Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
On Thu, 30 May 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: right, but the variants of O/S that the numbers refer to are copyright so the numbers are an identification of O/S with its own copyright. version 1.xx in an O/S will mean to us (QL users) that this is QDOS (as far as the program running is concerned) O/S. 2.xx will be SMSQ/E. Other numbers mean other variants of QDOS. This is why, as explained to me, SMSQ/E cannot increment over 2.xx as we have encroached upon another O/S by using its id. Personaly speaking, version 1.00 of a new O/S title is fine by me and disregard all previous O/S versions, I don't mind. So there's already an SMSQ v3.00 released by some other company? Even in that case, copyright law would not apply, but trademark law might. Even then, it would only apply to the SMSQ part of the name, and not the 3.0. Just the version number by itself is absolutely, positively, not copyrightable. Unless you're saying that Windows 3.11, Risc OS 3.5, MacOS 3.0 - 9, etc, are all infringing? No, there is no problem with any SMSQ version unless there's already a trademarked SMSQ out there. There are no US Federal or WIPO trademarks registered for SMSQ - I just checked. Hope this helps... Dave
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Richard Zidlicky wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:44:29AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm afraid that the discussion about GPL (and whether I know it or not) will lead us too far astray. Let's just say that I will abide by my opinion on it. you do not have an opinion on it. You just plainly refuse to think about a reasonable license. Then went on to say: Perhaps we would get a bit futher with more humor. However, simply laughing at someones arguments isn't the way to convince me, quite the opposite - especially since you have left a whole bunch of my arguments simply unanswered. Richard, It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or if you have a better way or not. If you in one breath dismiss out of hand what someone's saying, and moments later say laughing at someone's arguments isn't a way to convince you, well, that comes across very strangely... Just to crystalise the issue, what exactly are you losing under the proposed revised license? I can see what you'd gain (access to the source, ability to contribute to SMSQ's source directly, etc) but what do you lose? You couldn't do this before, so I'm at a loss to see how you'd be worse off... Dave
Re[3]: [ql-users] Come get it
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Bruce N wrote: I knew I should have checked the reply header first! Now everyone has my address please use this address for any submissions to Quanta as the one published last month was incorrect. The next issue is very light on material and if you feel like writing a small article it would be most appreciated. Brucie-baby, What formats do you accept submissions in? If someone wanted to send some illustrations or photos, what format(s) do you support? Daaave
[ql-users] SMSQ Source...
It arrived this morning. The SMSQ source is in the wild. Now, the work can begin :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ Source...
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Sorry Norman, I'm at or very near my 50MB site limit. Dilwyn - Original Message - Probably Dilwyn would be able to help out as well. Guys guys guys! I own a webserver, and am happy to host anything anyone wants that's QL related. This includes unlimited up/downloads. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ Source styleguide
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Derek Stewart wrote: No that is not waht I meant, people who want to compile SMSQ/E and have not got QMAC, QLINK and QMAKE will have to buy them. Obviously, when talking about commercial products, especially where Jochen has kindly lowered the price for a period to allow SMSQ tinkerers to get in at a lower level, I think all is right with the World. Jochen, why don't you chuck together a little bundle of these apps, so everything we could possibly need is available for one low price, with lower media and mailing costs for you? You could even do a couple of packs - a mud hut pack with the compiling apps, and a pyramid pack with debuggers, monitors, etc? Dave
Re: [ql-users] UQLX Mandrake 8.2
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Final analysis On a PC, run FreeBSD... THE ONLY true Unix ;-) (Okay NetBSD and OpenBSD are included ;-) Phoebus, you *n*x snob! ;P Dave
RE: [ql-users] QeyMail question...
Hi Jonathan, Sorry to hear about your accident, but know how it goes. On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Dent Jonathan wrote: Dilwyn's message here broaches the question of _exe files. There is however a more controversial aspect: What about direct execution of exe files? It could be really useful but opens up the Pandora's box of virus propagation. What do you think? My specification would involve putting the _exe in a wrapper with a checksum. If the wrapper was executed it would just quit. Any other copy of Qeymail would remove the wrapper. The wrapper would contain other information too: the header, plus the original path of the file. When a user receives a bunch of attachments, they can choose to dump them in a specified location, recreate the original location, etc. I want to get the design spec really clear in writing, then put it out to everyone, and open the project at sourceforge so everyone can participate. I've been going slow with everything QL-related, due to heavy work commitments and some events outside of work that mean I really have to take it easy. I'm beating cancer and that's a priority. I'm just taking really good care of myself right now. So, I'm not disappearing on you guys! Qeyboard is finished. I just need fifty orders now! ;P The scene's been around for 18 years; it can wait a few more months. I freely admit to getting very disillusioned sometimes, especially after the SMSQ 'debate', but I think with EtherIDE almost funded (I've bought some of the parts Nasta needs - sponsor Nasta, buy a part and donate it to him so he can fund GF!) we're looking at better times ahead. I still think we need a new desktop. Look what Aqua did for the Mac - I think we need to really bring the window manager(s) up to date. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Quanta - Articles plea
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In essence you are including the second within the url whereas you should leave it out. Turnpike (and any receiving mailer) correctly interprets the %3E as part of the url and feeds it to the browser... however there's no address that corresponds to that (unless of course your file is appropriately named: page.html%3E %3E is 63, and CHR$(63) is Both examplkes are wrong, but for different reasons. Tony has an example where the tag close is encoded into the URL, and Phoebus' version omits it altogether. As tags should never be embedded, only nested, both are wrong. The outer should be dropped, and to be viewed correctly in text only clients like qeymail, the inner tags should be ignored too. Qeymail is planned to have a tag stripper, and a URL finder ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Linux on Q40
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Jonathan Dent wrote: The soql ppp driver is managing to connect and negotiate for an IP address etc. I still have to debug the actual data transfer which (at least with ping) is only working in one direction at the moment. This is excellent news. If you'd like any help with this in the form of sending you packets, malformed packets, pings, co-operative DNS testing etc, please feel free to let me know. I'll need the SGC Aurora IDE/Ethernet interface before I can work on pppoe but maybe a more intelligent ADSL router/hub would be a simpler solution. (if more expensive) That's Nasta's baby. Nasta, I have these parts for you. Want them? :o) Jon, I realise you're still busy trying to get it working, but I was wondering how the documentation is coming along, and what the calls look like. I'll drop by your site later and have a gander. What is the likelihood of SBASIC integration? The first draft of qeymail will most likely be in SBASIC. After that, who knows. Final item: if anyone else who hasn't yet expressed an interest would like to join in writing an open source email client, please let me know, so we can get together online and make a start sometime soon. Thanks! Dave
