Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 12:13, Richard Zidlicky wrote: (...) so don't comment private correspondence and answer the questions. So rephrase the questions without reference to private correspondence. Previously you asked me to voice my concerns publicaly so what do you actually want? What makes you think I changed my mind? I could read the disassembly before you had the idea that this is illegal. And the fact that I had this idea now changes that? As are all licences. nonsense. Some licenses state a minimal set of rights that can't be revoked. Other contain enough guarantees regarding fair use of the code that I won't care if some future version of the license would turn into Microsoft shared source license. Your license doesn't qualify either way. Nonsense. So yo revoke the passage that contains irrrevocable rights... (...) Rubbish. You can always refuse to buy an upgrade if you don't want it. not if it comes bundled with important bugfixes. Do you want to maintain bugfix releases of old versions? What kind of an argumlent is this? If the bugfixes are sufficient reason to buy an upgrade, buy it for the bugfixes and tgetthe new features thrown in for free - or do you mean that you would complain if you also had new features? Right - so the situation until now was very inconvenient because TT, who wrote SMSQ/E also wrote the licence? the situation was inconvenient because TT had limited resources. You are on the best way to waste even more resources by the means of licensing braindamage. The license wasn't a big concern as long as all code was copyright TT, now that you are going to get bogged down by a variety of separate licensing agreements it is a very big concern. There are no separate licence agreemnts - the licence stays as it is. There is no difference between the free and non free developper - all go throught the registrar and are included in the code, or not, as the case may be. of course, there is only the difference between those who have a special agreement with the registrar and those fools who haven't. the fools are those who think that I have special agreemnts with anyone. I know that you are highly cooperative wrt special agreements Nice. Which ones are you referring to? but do you think this is a good thing for SMSQ? Seriously, what is the license worth if everyone will have his special agreement? Same point. If, as you state, the case is that Peter paid horrendous amounts of money to get some specific work done, and that work wasn't done, then I'd say he has a good case to get his money back. Does he also have a good case to actually get the features implemented? Why should he more or less now than earlier? Who would be responsible for that? Peter might have respondend himself would you have kept the cc ql-developpers (I am adding it again). I've always used this list. I see no reason to change. Sorry to say but this is just racketeering. Are you accusing me of racketeering Peter Graf? If not me, then whom? you should have taken the past development (for which you are not directly responsible of course) and Peter's concerns into account - it is important part of preconditions when considering a new license. 1 - Answer the question about the rackettering. 2 - I see no reason why I should have taken into account past developments for anybody. If anybody has an issue with the way developments were done in the past, I'd suggest they take it up with TT. Can you understand that we are now talking about the future? How can a new (and as yet nion existing) licence cover software in the past? Unless you want to guarantee the Q40 users and Peter that : - the minimal features on the Q40/Q60 will work - Q40/Q60 will be further supported by SMSQ, nonregarding whether the now official resellers are willing or able to futher support it. Why should I guarantee anyything to anybody? Are you trying to make me responsible for the code, writing it, maintaining it, fixing bugs? Boy, what a lack of understanding of the licence and the office of the registrar. than I will wholeheartedly accuse *you* of racketeering. Then go look up racketeering in the dictioanry. I'm still willing to believe that you don't know what you're talking about. In case you didn't notice, the whole paragraph (and the whole preceeding text) was conditionalised by the sentence Wolfgang you are welcome to give us your *guarantees* that I am wrong. Again who are you to request a guarantee from me? So here is your 2nd chance, sincererly I would love to be proven wrong. Oh thanks, I don't need second chances from teh likes of you. I'll take the first chance I already have and try to make something out of SMSQ/E. Ususally I would not hold *you* responsible for this as Peter and me would do the few fixes myself, however your license does make it impossible
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 7:50, Dexter wrote: As a developer, one would expect to be kept up-to-date with the latest sources automatically. To expect developers to do so by mail, at their own expense, when there are instant methods available that incur no expense and enhance communication between the various developers is indeed a needless restriction. I'm think about a way to make things easier. In Eindhoven, it was agreed not to let the sources be put onto Websites, to retain some semblance of control over them, because we don't want too many shareware sources to float around. If then you allow in distribution via E-mail, well yo know how easy it is to set up a website that sends yo the sources via email as soon as you make the request on the web page - and hey presto, you cincumvented the non dtsiribution over a website interdiction... Peter Graf and I do not exactly see eye to eye. We have agreed to disagree when it comes to developing hardware for the Qx0. However, I must stand up 100% in support for him. The resellers do not wish to sell a Qx0 version of SMSQ. The only way for them to supply Qx0 in this situation is to become resellers themselves. This is a distraction from what they're trying to do. Also, they may not be qualified, or may consider other development tasks more pressing, than supporting SMSQ users. Now, let's see. if I buy a Q40/Q60 today, this comes with SMSQE. So the person selling it (dd?) is a reseller. Why not simply continue? To whom will a buyer of the software/hardware turn, anyway? To the person they bought the set from! If I end up handling hardware sales, would I have to become an SMSQ reseller? I'm not qualified. But if the resellers declined to offer the ZYXABC version of SMSQ (as they have done with the Qx0) I would have no choice but to find someone who can do it, and add those support costs to the cost of the product. Notwithstanding that I would have to keep requesting and paying for current sources just to stay in tune. You don'y pay for sources. You pay everytime you sell the binaries. Even as a hardware seller, you lust give support for your product, mluist you not? If you sell the hardware/software combo, you are just as responsible as if selling the softwarre separately. Where will the people get the software from, if not from the ahrdware seller initially? You would have this responsibility to your users, as a hardware seller, even if the OS was free. I think any reseller should be required to provide all versions of SMSQ or none at all. I don't agree. it's a free world. Anyway, the situation is not a happy one. There are two main hardware developers who would need to include SMSQ with a new product. DD, and the Goldfire outfit. DD appears to be sidelined out of SMSQ, Why? Have they even asked to become resellers? Not to my knowledge. and if I were selling Goldfires I would be sidelined too, just because of the development hurdles being thrown down before me. Exactly what development hurdles are these? in what way does the licence make the development more difficulut for you? On the contray, you have access to the sources, now! Now, what is the objective of this license? To attempt to let thoise interested have a look at the sources, and, if they want, do something with them. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 1:22, Jeremy Taffel wrote: Wolfgang, I detect from the tone of your response that you are a bit cheesed off with Richard's comments on the proposed licence. I'm not cheesed off by the reply. I'm cheesed off when reference is made to private correspondence. I think that he has some valid points which you don't seem to have understood. Thanks.Why is it that I'm not supposed to have understood things when I just don't agree with the opinions expressed. Think of it this way: Richard has done a good job with UQLX and has it working on may flavours of Unix, on different platforms and processors. I don't doubt that. It would benefit the community to SMSQ to have it supported by UQLX, and have Richard's Unixy extensions within it as he has already done for JS and Minerva. However, he does not have continous access to all those platforms, and definitely not all the combinations of interface cards, displays etc they come with. He therefore cannot guarantee support, or to fix problems. He helps where he can, and in the spirit of GNU etc, he makes the information available so that technically advanced users can help themselves. In the spirit of the GNU licence says it all - the proposed licence isn't in that spirit. So he wants to program something, but not support it later on. Nice. Under the current proposed licence, he cannot operate in this reasonable way. Says he. He cannot merely do his best, but he has to give an open-ended commitment to provide support -something that few if any software vendors would do. He isn't even allowed to provide effective support -emailing patches, assistance over the phone of how