In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Hunkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. > >I have been a loyal QL user from nearly day 1, have never made any money >off of it, but keep going at it. I am now working extremely hard on QDT >as some of you may know. To be honest, it is a labor of love. I will >be happy if I ever make enough money to pay for my trips to the shows >that I do get the chance to attend.
QDT seems a very interesting development. A GUI would put 'QL_ware' into the frame with modern OS's. I learn't computing on non-GUI machines, yet I now use the GUI's available for other OS's all the time. I haven't commented on QDT before ... yet if you need any help with user testing, then I could oblige. >I am very appreciative of all who have kept the QL alive. Some make >money off if (not much I bet) and others don't. This includes both >those involved in the hardware and software; all very much appreciated, >whether or not I use their product. Everyone counts in this group. As are we all ... >I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some >help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT >project. Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be >very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. These discussions come and go ... as they saying goes put group of experts in the same room and they will never agree :-) >I understand that there are major disagreements in the license plans for >SMSQ/E. But I would hope that, instead of putting the dirty laundry out >for the public to see (and it is very disappointing to have to see all >this), that the parties who are involved would try to have some >constructive and pro-active direct contact amongst themselves to resolve >the disagreements. I believe thrashing out the arguments is actually very healthy. >And, as it is in the real world, not everything is going to be perfect >for everyone. The parties involved need to step back, take a breath, >try to understand what is important to them AND to the others. And >then, and only then, with that understanding and acceptance, come up >with some real proposals that try to do the best for all involved. > >I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that >it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need >from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous >amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an >agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems >currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. > >Just as a final reality check, until a few months ago, SMSQ/E was not >open source or anything else. It was being maintained by Tony and a few >vendors who put a lot of effort into getting changes done as required to >run on different systems and to add important capabilities (such as >color drivers). And I suspect that there hasn't been much money made >off of it for some time for anyone. > >As far as I can see, with the new licensing being worked out, everyone >should try to make the best of it for everyone, instead of making it >ideal for themselves. > >I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with >disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get >them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been >reading for the last couple of days. > >I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, >please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. I believe it will resolve ... even if it seems fraught when written down in emails. Face to face discussions most often resolve the main issues anyway. -- Malcolm Cadman
