Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[Roy wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
=?utf-8?B?IlBob2VidXMgUi4gRG9rb3MgKM6mzr/Or86yzr/PgiDOoS4gzp3PhM+Mzro=?= 
=?utf-8?B?zr/Pgiki?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Exactly right but the quest for code uniformity imposed by both the 
structure of the license and choices make it impossible for SMSQ/E to 
be that on the Q60 as the situation stands.
I think this is a bit unfair on Wolfgang. The only stipulation of 
conformity is that programs will run in the same way on all platforms 
(and don't anyone start that 'the operating system standing on platform 
A is not on a platform because. nonsense again). If you have to 
change the drivers or other parts of the system to make it run better on 
a Q 60 it is fine to have a platform specific version of SMSQ/E for 
that. I have lost count of the number of times that Wolfgang has said 
this. The important thing is that the program code that runs on one will 
run on them all if the hardware supports it. That is where all the 
patching started to get us into trouble with long standing programs not 
running because the caches had been enabled/disabled. This is the sole 
purpose of conformity and the idea of the licence and Wolfgang's role in 
it. It was never intended to stop development of anything and, in all 
but one case, it hasn't.
Again, I disagree in practice. If the hardware is there but no 
software  to take care of it,
what use the hardware?
And who is to blame for that? Certainly not Peter right? For the 
reasons I said we cannot expect from Peter only to develop software for 
the Qx0. We do not live unfortunately in the time where CST or Dansoft 
or Sinclair were around and had the market and the capability of 
developing both the hardware and systems software. (Okay maybe the 
CST/Dansoft paradigm isn't the best but it illustrates the point). And 
even if Peter (or Nasta or even Tony Firshman and the ill-fated iBox) 
want to do so, shouldn't the software fit their needs and plans? If 
SMSQ/E doesn't fit their requirements why should they invest time and 
money on it?
But in what way does it not fit ? The Q.xx series ran SMSQ/E with a 
handful of bugs quite happily before and it runs the new code much 
better now. Again I cannot speak for the Q60 but I believe that Wolfgang 
has a Q60 and it is not in his interest as a user to hamper his own 
system by holding back any developments for it. I cannot but see Peter's 
frequent protestations as anything but sour grapes because he did not 
get his own way. Something not inconsistent with his other behaviour.

--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

["Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος)"]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:20 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:

Oh boy, do I disagree with you.

Allow me to take my own example.

I just have to use a PC at the office. A good word processor, 
spreadsheet, PRINTER,
Internet access etc are just things I need.

So are other, homewritten, programs.

Now, the word processor runs on the PC. So I need a PC. There just is no 
way around
it.
Am I going to put 2 computers in my office? Have twice the noise? Use 
twice as much
electricity? etc
No way. I could justify that at home (it's a hobby) but not at the 
office, where I receive
people.
OK, so a PC it is. Now, I also need some homemade programs.
If I can't have them under some kind of SMSQ emulator, I'll need them on 
the PC.
So I start PC programming - what do you think will then gradually happen?
Sooner or later all of my programming will be done on the PC, because, 
the
homemgrown programs are also done at home.
Exit SMSQDOS

So, for me, QPC is a very real reason TO CONTINUE TO STAY WITH THE QL
WORLD!
I don't disagree with you. That's the point I was making actually. You 
have to use it but others don't necessarily. It's however so convenient to 
use an emulator (any emulator doesn't matter which one) that it has turned 
the OS away from the hardware.

I for example had to get QPC when I first came to the US as I had no way 
of bringing my hardware. Now that I brought my hardware, QPC has been 
reduced to a support and testing role for me, although my wife's machine 
being that it doesn't have enough space to house a KVM + real QL hardware 
runs QPC more consistently to play QWORD :-D

My daughter now plays with a Schön keyboard equipped QL soon to be 
upgraded to SGC/Aurora and it's connected to the small TV in her room so 
she can practice her letters :-) (Loves the new colour drivers btw ;-)


(...)
However (and that is the user's preference not Marcel's doing of course)
when the emulator becomes the only place where the software is run, then
first the hardware becomes totally obsolete and then the emulator 
itself.
OK, I can agree ith that -it was one of the reasons I did buy a Q60.

