Re: [ql-users] Event help in C68?
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:01:19AM -0700, James Hunkins wrote: Hey Guys, I have finally decided to join this list as my work on QDT progresses (thanks Marcel for recommending that I try this). Was putting it off due to time constraints but now seems like a good time with a cry or two for help. I could use some assistance in using C68 in the pointer environment in passing an event from one job to another, which I can not currently get to work. if you are trying to do some more general interjob communication think about using Jonathan Hudson's CSM (client server manager) thing. PE is probably best used for what it was designed, drawing windows. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) so don't comment private correspondence and answer the questions. So rephrase the questions without reference to private correspondence. Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly so what do you actually want? What makes you think I changed my mind? I could read the disassembly before you had the idea that this is illegal. And the fact that I had this idea now changes that? As are all licences. nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version of the license would turn into Microsoft shared source license. Your license doesn't qualify either way. Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable rights... (...) Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would complain if you also had new features? Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence? the situation was inconvenient because TT had limited resources. You are on the best way to waste even more resources by the means of licensing braindamage. The license wasn't a big concern as long as all code was copyright TT, now that you are going to get bogged down by a variety of separate licensing agreements it is a very big concern. There are no separate licence agreemnts - the licence stays as it is. There is no difference between the free and non free developper - all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not, as the case may be. of course, there is only the difference between those who have a special agreement with the registrar and those fools who haven't. the fools are those who think that I have special agreemnts with anyone. I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements Nice. Which ones are you referring to? but do you think this is a good thing for SMSQ? Seriously, what is the license worth if everyone will have his special agreement? Same point. If, as you state, the case is that Peter paid horrendous amounts of money to get some specific work done, and that work wasn't done, then I'd say he has a good case to get his money back. Does he also have a good case to actually get the features implemented? Why should he more or less now than earlier? Who would be responsible for that? Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? you should have taken the past development (for which you are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns into account - it is important part of preconditions when considering a new license. 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account past developments for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up with TT. Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the past? Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that : - the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work - Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ, nonregarding whether the now official resellers are willing or able to futher support it. Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the office of the registrar. than I will wholeheartedly accuse *you* of racketeering. Then go look up racketeering in the dictioanry. I'm still willing to believe that you don't know what you're talking about. In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. Again who are you to request a guarantee from me? So here is your 2nd chance, sincererly I would love to be proven wrong. Oh thanks, I don't need second chances from teh likes of you. I'll take the first chance I already have and try to make something out of SMSQ/E. Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your license does make it impossible
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 7:50, Dexter wrote: As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a needless restriction. I'm think about a way to make things easier. In Eindhoven, it was agreed not to let the sources be put onto Websites, to retain some semblance of control over them, because we don't want too many shareware sources to float around. If then you allow in distribution via E-mail, well yo know how easy it is to set up a website that sends yo the sources via email as soon as you make the request on the web page - and hey presto, you cincumvented the non dtsiribution over a website interdiction... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. Now, let's see. if I buy a Q40/Q60 today, this comes with SMSQE. So the person selling it (dd?) is a reseller. Why not simply continue? To whom will a buyer of the software/hardware turn, anyway? To the person they bought the set from! If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. You don'y pay for sources. You pay everytime you sell the binaries. Even as a hardware seller, you lust give support for your product, mluist you not? If you sell the hardware/software combo, you are just as responsible as if selling the softwarre separately. Where will the people get the software from, if not from the ahrdware seller initially? You would have this responsibility to your users, as a hardware seller, even if the OS was free. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. I don't agree. it's a free world. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, Why? Have they even asked to become resellers? Not to my knowledge. and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Exactly what development hurdles are these? in what way does the licence make the development more difficulut for you? On the contray, you have access to the sources, now! Now, what is the objective of this license? To attempt to let thoise interested have a look at the sources, and, if they want, do something with them. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Wolfgang, I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is made to private correspondence. I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Thanks.Why is it that I'm not supposed to have understood things when I just don't agree with the opinions expressed. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and has it working on may flavours of Unix, on different platforms and processors. I don't doubt that. It would benefit the community to SMSQ to have it supported by UQLX, and have Richard's Unixy extensions within it as he has already done for JS and Minerva. However, he does not have continous access to all those platforms, and definitely not all the combinations of interface cards, displays etc they come with. He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. In the spirit of the GNU licence says it all - the proposed licence isn't in that spirit. So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. Nice. Under the current proposed licence, he cannot operate in this reasonable way. Says he. He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. We are looking into the email aspect. Moreover, I think your comments very clearly outline one of the aspects I care about. He 'or anybody else) can send the source code to interested parties. If they can compile the source code, then they probabbly will only need minimal support, if any at all. However, the normal end user won't be able to compile it - but he would need support. So he doesn't get access to the binaries in the first case - and won't need support either. The scheme as it stands now provides for both cases - you can't just let the binaries out in the open, have end users play around with it and them leave them without support. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for a wider audience? I really do urge you to rethink this. Conversely, I would be interested to know how you intend to police the licence; it seems to me to be impossible, so perhaps Richard and others like him need not worry. Policing the licence? We'll see - i don't really foresee that this would be much of an option, apart from telling the people involved and putting them to public opprobium here. On the other hand, if I do notice something illegal going on, I might just sue - here in France. p.s. Most unix distributions include an emulators package these days. Think how many extra users we might end up with (or ex-users that return) if we could get them to add UQLX +SMSQ etc into that package? I know exactly how many : none. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 7:18, Dave Walker wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) Same here when I got my Q60. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 12:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. That is true. On the contrary, the registrar has the right to oinclude/exclude any code. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. Of course not. On the contratry - there should ne no inofficial versions, at least none that I want to know about. than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like to help and leaves too many important points wide open. I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as - you accept this copyright - you leave this copyright message intact and don't place any additional restrictions on the code - you don't sell this source or anything derived from this source, including binaries - you don't branch the code. licensing for commercial purposes is available under following conditions: ... ... Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? If discipline is all you want than this should do quite well and still leave sufficient room for commercial development. The formulation above may seem a bit naive - it is. We aren't expecting to deal with criminals here, are we? Well of course we are, aren't we? racketeers, all! