Re: [ql-users] Open source
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I have no axe to grind as regards any particular platform on which to 'ql' >(new verb). BUT I do hope that the arrival of open source, in whatever >form, will be recognised as an opportunity not just to CHANGE the OS etc. >but also to improve (or indeed to create) the documentation. Over the last >few years, I have gained much useful information from Jonathan Hudson - >the comments at the head of some of his code are much more illuminating >than the OFFICIAL stuff, even when the latter actually exists. > >C programmers in particular need some accessible HOWTO material, >especially in relation to the PE. Clarity and unambiguity are what we (I) >what. There is a TV ad in the UK which has a punch line - 'It does exactly >what it says on the tin'. Our system software should do just that. It is >at least as important as redesigning the tin's contents. Very true. This is a chance to get the documentation developed along with the understanding of the source code, and any advancements implemented. With the www now available the distribution will be aided. -- Malcolm Cadman
[ql-users] Open source
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have no axe to grind as regards any particular platform on which to 'ql' (new verb). BUT I do hope that the arrival of open source, in whatever form, will be recognised as an opportunity not just to CHANGE the OS etc. but also to improve (or indeed to create) the documentation. Over the last few years, I have gained much useful information from Jonathan Hudson - the comments at the head of some of his code are much more illuminating than the OFFICIAL stuff, even when the latter actually exists. C programmers in particular need some accessible HOWTO material, especially in relation to the PE. Clarity and unambiguity are what we (I) what. There is a TV ad in the UK which has a punch line - 'It does exactly what it says on the tin'. Our system software should do just that. It is at least as important as redesigning the tin's contents. Christopher Cave
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Timothy Swenson writes: > First, let me say this: Waah!!! Seconded! > Ok, now that that has been said, I've got some ideas of how this process > might go. > > I'd recommend that a committee be formed to oversee the further direction <> > The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due > to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be > Simon Goodwin. I know that he is not as active as others, but he really I agree 100%, except from the totally opposite point of view! Anyone who objects to QXL.win files, mdv images, zip-files! (viz Quanta, Dec 2001), not to mention PE, and god knows what else, is going to be far too distracted to concentrate on the job. No offence intended, but I think there are others better qualified for the task, ie Marcel (who has a fair chance of taking SMSQ/E on into the '60s) and Jochen. Whether theyd also be willing is another matter. One can only hope. Open Source or not, I do believe this case does require some sensitivity as the whole project could so easily be hijacked or end in anarchy. The QL scene could now split in three ways or more, with Qdos Classic, Minerva and SMSQ/E all competing for attention. How to deal with the potential dispersal of effort should be carefully considered. This may require psychology and political acumen as much as technical ability. As for collecting money, Ive already paid up for SMSQ/E at least four times in full. Id naturally be happy to pay for source code and future developments. Per
RE: [ql-users] Open source
SMS future is now in our hands : for best I hope (but there is no assurance) It's strange but I notice this fact some years ago : the most vital and hard to do piece of software on a computer must appear free for the end user to be popular ! When someone buy a PC he pays mostly for a machine and the OS is a bonus. Application programs are the only thing user accept to pay for (but there is profit here if the OS is popular enough). Claude -Message d'origine- De : Dilwyn Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : samedi 16 mars 2002 14:15 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: [ql-users] Open source >>I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make >>SMSQ/ Open Source. >> >>We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, >>to make sure that we have a coherent development. >-Original Message- >From: Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 15 March 2002 10:10 >Subject: RE: [ql-users] Open source > >Un tournant dans le monde QDOS/SMS ! A turning point indeed, as long as we can agree among ourselves how to make best use of this excellent gesture. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] Open source
From what Marcel is saying about his continuing to focus on QPC code changes, and debate if he should port the changes to the Q40 (I hope that I summarized that correctly), we may need to tailor our approach to how we do this. I would really, really, really, like to see SMSQ/E behave basically the same on all platforms (QPC, Q40, QL, uQLx, and so on). Given that Marcel seems to be the closest to the code, he can take the lead on what happens with the core of SMSQ/E. There can be different persons designated to port the main changes to the other platforms (Q40, uQLx, etc). This way Marcel could concentrate on moving forward. I would suggest that portability be of higher value than taking short cuts due to some different feature in the underlying hardware. As for paying for all of this, we could leave this option open to the different porters involved. If the person doing the Q40 changes contributed his work for free, then the Q40 changes would be free and so on. If the port comes from a lot of code that Marcel has done and Marcel has decided to charge a fee for his work, then the Q40 port would come a some fee. Personally, I'm not too worried about paying a small fee for seeing new features. Heck, I'd be willing to do a subscription service for changes (say $X per year). This approach might generate enough funds to cover the work. Marcel, there might be a portion of this whole project that must be done for free. I can see you