to hack a config file outlawed by the proposed licence. We are looking into the email aspect. Moreover, I think your comments very clearly outline one of the aspects I care about. He 'or anybody else) can send the source code to interested parties. If they can compile the source code, then they probabbly will only need minimal support, if any at all. However, the normal end user won't be able to compile it - but he would need support. So he doesn't get access to the binaries in the first case - and won't need support either. The scheme as it stands now provides for both cases - you can't just let the binaries out in the open, have end users play around with it and them leave them without support. Furthermore having expended much time and effort -and potentially money if he has to buy hardware, or technical consultancy to enable him to provide the support, you can pull the plug at any time by tearing the licence up. That's true. What would be my interest in doing so? This is not the way to encourage the few souls who are both willing and capable of making SMSQ available and useful to a wider audience to harness their talents to our mutual benefit. Oh? What wider audience? DO you really mean that letting an unsupported OS float around the shareware scenen would make for a wider audience? I really do urge you to rethink this. Conversely, I would be interested to know how you intend to police the licence; it seems to me to be impossible, so perhaps Richard and others like him need not worry. Policing the licence? We'll see - i don't really foresee that this would be much of an option, apart from telling the people involved and putting them to public opprobium here. On the other hand, if I do notice something illegal going on, I might just sue - here in France. p.s. Most unix distributions include an emulators package these days. Think how many extra users we might end up with (or ex-users that return) if we could get them to add UQLX +SMSQ etc into that package? I know exactly how many : none. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-developers] Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 7:18, Dave Walker wrote: Timothy, When I got SMSQ/E from Jochen, I got: a) A generic SMSQ/E User Guide (38 pages) that was not machine specific b) Custom supplement pages for each hardware environment I bought (typically 6-10 pages) Same here when I got my Q60. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 12:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: There is nothing in the license that would guarantee me any of my changes will get back into official SMSQ. That is true. On the contrary, the registrar has the right to oinclude/exclude any code. There is nothing in the license to guarantee me that official or inofficial binaries of SMSQ will be available. Of course not. On the contratry - there should ne no inofficial versions, at least none that I want to know about. than the license is very badly engineered. It enforces discipline by rather brute methods that will only hurt people who would like to help and leaves too many important points wide open. I have proposed alternatives to Wolfgang, something like this: you are allowed to do anything with this code as long as - you accept this copyright - you leave this copyright message intact and don't place any additional restrictions on the code - you don't sell this source or anything derived from this source, including binaries - you don't branch the code. licensing for commercial purposes is available under following conditions: ... ... Forgetting, of course: you may not distribute the binaries. But then, of course, this isn't to your liking any more, is it? If discipline is all you want than this should do quite well and still leave sufficient room for commercial development. The formulation above may seem a bit naive - it is. We aren't expecting to deal with criminals here, are we? Well of course we are, aren't we? racketeers, all! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 18 May 2002, at 22:08, Timothy Swenson wrote: > > It would be better to leave out stating who the official distributors are > in this Official Statement, and put it in a separate document. It would be > kind of like putting in the name of the Officers in a set of By-Laws, as > the names will change over time, and the By-Laws probably will not. yes of course, you are entirely right -dave already pointed this out before. I just wanted to make clear who the reseller are up to now - else I would again be accused of hiding things, you know... > > >4/ The registrar, i.e. me, will maintain > >official distributions of SMSQ/E, in binary and > >source code form, one for each machine on which > >SMSQ/E may run. > > I would recommend defining the terms "Registrar" (but not as "me") and > "Distributor/Reseller". Just to fully clarify who they are and what they do. yes! > I understand the total avoidance of any one making money off of the source > code for SMSQ/E, but I feel not allowing charges for media a bit strict. A > simple workaround would be to send the person a blank CD or other disk and > some IRC's. I am assuming that IRC's are not considered a form of > currency. If your local Post Office does not know that an IRC is, then > talk directly to the Post Master for that Office. There is no reason for a > Postal Employee to not know their job. I spent 8.5 years as a federal > employee, so I know the power of the "chain of command". Ok, how does a max of 3 IRC + blank media strike you? > I really don't understand not allowing distribution via anything other than > sneaker-net. What would be the consequences of the Registrar, putting the > Official Distribution Source Code of SMSQ/E on a web server? Simple: I would have to do it. This takes much time, money and effort for what will finally be only a few people who will want the sources. > It could be > arranged that the requester must give their name and address before getting > the Source Code. As someone that is about 5,000 miles from the Registrar, > mail can take an awfully long time. Plus, someone like Thierry, sitting on > a French Naval ship in the Persian Gulf, mail is very slow to come. As a > veteran I try to keep fellow service members in mind. Yes, thzt is indeed a concern. > With all due respect, I don't think the above is physically possible. If I > make a change to the SMSQ/E scheduler, I don't think that I can compile it > and distribute it without including SMSQ/E (since this is what I have > changed). If I can make a change and distribute it without any original > SMSQ/E code, then I'm not actually modifying SMSQ/E and don't fall under > this "license". I think this statement needs to be looked at again. in other words, if you make a change in SMSQE, you can't distribute the binaries therefor. That's what it says, and that is what is intended. If you lake a change other than in the source code (e.g. a patch) then of course the luicence doesn't apply to you, I mean why should it?. > (snip - support) > If we are strict in allowing only certified resellers to distributing > SMSQ/E, I want to know what bang do I get for the buck. I have found that > the QL community is great in helping each other out and have received more > "support" from other QLers that from a reseller. > > I firmly believe that QL resellers have a right to exist and I'm happy to > see them there (I'm glad I'm out of arms reach in case any one of them > takes this the wrong way). But, if we are to only allow resellers to > distribute SMSQ/E in binary form, BECAUSE they provide support, I think we > really need to define what this support is. If we can define the support, > great. If we can't define the support, then we are in trouble. yes, you are right - so let's think about this. Comments, anyone? > Wolfgang, I know that you've taken a lot of flack for this license. I don't mind the flak, provided I'm allowed to shoot back from time to time when the argument get beyond the polite. > I hope > that no one has made the feedback too personal. I have looked over the > license as much as one programmer would look over another programmer's > code, looking for bugs and other problems. I appreciate your taking the > time and effort to contribute to the QL community. Hey, your comments are very welcome! (I mean that!) The only requirement I have is that the discussion remains polite. Why do you think I make the licence projetcs available here, if not for you to comment? > Most of us have put a lot of time and effort in to the QL and it's > community and we all can take some of this a bit personally. In fact, you > may be feeling a bit like George Lucas when hearing feedback about Jar Jar > Binks :-). Oh you mean, the licence isn't one of my better efforts... :-) Agreed! > And one final question, if the source code is to be released for free, what > about the Reference Guide. Is
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 16:40, Richard Zidlicky wrote: unfortunately your inconvenience is only the smaller problem. The bigger one - what happens if you are fed up and go out of business? There are perhaps 100s of users with your hardware without any reseller, so to get SMSQ updates they would have to become their own resellers. Of course people will be wary to buy your HW in first place unless they know for sure they will not be locked out like that. Well, believers in free market forces unite. If there still is a market, then somebody else will step in. Moreover, if the seller is not there any more, who will sort you the user's hardware problem? That's an even greater risk. So, should be still trell people not to buy any more hardware because of that? Surely this is not the intention of anyone? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] basic HTML viewer?