Then we really agree :-)


If the trend for emulation-based only QL work continues, then we might 
as
well totally abandon QPC/QemuLator/uQLx etc and rewrite QDOSMSQ (to use
Thierry's term ;-)  in a higher level language and use it natively on 
PCs,
MACs and what have you.
Don't tempt the devil...
Why not? I argued that point a long time ago. If the hardware is to fail 
us at some point in the future, why not consider developing a 
principles-compatible QL OS that's portable?

The purpose of existence of any QL derivative OS is to run on hardware
after all and to take advantage of that hardware. If that doesn't happen
what is the point of still using the OS?
Oh well, of we go into this debate again - QPC does run on hardware and 
can take
advantage of it - I can read CDs, I can use USB printers etc...
QPC does run on hardware but SMSQ/E for QPC doesn't. I believe that's a 
clear distinction.


It is (and according to my belief illustrated above) therefore 
imperative
that the users choose to invest in hardware instead on only software (in
the best situation both) if there is any point in all of this.
Yes, and despite the above I still agree.
But for me, conceptually, there is not that much difference between an 
QPC machine
and a Q60 machine.

We will disagree here :-)


(...)
I don't think that the Q60 was ever sold as a Linux machine (although it
runs it very capably) but with the *ability to run* Linux. (Similar to
saying PC with the ability to run QL software via QXL or QPC!.. It's not
primarily therefore a QL ;-)
No, but what can you use it for if not to run SMSQ/E (ok, Qdos classic, 
but I want
MORE than a QL from a modern machine).

Exactly right but the quest for code uniformity imposed by both the 
structure of the license and choices make it impossible for SMSQ/E to be 
that on the Q60 as the situation stands.

Apart from that I fail to see how the Q60 is being developed actively?
Software development and hardware development are distinct processes. 
The
Q60 is completed and working fine. Peter designed and implemented the
hardware and we're asking him to make the software for it too? (Don't 
get
this in the wrong way I am just asking a legitimate question). Nobody 
asks
Marcel or you to design hardware to fit the software right? Just as we
never asked Miracle to write SMSQ. TT did that!
The fact that Peter has the ability to contribute software is unrelated 
to
the fact that he designed the hardware.
Again, I disagree in practice. If the hardware is there but no software 
to take care of it,
what use the hardware?
And who is to blame for that? Certainly not Peter right? For the reasons I 
said we cannot expect from Peter only to develop software for the Qx0. We 
do not live unfortunately in the time where CST or Dansoft or Sinclair 
were 

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

["Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος)"]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:19 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:

(all cut)




I have repeatedly stated on this list that OF COURSE I would include
code that beneftis only one machine - provided, it is not done in such a
way to exclude all others on purpose.
Well the thing is that in order for Qx0 to benefit lower capability 
machines will be excluded but not in purpose. Just like they don't support 
sound or extra modes because of limitations of the supporting hardware a 
similar thing would happen because of the processor.

The goal I think would be to create a set of parameters where all machines 
should operate the same and anything above that would be an extension... 
Ie you want virtual QLs running within the OS then you can have it if your 
hardware supports it etc...


There is ONE caveat - I want all machines to be able to compile all
versions.
If my Q60 breaks down I want to be able to compile the Q60 code on
my Atari, or on QPC or on my GoldCard.
As it stands currently that wouldn't be possible unless the tools change, 
I agree but I don't see that as a severe problem. Knowing George Gwilt, 
his GWASSL/GWASS might just do that :-) (From what I gather from his small 
comment).
BTW: I disagree with your argument on QLT regarding the use of GWASS. 
GWASS can benefit more than one users, its actively maintained as opposed 
to the archaic QMAC and moreover it is current and best of all FREE. Since 
George by his account is converting all the macros for use with SMSQ/e 
sources what would be the problem of using it? It can be the tool that can 
help bring about changes to the OS, suitable for high-end machines. As for 
the lower end machines that cannot support the extra instructions the lack 
of tool can be circumvented with the use of conditional assebly.

Not unreasonable, is it?

Neither is the above right?
:-)
Phoebus

--
Visit the QL-FAQ at:  (Still uploading 
stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: 
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[RWAPSoftware]

Just a quick comment - whatever the platform used by QL users (I wish I could afford and find room for a Q60), it is imperative that new software is written and updated - this bickering over the operating system and whether you are willing to work under the terms of the licence, really do not hold water.

If you don't like the terms of the licence, or are unwilling to release your changes under it,  then develop a new operating system.  Otherwise put up with it and accept that the licence exists and work with Wolgang to try and find a way of incorporating your proposals so that all users can benefit, whatever platform they may be using.

