On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:
.
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,
On 14 Oct 2003 at 18:44, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Do I hear the sound of rattles being thrown out of prams once more,
children?
rattle, rattle
For goodness's sake, bury the hatchets now (and I don't mean in each
other's heads).
grin
This is rapidly turning into another all too public
On 14 Oct 2003 at 14:52, Jerome Grimbert wrote:
Oh, excuse-me, but I'm only using (and developping it too) on Q40.
I won't call that a waste!
No, it isn't, of course not.
Wolfgang
On 14 Oct 2003 at 12:06, Fabrizio Diversi wrote:
Again,
It should be clear that I am not an expert on this matter , i do not have any
special expertise .
Perhaps - but at least you TRY (and succeed) to do something with the sources.
Just one think , I have as my hobby to play with QL and
On 14 Oct 2003 at 20:28, Tarquin Mills wrote:
(...)
I like the QL because it (the QL community) is in general polite and
friendly.
Yes, that's true - and it makes the occasional storm only stand out that much
stronger.
But, always the optimist, I hope that this might clear the air for a
On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote:
(...)
I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am pleased to
see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement.
:-)
Just to put a further cat amongt the pigeons (I'm in a provocative mood today), let me
On 14 Oct 2003 at 19:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Forget this idea. I never sold nor trusted Q60 SMSQ/E versions after Tony Tebby.
I can understand that you didn't sell any.
But not trust any newer version?
Do you mean there are, what, timebombs in the code?
Somebody, on purpose,
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:16 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14 Oct 2003 at 22:13, Peter Graf wrote:
.
snip
To some extent, QPC and Qx0 might be seen as competing with each other,
(I've heard
this being said) even though, for me, they are definitely not.
I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC
Hello,
I will provide a lot of details just to request a small information!
This is mainly for hardware people...
The provided Eprom with the Q40 are two 27C1024, making it for 256KB.
Looking at my latest SMSQ/E (which must be 3.01), the current size of
the file might be only a few KB short to
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:11:17 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14 Oct 2003 at 13:55, Bill Cable wrote:
(...)
I knew the QL was very special the first time I switch it on and am
pleased to
see it receive credit as a key motivator for the Open Source Movement.
:-)
Just to put a further cat
I am interested too, I would like to add also why not useflash eprom.
Hoping in an answer .
FabrizioJerome Grimbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,I will provide a lot of details just to request a small information!This is mainly for hardware people...The provided Eprom with the Q40 are two
Forwarded answer from Peter to my last mail, posted with his
agreement. I leave it at that.
---
Marcel wrote:
But if I asked for the Qx0 schematics (the equivalent of my software
in the hardware world), would you give them to me?
Yes of course, as soon as my turnover breaks even with my
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
The two programs running in the background are DirectCD and AVG
anti-virus.
Anti-virus programs are always a source of trouble and sometimes big
slow-downs.
Marcel
Nope. As far as I know, I never said a word.
Actually, I'd forgotten about it to be honest!!
Cheers,
Darren Branagh,
Bank of Ireland - Cards And Loans Business,
Nassau House, 33/35 Nassau Street, Dublin 2. Ireland.
Tel: 1850-530-530 Fax: 01-6706813.
BOI Group Data Classification -
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
I do not think that the Qx0 and QPC are directly competing with each but
they do indirectly.
To explain: Basing an OS around an emulator, tempts users to totally
abandon hardware for software only.
Oh boy, do I disagree with
On 15 Oct 2003 at 10:29, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
That implies the rattle is still in your hand and not yet been thrown,
right?
No, it's the echo.
(...)
This IS a subject that affects many (perhaps even all) of us.
As long as something constructive comes out of it (e.g. agreement on
updated
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:59, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
(...)
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
SMSQE - OK
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
SMSQE OK
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos (è á. ç) wrote:
(all cut)
Just a very quick reply to one point.; I'll probably rply to more of this
later.
There is NOTHING
- in the licence
- in what I have ever said
that stops you from developping code specific to a machine.
You want to
Anyone know how to get the statement number within a line when an
error occurs?
Obviously, ROMs which support ERLIN return the line number. It would
be helpful to get the statement number as well for debugging
purposes - what I'd like is for my debugging routine to return
something like:
REPORT
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:37:50 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. As far as I know, I never said a word.
Actually, I'd forgotten about it to be honest!!
Cheers,
Not Darren's fault...
It's not indeed an Irishman ;-)
The fault is all Rich's :-) I was asking him if he knew of any proper (ie
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:58:19 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15 Oct 2003 at 3:05, Phoebus R. Dokos ( . ) wrote:
(all cut)
snip more
I have repeatedly stated on this list that OF COURSE I would include
code that beneftis only one machine - provided, it is not done in such a
way to
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:22:32 +0100, Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyone know how to get the statement number within a line when an
error occurs?
Obviously, ROMs which support ERLIN return the line number. It would
be helpful to get the statement number as well for debugging
purposes -
On 15 Oct 2003, at 10:56, Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντό wrote:
(...)
Well that's restriction 1... As seen below you have to be able to
distribute legitimate copies both in binary and in source form so... it's
not OK
That's the restriction, alright.
(...)
To your (*) that alone breaks
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:58:03 +0200, Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
Snipped the whole previous message
As answering to individual points makes a little difficult to concentrate
my whole argument I will write a response with two examples on why the
current license can in
Hi,
I was going up the M6 in England, last week just North of Stoke to see my
girlfriend, when a red Porsche flew pasted me with the registration number
DJC 16
I wondered where Dilwyn was going in such a rush.
Derek
Roy wood wrote:
There were one or two teething problems when the code changed to
incorporate the faster memory but there were in the original code
and just shown up by the new code. (That is right isn't it Marcel?).
If you're referring to the RECHP problem you're right, I suspect the
problem
For some time now, the JOBS facility under QPAC2 has indicated
corrupt memory for all jobs. Naturally this has made me a bit
suspicious of some of my programming but I have now tackled the
problem and find that the problem persists even when booting
with the following:
LRESPR
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:05:16 +0100, Derek Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was going up the M6 in England, last week just North of Stoke to see my
girlfriend, when a red Porsche flew pasted me with the registration
number
DJC 16
I wondered where Dilwyn was going in such a rush.
Derek
Christopher Cave wrote:
This is under QPC2 v3.03, SMSQ/E v2.99, QPCA2 v1.38 JOBS
v1.02.
Any bright ideas? Should I have upgraded QPAC2 sometime?
Yes.
Marcel
On 15 Oct 2003 at 21:53, Christopher Cave wrote:
Any bright ideas? Should I have upgraded QPAC2 sometime?
Oh yes, ask your supplier to send you a new version of QPAC2
Wolfgang
30 matches
Mail list logo
