Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman. I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now. I have always been a hardware man (8-)# It would be nice to get Lau involved, but I don't know his availability I will leave him to comment on that, but I know he is thinking of doing similar with Minerva. It would be nice to see Minerva improvements - like colours/hi resolution. The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be Simon Goodwin. I know that he is not as active as others, but he really knows his stuff. It might take some convincing to get him to accept such a position, and it might take some work to get him to work well in the position. At the very least, we should get him involved because he probably writes 68000 assembly in his sleep. I only got to spend a week with him when he came to the West Coast Sinclair Show back in 1999, but I think I got a feel for the man (pre- fatherhood). Yes - one gets to know people well in hot tubs (8-)# URL:http://zx-museum.org.ru/www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/show.htm I remember you, Tim, arrived in it soon afterwards. He is even better as a father. Certainly a very different person from the frantic supercharge days. -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname,demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
RE: [ql-users] Open source
Unfortunately, none of the photos show up :o( Show picture, refresh etc don't make them appear. Ah well - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source Yes - one gets to know people well in hot tubs (8-)# URL:http://zx-museum.org.ru/www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/show.htm This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] Open source
Un tournant dans le monde QDOS/SMS ! -Message d'origine- De : Wolfgang Lenerz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 14 mars 2002 18:58 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: [ql-users] Open source Hi all, I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make SMSQ/ Open Source. We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, to make sure that we have a coherent development. Anybody wolunteering? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: Re: [ql-users] Open source
How about documenting them when they are changed, with responsibility on the developer making the changes? New code submissions could be accepted only with proper documentation; standards determined by the 'steering committee'. Ian. -Original Message- From: marcel Sent: 15 March 2002 10:39 To: ql-users Cc: marcel Subject: Re: [ql-users] Open source Phoebus Dokos wrote: I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. There are about 2000 source files. Who's going to do this? No, I certainly won't. Marcel 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.
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 9:27, Tony Firshman wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman. I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now. I have always been a hardware man (8-)# Jus what would that commercial side involve? SELLING the new OS? I think not (if everybody agreed to buy one, we could pay Tony Tebby to do some work!) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 2:43, Phoebus Dokos wrote: I suggested Source forge due to the many tools available. CVS etc. and not to suggest total anarchy! Good! I do agree in any case that for an OS a tighter control should be implemented. Don't forget that the project manager in any case is the one that handles the CVS tree and regulates submissions. To be quite frank, I'm not really familiar with that. But I'm learning... On top of that I don't believe that the core of the OS should be changed. What should be changed (and normalised) is the way drivers are written etc... That already is normalised in a certain way. What most of us want to do is change the drivers (e.g. take out the slave blocks), I presume. I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. Additionally a fully documented source would be: .. a shortage of income for Jochen Merz. is that what we want? 1. An Invaluable tool for all programmers 2. A good reference point to start if we are to step up SMS to a different platform (yeah yeah I know... don't shoot!) Oh, by all means, if we can get I must point out, though, that I do not, for one minute, believe that even a better, faster etc... SMS will be able to break out of its current niche. Others have tried (e.g. Beos) - and they had MUCH better tolls than we have now... In that, at least, I agree with Tim Swenson: let's try to make a nicer OS for us, who are already using it, not try to build something that might lure in hypothetical new users. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
OK for me. Arnould Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: I don't know about you, but I'll be sending him some money instead, something like 150 euros. I KNOW he doesn't want any (so I'll probably get a scalding), but I do think that his efforts, so far, have not received AT ALL the financial results they should have. Maybe we could organise a collection ?
