Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: This is a different issue. If your non-commercial developers don't want to work under the licence that is their problem, not yours. As a One small point. If ANY developer, commercial, private or otherwise, decides not to do work they might otherwise do for SMSQ, it is my problem, your problem, and a problem for everyone in the entire SMSQ-using community who is deprived of that contribution. I have done for the last six years. We have no commitment to non commercial developers because they are, by definition, not part of the commercial scene. Under this license, there are no commercial developers - everone has to do it for free. You have no commitment to any developer? I don't think you mean that - do you? I'm not criticising, just confused because the words don't say what I believe you were trying to say. Please could you restate this? Thanks Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Roy Wood wrote: freely distributable sources). SMSQ/E is modular so adding an extra commercial package to it would be easy. It is less hard to remove part of it and that is something we have all discussed. The practicalities of someone writing, say, a new file manager with longer filename (oh no, not that again!) and then selling that as a commercial add on are something we want to discuss. We should be able to make this fit both models. I think this is the way most people would go. Obtain the sources, and use them to gain insight into SMSQ, then reproduce each modular section and release it under the GPL, until the entire OS has been replicated in a GPL'd version. As a half-way step to this, people can accept the distribution side of the license to receive the source, then produce new self-contained replacement modules which they can sell. Nothing in the license prevents someone from making replacement modules. Obviously this is against the intent of the license, but as the code was not submitted to the registrar, it is distributable outside of the original license, as long as the module contains no original SMSQ code and is therefore not a derivitive work But then, that would mean the license is encouraging people to behave in a way contrary to what was intended. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Test message
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Dave wrote: This is a test of the emergency broadcast system (or if ntnu.no is still filtering with SPEWS) Ok, I did a good working copy of a harridan (modelled on my wife) and convinced the admin at ntnu.no to specifically allow my IP, so I can no post to the list even though my IP range is blocked. Wahey! Dave
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] Source Code
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Dave Walker wrote: Coming back to the original source code license, there has been a lot of discussion about only sending the source via physical media. I agree very strongly with others comments that this seems a needless restriction. It seems to add cost and inconvenience for very little gain. It is very easy to provide a secure web site that only allows authorised users to download any file(s) - and also records every such download if that matters! If necessary such a site could be partitioned so that there were different levels of security around different files. Indeed. 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. Separately, and this is complex because of my situation, but let's put it this way... 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. 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. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. 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, and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Now, what is the objective of this license? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Bill Waugh wrote: Well I have to tell you guys if as much effort had gone into code as has gone into nitpicking and general etimewasting then we would have the Space Shuttle running on SMSQE by now ( just don't enter any very long planet names though ). I wouldn't really call it nitpicking or timewasting. The license under which SMSQ is eventually released will have a dramatic effect on the future of the platform. A few of us developers (I count myself as the most recent developer, but many others have been around since the mid-80's) have reservations about this license. Lots of heated discussion, little progress. Very important, all the same. I've already made my business decision. SMSQ under this license would not be relevant to the future of the QL scene, because no commercial developer could work with any feeling of security under it. If people aren't comfortable, they'll use something else they are comfortable with. D
Re: [ql-users] gold card and qubide
On Sun, 19 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a QPower regulator or two which were developed for the QL - £5 each including postage if anyone is interested.. An alternative approach, when QPower upgrades are no longer available, is to replace the 1A 7805 with a 1.5A 7805 voltage regulator. The 1A version when worked hard tends to be bumping up against its thermal protection and shutting down. The 1.5A version works better under heavier loads. Dave
[ql-users] The Next Step...
Hi all, Well, I now have some semblance of a platform to do programming on - a QXL and SMSQ. I'm looking to catch up with you people who never left, and this means spending yet more cash on software! (So far, this venture has cost me a small fortune, my wife is getting worried!) I would like to get back into things programming in SBASIC. I would like to be able to compile my results for speed reasons, and would like to take advantage of the current standards in menus and pointers. I don't mind if it's free or commercial software - but I would prefer something that is easy to use and reliable over something that's more powerful but complicated! What tools and utilities do you find useful? Which have the best written manuals? Advice please! Dave PS: I am moving my mailing list sub back to my other email address, because this mailbox is slower than an unexpanded QL. Once the list maintainer notices my subscription email ;)
Re: [ql-users] The Next Step...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Timothy Swenson wrote: With all that said, I'm still a big fan of TURBO as it is FREEWARE. I'd like to see some more elegant work-arounds to some of the issues, but I'll take what I get. The combination of TURBO and TurboPTR is the only freeware way to write PE programs in SBasic. I downloaded it and all the various files, and I have them in the qxl.win drive. Seeing the problems of unzipping them using winzip and losing the headers, I have two questions... One, how do I unzip something and keep the headers. Two, is there a utility like the Linux RAWRITE utility that would allow someone to distribute disk images and have them reproduce perfectly at the other end? Maybe, if there isn't one, someone could find a simple way to make a disk image that RAWRITE can use? Fun. Joy! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Another stupid question.... re Floppies
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, ZN wrote: new?) I am telling you here, that when you fix the QubIDE, send it directly to Dave so he can have it for his testing until he finishes the project. Unless you and Dave already covered that aspect. This is the first word about it that I've heared but that's OK. I will do as you ask. Guys - there's no need! I'm about to bug Roy Wood to buy one, and a thingumy (the shiny sparkly card everyone loves) so I can return this loaned Gold Card to Bill Cable. Ummm, Aurora? SGC? One of those. Ok, me tired, orf to bed. Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
Re:[ql-users] More on QL hardware?
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: http://www.pc-extras.com/prods/adcgav.html The connector shown does not convert the signal from CGA to VGA - it only converts the conenctor from a CGA-style 9-pin socket to a VGA+-style 15-pin socket. Sorry :o( Dave
Re:[ql-users] More on QL hardware?
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Dexter wrote: The connector shown does not convert the signal from CGA to VGA - it only converts the conenctor from a CGA-style 9-pin socket to a VGA+-style 15-pin socket. Hehe, that'll teach me for replying as I go instead of reading all first then replying. Apologies to spammage, and for compounding it by apologising, and apologising for the apology spammage. Sorry :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Another stupid question.... re Floppies
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Roy Wood wrote: It is all explained in Keith Mitchell's hardware docs. Every other line in the ribbon is an earth. By twisting lines 10 through 13 you are swapping the drive 0 with the drive one signal with the earth line as a pivot. Quite what the PC one does is not clear. As I understand it, there are two drive select lines, allowing selection of one from 4 drives, so on a PC cable they flip those, and their grounds. Dave
[ql-users] ql-chat list.
I just got my Ql Today and since my name appears in it a few times *eek* along with two separate pointers to the ql-chat list, I have fixed it ;) It's working again, and properly too! send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with _in the body of the message_ subscribe ql-chat and follow the instructions. Nothing is off-topic there - general QL pub/meet chatter :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] CF Hot Removable adapters
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Yep but I said readers didn't I The specs of the readers I am selling say up to 33 Mbps :-) Well, yes and no. The readers are passive, and some CF media support ATA-66, and while these CF readers aren't designed for ATA-66, a new version of RomDisq that uses CF media instead of traditional flash RAM could take advantage of the extra speed ;) Yep but not reading my posts thoroughly (Gotcha!) :-) I don't see why I should put more effort into reading them than you put into writing them ;P Dave *snigger*
Re: [ql-users] CF Hot Removable adapters
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, ZN wrote: Unless you two know something I don't (like how to locally change the Planck constant, speed of light, gravitational constant...) that's as fast as anything will currently go on native QL hardware, give or take a few 10s ok K/s... What?!?!? You don't know how to change the speed of light? I'm disappointed in you, Nasta! Seriously though, my point was that it isn't necessary to hook up a CF card to an IDE interface to use it - there are ways to hook it up directly to the buss. That way, you can do direct reads and writes without having to wait and poll to check it's finished the previous operation. That would be quicker. Either way, the point that a version two of RomDisq could be based around CF instead of traditional flash, for price and size considerations, still stands ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Keymap
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Dexter wrote: I don't have a QL manual. Could some kind sole with 30 minutes to spare please either scan the keymap or type it out, and email it to me? Gnnn! I'm such a heel. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd kick myself! Dave (sole, geddit?)
