Re: [ql-users] open source, how it works
Joachim Van der Auwera wrote: > I personally see no reason why we could not do it this way for SMSQ/E. If > you want TT to get some money for his work, just say in the licence that no > money can be charged for anything relating to SMSQ/E unless a fee is paid to > TT. Exactly. It would be so simple. Moreover, we have offered TT a compensation of EUR 2000.00 if he releases SMSQ/E (at least the version which he wrote for me) under the GPL. The GPL is a wellknown open source license, and thus encourages non-commercial development, which is now needed for Q40/Q60, because TT seems to give up. Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 developers. If there is a lobby that can not accept open source for their own targets, please release at least the Q40/Q60 version, which I have financed and now offer to pay even more, into freedom! Bye, Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Wolfgang wrote: >In view of this new development, I will of course take counsel with >TT. The obvious result is that the licence will be delayed, and so >will the release of the source code. Sorry. If we had simply used a well-established open source license instead of creating and discussing a new commercial NDA, we could long be working with the source code. >I have expressed above my reluctance of the GPL licence. Obvously not knowing he GPL. >Let us take, for example, QPC. QPC, at least in some ways, builds on >SMSQ/E. If SMSQ/E were GPL, QPC would have to be made open source, too. No. >Why should Marcel Kilgus agree to that (and, no, I >have NOT discussed this with Marcel). Because QPC is not affected as to my best knowledge. QPC and the SMSQ/E binary for QPC are different files. >The result: no more QPC? What a nonsense. Why should QPC be GPLed because of SMSQ/E? Have you ever read the GPL? >Is it worth it? Do you really see what you are accusing me? Fact is that I would not have proposed the GPL if it would affect QPC itself. GPL also does not mean Jochen Merz can make no money. Under the GPL "free" does not necessarily mean "free of charge". >On the other hand, under the current scheme, the Q40 SMSQ/E >can benefit from the advantages brought into all of SMSQ/E. No, under the current scheme, the Q60 target will practically be frozen, because no commercial developer is left for 68060 development. TT was the only one. A dead target can not benefit from "advantages". If you really know better about Q60 development "advantages" than me, give guarantees the work I pointed out will be done under your NDA. If not leave it to the open source developers to decide under which license they can work. The current scheme is the best way to further split the QL world. Open source might re-unite SMSQ/E with other parts of the QL world, and developers who have previously not worked for it. >Those who insist on establishing their own commercial NDA based >on TT's work, and on future free work of others, should consider >that they also prevent this income for TT. In favour of forwarding to >TT EUR 10 each for a few boards, and discouraging our best 68060 >developers. > > >Whoa there. > >Would "those" who do these bad and evil things please step >forward. >Hmmm - nobody? How strange. Oh, do you accept Open Source now? Yes? Fine! Welcome to lead the Open Source SMSQ/E development :-)) >Just who are "those" Peter? I have already asked you who exactly turned my proposal down. You keep it a secret. I don't know your secrets. >However strange it may seem to you, the licence has been worked out with >TT's agreement. However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. >Since you raise the queston of money, Just to put things straight: Those insisting on a commercial NDA have raised the question of money, not me. I would happily accept a non-commercial license. But if my money is needed so the Q60 developers and users have freedom to work and enjoy, well, I will give my share. > I'd like to say the following, >even though I try as much as possible to stay away from the >financial aspect of this: >The idea of paying 10 EUR to TT for each new copy sold was born >in Eindhoven - TT never asked for money. We thought, and still >think, that he should get some money for each copy sold. > >As to the question of paying 2000 EUR instead of forwarding 10 >EUR for each board - since you are in this generous mood, I'm not in a generous mood, I'm with the back against the wall. >why not do the following: become a reseller but DON'T charge for the >Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E - and pay TT 10 EUR for each copy thus "sold". >That way, nobody loses out: >TT doesn't because he gets fair money Would be a question for Tony, not me. However I appreciate his work. >You don't, because you don't pay too much for "a few boards" If I pay EUR 1 or EUR 2 or EUR 10 or EUR 45 per board or whatever is IRRELEVANT if the open source DEVELOPERS needed for Q60 won't work. When will you finally see that my intention is Q60 SMSQ/E *** DEVELOPMENT ***? >The user doesn't because he doesn't pay for the Q40/Q60 SMSQ/E. Of course the user will lose out without good Q60 SMSQ/E development. Do you think the Q60 users prefer a frozen OS to save a few EUR? >If there is a lobby that can not accept open source for their own >targets, please release at least the Q40/Q60 version, which I have >financed and now offer to pay even more, into freedom! >--- >Sorry, but whoa again. >With the provision that I haven't talked to TT about this at the time >of writing, I would like to say: >what lobby? >Am I a lobby? The answer is your secret. I don't know who needs to reject all the compromise proposals from Dylwin, Joachim, Richard, me and others. >To be quite frank, the opposition between the defenders of "code >freedom" and the sinister "lobby" preventing the good code to >esc