As for no users of the Q40/Q60 being known to have upgraded to the new version - just one question - WHO would they approach - no-one advertises the latest SMSQ/e version for the Q40/Q60 at present - it is mentioned in the Q40 advertising by D&D, but they do not specify the current version offered nor do they give an idea of cost of upgrading to the latest version.

--
Rich Mellor 
RWAP Services
35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JH
TEL: 01977 610509
Visit our website at:
URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk

In need of adventure?
URL: http://www.rwapadventures.com

Stuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? 
Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:
URL:http://www.rwapservices.co.uk

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[Geogwilt]

In a message dated 15/10/03 07:11:24 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other, (I've heard this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.
Perhaps "competing" means "which is faster(?) better(?)". As far as I am concerned they are two excellent QL type things. When I have yet another trial version of SETZ setting PE windows with the nem WMAN colours I rush from the Q60 to the QPC to see how well it works. In fact, even going so far as to compile it on both "machines" with Turbo, it worked almost better on QPC than the Q60! Even the new borders appear in the PE windows. Of course the actual outcome is a set of C instructions.
 
So, I agree that they are not competing too much for me.
 
George

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:

(all cut)

Just a very quick reply to one point.; I'll probably rply to more of this
later.

There is NOTHING
- in the licence
- in what I have ever said

that stops you from developping code specific to a machine.

You want to replace the rechp routine with one that uses the Q60's
memory management?

OK.
Fine.
Super.
Do it.
You want to do something more with the Q60 sound?
OK.
File

etc...

(got it?)


I have repeatedly stated on this list that OF COURSE I would include
code that beneftis only one machine - provided, it is not done in such a
way to exclude all others on purpose.

There is ONE caveat - I want all machines to be able to compile all
versions.
If my Q60 breaks down I want to be able to compile the Q60 code on
my Atari, or on QPC or on my GoldCard.

Not unreasonable, is it?

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[wlenerz]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è  á.  ç) wrote:

> I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but
> they do indirectly.
> To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally
> abandon hardware for software only.

Oh boy, do I disagree with you.

Allow me to take my own example.

I just have to use a PC at the office. A good word processor, spreadsheet, PRINTER,
Internet access etc are just things I need.

So are other, homewritten, programs.

Now, the word processor runs on the PC. So I need a PC. There just is no way around
it.
Am I going to put 2 computers in my office? Have twice the noise? Use twice as much
electricity? etc
No way. I could justify that at home (it's a hobby) but not at the office, where I 
receive
people.
OK, so a PC it is. Now, I also need some homemade programs.
If I can't have them under some kind of SMSQ emulator, I'll need them on the PC.
So I start PC programming - what do you think will then gradually happen?
Sooner or later all of my programming will be done on the PC, because, the
homemgrown programs are also done at home.
Exit SMSQDOS

So, for me, QPC is a very real reason TO CONTINUE TO STAY WITH THE QL
WORLD!

(...)
> However (and that is the user's preference not Marcel's doing of course)
> when the emulator becomes the only place where the software is run, then
> first the hardware becomes totally obsolete and then the emulator itself.

OK, I can agree ith that -it was one of the reasons I did buy a Q60.

> If the trend for emulation-based only QL work continues, then we might as
> well totally abandon QPC/QemuLator/uQLx etc and rewrite QDOSMSQ (to use
> Thierry's term ;-)  in a higher level language and use it natively on PCs,
> MACs and what have you.

Don't tempt the devil...

> The purpose of existence of any QL derivative OS is to run on hardware
> after all and to take advantage of that hardware. If that doesn't happen
> what is the point of still using the OS?
Oh well, of we go into this debate again - QPC does run on hardware and can take
advantage of it - I can read CDs, I can use USB printers etc...

> It is (and according to my belief illustrated above) therefore imperative
> that the users choose to invest in hardware instead on only software (in
> the best situation both) if there is any point in all of this.

Yes, and despite the above I still agree.
But for me, conceptually, there is not that much difference between an QPC machine
and a Q60 machine.

(...)
> I don't think that the Q60 was ever sold as a Linux machine (although it
> runs it very capably) but with the *ability to run* Linux. (Similar to
> saying PC with the ability to run QL software via QXL or QPC!.. It's not
> primarily therefore a QL ;-)
No, but what can you use it for if not to run SMSQ/E (ok, Qdos classic, but I want
MORE than a QL from a modern machine).

