On Jan 15, 4:57 pm, AIcor <[email protected]> wrote: > ari, howard, > > Howard was right with everything he pointed out. > > Ari, I understand your concerns, but you should understand that my > goals have never changed. I have the same requirements as always, > simply a different vessel to explore them. If you look back at the > first version of QS, you'll see that QSB is very close in > functionality to that. It took years to bring QS's vast library of > actions to fruition, but that was with one part-time developer. This > time, the code is all there. I cannot promise anything on behalf of > Google, but QSB is open source. QS is open source, and I am still > driven by the ideas that created QS in the first place.
This is the clearest indicator I've seen of Alcor expressing an intention to continue in the "spirit" of QS which is great news! Sheesh, it must be hard to be someone who created such a radical and innovative product as QS; too much to live up to, too many avenues for one person to explore. I really do hope QSB can be given the space to grow into QS II, it needs more foundations (the triggers and plugin frameworks from QS trunk?) to begin that journey, but the potential is there. Look, our current QS is open-source. There is a substantial financial incentive for any Mac developer to pick up the pieces and build forwards on the B5X branch (they could make several thousand $ in donations I suspect), pulling in the new bits from trunk. No one has so far stepped up; Etienne has made great changes to fix the foundations but has limited time.