Re: [ql-users] Keymap
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Will send you a printed copy tomorrow :-) Thank Timothy for that :-) It really isn't necessary - 90% of it is webbed - it just didn't translate very well from scanned sheets to text - and the keyrow table was demolished. I now have in my posession a scan of the table. Unfortunately, it's all wrong! Eg: (row 2, col 1), (row 3, col 1), (row 5, col 1) are all vertical lines. Now, which is left square bracket and which is right square bracket? (row 5, col 128) is blank. Is this 0? (row 2, col 32) and (row 2, col 128) are pound and tilde - which are the same key. How can that be? Put another way, is (row 2, col 128) the apostrophe? Can anyone enlighten me? Once I am enlightened, I will put the corrected table on ql.spodmail.com Much appreciated. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Keymap
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Dexter wrote: Correction: Eg: (row 2, col 1), (row 3, col 1), (row 5, col *4*) are all vertical lines. Now, which is left square bracket and which is right square bracket?
Re: [ql-users] QXLs
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote: Hi Dave, Al and Phoebus, Hi :o) receiving all your mails about how to deal with the money didn't make it better at all ;-)) So I do it my way: In an hour or so I'll bring the QXLs to the post office and send them to the three of you. The shipping costs are Euro 9,50 (sorry for my stupid trust in my mailer's ability to send a Eurosign!) which is about 8 and a half dollars. Thank you, Wolfgang. I shall repay the generosity. One of the best things I can do is work hard on Qeyboard and Qemail. It's 4am and I'm currently doing PCB layout for Qeyboard, and wondering what I'll have to do to hook this TTL RGB QL up to a monitor. I will probably end up using the guest room TV and slowly going blind, like in the good old days. PS: I packed the QXLs good enough I think, so I hope they will arrive in good shape. I'll let you know when it arrives. Dave
[ql-users] Why there'll always be a QL.
Hi all, I just had a setback today. A little thing. It'll take me about a day to recover and get back to where I was. Windows threw a wobbly and was too far gone - needed a reinstall. I lost all my Qeyboard schematics. Not a biggie, I have backups on floppy, but it was just coming up to another backup moment, so the loss is about as big as it can be. I don't remember ever having a problem like this with my QL or Acorn. As for Qeyboard - I now know exactly what I'm doing with it. The design and construction method is now finalised. The prototypes came in and look ok. There was a small mistake which I corrected for the final version. I'm also working on version two. That will be a simpler design with no microswitches, but I need to obtain a whole stack of bubble mats first! Finally, Samsung made a slight mod to the membranes for US QLs to allow for the bending of the top case. They stuck tiny 2mm square bits of adhensive cloth tape to the left three keys in each row, to compensate for the travel limits of the keys at that end of the case. I never saw this on any UK QLs when working at Sandy. Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote:
Hi there,
I was at the post office and the packed QXLs will go to England for ? 4,75 and to
America for ? 9,50.
What currency is that in? :o)
I must admit, however, that I have no idea how you could manage to give me the
money - I have absolutely no experience with abroad money transactions. {%-(
Do you have an idea??
Okay boys, come on, do something for such a bargain :-)
I could send you currency of your choice (if I pay the airport exchange
rates!), or you could sign up for paypal, and we could pay you directly by
CC/Debit cards... I always find paypal useful :o)
I'm open to any other ideas too...
Dave
http://ql.spodmail.com/
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Al, that is not true for Europeans... only for US residents.. As a matter of fact European accounts now get charged an extra 1.92 which they get refunded ONLY if they verify their accounts. Also for people receiving from overseas there is a charge of 1% on the total amount... However it is most convenient... I am happy to add an extra few bucks to cover all those lil fees. It prolly works out a bit cheaper than couriering over the dosh by teleport, but is almost as quick ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I'm after all sorts of 2nd hand odds and ends. Maybe if you posted a fortnightly list of stuff to the list, it would move a lot more quickly? :o) I think everyone would complain. This is not really for advertising In that case, feel welcome to pop them up at ql.spodmail.com - it's had a couple of hundred visitors this week, many not from the list. I'm very pleased. The site has been accessed from over 700 different sites and it's only a few months old. I'm guessing from emails and site info that over a third of visitors do not subscribe (or I should say do not post) to qlusers or qldeveloper. Remember, you can list items, and have the ability to edit your own posts when you sell something ;) I can even create areas for companies, where they have moderator privilege over their own areas. I will spend some time developing some open source QL-related tools so people can co-operate on projects through the website. It'll include FTP areas, some kind of revision control system, and so on... Like I said, if anyone feels there's a real need for something, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
[ql-users] Keymap
Hi all, I don't have a QL manual. Could some kind sole with 30 minutes to spare please either scan the keymap or type it out, and email it to me? I am trying to check my Qeyboard design manually from the membrane I have here, and my eyes have given out! Could the first responder please also post here to say they've done so - to save others the effort if someone has helped already. Greatly appreciated. Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote: Hi everybody, I have three QXL-cards to give away, is anybody interested? I definitely am. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Roy Wood wrote: Amazing I have been trying to sell some for the last year and no one seemed interested. The price I want is now less than I px'd them for. Roy, I'm after all sorts of 2nd hand odds and ends. Maybe if you posted a fortnightly list of stuff to the list, it would move a lot more quickly? :o) Dave http://some.random.url/
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, ZN wrote: On 08/04/02 at 21:26 Dexter wrote: However a European PSU will work with a US QL if you use a step up transformer... I've seen transformer winding kits up to the job for $20 in a local parts outlet. Could be fun - been ages since I last wound a custom transformer :o) Oh, for heaven's sake, why would you need a custom transformer? My dear Nasta, have you become so disillusioned that you don't see the *fun* in winding yer own transformer? ;P It's a great way to pass an evening :o) SNIP too much info about GF It's nice that's you've made progress to the point of having hard figures and specific details. It's reassuring. :o) If there's anything we can do to help, let us know. Dave (busily working away)
Re: [ql-users] Suggestions...
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Writing a (usable!) editor is a long and cumbersome task that other people have done before. So why don't you just call an existing editor and concentrate on doing something new? I mean, that's the way linux programs do it, too, isn't it? Yup. I just want to avoid the whole scenario where I have to include the editor with the email client, and/or require someone to download/buy a specific editor, when what is required is really straightforward as editors go. That said, I come from the old school of programming. When you learned to program on a PDP 11/780, then a Pet 3032, ZX80, ZX81, QL, Acorn and so forth, you resist the new stuff and try what you know... Last week, I used a GOTO! As the locals say, I'm not the loudest rattlesnake in the bush, but I'm the orneryest ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] OT: Clive Sinclair working for the French??
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, ZN wrote: The service outlets are it's biggest enemy and they are expensive, so people just keep driving on... Yeah! A suspension sphere cost 44 pounds back in the days I had citroens. Changing them was no tougher than changing an oil filter - same skills required (twist off, twist on, just remember to jack the car up first ;) But for some reason they always thought they should charge 150 pounds for 'fitting'... Grrr. For on-topicness, has anyone ever used a QL in a mobile configuration, in, say, a car? Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
[ql-users] Suggestions...
Ok, As many of you know, I have been away for some time, and am freshly back in the fold :o) I've been working on the Qeyboard, and pushing for ethernet hardware to be available, so we can help John Dent finish his TCP/IP stack - which I suspect will do more for the QL than most realise. I've also signed up to write an email client for all. Signed up, in the I'm dedicating myself to this task sense of the word. However, I've been away for a very long time, and have forgotten most of my QL-related programming knowledge, having become fat and lazy with my bash shell and gcc compiler. Therefore, I'm asking you what tools you think I should take advantage of and what tools to avoid. I have to build a software library from scratch, which I am sure will make the traders happy ;) Also, the way I am writing my mail client will practically require an 80 column width, and reasonably 25 rows. What suggestions do people have to do that, make it functional, and not be a screen hog? Finally, I plan to make the project Open Source in the true sense of the word. I will publish the sources and others are free to work on them. All I ask is that they feed back any improvements to me so they can be incorporated into my main release. The initial program would most likely be in SBASIC, to demonstrate the sections and modules (emails viewer, email viewer, editor, config, etc) but when I get back into the flow, I would prefer to go with C. Also, I have very kindly been loaned a Gold Card. This will open up some horizons for me, but I do want to make sure the program will run on even the most basic QL. Advice please! Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote: There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... To be quite frank, I resent that comment. the decision the pay TT some money was not his, but was an agreement we came to at Eindhoven. TT has put in an enormous amount of time and money into SMSQ/E, and HAS not gotten back as much as he should. If you resent that comment, I didn't explain it properly. Yes, Tony will make a little money from SMSQ. I doubt the resellers will - they'll probably cover costs. I was trying to say that some of the money should stay with the people that are doing the work - the resellers. Sorry I caused offense. Case of too big a point expressed in too few words ?:o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Very interesting outline ... you have been planning :-) Yes. It's hard to do anything more than planning without ethernet and a TCP/IP stack ;) What are you going to code it in ... C ? Initially, SBASIC, and then in C once I'm happy with how it works. I'm happier with C but have never done any on the QL, whereas SBASIC is a quicker throw-it-together-and-test-it language :o) It's not like email clients have to be fast, anyway. Well, if you ever visit England I've got lots of them ... that have been donated to the London Quanta Group. They are too heavy to economically post. I wonder. Do the transformers in QL PSUs have 120 and 240v windings, or did they use a different transformer for each region? Dave ql.spodmail.com (New posts by Nasta in the forum, with latest news on the Goldfire, Aurora 2 and SuperIDE/EtherIDE - check it out!)