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: >It is impossible to please anybody anyway, and I think you >have worked out a good compromise. As far as Q60 is concerned, all compromise proposals were turned down. Not only mine. Also those from well-known impartial persons. >Of course, if there's somebody who ONLY wants it to be done >his way, then, I believe, there's nothing more you can do. Unfortunately this applied pretty exact to your commercial NDA, as far as availability of executables is concerned. See the comments made by others, not me. >Peter really seems to be wanting to go "his" way, Well I propose Open Source like the majority of developers and users. This is how development works, when there is no significant commercial interest. There is nothing special about me. Open your eyes and look around the world!!! "Your" way with this strange NDA is surely much more special than Open Source. Unlike QPC SMSQ/E, Qx0 SMSQ/E has only non-commercial developers for the essential things. We need them! QPC itself can remain purely commercial. So why no open source OS? >but I feel that this may lead to disadvantages for current and >future Q40 and Q60 owners. I have been told that you don't wish to be involved with Q40 and Q60 SMSQ/E. Very likely the Q40 and Q60 users, developers and producers won't follow your feelings at this point. I'm sure they would like to see their OS version developed. >"Buying out" Q40/Q60 would most likely lead to development >splits, and the least signifant route will lose out. I would very much prefer not to "buy out". You are very much invited to join Open Source! Yes, you can even make a little money with it, and have more development. Why not consider a modern and liberal approach? Also keep in mind that I don't wish to "buy" anything for myself. The GPL gives freedom for all developers and users. And of course I don't insist on GPL, if something else is more acceptable for the majority of developrs. >If the already small group of QLers splits up, then this will >most likely increase the speed of the QL community dying. So don't insist on a strange NDA that is likely to split our community. Allow a license so all can join! >The few "commercial" authors left will be faced with even more >different versions of the operating system for even less >customers. Likely if your NDA persists. Unlikely with an Open Source SMSQ/E. >So I think what you're actually deciding here about is an absolutely >non-commercial QL scene run by Peter and Richard and maybe a >few others and shut down the QL shows and the rest as we know >it for years or carry on working together. Why not get yourself more information what open source, e.g. GPL means. Surely not what you are painting there. BTW non-commercial developers are the vast majority in the QL scene, not only a few. And: Under the GPL "free" doesn't necessarily mean "free of charge"! You are allowed to charge money, but you are not forced to do so. Maybe you can, in the long term, earn more money in a lively developed scene with the OS under the GPL than with your own NDA! You can concentrate on selling QPC, and your well-known support and handbooks. The OS license itself could be more liberal without affecting this. >Travelling to >QL shows costs us "commercial" dealers a lot of money, we >don't earn anything by doing this. So why all the fuss to keep SMSQ/E strictly commercial? >Again, "together" is the key word, isn't it? Yes, so don't lock out good open source developers with your NDA. >This not necessarily means everybody has to like each other, >but they should at least pull into the same direction - for >everybody's benefit. YES! >I really would not want to see the Q60 going the way which, for >example, CST's Thor went. So please give up your resistance against compromise. Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: >You could have kept buying fairly static SMSQ/E licenses at about >40 EUR, as it was agreed with Tony - until Wolfgang got something >going which would help you in every way - less payment [...] As you know well, it would have also been acceptable for me if Tony continued to work, under the old conditions, and I had offered Tony more money to implement several improvements. If Tony gives up, and allows open source, this changes the situation. You still have a commercial developer working for your SMSQ/E target under your strictly commercial NDA. Tony Tebby was the only *commercial* developer who would work for native 68060 hardware on SMSQ/E. >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate sabotage? >Remember, the difference between the previous status of SMSQ/E >and the license as drawn by Wolfgang gives you most benefit >and chances - already as it is. OK I remember and repeat again in short what I said in my first posting: * Previous SMSQ/E status: Tony working commercial for my hardware design. OK. * Next SMSQ/E status: Tony allowing open source. OK. * Current SMSQ/E status: Strictly commercial NDA under construction by a third party. Attempts to force Tonys work for my design under these conditions. Not OK at all! Unless I had an affordable commercial developer for 68060, I would have to go crazy to see this as "most benefit and chances" for Q60. >I think it would only be fair to Wolfgang to stop complaining >now and give him and the license a chance. As you know well, Wolfgang is welcome by me to lead the development. The problem are just your strange strictly commercial conditions, which lock out good developers. >Who keeps complaining about "open source GPL" or nothing? So tell us at least one single person who has asked for "open source GPL or nothing"! >Can't see much of a compromise attitude there. Do you mean you see no compromise attitude in the compromise proposals made, e.g. by Dylwin and Joachim? Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen Merz wrote: > > >Wolfgang is doing all this in good faith, I'm sure, and I am also > > >sure that he may be willing to change if it becomes clear that > > >things don't work the way they were planned to work (hoping > > >that it is not deliberately sabotaged). > > > > Who do you suspect of deliberate sabotage? > > Were all those compromise proposals which have been turned down, deliberate > > sabotage? > >Sorry, why are you so negative? I don't accuse anybody. >I was not talking about past, it was about future ... So you raise public suspicion against persons of deliberate sabotage in the future. Who are the persons? What kind of sabotage are you talking about? Peter
