I learned computing with command line tools and all my development
career was with them - GUIs didn't exist. Like Tim I would probably
use a desktop mostly for launching shells.
However, if people want a desktop then why not if the platform is
capable? But a desktop is an application, and I see no reason to bloat
the OS with applications; you are just making more maintenance effort.
For those who prefer to be working in the GUI environment all the time,
it could be launched by the boot program, similar to startx in Unix.
Aside from that what I'd really like to see is improvements to the
filesystem. We need to be able to make full use of the larger disks.
Filesystems bigger than 2Gb (without the waste of space of huge block
sizes) and more than four partitions. Smaller disks are getting harder
to find. In the shop I normally get computer parts from, even their
secondhand disks are all 10Gb+.
In my opinion we should be looking at small tweaks to the OS, finding
opportunities to make it more efficient, adding only enough features to
make it keep up with hardware developments, while keeping it compact.
Larger projects should certainly be developed, but they should be in
the form of application layers, that can be loaded or not, as the user
chooses.
If it moves too far from the original QL look & feel - more
Windows-like or more Unix-like and users aren't given the choice of
which interface style to use, the platform will lose its identity, then
what is there to make us choose it over a PC running one of those other
operating systems? Perhaps we should take a risk and stay defiantly
different - that might attract some new users who are curious,
attracted precisely because it IS different. But some of the minor
irritations need to be tidied up first.
Ian.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: swensont
> Sent: 12 March 2002 05:36
> To: ql-users
> Cc: swensont
> Subject: Re: [ql-users] The future of SMSQ/E
>
>
> Hmm, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.
>
> 1. I see very few chances of getting new folks to the QL.
> This is not a
> bad thing, just reality.
>
> 2. I would like to see further development for the QL world.
> The recent
> developments for TCP/IP and CD access are prime examples of what
> development I am talking about. I don't see development to
> compete with
> other OS's ("Gee, Linux has Gnome and KDE, let's get
> something for SMSQ/E"
> or something like that)
>
> 3. Current users will demand more features. The QL world has
> done this in
> the past (color drivers) and will do it in the future.
>
> 4. I am not proposing we not support the current developer.
> In fact I
> propose that we expand the number of people developing SMSQ/E.
>
>
> At work I have to worry about what other people want and need
> for their
> computer needs. In some cases, what I use is dictated to me
> (I use a Win2K
> system as my desktop machine).
>
> QDOS and SMSQ/E are the only system that I have chosen to put
> a lot of time
> and effort into, without pay. I gauge the future of SMSQ/E
> by my personal
> needs. This may seems selfish, but I've got 16 years
> invested in this OS
> and I'm pretty picky about making any major changes and
> forcibly putting in
> features that I don't feel I need. I plan to use my QL
> systems for as long
> as I can.
>
> I look at my QL systems like a nice, well designed tool (such as a
> hammer). I don't upgrade until I really need to. I won't
> buy a new hammer
> until my old one no longer fits my needs. I guess this has
> been the main
> reason I've used the QL for so long. I really fits my needs.
>
> Tim Swenson
>
>
>
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