Re: [ql-users] QL Keyboard Membranes - moving on
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Voyager wrote: I thought to be clear, that replacing membranes is something completelly different than refurbishing and replacing parts of the QL itself. Qeyboard might be a very nice idea, but useless if you need to keep the QL in original condition. My point of view is not of the developer/QL fan etc., but of the collector, that needs an original QL up and running. So, Qeyboard and membranes, are not competitive to eachother. I would never modify my QLs anyway :-) The Qeyboard is mechanically compatible with membranes, and doesn't alter the operational or cosmetic characteristics of the QL. Just so ya know! Also, there are a couple of weaknesses in the design of the membrane which could be overcome if a new batch were made. Also, the jig used for making the membranes has to take into account the bend in the top case. If the membranes are made flat, they will wrinkle when properly assembled. The jig has to have a 1.5 degree curl up from the middle to the left edge. I need to build a dossier with all membrane specs and/or scans and drawing, in order to give it away quickly. Could anybody help me on that part? If you are interested (I am) I could inquire about building on the same batch, membranes for the ZX48K and the ZXPlus or ZX81s. But I would really need their designs in electronic form. Might I be so bold as to suggest that we offer to buy the tooling and make classic membranes ourselves? It would give us much greater flexibility, and remove the element of a manufacturer making profit, which leaves something in it for the dealers while getting users lower prices. imvvho. Dave
RE: [ql-users] A funny thing...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: Graphics by Sinclair QL and SMSQ. Highly original, I know, but . I've at best come up with: Computers .. Sinclair Research Ltd Additional hardware .. Miracle Systems Zeljko Nastasic Displays kindly furnished by.. ADI Operating System .. Tony Tebby Programming Dave Park It won't be a proper file if you don't :o) Hello Dave. Would you like to play a game of chess? I'm really very good. No! Dave
RE: [ql-users] A funny thing...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: My mind is going... I can feel it... Phoebus So THAT'S why you've been talking all this greek rubbish lately ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, ZN wrote: I would still lean towards the 68SZ328. Can it support: A simple expansion interface? Some kind of expandable flash area? What roughly would be the cost of such a system, and the design period? I understand the issue with it being a BGA, as I have had to deal with that once with the 7500FE in a mBGA package, where the boards had to be sent off for x-ray checks of the mounting. *shudders* - effectively a 66MHz 68000 (and could possibly be made to run a bit faster than that) If the manufacturer routinely stuck a nice big fat heatsink on it? - 'connect the dots' system design - has everything on the chip and interfaces with everything else with, in most cases, 0 glue logic. In particular things that every system needs to have, such as SDRAM, Flash, peripherals... this all means that designing the hardware is easy and quick. Would this require custom logic? CPLDs? Any of those other little complexities that slow down a design? :o) What all of this amounts to is that one could put all of the existing (and some not yet existing) features of a well appointed QL onto a standard euro size board (or even smaller). What I was playing around with on my ARM design (and I just KNOW what Nasta's gonna say about this!) was more mechanical than electronic. A eurocard with standard mounts, and at one end it had two upward facing slots for 1/2 length eurocards (ie a 160x100mm base with room for two 80mmx100mm expansion cards facing upward), with any connectors along the back edge. This gave room for it to sit under two drive bays in a 160x180x60mm enclosure. Now, if that was stretched out to be a more QL-shaped enclosure, that opens up even more options. RAM is currently cheap enough that one could simply stick on the maximum possible size and leave it there (I believe that's 64MB but there are tricks to expand this as the internal addressing is 32 bit). I suspect making the trick standard might be a smart idea. The negatives: 2) Video goes up to 1024x512 max and 65536 colors, but is in practice is limited by the total data rate from memory, as it's a shared memory system (like the original QL). And just like the ARM7500FE. It's a trade-off of colour-depth against resolution. I would take a sweet 256k high res desktop over a chunky 65536-colour desktop any day of the week - but generally, the window managers are so disappointing graphically that more colours don't really give anything... (imho, personally, for me. ymmv!) A genie in a lamp so I can wish away the cr*p that is going to happen in the next two months as I prepare to move and then move back to Croatia. More about that privately, if you want - or you can give me a ring. Could you email me your number and I can call you this evening? It'll save me having to go through the hundreds of emails in my Nasta folder looking for it - rereading ONE of your epic emails takes a good while!;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Membrane update (and progress)
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Callum Davidson wrote: I've been exchanging emails with Thomas at Sintech on the subject of his planned production of keyboard membranes recently, with very encouraging results. Great! On a similar note, does the replacement 'non-intrusive' keyboard discussed here use the existing membrane, a custom one, or something different entirely? If it's a custom one, could the quantity of membranes we can register interest for be increased to accomodate the needs of this product? I believe both are valuable to QL users, could happily co-exist, and we could secure the production of both products at reasonable cost if the parts are similar. The replacement works on microswitches and isn't at all similar to a membrane. Also, the availability of membranes would make my project redundant, and that would be a good thing. I am sure the Quanta guys would be willing to co-fund a larger run and hold membranes to ensure their supply well into the future. If these ones are as non-destructible as you say, they should solve the long-term problems too. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, ZN wrote: Well, the part that I disagreed on was 'on board'. It is a big decision and has to do with what you decide is going to be 'the board'. If the expansion needs to be very fast and/or flexible, it is a great problem to design it. But something very simple, a quick 'hook up a chip' port is quite easy and this is why the GF still has old QL bus capability. It is FAR simpler to work with than enything more modern. The electrical questions are very separate from the physical questions. My personal preference is simply to have everything available through standard connectors, and have the expansion in a small but flexible format where if people need more space they can do it. I have always been quite taken with the idea of a mezzanine board, but that allows generally one expansion. Some slot-based expansion has flexibility advantages but electrical disadvantages (a la RiscPC backplane). Whether or not something is the 'right' or 'wrong' way depends very much on how the thing will be used, and someone may want to expand it in the future, which is a very hard thing to guess. Yes, something like the flexATX size, it's about 1/3-1/3 micro ATX area, and it's not a rigid size standard, as long as it encompases 4 of the perscribed mounting holes. Ok, let me elucidate my vision... A compact, self-contained unit which has the functionality of a QL, the expansion capabilities of a BBC B, and the price of a ZX81. Ok, that's asking a lot and demands compromises... I picture the target market as an open system for sale into schools. The PC and Mac aren't very good at what the BBC model B was good at. With its open IO and delicious BASIC capabilities for control and monitoring, you have the answer to why the model B is still in use in so many school labs today. I think the QL, with a sensible storage system and rationalised BASIC (which it already has) can fit that role very well, and is as near to a real-time OS as a school could get. I think if it's tiny, and looks like a super-PDA, and has a rechargeable battery but less expansion, it could also find a market. I'm not comfortable in the capability of the community to produce timely or suitable software for that format though... There are many other formats and target markets that could benefit from something. But face facts, anything made for QL users only will be a non-profit non-venture of limited scope. Anything made for a wider market, like the technology department of schools, not to teach computing, but to teach all that other automation/controls stuff, well that may actually sell enough to be worthwhile... This is why Nasta firmly told me many moons ago that the GF wasn't being designed solely for this market - he definitely has other uses in mind too... Now there are GHz+ embedded ARM processors, I still consider the whole hidden-emulated possibility, just because it lowers costs so much, but on the other hand people want an actual QL. What to do, what to do... I guess the real question is that if one were to forget about all performance considerations, and were just to try and reproduce the QL exactly, but with modern interfaces on-board, how much would this save? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Roy Wood wrote: Insider talk has it that Motorola will soon pull out of chip manufacture altogether. That is indeed insider talk. Apple is repositioning to use IBM manufactured parts. The cell chip part of the business is moving to using foundries... Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: The weather included a bit of snow but no wind to show off the new Bergey XL1 wind machine. It did power up for a little bit (about half an hour Sunday morning right after the clouds came) - I have two consecutive pictures of it turning :-) Those would be, uhhh, *still* pictures, right? *sarcasto-ironicism ahoy!* Dave
Re: [ql-users] Hardware platforms
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Those would be, uhhh, *still* pictures, right? *sarcasto-ironicism ahoy!* With 1 sec delay between them... well YES you can see the blades moving... not that anything else can move them as they are 30 ft up in the air OMG! I know this is a little OT, but guess what new paperwork they just introduced at work. TPS Reports! TPS Reports! Dave PS: See: Office Space
Re: [ql-users] Sbasic extensions toolkits
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Usually every toolkit has a name. IMO the prefix should be derived from that. This can as well be the name of the author (anybody remember Beule-Tools from Peter(?) Beule?). As we're talking about SBASIC, I have spent much time thinking about this, and come up with a more elgant solution than my original suggestion. Command: PREFER command toolkit Example: PREFER cmp_string tkx In a case where two toolkits have the same username, a method should be created for a command to be identified with a toolkit by some simple abreviation. Thus, new toolkits would have some element or wand that says the toolkit name and version (so people can PREFER commands from different versions of the same toolkit) and use them in the same SBASIC instance. More elgant from the user perspective - no doubt a challenge to write. Just a suggestion. Dave
Re: [ql-users] The Wall, etc, etc
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Marcel, just a thought, would it be possible to include an SBASIC command (+ m/code equivalent) in a future QPC version to disable QPC audio from SBASIC (assuming I ain't missed an existing one!) ? Why not just write an empty command that takes any number of arguments and does nothing? Load it as a toolkit into the instance of SBASIC that has the offending program, andit'll replace the keyword that is causing your problem, be it BEEP or SOUND. ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I just wanted to point out something to the general QL world at large: as you all know, SMSQ/E is being made available publicly, under a licence that was discussed at length here. This licence is now the current licence for all versions of SMSQ/E. Under this licence, only appointed resellers may sell the software, provided, notably, that a 10 euro payment is made to Tony Tebby for each copy sold. Today, DD systems are selling the Q40/Q60. These are machines that contain SMSQ/E in ROM (they cannot boot otherwise). DD have NOT even requested to become a software reseller. They are NOT paying the licence fees. This means that these people are currently selling something for which they have no licence and which they do not have the right to distribute - in other words, counterfeit software. Doesn't this mean that they are software pirates? Even worse, this means that YOU, when you are buying this machine with this software, are also using counterfeit software, and by extension, when using the Q40/Q60, you are also a software pirate. Do you really want to be? Wolfgang Wolfgang, this email of yours is wrong on so many levels. Aside from any legal flaws in your argument, and there are a couple of great big ones, you have a responsibility to handle these issues in a discreet and diplomatic manner. This message is indiscreet, undiplomatic, and certainly libellous. As for the legal arguments, releasing software under a new license does not automatically make that license applicable to all previous or parallel versions. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. Any such activity is absolutely legal, and your accusation that it is not is not only wrong (due to lack of evidence, not finding of fact) but places you in a very VERY unenviable position. Up until this moment, I have felt you've been working in the best interest of the SMSQ/E community, but having read this very ill-advised post, I can only conclude that you do not posses the diplomacy skills required of a registrar. Accusing others of impropriety without very solid evidence, in such a public forum, is an impropriety in itself. You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Roy Wood wrote: The whole point of the licence was to stop people modifying the code without some central controlling authority - which would be Wolfgang. And the question is Is Wolfgang able to treat DD fairly in light of his sense that they are seemingly ignoring his perceived authority? Already he has been sidelined by this. Which is what was expected to happen. The license, while I accept it entirely, isn't one that can effectively discourage this. The problem is that Wolfgang expects the DD sales to result in a payment to him of 10 Euros per copy sold, but he doesn't know how many licenses they already have unsold, so there is no simple resolution without facts. I do think it is vital to have someone keep the different versions of SMSQ/E in step, and I think Wolfgang is technically capable. My worry is that this action has polarised and marginalised DD into a position where they will feel unwilling to co-operate with him. Now, words will fly, and indignation will be expressed since we're talking about a world market for maybe 100 copies of SMSQ/E over the coming years, it's not going to be sued over, and the enforcer has no teeth. So it's academic. What's the way forward from here? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: Has this bloke gone nuts? We have been producing the Q60 for over a year and Wolfgang has never contacted me once, even though he agreed to do so with Tony Firshman and Derek. So I am still waiting for this contact or is this above the contact he means? Excuse me for pointing out the flaw in this, but if you were aware that Wolfgang, Tony and Derek agreed to communicate about this issue, you have just admitted there was prior communication and that you (the company) were aware of this issue. Licence money has been paid. I have replied to Tony Tebby's email (to me) and I am now waiting for the return reply. This is a private business matter, but for the sake of transparency and defusing the serious allegation, would you care to outline to the group what arrangement you have made? Wolfgang, more like WolfGANGSTER, menacingly demanding money without an invoice. Watch out, this Wolfgangster bloke's a nutter :-))) Dennis, please use this opportunity to take the high ground, not fight to see who can get lowest in the gutter? ;o) That's my job! ;P Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just DON'T assume that I haven't tried to settle this previously in a discreet and diplomatic way. Dude! :o) Ok, so this was a mistep because you got the wrong tone, even if the message was right. There is now public awareness of the ambiguity of DD's license position. Chances are that they ARE ripping off SMSQ/E, but it's still a very strong allegation without some lighter questioning first, even if you had reached a point of going public. The Grafs may have lawfully purchased the right to sell many copies of SMSQ/E, or may operate under a separate license or agreement not relevant to the public SMSQ/E source license. MAY ? Do they? I don't know, and nor do you. Only DD can clear up the situation. You may be right, but that is hardly the point. Oh, but it is. The problem is that, right now, I'm NOT concerned with 'The Grafs' as you put it. I have no idea how the Grafs are involved in this. All I see is that dd are selling the Q60, without a licence. My mistake. I think of The Grafs as the originator oif the rather spiffy Q60, which is made by DD. No doubt, the Graffs had an arrangement for SMSQ/E which they may have transferred or sublicensed to DD to make quite lawfully. We do not know. Unfortunately, knowing may be very destructive, as knowing the license fees paid means knowing exactly what DD's sales are, and therefore what production is, and if you knew how few units they may have sold, the scene may become even more disheartened than it already is. It's not the message, it's the voice. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: The main point of the license is to ensure there is only one approved version in the field. DD, according to their adverts, are selling a patched version. This is precisely what Wolfgang is striving to avoid. Hmmm, another problem with the license. Until they submit the changes with source to him, he can't make them 'official', so they can't sell them, thereby can't sell the Q60. So basically, Wolfgang has veto power over their ability to sell machines, to some extent. They can't sell them with SMSQ/E until he approves the changes. This also requires them to contribute their changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. Can. Of. Worms. *shudders* Glad I'm not stuck in this position. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, dndsystems1 wrote: Thanks for your support Dave, always welcome :-) Well, it's such a polarised debate, I figure I should at least take both sides to be fair ;) Since you're here - what's the chance of a Q60 that comes without a processor, for those of us that have 060's laying around? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This also requires them to contribute their changes to other branches of SMSQ too, and to divulge their intellectual property. NO. Read the licence again. quote: When such a proposal is made, the person proposing it may state whether its change/addition/modification is to be : - distributed in the official versions of the source and binary codes, or - distributed in the official versions of the binary codes only, or - not distributed in the official versions, but alongside them. If it is in the binary only, nobody (apart from me) gets to see it. Ummm, that's exactly what I said. Not only source has intellectual property rights. The compiled code does too. If they're forced to include the results of their labors (if any) into every other version, regardless then two things happen: 1. Lowest Common Denominator - SMSQ has to work in the same way on the least capable hardware as the most capable. Consistency and all that. 2. They have to give features to versions that may not be appropriate to run it. This hinders development of SMSQ/E. Dave
Re: [ql-users] ql-chat list seems to have gone off the air ...
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: is ql chat still online ? I got the following back when I sent a message to it just now : Thanks Norman. I moved the mail server to a new machine and that was the first post using a mailing list since then. I'll get it patched up and running within the day. Thanks for the alert! Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
Before replying to Phoebus' post, I'd just like to say that I have the utmost respect for someone who changes their mind after expressing a view for so long. On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, [windows-1253] Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò wrote: If someone has copies of the list in-or-around '98 he will remember that I had a huge discussion with Roy where we agreed on dissagreeing on what open software is all about and why it should be supported, I did use at that time the same analogy Tony Tebby used (the author and the book) now... I like the intent of the new license - it's just a couple of specific areas I have trouble with. The license fee isn't one of them and never has been. The issue I take with it is this notion that all versions of SMSQ/E must be identical. I think this is not in SMSQ/E's best interest because it discourages development. For example, I think it is good for a version to add a feature that may not be supported by other platforms, *as long as it is an addition*, and the software style guide states that if the feature is used in software released for all platforms, the equivalent functionality should be included (if possible) for other platforms too. For example, say a machine is released that requires different code to operate an IDE interface. That version should be allowed to exclude code which is simply not relevant, like microdrive-related code, if microdrives could never be attached to the machine. (this may be a bad example) That IDE code may for hardware reasons be entirely irrelevent to every other version, but be required for this version just to achive the same functionality. Dealing with the machine at a hardware level, it seems silly to require that all those patches be included in all versions of SMSQ/E, and/or that additional features to support extra hardware be globally applied even if other machines could never support the hardware. I hope I explained this properly - it's a difficult thing to explain when I'm tired and can't find the words. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: May common sense return to the land of the sheep, Baa! I don't want common sense. I want extraordinary sense! Yes, TT surely clarified the situation. I read it in my mind's ear in a God-like voice. I was waiting for him to go to Eindhoven and jump up and down on stage screaming Developers! Developers! Developers! :o) Of course, now he's going to get a bunch of emails from his devotees telling him how wonderful he is. I really should get started on mine, so I have to go now. Dave PS: Sorry about the email, they don't allow crayons in here.