[ql-users] Just another idea
Hi all, one more idea. Tony Tebby has the right to release his code under both the GPL and the Eindhoven "license". Why not kindly ask him to do both and let the developers and users decide themselves what they prefer? Bye, Peter
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > > However strange it may seem to you, TT himself would allow Open Source. > >No. Don't try to spread this legend, you're in opposition to your own mails. Also Tony Tebby himself wrote me, that you proposed Open Source. He even asked me if not the Linux model would be better, in case a different model is required. It is also absolutely clear that Tony Tebby would have allowed distribution for free. This way your proposal would have turned into something that could be vaguely understood as an Open Source license. Not because Open Source software must be free of charge, but because that would remove the need for separate commercial agreements outside your "license", and gives all authors some guarantee their code will be *available*. Open source is not only GPL, so if my GPL idea was not what Tony Tebby had in mind, this does nowhere mean that he would not have allowed Open Source. However I will wait for his answer, to see clearer. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Just another idea
Geoff Wicks wrote: >- Original Message - >From: Roy Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [ql-users] Just another idea > > > In the short period in which the Grafs > > have operated they have managed to alienate most of the QL Traders to > > the extent that the only people who wanted to talk to them at the > > Manchester show were a few customers. If it was just me I would > > understand but it was unanimous. > >Not entirely true. I know as a trader I have no axe with the Grafs to grind, >but I had a lengthy and interesting conversation at Manchester with Claus. No, it was me :-) All the best Peter >I had a difficult and unpleasant Manchester, but this was nothing to do with >the Grafs. I think it is a bit dangerous to make them the scapegoats for the >failure of a show that was difficult for all traders for other reasons. > >By the way, Sarah and John, if you follow this list don't be put off by >these comments. You are right to insist that the QL needs a presence in the >north of England and the way we improve the atmosphere (and sales!) at >Manchester shows is by building up contacts so that the traders and >(northern) punters know one another better. > >Geoff Wicks.
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
At 03:43 15.06.02 -0400, you wrote: >OK, time to put in my teo-penneth worth. > >This discussion/arguing needs to be brought to a swift end - it is in >danger of not only fragmenting the whole QL scene even further, but >putting people off the QL, SMSQ/E and this email list at a time when we >all need to band together. > >We do not need to start again with a different licence (GPL or otherwise) >as this will just provoke further discussion from those who are not >willing to work under that licence as it stands. > >What we need is the Grafs (after discussion with Richard) to list which >clauses in the licence they feel prevent further development for the >Q40/Q60 operating system (I currently cannot see where the problems lie) >and propose replacement clauses which they would find acceptable and which >should not prevent commercial development of SMSQ/E also. Not everyone is >willing to carry out work for nothing but on the other hand, not everyone >would demand payment for their work. > >Until some specfic proposals for changes to the licence are put forward by >the Grafs their comments are just going to be seen as mindless bickering. Hi Rich, a specific proposal has already been put forward to Wolfgang many weeks ago. It was a small exception for Qx0 in the license, which was to allow free public distribution of the official Qx0 binaries, while I personally contribute the fee for Tony Tebby. For ease of use, I wanted a one-time payment, but I also offered to pay for additional boards, should the number of boards be higher than expected. The reason behind this idea was to make sure that every author who writes code for Qx0, can be sure his executable will be *available*, regardless of my person. This would give the non-commercial authors a feeling of savety that their code won't be lost. This will surely not motivate folks like Richard for major work, but maybe he would contribute a minor fix now and then. I don't know. Do you think it could help to re-phrase this to suit the latest draft and mail it again? Or would this only lead to further accusation and escalation? All the best Peter >I think Wolfgang should give a cut off point of say 7 days for proposals >to be put forward, after which, if nothing is received, the licence should >be adopted as it stands. > >Rich Mellor >RWAP Software >7 Common Road, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JR >TEL: 01977 614299 >http://hometown.aol.co.uk/rwapsoftware
Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE