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: I am not sure if Jon's QLTCP has an SBasic I/F ... maybe you will have to resort to access it using the tried and true Peek/Poke S*Basic interface ;-) If the worst comes to the worst, I would write some kind of front end for it, but that's distraction from my core business - getting new things out there :o) However a European PSU will work with a US QL if you use a step up transformer... I've seen transformer winding kits up to the job for $20 in a local parts outlet. Could be fun - been ages since I last wound a custom transformer :o) P.S. Damn that 6 Gb drive takes forever to format with QubIDE ;-) How long would the 80 gigger I just bought take then? Hopefully, it'll be quicker on the SuperIDE :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: In addition you should find C68 on the QL easy to adapt to. If using it is anything like using GCC, I'll be fine... ql.spodmail.com (New posts by Nasta in the forum, with latest news on the Goldfire, Aurora 2 and SuperIDE/EtherIDE - check it out!) The site was down when I looked last night. Did you type www. in front of it? It was definitely up last night. I was sat there nursing it through a storm - we had 15 inches of rain last night, and some hail too. Texas is grand when it comes to extreme weather. Luckily, the power was only out for about 20 minutes, and the UPSes can hold out for about 35 minutes. It was a very pretty storm though :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: A very neatly done Forum that you have created. Thank you - but I didn't create it - I just installed, configured and expanded it a little. :o) If anyone has any ideas for forums they'd like to see there, and especially if they'd like to moderate their own forums, please let me know. Dave http://ql.spodmail.com/
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Nice idea of 'namimg' :-) ... Jon's work needs a good interface attached to it to become a 'useable by all' emailer. I haven't seen his work. However, the mail client I plan to do will be functional, text-based, and probably fully open source. Assuming that you will be basing it on Jon's TCP/IP code ... if you really are planning something :-) I'm really planning to do it. Not having a power supply for my QL is the biggest challenge to doing anything! ;) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Dave did you contact François Lanciault yet for the PSU? No. I don't know who that is :o) Sounds like I missed something when I should have been paying attention. Could you email their contact details privately? :*) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Probably best to have a look, then. Although I am a great believer in alternatives ... it makes for more challenges. Well here's the plan: The program has a config file with sensible defaults. The first time it's run it asks for your name, email address, POP3 and SMTP servers. It asks if you want to set up a .sig file. After that, and immediately for all subsequent executions, it goes to the folder display. This gives you access to your inbox, outbox, and archived mail in month-by-month folders. Archived mail is compressed. It will as far as possible use pine keypresses to do thing, providing a useful subset of functionality. It will do everything plain text. If it receives email in HTML format, it will strip out or obey the tags the best it can. If there's a MIME or UUE attachment it will understand it, and you can save that attachment as a file. I'm looking at ways to reliably transfer header info. ... and I guess its an American power supply that you need ? Yes. I will be doing an ATX - QL adaptor at some point, but it's a case opening job, so many won't like it. However, ATM I have a QL I can't use, though I understand a PSU is available for me - I just have to contact someone and arrange it. Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Roy Wood wrote: Actually I realise that The forum bit is different. I was referring to ql-chat which I tried to log onto and have yet to receive a message on. qlchat is on sabbatical. :o) I'm reorganizing everything on the servers here. I now have a separate mail server, and am reconfiguring dozens of apps to work with the new MTA (Exim). Unfortunately, the lists are a medium priority so they won't be back until probably the middle of the week. The main server, 'box', is having a major upgrade and refit next week too. After that, I will have a secure and stable environment that I can grow with... It's only taking so long because of my insistence on using Linux instead of anything Microsoft - it's quite a learning curve. Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Qmail Exists... Ask J. Dent for more :-) Well, mine'll probably be called Qemail (pronounced keymail) to match the Qeyboard (pronounced, well, you know ;) Qbrowser Exists... See QL - Lynx (If you really want to use it though you gotta have a TCP enabled QL (currently only uQLx does that...)... It's a bit of a stretch thinking of lynx as a web browser in the full sense of the word these days. I am hoping we may be able to produce something that can present graphics, tables, and hopefully handle sound too :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: Well I tried that. I registered, and it then invited me to login using user name and password. Considering I had never registered a password, that was difficult (8-)# It emails the password to you, and you can change it later. Anyway, it's already a failed idea, so I'll work on something else. Like, maybe, some advertising material for the Qeyboard :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
[ql-users] QL Forum
Hi all, Well, I'm scratching my head... I really want to do something constructive for the QL community. I'm working on the soon-to-be-released Qeyboard. I've done some work on a QL ethernet interface, which is now incorporated into Qubide 2 as etheride... And I set up a forum that nobody uses... :o) I have a web server sat here 99.9% idle, and it's up for whatever people have actual use for. It looks like the QL forum is not a hit. So, what is needed? Tell me, and I'll do my best. :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Forum
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Well i am not using the forum because last I checked the site was down :-) You mean the day the CSU/DSU blew up, poof, and I had to go out and spend boucoup bucks on a new one? :o( Everything's fine now :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] Giles Walker
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: He is a retired BA airline pilot who loves in Scotland. Too much information! Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] Giles Walker
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Tony Firshman wrote: He is a retired BA airline pilot who loves in Scotland. ^ insert joke here :-) I think Tony made a Freudian Slap... ;) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Stuff
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In all seriousness I would very much like the extra PSU at least for a while and then I could forward it to Dave if he agrees to the arrangement :-) That sounds good to me. Thanks for the consideration... Dave
Re: [ql-users] QL Stuff
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Timothy Swenson wrote: So, it looks like I have a spare PSU and Francios has one also. Dave Phoebus, why don't you decide if you both need one. Since I am sending a package to both of you, you two can decide who gets the PSU. And then decide to whom Francios can send one to (if he still feels so generous). Hmmm. Phoebus, you decide :o) Dave PS: I don't have a functional QL atm, due to lack of... a PSU...
