On 24 Feb 2001, at 16:16, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
There's so many of these useful bits
of OS information which exist, but seem to be covered by an unofficial
QL 'official secrets act'
--
Dilwyn Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soft.net.uk/dj/index.html
I don't agree with that
On 29 Jan 2002, at 1:06, Roy Wood wrote:
In message 3C5592E5.2964.1E98374@localhost, Wolfgang Lenerz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi all,
Neitherut wanted some info on the qxl.wion file format. Perhaps the
znclosed filz will help.
I'm sorry, I can't remember where I got this info, so I
On 5 Feb 2002, at 8:23, Norman Dunbar wrote:
Geoff wrote :
I noticed when defragging my hard
disk. I got a message that defragging was being restarted because the
disk
contents had changed. That could only be a virus!
To get this discussion on topic again, what about a defragger for
On 7 Feb 2002, at 22:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I couldn't read this list for 5 days or so, opened my email program, started
downloading..
horror, shocks: almost 200 emails of [ql-users] mailing list.
OK think positive, could be a good sign, ql world is alive.
But then..Half of it
On 19 Feb 2002, at 13:21, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Also, if you intend to foolishly use the same sprite structure, just
changing the actual data (not the pointer, but the real data bytes),
there is a cache mechanisms which may provide some debugging fun (NOT).
Yup, which is why the log in
On 24 Feb 2002, at 17:26, Tony Firshman wrote:
Well yes. Docklands Light Railway failed on the press run!
Mind you it has been very good every since.
Maybe it used a QL - desperately trying to get OT.
--
No, then it would have worked perfectly, of course!
Wolfgang
On 5 Mar 2002, at 9:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We
will be releasing it soon after, and hope to do a NTSC and PAL version, in
region 1 and 2 versions.
Make it regionless - even better.
It will have custom made menus and biographies of
QL personalities, some funny moments, etc... will even
On 3 Mar 2002, at 18:45, Peter Fox wrote:
Hi There,
If anyone has an HP printer running PCL3, could they please let me know
I have a printer driver for a PCL3 printer that works with QD and QSpread
and would like someone to test it
Hi Peter,
I have an HP compatible printer, uses PCL 6
On 12 Mar 2002, at 15:30, Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
I'm affraid a Ferrari waiting outside is not faster than a Mitsubishi
But it looks to be waiting faster...
Wolfgang
On 12 Mar 2002, at 14:33, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
I'm trying to tweak the code that is already there and do the stuff
that just needs to be done. And I'm trying to involve you into the
decisions I have to make as much as possible. Unfortunately not much
feedback there so far.
Marcel
I've
Jochen Merz wrote
The idea was that the people involved would meet at Eindhoven
next weekend and discuss matters, to see what can be done.
I guess as you, Wolfgang, got everything going, we will meet
you there too, won't we? ;-)
Not sure. I'm having a dinner planned for that evening. I'll
On 20 Mar 2002, at 14:18, Norman Dunbar wrote:
It is a bit quiet isn't it ?
Not anymore..
Wolfgang
Hi all,
Following the discussions at EIndhoven,here is what has been agreed upon,
Tony TEBBY also having agreed to it:
In short:
Whilst Tony Tebby will retain copyright over the code, anyone may have a
copy of the source code and modify it ang give it away for free.
There will also be an
On 25 Mar 2002, at 8:37, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
No need to twist my arms, I will gladly help.
Yippeee!
Yes, as long as you can redistribute the work to someone with the right platform, in
order to keep everybody going in the same direction, even if sometime
some platforms are a step
On 18 Mar 2002, at 15:29, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
This is good news, a positive step forward. And having someone as
highly regarded as you in the QL world as registrar will be a popular
move I am sure.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I suspect you'll get more 'hate mail' for the length
On 26 Mar 2002, at 8:58, Norman Dunbar wrote:
You have my approval. Hopefully, when you get sorted out, I'll be sending
off my IRC coupons for a CD and having my first look at the source code. Who
knows, I might be able to (a) understand it and (b) contribute.