>
> Apart from that I fail to see how the Q60 is being developed actively?
> Software development and hardware development are distinct processes. The
> Q60 is completed and working fine. Peter designed and implemented the
> hardware and we're asking him to make the software for it too? (Don't get
> this in the wrong way I am just asking a legitimate question). Nobody asks
> Marcel or you to design hardware to fit the software right? Just as we
> never asked Miracle to write SMSQ. TT did that!
> The fact that Peter has the ability to contribute software is unrelated to
> the fact that he designed the hardware.
Again, I disagree in practice. If the hardware is there but no software to take care 
of it,
what use the hardware?

> Now, if you mean by developing to create new hardware solutions more
> extended than the current Q60 offering that's a different process that
> involves a substantial and immediate investment. Even to make my new ED
> drives it took me several hundreds of dollars and that's an easy task...
Sorry, I don't understand the reference to "making" ED drives.

But let's use this as an example. If you want ED drives, you have to upgrade the OS for
it. And who could help there better then Peter Graf?


> imagine tackling a whole machine in say a ColdFire implementation with PCI
> bus... can it be done? Sure... will it be done? Probably not, and one of
> the reasons was explained by Peter... he doesn't feel that the current
> license of SMSQ/E can help a potential design.

Noted.
I disagree, of course.

(...)

> I think that the issue is a lot more complicated than that. Unfortunately,
> in order for the Q60 hardware to be fully utilised, a lot of processor and
> hardware specific code has to be written. Unfortunately the current
> situation of the license permits that only for one's own leisure.

Wrong.
See my other message re the open software question.

> The
> license is what it is and has to be respected regardless of one's personal
> opinions. A solution to that would be extensive patches on the code and
> the list has seen a tremendous disagreemen

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

["Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος)"]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:16 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:

.


To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other, 
(I've heard
this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.

I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but 
they do indirectly.
To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally 
abandon hardware for software only.
Once this is total, then the QL idea will be all but dead. That is not to 
say that emulators do not serve a purpose,
on the contrary; they can act as complimentary tools (and they do so) in 
many occasions as for example software development.
(Many systems rely on software emulation running on Windows or Unix or 
other platforms for testing of software before it gets to the real 
hardware.)
That's VERY good and VERY helpful (Ie software development of even the 
PSION suite was done on alien hardware, or modern Symbian development is 
done on Unix and Windows).
However (and that is the user's preference not Marcel's doing of course) 
when the emulator becomes the only place where the software is run, then 
first the hardware becomes totally obsolete and then the emulator itself. 
If the trend for emulation-based only QL work continues, then we might as 
well totally abandon QPC/QemuLator/uQLx etc and rewrite QDOSMSQ (to use 
Thierry's term ;-)  in a higher level language and use it natively on PCs, 
MACs and what have you.

The purpose of existence of any QL derivative OS is to run on hardware 
after all and to take advantage of that hardware. If that doesn't happen 
what is the point of still using the OS?

It is (and according to my belief illustrated above) therefore imperative 
that the users choose to invest in hardware instead on only software (in 
the best situation both) if there is any point in all of this.
Marcel (as well as Peter) each in their own, chose to create something to 
satisfy a demand that existed. The fact the users brought the two 
"solutions" (Better term than platform ;-) against each other in a way 
(see articles in QLT before the whole SMSQ/E license change by people not 
involved in this) that the creators of the solutions were brought before 
an existing situation beyond probably their initial reasoning for creating 
what they did.

Unfortunately, today, one of these platforms (QPC) is actively 
maintained by its author,
the other (Qx0) doesn't seem to be, at least as far as SMSQ/E is 
concerned (and, quite
frankly, the Q60 only interested me as a QDOS compatible machine, if I 
want to run
Linux, any old PC will do - and they come cheap).

I don't think that the Q60 was ever sold as a Linux machine (although it 
runs it very capably) but with the *ability to run* Linux. (Similar to 
saying PC with the ability to run QL software via QXL or QPC!.. It's not 
primarily therefore a QL ;-)

Apart from that I fail to see how the Q60 is being developed actively? 
Software development and hardware development are distinct processes. The 
Q60 is completed and working fine. Peter designed and implemented the 
hardware and we're asking him to make the software for it too? (Don't get 
this in the wrong way I am just asking a legitimate question). Nobody asks 
Marcel or you to design hardware to fit the software right? Just as we 
never asked Miracle to write SMSQ. TT did that!
The fact that Peter has the ability to contribute software is unrelated to 
the fact that he designed the hardware.