Jochen wrote: >Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM >is of benefit. Yep, and it takes just a memory copy from ROM to RAM, which the OS can apply to itself at startup. BTW the Q60 with its 32 bit wide ROM bus isn't much slower than RAM. >SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed you gain >will outweight the memory loss easily. That was done on other >systems to gain speed. The "old" code is erased anyway, so does >not take up any additional RAM. Problem is boot speed if upgrade is on (hard)disk instead of ROM. If you load the new OS from disk, using an older version of the OS, you always need to boot the whole OS twice. This would happen on Qxx if upgrades come only on (hard)disk. On the other hand, SMSQ/E could be (almost) as fast as a simple loader. AFAIK it just wastes time with ineffient hardware initialization. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E License
John Sadler wrote: >All your problems would be solved if you use the LGPL license, if the soure >and code is going to be free. >Anybody would be able to sell comercial programs using the updated SMSQ/E >code. >Official versions would still have to be ratified by the appropiate person. Yes, I think LGPL would do, but even that isn't necessary. Under GPL, the copyright holder defines what *linking* means. E.g. he could add this to the GPL copyright notice: As a special exception, if *other* files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License. However the source code for *this* file must still be made available in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License. This way an emulator software, or other parts of SMSQ/E could be *strictly* commercial, could use all the templates they need, without falling under the GPL. Moreover, it could even be linked into the same binary or ROM. (Which is not necessary in our case.) That's how it's done in embedded computing. Peter
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E proposals
Roy Wood wrote: >You continually present two faces to the world. One that appears on this >list as helpful and smiley and one that appears in private emails (and I >have seen the ones you have sent to others) which are at best >belligerent and at worst blackmail. [snip] >No I am not playing with fire at all. I refused point blank to pay Peter >some money I owed him. I agreed that I owed it to him and I refused to pay >him. On the face of it this looks pretty bad doesn't it ? But then you >only know what Peter chooses to tell you. After many attempts to get Peter >to face up to some kind of support for his product when Tony Firshman had >over half the boards not working and customers who had paid for them and >did not have them I decided to refuse payment until he sorted it out. We >went to Eindhoven to meet him to talk about it and show him some non >working boards. He spent the entire show nuzzling up to TT and did not >address the problem. We made him take the boards with him so we could find >out about the problem. He took them and 18 months later he had made a few >comments about a few parts which were not very good but these were not >necessarily the root of the problem. We have found since that a lot of the >problems were down to faulty video ram which he supplied. I wanted to use >new parts. They would have cost more but the chance of problems would have >been reduced. He said that, if I raised the price of the product to cover >the cost of new, instead of second hand parts, he would raise his license >fee. Tony and I agreed to take only 30 pounds per board as a profit. Peter >took 250 DM (at the time 100 pounds). What price free software now ? >I do have an ongoing dispute with Peter because, when I closed my shop, I >was practically bankrupt. I have struggled to keep Q Branch going and to >support the users. I told Peter that I would pay him the money I owed him >because I was quitting the Q 40 and accepting the loss I had made on it >but he had to wait until I had fulfilled my obligation to the general >users and I gave him a date on which I would do that. I was a little late >in the payment but I paid him most of what he was owed. There was a small >matter of 1200 Dm outstanding at the time which he admitted to me in a >letter. Part of the payment was to be the delivery of three working Q40s. >At the time he still had the three boards and processors. When he took >delivery of the three boards one did not work he just sent it back and >accused me of trying to cheat him. I had never seen these three boards >they came directly from Tony Firshman himself and were working when they >were sent out. He returned the board and sent an email offering me to pay >him 1200 to close the affair. This was timed neatly to expire before I >came back from the US show. By the time I had read the email he had sued >me for much more than he said I owed him. He won the case because I, >incompetently, misread the date on the letter giving the court hearing >date and trusting made an offer to mediate without a hearing which was >ignored. I have seen many emails Peter has sent to other people in which >has threatened many things. At the recent Manchester show none of the >traders would talk to him and the feeling was so bad that he pulled out of >the planned meal. I have no objection to this being out in the open. I >have kept it quiet because I felt it would not be good for the QL scene >for these matters to be aired in public but don't try to threaten me >because it just won't work. >I stand by the statement I made before. The general run of traders do not >trust Peter because we have had a first hand experience of his behaviour. >Even recently he has stated, when Tony Firshman offered to supply some >parts to D&D, that he did not want any of Roy's defective parts. Funny >that. Tony Bought all of the parts for the Q40 except those supplied by >Peter himself and some of the SIMMs which I bought. Peter parts were the >most defective including EPROMS that would not program, one defective >processor, two low speed processor (which we never asked for but were >charged for) and very shoddily recycled video ram which has caused many of >the problems we have had. >Next time you open your mouth try to find out a few facts. If you don't >want to believe me ask Jochen Merz, ask Tony Firshman. >> >>Certainly we should try at any cost to keep this matter out of *this* >>discussion. >No we should not. >-- >Roy Wood I have chosen to delay the reply until the SMSQ/E licence discussion comes to some end. Everyone can judge how fair it is when one of the co-authors of the SMSQ/E licence abuses the discussion about the licence to damage my reputation. The accusations raised by Roy Wood are too deeply affecting my person and my investments in Q60 hardware, to remain uncorrected. I apologize for also having to go off-topic in order to defend my good reputation, see my next po
[ql-users] [OT] Making business with Roy Wood
The following defense against the public accusations by Roy Wood necessarily has to reveal some of his business methods. I never planned to publish this, it is absolutely depressing to deal with this issue. But Roy Wood has violently dragged this issue into the public and seeks to involve other people into his holy war, so what can I do, some clarification must be published. I had invented and developed a computer as a hobby in my spare time, without the ambition to make any profit. I have given away prototypes to support development of operating systems and application software. I hoped that my development would be affordable for as many folks as possible. If it was software I could have given it away for free. But hardware must be produced, and I looked for someone to produce it. I will not explain here all the lengthy details how much effort and prefinancing it required until I could find any commitment from established QL traders in the production. I found only vague forms of interest, nothing I could count on, although I had written software to show that the hardware works, and several operating systems were under construction. Suddenly after Tony Tebby had already finished a running SMSQ/E, financed by me, at my own risk, and Tony Tebby expressed his enthusiasm for my development, I had the surprise to read in the public, that Qbranch and TF Services had made a decision towards Q40 production. My objective was a coordinated effort to cut costs by finding cheap sources. I estimated, that with quantity discounts for 50 boards, and someone who has access to larger parts distributors, DM 350 costs could be reached. I proposed 70% profit for the trader and DM 150 licensing fee for me, which gives a retail price of DM 745. The license fee was originally supposed to finance my development costs, but back then I already had expenses that could not be covered by this licence fee from 50 boards. I clearly stated that my fee would rise rapidly with higher retail prices because that means less produced units. As a trader, Roy Wood should know that my profit is not turnover (my fee), but turnover less expenses. My negotiating partners proposed a higher retail price of DM 1050 based on their higher expenses. We clearly stated that we do not agree about the retail price, but without my approval estimated price figures and release dates were already published. Efforts to cut costs were started, and I found cheaper CPU's. Suddenly, despite my cheaper figures, and without my prior knowledge, a purchase of a large number of expensive CPUs was made, that would cause a rise of the retails price beyond my worst apprehensions, without any advantage for the users. I was irritated and I saw more and more lack of coordination. Roy Wood complained, that my involvent in the production was causing long delays and there would be no more cutomers to sell to. Consequently, I let him do the production without my help. Under the contract with Roy Wood, my obligation was to supply assembly plan, partslist and PCB data. Roy Wood obtained permission to produce and sell the Q40, without a fixed retail price limit, and received protection against third party competition for some time. My final fee would reduce to DM 200, in case licensing payments were made in time for the first 25 boards (which did not happen). I never was responsible for the Qbranch Q40 production at all! Unfortunately, Roy Wood decided to sell the Q40 without paying my license fee, in breach of the contract he signed. I tolerated this for a long time with respect to his claimed personal problems. He also ordered components from me, which he processed and sold without paying me. Without any obligation, I supported Roy Wood much more than he deserved, mainly by personal emails to his supplier and his customers, with informations, advice, but also practical help, e.g. a working reference board. In my opinion, Roy Wood should have taken more care of his production, when his problems first occured and not many months later. In fact I asked him to let me help, but offers from me were ignored or required feedback was not given. My motivation for further help for Roy Wood decreased, after I suffered cheque fraud from him, and he complained about my attempts to search the faults on his boards, stating he had not asked me to do any work for him. Roy Wood was not just "a little late" in paying me. From 1999 to 2002, until now, payments were constantly missing. Roy Wood has not properly paid even one single invoice in all these years. Some were paid after more than two years, others are not paid until now. Also we are not talking about "small matters", but high levels of debts troughout years, with a maximum of more than DM 9000 plus my interest losses caused by his arrears. Because Roy Wood did not pay me, I had to delay the already started Q60 development for several years, causing further disadvantages for me and the QL world in general. Things got even worse. When