Thanks for the approval.
I'll
On 25 Mar 2002, at 11:29, John Hall wrote:
Some hypothetical questions:
i) Would I be able to give away my modification(s) in source form
without including the official distribution sources?
ii) Would I be able to give away my modified version of SMSQ/E in
compiled form?
iii) Would
On 26 Mar 2002, at 10:42, Thierry Godefroy wrote:
QXL - Thierry Godefroy
Why not ? Although my programming efforts will be mainly turned towards the
Q60, now...
Well there doesn't seem to be anybody who knows the QXL as you
do (did?).
Aurora ?
SuperGoldCard ?
I got Aurora+SGC,
On 27 Mar 2002, at 1:44, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
(hmmm civilised and Greek at the same sentence :-)
Ok, say we'll admit that Greece is the cradle of modern
civilisation...
2. There are (as Dave and me among others) some differences between what
you originally said and your clarifications
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting,
> it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed.
>
> Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E
> sources, so I can
On 27 Mar 2002, at 21:17, Dexter wrote:
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.
Yes
On 27 Mar 2002, at 20:59, Dexter wrote:
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
On 27 Mar 2002, at 22:33, Dexter wrote:
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)
Blush!
The whole purpose of
On 27 Mar 2002, at 19:32, Dexter wrote:
There are two ways to make money from SMSQ:
1. Be Tony Tebby.
2. ...
And as a final comment...
Mr Tony Tebby,
Hi, just a small comment:
1-
First of all, the decicion to pay Tony some money was NOT his.
This was decided at Eindhoven. It is a
On 28 Mar 2002, at 17:35, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
One other thing that puzzles me is to find a quick way to fade out colours...
I made a modest contribution to that - and you have the source
code in the fade keyword in PAN...
Wolfgang
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:34, Timothy Swenson wrote:
(...)
5/ Any person may make any change to the source code he feels like.
Any person may give away to others the modificaton he thus made, including
the official distribution in source code form only, provided this is made
ENTIRELY FOR FREE -
On 26 Mar 2002, at 21:58, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official
resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too..
if there is a way for them to get the license.
Yes, sure there is - why shouldn't they become resellers?
(testing
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:01, Dexter wrote:
This is a reply to some concerns raised by Dexter on the future
Licence. Please read my more general reply first.
(very large snip)
Let me explain how this restriction relates to me, and how it makes SMSQ/E
unusable to me. This is a real world case.
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might be an idea to get the licensing biz wrapped up before TT decides
to take the toys away again. Just an idea.
it has happened before, but won't now.
Wolfgang
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:31, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
Hey I have no problem with providing support on this but I don't see how
many sales SMSQ/E would have in the US (apart from the few upgrades).
That would be just a convenience service to the community rather than a
business :-)
That is very
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:56, Dexter wrote:
(...)
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
On 27 Mar 2002, at 9:24, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
1. The copyright for SMSQ/E is retained by Tony Tebby (Nothing weird here,
just like Linux)
Agreed.
1. There are (currently) two official distributors of LICENSED binaries and
ONLY official Distributors can SELL SMSQ/E.
The official
On 26 Mar 2002, at 18:10, Dexter wrote:
No offense, Wolfgang, but you don't seem to appreciate the gravity of your
statement.
No, I don't.
Also, I'm not implying end users should be beta testers, just that beta
testers shouldn't be required to be programmers too.
Good, at least we see
On 26 Mar 2002, at 13:02, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
I sincerely fail to see the point in this. If you want to protect the
vendors, it is indeed EXTREMELY easy to provide protected access on a site
and you could give a password to anyone that asks you about it. This way
you can still control
Hi all,
Thank you all for your patience whilst waiting for me to read and digest all of your comments. I hope most of your concerns will be addessed below. I now have had enough time to read all your replies, requests comments and criticisms very carefully.