On 19 May 2002, at 17:31, James Hunkins wrote: Guys, I am thinking of using rudimentary HTML file viewing capabilities for the QDT help system. I could use some recommendations for programs to look at (if there are any) that give the following: 1) works in normal pointer environment (or could be adapted to) 2) does not require PWS (not all users will be running it) 3) has hot links (open different files from a link) 4) can display some graphics Any suggestions? These could even include other open source code from the Unix world as long as it isn't too complex. I am only looking for a basic capability (tables and figures at the most). As far as I'm aware, that doesn't exist on the QL. Is there any reason not to use Prowess? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 20 May 2002, at 1:43, ZN wrote: OK, I've been reading the licence discussion for quite a while and I find it does make sense for a world where the following is clearly defined that: 1) A generic SMSQ core, common to ALL platforms (*) 2) SMSQ extensions, or more precisely, additions or changes to the core, start as a submissions to the registrar, and become, if accepted, a part of the next official core issue if aproved. 3) Add-ons, i.e. is everything that goes 'on top' of SMSQ but is not part of the core, and is probably speciffic to a particular platform. Oh great, somebody actually understands what we're trying to achieve. [Digression: (*) this 'common to all platforms' is a bit of an idealist view, a discussion for some other time] Yes, yes and yes! This may seem like an odd argument, but it is paramount for the issue of developement, support, distribution - not to mention that a clear definition of the above three is (or should be!) one of the main criteria used by the registrar to decide what becomes a part of SMSQ and what does not. If the above were true, whoever wants to have SMSQ on a different platform, would not strictly need to distribute the binary, but could instead point the users to one of the distributors, and offer the necessary add-ons to the core and a way to link everything, to make it work on that platform, removing the platform speciffic parts from under the coverage of the licence, and regulating the distribution and support for said as they see fit. true - however, it would be easier to distribute, as a reseller, one patched version that runs right away on the new machine. After all, I presume the new users buy a machine from you- and they will come back to you for support. Will the additional 10 EUR you charge for TT's work really be that much more of an imposition? In case a developer wants to do something with the core to enable new functionality, they would be able to get the official source under the conditions stipulated in the licence, see what and how would need changes, implement betas and have them distributed under the conditions of the licence (which I do find somewhat restrictive but not impossible), and eventually, propose their inclusion into the official generic core. Provided the registrar was convinced the proposed was or could be beneficial to everyone (**), and not only everyone - let's definbe everyone as meaining veryone on that machine. For example, the Q60 has a LED port. Th. Godefroy wrote some software to use it. Suppose he porposed that for inclusion iin the OS (I have NO idea whether he would or not, I haven't discussed this with him, it's just an example). Why should I not allow it in, even though it would profit only Q60 users? Likewise, QPC has the DOS device. Why shouldn't that be part of the OS inSMSQ/E, even though only QPC would profit from it. I WOULD like to see developments that profit all versions of all machines. it would then be included into the next official core, at which point the developer can use that to implement speciffic add-ons of their own, again handled outside of the core licence. yes! [Digression: (**) a mechanism should be in place for the registrar to distribute certain beta versions simply because he would be in the best position to know the key developers for speciffic cases where a proposed change may have wide impact] true! The problem is, this is not the actual situation. Instead, we have SMSQ which has relatively monolitic parts some of which may be essential for one group and at the same time of no interest whatsoever for another. Because of the absurd idea that every platform or flavour thereof should have it's own SMSQ version, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to write a licence agreement which would satisfy everyone to an acceptable degree. Arguments like 'I paid for a feature and why should I submit it and have anyone but me benefit from it (financially)' are forever going to be oposed to 'I don't want to pay for anything because I only do things for free', and that's only the benign tip of the iceberg. We could collectively come up with a myriad scenarios in which any given wording of the licence would not work. I sincerely hope that not even an attempt will be made to cater for everything!!! no. What I would be doing to break this deadlock, is the following: get the current official source under the current licence. Have a good long look at it and figure out how to make a generic core from it. Then propose THAT to the registrar. Sounds like a lot of work for little gains? The way I see it, this may indeed be true in the short run. But if it's not ultimately done, we'll soon all be throwing in the towel because without this and a clear division what falls under the licence and what does not, i.e. without a clear picture of what SMSQ is and what it can grow into, the best we can hope for is for a situation where 'read TTs code'
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 17:16, Peter Graf wrote: Just imagine today's license situation had already existed when Q40 hardware was finished. Not the slightest chance to have SMSQ/E on Q40. Untrue. And if TT had decided to stop development altogehthern, the chance would have been even less. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Future of SMSQ/E
On 19 May 2002, at 22:09, Claus Graf wrote: Hello! I have a dream - the best operating system around is free and open source! Well, right now it isn't. Tony Tebby opened up the way into a bright future of SMSQ/E by allowing SMSQ/E to be free and open source and enabling the remaining core operating system programmers to develop SMSQ/E further. Many thanks for that! But this historic opportunity is thrown away and a license is invented that turns almost every freedom that Tony Tebby would have allowed us into prohibitions to fulfill commercial purposes. I don't see it that way. The licence does allow you the freedom to make changes. Alright, so only the resellers may sell the binary code. So what? Not only that, the license takes away every important right of an open source developer who wants to contribute his work for free! The fruits of hard work will be lost, abused or sold by third parties for unknown prices. Oh sure, I can see it now: code abusers charinbg 1000s of euros and the poor unsuspecting users flocking in wiht their hard earned cash. Please people, get real. (The only thing left is to see a snapshot of the sources, later on one can only see the non commercial parts of SMSQ/E.) Please consider now, that all major programmers, who are willing and able to write operating system code for Q60 SMSQ/E, are open source and free software developers and cannot work under such conditions. I can. But then, true, I'm not a major programmer. This means that SMSQ/E development is stopped for the last QL platform that is still produced, the Q60! So I kindly ask Wolfgang and the forces in the background: Cue in the dramatic music. May the forces in the backgroud be with you. You all know of course, that I am just a front for a sinister fiend mafia, bent on destroying the Ql world (at least) and make a fortune when doing so. I'm sorry Claus, just venting my anger at you... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Documentation
On 19 May 2002, at 22:22, Peter Graf wrote: Sorry we are not certified SMSQ/E resellers. THIS IS UNFAIR. Have you even taken the trouble to ask whether you wanted to become one? NOT TO ME! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code
On 19 May 2002, at 13:52, James Hunkins wrote: I am sorry to say that I am very, very disappointed. You are not alone. (snip) I recently just joined this email list because I was hoping to get some help on some implementation problems that I am having with the QDT project. Sorry, I must have missed your request. What was it? Instead I have been getting this stream of emails that, to be very blunt, sounds like a lot on non-productive whining. The alternative would have been to say: Here , this is the licence, you have no chance to discuss it, that's it. I perfer to leave it open for discussion. I will continue to work on QDT. I made a decision a long time ago that it will require SMSQ/E to run as there are some major pieces that I need from SMSQ/E to to it properly without having to write a tremendous amount of additional code. I would hope that everyone can come to an agreement about this license that will support SMSQ/E for all systems currently available which will allow QDT to also run on them. What do you need? I hope that this didn't come over too bluntly, but I have to deal with disagreements much larger than this everyday in my 'real' job and we get them resolved, without resorting to the kind of stuff that I have been reading for the last couple of days. The difference here is that there is no real need for people to get to accept compromises. Everybod can just walk away from the project if they want to. I really enjoy working on my system and my development of QDT. So, please guys, just find a way to resolve this and get on with it. Never fear - whatever happens, you can at leastbe pretty sure o something: SMSQ/E will be available, in one form or another, in the future... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Job control
On 18 May 2002, at 23:10, Claude Mourier 00 wrote: Is there any easy way to retrieve the job-id and to focus on it (as does Qpac PICK tool) from a SBasic program ? This is to achieve an interaction between task. Claude What exactly are you trying to achieve? You can use the PICK commandd from basic. Woflgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Q60 software update