[ql-users] Q60 public appearance in Germany
Hi all, for those of you who would like to see the Q60 in action in Germany or are interested in a talk to Q60 developers: Part of the Q60 team plans to be at the Oldenburg Linux Developers Meeting 2002. There will be Richard Zidlicky (Linux), Claus Graf (Application), me (Hardware). We can exchange the latest ideas about the Q60 and the new "Shoestring Linux" distribution. The meeting is aimed at developers interested in Linux on non-x86 platforms, but those who have general interest in Q60 or Q40, can also have first hand information, nice discussions and fun. Last year the appearance of the Q60 at this meeting was quite interesting. We plan to attend the meeting from September, 27th to 29th (friday afternoon to sunday morning) at Oldenburg University, science building in Oldenburg-Wechloy, northern Germany (roughly west of Bremen). The meetings' website is at http://oldenburger.linuxtage.de/devel.html. A description of how to get to the science building in Oldenburg-Wechloy is available at http://oldenburger.linuxtage.de/lt1999/anfahrt.html (currently German only). Two maps showing the way are available at http://oldenburger.linuxtage.de/Oldenburg1998/ol1.jpg (highway to Oldenburg-Wechloy) and http://oldenburger.linuxtage.de/Oldenburg1998/ol_w.jpg (from the highway to the science building) And... I still see the Q60 as a QL, not as a major Linux target :-) All the best Peter
[ql-users] UQLX for Windows
Hi all, a little visit to ql-users after long absence. News for the Windows users among QL folks, so I guess the best place to let them know is right here :-) I've ported Richard Zidlicky's emulator UQLX to Windows. My first impression was that it worked quite nicely, at least under NT. Under 9x there seem to be some difficulties. UQLX for Windows deals with Minerva/QDOS, up to 16 MB RAM, floppy and QXL.WIN images/devices, access to the host filesystem including subdirectories, mouse emulation, serial and printer ports and large screen support. QL emulation speed is top. I must admit that I never use emulators for much more than benchmarks, not even UQLX. So I don't think I can give closer attention to it. Someone else interested? I made a binary package, it is more than 2.5 MB. Would someone like to host it on his Webserver? Space on the Q40/Q60 Website is somewhat short, so I've put only a screenshot there: http://www.q40.de/uqlx_win.gif All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] UQLX for Windows
Phoebus Dokos wrote: thanks to Peter Graf, I now have set up a uQLx page for Win32. The address is: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html> Tarquin Mills wrote: Thanks to Peter Graf ACCUS have made this available at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/speccyverse/ enjoy. Thanks to you both! I think after Phoebus has completed his improvements and added the installer, my old version should be removed in order to avoid confusion. By the way, distribution of the JSROM image with uQLx in North America has kindly been permitted by Frank Davis and Paul Holmgren who own the copyright in this region. See "copyright". All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] WebCam
Tarquin Mills wrote: Am doing several secret projects for the QL, one was writing a Webcam driver. So there I am mottled black Q60 with webcam plugged in. Printed copy of a manual on how to develop non-wintel webcam drivers for my webcam's chipset, lying open on the desk. So I enter an SBASIC program to read the webcam version numbers from the cam. To find that SMSQ/E can only transmit from the par device. Where do I go from here? You'd probably need to jumper your IO card into EPP/ECP mode and directly access the parallel port hardware. Peter
Re: [ql-users] UQLX for Windows
Dilwyn Jones wrote: An afterthought, Peter, does your port of uQLx include the TCP/IP socket facility - in other words, would it be possible to use Jonathan Hudson's Lynx, Email and FTP programs on uQLx for Windows as it is on the Linux version of uQLx? Almost. It compiles with TCP/IP support, but at link stage I had a few unresolved symbols. Likely this is can be fixed by linking against the latest Cygwin environment. Just by the way I have developed QLwIP, a native TCP/IP stack for QDOS, which supports Ethernet on Q40 and Q60. Jonathan Hudson's QPOP3 email client is already integrated there, as well as a Webserver from myself, which also allows file upload by the PUT method, an interesting alternative to FTP. Since QPOP3 does't support sending mails, I'm currently working on a little bit more comprehensive QLwIP mail client with GUI. I say goodby to ql-users again, all the best from Peter
[ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
