On 19 May 2002, at 13:07, Mike MacNamara wrote:
> I agree entirely with Bill, having spent many thousands of pounds > running several businesses with QLs and SMSQ/E, including Q40. We > stopped because of the lack of development keeping pace with the > market. I was delighted when SMSQ/E was made open source, and > looked forward to a revival in QL fortunes, alas, this is not so, > its not to be open source, which is more to do with vested > interests trying to 'grab the ball', than with what will be best > for QL users, and th QL. I may say that if TT had provided the > support promised to Qubide, Q40 and SMSQ/E, we may have still > been running 8 QLs full time, and spending a goodly sum each year > with traders, to TTs benefit. I, as a user, only see that TT at > last has given access to code, that is long overdue( never mind > copyrights, what about my rights, I have paid good money on the > promise of continuing development. I feel badly treated in this.) > and should have happened years ago. Now the pack are fighting > over the bones. At the end of the day it is we users who decide > to continue with support for the QL, or to go elsewhere and let > the predators starve to death. > Whats wrong with the Linux setup, it works. SMSQ would work as > well, even if there were a couple of versions, that at least adds > competition to differant systems and leads to healthy > development. (comments on TT disregarded) Well, believe it or not, that's exaxctly what we are trying to achieve - get some more development poured into SMSQ/E. Some just find the way we are trying to do it inacceptable. I still think that that is a pity. Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