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 22:08, Timothy Swenson wrote: > > It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are > in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be > kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as > the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not. yes of course, you are entirely right -dave already pointed this out before. I just wanted to make clear who the reseller are up to now - else I would again be accused of hiding things, you know... > > >4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain > >official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and > >source code form, one for each machine on which > >SMSQ/E may run. > > I would recommend defining the terms "Registrar" (but not as "me") and > "Distributor/Reseller". Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do. yes! > I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source > code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A > simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and > some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of > currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then > talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a > Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal > employee, so I know the power of the "chain of command". Ok, how does a max of 3 IRC + blank media strike you? > I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than > sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the > Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server? Simple: I would have to do it. This takes much time, money and effort for what will finally be only a few people who will want the sources. > It could be > arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting > the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar, > mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on > a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a > veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind. Yes, thzt is indeed a concern. > With all due respect, I don't think the above is physically possible. If I > make a change to the SMSQ/E scheduler, I don't think that I can compile it > and distribute it without including SMSQ/E (since this is what I have > changed). If I can make a change and distribute it without any original > SMSQ/E code, then I'm not actually modifying SMSQ/E and don't fall under > this "license". I think this statement needs to be looked at again. in other words, if you make a change in SMSQE, you can't distribute the binaries therefor. That's what it says, and that is what is intended. If you lake a change other than in the source code (e.g. a patch) then of course the luicence doesn't apply to you, I mean why should it?. > (snip - support) > If we are strict in allowing only certified resellers to distributing > SMSQ/E, I want to know what bang do I get for the buck. I have found that > the QL community is great in helping each other out and have received more > "support" from other QLers that from a reseller. > > I firmly believe that QL resellers have a right to exist and I'm happy to > see them there (I'm glad I'm out of arms reach in case any one of them > takes this the wrong way). But, if we are to only allow resellers to > distribute SMSQ/E in binary form, BECAUSE they provide support, I think we > really need to define what this support is. If we can define the support, > great. If we can't define the support, then we are in trouble. yes, you are right - so let's think about this. Comments, anyone? > Wolfgang, I know that you've taken a lot of flack for this license. I don't mind the flak, provided I'm allowed to shoot back from time to time when the argument get beyond the polite. > I hope > that no one has made the feedback too personal. I have looked over the > license as much as one programmer would look over another programmer's > code, looking for bugs and other problems. I appreciate your taking the > time and effort to contribute to the QL community. Hey, your comments are very welcome! (I mean that!) The only requirement I have is that the discussion remains polite. Why do you think I make the licence projetcs available here, if not for you to comment? > Most of us have put a lot of time and effort in to the QL and it's > community and we all can take some of this a bit personally. In fact, you > may be feeling a bit like George Lucas when hearing feedback about Jar Jar > Binks :-). Oh you mean, the licence isn't one of my better efforts... :-) Agreed! > And one final question, if the source code is to be released for free, what > about the Reference Guide. Is
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Well, believers in free market forces unite. If there still is a market, then somebody else will step in. Moreover, if the seller is not there any more, who will sort you the user's hardware problem? That's an even greater risk. So, should be still trell people not to buy any more hardware because of that? Surely this is not the intention of anyone? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
On 19 May 2002, at 17:31, James Hunkins wrote: Guys, I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to look at (if there are any) that give the following: 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) 4) can display some graphics Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a basic capability (tables and figures at the most). As far as I'm aware, that doesn't exist on the QL. Is there any reason not to use Prowess? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 20 May 2002, at 1:43, ZN wrote: OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that: 1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*) 2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or changes to the core, start as a submissions to the registrar, and become, if accepted, a part of the next official core issue if aproved. 3) Add-ons, i.e. is everything that goes 'on top' of SMSQ but is not part of the core, and is probably speciffic to a particular platform. Oh great, somebody actually understands what we're trying to achieve. [Digression: (*) this 'common to all platforms' is a bit of an idealist view, a discussion for some other time] Yes, yes and yes! This may seem like an odd argument, but it is paramount for the issue of developement, support, distribution - not to mention that a clear definition of the above three is (or should be!) one of the main criteria used by the registrar to decide what becomes a part of SMSQ and what does not. If the above were true, whoever wants to have SMSQ on a different platform, would not strictly need to distribute the binary, but could instead point the users to one of the distributors, and offer the necessary add-ons to the core and a way to link everything, to make it work on that platform, removing the platform speciffic parts from under the coverage of the licence, and regulating the distribution and support for said as they see fit. true - however, it would be easier to distribute, as a reseller, one patched version that runs right away on the new machine. After all, I presume the new users buy a machine from you- and they will come back to you for support. Will the additional 10 EUR you charge for TT's work really be that much more of an imposition? In case a developer wants to do something with the core to enable new functionality, they would be able to get the official source under the conditions stipulated in the licence, see what and how would need changes, implement betas and have them distributed under the conditions of the licence (which I do find somewhat restrictive but not impossible), and eventually, propose their inclusion into the official generic core. Provided the registrar was convinced the proposed was or could be beneficial to everyone (**), and not only everyone - let's definbe everyone as meaining veryone on that machine. For example, the Q60 has a LED port. Th. Godefroy wrote some software to use it. Suppose he porposed that for inclusion iin the OS (I have NO idea whether he would or not, I haven't discussed this with him, it's just an example). Why should I not allow it in, even though it would profit only Q60 users? Likewise, QPC has the DOS device. Why shouldn't that be part of the OS inSMSQ/E, even though only QPC would profit from it. I WOULD like to see developments that profit all versions of all machines. it would then be included into the next official core, at which point the developer can use that to implement speciffic add-ons of their own, again handled outside of the core licence. yes! [Digression: (**) a mechanism should be in place for the registrar to distribute certain beta versions simply because he would be in the best position to know the key developers for speciffic cases where a proposed change may have wide impact] true! The problem is, this is not the actual situation. Instead, we have SMSQ which has relatively monolitic parts some of which may be essential for one group and at the same time of no interest whatsoever for another. Because of the absurd idea that every platform or flavour thereof should have it's own SMSQ version, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to write a licence agreement which would satisfy everyone to an acceptable degree. Arguments like 'I paid for a feature and why should I submit it and have anyone but me benefit from it (financially)' are forever going to be oposed to 'I don't want to pay for anything because I only do things for free', and that's only the benign tip of the iceberg. We could collectively come up with a myriad scenarios in which any given wording of the licence would not work. I sincerely hope that not even an attempt will be made to cater for everything!!! no. What I would be doing to break this deadlock, is the following: get the current official source under the current licence. Have a good long look at it and figure out how to make a generic core from it. Then propose THAT to the registrar. Sounds like a lot of work for little gains? The way I see it, this may indeed be true in the short run. But if it's not ultimately done, we'll soon all be throwing in the towel because without this and a clear division what falls under the licence and what does not, i.e. without a clear picture of what SMSQ is and what it can grow into, the best we can hope for is for a situation where 'read TTs code'