On 14 Apr 2002, at 15:35, Claus Graf wrote: Don't you use the extension by Mark that traps those commands and handles them right? Umph. Obviously not. I know, RTFM... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QXL-Cards
On 12 Apr 2002, at 16:58, Dexter wrote: What currency is that in? :o) EUROS, probably. I could send you currency of your choice (if I pay the airport exchange rates!), or you could sign up for paypal, and we could pay you directly by CC/Debit cards... I always find paypal useful :o) Or send IRCs? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 14:46, Dexter wrote: Hi all, I'm not saying anything here as personal opinion - I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of creating a little controversy, which will hopefully result in some discussion. At the moment there is too much agreement. :o) I knew it was too good to last... The decision to have two official sellers of SMSQ/E is flawed. It prevents growth to not have a clear way for additional people to become resellers. If there isn't a way for people to become resellers, it's also probably illegal. There should at least be a procedure for one person in each country/territory to apply and be accepted as an official reseller. I **personnally** don't have anything against this. I do take this as a rather moot point, though, since Roy Jochen were the only people selling it now, really... Anybody who wants to be an official reseller can always contact me (which will be easier than contacting Tony Tebby). I'll then contact the other resellers and Tony Tebby. The decision to not allow any charging for sources is being rationalised by you folks as a good thing (taxes, etc). It forces the sources to be distributed by some free means only, ie the internet, and prevents it being distributed by PB/shareware libraries unless they make special arrangements. These arrangements more than double the length of time it would take a recipient to get a copy of the sources. No, the internet will not be accepted. Actually, it's just a way of protecting the people selling it (oh boy, will I get flamed now). It is also a way of making sure that those who do not wish to publish their source code can have it distributed anyway. YTou can always get the sources from me (unless you request one every day). To be quite frank, I don't think that it'll cost me more than something like 50 blank CDs - I can't believe that SO many people will be interested in the sources. The decision to not allow distribution of binaries is very restrictive to the point of being obstructive. See above. Also, I admit that this is a way to FORCE developers to gothrough me to have the binaries distributed. I can foresee that some will resent this pressure, and perhaps not develop anything. Just consider, that we're not doing this just in order to be unreasonable, but to try to get this thing on a coordinated road. The resellers have a duty to support their customers. For me, the situation is pretty simple: - either you are able to compile the code for your machine from the sources - then you don't need the resellers, you can adopt any change. - or you can't recompile this - then you should get your binaries from the resellers, who can handle your queries. I would propose the refinement to the license, stating object code/binaries cannot be distributed to the general public, and may only be shared at no cost for the purposes of beta testing, or for producing custom versions for specific hardware. It would otherwise restrict development and, combined with the clause mentioned above, testing, of the code. On the other hand, those testing the code, are most likely to be involved in the code writing, too... If only the official tree can be sold, how does a hardware manufacturer who produces a custom version of SMSQ/E for XXX hardware include it in ROM? He can offer to make payment of a license fee, but under this license, it doesn't matter, it can't be distributed in binary form, or for a fee. This removes any incentive for a developer to actually adapt SMSQ to specific hardware, forcing us to stay with the hardware we already have. This is a valid point I presume that this mainly concerns the Q60/Q40. Unless I'm mistaken, Peter Graf bought a SMSQ/E licence from Tony. There is no reason this couldn't be handled via the resellers, then... I hope the four points above are lucid and explain the difficulties they cause. I hope the replies do something to dispell your fears. Looking for some more lively discussion. Sure. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
On 26 Mar 2002, at 12:25, Richard Zidlicky wrote: as far as I could understand the statements I am not sure whether it is allowed to give away SMSQ in binary form (whether or not acompanied by sources), can you please clarify this? This might be of great interest for HW vendors who want release testing versions for new HW quickly. No, compiled versions can only be obtained via the official resellers. HW vendors have to get a licence now, too.. The quick testing of new code is a very valid concern. However, even on the Q60/Q40, you can LRESPR SMSQ/E, so testing can be done extensively before blowing EPROMS. Btw anyone who would maintain a mirror of the code on some public CVS server? NO! I could do it on Sourceforge but somewhat doubt that they will accept this copyright. Neither would I accept Soundforge. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Source Code Status
Wolfgang - Roughly how big are the entire source files in Kb/Mb? (Just curious) i don't have them yet... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: Re: [ql-users] SMSQ/E license criticisms
On 26 Mar 2002, at 16:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er... beta testing IS black-box testing. Beta testing is done by end-users who volunteer to take an early release. And in the commercial world even alpha [in-house] testing is done mainly by teams of testers who normally have very limited access to the source code (and probably wouldn't understand it anyway). Only unit testing and early integration testing is [supposed to be :) ] done by developers. It is true that in today's commercial world, beta testing is done by the end user. IT SHOULDN'T BE I'll certainly attempt to beta test anything submitted to ,as far as my time (and the limited number of machines I have) permit. By the way, I've been following all the discussion on this topic, and am enthusiastic about the future of SMSQ/E as long as the project is well managed. I do however believe there is room for a limited amount of divergence of versions, to support different hardware platforms without having to stick to the Lowest Common Denominator approach, e.g. the FPU/No FPU situation. This is a very reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure that it is shared by those who have the machine that DOESN'T support a feature. When/if an idea (or even CODE!!) for a new feature is submitted to me, I'll alwaaays try to check with the key developers if such a feature is possible on the other machines.! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Q40 people incompatible?
On 22 Mar 2002, at 15:48, Marcel Kilgus wrote: (attacks on QPC) IIRC, I wrote 'c'me on, people grow up'. Lest this thing gets out of hand, I didn't single out Marcel or Peter or Claus or or or in that comment. I often don't comment when anybody on this list attacks anybody else - do not construe this silence as agreement It's just when I thought that this was going to be another flame war, that I thought I could (usefully?) intervene. Also,as for me, I'm quite capable of deciding what system (QPC/Q60) is worth what, thank you. Any comment by anybody along the lines 'my system / hardware/OS/ etc.. is better than yours' or 'this system has that fault which mine doesn't' or anything along this line, I'm quite capable to judge (I happily have both - I know, I'm privileged). If anybody writes too much BS in this regard, I just filter out future comments along the same line, the person losing credibility... That also means that, as mentioned above, I don't comment such opinions - I again urge all of you to work constructively together (but this probably is a wish that's dead in the water). Oh, and whilst we might not be one big happy family, we're still a family - the worst disputes are family disputes :-) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Q40 people incompatible?
Hi Just a small addition: The fact that I happened to intervene after Marcel's comments DOES NOT mean that my reply was prompted by his comments only! Just to disperse a small misunderstanding... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Jochen Merz - Forwarded email
On 20 Mar 2002, at 18:44, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Why should it? In opposite to the other platforms QPC is still actively developed by me. This doesn't mean that you necessarily won't be able to build SMSQ/E for QPC. I could provide anybody who wants to do something with the necessary bits, they don't need to be freely available for that. And I don't remember you as somebody who is too shy to ask for something? I don't remember ever saying I was. Me neither. So what? So, we should see to it, that's what. There is no doubt that an enormous amount of learning will be needed at first. Be sure of that. I have a few years advantage and still don't know quite as much as I'd like to know. That's what I said, thanks for seconding. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Looking for advice
On 21 Mar 2002, at 12:43, Michael Grunditz wrote: Hi My son (7 year old) is programming basic on a plain standard ql. Id like to give him some files from my Q40, but I dont know how. I have no commuincation software on mdv, and I have never seen such serialports. The ql doesnt have a floppy interface. How about sernet? Tony Firshman perhaps has (or can make) the necessary cables. (plug, plug) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Eindhoven
On 21 Mar 2002, at 9:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Guys. Looks like my attempt to be funny has backfired!! ;-)) Yeah well, we all know about irish 'humor'.. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Eindhoven
On 21 Mar 2002, at 9:08, Norman Dunbar wrote: Anyway, £15.99 = EUR2000 is not a bad swap. - it'll be interesting to see if the Euro symbol comes across on email :o) If you send it as EUR, it certainly will Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Q40 people incompatible?
