On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 at 22:45:55, Roy wood wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Qliberator was another story but Ian Stewart, who was my only contact,
had only a small part in writing it. The other author, whose name
escapes me,
Adrian Soundy
had long since disappeared and the sources were not
In a message dated 19/03/2004 02:00:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Hi
Stephen,Have been lurking here for a while, reading the various
threads, alongwith looking at different websites, faqs etc. As a
beginner, the QL worldseemed very complicated, with strangely named
In a message dated 19/03/2004 11:17:31 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Huhu,
dada. Kindergarten level reached at last, and Roy pulls out the
intellectual waterpistol :-) Since the easiest way to escape that game
level is the 'unsubscribe' command, I'll just use it
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 at 06:16:31, wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
In a message dated 19/03/2004 02:00:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
snip
I have also been promised a couple of Miracle Systems hard disk drives
which plug into the QLs ROM port. Unfotrunately, this does not
In a message dated 18/03/04 16:57:35 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 18 Mar 2004 at 9:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You might try driving without tyres.
But would that be driving?
Wolfgang
Bumpily - as without SMSQ/E.
George
In a message dated 19/03/04 11:35:27 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I stand to be corrected on these comments on QDOS Classic and I am sure that George Gwilt would love a simple step by step guide as to how to set it up, so that we can find out why QWord cannot open its TurboPTR
On 19 Mar 2004 at 9:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bumpily - as without SMSQ/E.
On the other hand SMSQ/E does seem to give the, er, bumps to some...
Wolfgang
In a message dated 19/03/2004 15:48:38 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It ties
in a bit with Geoff's comment about a 1000 pounds work
contract.Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my
programs, or at least some of them (I hasten to add that this has
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 at 11:13:18, wrote:
This was Rich with bad attribute--^
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Agreed - the QL traders continue to support the QL mainly from a love
for the system and the people involved. The more disputes that arise
and the less people that buy any software, the
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:54, Tony Firshman wrote:
Maybe we ought to resort to old fashioned sheep.
No thanks, I already look sheepish enough most of the time.
Wolfgang
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
The whole situation is a mess and it is only the users who are losing out.
No, that is not the case. The users have gained by having a stable
system that is being developed in a coherent manner. Peter could be part
if that if he
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wolfgang Lenerz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
SNIP
(Although, I don't know how much giving them a program to sell isn't a
poisend pill since, at least sometimes, it seems to cost more to
produce/upgrade etc, than the money they get from the sales).
Very true in some
Peter Graf a écrit:
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
The software Peter is producing seems too important (...)
Not if it isn't made available.
Which is only true if my offer is rejected. I therefore conclude that
keeping SMSQ/E from from the GPL has a much higher priority (for
Wolfgang Co.) than
Wolfgang Lenerz a écrit:
Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at
least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E,
which is not mine).
For me, it is a question of commitment: if people buy my (or, indeed anybody
else's
Peter Graf wrote:
I hesitate to recommend the Q40 for you, because it's usually not a
low budget solution. But in the rare case someone offers you a 2nd hand
Q40, it can't be wrong if you compare the price of the Q40 to the sum of
all the QL components/interfaces you'd want otherwise.
I have a
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 at 18:49:44, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:54, Tony Firshman wrote:
Maybe we ought to resort to old fashioned sheep.
No thanks, I already look sheepish enough most of the time.
I thought you were more wolf like (8-)#
--
I used one at uni ( Reading 1977-80) - We had a network of sorts An ICL
mainframe over at one side of the campus in the Computer Science Block , and
a Modular One (or some similar name) over the other side in the Cybernetics
Dept - with a nature reserve and a lake between them. So, the
In a message dated 19/03/2004 19:41:39 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I see
it the current licence is only a security for TT: if an unknown
organisation did make money with SMSQ/E, there would be an argument to
get something for him. IMHO he deserves it. Please
In a message dated 19/03/2004 16:57:40 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This was
Rich with bad attribute--^
Maybe... Or maybe I am just echoing the feelings of other traders and QL
users who long ago abandoned the scene
(ref:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])Agreed - the QL traders
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, but the problem is that if someone converted Peter's work to run
under SMSQ/e and it does involve changes to the operating system. Why? Because
the GPL says that any future changes must also be released under the GPL
licence terms
In a message dated 19/03/2004 18:33:26 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In
message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writesSNIPThe whole situation is a mess and it is only the
users who are losing out.No, that is not the case. The users
have gained by having a stable
In a message dated 19/03/2004 23:16:57 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed, but the problem is that if someone converted Peter's work to
run under SMSQ/e and it does involve changes to the operating
system. Why? Because the GPL says that any future
changes must
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:47, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at
least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E,
which is not mine).
I understand the point of commitment by paying for the software.
On 19 Mar 2004 at 16:47, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
Contray to Peter, I will always consider trying to sell my programs, or at
least some of them (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with SMSQ/E,
which is not mine).
I understand the point of commitment by paying for the software.
On 19 Mar 2004 at 21:41, Tony Firshman wrote:
No thanks, I already look sheepish enough most of the time.
I thought you were more wolf like (8-)#
but in sheeps' clothes, of course...
Wolfgang
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
tony@surname.co.uk
25 matches
Mail list logo