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 17:16, Peter Graf wrote: Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Untrue. And if TT had decided to stop development altogehthern, the chance would have been even less. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Future of SMSQ/E
On 19 May 2002, at 22:09, Claus Graf wrote: Hello! I have a dream - the best operating system around is free and open source! Well, right now it isn't. Tony Tebby opened up the way into a bright future of SMSQ/E by allowing SMSQ/E to be free and open source and enabling the remaining core operating system programmers to develop SMSQ/E further. Many thanks for that! But this historic opportunity is thrown away and a license is invented that turns almost every freedom that Tony Tebby would have allowed us into prohibitions to fulfill commercial purposes. I don't see it that way. The licence does allow you the freedom to make changes. Alright, so only the resellers may sell the binary code. So what? Not only that, the license takes away every important right of an open source developer who wants to contribute his work for free! The fruits of hard work will be lost, abused or sold by third parties for unknown prices. Oh sure, I can see it now: code abusers charinbg 1000s of euros and the poor unsuspecting users flocking in wiht their hard earned cash. Please people, get real. (The only thing left is to see a snapshot of the sources, later on one can only see the non commercial parts of SMSQ/E.) Please consider now, that all major programmers, who are willing and able to write operating system code for Q60 SMSQ/E, are open source and free software developers and cannot work under such conditions. I can. But then, true, I'm not a major programmer. This means that SMSQ/E development is stopped for the last QL platform that is still produced, the Q60! So I kindly ask Wolfgang and the forces in the background: Cue in the dramatic music. May the forces in the backgroud be with you. You all know of course, that I am just a front for a sinister fiend mafia, bent on destroying the Ql world (at least) and make a fortune when doing so. I'm sorry Claus, just venting my anger at you... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Documentation
On 19 May 2002, at 22:22, Peter Graf wrote: Sorry we are not certified SMSQ/E resellers. THIS IS UNFAIR. Have you even taken the trouble to ask whether you wanted to become one? NOT TO ME! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 13:52, James Hunkins wrote: I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. You are not alone. (snip) 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. Sorry, I must have missed your request. What was it? Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. The alternative would have been to say: Here , this is the licence, you have no chance to discuss it, that's it. I perfer to leave it open for discussion. 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. What do you need? 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. The difference here is that there is no real need for people to get to accept compromises. Everybod can just walk away from the project if they want to. 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. Never fear - whatever happens, you can at leastbe pretty sure o something: SMSQ/E will be available, in one form or another, in the future... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Job control
On 18 May 2002, at 23:10, Claude Mourier 00 wrote: Is there any easy way to retrieve the job-id and to focus on it (as does Qpac PICK tool) from a SBasic program ? This is to achieve an interaction between task. Claude What exactly are you trying to achieve? You can use the PICK commandd from basic. Woflgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best for QL users, Not true really. The source is open. You can get it and read it and change it. All we are trying to do is to ensure that released version have been properly tested, are stable and will work with existing software as best we can. This is in the interests of QL users I feel. I do not agree, the QL has progressed to where it is by tinkerers playing about with it, and then making their efforts available, with or without charge, to the community. No other software carries these restrictions, and now that suspicion has entered the debate, it is not going to leave in a hurry. Here in Scotland we have a saying He who pays the piper calls the tune., the END USER pays the piper. and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the rumours about what was about to appear spread very fast. When I bought SMSQ, Qubides, etc. We were told Colour Drivers are being written, along with other refinements, memory, CD support etc. This encouraged the purchase of Auroras, etc ,etc. Not only to support development, but in anticipation of machines that could live in a modern world. Whatever reasons TT had for not fulfilling his agreement to supply these for qubides, he has cut off his nose to spite his face, as the loss in serious user base was substantial, better he had done the work and quibled later. The result being we feel, as END USERS badly let down and, not to put to fine a point on it, conned. I, as a user, only see that TT at last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) Why so ? There was continued development for a long time. The user base has fallen a lot and TT can no longer afford to support it. To be truthful the remaining traders can no longer afford to support it but we do because we have made many friends over the years and won't be letting them down. What srious development, the Q40, which you promised all the above were just round the corner, still waiting. Roy, I sympathise with you trying to exist in a shrinking market, indeed I think we have supported you and Tony in any way we could. But you have to ask why a shrinking user base, not so Linux, in fact the oposite is the case. Lessons should be learned, if its not to late. and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let the predators starve to death. I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no money being made on SMSQ/E. Money is not the question, it is freedom to use the system as the Users see fit. Not as a self appointed commitee would like to legislate Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds competition to differant systems and leads to healthy development. See my previous comments on that. We are too small a community and have too few software writers for different flavours of SMSQ/E to co-exist. If we have some things that will only run on one version and some that will only run on another we will lose the few users we have left. WHY are we a small community, computing grows by leaps and bounds. It is a good platform plagued by people, Sinclair, Sugar, and others. Sounds like self interest to me regards Mike -- 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] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: 4. Distribution of SMSQ/E executables for free was forbidden. This changes everything. It shows other passages of the license in a different light. The combination now means, that non-commercial contributors no longer get any rights from this license, except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code (***). There is no difference betwwen càmmerecial and no commercial developpers in this licence. I just stated they no longer get any rights from this license, except the revocable right to see a vanishing snapshot of the code. Which is true. The situation for Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E: Tony Tebby was our only *commercial* developer. for OS work, yes. Yes. I said SMSQ/E which is an OS. What else are you talking about? These non-commercial authors would like to participate in development! For example, there are developers interested to implement 128 MB RAM support, harddisk improvements (4 GB), slaveblock solution, cache handling, better MMU usage, network support, 68k FPU support for SMSQ/E and so on. The ONLY REASON why they can NOT do do the work for SMSQ/E is this license, which locks them out. This is simply not true. This is simply true. ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD NOT WORK, e.g. under an OpenSource license ??? The ONLY reason they do not work under this licence is THAT THEY DON4T WANT TO work under this licence. Do I bid their wrists? Do I threaten them with death ? Do I stop them from working with this code? No, they have decided that this licence is not aceptable for them. Fine. But DON'T say that they CAN'T work under this luicence. They CAN WORK only if they agree their executables are lost, abused, or sold for unknown money, at conditions that may change anytime. That's what the license allows. A GREAT OPPORTUNITY :-(( If a contribution is accepted by the registrar, the license leaves completely open what will happen to the executable code of a contribution. No it doesn't - if it falls within the binaries, it falls within the scope of the licence. Of course it does. I repeat for you: The license allows everything to happen to the executables, including complete loss, sales for unknown money, no sales at all, loss for some platforms only, virtually everything that an author needs to know. An author can only KNOW what will happen it if he makes separate agreements with resellers outside this license. Sure your commercial author already has this agreements with your resellers. All this also makes the rights concerning test versions completely void. Your executable code may be lost or abused, as soon as it is accepted. Yes, I often abuse code. Wolfgang, I was not personal. I only criticise this socalled license. I'm sure your decisions about inclusions of code into the source tree will work allright. I was not talking about the source tree, or code generation, but about *availabilty* of executables. If my fears about the results of this license are just paranoia, why not include rights for the non-commercial developers? Why have two sets of rights? Haven't said two sets of rights. If you want rights for the non-commercial developers simply include them. Or, maybe easier, use an existing wellknown license that takes care of all this. And let us start working. Peter
