in this debate,
>
> That one I can answer: you're contradicting yourself here.
>
> > I feel sorry for Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a
user,
> > as I see it, the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing
up the
> > Eindhoven license,. WHY NOT.
>
> When I announced that I'll come to Eindhoven I was told that
Peter
> (who already said that he'll attend) won't come now because he
doesn't
> want to be in the same room with me. Later on this list he said
that
> he got the flue or something. Anyway, everybody knew that
meeting was
> there and what purpose it will have. I did free my weekend by
short
> notice and paid at least 3 sold QPCs worth of money to the
German
> railway company just to get there. If the Q40 lobby couldn't
make it
> this is not our or my fault. So please ask THEM why they didn't
> attend.
>
> > Wolfgang, if you don't listen to those who do not share your
> > opinion, you will kill the patient that you are trying to
save.
>
> I suspect "listening" equals "agreeing" for you.
>
> Marcel
>
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Marcel Kilgus]

Mike MacNamara wrote: 
> However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. So, from a user
> point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake,
> his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
> one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his
> views are most important.

Ah, really?

... sorry, I currently don't find the words for a more appropriate
answer.

> I am completely neutral in this debate,

That one I can answer: you're contradicting yourself here.

> I feel sorry for Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user,
> as I see it, the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the
> Eindhoven license,. WHY NOT.

When I announced that I'll come to Eindhoven I was told that Peter
(who already said that he'll attend) won't come now because he doesn't
want to be in the same room with me. Later on this list he said that
he got the flue or something. Anyway, everybody knew that meeting was
there and what purpose it will have. I did free my weekend by short
notice and paid at least 3 sold QPCs worth of money to the German
railway company just to get there. If the Q40 lobby couldn't make it
this is not our or my fault. So please ask THEM why they didn't
attend.

> Wolfgang, if you don't listen to those who do not share your
> opinion, you will kill the patient that you are trying to save.

I suspect "listening" equals "agreeing" for you.

Marcel

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Mike MacNamara]

Any sensible person is not going to get invoved or take sides in
this, that is why Wolfgang is not hearing feedback from users, I
think.
However nobody ever accused me of being sensible. So, from a user
point of view, Peter Graf seems to be the one with most at stake,
his is the biggest commitment, he is, apart from Nasta, the only
one developing the 'QL' ( of whatever flavour) and therefore his
views are most important. His is the financial investment, and
D&D and Richard share his ambitions. Good luck to them, without
them the QL is dead,  and anything that puts obstacles in their
way is not condusive to furthering SMSQ to the benfit of the
user.  After all all the buyers of Q40/60 are QL users who are
simply upgrading as we have constantly done since the first black
box. This whole topic reminds me of Alan Sugar of Amstrad trying
to block QL development for his own reasons.

I am completely neutral in this debate, I feel sorry for
Wolfgang, who is showing signs of wear. As a user, as I see it,
the Q40/60 'lobby' were not involved in drawing up the Eindhoven
license,. WHY NOT. Why are their views less important than those
who sat  at  a  'round table' and cobbled together a license that
suited them, why were Quanta not at this meeting, why not other
meeting in UK and US, to get the input of the bulk of people who
are affected?  It is no wonder 'conspiracy' is banded about.
Wolfgang, if you don't listen to those who do not share your
opinion, you will kill the patient that you are trying to save.


Regards


Mike

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.macnamaras.com
- Original Message -
From: "Joachim Van der Auwera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea


>
> > one more idea. Tony Tebby has the right to release his code
under both the
> > GPL and the Eindhoven "license".
> >
> > Why not kindly ask him to do both and let the developers and
users decide
> > themselves what they prefer?
>
> Sorry, but does would exactly cause two code bases and a drift
between
> versions. I actually thought that was the only thing everybody
agrees on. So
> I think we should all stop bickering and enjoy the gift of
having access to
> SMSQ/E sources!
>
> Joachim
>
>

Re: [ql-users] Just another idea

[Joachim Van der Auwera]

> one more idea. Tony Tebby has the right to release his code under both the
> GPL and the Eindhoven "license".
>
> Why not kindly ask him to do both and let the developers and users decide
> themselves what they prefer?

Sorry, but does would exactly cause two code bases and a drift between
versions. I actually thought that was the only thing everybody agrees on. So
I think we should all stop bickering and enjoy the gift of having access to
SMSQ/E sources!

Joachim

[ql-users] Just another idea

[Peter Graf]

Hi all,

one more idea. Tony Tebby has the right to release his code under both the 
GPL and the Eindhoven "license".

Why not kindly ask him to do both and let the developers and users decide 
themselves what they prefer?

Bye,
Peter