Hi, a short comeback to this list for a few infos. Sorry if I don't stay too long, I usually don't have the time to deal with the amount of traffic here. Quite often I receive questions about the mentioned subjects. So maybe it's good to clarify a few things for a wider audience. QLwIP, what works: * HTTP server, including support for PUT (upload) method * Graphical Mail client: POP3, SMTP with authentication, local folders, serverside message handling, multiple accounts * Simple TCP telnet/echo test server * Hardware driver for Q40/Q60 ethernet * Hardware driver for serial (SLIP) * Ping echo * Supported protocols: ICMP, IP, UDP, TCP * C API similar to Berkeley socket API, _only_ internal use * Multitasking use of the stack by several jobs QLwIP, current restrictions: * Applications and library must be linked to the same binary * Final API not specified nor implemented * Jobs using QLwIP can only be savely removed if the network is brought down * Name resolver available, but not intergrated * TCP over ethernet is artificially limited to about 75 kBytes/sec throughput QLwIP Release: The software can already do useful things like transferring files by TCP protocol, which is a good thing especially when communating with a Windows or Linux box, or act as a Webserver, or deal with personal email if one has a DSL or ISDN router. E.g. this mail was sent by QLwIP from a Q60 under QDOS Classic (Have a look at the "X-Mailer" header ;-) Still I don't find QLwIP fit for a release. Why? * QLwIP and especially the API have not the final structure. A premature release could mislead other developers who want to write TCP/IP apps. * The OS in it's current stage doesn't allow fullspeed multitasking TCP if the ethernet driver is interrupt triggered. An OS change is required, before I can give QLwIP the preferred structure. * I would like to see QLwIP _integrated_ into an operating system and use a free software license for my work. Now SMSQ/E is incompatible to all free software licenses, Minerva is free software but not ported to Q60, and QDOS Classic has only a small user base. This is kind of a dilemma. USB: Same old question. It would be feasible to develop an USB hardware add-on for Q40/Q60. USB host controllers with simple bus interfaces are available, a card that fits into a Q60 extension slot or maybe ROM socket is not a very hard design challenge. Nevertheless I won't make such a hardware, because it is absolutely unrealistic that the necessary QL software will be written. Q60 Successor: I admit, it's true that D&D Systems and me had internal plans for a Q60 successor. They included a new Coldfire derivative with FPU, and a new approach to overcome remaining incompatibilities between Coldfire and 68k. I gave up these plans, because they would have required SMSQ/E to be modified and optimized for the new hardware. After the departure of Tony Tebby, I see no basis for projects like this anymore, because there's no common ground with the new SMSQ/E maintainers, and at the same time no freedom to develop SMSQ/E under open source conditions. QDOS Classic provides this freedom, but I currently find it not advanced enough to justify another large investment of my time and money in QL hardware. So from my side there's no hot product in the pipeline. All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
Hi Geoff, >> USB: > > Same old question. It would be feasible to develop an USB hardware add-on > for Q40/Q60. USB host controllers with simple bus interfaces are available, > a card that fits into a Q60 extension slot or maybe ROM socket is not a very > hard design challenge. Nevertheless I won't make such a hardware, because it > is absolutely unrealistic that the necessary QL software will be written. > Thanks for this information. Unfortunately you are probably right in saying the QL software would not be written. Just out of interest, do you have any comments or advice about using printers with the Q60? It would add something to our discussion over printers. Well I see it quite relaxed. As for connection, PAR will be accompanied by Ethernet, which is in most respects better than USB. As for drivers, the 68060 has no problem to execute Ghostscript. What bothers me much more is the shortage of interesting QL applications to produce something I'd like to print. All the best, Peter
Re: [ql-users] QLwIP, Ethernet, USB, Q60 successor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11 Oct 2003 at 23:17, Peter Graf wrote: (...) > Q60 Successor: > >(...) > After the departure of Tony Tebby, > I see no basis for projects like this anymore, because there's no common ground > with the new SMSQ/E maintainers, Well of course not, you never tried to find one. Well and we felt we walked 100 miles toward a compromise while you didn't move an inch. My mail was however an answer to some repeatedly asked questions and a status report. I just said there's no common ground, a realistic view, that did not contain negative judgement of your attitude. I'd be glad if you also respect mine. > and at the same time no freedom to develop > SMSQ/E under open source conditions. Oh rubbish. To share the definition of open source with the outside world is not necessarily rubbish. This "lack of common ground" seems to stem from the fact that you prefer to profit from developments made for other systems (eg. Marcel's new wman etc) and not chip in anything of your own. I never used any version of SMSQ/E after those from Tony Tebby, so I've no idea what this "profit" should be. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Linus Torvalds, the QL, and open source
Bill wrote: [snip] I don't have a problem with the current way SMSQ/E is managed and I know the people involved work hard with little monetary reward. I think an open source model would work better but that is just my opinion. Open source is not against there being proprietary software for sale. It is more about a way to have an alternative so we have a choice and the knowledge can be shared and grow just like languages always have. Regarding SMSQ/E I did not see things quite as relaxed as you, because I'm much more personally involved, but this was a very nice posting about open source, thanks, and 99% agreed :-) I also think Marcel and Wolfgang work hard. Wolfgang does it without financial reward, a fact that has my full respect and appreciation. I hope that those Q40/Q60 developers who, unlike me, see enough reason to follow Marcel's SMSQ/E route, will continue to see some progress and have fun!!! I'm off the list, all the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] Re: £ 0.00 to spend! (1st attempt)