charging for QPC changes, but any work done for the WHOLE project, might be done as a volunteer (sort of overseeing the project). Might this be workable? I understand Jochen's concern. If SMSQ/E and extra parts to QDOS (wman, ptr_gen, hotkeys) move toward Open Source, then what happens to the license to distribute these binaries? After a certain date, can I freely distribute the PE to any QLer? We need to think about this issue. We need to think about how it will affect the dealers, esp. Jochen. Will the SMSQ/E documentation be freely available, or will the fees that Tony received be removed and lower the price of the documentation? Jochen, I think it's time for you to jump in and speak your mind. I think you should feel free to let us know how it will affect you, esp. in the pocket book. I appreciate the discussion of technical details on the list of possible changes to SMSQ/E. I don't know the OS at that level so I'll stay out of the conversation until something is mentioned on how it will affect the user. But thanks for keeping it in the list so those interested can read. I think that opening up SMSQ/E is a good thing for the QL world. How we do it should be contrained by how much it will affect all those involved. I don't see a necessity that it be fully GPLed. At the very least I think that the cost of SMSQ/E, documentation, and updates should come down in cost. (I'm assuming that TT will no longer expect his normal license fees). I can see paying a few $$ for the source code and such, to cover the cost of distribution and work. I do think that the more the code can get out to other programmers the more features we will get. One more thought, since SMSQ/E can be modularized, I'd seriously recommend that features that can be added via modules and kept out of the core OS code, be done this way. This will keep the core code smaller and easier to maintain. Authors of new features can implement their code without relying on someone to check the code into the main source tree. I look forward to hearing what other think and to what the final decision is on how the community is going to go about this project. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Open source
OK, here one of the more important answers from me, the rest has to wait until I have more time (this is also true for everybody waiting for a private answer). First of all some facts: SMSQ/E for QPC is not per default included in the offer from Tony. Tony doesn't even have the source code for that. And I will continue to maintain SMSQ/E for QPC anyway, i.e. eye every piece of new code and decide whether it will go into the source tree or not. This means that I will continue to maintain one "official" SMSQ/E version (core + extensions + QPC related drivers (which partly overlap with Q40 and QXL)) in any case. I am of course not much interested in maintaining the specific bits of other platforms, as I don't even have the chance of testing those changes. In my eyes this should be done by people actually using those platforms. This said, let's go on: Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. I don't know whether this would be any good. We need some money flow to keep people like Jochen involved (who also does the SMSQ/E support BTW, but certainly not for free). He sounded BTW a bit disappointed by the fact that the whole decision was done over his head. I would prefer Joachim's proposal. And at least I won't do any Aurora drivers (for example) without having the chance of getting some revenue back for that (which is usually done through fees). If on the other hand somebody else volunteers to do them: super, go ahead. At least the decision of the license is a very important one. Use the GPL on it and I'll probably quit being a developer. I want to have the final decision what to release and what not. > The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if > we find a suitable person. He did suggest you He is concerned > about his code being savaged if let around freely. As said, I will keep maintaining SMSQ/E for QPC and I have no problems with sharing my decisions regarding changes to the core, extensions etc. with other platforms. > I agree. Tony told me that he had started to integrate most of the > different versions (one for each machine on which SMSQ/E runs), > so that there is only one source code, with, I presume, different > modules. Yes, he tried to separate the machine specific bits of the generic bits. So for example QXL/Q40/QPC use the same serial driver core, just the hardware dependant bit is different. > IUf you allow me to, I'll tell him that you volunteered (or you can > tell him yourself), to get the source code transfer organised. Reading all the other mails this maintainer stuff is still not fully clear but you can certainly tell him what I wrote above. > I personally also find it very important that, if we do some > development on this, we do it for ALL machines that run SMSQ/E. I > was a bit worried about your earlier proposalsn because you might > have the (totally natural!) tendency to give a priority to QPC( I'm > ONLY speculating here, NOT accusing you of anything!) which i > something I personally would prefer to avoir (even if QPC is what I > use most) Let's say it this way: I specifically wrote the code in a way that it can be used without changes for both Q40 and QPC. I haven't however decided when to release the Q40 code (though it was certain that I eventually would). As everybody knows there was some BS between QPC and the Q40 people and looking at pqiv for example they don't seem to be very much interested in compatibility which makes it a bit hard for me to release my work for their platform for free (hopefully this is at least a bit understandable). On the other hand I KNOW that it's pointless to have the new WMAN on QPC only (this certainly wouldn't be any good for the QL world which I'm also trying to help in general. It needs every help it can get...), therefore I would have done a Q40 version eventually. > As to you being the registrar, I'm at once for and against it - > here's why: I think that you are one of the few people capable of > really understanding what Tony has done. As such, you are, of course > ideally suited as registrar. On the other hand, since you are one of > those rare persons, you are one of those few who can actually be > doing some real coding work and quite selfishly, I'd rather see you > do that... Well, as said, I will basically continue to do what I did anyway, i.e. having an eye over SMSQ/E for QPC. If that's of any help for other platforms: fine, I'm willing to share. That's what I have to offer but I can't do very much beyond that. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Open source