On 21 Mar 2002, at 6:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 100% agreement from me Phoebus. If people want the QL/QDOS/SMS industry, albeit that it is small, to survive then there is no point in these protracted discussions about which is right or wrong. We must ALL learn to accept that different people have different opinions. I'm, largely, still using original hardware 3 QLs, plus a QXL in an old 486. Is the QXL a bad thing because it's not pure hardware? Of course not - many people on this list have used, or are using one, I'm sure. The rancour expressed ON BOTH SIDES of the QPC/Q40/Q60 debate is not only damaging to the reputations of those involved, but is off-putting to anyone who might be interested in joining our somewhat specialist group of hardware- and software-interested people. I think that it's time to put away the knives and recognize that QDOS/SMS/whatever will die out unless we all pull together. I Totally agree. Come on people, grow up. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Looking for advice
On 21 Mar 2002, at 14:03, Michael Grunditz wrote: And how do I transfer sernet to the ql ? /Michael Well surely somebody on this list still has a QL with an mdv! Oh, and Marcel just said that SERNET needed smsq/e. Sorry.. wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Fwd: proposed 'open source smsq' project
On 16 Mar 2002, at 12:01, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Below you can find the organizational structure for the ReactOS project as it was forwarded to me. This indeed is a VERY good starting point to get a feel for things and organize the OpenSMSQ project accordingly Any input? Yes, something like that is needed. Let's not overcommittee either... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 13:49, Arnould Nazarian wrote: OK for me. Arnould Thanks Arnoud. I Knew I could count on you! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 14:20, Dexter wrote: Ok, now I am totally confused. Welcome to the real world... :-) You are right, of course, as to the true meaning of open source. I'm not sure yet exactly what stutus the code will have. i know that I personally would object about anybody selling what is essentially Tony's fruit - and Tony not getting any money from that. The reason that the source code is to be made available, is so that tinkeres like some of us are can go about imprioving the OS where Tony doesn't have the time or inclination to do so. But there again, this is my own personal opinion. So far, apart from Marcel, nobody has volunteered.to be the registrar or whatever we may call them. So? I have also just learned that some people who might be interested are on vacation, so perhaps we can give this some more time. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 9:27, Tony Firshman wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 at 20:22:41, Timothy Swenson wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) From the Commercial Side, Roy Wood and Tony Firshman. I think Roy and Jochen - ie much as now. I have always been a hardware man (8-)# Jus what would that commercial side involve? SELLING the new OS? I think not (if everybody agreed to buy one, we could pay Tony Tebby to do some work!) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 15 Mar 2002, at 2:43, Phoebus Dokos wrote: I suggested Source forge due to the many tools available. CVS etc. and not to suggest total anarchy! Good! I do agree in any case that for an OS a tighter control should be implemented. Don't forget that the project manager in any case is the one that handles the CVS tree and regulates submissions. To be quite frank, I'm not really familiar with that. But I'm learning... On top of that I don't believe that the core of the OS should be changed. What should be changed (and normalised) is the way drivers are written etc... That already is normalised in a certain way. What most of us want to do is change the drivers (e.g. take out the slave blocks), I presume. I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. Additionally a fully documented source would be: .. a shortage of income for Jochen Merz. is that what we want? 1. An Invaluable tool for all programmers 2. A good reference point to start if we are to step up SMS to a different platform (yeah yeah I know... don't shoot!) Oh, by all means, if we can get I must point out, though, that I do not, for one minute, believe that even a better, faster etc... SMS will be able to break out of its current niche. Others have tried (e.g. Beos) - and they had MUCH better tolls than we have now... In that, at least, I agree with Tim Swenson: let's try to make a nicer OS for us, who are already using it, not try to build something that might lure in hypothetical new users. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
Hi all, I've just spoken to Tony Tebby. He agreeD, in principle, to make SMSQ/ Open Source. We do have to find somebody to act as a sort of registrar, though, to make sure that we have a coherent development. Anybody wolunteering? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 14 Mar 2002, at 20:22, Timothy Swenson wrote: The person who I think has the best qualifications to lead the group, due to his in depth knowledge of QDOS, SMSQ/E and 68000 assembly code, would be Simon Goodwin. I'm not so sure about that, due to his strong opposition against the PE. Any way we can get Tony's address to send Thank You cards? * I don't know about you, but I'll be sending him some money instead, something like 150 euros. I KNOW he doesn't want any (so I'll probably get a scalding), but I do think that his efforts, so far, have not received AT ALL the financial results they should have. Maybe we could organise a collection ? Off to the flameproof shelter now... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Open source
On 14 Mar 2002, at 19:59, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Ah, interesting. What means in principle? And what is the commercial status supposed to be? If itis Open Source, there will be no more commercial status. The in principle refers to the fact that Tony said he would do it if we find a suitable person. He did suggest you He is concerned about his code being savaged if let around freely. We didn't really talk about the legal status of the code (yet). I can't see, however, how Tony could retain copyright if many people worked on it. I'm sure that we will work out something suitable to most (propably not all, see below). Well, I suppose the amount of people actually doing something with the code will be quite limited. It's no easy stuff to deal with. Yes, that's true. There are some, however (you, Thierry, Jochen (?) etc come to mind). So I might be able to do the job if necessary. Glad you volunteered! (I fyou ahdn't, I would have...) But there's a lot to talk about first... I agree. Tony told me that he had started to integrate most of the different versions (one for each machine on which SMSQ/E runs), so that there is only one source code, with, I presume, different modules. IUf you allow me to, I'll tell him that you volunteered (or you can tell him yourself), to get the source code transfer organised. Now for some more personal notes from me: I'm, of course quite wiling to help in any way I can, even with the actual coding. I do suggest, however, that the registrar (for want of a better word(, keep a pretty tight rein over the way things are handled (sorry Phoebus, no soundforge...in my opinion - which is why the 'most' and not all above...).. I know that this will enrage the proponents of totally free sources, with which you can do whatever you want. However, we should consider that our resources are limited, and we will all be better off if we share them in an intelligent (and that means managed) manner. That doesn't mean that if somebody absolutely wants some feature, this feature can't be parcelled out to him/her (I'm being optimistic here). I personally also find it very important that, if we do some development on this, we do it for ALL machines that run SMSQ/E. I was a bit worried about your earlier proposalsn because you might have the (totally natural!) tendency to give a priority to QPC( I'm ONLY speculating here, NOT accusing you of anything!) which i something I personally would prefer to avoir (even if QPC is what I use most) As to you being the registrar, I'm at once for and against it - here's why: I think that you are one of the few people capable of really understanding what Tony has done. As such, you are, of course ideally suited as registrar. On the other hand, since you are one of those rare persons, you are one of those few who can actually be doing some real coding work and quite selfishly, I'd rather see you do that... The questionis : can you manage both.? Wolfgang Marcel - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Membranes
On 9 Mar 2002, at 13:06, Tony Firshman wrote: Woflgang Who he? Why, that's em, of course... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] PCL3 printers
On 8 Mar 2002, at 19:33, Geoff Wicks wrote: The printer is a Samsung ML-4500. Mine is an ML 4600 ! (I think that's the smaller model). There is no reason this shouldn't work. How did you set up your QPC? What is it using as printer port? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Membranes
On 8 Mar 2002, at 20:50, Timothy Swenson wrote: After 12 years of using my QL with a keyboard interface, there is no way that I am going back. Yes, that was one of the first things I did with my QL, as well. Keyboards, of course, are a matter of taste. I found the Ql one a disaster. Woflgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Membranes
On 9 Mar 2002, at 0:01, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Well yes but doesn't that defeat the purpose? I for one never liked QLs with all sorts of cables hanging out of them :-)... I prefer the original look... contained, small, sleek and beautiful :-) I never got a hang up on the Ql design itself. What was (and is) interesting to me is what I can do with tthe machine. This is also why I don't ware whether it runs as an emulator or an original' ql or a hardware ql replacement. Groan. i hope this doesn't start THAT debate all over! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Membranes
On 8 Mar 2002, at 14:42, Dave wrote: If I am going to invest several thousand dollars in a project, I am going to make sure I understand 100% all the issues involved with my designs, and with the design decisions of the original membrane. If you're going to invest several thousand dollars in a Ql project, my advice would be: don't. (unless you don't care to get'em back) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] I got one...
On 7 Mar 2002, at 1:39, Dave wrote: I also received four microdrive cartridges (you would not believe the reaction of my American co-workers. They usually say Oh they are so cool. When did they come out? and when I say 1983, in England they're usually nonplussed. Yeah, well, wait till they see them (not) working... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] PCL3 printers
On 6 Mar 2002, at 18:56, Geoff Wicks wrote: So have I, but it doesn't work for me. The file downloads, but doesn't actually print. Do you have any special technique? Umm not really. I had thisproblem once,too. IIRC, once the entire file was downloaded, I openen a channel to the par device, and then it printed ok eg print from prowess wait till this is done OPEN#3,PAR wait a few secs CLOSE#3 If this solves the problem, update QPC... Also are you able to print from other programs, e.g. Text87? Never tried this, sorry. I could print stright out from basic, though. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Parallax Scrolling IS possible (and Wolfgang is the Oracle of Delphi)
On 23 Feb 2002, at 10:20, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Wolfgang MUST possess ESP , be a mind reader or some other Paranormal ability, Umm, let's try, then: You WILL now turn over all of your money to me... You WILL now turn over all your QL equipment to me... else it cannot explain the fact that as I was going to bed last night I was thinking of a way to make nice Simulated LED score numbers... Sure enough I open up the computer, read the mail and here it is included in the NPAN commands!... Have alook at the FADE command in the latest version... Ils sont fous ces Français! (Misspelled most probably too ;-) No, no,that's the right spelling - I don't feel concerned, though... . You're welcome. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Parallax Scrolling IS possible
On 23 Feb 2002, at 18:41, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Next version will also have a better SMSQ-DOS filename translation algorithm. And some more stuff. Great stuff! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Hove Workshop (OT!!!)