Rich Mellor wrote: In a message dated 17/03/2004 15:17:06 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill Cable wrote: > I would also be willing to chip in some $$ also and it could possibly > work in one of 2 ways. Either buy the rights to put SMSQ/E under the GPL > or pay Peter to release his work under GPL for QDOS Classic or Minerva. This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not want any money for my work. All the best Peter Fair enough, but we would like to see your work released to the wider QL community, not limited to QDOS Classic, which is only used by a minute proportion of QL users. Re that, I answered your previous posting. But it didn't seem to have been redistributed by the listserver. Maybe just a matter of days. Peter
Re: [ql-users] Beginning a succesful QL journey
Hi Stephen, Have been lurking here for a while, reading the various threads, along with looking at different websites, faqs etc. As a beginner, the QL world seemed very complicated, with strangely named Trump Cards, Gold Cards, and hundred of programs, expansions and websites uncomfortably squeezing their names around the letters "Q" and "L". Anyway, things are a little more clear now and i'm keen to give the machine itself a try. Ah that sounds great. I'm not often on this list, but since I'm here at the moment, I'll use the opportunity to influence you right from the start :-) What are your opinions on beginning this venture, for someone on quite a tight budget but with enthusiasm for computer meddling and unusual hardware. Just how much use would a standard QL be (there seem to be quite a few on EBay at any one time)? I had a quick look into the latest QUANTA and QL Today mags for you, but saw no cheap standard QL at the moment. Sometimes standard QLs are given away for free, especially at QL meetings. It seems to me that a floppy disk interface of some description is a necessity to connect the QL to the outside world (i.e. for downloading files from the net and transferring them across). But oh, what about the disk format? Didn't think about that. I'd say you need at least a GoldCard - otherwise most of the QL software that is developed nowadays won't be usable for you. The GoldCard already includes a floppy disk interface. Is a Qubbide hard drive interface another must have? Almost. The GoldCard allows to use floppies with 2.88 MB, so if you're extremely patient, you could start without harddisk. One thing you must be aware of, is that you can not use a normal monitor for a standard QL. Either you need enough room for a second monitor (an old-fashioned beast that supports the QL video timings) or you need a QL mainboard replacement (Aurora). More expense but then what's the point in getting involved with the QL if i'm trying to use hardware unrepresentative of the majority of current users. But then things start to become quite expensive and I risk spending a lot (for me) of money on something which i'll get little use our of. This is difficult to resolve because a full featured QL hardware might contain even more components than you expect. It is not unusual that one has speeder card, mainboard replacement, keyboard interface, harddisk interface, improved serial interface, mouse interface, backplane. Plus, because all that never fits into the QL case, mechanical aids to mount all the stuff in a different case. That was, by the way, one of the reasons why there's the Q40 ;-)) Which has basically the same video hardware, memory/interrupt structure and processor family as the QL, but most of the old peripherals are modernized/replaced/integrated on one board, and there's a muuuch faster CPU. I hesitate to recommend the Q40 for you, because it's usually not a low budget solution. But in the rare case someone offers you a 2nd hand Q40, it can't be wrong if you compare the price of the Q40 to the sum of all the QL components/interfaces you'd want otherwise. All the best Peter
Re: [ql-users] £ 0.00 to spend! (1st attempt)
Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: The software Peter is producing seems too important (...) Not if it isn't made available. Which is only true if my offer is rejected. I therefore conclude that keeping SMSQ/E from from the GPL has a much higher priority (for Wolfgang & Co.) than the new technical features I'd contribute otherwise. No problem for me personally - it saves me a lot of work. I'll see if the Q60 will be blessed with Minerva, it could be a nice basis for QLwIP. Bye, Peter
Re: [ql-users] Re: Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: £ 0.00 to spend! (1st attempt)
Roy Wood wrote: The software Peter is producing seems too important (...) Not if it isn't made available. Ah the voice of reason as always. This all smacks of 'I'll give you a present if you do what I want' Huhu, dada. Kindergarten level reached at last, and Roy pulls out the intellectual waterpistol :-) Since the easiest way to escape that game level is the 'unsubscribe' command, I'll just use it hereafter. I'm well aware that I'm only a small candle in software development, not comparable to the real free software heros like Mark Swift, Jonathan Hudson, Richard Zidlicky and others. Nevertheless I think my offer was necessary, although the chances it would be accepted were small from the start. Those who think I still had free software ambitions left in Post-Tony-Tebby SMSQ/E (and would therefore 'give a present') are as wrong as can be. As far as I'm personally concerned Wolfgang can keep his license forever - I simply don't care anymore. One last remark. I've often been misinterpreted in a way that I'd want _everything_ to become free software. This is not so, although I'd probably never want any money for a piece of QL software that I write myself. All the best Peter