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: If it is Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the registrar (for want of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is why the 'most' and not all above...).. I know that this will enrage the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do whatever you want. However, we should consider that our resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that. I've worked on an open source project (pgplus.ewtoo.org) and think this distinction is important, because it sets up peoples' expectations. They expect to be able to download the source, and modify it for their own personal needs. If this isn't possible, not only is the source not open, but the project concerned has an entirely different focus and result. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Open Source is open to anybody to download and modify according to their needs. HOWEVER in order to make ANY modification a part of the official source tree it has to be approved by the registrar and the governing body... The difference is that a non-approved modification ceases to be called SMSQ/E anyway. The point I think that's being made, is that SMSQ/E wouldn't lose anything by being truly open-source. The master copy of the code would be carefully managed, and submissions would be scrutinised for quality, suitability, and compatibility with SMSQ/E's goals... Yet people could still take the master and produce customisations. Don't need fancy screen drivers, use the old ones. Don't need xyz, strip it out. As for potential revenue on making SMSQ/E opensource it's even greater than it is now... This isn't just about selling CD-R's. It's about allowing SMSQ/E to be suitable for as many markets and functions as the market wants and is prepared to code for. The GOM's who run the 'committee' can then decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate to merge with the main source. Definitely some fine tuning on the terms of a license is needed in order to benefit everyone and ensure continuation of SMSQ in perpetuity ;-) but that can be arranged with understanding, lots of talk and a nice consensus :-) As long as the license isn't infectious, I'm right behind it. If it is infectious, I wouldn't touch it with a proverbial barge pole. IMHO Dave
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 07:48 AM 3/15/2002 +0100, you wrote: On 14 Mar 2002, at 20:22, Timothy Swenson wrote: The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be Simon Goodwin. I'm not so sure about that, due to his strong opposition against the PE. I was not aware of any opposition Simon had of the PE. I know that Simon has some strong feelings about how things should be done on the QL and TURBO reflects his design decisions. Whomever the person is they have to be fairly organized, willing to take a few barbs from programmers feeling that their code is great and just the right thing for SMSQ/E. I would think the person has to be fairly familiar with 68000 Assembly and be the person to do the final build. So, folks, now is not the time to be shy. If you feel you have the right skills and chutzpah, come one and step up to the plate. Tim Swenson
Re: [ql-users] Open source
At 02:20 PM 3/15/2002 +, you wrote: Ok, now I am totally confused. Open source has a very specific meaning. And this isn't it. If the source isn't going to be generally available, it isn't open source, and you shouldn't call it that. I think we can expect the source code to be available, but any official changes to the code would have to go through the registrar. For some Open Source means using the official Open Source license. For others Open Source means all source code licenses (including the GPL). For Richard Stallman (founder of the GNU Project), Open Source and the GPL are not the same thing. The SMSQ/E project can use pretty much what ever license that is available, or create a new one. I don't think the GPL would fit for our project, but some other related license might. I think it would be up to the community (and really TT) as to the specifics of the license. Open Source does not mean that the source code cannot be put on a CD and sold. The GNU folks used to charge $150 for tapes of GNU software. I'd be willing to put down some money to get the source code and any documentation that goes with it. I highly recommend that a group of folks get together at the next big QL show and hash out the initial details in person. Divide the entire projects into smaller chunks and start getting volunteers to take on each chunk. Documenting the source code could be broken down and distributed. Speaking of documentation, I think the subject of the QDOS/SMSQ/E and QPTR documentation needs to be discussed as this is still being sold commercially. If the docs do also become available with the source code, we'll need to find a way to offset the loss to any vendors involved. I think a fully open SMSQ/E would benefit the entire QL community, but it will cause some loss to some (namely vendors). We will need to address this issue. If we pass the hat, maybe a certain amount of the sum should go to the vendors too, and not just TT. Jochen, since you are probably going to be the most effected, time now to get up and say your piece. Let us know how much this might hurt your business and suggest ways we can offset the loss. Tim Swenson
[ql-users] QPC and floppy disk drives
I have just installed QPC v2.03 on my new PC provided by Roy Wood. I have been copying my hard drive across from my Aurora using the Knightsafe program which compresses the files into a huge file which fills several HD disks (each backup file uses all available sectors... ie 2871 on a QL formatted disk). However, when I have tried to restore these on the QPC side of things, some of the disks report medium checksum error... I have tried formatting various HD disks both on Aurora and QPC and copying the backup file to them using Aurora, but QPC insists there is an error reading the disks, despite the fact that Aurora disk drives can still read them. I have never had problems with customers not being able to read my disks, and out of 20 backup files copied across in this way, there are only 3 which refuse to be read (even with a BASIC COPY command). I therfore do not think it is to do with head alignment Further, when I try to read DD disks which I created on the Aurora system, I either get a real directory or a corrupt directory (!) but when I try reading any files, they all appear corrupt, even though the Aurora will read them Any ideas on this one I am really stuck! Maybe anyone with QPC who has purchased programs from me could report if they have problems reading my disks but no-one elses Maybe it is my floppy disk drives on the Aurora if this is the case... Rich Mellor
