- Original Message -
From: "Roy wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)
>
> I approached Fred Toussi a while ago about doing an
> upgrade to Text 87 and suggested that he could pro
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 at 22:45:55, Roy wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Qliberator was another story but Ian Stewart, who was my only contact,
had only a small part in writing it. The other author, whose name
escapes me,
Adrian Soundy
had long since disappeared and the sources were not avai
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dilwyn Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I think if QLiberator and Text87 were achievable, I suspect Roy Wood
and/or Jochen Merz would have secured them by now.
This is indeed true. I approached Fred Toussi a while ago about doing an
upgrade to Text 87 and suggested
> > Does this fall into the parameters of what you were looking for
> > Geoff - the possibility of paying someone to extend the SDUMP
system.
>
> Of course, a small(ish) job, but one that could be incoporated into
a lot of
> programs. Perhaps we should start thinking of what sort of routines
we wo
- Original Message -
From: "Dilwyn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)
> Does this fall into the parameters of what you were looking for
> Geoff - the possibility of paying someone to extend the SDUMP syste
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Taffel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You have said that Quanta is heading towards a £1000 a year structural
> profit. I am also interested in how much Quanta has in realisable assets.
> The reason I ask, is that as has been pointed out, the pond is now a
pud
> This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to
spend
> on QL development. How should they spend this money?
>
> In fact Quanta would have two possible ways of financially
stimulating QL
> development. Major projects (SGC successor?) could be financed out
of the
> capital. T
From: "gwicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:52 PM
Subject: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:22:18 +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't answered on this thread until now mainly because (in the first
attempt...) I wasn't sure whether that kind of money would conceivably
around
in this matter.
Now that Geoff has given more details, here's my
- Original Message -
From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)
> SNIP<
> I don't know whether offering something like 1000 pounds for software
would
> be a good idea.
>
> The reason is that it is, in my mind, too much and too l
Wolfgang Uhlig wrote:
Geoff Wicks wrote:
This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to
spend on QL development. How should they spend this money?
On march, 8th, Laurence Reeves answered::
1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)
That seems like a lot of cash
Geoff Wicks writes:
> Remember your subscription is your money, not Quanta's. How would you like
> them to spend it on your behalf?
In a way, hardware development is more deserving as hw developers have real
outlays apart from spare time, ie their "profit" can go negative rather than
just zero.
gwicks wrote:
> This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to spend
> on QL development. How should they spend this money?
> Remember your subscription is your money, not Quanta's. How would you like
> them to spend it on your behalf?
>
> Geoff Wicks.
>
>
Hi
Take a look
Geoff Wicks wrote:
This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to
spend on QL development. How should they spend this money?
On march, 8th, Laurence Reeves answered::
1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)
That seems like a lot of cash for what is a pretty trivi
14 matches
Mail list logo