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, ZN wrote: Obviously, this excludes all platforms where such feature simply makes on sense or is impossible (by design - leack of need), but does at least suggest some form of forethought, so that we don't get 'my way or the highway' style features. This breeds tremenodous problems with writing applications and further additions to SMSQ/E. Or does it? My vision is: Someone writes a spiffy new [item] and it gets included on that version of SMSQ, because [XYZ] couldn't/wouldn't support it anyway. The feature is now available if people need it, and they can write applications (remember when we used to call them programs?) that can benefit from the feature. Now, your average software author writing for the market can use the feature if he wants to, but wouldn't want to limit his market to that platform alone. This is an *operating system* we're talking about, a way for software to use the hardware. If code running on radically different hardware cannot be modified to take into account features of that specific hardware, that really limits the development of hardware, and of software that runs on it. The notion that all versions should have identical features could be replaced with the notion that all versions should have compatible features, even if the capability is different. EG: an ARM-QL could support 1600x1200 on a CRT, or 2048x1640 on a LCD. With touch screen support. And USB. And ethernet. Things that should be included in a monolithic OS. imvvvho Dave
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: I was waiting for him to go to Eindhoven and jump up and down on stage screaming Developers! Developers! Developers! :o) Is this some obscure reference I don't get? A joke? Or just extraordinary sense? Some top guy at Microsoft did this on stage at a developers conference, and came off sounding a bit loony! Of course, now he's going to get a bunch of emails from his devotees telling him how wonderful he is. Jealous? Nah. I'm more famous to more people than TT, and I really crave the anonymity he has. Never be in the music business :/ Quick, somebody give that man some crayons! Assokay, my boss just brought me some. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] QXL II w/ full blown 68040
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Phoebus wrote: I just installed a 33MHz 68040 (no EC) on my QXL-II and I have the other one (68EC040-25) as a spare. If anyone wants it, please let me know :-) Did you just invalidate yer warranty? :o) I hope you stuck a good heatsink on the logic. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Dave P wrote: Well, that's illegal in every European country. Once someone owns a license to software, they're free to sell it to whomsoever they wish under the first sale doctrine. I don't think anybody suggested that this is not the case. Wolfgang said that DD had to approach him to request to be resellers. This is completely unnecessary, if they just want to sell existing copies. However, if they want to sell official, supported copies, they would benefit from registering. It's all very confusing! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Pirates and mad sheep -a deep groan
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Thanks, but this begs the question - have I been acting in accordance with these reassurances? Put it this way; every time an issue is raised, you have worked diligently to resolve it. Sometimes I question your methods, but your results are usually most satisfactory to most people. relatively minor changes and have SMSQ/E license v1.1 come into force on January 1st? Oh groan. Groan. Groan. groan. Appendix? Do you really want us to go through the entire debate again every year? That isn't necessary. I was thinking maybe in mid-November each year you could post a summary of issues that have arisen during the year, and propose changes. Simply ignore and do not respond to discussion outside of those very limited points. Yearly may well be too much. However, I think some know time and place to suggest and discuss small changes or corrections would be nice. Actually, I wouldn't like it - but if there is really a demand for that, I'll do it. Not the *whole* license. Just the parts that seem contentious or ambiguous? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Software pirates in our midst?
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Under penalty of being qualified by Dexter as a TT groupie, I must say that, if there were defects in the OS and he was made aware of them, he did fix them. Ummm, no, you're not a groupie! If anything, I am more of a groupie than you are. I used to know who TT was when I was a teenager - how he came to be in that position... I was a Clive groupie and TT was like his backing singer ;) Gee, now I made myself sound really weird! Dave
[ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
Hi all, While I've done a lot of work on look-and-feel stuff for Qeymail, there are some behind the scenes things I'm not too sure about. Where three or four strategies exist to solve a problem, different solutions will benefit different types of user, and I want to create the best experience for the largest number of people possible. The main area is the actual storage method for emails. Would people prefer a single file holding all emails, individual files for each email, which would be indexed on startup, or individual files plus a maintained index? Each has plusses and minuses. Discuss. Second, multiple mail boxes. Is the ability to send/receive from multiple mailboxes useful or not? What about profiles where one profile is accessed at a time, or is the ability to access multiple mailboxes simultaneously 'very important' to you? Finally, how important would it be to use a pointer environment, or would you be happy to use industry standard CTRL-key combinations? Thanks in advance, Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Joachim Van der Auwera wrote: Why not use one the of databases which are available (DATAdesign (as in part of ProWesS) springs to mind). This will be a free, open source program. If it relies on any other program, that program would also have to be free, and I would need to be able to distribute it, or offer it for download, as part of the package. I'll also be doing this co-operateively with anyone who wants to help... Dave
[ql-users] New SMSQ/E reseller!
The man himself has been very low key about it, so I'll remind y'all! Phoebus Dokos is now an official SMSQ/E reseller, and I am his first customer. :) Congratulations, Phobey, and I hope you sell many tens of thousands of copies! :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In that case DATAdesign for the use you want is the best Dave! I plan to do developmental work in S*BASIC. I like to clearly lay out in very readable fashion how everything works, especially the transactions between servers. It'll be a simple test rig. Once the mechanics are shown to work, I may (will?) start over using PE. People are advising I use a database program, but that's the least of my worries - I'm more worried about the email editor! ;) Finally, I plan to make some of the sections portable, so later they can be used in a simple S*BASIC web server, mail SERVER, or similar. As I said previously, all this will be open source, probably under the LGPL. Basically, if you sell or give the code to someone, you have to give them the source if they ask for it. Anything else? There isn't a cut-off for suggestions, but I'd like as much in before I do fundamentals, and before it's difficult to do major restructuring. Also, a quickie, is there a QL equivalent of MD5 hashing so I can securely store passwords? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Malcolm Cadman wrote: A good index is essential. I plan to give every email a serial number. Whether a single file or one file per email, there will be an index file with serial number, filename, length, date, status, etc. I am even considering copying exactly the pine mailbox format, so mail would be portable to-from linux systems. I use multiple mailboxes all the time ... so I guess I am just used to it. I have thought of a nice, easy way to resolve that issue. Must have the PE for me. *pout* :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, James Hunkins wrote: Yes, ProWess is much, much, MUCH easier to program and more powerful. You could even, one day, add HTML email rendering... That isn't a 'one day' thing. I plan to incorporate understanding of HTML from day 1, and have configuration that allows people to select what HTML elements get displayed. There will also be a header handler, so if you email a file/program to another QLer, the file can be saved on their system with header. I really don't understand why people don't program using the ProWess window manager. The usual complain was that it needed a fast QL. But Since this is email for those with ethernet, and ethernet would be highly unsatisfactory on a 20MHz machine, I don't think it s TOO important to serve that group. I do plan that keypresses will work, and the key labels on screen (bottom two lines, just like pine) will also be clickable. And there are a lot of people around who can help. I believe that the intent was to do the development work in S-Basic. Easy pointer should work well there. Adding GD2 (full color) takes a bit of experimenting but can be done after all the major window/menu work is complete. I am doing the QDT color tuning towards the end of all the actual code myself. In a way I am lucky. You have all been playing with these goodies for years, and here I am, back after a 12 year absense, and there's all this new stuff! Ok, back to work. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, James Hunkins wrote: I don't like the idea of a single file. Take a look at Microsoft's email program - there have been many problems with the single file once it gets too large. Things slow down, corruption is possible, and trying to extract and save individual emails gets 'interesting'. I don't like the idea of a single file either, because removing an email from the middle of a file and closing up thew gap is slow if done on a drive, or would exhaust memory. I don't want to divide email by date either. Finally, I do not want to divide email by sender email, because the penalty is that the ones who send most mail have the largest files and slowest response. Instead, I am aiming towards a subdirectory structure, thus: inbox_index inbox_1211020001 . . inbox_121102 (ie can handle 65536 mails a day) delet_index delet_1211020001 etc... I will also allow people to create their own folders and move mail between folders. Someone else mentioned the QL file limitations per directory. This could become a problem for someone who gets a lot of emails. You might I think if people really store that much mail, I will have it auto archive mail, and inform the user. EG: on start up it can say You have over 30,000 emails. Call Geeks Anonymous on... *grins* Also, are you aiming this at all users including floppy and microdrive types? If so, what happens if a user fills up a floppy, etc (for some of us, this is a real possibility). I will allow each folder to be on a different drive, so inbox could be on flp1_ and others on flp#_ - all user-assignable. I think it will be important to include mail backup facilities, just to be on the safe side for everyone. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Core software and Q60
I am led to understand that this is the most communicative Mr T has been in many years. I am flattered that my return to the scene has had such an impact :o) =- *chuckle* On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, TonyTebby wrote: One of the registrar's jobs is to ensure that the modifications are properly recorded. I propose that a web page be set up, with a simple table on it. This table would simply name every SMSQ module in the left column, and in successive columns to the right, list the characteristics/changes for each system. EG: [fixed width best here, and these are made up examples] StandardCG/SGC Q40 Q60 etc Driver A1.26 1.26a1.321.32 Changed X Changed Y Changed Z Driver B and etc. This way people can see shanges and status in the development tree. Also, those who store SMSQ in flash could update the laterst modules, with appropriate software. Just a suggestion (because this makes the structure of the OS much clearer to me) Dave
RE: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Norman Dunbar wrote: Hi Dave, Hi Norman, if you are going to use PE and you want to do it 'easily' get hold of EasyPtr (somehow) and there is a totally excellent tutorial avaiulable for download somewhere (Dilwyn's web emporium I think) which shows how to use it without having to go through the same steep learning curve that the author had to. I'll look out for it. I'll keep my eyes open for easy manuals. I tend to not retain things as well as when I was younger, so these days I seem to spend half my time writing wrappers so I can address difficult-to-do things in easy ways. I look forward to writing lots of tasty S*BASIC wrappers for SOQL. :o) Until I wrote that tutorial (oops !) I used to call the system DifficultPointer - ask Dilwyn, I had many a rant in those days :o) Yup. All these counter-intuitive commands and unpredictable/conditional results based on factors you have no use over. One thing I am considering is putting up some of the useful procedures, like the SOQL wrappers, unix-QL date format converters, etc up on my site so people can use them in their projects. Life is too short not to have fun! :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: For, it would be PE, Prowess or nothing... It'll be open source, and I can do it with pointers, and anyone who wants it without pointers can take the source and edit it ;) If you want, I could probably rapidly build you a prototype PE application, all in Sbasic, to which you could add later. Prowess would take a bit more time... I appreciate the offer, but I really should learn how to do it myself. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: The relatively small take up is also the reason I haven't yet seen fit to call upon Dexter's help for setting up a website for the sources. For those who missed out on that conversation, I offered Wolfgang a password protected site where developers could upload/download and exchange/communciate code changes - Wolfgang would issue usernames/passwords to people who asked him to join the 'developer community'. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Core software and Q60
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, TonyTebby wrote: OK, so if the open source system is working fine, why are some people making such of fuss Hi Tony, I'm one of the people making one of the fusses. It's a very simple fuss and is well intentioned :o) I'm worried that the all features should be available to all platforms approach gives us a lowest common denominator result. There aren't any really good examples, because all of this is talk about future hardware that doesn't exist yet, but it turns it into a question of how fast SMSQ/E can be run, instead of what new things can we get it to do? For example, it would be nice to see SMSQ used in embedded systems, and in desktop machines, although both require quite different hings from the OS. If someone where to, say, make a TVToy, they should be able to drop all of the redundant modules of SMSQ and alter others as appropriate, and submit to Wolfgang and have an official branch for that specific application. It would not help the main SMSQ branch much, but it would result in license fees. Why use a horse to round up sheep that bite you, when a dog will do? :o) This, of course, does not stop generous users or groups offering such developers donations to encourage them to make improvements that they would like to see, does it? I concur that people making contributions to SMSQ conditional on income back to them is short sighted. My very, very humble opinion. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
I got hung up on the bitfield and forgot the rest. Let's try again. On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Dave P wrote: I'm currently working on how much to put in the index - quite a lot, because it'll save a lot of time. 121102001:[EMAIL PROTECTED]::[timeasinteger]:[timezone]:Subject text The bitfield will actually be an integer, but I expressed it in this example as bits: 0 Received (1=sent with this client 0=sent with any other client) 1 Read 2 Reply sent 3 Forwarded 4 - reserved 5 - reserved 6 Archived 7 Deleted [timeasinteger] will be the sent timestamp. timezone will allow the correct time to be displayed in the client. Subject is, well :o) If there's anything else that you think would be useful to have in the index, please say so now, though it will be quite easy to change later. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Qeymail, last call for suggestions...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, ZN wrote: 'Has attachment' 'Attachment removed' Every once in a while sort by attachment is VERY useful (as in: someone sent me a file, where is it?). Attachment removed is also interesting in case you want to only archive the actual messages without attachments or just remove attachments after a while to save space. Both good suggestions, added to the spec. I will extend the bitfield to 16 bits, or two 8-bit fields, one for status and one for content. Or something. :o) Thanks Nasta. Nice to see you becoming a useful member of society again ;P Dave
Re: [ql-users] Mouse movement / buttons
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: Indeed? I never heard of this one. Maybe it turned into that by default as people did not talk of anything else (8-)# As a subscriber of ql-developers I was never told it was a Qx0 mailing list either ;) It has been a bit Q60-centric lately, but then that's been the recent development. I do think that DD could set up a Qx0-linux mailing list of their own if they wished. Plenty of people would offer resources. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Core software and Q60
