Forwarded for Jochen until the email problem is solved. Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:44:24 +0100 From: Jochen Merz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Jochen Merz Shareware (J-M-S) Hi Wolfgang, > > 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 see what I > can do... OK. > > The future status of SMSQ/E can be discussed there and a > > sensible decision can be made. And if SMSQ/E will become > > open source, we do have to find a reliable registrar, that's > > right. > We can also discuss it here! We can, yes - although Tony suggested to do it at Eindhoven, and he will call you during the week about this issue. > > The status of QPC, for example, won't change at all. > Why not? Because nobody will be able to do what Marcel has done, I believe. SMSQ/E is part of it, yes, but who is going to re-invent the wheel? I think it would take a lot of work to get something close to QPC, and ... most important, that would be wasted resources, wouldn't it? > Personally, I think the important thing is that we have a coherent > OS for ALL of the machines it runs on.! I wouldn't like a situation > where QPC, or Q60, or Aurora or whatever has OS features that > the others don't have. For me, the strength of the OS is that it is > the SAME (hardware permitting) on all machines. If that is no > longer the truth, I'll probably loose interest. Yes, I fully agree, and IF we ever want to get applications which benefit of SMSQ/E then we definitely need to go the same route on all systems. > > I really hope that things get going faster again, and my > > feeling is that the modification which Marcel will do to > > the Window Manager as described some days ago may help getting > > more improvements than whether having an open source SMSQ/E or > > not. It's the drivers and applications, which are much more > > important!! > Yes, but how much of the screen drivers (for example) is peculiar > to each machine, and how much isn't? If one re-wrote the screen > P.E screen driver traps and vectors, wouldn't all machines profit > from this? And how would yu do that without the sources? Tony said he sent the sources to various people which showed interest, but nothing has happened at all. > > > But let's meet at Eindhoven next weekend and see what kind of > > reasonable solution can be found for SMSQ. > The emphasis being on "reasonable", I hope! *I* surely don't need an unreasonable solution ;-) -- Jochen Merz Shareware - Im stillen Winkel 12 - D-47169 Duisburg Tel. +49-(0)203-501516 - Fax +49-(0)203-501517 Deutsch: Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://j-m-s.de English: Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://j-m-s.co