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) Same here when I got my Q60. And more. Peter
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
Hi All, To Answer Jim, There are a few HTML based viewers floating about 1, QMOSAIC - I think this was a UNIX port, and a bit buggy. Available in the freeware libraries (Dilwyn?) and probaby the QUANTA library. 2. LYNX - A text only HTML browser ported by Jonathan Hudson from the unix/linux sources. Available from his Website (follow the link from Dilwyn's Page) This could even run from a disk on gold card systems if I recall, and was basic but worked. This is probably your best bet, but it is pretty big I think. 3. HYPERBROWSER - What norman was talking about, by Tarquin Mills. I don't know if this was ever finished (tarquin?) 4. DOC2HTML - A useful utility that converts quill doc's to HTML - Written by Dilwyn Jones and available on his web page. There is always the Prowess reader, but as you said, not all people are running prowess. BTW Jim, nice to hear you're still playing with your QDT...heh, heh... (private joke guys!) Cheers, Darren Branagh Director, Wicklow Web Centre Limited Computer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales Upgrades. Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:31 AM Subject: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer? Guys, I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to look at (if there are any) that give the following: 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) 4) can display some graphics Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a basic capability (tables and figures at the most). Thanks for the help, Jim
Re: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST -
Hi Rich, I have a Trump Card, complete with manual as new. If interested let me know. Darren BranaghDirector, Wicklow Web Centre LimitedComputer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales Upgrades.Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 11:20 AM Subject: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST - There seems to be a dire shortage of these at the moment. Roy is not responding to my emails, so I do not know if he is getting them and has any disk interfaces left!!Does anyone else have any for sale??Rich Mellor RWAP Software7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JRTEL: 01977 614299http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: everybody was invited. No. Fact remains: This meeting was in the absence of Tony Tebby (who had the SMSQ/E rights), me (sick), DD Systems (not invited), or representatives of OpenSource development (vacation). Fine. Develop it. Get it accepted as an authorised version. Sell it for 10 Euros or give it away for free. Just pay TT 10 Euros for each one sold. No problem. Unfortunately the license doesn't say that. Can I have this statement, without additions that make it void, from the registrar, and guarantees it won't change in the future ??? Why should it change? We're having difficulty getting it done in the first place! I have asked a simple question, no answer. OK I make it even simpler: Can I have Roy's above statement, without additions that make it void, from you ??? A large problem would still remain: My *person* is no guaranty to non-commercial developers. I can get sick, or whatever. Their rights should be in the *license*. If they are not, I can hardly expect them to work for Qx0 SMSQ/E. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Untrue. Rubbish. None of the guys who wrote operating systems for Q40 would ever do the same under this socalled license. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Documentation
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Sorry we are not certified SMSQ/E resellers. THIS IS UNFAIR. Your remark is unfair. I just showed: No need to become appointed reseller under this socalled license to do a good job. That's a valid point. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy wrote: I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: Proposal 1: Keep the appointed resellers. Make sure that nobody can get their support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free distribution of executables again (first license), so non-commercial developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The appointed resellers will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They are allowed to sell it! [...] I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. Wolfgang, please also have a look! ROY AND I SEEM TO ALMOST AGREE! (a rarity :-) CAN WE APPROACH A SOLUTION HERE ??? I have no objections that freely distributed executables are restricted to the official versions! I agree to destroy patched versions then. It was only meant to help. But no need for that, if official work is acceptable, also for us Qx0 folks. Peter
[ql-users] qtyp dictionary
On a disk I have here, I've found a file called QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS - does anyone have any idea (a) what language is it (Dutch?) and (b) what it might be (i.e. content)? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
Dilwyn Jones wrote: On a disk I have here, I've found a file called QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS - does anyone have any idea (a) what language is it (Dutch?) and (b) what it might be (i.e. content)? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html Hi, Vlaams = Flemish. Language spoken by +65% of the Belgian population. Although the official language (administration, schools, ...) is Dutch, most people in Flanders use their own Flemish dialect. QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS is probably a spelling dictionary. Geoff Wicks told me there was such a dictionary around somewhere, but I never saw it. What a relief after all those frustrating 'Open Source' messages. François Van Emelen
Re: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST -
I have one Cumana v1.14 interface. In theory, I have a manual but don't know where to find it yet. Yours for cost of postage if you want it. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 May 2002 11:20 Subject: [ql-users] QL Disk interfaces - URGENT REQUEST - There seems to be a dire shortage of these at the moment. Roy is not responding to my emails, so I do not know if he is getting them and has any disk interfaces left!! Does anyone else have any for sale?? Rich Mellor RWAP Software 7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR TEL: 01977 614299 http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] QDT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes 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. Actually, while QDT started, as you say, as a desktop GUI, it is growing rather dynamically. It turns out, as most of us realize, there are a lot of capabilities available for the QL thanks to different people who developed things like FileInfo, Scratch, Screen Dazzler, pointer environment, etc. However, many users (including myself) have not taken advantage of all of them due to knowledge limits and/or time constraints. Indeed ... it is very capable when it is all put together. I second the time constraints ... :-) So QDT will be trying to give easy and clear access to many of these capabilities under its desktop GUI environment. That is exactly what is required ... EASY ACCESS to features that currently only appear to be available to experienced users. After the US QL show in a couple of weeks, I will start working on updating my websight. The update will show hints at a lot of the 'new' interfaces to the different QL capabilities. I suspect that it will take 3-4 weeks after the show and I will let everyone know when the update is completed. I will be showing some of the interfaces at the US show for those who can attend. The beta testing will be done by a small and tightly 'controlled' group (resources and time are a huge problem for me - as they are for most people). I will keep your offer in mind when the time approaches. OK. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
1, QMOSAIC - I think this was a UNIX port, and a bit buggy. Available in the freeware libraries (Dilwyn?) and probaby the QUANTA library. Yes, my disk GE62. That is version 0.80a, described as SMSQ/E compatible. Q-Mosaic is by FTS Software in Italy. 2. LYNX - A text only HTML browser ported by Jonathan Hudson from the unix/linux sources. Available from his Website (follow the link from Dilwyn's Page) This could even run from a disk on gold card systems if I recall, and was basic but worked. This is probably your best bet, but it is pretty big I think. www.daria.co.uk - as you say, a bit big and large numbers of files and directories, though there is the cut-down Tim Swenson version with just what you need to get going. Both are text only browsers IIRC. 3. HYPERBROWSER - What norman was talking about, by Tarquin Mills. I don't know if this was ever finished (tarquin?) Not fully finished, but worked reasonably well, only trouble was you had to register it I think, though I'm not sure of the early demo versions allowed any useability. It had the facility to use Photon to view graphics by clicking on the link or filename of the graphic IIRC. 4. DOC2HTML - A useful utility that converts quill doc's to HTML - Written by Dilwyn Jones and available on his web page. Not a browser though - just lets you use Quill to create HTML pages with some extra features like links and so on. There's also Roy's HTML Machine for creating tags in just about any text editor as long as PE is there (needs stuffer buffer) There is always the Prowess reader, but as you said, not all people are running prowess. Irrespective of how good Prowess is (and it is good) it takes a while to get used to and get the best out of it. Slight lack of time in the Dilwyn household which is why the Q60 under the desk isn't yet as used as it ought to be! Back to my soapbox...I WANT SOQL!!!