Now, if you mean by developing to create new hardware solutions more 
extended than the current Q60 offering that's a different process that 
involves a substantial and immediate investment. Even to make my new ED 
drives it took me several hundreds of dollars and that's an easy task... 
imagine tackling a whole machine in say a ColdFire implementation with PCI 
bus... can it be done? Sure... will it be done? Probably not, and one of 
the reasons was explained by Peter... he doesn't feel that the current 
license of SMSQ/E can help a potential design.

Now, Marcel has gone to great pains to make sure that all of his efforts 
are useable on
the others machines, even to such an extent that he didn't just dunk me 
his code and
tell me to adapt it (whih he could simply have done, and nobody would 
have found
anything odd with that) but he actually programmed, e.g., Q60 specific 
code.

But still, you have a situation where one platform is being maintained 
by what some
(you?) see as its competitor. And here, I can only salute Marcel's 
dedication - I'm not
sure I would have had the moral fortitude to act this way.
However, you can't expect Marcel to do Qx0 specific development only.
For example, who will try to take Thierry's CD driver any further? Who 
will do software
development to take the Q60's sound system further? Shouldn't you be 
involved in
that?
Isn't it a pity that you aren't?>
I think that the issue is a lot more complicated than that. Unfor

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[wlenerz]

On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:

.
> I also think Marcel and Wolfgang work hard. Wolfgang does it without 
> financial reward, a fact that has my full respect and appreciation. I hope 
> that those Q40/Q60 developers who, unlike me, see enough reason to follow 
> Marcel's SMSQ/E route, will continue to see some progress and have fun!!!

Is there really no way, under this licence, that you could join the fun?

Let me, for a moment, try to put QPC and the Qx0 in parallel.

OK, I know, one is a machine, the other a platform etc - let's not open this 
debate for 
the time being, it is not important here.


These are both GREAT machines, and I have the highest respect for Marcel and for 
you, because you both built something that I could only dream about.
I have no hardware design capabilities, so conceiving and building something like the 
Qx0 was totally beyond me.
And Marcel's programming skills are so far beyond me that he might as well live on 
another planet.

To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other, (I've heard 
this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.

Unfortunately, today, one of these platforms (QPC) is actively maintained by its 
author, 
the other (Qx0) doesn't seem to be, at least as far as SMSQ/E is concerned (and, quite 
frankly, the Q60 only interested me as a QDOS compatible machine, if I want to run 
Linux, any old PC will do - and they come cheap).

Now, Marcel has gone to great pains to make sure that all of his efforts are useable 
on 
the others machines, even to such an extent that he didn't just dunk me his code and 
tell me to adapt it (whih he could simply have done, and nobody would have found 
anything odd with that) but he actually programmed, e.g., Q60 specific code.

But still, you have a situation where one platform is being maintained by what some 
(you?) see as its competitor. And here, I can only salute Marcel's dedication - I'm 
not 
sure I would have had the moral fortitude to act this way.

However, you can't expect Marcel to do Qx0 specific development only. 
For example, who will try to take Thierry's CD driver any further? Who will do 
software 
development to take the Q60's sound system further? Shouldn't you be involved in 
that?
Isn't it a pity that you aren't?

I would LOVE to have you with us.



All the best
Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source

[Peter Graf]

Bill wrote:

[snip]

I don't have a problem with the current way SMSQ/E is managed and I know the
people involved work hard with little monetary reward. I think an open source
model would work better but that is just my opinion. Open source is not 
against
there being proprietary software for sale. It is more about a way to have an
alternative so we have a choice and the knowledge can be shared and grow just
like languages always have.
Regarding SMSQ/E I did not see things quite as relaxed as you, because I'm 
much more personally involved, but this was a very nice posting about open 
source, thanks, and 99% agreed :-)

I also think Marcel and Wolfgang work hard. Wolfgang does it without 
financial reward, a fact that has my full respect and appreciation. I hope 
that those Q40/Q60 developers who, unlike me, see enough reason to follow 
Marcel's SMSQ/E route, will continue to see some progress and have fun!!!

I'm off the list, all the best
Peter