Re: [ql-users] Moving memory blocks
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has tried moving screen memory around using a lookup table instead of calculating the memory position of each pixel every time... Yes. Anyone that has used both methods knows which one is faster? It depends on the usage pattern, and the scaling factor. Scaling factor: If the factor is 1:1 or 2:1 or similar, it's much easier than if the scaling factor is 525:625 (for example) Usage pattern: If it's a one-shot deal, creating a table is significantly slower. If it's a table which once calculated can be used repeatedly, there's no real penalty in speed, but the price you pay is making a large quantity of memory permanently unavailable. That table would be an X (the x coordinate) by Y (the y coordinate) and in each x by y position, the screen memory address that this corresponds to would be contained (and maybe the alternate memory location for swapping)... In that aspect when giving a hypothetical command Draw_Sprite, x,y, instead of calculating every single time what memory address x and y correspond to, the command could look it up a table directly. My solution was simple, very fast, and very flexible. I created a small table of precalculated values for each possible combination. In my case, there were two resolutions: 512x256 and 1024x512, so the scaling ratio was 2:1 forward or 1:2 backward. For each direction I had precalculated steps calculated for the first byte address of each scan line, and a multiplier (1 for double, 0 for half). I also included a line length, because comparing a byte value is quicker than using MOD and doing division, which is relatively slow. Using this method, I got a factor of 25 speed improvement on the previous system, which gave time to do processing to the byte being transferred, say to change color depth etc. If I knew a little more about the exact scenario I could send you a nice block algorythm. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Moving memory blocks
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dexter wrote: Using this method, I got a factor of 25 speed improvement on the previous system, which gave time to do processing to the byte being transferred, say to change color depth etc. Supplemental, based on ZN's comments: I said byte, but yes, what he says is absolutely correct. It's quicker to fetch the largest block you can and then move it out. Assuming the two screens are in different pages, it also saves page switching time to switch pages as infrequently as possible. In my case, it was on an ARM processor, so I would fill R3 to R11 with 8 32-bit long word values, then write them out. Are we having fun yet? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Moving memory blocks
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: The problem is not when you want to move the whole screen or at least huge parts of it as the calculations are minimal but when you want to quickly move around very small screen blocks very fast. A good analogy would be to calculate sine or cosine every time when you can just use a table :-) My algorythm is still quicker. Some values are calculated just once. The X, Y, X',Y' dimensions. The Xinstep, Yinstep, Xinstep', Yinstep' (distance in from edge in bytes) Xscale, Yscale (redundant if 1:1) Xmax', Ymax' (to quickly detect overrun of the side/bottom of the new screen, required only on the first and last lines) If you check the bounds first, then calculate the required steps and offsets, it's a straight nested loop to do the copy. My worry is you said that the start of (either one of?) the screen memories could move while the copy/move is happening. If this is the case, these checks have to be done whether you use a table or not. Or find out what causes the screen base address to change, and block that activity while the copy is in progress? IMHO Dave
Re: [ql-users] Moving memory blocks
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: My algorythm is still quicker. Some values are calculated just once. Well send away then why do you keep me in agony? :-D With the Ql there will be a couple of changes, no doubt. I'm at work and the code is somewhere in my floppy archive at home. I'll dig it out tonight or at the weekend and get it to you. Actually this is provided from SCR_XLIM, SCR_YLIM That's convenient. :o) This doesn't happen IIRC. What happens is that when a mode change occurs the address CAN be moved (Not that it happens :-) (But of course Marcel would know better :-) Hmmm, I have a question. If there is a change of mode, is the old screen mode vacated before or after the new one is created? Is it possible the new screen mode may occupy part or all of the same space the previous mode occupied? Is this under your control? Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: 1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here, just like Linux) 1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E. 2. The registrar (and only the registrar) is making available the SMSQ/E sources to anyone that wants them free of charge, provided that the person sends return postage in form of IRCs and Media for the sources to be put on. (See also No. 7 for the contradiction) 3. Any modifications CANNOT be publicised until approved by the registrar 4. Any modifications/new code that is approved and entered in the source loses it's copyright from its author and derives the overall copyright status of SMSQ/E. (In that aspect, modifications from 3rd parties on the modifications from the 2nd party does not need to include the writer's copyright message/license but only the SMSQ/E license) 5. ANYONE CAN create a distribution for his own use from the sources but cannot give it away to no one free of charge or otherwise 6. It is STRICTLY prohibited for anyone to make the sources available on the internet (unless given specific permission to do so by the registrar or the copyright holder) 7. It is NOT STRICTLY prohibited (but in any case requires prior approval) for a PD library/Shareware catalog/Individual to give away the SMSQ/E sources provided no fee is charged (same as no. 2) Let me make that a lot simpler... There are two ways to get SMSQ: 1. For free. Get the source, pay NOTHING, and compile it yourself. 2. Pay an official reseller for the executable. There are two ways to give SMSQ: 1. For free, accepting no payment, you may distribute the source. 2. Be an official reseller, accept payment, and pay the required license fee up the chain to TT. There are two ways to add code to SMSQ: 1. Submit them to the maintainer, who will examine them for compatibility and compliance and accept or reject them. 2. Distribute them as source only. There are two ways to make money from SMSQ: 1. Be Tony Tebby. 2. ... And as a final comment... Mr Tony Tebby, Hi, I'm a user. I first used QDOS in 1984, and I think it's great. I really appreciate that you would like to open up SMSQ to a wider programming audience and I like the way you're handling it, on the whole. However, the restriction on distributing executables, even for extremely limited testing purposes and the submission requirement being too all-encompassing, may be a little too broad and need some refinement. I do not wish to reduce the chance of this happening, and I realise SMSQ is your child, but it's a big world out there, and for any child to grow up it must be exposed to some risks. It's part of development (no pun intended!) So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. In my humble opinion, Dave Your happy user.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dexter wrote: So please, let us have a developer's license to encourage people to make SMSQ applicable to a wider audience and to really help it grow. It doesn't harm you, and it would certainly help you. - Tony does not read the list. That seemed kinda obvious... - Tony did not do the licence. He said whatever sensible you'll come up with at Eindhoven is fine with me. That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Apart from that I have long ago lost the overview over the whole discussion and don't really have the time to catch up. Let me summarise: Most people are grateful to TT for allowing this option. We've had the proposed license explained to us, and it's mostly Really Good. A couple of us are a bit put out, or rather, we would be put out, by the restrictions to the development cycle that the license puts on us. The problem is that there is no way to give someone an executable of SMSQ for testing (even if they're already a licensed user) unless and until that executable and source have been submitted to the maintainer, accepted into the main code tree, distributed to a reseller, and ordered commercially from that reseller. Every time you submit something, you have to buy it back. Not to mention that's before you can even do any testing with third parties. If you're doing something novel, no matter how limited or unrelated to the at-large userbase, if the maintainer doesn't accept it, you can't use it, unless you give your clients the source, and make them compile it themselves. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. Completely ridiculous. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote: I personally would never be prepared to transfer copyright. I would accept not being able to get a fee for the work done, but copyright should always stay with the author of the relevant piece of code! In fact, if the code would later be sold (outside the QL community) I would not accept my code being part of that if I do not get a part of the fee! According to the Berne Convention, which regulates international copyright law, it's really simple... If you take someone else's work and modify it, the new work is a derivitive work, and the original author retains copyright. If you create something additional, which is not based on a prior work, you have copyright automatically, but you can surrender that copyright to the other of the larger work by accepting their license conditions. However, reality check, SMSQ is such a small seller that I doubt anyone would be able to justify suing even if there was a major infringement, or the lawyers would earn more than the entire income from SMSQ in even a very small lawsuit. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dexter wrote: That was not obvious. Now I know that, I am very disappointed. Why? Because I pictured it that TT had chosen a license structure and chosen three trusted people to execute it for him, Instead, he passed that role to someone he trusts, and that one person plus two resellers seem to have given themselves all the control... It's not fact - it's an impression. It's all about how it looks. I did not write the licence but I'm one of the people who drafted the spirit of how it should be. And in my opinion giving away a modified version to somebody who already owns SMSQ/E is ok. At least for the versions Tony has the sole copyright for (all except QPC so far). In the future there might be other versions that incorporates copyrighted parts of other people (like an Aurora driver). Of course a modified version of that can't be given away to somebody who did not previously acquire the other copyrighted part. Or shorter: if the person who receives the modified binary legally owns the version the modification is based on it is ok. That would completely remove my devil's advocate concerns. It's a very fair way of making sure the right license fees are paid by the right people at the right time. That may not be what is intended, but that is what the license says. If that's the case it should be changed. A minor rewrite of clarification or expansion would be nice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Let's wait for Wolfgang to return. Let me add that I am very heartened by Wolfgang's approach to these 'criticisms'. I'm trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible. If the intent is to enhance development, I would like to help remove restrictions that have a chilling effect on development. Wolfgang has listened to my comments and responded very positively. He is making a genuine effort to understand my concerns (which may or may not be shared with others, who may or may not have their own concerns too!) Frankly, this is one of the best critical discussions I've participated in - Wolfgang is showing the precise listening and diplomatic qualities I would be looking for in a maintainer/registrar. Good choice Mr Tebby :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there In the US at least, that clause was deemed unlawful, because of the First Sale doctrine. A minor point, but one which is important if you're Microsoft. This whole argument has been splitting hairs and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform. Splitting hairs is exactly what is required. I think it's better to constructively split hairs now, before the license is adopted, than have to split hairs later, after it is adopted and it's hard to impose amended conditions on existing users under the old license. My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country. I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone. This license must obviously protect you, but as resellers, your support role extends only to people who purchased directly from you. You're under no obligation to support users who bought from someone else. Though, knowing you Roy, you would probably give it your best shot anyway ;) Anyway, I expressed my concern, and people are now well aware of it. Either the license will change, and I can work with SMSQ, or it won't and I can't, and... (At this point, I wrote 5 paragraphs on this, but held off posting and reread and decided to delete them. It was rehashing what was already said, and therefore not constructive.) The biggest benefit of the source release will be, I suspect, not in OS development but in application and driver development, as people can look at the OS source and say Ahah! and improve their own projects. Anyway, it's not an exclusive license, so there's always room for a developer's license with more developer-friendly conditions. Probably with a different QDOSesque OS. The future will tell... Dave PS: I tire of my devil's advocate role in the search of the perfect license. I shall now retire to the shadows and see what changes, or doesn't. Hopefully, everything will continue to be this reasoned and constructive. :o)
[ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) Ok... Deep breath... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they cause. Looking for some more lively discussion. /devil's advocate Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Jerome Grimbert wrote: } The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents } growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. } If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably } illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each } country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. That's easily answered by specifying either that: - Reseller must be directly nominated by Tony Tebby. Reseller Nominee forst has to get TT to acknowledge him and respond. - a would-be-Reseller must get clearance from the college of actual Resellers. the procedure for the college of Reseller is up to them. In case of conflict, the coordinator or Tony Tebby get the final word. This would clearly be illegal under anti-competitive legislation in the EU and US. SNIP - regarding no fees for distribution Outdated argument, might has been valid ten years ago. Moreover, personnaly speaking, as I'm still the QLCF librarian, French people could get free access to the sources from me the same way as they get access to the QLCF library (even more easily, because accessing the QLCF library required to be on the right list!). I would not have to make any change to my management for these sources. If I want to download the source, I could. If I don't have access, or have slow access, I have to send some IRCs (which I can't get here) and media, and wait, and they have to burn and return, and I have to wait. How silly. The only way to force fancy developpers to share their code is to forbid the distribution of binary. This way, code related to new hardware is forced to go back to the coordinator for inclusion in the main code. What happens when this is, as I said, custom hardware? The code would not be accepted into the master code tree. If the code is customized enough to not be relevant/applicable to the main code tree, you can not release your code except as sources. So, for argument's sake, I decide to make a new QL add-on which requires SMSQ, and it handles files or devices in a unique way, and my code submission is rejected as not relevant (which would be the right thing for the code maintainer to do) I can never burn that cod eon an EPROM and ship it - my customer has to compile the code and burn the EPROM themself. It is also the only means to have the reseller doing their work. Only if the code is relevant to the whole community and is accepted, or if the master sources quadruple in size, and are full of #includes for each branch *yuck* Your argument for beta-testing is void, because, for a beta, I want to have the source available. Thus you distribute the source, I compile, and get back to you with comment on behavior and code. Testing a black box is not a good testing for code! Dissiminating time-unlimited beta is not a good thing either! The kind of beta testing you describe is the minority of testing. Say I sell an XYZ to Fred, and he has a problem, and I suspect the bug may be ABC - I have to send him sources and get him to compile them. Now, Fred is a) not equipped with the software tools to do that, and b) doesn't know how. It makes helping your customers difficult. Homogenized SMSQ. One code tree fits all, and if you're outside that, the license forbids it, unless your customers are all knowledgeable programmers. No customer service for unique situations. No testing patches or updates for custom hardware. You're not allowed to help the people who most need the help. The future board I am working on will be flashable. But that feature is rendered redundant because my potential customer would be required to download/be sent sources, plus the tools to compile them, plus detailed instructions on how to use those tools. I can't just send them an image. That is such a major issue, as a developer, I would just use a different OS. He should provide its sources to the coordinator, Get the status of Reseller (see first point) or buy them the needed binary for the customer or just refers its customer to the Resellers. I like the idea of providing the sources to a reseller, but again, there are practical considerations. Hey, maintainer, here's versions for you. 0.1, 0.2, 0.2b, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4X (custom for Fred), 0.9, 0.99, 1.0, 1.0a Now, no developer will work in isolation. There will be, maybe, 5 people who would have hardware and be using/testing, and some will be capable of handling sources, and some wouldn't. Do the math. It's bulky, lots of excess work, and not relevant to the SMSQ code tree. Also, say I write something, which is new, but needs to be part of SMSQ, like, say, a complete new FS. I want to retain my (C) and collect fees or royalties. How do I do that? (No, this isn't happening, I have my devil's advocate hat on). Modifications to TT's work create a derivitive work to which he retains copyright,
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit. No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your statement. Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too. Remember, the market for SMSQ is now so small, really, everything is beta. ICQ has more beta testers than SMSQ has users! By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a feature is possible on the other machines.! There are two kinds of features involved. Both need to be handled differently. Soft features, which provide a functionality, API or interface for an application to use ina consistent manner, are very much the business of the maintainer and at the heart of what he is doing - it is through keeping these consistent that he ensures compatibility. Hard features, which may require changes to the OS to make different hardware look alike to the OS and applications, are much harder for the maintainer to handle. He a) has to have a sample of the hardware, and b) has to have an in-depth knowledge of what changes were necessary to make it happen. Think of the implications. Does the maintainer buy the hardware, or is the developer required to give/loan a prototype to them? *shudders* I don't think I'm going to devil's advocate that particular quandry any more - it's just getting too frightening persuing the ramifications... Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In light of Dave's clarifications I must totally agree with him. Wahey! That should read Wolfgang's clarifications and not Dave's :-) Oh. Booo! Funny thing is, I can see many sides to the debate, and when I read your email saying you agreed with me, it seemed you did. Now you corrected yourself to say you agree with wolfgang, I reread it and it still seems you agree with me. :o) Please reread yourself, Phoebus, and separate the *intent* (where Wolfganga nd I are in 100% agreement) and the implementation (where we're not, and you recommend changes also) May I propose the following... That there be two licenses: A reseller/user license, which allows for profit distribution of sources and executables by resellers, and not-for-profit distribution of sources. A developer license, which allows not-for-profit distribution of sources and executables by developers, with the following limitations: Executables may only be distributed directly to known parties, who are forbidden from redistribution. Executables must be marked BETA on the startup screen, with a statement of who produced the executable and when. They may not be distributed to more then 10 users, or 1% of the user base, whichever is greater (which allows reasonable beta testing). They must be uniquely identifiable. Where a beta executable is distributed, the recipient name and contact details, and the unique identifier in the executable, must be forwarded to the code maintainer. Where the system has a RTC, the executables must not exceed 30 days useful life. Where no RTC is available, the beta tester must accept a 30 day limitation on use for that particular version. If the developer later needs to include the executable with a hardware product, he may obtain permission directly from the maintainer, and when given, seek bids from any authorised resellers for fees for the number of copies intended to be manufactured (bearing in mind the developer is making the copies and all the reseller is doing is extending a license for X number of copies at no cost to themselves) so appropriate license fees flow back up the tree to TT. The maintainer could grant or deny permission based on compatibility, but would not unreasonably deny permission where there are variances, if the product is designed for a very specific use that would not affect other users (eg embedded, control, etc) and/or the change is a superset of existing functionality that is clearly stated not to be standard. If a user already has a licensed copy of SMSQ, a developer should be entitled to include the modified or updated version at no cost to the user. This should be true for same version groups only - eg an upgrade from 2.X to 3.X would be chargeable but from 2.2 to 2.3 would not. Thoughts? Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please understand me, I am not personally averse to this arrangement, but it is very awkward and not transparent, and is also potentially illegal. Now, I trust completely the two current resellers, but people may ask questions, and they're entitled to do so. snip for a lot of work has always been less than he deserved, and we decided on the 'licensed reseller' approach as a way of paying us for the support that we offer. The element isn't the licensing of resellers, it's that the current resellers get a say in who becomes a reseller in future. That is anti-competitive in possibility, if not in actions. As I said, I don't think for one second that you or Jochen would block a competitor, but that the arrangement itself exists is anticompetitive and does leave you open. Though I doubt anybody would sue over 20 copies of SMSQ ;) That would be kin to, say, Dell and Compaq having the power to veto Gateway from selling Windows. I hope my clarification helps. Dave
Re: [ql-users] OffT:I am back
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Oh and For those who missed me (very few I gather) I am 100% recovered (or so I hope) from that nasty respiratory infection so Ok :o) I can be once more your most hated annoyance :-) Ok!!! :o) :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Porting and other things
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Michael Grunditz wrote: I heard something here about uqlx on a RiscPC ? Does it work ? Yes, quite well... :o) Dave
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
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
[ql-users] Membrane update...