I'll be replying to some emails in
On 27 Mar 2002, at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, i've stayed out of this discussion for a while, although interesting,
it seems that some of the points about SMSQ/E have been missed.
Can someone please send me a copy of the licence for the release of SMSQ/E
sources, so I can have
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
On 8 Apr 2002, at 5:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wolfgang,
Just a slight question - will the sources include the source for SDUMP - this
needs updating to support more printers!
Simple reply : I don't know. I've never seen the sources until now,
so I have NO IDEA what they look like,
On 8 Apr 2002, at 23:00, Dexter wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote:
Wow ! ... I guess everything in Texas is big then :-)
I don't know about that, but they say that George W. Bush is half
human, half texan.
Wolfgang
On 8 Apr 2002, at 19:59, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
Seriously now, between what I saw Wolfgang and Marcel achieving with QPTR
and EasyPTR respectively... I agree that at least ONE PTR toolkit (either)
should be in one's arsenal :-)
Oh but Marcel had the idea, not me.
It's just a question of
On 8 Apr 2002, at 14:34, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote:
-not done via a Website or FTP.
Not a safe way, sourceforge does not (always) use either, but it uses CVS.
To make this safer, change it to not done electronically, with the
exception of email or something similar.
OK, I'll do that,
On 8 Apr 2002, at 17:25, Dexter wrote:
If you resent that comment, I didn't explain it properly.
Or I didn't understand it.
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
On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:47, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
probably wrong. It indicates that the provisorial license was so badly
formulated that everyone found his loophole in it and was happy.
Yes, that's another way of looking at it -so I was overly optimistic,
then.
the point is that with a
On 8 Apr 2002, at 15:52, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
don't say it will be open source then - it won't.
True.
Forget those
who have seen this as a great chance for SMSQ.
I still see it as such. You can still get the code, you can still make
changes, you can still dustribute your changes
On 9 Apr 2002, at 20:20, Timothy Swenson wrote:
Sometimes it's easier to learn by comparing the same general topic between
computer systems. I started learning Windowing by reading on Perl/TK and
comparing it with the Pointer Interface. It helps a little bit, but the
data constructs and
On 9 Apr 2002, at 11:57, P Witte wrote:
Youre quite right. The only wee difference is that of designing graphical
objects intellectually or visually ;)
Perhaps I'm more the cerebral type, then...
More seriously, when designing most programs, I try to get a
QPAC2 style look anyway. There is
On 10 Apr 2002, at 13:52, Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
Moi, je me contenterai de la version française ;-)
D'accord, cela mettra un peu de temps de la rechercher dans mes
fichiers archvivés...
Après le weekend.
Wolfgang
On 11 Apr 2002, at 16:32, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have three QXL-cards to give away, is anybody interested?
Wolfgang Uhlig
Yeah, I'll take one.
Wolfgang
On 11 Apr 2002, at 12:46, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
At 12:31 ìì 11/4/2002, you wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
HA! Don't be greedy Wolfgang.. you already have one Q60... let us poor US
resident's get something too (*sniffles*)
Ok, Ok, I give up.
Wolfgang
On 18 Apr 2002, at 9:20, Tony Firshman wrote:
Needs a tiny
soldering bit though and bravado.
.. and you have lots of those...
(I presume.)
Wolfgang
On 16 Apr 2002, at 11:15, Timothy Swenson wrote:
(things)
Hi, just a few small answers that may point you in the right
direction:
1 - What is a Forced Free?
I know that you FREE a THING when an application stops using it, but I can't
find an explanation for FORCED FREE.
Forced free is
On 24 Apr 2002, at 21:50, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Guess I should have read Norman Dunbar's article about handling stacks
properly in QReview magazine at the time (there...back on topic in no
time at all!)
And how do yu explain the sheep in that context?
grin
Wolfgang
On 24 Apr 2002, at 22:59, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
nope, the problem is more complicated, I guess you have formatted
that QXL.WIN file on a QPC drive.
That's true.