> Like Wolfgang I think it's unreasonable to expect the "prime developer" to > also be the manager of the project. I have frequently been in such a > position as a software developer for my employer and it is in no way ideal. I agree as well. In fact, I think we should see this as a chance to have more cooperation. I would be willing to help with the graphics (pointer interface) bits, like drawing in the save area etc. I would think that we could make make people pay for binary distributions, for example done by Jochen. This might also pay for some work as project manager (I think he would be the man for that). This way there is some revenue, and some control over who gets the source code (Jochen knows most people in the QL world). The people who can improve the system can do so, and if the chance ever comes along for some real profit, everybody involved (especially TT) can still benifit. Plus, if it would ever get that far, a few more people would be knowledgable about the system. Joachim
Re: [ql-users] Open source
>>I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make >>SMSQ/ Open Source. >> >>We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, >>to make sure that we have a coherent development. >-Original Message- >From: Claude Mourier 00 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 15 March 2002 10:10 >Subject: RE: [ql-users] Open source > >Un tournant dans le monde QDOS/SMS ! A turning point indeed, as long as we can agree among ourselves how to make best use of this excellent gesture. -- Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
Re: [ql-users] Open source
- Original Message - From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source > On 14 Mar 2002, at 19:59, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > > > > Ah, interesting. What means "in principle"? And what is the commercial > > status supposed to be? > > > If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. > The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if we find a > suitable person. He did suggest you He is concerned about his > code being savaged if let around freely. > A very reasonable requirement by Tony I think: nothing is more aggravating than seeing one's beautifully crafted code massacred by someone who as much idea about programming as they do about wlking on the moon. > We didn't really talk about the legal status of the code (yet). I can't > see, however, how Tony could retain copyright if many people > worked on it. I'm sure that we will work out something suitable to > most (propably not all, see below). > This is wrong. Tony can retain copyright if he wishes and, provided that the code is managed out in portions to developers, then no loss of copyright entails. It's just that those developers would have to agree that Tony retained copyright: in effect they are his agents while working on the code. The essential bit of course is _managed_ - it means that a) some form of configuration management will be necessary, b) someone will have to make decisions about who gets what part of the code to work on usw., and c) everyone involved in development will have to agree to a defined process for updating the configuration. > > Well, I suppose the amount of people actually doing something with the > > code will be quite limited. It's no easy stuff to deal with. > > > Yes, that's true. There are some, however (you, Thierry, Jochen (?) > etc come to mind). > > > So I might be able to do the job if necessary. > > Glad you volunteered! (I fyou ahdn't, I would have...) > > But there's a lot to talk about first... > > I agree. Tony told me that he had started to integrate most of the > different versions (one for each machine on which SMSQ/E runs), > so that there is only one source code, with, I presume, different > modules. > > IUf you allow me to, I'll tell him that you volunteered (or you can tell > him yourself), to get the source code transfer organised. > Like Wolfgang I think it's unreasonable to expect the "prime developer" to also be the manager of the project. I have frequently been in such a position as a software developer for my employer and it is in no way ideal. Essentially what is required is for someone, who does not need to be highly technical in the sense of "an expert in C, 68k assembler, etc.", to undertake to be the project owner on something like SourceForge. In this way only those who are given access are permitted to update the source tree and distribute the product as "SMS/whatever." > Now for some more personal notes from me: > I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the > actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the "registrar" (for want > of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are > handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is > why the 'most' and not "all" above...).. I know that this will enrage > the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do > whatever you want. However, we should consider that our > resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them > in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't > mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature > can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). > An alternative to SourceForge would be for someone with a suitable platform to store the sources in, say, a webCVS tree, and to give access to the designated developers. This, of course, requires a platform with a permanent hig speed internet connection - I'd . Perhaps it would make sense for QUANTA to provide such a platform - obviously dependent upon costs. > I personally also find it very important that, if we do some > development on this, we do it for ALL machines that run SMSQ/E. I > was a bit worried about your earlier proposalsn because you might > have the (totally natural!) tendency to give a priority to QPC( I'm > ONLY speculating here, NOT accusing you of anything!) which i > something I personally would prefer to avoir (even if QPC is what I > use most) > Indeed there is little point in doing this for onyl a sub