Hi all, Last update then I'll be going quiet for a while on the membrane front. The construction method has been decided, and I'm now looking at design issues. I want to make it a painless operation to remove the case from the base, and have everything easily pluggable. One suggestion is to include the LED wires in this new scheme, by providing a small lead that will have a connector on one end, and attaching the LED wires to the kbd PCB directly. This way, removing the case is a simple matter of unscrewing, unplugging and wahey... Is that LED feature worth an extra 3 pounds on the cost? Also, does any Aurora owner have details of the membrane connectors on that board? Are they the same exact arrangement as the QL, or different? If different, how so? Ideally, a scan of that section of the board and a pinout for the Aurora would be nice, so I will go pester Nasta a bit later It would be nice to have this fit Auroras too (and thereby fit Goldfires attached to Auroras :o) Comments by Friday please - I will be finalising the design then, and producing the first actual full keyboard shortly after. Then the quiet spell while I test, get boards manufactured, and packaged with manuals ready to ship. Also, anyone who has any thoughts on ways of implementing a low cost RTC, get in touch! Thanks Dave
Re: [ql-users] PCL3 printers
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Geoff Wicks wrote: Indeed a disappointment, but nice to have some certainty over the situation. For those not up on the whole GDI thing, here's a quickie explanation... GDI printers have an engine and a little memory, but not much else - the image generation is all handled by software - the drivers on the host PC, which does most of the work. They are very OS and driver dependant. They're the printer equivalent of winmodems - the dumb blonde of electronics... Dave
Re: [ql-users] The future of SMSQ/E
Different email for a while... But here goes... On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Phoebus Dokos wrote: b) I can tell you that there aren't thousands of QPC users out there and even less Qx0 users, so how big could a potential ArmQL user base be in the end? I say that a value with 3 digits is already a big goal. Not really because due to its platform the ArmQL CAN be used as a QL but not only for that, it can run RiscOS, Linux / Net(Open) BSD and even PalmOS :-) (V. 5 and above)... and with a potential for handheld operation as well :-) (Or industrial apps etc. etc. etc...) Fine, but this doesn't increase the user base for a potential SMSQ window manager, does it? That's not the purpose of ArmQL. ArmQL is just a project I am working on very, very slowly. It has low priority at present, and could take 9-12 months to complete. So it's not immediately relevant. However, it will be relevant in a year. By then, we will have Goldfire (or whatever it is called by then). It will be much easier for people to upgrade their existing machines to Q60 performance levels without the expense of a Q60, but that does not increase the total number of systems out there, so it doesn't increase the QL user base directly, until Aurora II comes along. The Q40 and Q60 are relatively expensive, and represent a brute-force approach to the problem. They're immensely powerful, and emulate the QL at a hardware level, so that's pretty much all they can do (at present). The idea is to at least have an option, which exists as software, to buy a QL with at least moderate performance, lots of interfaces, and low cost. The ability to run other OSes *is* the point. If it is more widely manufactured, and sold into other markets that WILL support a profit, this will reduce unit costs for you. Significantly. An ArmQL isn't entirely relevant now, but in a year, when Motorola's processor roadmap is more clear, it may take on a much greater significance. IMHO Dave
[ql-users] Membrane update...
Progress is mixed. Screenprinted conductive paints do not have the durability we require. Those have been ruled out. The conductive rubber pads have a tendency to crack the plastic they're stuck to, probably because they're a bit too rigid and apply pressure at their edges. The microswitch test is the only one going perfectly smoothly. I have a motor with a cam pushing a pencil so the rubber end actuates a key onto each surface. They must have done around 100,000 cycles or more on each of the three test systems. That ends this progress report. Back to your usual programming... Dave no.site.at.present :/
Re: [ql-users] The future of SMSQ/E
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Arnould Nazarian wrote: on an entire new PE that could give the QL a whole new GUI, I for one completely disagree with this. There is Prowess as others said, and there are certainly things to do at lower level the GUI in SMSQ/E. Party busting up time... The current GUIs *suck* - sorry to those who wrote them and read this list! They may well work completely intuitively, but they're darned ugly, and look like they belong in a 60's museum of bright colours! ;) SMSQ/E will not expand widely unless it's soothing to the eye, pleasing to the wrist and comfortable for the mind. And for that to happen, it will need a new GUI. Let's be specific - the code that handles the windows may be fine, but the windows themselves really need some work. Aesthetically. IMVVHO. Dave
Re: [ql-users] The future of SMSQ/E
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: I have my doubts about the gray scale value palette. Yes, it's a bit superfluous but as it's next to no work for me to implement I just thought go for it, especially as the main colour for GUIs is usually gray. Greyscale is actually useful. There are many cases where someone may be using a mono LCD panel that supports 256 grey levels. Also, greyscale can't be beaten if you're doing mono document editing. Dave
[ql-users] Re: EtherQL
Progress report... I've done a fair bit of work on picking out components working out the board format. I've also contacted about half of the developers who need to be aware of the project. Currently, it's shaping up to be a short (10x6cm) card with no through connector - a thru-connected card would be more complex, more expensive, and usable in far less sytems. More as I have it. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Re: QL - its uses
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, John Hitchcock wrote:
Dave Dexter writes:
It's D@ve P@rk, but my email says Dexter Fletcher because I fave a
stalker, and she's very persistent and knows how to use a search engine.
Which is why I never put the two togetherm and have deliberately corrupted
the first ;)
Introducing motivated novices to computing concepts. The QL and Sbasic are
ace for this.
{Am I in a time warp? I also use a *1970's* child's electronic project
teaching kit - hardware - strictly discrete componets; in connection (!)
with the above.}
One of the neatest educational toys with the BBC model B was the 1MHz bus.
Is there any current product giving programmable IO? Is there any demand
for it?
Dave
ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] Re: QL - its uses
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: He he, some people would be flattered :-) One wonders what you did to deserve a stalker :-) I was in England, and she was a friend of a friend. I helped her through a rough time with her husband, being a shoulder to cry on. Then I came here, got married. She turned up, and had basically formed the idea that I was the solution to all her problems. Anyway, she now flies over here and follows me around for a couple of weeks every term break (she's a top university lecturer) They say insanity hits the intelligent hardest ;) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] Compact Flash Adapters.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: This is good, yet I haven't personally got IDE with my RISC OS, but SCSI. Which Risc OS machine do you have? I know where you can get a cheap IDE adaptor for the A30X0... Dave
[ql-users] New Website
Hello all, I've finished the preliminary work, and feel the site I've been working on is now ready for some public viewing. http://ql.spodmail.com/ You'll find it has a variety of sections that are currently empty - I'm working on content right now. It also has a quite powerful forum where you can post about almost anything... I'm also looking for a few good moderators who know their subject well, so we can keep the quality/relevance of the posts high. Check it out. Register on the forum. It's free. If you have any items you'd like to sell, feel free to post them. If you have anything you think would be good for the main developers' site, please let me know :o) The site will be refined and developed over the coming months, so if you have ideas or suggestions, now is the time to let me know. Hope this helps... Dave
[ql-users] EtherQL project.
Hi again :o) I think it would be really useful to get QLs connected to networks more easily. Therefore, I've commenced the following project: EtherQL. I know nasta has a similar project in late planning stage, but I think Goldfire is a higher priority, and anything taking his mind off Goldfire is Bad(tm). This will be a QL-hardware compatible etherenet interface, and will be supplied with some software and drivers to give basic functionality. The hardware would probably be a short through card, or could optionally include some buffering and a could of extension riser slots. I'm hoping to keep the cost as low as possible. It will definitely support 10 mbits, but may not be able to support 100 mbits because the basic QL just isn't fast enough. I hope to be able to write some proof-of-concept software to give away with it: Email client: something like pine under linux - basic but functional. Telnet client: I need one. Web browser: This would be VERY simple. Text only, and tab through the links, like lynx under linux. Web server: Something that can listen on port 80 and copy out the requested file. I'd certainly be appreciative for any help with the software. Also, I'm starting this project with no QL hardware, though I received many offers of hardware when I first posted here. I would now like to take up one or two of those offers. If anyone has a working QL, possibly some extra memory and tk2, I would be very interested in hearing from them. It may be asking too much to get a floppy disk interface, but we'll see! I would be happy to pay reasonable prices and shipping. If anyone has any helpful software (a compiler, for example!) I would be looking for that too. Also, I have an old CGA/VGA monitor set aside. If anyone can remind me how to hook up a QL to this, I would be very grateful :o) Thanks in advance for any help any of you can offer. :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
Re: [ql-users] EtherQL project.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: part of what you want (software wise) is already implemented by soQL (TCP IP stack). It still lacks PPP (essential) but for Ethernet that's not important. I was informed of Jon Dent by Nasta, and emailed Tony for contact details. I'll look it up and get on it. There's also QPOP3 a PE interface to both uQLx email functionality (through Linux) and soQL (included in the beta package I have), SMTP, and QL Lynx already works with TCPIP on uQLx Cool :o) I basically want to know that there will be enough functionality pre-existing to make it a worthwhile add-on for people. If you want more info, I'll be happy to supply you with :-) What have you got? :o) Dave ql.spodmail.com
[ql-users] 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
rant The Second Law of Thermodynamics In any closed system, there will be a tendency towards increasing entropy. Only in an open system, with energy being input, can there be an intrease in order. I'm now going to tell you what to do to save the QL scene. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, though I certainly have some ideas. The QL is withering. Those few who are left do not have the resources, or the inclination, to invest energy in it. I can think of maybe ten people who are actively giving energy to the QL scene. Not for profit. Not for personal gain. Because they love it. Tony. Nasta. Peter. Thierry. Others whodeserve to have their name here, but who I haven't talked with much yet. We all have our own ideas about how to move things forward, and that's great, but it's all small things. These small things are big things to their creators and the people who want the feature, but they're small things in the grand scheme of things. The energy that has to be invested to accomplish even a modest task is astronomical. The gratitude generally lacking. (Have I told you how grateful I am to you all for your work over the last 18 years?) Things have to change. Information has to be shared. It has to get EASIER to develop for the QL. Information is hard to come by? Too hard! Those ten people I mentioned earlier have many of the answers, and the knowledge was hard won. It takes a lot of effort and energy. This list is the best exchange of information I have seen. /rant Sorry, just feeling a bit frustrated. Dave
[ql-users] Request for contributions...