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Just to go on record (AGAIN), nothing in this licence stops this from happening, I've ALWAYS stated that I'd be open to suggestions in this respect etc. etc. etc... You haven't said this before, but now you have, well, ok, I'll shut up. :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] QPC on a Mac
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, James Hunkins wrote: Have you run (or anyone else) QPC under Virtual PC on a Mac. I am interested in getting some performance comparisons and also to see if anyone has had any issues with multiple key entries (such as in QD). I don't have Virtual PC, because I jabe numerous real PCs. I also don't have QPC because I have a QXL. Sorry. Dave
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ Developers Directory.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, James Hunkins wrote: I understand the desire for some kind of central 'organizational' place for the efforts (assuming that there are more than just 2 or 3 people) working on this kind of project. But I also understand Marcel's 'reluctance' to participate - presumably from a bad experience(s) with one. I think it is really important for people to explain how they see it working. Here's what I see: A site that's merely a resource, to provide up/download facilities for coders, and some form of communication, be it mailing list or bulletin board. There would be a web site that reports what people are working on, but doesn't allocate work or resources - it's merely there so developers and interested people can see what work is in progress. It should also have basic support for SMSQ/E, and a test/bug report feature that lets people report bugs and have the message automatically go to Wolfgang, and the person(s) working on that module. Finally, it could contain test versions from Wolfgang, eg 3.01rc2 (v3.01 release candidate 2) which developers could access and test on different hardware with Wolfgang. The sights that I am thinking of tend to not act as a developer's forum (I agree, the discussion forum is much more interactive and avoids the tedious searching that web based forums tend to get into) but simply as a central organizational point. They can also contain forum archives. A private mailing list would achieve these goals. Just some thoughts... Nice thoughts. Dave
Re: [ql-users] QL Keyboard Membranes
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are 23 people left messages on my bulletin board, wanting at least 52 membranes between them. They seem to be willing to pay no more than £15 - £20 each. I remember selling them for 26 ukp in 1984! :o) Maybe this would be a viable proposition after all, provided that we can find someone to make them cheaply enough... Just need to find a buyer for the other 9,948 :o) Put me down for a couple, just for irony's sake :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] WMAN progress
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Hehe it's not you. Just the concept of writing a Hello World type of program being aboyt 700 lines is enough to scare even the bravest! :-) Abstraction is very important. It's what the QL was all about in 1984. It's a shame that became less true over time. Abstraction increases the utility of the beast :o) imho Dave
Re: [ql-users] SGC
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Roy Wood wrote: I may have a couple of Super Gold and Gold Cards this month. Knowing how rare these are I thought I would let you know. Sorry for the blatant advertising, they are actually not mine but belong to a friend who want to sell them on. I would very much like a Super Gold Card, in February :o) You should create a waiting list! Dave
Re: [ql-users] 'c' Help - reading directories
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Tony Firshman wrote: OK Bruce was worng to tell us to use '@quanta.org.uk' but can we carry on with that one only please. Bruce isn't wrong. According to the RFCs, the subdomain www. is reserved for web servers. It's not exclusive, but at a later date www. may resolve to a different machine than quanta.org.uk. In practice, most people use the lists. subdomain - I do! NB: On my Raq 4i, majordomo sets up at the domain, without the www. addition. HTH Dave
Re: [ql-users] Happy celebrations- now OT Engish
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, John G Hitchcock wrote: There's a lot of it [nu english] about. Wot about the new deity Zalot, az in - Gee. Imagine being a Brit in Merka. After 4-5 years you start to pick up the US vowel sounds and start sounding Australian to the Merkins, and Merkin to the Brits. So, an Aussie joke for ya ;) What's the difference between a buffalo and a bison? You can't wash your hands in a buffalo! (Go on, read it out loud ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Altera EP 1810 chipa, AKA GC/SGC INGOT, QXL Glue
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, ZN wrote: Yes, I know - I can't discern the date code from the pictures provided, so I emailed the seller and am awaiting an answer. What I can see looks like BGC87... but that sounds FAR to early for the -20 speed grade. It could be a 91... difficult to tell. Auction number 3105900311 Using my latest image enhancement software, I came up with: BGC070037A I got the three samples in image 2 and the one sample in image three, remapped them to square, overlaid and used error removal, and RET, to get that. I looked *REAL HARD*, ok? ;) HTH Dave
Re: [ql-users] Test mail
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Jonathan Dent wrote: Test mail testing PPP Yipee!! PPP is working on the QL :-) Still a bit of tidying-up to do before I release it though. Woohoo! Almost ready for me to start work then :o) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Cancelled London Quanta Group meeting - July 2003
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Malcolm Cadman wrote: No good - there is a QL show in Reutlingen planned for that weekend - well that is what I have in my diary. Jochen can confirm. Sorry getting totally confused here. I am singing in Reutlingen that weekend. By all means have it then, but I will not be able to come. You better keep yourself free for the QL 20th Anniversary Worldwide Party! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Syd Humphries
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, John Taylor wrote: Sorry to hear that Syd has received hate mail. Surely it has a postmark? Suggestion. Every page of every Quanta in future should contain a different spelling mistake for each copy. By identifying the spelling mistake you can find out who the user is. ;P Don't take it too seriously until you go to bed and there's a horse's head to keep your feet warm. Dave
Re: QL freeware/open source? Was:[ql-users] OnT (Finally)
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Roy wood wrote: There are a lot of free programs around - go to Theirry's website and have a look. There are also a lot of commercial programs around too. One of the things I think would help would be a list just like Thierry's but with a couple of differences. Like versiontracker, it would list every single peice of software, including works on progress. It would list their fee/free/OSS status, version numebr, details etc. Much like Thierry's site, but moreso! It would also include a separate developer directory that would include names and contact details of developers, what projects they [are|have] work[ing|ed] on in which languages. There should also be a developer support forum just like the ql-developers list, but moreso! Basically, most of these resources mostly exist already. It's just a matter of getting everyone to update and maintain the details about themselves in a central location. Don't make Thierry ask you. If you're working on something, or release an update, let him know so he can keep his site current. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Geoff's departure
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Sadly, as Norman Dunbar found out when he tried to visit, from the east there's no village sign at all! Ahh yes. The Angles come from the East! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-developers] uQLx-macOSX version available!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: The only person that we know that has access to a G5 is well... er let me just find the appropriate word... oh yeah!: YOU! :-) We have a dual G5 2GHz here at work... But then we have quite a few xserves and Apple loves us... It's been here a little over a week. It's nice and all, but none of us outside the network room have even seen it - they're evaluating it and we haven't even managed to get in the same room. We're treating it like a bad rumor! Dave
Re: [ql-users] Membranes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, they are :-) How many would you like?? Are they available from Phoebus in the US yet? Dave
[ql-users] Re: [ql-developers] uQLx-macOSX version available!