On 23 Feb 2002, at 20:35, Geoff Wicks wrote: Are you sure they are pushing? They could be illegal immigrants trying to hitch a lift. Very popular country is the UK. All the British want to leave because it is so bad, and all the rest of the world want to come because it is so good. Just shows that all depends on where you're coming from... wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: PIC/SCR Compression (Was:Re: [ql-users] DISP_COLOUR)
On 15 Feb 2002, at 1:41, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: As for compression of SCR, I am currently working on a modified variable=20 RLE model (3 bytes or 4 bytes long) with the following specs: 1 bit (RLE code / 0 for 128 repetitions and 1 for 128 repetitions.) 7 bits (repetitions) (if RLE=3D0) or 15 bits (repetions) (if RLE0) 16 bits (pixel data) However it's insanely slow with Basic (Peculiar thing here... VB 6.0=20 compiled running Atop a 1GHz Athlon is slower compression-wise than a plain= =20 I think that that just shows how slow VB is... Let me have your code, I'll do it in M/C, it'll be a bit faster... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] BMP2SCR Windows
On 31 Jan 2002, at 15:10, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Hi all, After lots of trial and error (Mainly because I had to relearn binary arithmetic ;-) My BMP2SCR-Win program is updated to official version 1.1 Hi, let me have the sources (or at least some doc on the windows BMP format), I'll try to see whather we can't have the same thing under SMSQ... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Replacing S*Basic procedures
On 31 Jan 2002, at 23:48, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: I was wondering if there was a way to change or enhance standard S*Basic commands. (Vbasic for example allows you to redefine 90% of its commands) Well sure, it's no big deal (see the LINE_A commands,foexample) wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] win format
Hi all, Neitherut wanted some info on the qxl.wion file format. Perhaps the znclosed filz will help. I'm sorry, I can't remember where I got this info, so I can't give credit where it is due. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com Main header of device +00 longQLWA +04 wordlenth device name +06 20 bytesASCII device name +1A word ? +1C wordrandom number +1E wordaccess counter +20 word ? +22 wordnumber of sectors (512 bytes) in cluster (4 = 2048 bytes) +24 3 x word ? +2A wordtotal clusters (1) +2C wordfree clusters(1) +2E wordsize of FAT? +30 word0001 ? +32 wordpointer to first free cluster (2) +34 wordpointer to main directory (2) +36 longlenth of main directory +header +3A 3 x word ? +40 words linked cluster pointer map (3) (1) virtual values if device 33 MB (2) if cluster = 2048 bytes (h800) then pointer x h800 = address (3) Linked cluster pointer map: +0040 word pointer to next cluster or if end +0042 word pointer to next cluster or if end ... + word same until all clusters are pointed Example reading main directory (win about 20M): +0022: 0004 cluster = h800 +0034: 001A x800 = address hD000 = DIR now look at (001A x 2 + h40 = 0074) if then main directory has no more clusters else for exemple: +0074: 1939 ; x800 = address hC9C800 more entries now look at (1939 x 2 + h40 = 32B2) +32B2: 2605 ; x800 = adress h01302800 still entries now look at (2605 x 2 + h40 = 4C4A) +4C4A: no more cluster: end of main directory Structure of directories: DIR+00 64 bytesspace for header (not used) DIR+40+00 long lenth of file (+header) DIR+40+04 word filetype (0=data, 1=exe-file, h00FF=subdirectory) DIR+40+06 word generally sometimes 0318 DIR+40+08 word dataspace if exe-file else DIR+40+0A word generally sometimes 0318 if exe-file ? DIR+40+0C word ? DIR+40+0E word file name lenth DIR+40+10 36 bytes ASCII file name DIR+40+34 long date or if subdir DIR+40+38 word file version DIR+40+3A word pointer to first file cluster (4) DIR+40+3C 2 x word ? (4) Structure of file: FILE+00 64 (h40)bytes of space for not used header (only in the first cluster of file) FILE+40 h7C0bytes of data then search next adress through clusterpointer: see example adress+00 h800 bytes of data until pointer = number of sectors = number of clusters * nbr_of_sects in clusters $8C00 space need for FAT = 2 bytes per cluster = 71680 bytes = 140 ($8c) sectors + $40 for header = 141 ($8d) sectors how to find a cluster in absolute positioning: cluster number * 512* nbr_of_sects_in_cluster
Re: [ql-users] Nasta did it again! (was: CF, Lexar and QubIDE)
On 26 Jan 2002, at 0:08, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Tomorrow also you'll be able to find the Verdict Euro Enabled font as well as new versions of the Guardian and Suisse Latin font packs created with Joachim's new version of pfb2pff (thanks Joachim.. excellent work as always! and sorry for not contacting you sooner). Sometime until Sunday I will also have the final version of my Sinclair Block Logo font And a special Q40 font I am currently working on. A cute version of the original ZX Spectrum font will also be there as well (if all goes well)as a Symbol font for Math/Science use with Paragraph! (So we can be modern too ;-) I'll be looking forward to the new fonts, 'cause I still have the same problems with the old one, even the one I got from your site (not the times one, the swiss one). I even got the new proforma from joachim's site, but no joy. I'll try to make a screenshot if this doesn't work. On another subject, I haven't got the adapters yet... I WILL tell you asson as they arrive. Have a nice sunday. May the baby leave you in peace Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Linux on the SGC?
On 25 Jan 2002, at 21:24, Timothy Swenson wrote: BTW, Phoebus... the baby. The first one is difficult. After that you get good at ignoring them and the wife. (Un)fortunately, the reverse isn't true... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Volunteer NEEDED (please I fall to my knees and beg already!) to test a SCR file on a Q60/40
On 23 Jan 2002, at 14:00, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Hi all, I need a volunteer to test the output of my BMP2PIC program on a Q40... I will send it compressed (VERY COMPRESSED) and I want to see if it can be loaded and be presentable on Mode 33 (I will include the original file in JPG format as well for comparison)... I can only oblige ytou with a q60, but if taht will do, send it on! wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] mode 33 intensity bit
On 23 Jan 2002, at 21:09, Peter Graf wrote: Has this helped or caused more confusion? :-) Umm it helped ... cause more confusion... (only joking) wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QPC2 V3.00
On 17 Jan 2002, at 19:04, Marcel Kilgus wrote: . But please use a final version first. Marcel, not really amused. Schlechte Laune?... Ich habe gerade bemerkt, dass ich auch noch die 2.03beta benutze -ich nehme an dass ich die normale Version wieder über Jochen beziehen kann. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Sound sampler...
On 17 Jan 2002, at 17:24, Dave wrote: I recall that a couple of years ago someone was working on a sound sampler. I think it could sample sound, and play it back. Basically an A/D and D/A converter. I think it plugged into the ROM socket. Does anyone have any information about this? Yesq, this can happen if, by accident, you execute QPC twice (i.e. a double double-click on the icon). The second QPC then complain that it can't find the file, since it is used by the first one. Just close the second one and ignore it. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Compact Flash Adapters.
On 14 Jan 2002, at 20:12, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Everybody liking the DOS device should by the way thank Wolfgang, he has sponsored its completion. No, no thank Marcel, he did all the work Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: Fw: [ql-users] ISO-9660 CD-ROM file utility
On 15 Jan 2002, at 5:48, Thierry Godefroy wrote: Hi ! I'm afraid my last message about the new QCDEZE utility got unoticed among all the heavy trafic (over 400 messages in 2002 (i.e. in 15 days) already in ql-users, wow !) the list is experimenting now... Did anyone tried it ? Any feedback ? QDOS/SMS forever ! I did download it, but haven't had the time yet. I'll be able to have a look during the weekend. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Re: QL - its uses
On 14 Jan 2002, at 16:40, Dexter wrote: But you did get sucked into some kind of computer black hole alternate reality ;) But no fancy graphics Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)
On 14 Jan 2002, at 19:24, P Witte wrote: The actual words are: (QRM 6.4 10/08/95) NOTE: A0 should not be amended by the open routine. D0 must be set to the appropriate error code. (And my notes add: A6 should also be restored before exit.) Which is the same as saying that A0 should be preserved in the event of the device not being recognised, otherwise the pointer to the channel defintion block must be returned instead. Yup. Mine just doesn't contain that note ! ? ! wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QL font euro symbol
On 13 Jan 2002, at 9:46, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Nonetheless this is a good idea, I'll get to work right away to change the font I use to include the Euro... between us I always HATED the standard ROM font (I don't like my L's looking like fishing hooks ;-) It'll be difficulmt to do much better. The original QL font wxas designed for good legibility even on TV... wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Compact Flash Adapters.
