In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
=?utf-8?B?IlBob2VidXMgUi4gRG9rb3MgKM6mzr/Or86yzr/PgiDOoS4gzp3PhM+Mzro=?=
=?utf-8?B?zr/Pgiki?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Exactly right but the quest for code uniformity imposed by both the
structure of the license and choices make it impossible for SMSQ/E to
be that
On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:
.
I also think Marcel and Wolfgang work hard. Wolfgang does it without
financial reward, a fact that has my full respect and appreciation. I hope
that those Q40/Q60 developers who, unlike me, see enough reason to follow
Marcel's SMSQ/E route,
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:16 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:
.
snip
To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other,
(I've heard
this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.
I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but
they do indirectly.
To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally
abandon hardware for software only.
Oh boy, do I disagree with
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
(all cut)
Just a very quick reply to one point.; I'll probably rply to more of this
later.
There is NOTHING
- in the licence
- in what I have ever said
that stops you from developping code specific to a machine.
You want to
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:19 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos ( . ) wrote:
(all cut)
snip more
I have repeatedly stated on this list that OF COURSE I would include
code that beneftis only one machine - provided, it is not done in such a
way to
Bill wrote:
[snip]
I don't have a problem with the current way SMSQ/E is managed and I know the
people involved work hard with little monetary reward. I think an open source
model would work better but that is just my opinion. Open source is not
against
there being proprietary software for