I'm building a web-based resource for developers. It will have various sections like QDOS, SMSQ/E, hardware, drivers, and so on. The idea will be to collect together as much information as possible, with permission, and publish it at the site. If anyone has anything to contribute, please can you email me privately. If you have information, but I would need permission from the owner/copyright holder, can you please outline what information you have, and who I would contact regarding publishing it on a web site. I hope to have the site ready for public use by February 1. If you'd like to contribute anything, or look it over and make suggestions, please contact me and I'll email you the URL. I don't want it made widely available yet because the site is in its infancy, and needs a lot of work. Thank you in advance for any help anyone can offer. I hope this site will be useful. I hope it will grow into something good :o) Dave (my shift key sometimes doesn't work...)
Re: [ql-users] CF adapters AND Media
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: For anybody interested I will be able to get 32MB CF media for rock bottom prices... these are 26x CF cards (The fastest on the market currently). I don't know about volume discounts yet but I will let you know as soon as I know. If you can cut down the variables that would be good. :o) What sizes, and ball park figure, how much are they likely to cost? Where would they be shipped from? That way we can go to the ups/fedex web site and have a good idea of shipping costs before ordering. Also, there are numerous reports of CF cards being corrupted and/or destroyed by shipping in USPS mail, because of the new policy to fire high energy electron beams at all suspicious email. Thanks for saving everyone some money! Dave (When will you be getting those discount $100 bills in again? They were a bargain at $55 ;)
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: Hear hear and I really like the hand-routing exercises. Using auto-routers is a bit like getting a plumber in and never quite liking what he did, and complaining about the cost. I remember one board Arnie was working on. I stuck the components through a piece of heavy paper, then used a black and red felt pen to draw the tracks. The third generation got committed and went into production. Ahhh, memories. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
This post contains information of interest to non-techy people too - it's well worth a read, imho ;) On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: More or less... well, more. The GF does not have IDE, so a few additional bits will be needed. Also, I think I am using the IDE decode of the chip for something else, I haven't had a look at that part of the schematic in a while :-) but I think that 'else' is the processor and interrupt controller which will not be needed on the IO card version so there should not be any problem. Ok, I'm stepping back from this for a moment. Currently, the Q60 uses a (low-cost?) mass-market ISA board that provides IDE/floppy/etc... Due to economies of scale, there is no way we could reproduce that functionality for that low cost. If we made a board that includes that functionality and additional functionality, we have to do a cost benefit analysis to decide if it would be cheaper to do it as one board, or omit the functionality that's included in the generic board and only include the novel features. (I know what I mean, I hope you do!) The main benefit of having EVERYTHING on one card is that it leaves a slot free. But, for what? I think we should investigate the option of not duplicating the work that is already done for us using the generic multifunction card, and concentrate on those novel facilites that aren't already included. The Q60 team probably has the answer to this already clearly fixed in their minds. 1) Will this thing ever be plugged into the real ISA (IMHO, hopefully not! I doubt it. Who would write windows drivers? 3) What additional stuff we want on this board - IDE, drivers for MIDI, CF card... 5) Feedback to original GF design - decisions made in the design of the IO board might override some of the ones made for the design of GF IO (a 'let's meet in the middle' effort) if it simplifies matters with making the drivers more uniform across platforms. I don't have a lot of leeway, but I can certainly try to do what I can! This comment isn't for us, but for the regular folks out there: It's advantageous to have the hardware look identical, or as similar as possible, to the OS. That way, a common driver can be developed for both systems, and both systems would benefit from improvements, instead of having two drivers with separate development trees. The boards, while physically very different, are in electronic terms quite similar. All computers have certain characteristics in common. Address bus: This is a set of wires that carries a binary representation of the address being accessed. Data bus: Another set of wires carrying the binary representation of data, that is being written or read, based on the status of... R/W line(s): one or more lines that basically carry status flags that tell the hardware how to handle the address and data information that is currently present (asserted). Various custom signals: Things like ROMOE, a signal that says hey, read this from ROM, not RAM and CLK which says tick tick tick and gets all the components to march in step. There is usually an address decoder which used to be simple, but now has to be quite complicated and do fancy circus tricks like mapping memory. See, memory (and devices, which look to the processor like specific locations of memory) has physical addresses that could be anywhere in the memory map. The machine makes order of these fragments and gaps and overlaps by having logical memory. Logical memory is a simple(!!) device to allow memory/devices to be accessed at a known logical address, even if their physical address is different. These days, they're so complicated they have their own TLA: MMU! The trick (and hence all the discussion) is to devise a plan for the circuitry that will make it logically appear the same (or as similar as possible) to the Q60 *and* the Goldfire. Sure, the boards may look different, and may have different components, but that doesn't matter as long as they look the same to the processor and operating system. End of explanation for the non-hardware folks. Care to take up the challenge of making it a two-layer board? It would certainly make it MUCH cheaper... However, 4 layers make it MUCH easyer to route, and may also make the whole thing smaller, which would certainly be of interest to some people :-) Hmmm. I'm more comfortable with a 4-layer board, because IDE could pick up noise in a multi-function card environment, and because space really will be at a premium. However, it's perfectly possible to do it as a two layer board, spacing things out a little more. If we work on the basis of 2-layer, and resort to 4-layer if it's absolutely necessary, or buys us some advantage that outweights the cost? I really see no problem even in making that (or any other) part of the schematic public - the real important stuff is in the CPLD. But honestly, I am really not at all concerned that someone would steal the design - the question being, why? Still, the CPLD
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: Ahhh, memories. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. That's only because the brain cells don't work as well as they used to :-) (Translation: Yes, you ARE old! :-) ). And you say this today, Jan 11 2002. My birthday. ;) *mock scowl* Dave
Re: [ql-users] Making PCBs (was Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card)
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Tony Firshman wrote:
I know Stuart Honeyball produced some commercial boards but printing
direct onto special film.
How? He didn't have a laser printer at the time and I did them for him
(8-)#
It apparently worked very well, but there is loss of quality. No chance
of .5mm romdisq type pitches by this method.
The loss of quality is because you need to reverse the image in the X and
Y planes.
(fixed pitch font required here)
__Print
___/__\ When printed on top, the UV light
. . can go under the printed track to
.. expose PCB where you want the track
. .to remain. ('.'s = UV light)
__..___
___ When printing reversed, the printed
side contacts the etc resist
directly and there's no UV light
getting under it.
___
\_/
^Print
This way, I usually avoid problemms with .007 or .008 tracks, especially
at corners.