On 13 Jan 2002, at 12:47, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: P.S. If enough interest is generated (and from the looks of it it will, I might badge the CF media with Sinclair QL Logos '-) (Will ask permission from SRL first ;-) Wouldn't THAT be fun? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Patching SMSQ Mouse routines
On 13 Jan 2002, at 13:33, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Any ideas how I could do this 'legally' in such a background job? This is how I did it for az job that blzanks the screen if no keyborad/mouse activity after a certain time: truejob MULU #$3C,D7 ; number of seconds BEQ.S label3 MOVEQ #$0,D0 TRAP #$1 ; get system info MOVE.LA0,A6 MOVE.L$78(A6),A3 ; point to channel table MOVE.L(A3),A3 ; point to channel def block for channel #0 MOVE.L4(A3),A3; point to device driver linkage block label5MOVE.W$2E(A3),D4 ; D4 = pointer position MOVE.WD7,D5 ; stock this MOVE.W$8A(A6),D6 ; last key pressed label4MOVEQ #-1,D1 ; suspend myself MOVEQ #$31,D3 ; for one second SUBA.LA1,A1 ; nothing MOVEQ #$8,D0 TRAP #$1 ; suspend job SUBQ.W#1,D5 BEQ.S label3 CMP.W $8A(A6),D6 BNE.S label5 CMP.W $2E(A3),D4 BEQ.S label4 BRA.S label5 wolfgang Hope this arrives OK - www.wlenerz.com
Re: Re: [ql-users] Compact Flash Adapters.
On 13 Jan 2002, at 20:50, Dave Walker wrote: As far as I know none of those could take the adapter and be able to access it directly from within the QL side of the system? I would have thought that it would work under QPC if windows can see it as a normal drive, thanks to the WONDERFUL DOS device! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part: ERROR, arithmetic overflow !
On 13 Jan 2002, at 21:12, Richard Zidlicky wrote: you see, its not only me who is asking for this feature. I am convinced once it is reasonably possible to write drivers in SBasic and 'c' we will have an abundance. Sbasic? you've GOT to be joking. Shock, horror! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Re: QL - its uses
On 14 Jan 2002, at 16:02, Dexter wrote: When will someone turn around and say it's the best looking computer I have ever seen. Sleek, black, looks like the slab in 2001, exquisite. And when the chips are acookin', it even makes that strange noise... Unfortunately, I don't get any smarter using it. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Q40/Q60/??? Ultra IO card
On 11 Jan 2002, at 1:28, Dexter wrote: Does anyone think it might be appropriate to have a separate list for ql-developers to separate the traffic from ql-users, or are you happy for these kind of posts filling your list? :o) oh no, just keep it here - it certainly is appreciated! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Today May-June 2001
On 8 Jan 2002, at 11:55, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: If a QL user (again IMHO) wanted to get a PC with Linux then he/she could have the same results with a Q60 and at the same time supporting the platform AND getting a real hardware QL based machine :-) I totally agree! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
[ql-users] Re: [fonts
Ho Phobus, I tried the suisse font today - unfortunately, it seem rather unusable, because the origins of the letters don't seem to be at the same point, so the 'e' is higher than the 'a' etc... Am I the only one to report thios problemL Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] The reality...
On 8 Jan 2002, at 18:23, Thierry Godefroy wrote: Welcome back Wolf, and happy new year to you ! Thanks, and the same to you. How is Qling in the indian ocean going? Nobody... ;-) Ah, you just don't listen to the Cassandras... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Euroconverter 1.40
On 8 Jan 2002, at 19:00, Thierry Godefroy wrote: It is on the Italian club website (link on my Web site page), as well as in the new QDOS/SMS systems software repository: http://smsq.free.fr/ Thanks! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Euro equipped font and other news
On 4 Jan 2002, at 17:18, Claude Mourier 00 wrote: It's true that only some currency are associated with special symbol (Yen, pound,...) and only one is known evrywhere (and part of Basic too). It's true too that pff font are not very good on screen when they are very nice on paper. Don't know why. Because of the much lower resolution on the screen. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QL Today May-June 2001
On 5 Jan 2002, at 14:57, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Hi all, (Q60 being cheaper than a windows PC + QPC) Hmm, but what about the case where you HAVE to have a PC already? Then QPC does seem a cheaper way Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] The reality...
Hi all, Phew! I just came back from holoday, and there were 191 message in this list over a 2 weeks period! Who said the QL was dead? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] seasonal cheer, Silly Season
On 7 Jan 2002, at 21:59, Dennis Sutherland wrote: Morning Dennis, I have the system installed on a 100Mb Zip disc which I take back and forth with me so I have the same setup at home and at work. I use a CD-RW for the same purpose... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Euroconverter 1.40
On 7 Jan 2002, at 17:38, Andrea Carpi wrote: Euro converter Darn, I've just erased the originalmessage with the link the the website. Would you lmind letting me have it again, so I can download the software? Thanks, and sorry for polluting the bandwidth! Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Line_a
On 4 Dec 2001, at 19:24, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Yes, me.
Enclosed
Wolfgang
-
www.wlenerz.com
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
File information ---
File: dline.zip
Date: 6 Dec 2001, 9:10
Size: 2708 bytes.
Type: ZIP-archive
dline.zip
Description: Zip archive
Re: [ql-users] no shadow
On 4 Dec 2001, at 18:54, Marcel Kilgus wrote: l I was ill. ;) Marcel Hope you're better now! wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Line_a
Didn't somebody on this list ask if he could have the line_a extensions? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] PE Mouse Status
On 22 Nov 2001, at 0:38, P Witte wrote: Im not sure how much of the documentation ought to be reproduce here as it probably is copywrited material. Any thoughts on that, anyone? No problem if you rephrase it. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] PE linkage block
Hi all, out of idle curiosity, does anybody have some info on what can be found in the PE kinkage block? (i.e. when you do TRAP²3, D0= on return A1 points to the linkage block. I have some info here: some info on the PE linkage block: offsets to A1: $34 .w = mouse acceleration (10 complement!) $4C .B = mouse wake up $8e .B = mouse hotkey (when clicking both buttos) $E8 .L = scr_base = base address of screen $EE .L = scr_llen = nbr of bytes per screen line .L $F2 .W = scr_xlim = xsize of screen (in pixels) $F4 .W = scr_ylim = ysize of screen (in pixels) Anybody ? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] PE linkage block
On 20 Nov 2001, at 23:49, Marcel Kilgus wrote: () Thanks! wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QXL.WIN - format details
On 18 Nov 2001, at 12:05, Christopher Cave wrote: Help please. I have just had parts of my QXL.WIN file overwritten rather mysteriously. Fortunately, I have been backing up my current project ever hour or so but I would like to recover what I can using Wined. I used to have a description of the QXL.WIN structure but it disappeared in an earlier disaster. Can anyone please tell me where to find this info? What exactly do you need? The first sector contains afisk header and then the FAT. The following might help: Main header of device +00 long QLWA +04 word lenth device name +06 20 bytes ASCII device name +1A word ? +1C word random number +1E word access counter +20 word ? +22 word number of sectors (512 bytes) in cluster (4 = 2048 bytes) +24 3 x word ? +2A word total clusters (1) +2C word free clusters(1) +2E word size of FAT? +30 word 0001 ? +32 word pointer to first free cluster (2) +34 word pointer to main directory (2) +36 long lenth of main directory +header +3A 3 x word ? +40 words linked cluster pointer map(3) (1) virtual values if device 33 MB (2) if cluster = 2048 bytes (h800) then pointer x h800 = address (3) Linked cluster pointer map: +0040 word pointer to next cluster or if end +0042 word pointer to next cluster or if end ... + word same until all clusters are pointed Example reading main directory (win about 20M):/B/P +0022: 0004 cluster = h800 +0034: 001A x800 = address hD000 = DIR now look at (001A x 2 + h40 = 0074) if then main directory has no more clusters else for exemple: +0074: 1939 ; x800 = address hC9C800 more entries now look at (1939 x 2 + h40 = 32B2) +32B2: 2605 ; x800 = adress h01302800 still entries now look at (2605 x 2 + h40 = 4C4A) +4C4A: no more cluster: end of main directory Structure of directories: DIR+0064 bytes space for header (not used) DIR+40+00 long lenth of file (+header) DIR+40+04 word filetype (0=data, 1=exe-file, h00FF=subdirectory) DIR+40+06 word generally sometimes 0318 DIR+40+08 word dataspace if exe-file else DIR+40+0A word generally sometimes 0318 if exe-file ? DIR+40+0C word ? DIR+40+0E word file name lenth DIR+40+10 36 bytes ASCII file name DIR+40+34 long date or if subdir DIR+40+38 word overwrite counter ? DIR+40+3A word pointer to first file cluster (4) DIR+40+3C 2 x word ? (4) Structure of file: FILE+00 64 (h40) bytes of space for not used header (only in the first cluster of file) FILE+40 h7C0 bytes of data then search next adress through clusterpointer: see example adress+00 h800 bytes of data until pointer = number of sectors = number of clusters * nbr_of_sects in clusters $8C00 space need for FAT = 2 bytes per cluster = 71680 bytes = 140 ($8c) sectors + $40 for header = 141 ($8d) sectors how to find a cluster in absolute positioning: cluster number * 512* nbr_of_sects_in_cluster Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Turbo 4.11
