Marcel Kilgus wrote: >As everybody knows there was some BS between QPC and the Q40 people >and looking at pqiv for example they don't seem to be very much >interested in compatibility
I would like to remind you of something: You were the one who decided to introduce the incompatibility between Q40 and QPC highcolor. The Q40 highcolor definition was the first one for SMSQ/E. It was reasonable, documented and published very early, long before any other highcolor mode. (BTW Peter had offered Tony Tebby to change it, but Tony Tebby decided it was a good definition, so it was kept.) You could have used this definition, and that would have made life a lot easier for a lot of software developers. But you decided not to do so, you wanted to be not compatible to Q40. (And please don't tell me here that the QXL's GGG BBBBB RRRRR GGG was so much more elegant than the Q40's GGGGG RRRRR BBBBB B.) I wrote the pqiv program long before QPC had highcolor support. I could not smell it in the air that you would decide to make QPC incompatible to the Q40 and which definition you might use. Is everybody obliged to do major rewrites in his (free!) program, after you have decided to introduce another incompatibility? Now you (who has deliberately made a whole SMSQ/E target incompatible) take one single program (from me) to suspect THE Q40 PEOPLE (that's more than me, you know) of not beeing interested in compatibility! Why this wrong and unfair attacks against Q40? >which makes it a bit hard for >me to release my work for their platform for free (hopefully this is >at least a bit understandable). If it is so heartbreaking hard for you, that Q40 users would also use code that you write for QPC users for free anyway, there is a simple thing you could do: You could charge a fee from the Q40 users only ;) Claus