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 11:04:16 +0100 "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have also just learned that some people who might be interested > are on vacation, so perhaps we can give this some more time. You're right, Richard is on a 3 weeks vacation, for example. He should be back in one or two weeks, Claus > Wolfgang > - > www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 13:49, Arnould Nazarian wrote: > OK for me. > > Arnould > Thanks Arnoud. I Knew I could count on you! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 14:20, Dexter wrote: > > Ok, now I am totally confused. Welcome to the real world... :-) You are right, of course, as to the true meaning of "open source". I'm not sure yet exactly what stutus the code will have. i know that I personally would object about anybody selling what is essentially Tony's fruit - and Tony not getting any money from that. The reason that the source code is to be made available, is so that tinkeres like some of us are can go about imprioving the OS where Tony doesn't have the time or inclination to do so. But there again, this is my own personal opinion. So far, apart from Marcel, nobody has volunteered.to be the registrar or whatever we may call them. So? I have also just learned that some people who might be interested are on vacation, so perhaps we can give this some more time. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 02:20 PM 3/15/2002 +, you wrote: >Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. >And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it >isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that. I think we can expect the source code to be available, but any "official" changes to the code would have to go through the registrar. For some Open Source means using the "official" Open Source license. For others Open Source means all source code licenses (including the GPL). For Richard Stallman (founder of the GNU Project), Open Source and the GPL are not the same thing. The SMSQ/E project can use pretty much what ever license that is available, or create a new one. I don't think the GPL would fit for our project, but some other related license might. I think it would be up to the community (and really TT) as to the specifics of the license. Open Source does not mean that the source code cannot be put on a CD and sold. The GNU folks used to charge $150 for tapes of GNU software. I'd be willing to put down some money to get the source code and any documentation that goes with it. I highly recommend that a group of folks get together at the next big QL show and hash out the initial details in person. Divide the entire projects into smaller chunks and start getting volunteers to take on each chunk. Documenting the source code could be broken down and distributed. Speaking of documentation, I think the subject of the QDOS/SMSQ/E and QPTR documentation needs to be discussed as this is still being sold commercially. If the docs do also become available with the source code, we'll need to find a way to offset the loss to any vendors involved. I think a fully open SMSQ/E would benefit the entire QL community, but it will cause some loss to some (namely vendors). We will need to address this issue. If we pass the hat, maybe a certain amount of the sum should go to the vendors too, and not just TT. Jochen, since you are probably going to be the most effected, time now to get up and say your piece. Let us know how much this might hurt your business and suggest ways we can offset the loss. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 07:48 AM 3/15/2002 +0100, you wrote: >On 14 Mar 2002, at 20:22, Timothy Swenson wrote: > > > The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due > > to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, > would be > > Simon Goodwin. > >I'm not so sure about that, due to his strong opposition against the >PE. I was not aware of any opposition Simon had of the PE. I know that Simon has some strong feelings about how things should be done on the QL and TURBO reflects his design decisions. Whomever the person is they have to be fairly organized, willing to take a few barbs from programmers feeling that their code is great and just the right thing for SMSQ/E. I would think the person has to be fairly familiar with 68000 Assembly and be the person to do the final build. So, folks, now is not the time to be shy. If you feel you have the right skills and chutzpah, come one and step up to the plate. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > Open Source is open to anybody to download and modify according to their needs. > HOWEVER in order to make ANY modification a part of the official source > tree it has to be approved by the registrar and the governing body... > The difference is that a non-approved modification ceases to be called > SMSQ/E anyway. The point I think that's being made, is that SMSQ/E wouldn't lose anything by being truly open-source. The master copy of the code would be carefully managed, and submissions would be scrutinised for quality, suitability, and compatibility with SMSQ/E's goals... Yet people could still take the master and produce customisations. Don't need fancy screen drivers, use the old ones. Don't need xyz, strip it out. > As for potential revenue on making SMSQ/E opensource it's even greater than > it is now... This isn't just about selling CD-R's. It's about allowing SMSQ/E to be suitable for as many markets and functions as the market wants and is prepared to code for. The GOM's who run the 'committee' can then decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate to merge with the main source. > Definitely some "fine tuning" on the terms of a license is needed in order > to benefit everyone and ensure continuation of SMSQ in perpetuity ;-) but > that can be arranged with understanding, lots of talk and a nice consensus :-) As long as the license isn't infectious, I'm right behind it. If it is infectious, I wouldn't touch it with a proverbial barge pole. IMHO Dave