On 15 Nov 2001, at 8:31, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Wolfgang, once you are happy with the LINE_A extension, is there any chance you'd release it - it sounds like an extension lots of people would like to use for graphics. Sure, it(ll just take some time until I find some v lues that don't work. (Phoebus, why don't you send ma a nonworking example). Then I'll fix it. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] Turbo 4.11
On 13 Nov 2001, at 9:20, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: (Unfortunately the LINE_A command Wolfgang made for me, has a huge problem when it comes to outer edges of windows and crashes hopelesly :-( Well, you COULD tell me, so that I can check that!! Try making the lines one less than the window size? WOlfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Here I go again with my absolute coordinates :-) (And something for the Q40 too)
On 11 Nov 2001, at 16:04, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: 1. I remember Marcel saying something about the x87 code being added and there might be an incompatibility with my AMD Hmm, I use it with 3 amds (2 athlons, 1 K6) and no problem. 2. The other one is maybe the DirectX in conjunction with my graphics drivers might be corrupting QPC and 3. My SMSQ.bin file might be corrupted (I don't have a way to test that) Get a fresh copy off jochen's website wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Adding TURBO_SMS_CODE to SMSQE.bin
On 11 Nov 2001, at 16:06, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: At 08:07 ìì 11/11/2001 +0100, you wrote: Why ever would you want to do that? First of all because it's possible :-) Is your middle name Hillary? Second of all because many of the commands are imperative to what I am trying to make and I hate loading everything twice. ? Why twice? and Third because I want to learn how to do it :-) OK Good reasons aren't they? Only the last one (ha!) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Here I go again with my absolute coordinates :-) (And something for the Q40 too)
On 9 Nov 2001, at 10:12, Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Good :-) Then half the work I thought was needed is done :-) I am still though continuing my quest to get a 100% definite answer on the modes of the QPC/QXL/Aurora/Q40 and how colours are coded on the screen memory. That is if they use the same way to calculate RGB values on the same colour depth modes? Probably not. I've started to have a look at this. QPC (in 65536 colour mode, i.e. Mode32) stores the colour values in the screen memoey as follows: 16 bits per pixel gggrbggg Apparently, QPC doesn't (yet?) have a true 24 bit mode. I haven't had time to check for the Q40/QXL. Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Freddie Vachha
On 25 Oct 2001, at 20:38, Bill Waugh wrote: After selling hand over fist for the last year The Hound of the Vaskavilles(sp?) we now bring you Super Hound of the Vaskavilles, more clues, more pages, bigger and better fonts, 3,9765^7 different endings, start from any address in Baker Street, Pipes ( more than one). Only DP ( Detective Publications ) could bring you this product. And now, you can actually read it... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
RE: [ql-users] more noise
On 25 Oct 2001, at 9:25, Norman Dunbar wrote: No moose is good moose ! Not iof you're a monty python fan.. PS. Wolfgang, check out your computer's time - it shows Saturday October 25th 1997 ! Yeah, right, thanks Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Clive Sinclair
On 17 Oct 2001, at 20:07, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Also, do not forget that the first microdrives were intended to be only the start of a whole range of innovative new ways for mass storage. Clive subsequently 'lost' a lot of his 'millions' investing in plant and research to produce new devices that would have developed and owned, and sold to the world. Wafer memory... wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing QDOS for x86 processors
On 16 Oct 2001, at 8:50, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Das QL? I'd say it's masculine. Not in my ususal mode of address: Das Sch... *+=8% QL Dings, da wolfgang (hey, after thhat much dutch, we're entitled to some german...) - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Clive Sinclair
On 16 Oct 2001, at 21:27, Tony Firshman wrote: They changed to the crummy one that goes brittle probably to save 20p. Yup, that's the typical QL story - do it el cheapo! wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing QDOS for x86 processors
On 16 Oct 2001, at 17:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glad its not feminine, Die QL sounds a bit rash in english! It's already happened, anyway. Wolfgang (runs to shelter) - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] QPC2
On 15 Oct 2001, at 10:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder does Clive Sinclair still know we exist, ie. QUANTA, and QL users in general? I can't image he cares.0... BTW, why is this thread called QPC?... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing QDOS for x86 processors
On 15 Oct 2001, at 17:46, Malcolm Cadman wrote: Is the QL masculine or feminine in gender ? -- Malcolm Cadman For us Germans, of course, it's a neutrum... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] ProWesS Fonts
On 15 Oct 2001, at 9:02, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Additionally, If someone is kind enough (Wolfgang?) I would like the accented characters position so I can make a couple versions of the fonts to accomodate your needs with the characters in the right positions (IIRC) I don't think that TRA can affect ProWesS, therefore different versions of the fonts are required for different codepages (I made one for Windows Greek and PC-737 Greek as well... FINALLY I have Scalable Greek on SMSQ/E!) Sure, just what do you need? the chr$ corresponding to each char (e.g. é = chr$(131))? if that is so, BTW, could you put on chr$(181), which is the code returned by this? Or do you want me to look into some prowess fonts to tell you where the accented chars are? Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Need some flaming :-) - What about re-writing QDOS for x86 processors
On 10 Oct 2001, at 22:13, Marcel Kilgus wrote: Anyway x86 assembler is something nobody wants to program really, especially when coming from the 68k corner, believe me. It sure isn't! Segments - B Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Hyper Browse Development
On 4 Oct 2001, at 18:56, Tarquin Mills wrote: The options I can see are: 1. Csize. 2. use different colours (like lynx). 3. do nothing and wait for Wman to change, or the Prowess licence to change. 4. use Prowess (i.e. use a second hand commercial version). 5. Write my own font software. -- Yours Tarquin Mills (ACCUS) i don't really understand why you couldn't use Prowess. There is nothing to stop you from writing a program that makes use of Prowess, as long as you don't distribute it with your prog. You could then point the user to Joachilm's site, from where they can download Prowess. thin of it as like using M$ Windows : M$ certainly doesn't give any part of Windows away to a software developper (I mean, perish the thought!). That doesn't mean that the developper can't write a program that runs under windows and makes use of windows... Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
Re: [ql-users] Re: Prowess and euro
On 3 Oct 2001, at 12:36, Phoebus Dokos wrote: In some of the fonts I converted for Dilwyn for the Prowess Font Collection DO have the Euro Symbol. Apart from that if you want a Specific font (say Arial or similar from Windows) to maintain cross platform look, I could prepare for you. (Mind you NOT a whole lot of them because I am up to my neck with work :-( ) That's awfully nice of you. Perhaps if you told me (privately?) how to make the conversion, I could do it myself... (It's like to old saying :don't give them something to eat, teach them how to fish...) Wolfgang - www.wlenerz.com
