John Sadler writes: > As Dilwyn Jones says in his article in Qtoady that TurboPtr is more flexible > than EasyPtr, and the group members feel that software should be paid for, > George & I wondered whether the group members did not use it because it was > free and they would be happier paying £60 to George because then they felt > the program was well worth using and the author was interested in maintaining > it.
I wouldnt be surprised if that were the case ;) Free programs are all well and good, but we have now begun to expect all programs to be free and that may not be good for the continuation of the QL community. Linux is in a different league, with universities and research intstitutions supplying much of the quality free stuff: The authors of those programs are at least fully funded and doing their thing during their working hours. I dont think that is the case for QL programmers.. Per _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