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, [iso-8859-7] Phoebus R. Dokos (Öïßâïò Ñ. Íôüêïò) wrote: thanks to the efforts of James Weatherly, uQLx now also runs on Mac OS X!. (And better than it does on Win XP). I am expecting to have a separate page ready by tonight, in the meantime I am going to flood Dave Park's mailbox contrary to his wishes ;-) That's about right! ;) If I can get this going on my Mac, will I be the only person using uQLx on OS X? If not, who else would be? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Norwich Quanta Workshop Press Release
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Tarquin Mills wrote: ** Press Release ** That's kinda optimistic. Why don't you just say Quanta and QL Toady Release? ;) Ok, so it's longer, but... Dave
Re: [ql-users] List changes required. Was: Irish Show pictuures
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, [utf-8] Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκ[utf-8] ος) wrote: Other alternatives like QL-Chat have been shut off (QL-Chat was actually the most responsive of all mail lists). ql-chat has not been shut off. There are currently 12 subscribers. It has very low traffic because most of it more properly belongs on ql-users, but I have no plans to ever remove the list. The likeliest reason for posting problems on ql-user is a quirk in the spam filtering on the mailserver that runs the list. It refers to a spam blocking list called Osiris, which was shut down recently. Due to the bad way in which the list was shut down, it responds that ALL mail is spam. This increases the score of some posts to the point where they get filtered. I observed that the problems commenced the exact day and time the Osiris list flatlined. My listserver is set with a high priority, with all mail being processed within one minute. The delay in processing mail on the quanta listserver may be as high as an hour, which means a response can take up to two hours (1 hr to receive and sort, one hour to send, worst case.) The ql.spodmail.com site HAS closed, because it attracted 7 hits in 3 months, and 5 of those 7 hits were one person. Hope this helps... Dave
Re: [ql-users] Sbasic and slicing
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Dilwyn Jones wrote: I always thought that slices could work in reverse as well (and they should actually) so eg. a$ = hi b$ = a$ (2 TO 1) PRINT b$ should return ih but maybe it's just me :-) Phoebus What happens when you push the envelope? a$ = 123.45 b = a$(5 TO 1) b = 54.321? If passing variables should be commutative, this should work too. Dave
Re: [ql-users] Little endian
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Fabrizio Diversi wrote: I found some documentation in Internet that say that the bit ordering within each byte can also be big or little endian and some architecture actually use big endian ordering for bits and little endian for bytes and vice-versa. Anyway my problem was not related to the bit ordering but to mine poor knowledge of how FAT work, now that I found some more detailed documentation I was able to read correctly (at least) the MBR of the CF. My understanding is that bitwise endianness is only critical in serial transfer systems, where the bits could be read out in ascending or descending order. In parallel transfers, D7 should always carry the MSB and D0 the LSB, by convention. This is always true for ATA hard drives. Now we wait for Nasta to say why it isn't so ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] isp
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Malcolm Cadman wrote: 'ql_now' would be an apt domain name - that is what is happening with the QL now. 404 Not Found. The page you are looking for could not be displayed ;) So, what does that say? ;) Dave
Re: [ql-chat] Re: [ql-users] RGB to UHF conversion
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Bill Waugh wrote: The obvious answer to all this is would be some form of RGB to UHF modulator to connect SCART socket video output to a standard aerial socket for a UHF TV. Does anyone know if such devices are available? If they are, they'd be ideal for connecting computer RGB outputs to TV sets, for example. had similar problems ( so I thought ) fitting vcr and sky box to new tele over Christmas , turned out to be one of the scart leads was dodgy. ended up working the way I had it originally digibox to vcr input, vcr output to tele no problems since Any of the Playstation modulators would do the trick for minimal cost, wouldn't they? Dave
Re: [ql-users] CST Thor
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Marcel Kilgus wrote: This puts the seemingly massive current SMSQ/E for QPC in perspective (currently at 287kb. However, last version for QPC1 was 191kb big! A lot has happened since then... the 3 included screen driver alone take up a whole lot of space). Does anyone remember what was originally intended to occupy the 32768-65535 space? Was that all meant to be available for ROM expansion? Or was some of it intended for some other use? Dave
Re: [ql-users] Quanta
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tony Firshman wrote: ... then you do not think carefully about the maths. In the UK, anyone who buys a lotto ticket on Wednesday is more likely to die that win the Saturday jackpot - a sobering thought (8-)# Not to mention that the pool of cash being redistributed typically loses 40% for running expenses, donations, etc, then the winnings typically attract 40% taxes. Since the net price fund received by the gamblers is now 30-40% of the invested sum, that's the real math... Similarly, for our US QL users, think about this: a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000. c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health Human Services) Then think about this: a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000. b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500. c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Umm, views expressed are not necessarily mine, etc etc... Dave
Re: [ql-users] Quanta
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: Lies, damn lies etc. How many HEALTHY persons die of physician's error gun accidents? Well, actually those stats aren't lies. They were produced by the Houston Health Science Center of the University of Texas. In fact, the stats were the best spin possible because not all doctors are licensed so many doctors are counted that do not practice. The other figure they released was that for every 45 firings of a gun in the home resulting in injury to a person, 44 of those firings result in an injury to a resident of the home, and only one to an intruder. My wife works there and directly knows the people who collected the information and collated the statistics as part of a larger mortality analysis. Bottom line, you're 9000 times more likely to die in a confrontation with a doctor than as the recipient of a piece of lead. No figures are available on doctors who own guns, but I'd avoid them if I were you ;) Dave. PS: anyone interested in a ground up write of a QDOS-like OS for the ARM or PPC processors? (a bit of on-topic)
Re: [ql-users] Q40 Problem
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Ian L. Pine wrote: might be able to come up with a permanent solution, e.g. removing the sockets and soldering the RAMs in place; or maybe there are some spare chips with longer pins (some of the pins on mine seem too short to be gripped properly by the sockets); or perhaps creating a little piggyback Video RAM board that could be plugged in somehow. I'm keen to get the Q40 back into full time service again. Are those chips still available new? I would think the chips should be available quite cheaply. That would be the recommended course of action, imho. If you publish the chip details/markings, Nasta, Pheobus or myself should be able to source some replacements at a sensible cost (ie cheap!) Dave
Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have to use OpenOffice on a PC to print QL documents, why not get rid of the QL altogther and just use OpenOffice to begin with? 1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] Re: £ 0.00 to spend! (1st attempt)
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not want any money for my work. A person who does not want money must want something more valuable. ;) Dave
Re: [ql-users] GPL or not GPL, that is the question
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, but the problem is that if someone converted Peter's work to run under SMSQ/e and it does involve changes to the operating system. Why? Because the GPL says that any future changes must also be released under the GPL licence terms (or so I understand). Which touches on the biggest problem for the GPL and SMSQ/E. Under the current arrangement there is a single publisher, who can enforce some modicum of quality assurance and consistency/compatibility. Under a GPL license, anyone can be a publisher and there is no way to force compatibility for different versions, or prevent code forks that would ultimately be disruptive in an already small community. I was pro-GPL earlier, but now I see the license in operation, I can see what it is trying to protect. Dave