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 09:20 ðì 15/3/2002, you wrote: >On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > >Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. >And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it >isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that. I agree with Dave, Open Source is open to anybody to download and modify according to their needs. HOWEVER in order to make ANY modification a part of the official source tree it has to be approved by the registrar and the governing body... The difference is that a non-approved modification ceases to be called SMSQ/E anyway. As for potential revenue on making SMSQ/E opensource it's even greater than it is now... The reason being SMSQ/E can be sold as the full sources (I doubt it that many QL users willing to just fiddle with it have a fast connection so they can download it (with the exception of handful people me included)) on a CD, revenues of which can fund the registrar and the main distributor of the product (Jochen). Not only that but a project like that if broken down in several subprojects, has the potential for even greater revenue... Eg a SMSQ/E spinoff (say... SMSQ/EE -embedded-) could be licensed afterwards without "killing" its open source status. Definitely some "fine tuning" on the terms of a license is needed in order to benefit everyone and ensure continuation of SMSQ in perpetuity ;-) but that can be arranged with understanding, lots of talk and a nice consensus :-) Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > If it is Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. > I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the > actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the "registrar" (for want > of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are > handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is > why the 'most' and not "all" above...).. I know that this will enrage > the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do > whatever you want. However, we should consider that our > resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them > in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't > mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature > can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that. I've worked on an open source project (pgplus.ewtoo.org) and think this distinction is important, because it sets up peoples' expectations. They expect to be able to download the source, and modify it for their own personal needs. If this isn't possible, not only is the source not "open", but the project concerned has an entirely different focus and result. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Open source
OK for me. Arnould Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > I don't know about you, but I'll be sending him some money > instead, something like 150 euros. I KNOW he doesn't want any > (so I'll probably get a scalding), but I do think that his efforts, so far, > have not received AT ALL the financial results they should have. > Maybe we could organise a collection ?
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 9:27, Tony Firshman wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote: > (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > > From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman. > I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now. > I have always been a hardware man (8-)# Jus what would that commercial side involve? SELLING the new OS? I think not (if everybody agreed to buy one, we could pay Tony Tebby to do some work!) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 2:43, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > I suggested Source forge due to the many tools available. CVS etc. and not > to suggest total anarchy! Good! > I do agree in any case that for an OS a "tighter" control should be > implemented. > Don't forget that the project manager in any case is the one that handles > the CVS tree and regulates submissions. To be quite frank, I'm not really familiar with that. But I'm learning... > On top of that I don't believe that the core of the OS should be changed. > What should be changed (and normalised) is the way drivers are written etc... That already is normalised in a certain way. What most of us want to do is change the drivers (e.g. take out the slave blocks), I presume. > I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the > sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes > to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. > Additionally a fully documented source would be: .. a shortage of income for Jochen Merz. is that what we want? > 1. An Invaluable tool for all programmers > 2. A good reference point to start if we are to step up SMS to a different > platform (yeah yeah I know... don't shoot!) Oh, by all means, if we can get I must point out, though, that I do not, for one minute, believe that even a better, faster etc... SMS will be able to break out of its current niche. Others have tried (e.g. Beos) - and they had MUCH better tolls than we have now... In that, at least, I agree with Tim Swenson: let's try to make a nicer OS for us, who are already using it, not try to build something that might lure in hypothetical new users. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: Re: [ql-users] Open source
How about documenting them when they are changed, with responsibility on the developer making the changes? New code submissions could be accepted only with proper documentation; standards determined by the 'steering committee'. Ian. > -Original Message- > From: marcel > Sent: 15 March 2002 10:39 > To: ql-users > Cc: marcel > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source > > > Phoebus Dokos wrote: > > I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the > > sources and completely documenting them first and then > start doing changes > > to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. > > There are about 2000 source files. Who's going to do this? No, I > certainly won't. > > Marcel > > Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Norman Dunbar wrote: > I'd be willing to assist in any way I could. > It would need to be a distributed team effort I think, but never having seen > the sources, I can't say. Probably, yes. > PS. Good luck in your forthcoming exams - there managed to get off topic > again :o) Thanks, I totally neglected it over this whole WMAN stuff... so I'll be off to meet some friends to study now, will answer all remaining mails (list and private) later. Marcel