(I write product manuals for ordinary people :o)
Dave
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Peter Graf wrote: PGA. QFP seems obsolete, so only PGA and BGA are interesting. BGA is very small, but only useful for volume production. I'm well aware of the thermal advantages of PGA over QFP. The pins move heat away to the PCB much more efficiently. I don't like BGA for two reasons: prototyping is a b*tch, and the actual cost to me was $85 per mount for the small run I did. That's why I so much dislike the dropping of the SA-1100 (QFP) in favor of the SA-1110 (mBGA). If you have any easier projects I could cut my teeth on, I'd be happy. I'm not anything like the level of Nasta and yourself. I'm just well equipped. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: No need for the mezzanine card, the required chips are found on the GF, in fact, even that part of the PCB has been designed! Normally I would not be againgst such a board, but as you know, the GF is intended to be a semi-SBC. So all that needs doing is to get that section as a schematic and do the board. :o) I have Eagle 4 Professional, which is half the tools for the job. Half? Actually, that would be all the tools :-) Oh... you mean an auto-router? It has an auto-router but it's not the greatest. It can come up with quite reasonable results if you set a high penalty on vias, but sometimes makes really silly decisions. I find I get best results by hand-routing busses and timing critical tracks, then autorouting the rest. It does pretty good with 4-layers. But then, it is a $1200 program. I don't really believe in them :-) They're ok for prototyping and for getting a 2nd opinion of your own routing. I can live with that. :o) Could you see it in your heart to get that specific part of the schematic and send it to me? I wouldn't disclose it, and could move things forward a little. I'll check on the Q60 web site for the specs on their implementation of the ISA slot. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Peter Graf wrote: If it had MultiIO/Ethernet as well, it seems to me that such a card would be a very good preparation for your XY-Fire! This has me thinking. In what ways does the Q60 ISA implimentation differ from the PC implementation? The CS8900 is a nice general purpose ethernet (10baseT) that looks like minimal fuss and sits happily on an ISA buss. All drivers could be written on the Q40/Q60 and would immediately work on XY-Fire, by just changing the register locations. How do people actually use their machines these days? What's in demand? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: I was thinking about a SMSC 91C96 - works with 8 and 16 bit busses, has more buffer memory, and most important: it's 99.9% software compatible with the 10/100 non-PCI 91C111 (the only non-PCI 'all-in-one' 10/100 I know of) I've used the SMC91C94, and I've checked out the spec sheets but can't pinpoint any vital differences. If they're very similar, an FDC37C655 could provide parallel, serialx2, IDEx2, irda, with a couple of MAX232's, four 74HCT245's and a 74HCT245. But, that would cost way more than the multifunction cards they're already buying... ;) On the GoldFire it's an 8-bit implementation to ease routing. Oooh, details... :) One thing I always ask, and ask too late... Please provide a compact alternative to the ISA socket, because the length of the connector forces a practical minimum size on any board designer, and size costs... For example, the 7500FE board I'm working on now has an ISA-like connector, and beside, it has two 96DIN connectors so people can make reasonable sized 3.75x6.25 or 3.75x3.125 cards. Also, I noticed the 68060's are available in a variety of packages now. What's the preference? Dave
RE: [ql-users] Documentation Project...
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: good idea ! Well, kind of a good idea. Overall, I'd say it wasn't very well received. I think a lot of people can see that the task is already partly done, and importantly, their bit of it is done to their satisfaction. For that reason, I don't think overall a documentation project would be that successful, even if it was really useful to the majority of developers. So... I think I'll start saving for a Q80 (which'll be reaching its end of life by the time I have saved enough to get one ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Euroconverter 1.40
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Thierry Godefroy wrote: It is on the Italian club website (link on my Web site page), as well as in the new QDOS/SMS systems software repository: http://smsq.free.fr/ I downloaded the zipped JSROM disassembly, but winzip claimed it had a bad CRC so I couldn't open it. Could someone else check it? Also, Thierry, if you'd like a US mirror, let me know. Dave
[ql-users] UQLX on StrongARM
I just tried to compile and run UQLX on a LART (www.lart.tudelft.nl) with no success, mainly because the LART doesn't have any video hardware I think. I have a RiscPC which does have the necessary video hardware, and I have a prototype ARM7500FE-based board here that's almost finished - I just have to mount a few tricky devices, and it may run on that. What is peoples' opinion of UQLX? If anyone thinks it's worth the time, I'll look into it, because there are already several boards out there with flash that could boot linux and UQLX from flash and to all outward appearances be a QL. I've even found some m68k SBCs, though i wonder if emulating a 68000 would be any quicker on a 68060 than on a different architecture. Disclaimer: I am not offering to develop anything here - I'm just exploring and experimenting. Dave
Re: [ql-users] New 680x0 board (was QL Schematic)
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Peter Graf wrote: Very interesting. And nice to hear, that another QL hardware designer has appeared. I would hardly call myself a QL designer just yet! I have just checked in with the QL scene and am prodding it to see how much life it has. The last QLish work I did was, well, 1986! I last used a real QL in 1990 or 91. Just a little hint: What you are going to do, overlaps a lot with work that had already been done. E.g. the Aurora is a QL compatible mainboard (without the CPU/RAM part) with QL extension bus. The Q40/Q60 are complete QL replacements, with ISA-style extension bus. I've been looking for Aurora schematics too ;P Basically, I'm trying to see what the QL looks like in electronics terms when it's upgraded/redesigned to use modern components. I gather you want a single-board system, but is that worth re-inventing the wheel? How about an Ethernet/USB/whatever-you-like add-on for existing hardware instead of a completely new mainboard design? That's a definitely possibility. It's much more likely than a whole new machine, that's for sure. However, if I were to undertake the project, I would still need a fresh, current, useful and detailed understanding of the QL hardware. At the moment, I'm thinking about Phoebus' ideas on emulation as one path, and designing a QL-fit upgrade SA or XScale board, and on the other hand, creating a microATX-style board which is all very integrated, using a conventional north/southbridge, and robbing a bank to raise funds so covers head and bows Tony Tebby can write drivers for it *grins* If it makes good sense to put your add-ons onto the same board with existing stuff, that could still be done later on. Absolutely. How hard would it be to implement PCI for a Q60 derivitive, for prototyping/testing purposes only? What other widely used, well documented busses are there? That's just a little though. I don't mean to corrupt your ideas. Please design whatever you like :-) Peter, my ideas are so corrupt anyway ;) Seriously, this is purely at the speculation stage, and if anything gets a response, I'm not the only person listening. As an outsider, all I'm doing is clutching at different straws to those people have been clutching at since Darth Amstrad took our toys away ;) Dave
[ql-users] The reality...
Hi again, all... I've come to understand the reality of the QL scene as it now stands. It didn't take long, did it? :o) Basically, the marketplace is too small to be economically viable. There are not resources to fund development of significant new hardware on a fully commercial basis. People with skills basically support the system by donating their time and skills, and developing wonderful boards like the Q40, and Q60, but I'm sure those people will be first to say it doesn't support a business... Usually, one or two particularly devout and enthusiastic hobbyists step forward and take up the banner (that would be the Tony Firshmans and Q60 designers of the world) but they don't make a profit - particularly if they take into account the time they spend on it. At this point, most groups of users usually disperse or disband. What does it take to reverse this state of fortune? You have to revive the marketplace, or generate a new marketplace that's ideally suited to those users. It has to be able to generate income. It has to have lots of users that are willing to spend lots of money... How would you do that? You have to have hardware or software so compelling, people simply have to buy it. It also has to look like, or share a major characteristic with the original products. That's a tough target, but not impossible... The Q60 is about as close to that as you can get without shaving your head and shouting I'm Clive!, it's just really expensive because of the small production runs... They must have spent *months* working on it just to sell a few units. True love ;) Anyway, enough rambling... Dave
Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: Don't copy the QL design - it is pretty bad. I don't want to copy it, I want to understand it. ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] US QL differences...
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: As the organiser for the London Quanta Group, we have several QL's that have been donated to us by now 'lapsed' users. They are in various states of working and non-working ( good for spares ), with various ROM's in them. Obviously they are all of UK specification as regards power requirement, i.e, 240v. I wouldn't deprive anyone of a working QL. I may need a couple of non-working boards when I'm prototyping, and would happily pay any costs involved. That stage won't be reached for a couple of months though... I have no experience of shipping to US. Strip it down, wrap cardboard around it, and mail it with a customs declaration (standard green label) that says Gift, Value ten pounds, and it'll attract no attention... I have shipped much stuff from the UK to the US... ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] The reality...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: Even better, in our conversation I talked about superHermes. That is (as you Dexter may not know) a plug in replacement for the 8749. Yes, I visited your site and looked at the Hermes and SuperHermes. The pic shows a very nice and useful board. It solves a problem I hadn't even begun to address - standard keyboard support. (Ok, I haven't begun to address any of the problems yet; I'm still counting them ;) Are you at all open to licensing? :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Interesting Site
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, ZN wrote: the PCB design leaves a LOT to be desired. It seems that whoever did it is not very experienced. IMHO the board could have been 2/3 or even half the size. The designer actually said on the site that it was a prototype board and wasn't optimized for size or cost, and that they could easily reduce the size by that amount... Just being fair... Does anyone here have any experience with Eagle v4? What package do you folks over at Q60 HQ use? Dave