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each including postage if anyone is interested.. I seem to remember QPower regulators didn't work properly with Gold Cards (OK with TrumpCard). Can't remember the reason, perhaps it was that Gold Card needs a rapid burst of power at startup which QPower regulator doesn't allow too well. Anyone know if I'm right or wrong or what is the correct answer? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
[ql-users] QDT and GUIs
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. QDT is definitely something to look forward to. I also have a much less ambitious one on the cards, which will work with QDOS systems too, called Launchpad. I've kept quiet on this (been working on it for several months) and it is basically an iconised front end for a QDOS system (will work on SMSQ/E including GD2 but does not use the extra colours). The program launcher part works, the file handler part works interpreted but not yet compiled (the file handler is a standalone program which will probably be released as freeware, working name Q-Trans file transfer program - it's a split two window source and destination file windows). The main thing causing a delay on Launchpad is Darren Branagh's idea for a 'MyQL' section (3 guesses where he got that idea from...aaarghhh!). As I said, it's far less ambitious than Jim Hunkins's QDT, so if you want the best, go for QDT. If you just want a nice simple no frills system, try Launchpad. Likely that both will be out about the same time - I'll most likely release a demo version too. Not in competition with Jim in any way or form (like I said from what I've seen his system will be far better specified), just providing a simpler alternative which will also work on traditional QDOS systems with pointer environment. If we are lucky, Launchpad will introduce people to GUIs on a QL system and they'll progress to glorious technicolour GD2, SMSQ/E QDT and all other things wonderful! (Not vapourware, Launchpad was demoed at the Manchester Quanta AGM though it wasn't very stable then!) Jim - is QDT likely to rely on having GD2 colour drivers, or will it work on any SMSQ/E or QDOS system when released? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
[ql-users] Tarquin's HyperBrowser
Hi Tarquin, Are you still developing your HyperBrowser for the QL? -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
Hi Jim, Another system you may want to look at is the lastest version of Dilwyn Jones VIEWER program - this has a links ability in it, not really HTML, but works beautifully. Can link to items within the same document via the line its on just by putting the cursor over it and ENTERing, on load in another doc by using a different kind of link which you pre-embedd in the text. I'm using it to convert a freeware encyclopedia for the PC to the QL which has links in it, which is about half done. Darren Branagh Director, Wicklow Web Centre Limited Computer Training, Web Design, Repairs sales Upgrades. Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.wwc.ie - Original Message - From: James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 1:31 AM Subject: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer? Guys, I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to look at (if there are any) that give the following: 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) 4) can display some graphics Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a basic capability (tables and figures at the most). Thanks for the help, Jim
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Dilwyn Jones wrote: Peter, one other possibility with this is NOT to sell the binaries as such. Rather, if you want support, you buy a support contract and are given a unique identifier you quote when you want help from Roy or Jochen or DD or Claus/Peter, plus the OFFICIAL SMSQE the only one for which you'll get support. That way, the binaries could be distributed for free, but the traders would still make money from the support side of things. And part fo the money could still go to Tony and perhaps the Registrar would also get a little money for his work in maintaining the 'official' distribution. Just a thought... Nice idea, fine by me! The license must say that, though. If it's not in the license, the developers won't work under it. Thanks a lot! Peter
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
Another system you may want to look at is the lastest version of Dilwyn Jones VIEWER program - this has a links ability in it, not really HTML, but works beautifully. Can link to items within the same document via the line its on just by putting the cursor over it and ENTERing, on load in another doc by using a different kind of link which you pre-embedd in the text. You are welcome to use it (I think QBranch used it for the help or instructions in PD3/S when they were selling that), but as QDT is a nice modern GUI and Viewer isn't even pointer driven, there doesn't seem much attraction to use it. Better I think to go for a fairly basic levl of HTML, that way people could even create their own help files with their favourite HTML editor, or something as simple as Text2Exp or Doc2Html from me, or even use Jack Mitchell's Xchange HTML printer_dat or xchange_dat which if you print output from Xchange Quill, it's written as an HTML file (just adds the HTMLBODY etc tags which are sadly too long for ordinary QL Quill's more limited printer_dat) I'm using it to convert a freeware encyclopedia for the PC to the QL which has links in it, which is about half done. Oh, are you now??? ;-)) Not Probert encyclopedia by any chance as that's something I sat on my hard drive waiting to be done too - in fact I'd considered using Q-Mosaic to front it if ever I got the time. ;-)) -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] QDT and GUIs
In message 014701c20031$6967c100$97075cc3@default, Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes 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. QDT is definitely something to look forward to. I also have a much less ambitious one on the cards, which will work with QDOS systems too, called Launchpad. I've kept quiet on this (been working on it for several months) and it is basically an iconised front end for a QDOS system (will work on SMSQ/E including GD2 but does not use the extra colours). The program launcher part works, the file handler part works interpreted but not yet compiled (the file handler is a standalone program which will probably be released as freeware, working name Q-Trans file transfer program - it's a split two window source and destination file windows). The main thing causing a delay on Launchpad is Darren Branagh's idea for a 'MyQL' section (3 guesses where he got that idea from...aaarghhh!). All to the good ... what does the Q-Trans part do ? As I said, it's far less ambitious than Jim Hunkins's QDT, so if you want the best, go for QDT. If you just want a nice simple no frills system, try Launchpad. Likely that both will be out about the same time - I'll most likely release a demo version too. Not in competition with Jim in any way or form (like I said from what I've seen his system will be far better specified), just providing a simpler alternative which will also work on traditional QDOS systems with pointer environment. If we are lucky, Launchpad will introduce people to GUIs on a QL system and they'll progress to glorious technicolour GD2, SMSQ/E QDT and all other things wonderful! ... and, very importantly encourage users to use the OS with ease. This is why OS's with GUI's are so successful and have many users. (Not vapourware, Launchpad was demoed at the Manchester Quanta AGM though it wasn't very stable then!) 'Welshware' then ... :-) -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 05:31:38PM -0700, James Hunkins wrote: Guys, I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to look at (if there are any) that give the following: 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) 4) can display some graphics Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a basic capability (tables and figures at the most). from Unix world I could recommend w3m, links and dillo. Former two are pure text apps (similar to lynx but way better), dillo has full support for graphics. All of them do tables but dillo doesn't do frames. As of the complexity.. not easy to judge. I guess sooner or later we will have to port GTK but it hasn't been done yet so you would need a detailed look at how much of it needs to be emulated to get the basic rendering in dillo done. Richard
Re: [ql-users] qtyp dictionary
Dilwyn Jones wrote: QTYP_DICTIONARY_VLAAMS is probably a spelling dictionary. Geoff Wicks told me there was such a dictionary around somewhere, but I never saw it. If you want to see it, I can email it to you, it's freeware. -- Dilwyn Jones Yes, please. Thank you! François Van Emelen