On Q40/Q60 and Atari the IDE bus is connected to the CPU bus
in such a way that data comming from the HD appears 16-bit
byte
On 24 Apr 2002, at 15:59, Claus Graf wrote:
I just didn't know. Is it true then, that it works with every device,
that has direct sector access (win, flp,..)?
No, flp probably won't work, because th direct sector addressing
there is very special (depends on the type of disk, too).
The
On 4 May 2002, at 23:56, P Witte wrote:
Because I want to control my own button I dont want to use the BUTTON_SLEEP
utility but the locking and removal bit, without apparently upsetting the
windows in any way is what Im after.
Hi - I'm a bit in a hurry today, so no reply at leangth - on
Hi all,
This is to keep you informed of the state and
status of the SMSQ/E source code.
The future licence-to-be has been a bit
modified, notably to take into account the fact
that test versions must be easily distributed.
Here is the (still provisional) text. As usual,
I invite all of
On 13 May 2002, at 16:04, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Good! but I think you need an appendix which states:
- Who is the registar
- What is the address of the registar
- Who are the distributors/resellors (address and more also)
yes of course, you're right, at least as far as the registrar
On 13 May 2002, at 13:44, Dave wrote:
Never say things likje 'the registrar, i.e. me.' because this means me
is the registrar. This is very open to abuse. You would here put a
personal or organisation name and contact details. Obviously this is a
draft, but this does need correcting.
Sure
Hi,
Per asked about button_sleep. I've had a quick look at it, and it
does seem to use some obscure ways of achieving its goals
(notably playing around with the primary linked list).
Wolfgang
On 16 May 2002, at 13:28, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
can you say me how exactly the license requires
the resellers to provide support? In our private
discussion you went to great lengths to ensure me
how they are required to provide support but I can't
find absolutely nothing specific about
On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license
has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original
reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get
the free SMSQ upgrades for his
On 21 May 2002, at 21:54, Roy Wood wrote:
Actually no. We have nothing against commercial extensions to the O/S,
in fact we would love it to happen. We just want the main code to be
uniform as I keep saying. I don't really like patches but you can LRESPR
code into SMSQ/E and you can add
On 21 May 2002, at 19:40, Timothy Swenson wrote:
I think I would find it useful to see the comments and hopefully they will
document parts of SMSQ/E that is not fully documented. The code might shed
some light on particular areas that I might have questions on. As I am not
an assembly
On 21 May 2002, at 23:38, Jeremy Taffel wrote:
A lengthy response, please don't flame, I would appreciate a considered
response.
And a VERY long reply...
As long as you don't flame me, I don't flame you I don't think I
did, at least, obviously you feel different... :-)
Because instead
On 21 May 2002, at 6:42, Peter Graf wrote:
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
There is no difference between the free and non free developper
Sure there is. Your commercial developer has agreements outside this
license that make sure his executables won't be lost, and will be sold for
him by
On 22 May 2002, at 3:44, Dave wrote:
The point is that people can write new modules that carry out *existing*
module functionality, and distribute those, which actually increases the
fragmentation of SMSQ in a way that the registrar is unable to control,
because they would have no legal
On 21 May 2002, at 8:35, Michael Grunditz wrote:
Hi
I have posted this on ql-developers, but I didnt get an answer .
I have installed qdos-gcc in NetBSD/Arm32, on my RiscPC. Everything
seems fine , but when I transfer the executables to my Q40 with
qltool on floppy, I cant run them. If
Hi all,
I just noticed that the batch of yesterday's replies, that I sent early
this morning, has gone down the drain, through my own fault (I sent
them with the wrong from address, and they are filtered from this
list, rightly so).
I don't keep copies of the emails I send, so if you haven't
On 22 May 2002, at 2:53, ZN wrote:
(...)
There is NOTHING in the licence to stop anyone from contributing extensions
to the OS speciffically to ENABLE using free or commercial stuff as add-ons
to it. As long as that extension does not 'close' a part of the OS, and
presents an added value to
69 matches
Mail list logo