RE: [ql-users] Open source
I'd be willing to assist in any way I could. It would need to be a distributed team effort I think, but never having seen the sources, I can't say. Regards, Norman. PS. Good luck in your forthcoming exams - there managed to get off topic again :o) - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Marcel Kilgus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:39 AM To: ql-users Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source There are about 2000 source files. Who's going to do this? No, I certainly won't. Marcel This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Phoebus Dokos wrote: > I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the > sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes > to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. There are about 2000 source files. Who's going to do this? No, I certainly won't. Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 at 09:33:42, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >Unfortunately, none of the photos show up :o( >Show picture, refresh etc don't make them appear. Ah - thought it was Demon. I am sure Tim S will be on to it - Pacific time permitting. Too early in his day right now. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
RE: [ql-users] Open source
Un tournant dans le monde QDOS/SMS ! -Message d'origine- De : Wolfgang Lenerz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 14 mars 2002 18:58 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: [ql-users] Open source Hi all, I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make SMSQ/ Open Source. We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, to make sure that we have a coherent development. Anybody wolunteering? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Open source
Unfortunately, none of the photos show up :o( Show picture, refresh etc don't make them appear. Ah well - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source >> Yes - one gets to know people well in hot tubs (8-)# >> http://zx-museum.org.ru/www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/show.htm> This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote: (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman. I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now. I have always been a hardware man (8-)# > It would be nice to get Lau involved, but I don't know his >availability I will leave him to comment on that, but I know he is thinking of doing similar with Minerva. It would be nice to see Minerva improvements - like colours/hi resolution. >The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, >due to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, >would be Simon Goodwin. I know that he is not as active as others, but >he really knows his stuff. It might take some convincing to get him to >accept such a position, and it might take some work to get him to work >well in the position. At the very least, we should get him involved >because he probably writes 68000 assembly in his sleep. > >I only got to spend a week with him when he came to the West Coast >Sinclair Show back in 1999, but I think I got a feel for the man (pre- >fatherhood). Yes - one gets to know people well in hot tubs (8-)# http://zx-museum.org.ru/www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/show.htm> I remember you, Tim, arrived in it soon afterwards. He is even better as a father. Certainly a very different person from the frantic supercharge days. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 01:48 ðì 15/3/2002, you wrote: > >Now for some more personal notes from me: >I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the >actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the "registrar" (for want >of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are >handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is >why the 'most' and not "all" above...).. I know that this will enrage >the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do >whatever you want. However, we should consider that our >resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them >in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't >mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature >can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). No Wolfgang, I suggested Source forge due to the many tools available. CVS etc. and not to suggest total anarchy! I do agree in any case that for an OS a "tighter" control should be implemented. Don't forget that the project manager in any case is the one that handles the CVS tree and regulates submissions. On top of that I don't believe that the core of the OS should be changed. What should be changed (and normalised) is the way drivers are written etc... I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. Additionally a fully documented source would be: 1. An Invaluable tool for all programmers 2. A good reference point to start if we are to step up SMS to a different platform (yeah yeah I know... don't shoot!) That's all for now, Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 14 Mar 2002, at 20:22, Timothy Swenson wrote: > The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due > to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be > Simon Goodwin. I'm not so sure about that, due to his strong opposition against the PE. > > Any way we can get Tony's address to send "Thank You" cards? > * I don't know about you, but I'll be sending him some money instead, something like 150 euros. I KNOW he doesn't want any (so I'll probably get a scalding), but I do think that his efforts, so far, have not received AT ALL the financial results they should have. Maybe we could organise a collection ? Off to the flameproof shelter now... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 14 Mar 2002, at 19:59, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > Ah, interesting. What means "in principle"? And what is the commercial > status supposed to be? If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if we find a suitable person. He did suggest you He is concerned about his code being savaged if let around freely. We didn't really talk about the legal status of the code (yet). I can't see, however, how Tony could retain copyright if many people worked on it. I'm sure that we will work out something suitable to most (propably not all, see below). > Well, I suppose the amount of people actually doing something with the > code will be quite limited. It's no easy stuff to deal with. Yes, that's true. There are some, however (you, Thierry, Jochen (?) etc come to mind). > So I might be able to do the job if necessary. Glad you volunteered! (I fyou ahdn't, I would have...) > But there's a lot to talk about first... I agree. Tony told me that he had started to integrate most of the different versions (one for each machine on which SMSQ/E runs), so that there is only one source code, with, I presume, different modules. IUf you allow me to, I'll tell him that you volunteered (or you can tell him yourself), to get the source code transfer organised. Now for some more personal notes from me: I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the "registrar" (for want of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is why the 'most' and not "all" above...).. I know that this will enrage the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do whatever you want. However, we should consider that our resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). I personally also find it very important that, if we do some development on this, we do it for ALL machines that run SMSQ/E. I was a bit worried about your earlier proposalsn because you might have the (totally natural!) tendency to give a priority to QPC( I'm ONLY speculating here, NOT accusing you of anything!) which i something I personally would prefer to avoir (even if QPC is what I use most) As to you being the registrar, I'm at once for and against it - here's why: I think that you are one of the few people capable of really understanding what Tony has done. As such, you are, of course ideally suited as registrar. On the other hand, since you are one of those rare persons, you are one of those few who can actually be doing some real coding work and quite selfishly, I'd rather see you do that... The questionis : can you manage both.? Wolfgang > > Marcel > > - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 06:58 PM 3/14/2002 +0100, you wrote: >I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make >SMSQ/ Open Source. First, let me say this: Waah!!! Ok, now that that has been said, I've got some ideas of how this process might go. I'd recommend that a committee be formed to oversee the further direction of SMSQ/E, with one person leading the effort (sort of like what Linus Torvald is to Linux). Here are the people that I'd like to see on the committee, based on how well I think they know SMSQ/E: Jochen Merz Marcel Kilgus Nasta Thierry Godefroy Wolfganz Lenerz Richard Zidlicky (There may be others, but I can't think of them right now) From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman. It would be nice to get Lau involved, but I don't know his availability (I'm a bit out of touch out here in the Pacific Time Zone). The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be Simon Goodwin. I know that he is not as active as others, but he really knows his stuff. It might take some convincing to get him to accept such a position, and it might take some work to get him to work well in the position. At the very least, we should get him involved because he probably writes 68000 assembly in his sleep. I only got to spend a week with him when he came to the West Coast Sinclair Show back in 1999, but I think I got a feel for the man (pre-fatherhood). I would recommend that the model/process used by Linux we the model that we adopt (with possibly some modifications). Strategy meetings could be held at different well-attended QL shows, where most of people involved would attend. I would recommend that others get involved in doing other duties (such as testing, documentation, etc.). I'd be willing to assist on the documentation. Any way we can get Tony's address to send "Thank You" cards? Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Well this is very good news ! The QL future looks brighter now. So when do we start adding features ? Regards, François Lanciault >>> "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/14 12:58 PM >>> Hi all, I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make SMSQ/ Open Source. We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, to make sure that we have a coherent development. Anybody wolunteering? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make > SMSQ/ Open Source. Ah, interesting. What means "in principle"? And what is the commercial status supposed to be? > We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, > to make sure that we have a coherent development. Well, I suppose the amount of people actually doing something with the code will be quite limited. It's no easy stuff to deal with. So I might be able to do the job if necessary. But there's a lot to talk about first... Marcel
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 12:58 ìì 14/3/2002, you wrote: >Hi all, > >I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make >SMSQ/ Open Source. > >We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, >to make sure that we have a coherent development. > We could associate it with the other project (QLIP) on sourceforge.net. I would volunteer but I believe other people are more up to the job than me like Marcel for example being in any case the main developer. I believe that sourceforge could significantly increase SMSQ's "exposure"... Phoebus
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Hi all, I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make SMSQ/ Open Source. We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, to make sure that we have a coherent development. Anybody wolunteering? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