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I do not agree, the QL has progressed to where it is by tinkerers playing about with it, and then making their efforts available, with or without charge, to the community. No other software carries these restrictions, and now that suspicion has entered the debate, it is not going to leave in a hurry. Here in Scotland we have a saying He who pays the piper calls the tune., the END USER pays the piper. Well that is not entirely supported by the real facts. True there have been quite a few nice applications and a lot of free software which had no front end and which was of no use to anyone except those who were able to write this for themselves. The bulk of the work was done by solid commercial programmers who have gradually left the scene because there was not enough sales to make their efforts worthwhile. I don't really understand the 'suspicion' thread of all of this. and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year with traders, to TTs benefit. I don't really see what TT had to do with the Qubide but the rumours about what was about to appear spread very fast. When I bought SMSQ, Qubides, etc. We were told Colour Drivers are being written, along with other refinements, memory, CD support etc. This encouraged the purchase of Auroras, etc ,etc. Not only to support development, but in anticipation of machines that could live in a modern world. Whatever reasons TT had for not fulfilling his agreement to supply these for qubides, he has cut off his nose to spite his face, as the loss in serious user base was substantial, better he had done the work and quibled later. The result being we feel, as END USERS badly let down and, not to put to fine a point on it, conned. OK TT had no hand in the Qubide. The design was by Nasta, the sales by Qubbesoft and the software by Phil Borman so lets leave that out of the discussion. There was some talk of colour drivers by Qubbesoft. As far as I know TT claims that he had never committed to write them. All of TT's work has been commercial. If he was paid he did the job. He also put in many hours into support, mostly unpaid. QLCF, the French user group, paid for the colour drivers for the QXL. QPC2 users paid for the colour drivers for that when they upgraded and Peter claims to have paid for the colour drivers for the Q 40 etc. (I have no direct evidence of this but I do not disbelieve it). TT did what was asked of him over and beyond the amount of money he was paid to do it so all this accusation is as misinformed as it is pointless. The problem with the QL is not in the lack of software support but the physical limitations of the hardware itself. If you want to compare the system with a PC you have to accept that the whole of the PC market is geared up to a different standard and is driven by wholly different forces. A 15MHz, 4Mb QL with a SGC is never going to compete with a 1.6GHz 512Mb P4. We do not have the resources to keep up and the user base was already to small to do so in the mid nineties. On the whole we keep going because we enjoy playing around with the system and because it is a platform we have chosen to support. I am about to go to the S show. I will sell nothing there. I go because of a commitment to The US users to be there and it will cost me around £ 600 to do this. Jochen and I combine it with a short holiday to ease the cost but we would not be going if there was no show. This is commitment. SNIP What srious development, the Q40, which you promised all the above were just round the corner, still waiting. The Q40 is still being developed. I gave up on it because I, like many others, fell out with Peter Graf. I wish them well of it but it is a hobbyists market and it always will be. Roy, I sympathise with you trying to exist in a shrinking market, indeed I think we have supported you and Tony in any way we could. But you have to ask why a shrinking user base, not so Linux, in fact the oposite is the case. Lessons should be learned, if its not to late. Again LINUX is running on standard PC parts. We are running on specialist parts which cost too much because they are manufactured in too small quantities and we have too few programmers who are willing to do anything about it. SNIP I don't think any one is being a predator here. There is no money being made on SMSQ/E. Money is not the question, it is freedom to use the system as the Users see fit. Not as a self appointed commitee would like to legislate No money is everything to do it. I have a nine to five, five day a week job and a young family. I spend a lot of time writing for the magazine, going to shows and doing support for the QL. Just recently I have spent hours each night answering people who choose to attack the system as it is. WHY are we a small community, computing grows by leaps and bounds. It is a good
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
In message 005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau, Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an official version, and as members will no doubt want to help develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E -- 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] SMSQ/E proposals
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes We will make no money from this. Of course you will, if you offer nice support and handbooks. Folks have no other way to get your support and handbooks except purchasing the binary from you!!! Don't underestimate that. There are thousands of companies working this way in the real world. This way they benefit from the fact that plenty of non-commercial work is done, which they can sell. No we won't. Look. No one has to pay for SMSQ/E twice. If you have a copy of SMSQ/E for your platform then upgrades are free. I feel that many of you think that the rule that binaries should not be distributed for free applies to upgrades. As far as Jochen and I see it does not. Upgrades are always available and always free if the version number does not change (i.e. the bit before the '.'. I cannot see this happening) Most people who want SMSQ/E already have it. I have sold maybe two or three copies of SMSQ/E for the Gold Card, one copy for the QXL and none for the Atari in the last year. Some I can retire now can I ? Wake up! (Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons who influence the decisions of the registrar. But maybe some public help will allow him to reconsider.) Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or otherwise unofficial version. OK. I have no objections the freely distributed code is restricted to the official versions. I can also destroy anything 'patched', if my proposal is accepted. Do you think we can agree on my proposal, then? As I said I was in agreement with your proposals. Others were not and did not trust you. I have not decision in this. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. -- 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-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the 38 page guide was no where near comprehensive enough to document a full OS. I'm sure that it assumed that the user was already familiar with QDOS. The Gold Card/TKII manual was a little more in depth, as it only covered some extensions to the OS. The original poster said something about a printed handbook for SMSQ/E and I would expect a little more than a 38 page guide that barely covers the topics. This is a little bit more revealing than the comment you originally made. I gave with each Q 40 I sold (and the US ones were mostly sent out by TF but I am sure he also sent the documentation too) all of the documentation I could lay my hands on. A few people (three) bought Q 40s with no prior knowledge of the QL or SMSQ/E I spent a bit of time with them getting them up and running both in person at my house and on the phone / Internet. There was no poster just an ad in QL Today and you received documentation on the hardware too. You do know about TK II and I do agree that the state of the SMSQ/E documentation is really just an upgrade notice but none of us have the resources to do anything else. At the end of the day we did our best and we were there to support you as we have been for all users over the years. Yes it was buggy and it still is. We all tried to get it fixed and make it better but TT was the only person available to do that. If we all stop this argument and get on with it maybe we could make it better. -- 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] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Well, believers in free market forces unite. If there still is a market, then somebody else will step in. and here the problems start. The people have already paid for SMSQ so the new reseller is practically only supposed to distribute upgrades and provide support. This appears even less interesting for potential resellers because they can hardly charge very much for an upgrade. So market forces would dictate someone become a reseller, quickly sell a few binaries and quit beeing a reseller. Your license doesn't say anything about how long a reseller is expected to provide support, nor whatever you consider support. Why don't you reconsider the get support in exchange for paying binaries in favor of normal support contracts? Moreover, if the seller is not there any more, who will sort you the user's hardware problem? some people on this mailing list are really great in helping such cases. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Wolfgang, I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is made to private correspondence. sorry, didn't know this detail was in any sensitive. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? so if it is not at all in your interest, why don't you give everyone reasonable guarantee that this won't happen? This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for a wider audience? I've been contacted from SuSE, Jakub Jelinek is himself an ex-ql user. Simon Goodwin mentioned it in some article for some Linux magazine (don't ask me which). Compare it with the publicity SMSQ had in mainstream media in the last few years. Yes, I do believe that you could easilly double the user base within a year with a reasonable license. Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like to help and leaves too many important points wide open. I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as - you accept this copyright - you leave this copyright message intact and don't place any additional restrictions on the code - you don't sell this source or anything derived from this source, including binaries - you don't branch the code. licensing for commercial purposes is available under following conditions: ... ... Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? even if you include this restriction it would be an improvement. But what was your reasoning that you desperately need this restriction again? ( ..since you have asked me not to refer to private email) Richard
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) so don't comment private correspondence and answer the questions. So rephrase the questions without reference to private correspondence. someone else happened to ask the same question so I will wait whether you answer his question. I could read the disassembly before you had the idea that this is illegal. And the fact that I had this idea now changes that? sure. As are all licences. nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version of the license would turn into Microsoft shared source license. Your license doesn't qualify either way. Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable rights... interesting... so you sell someone a car and later modify the contract to the extent that you only sold him a bicycle? You must be a really cool lawyer. Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would complain if you also had new features? so is it thrown in for free or does it cost extra money? I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements Nice. Which ones are you referring to? should I refer to private mail again? Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. keeping a cc is trivial, where is the problem? Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? you should have taken the past development (for which you are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns into account - it is important part of preconditions when considering a new license. 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. haven't I? In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. I really considered the case was purely rhetorical but maybe it is too early to judge. 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account past developments for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up with TT. Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the past? Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that : - the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work - Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ, nonregarding whether the now official resellers are willing or able to futher support it. Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the office of the registrar. you are taking a lot of responsibility on you. With an open source license nobody would even get the idea to make you responsible for something like that. If you insist to obfuscate development by the means of a restrictive licence more people might consider you responsible for the failure. Sorry, but my impression is that your license is not at all in the best interest of the users who need good support pretty desperately. You know, the users care about such trivial things like partitioning hard drives. Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your license does make it impossible for a few people to support SMSQ so you should see how you want to fill the holes. Thanks for not holding me responsible - now be a good sport and bar the normally. than why do you insist on this strange license? Your license also leaves the question of availablity for specific platforms completely unresolved, hence my concern about Q40/Q60 SMSQ availability. Is that too much asked? You can also try to convince me with a different license. Guess what ? I don't have to convince you. Availability for specific platform is simply done via the resellers. If a specific platform isn't catered for, then a new reseller can do this. so in the worst case the poor users have to hope that someone will volunteer to become a reseller. Test versions are catered for. so for the Q40 we are all running test versions until now?
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
- Original Message - From: Roy Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Source Code In message 005a01c1ff8d$3d771310$b25d86d9@macnamark39uau, Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Where is Quantas input in this matter, I thought they contributed to the development of SMSQ. Why are they not distributing an official version, and as members will no doubt want to help develop SMSQ, they would be well suited to handling this. Quanta have never contributed to the development of SMSQ/E If you say so, OK, I seem to remember a few years ago a big conflab about using the Quanta funds to pay for a new OS(SMSQ?) On the other points, as I say you have always had my support, as have the other traders past and present., and my sympathys. One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, why then all this fuss over a license for something people just want to play with.? mike -- 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] basic HTML viewer?
At 10:40 AM 5/20/2002 +0100, you wrote: Hi James. There was an HTML browser for the QL going around some time back, written in SuperBasic. The last I heard was that there were a couple of problems with it, and I haven't heard much since then. (Was it Tarquin ?) I believe you are talking about Hyperbrowse. There was also an earlier browser written by somebody in Italy. They used CSIZE to show the different font sizes from HTML. I've got a copy around but I don't know if the source code was distributed. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Mike MacNamara wrote: One point you make is that the QL is now just a hobby machine, why then all this fuss over a license for something people just want to play with.? Mike, Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it mildly, like me. Some people like it. Some people are panting in anticipation for it. Why all the fuss? Because unless Minerva is made open source fairly soon, SMSQ will be THE future of the QL, and the future requires software and hardware development. As long as SMSQ is run on hardware that runs 1/10th the speed of bottom end PCs, and as long as software is written in a discouraging environment, the QL scene will continue to contract. I was drawn back in and decided to develop a few things. Not with an intent to make money (indeed, I am already several $000's out of pocket) but to provide what the market needs. I considered developing a custom hardware platform, specifically for uQLx, which would allow people a higher performance, lower cost upgrade path with consistent and compatible hardware. Unfortunately, it rapidly became clear that uQLx was hampered by the lack of SMSQ support (through no fault of uQLx). When this offer came up I thought it was great. But the license is quite subtle, and in other ways quite blatantly unbalanced. If I were to write something revolutionary for SMSQ, I would have to surrender any income for it, to the official resellers. If I wanted to sell SMSQ with my hardware product, I would have to either be a reseller, or have a version of SMSQ for uQLx on ARM specially sanctioned by the Registrar, and supported by the official resellers. The issues are various and many. Liability for contributed bugs. Synchronising of sources between various developers aka the distribution limitation. Discouragement to produce based on lack of return funding. This license protects the interests of resellers by not allowing others to sell it (fair) and requires the