I think your message may have been aimed at the postings I made. So I'll take a moment to defend myself.
>DON'T extend, update or uograde SMSQ/E I actually encouraged further development. >DON'T make the system more appealing by dding new feature I actually encouraged new features. >DON'T worry about the slave blocks problems I never discussed it, but, PERSONALLY, I'm not worried about the slave block issue. At least I'm not spending my time worrying about it. >DON'T touch that 36 characters limit I did not touch this one, but, except for porting Unix stuff to SMSQ/E, I've never had a chance to hit a situation where I found the 36 char limit a problem. I've just never hit the limit with my filesystem. >DON'T make SMSQ/E more appealing and user-friendly for non QL users I did not say "don't", I said we have little chance of converting a "I've never seen a QL" person to using the QL. I prefer to see bang for the buck. Put the most effort where it will do the most good. I also feel that those that have been using the QL for soo many years should have input into where it is going. If a poll of QL users determines that most one feature A and most don't want feature B, then development should proceed to feature A. BUT, I do feel that any QLer can do what they want. If you feel like writing a new device driver for an obscure device, go for it. Don't let me stop you. And finally, how I see the development of SMSQ/E is heavily biased by my own computing needs. If I don't Flash or MacroMedia on the QL, then I don't be pushing for it. I hope I've made myself clear. Tim Swenson _______________________________________________________________________ Free Domain Name Registration with Web Hosting at Lanset Communications. 56k Dialup, Web Design, and Colocation at http://www.lanset.net