contributors to accept no compensation for their development efforts (unfair) whilst forcing them to go to unnecessary lengths to acquire current sources. What is reasonable for a developer to expect from this license? It's reasonable to expect fast communication and delivery/exchange of sources with the registrar and other developers. It's reasonable that if they produce hardware, they should be able to create approved binaries to include with the product and pay directly to the registrar the 10 euro fee. It's reasonable that the resellers should be allowed to sell the approved versions also. What is it reasonable for a user to expect from this license? It's reasonable to expect current binaries and/or sources, which you cannot sell, except in their entirity (first sale doctrine). That you get support, and a period of free upgrades, or upgrades at a cost which is not an obstacle to upgrading. That if the OS/upgrades are tied to hardware, you can go direct to the hardware seller to get them, or for support. That you receive good quality, complete documentation. What is reasonable for the authorised resellers to expect from this license? It is reasonable to expect that the registrar will keep you informed of current sources/executables. It is reasonable that you make a profit from selling SMSQ. It is reasonable that you forward inquiries to developers if they are better able to assist, and that they do so. What is reasonable for the Registrar to expectf rom this license? The registrar role is key to this exercise. The work has competing interests and priorities - you must have the patience of a God, the stamina of an athlete and the knowledge of Einstein. Also, you must maintain records. Meticulous records. You must track incoming and outgoing patches and updates, act as a communications hub between developers, resellers and beta testers. Also, you must keep a central database of who bought what, when, and from who. Resellers will change over time, and it is vital to know who is supported and who is not. You need a way to share information with a reseller about whether a copy was legitimately purchased by a user, so any reseller can tell if they should be charging the upgrade or full fee. Also, with conflicts like those between (for example) the current resellers and the Qx0 developers, you will need to ascertain whether copies are being legitimately sold and supported, or unreasonably witheld. There's more to it than that, but you, dear Registrar, have the toughest job of all. The current license satisfies the needs of the resellers, who are given rights but no responsibilities, (though the resellers are GOOD people and take on those responsibilities willingly, they are not required to do so) and the developers, who have responsibilities but no rights (the right to withdraw code if a bug is found, the right to make a small sum for their possibly extensive work, etc) The users will be
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
Lots of ideas, thanks guys. Basically, the two things that I need it to do is different font sizes (CSize is just fine), some form of graphics (compressed), hyperlinks, and tables. Frames is an option but not really necessary, at least for first round. If it is ready to go great, but am expecting to have to do some work on it so the source code is very good. I am also concerned with size of the code and speed. You all gave me a lot of options so I will start looking at them, probably on the plane on the way to the US QL show. I guess we are still waiting for a response from Tarquin on his efforts. Again, thanks for the input. Any other ideas or advice will of course be appreciated. I will let everyone know what I find. Jim On Monday, May 20, 2002, at 06:01 PM, Timothy Swenson wrote: At 10:40 AM 5/20/2002 +0100, you wrote: Hi James. There was an HTML browser for the QL going around some time back, written in SuperBasic. The last I heard was that there were a couple of problems with it, and I haven't heard much since then. (Was it Tarquin ?) I believe you are talking about Hyperbrowse. There was also an earlier browser written by somebody in Italy. They used CSIZE to show the different font sizes from HTML. I've got a copy around but I don't know if the source code was distributed. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] More C68 help - pointer env; positioning windows
Here's the other question, as another refloat for anyone who missed it. Any suggestions more comments/suggestions anyone? Thanks, Jim On Thursday, May 16, 2002, at 12:12 AM, James Hunkins wrote: Here's another question while I am at it. Normally when I position a window at an absolute location in the pointer environment, it goes where it belongs. However, I am resizing a window (I manually remove the definition, reset the data structure, and reopen it) and it goes where it belongs every other time. The off times it shoots to the left of the screen, pretty much in parallel with its correct location. The next resize sends it back to where it belongs. It has been suggested that it is because the window position is relative to the cursor, even when I do an absolute address. This sounds familiar and I think that I had this problem before and figured it out. However, I seem to be stuck again. Could someone walk me through the peculiarities of window positioning within the pointer environment. I do not want to set the window relative to the pointer but instead in an absolute location. Thanks guys, Jim
Re: [ql-users] Event help in C68?
I would like to refloat this (seems that a couple of people missed these questions last weekend). Below is my original request for help on eventlists and communicating between jobs. I did get the note to look at Jonathan's CSM and will do so. But any advice on using events such as the pointer environment is set up to do would be great. Thanks, Jim On Thursday, May 16, 2002, at 12:01 AM, James Hunkins wrote: Hey Guys, I have finally decided to join this list as my work on QDT progresses (thanks Marcel for recommending that I try this). Was putting it off due to time constraints but now seems like a good time with a cry or two for help. I could use some assistance in using C68 in the pointer environment in passing an event from one job to another, which I can not currently get to work. I have tried two scenarios. 1) using sms_sevt and sms_wevt - I used the job ID received back as an integer from sms_info for each job . when these were checked they matched the job ID listed with the SBASIC command jobs but did not include any tag info, etc. ? is this the correct job id to use in these calls? If not, how can I obtain the correct ID? - I set the eventlist for sms_wevt = 0xFF so that it would accept any event sent it - sent an event with sms_sevt to the sms_wevt program - nothing received 2) using iop_rptr (enhanced for the upper 8 bits for vectors) and sms_sevt - same job ID as described in 1) - assumed that sms_sevt is actually using the upper 8 bits of the vector list that iop_rptr checks - sent event - nothing received (checked both upper and lower bytes) Can anyone help me with this? If not in C68, then in assembly. I should be able to match the two. I need to do this to communicate between my icon objects and their associated folder in QDT. Thanks, Jim
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: There is no difference between the free and non free developper Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for him by his resellers (which are also your appointed resellers). The free developers (the majority) have only this license, which does NOT make sure their executables won't be lost, does NOT make sure it will be distributed for free, ONLY MAYBE it is sold for the commercial purposes of others, for unknown money. What separate agreements are we atlking about here? See above. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy Wood wrote: As I said I was in agreement with your proposals. Others were not and did not trust you. I have not decision in this. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. Thanks. It's kept in secret who exactly turned me down, but it's good to know that at least on of the persons ruling in the background is open for a compromise. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
Dave wrote: Some people are quite upset about this license, and some disagree with it mildly, like me. True, but you have it easier disagreeing just midly than we. For us it is not only a question of wasted work or time, but we have extremely expensive stuff on the shelf. Just for example the CPUs for the 80 MHz version costs more than EUR 600 each! I depend on Tony Tebby working for me, or, as he would allow, free developers doing the thing. Now if someone else cuts us off development for our machine we're losing out. That's one of the reasons, why I can't be as relaxed as you. What can I do? Push development for QDOS Classic and Minerva? Maybe. But that would take long and comes at a terrible cost of work, that is needed elsewhere. Peter
