12/12/93: OS9 UG and Standards group by Delphi, | Category: Delphi - Standards | 22 comments - (Comments are closed)

OS9 UG and Standards group

83982 12-DEC 11:50 Standards
OS9 UG and Standards group
From: NIMITZ To: ALL

The OS9 users group BOD – or at least members of it, have told me that
they see no reason for such a group to be formed at this time. However – IF I
FOUND ONE AND IT TURNS OUT OK, the UG would consider accepting it as an organ
of the Users group later. When I was less than accepting of this proposal,
well, it seems to
have upset yet another member of the BOD. So, I’m asking the members of the
OS9 community to look at this situation, and tell me if they would accept such
a proposal – that one person or group should do the work of setting up a
organization to benefit al
l, then turn it over to the group that SHOULD be helping to get the job done in
the first place after they put no effort into it. Frankly, I see no
improvement in this group. They tell me – ‘give us time, give us a chance
‘ but I’ve offered this group a chance to start an activity that many of the
small developers tell me they see as a boon to all and offer to donate my time
in a cooperative venture, and get told to do it myself and give it to them
later? Am I missing so
mething here?? What do you think??

22 comments to OS9 UG and Standards group

  • pucc_unknown

    83985 12-DEC 14:58 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: JOELHEGBERG To: NIMITZ

    David,

    > The OS9 users group BOD – or at least members of it, have told me that
    > they see no reason for such a group to be formed at this time. However -

    This is a very critical time for the OS9 User’s Group, and I can tell
    you there are many many things on the BOD’s minds. We had an on-line
    meeting here last night and many many topics were discussed, and the
    meeting lasted for quite a while. (I’m not speaking from a BOD
    perspective, as I’m not part of the BOD, but rather the MOTD editor.)
    Frankly, a standard’s group is something that the OS-9 User’s Group is
    not ready to get involved with because of the many other critical areas
    it has to concentrate on in restarting the OS-9 User’s Group.

    Personally, I would love to see a standards group formed someday… it
    would be a boon to all.

    — Joel Mathew Hegberg.

    Delphi : JOELHEGBERG
    GEnie : j.hegberg
    Internet : JoelHegberg [at] delphi [dot] com

  • pucc_unknown

    83994 12-DEC 19:33 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: DSRTFOX To: NIMITZ

    I’ll be printing your article in the next issue. Why don’t you ask the UG
    to appoint YOU as head of the “standards committee” and then you can go on
    your merry way… at least with the groups blessing, and you can probably
    get a little more interest since you will at least have the endorsement of the
    UG. The few workers in the group do have their hands full, but I can’t see
    why they wouldn’t at least give you an endorsement!

  • pucc_unknown

    83999 12-DEC 23:55 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: WA2EGP To: NIMITZ

    Well, I wouldn’t mind helping if I able to offer anything useful. Whether I
    can or not, I don’t know.

  • pucc_unknown

    84009 13-DEC 18:52 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: EDELMAR To: NIMITZ

    David,

    I’m not speaking for the UG or the BOD but I will speak as 1 of 5 Director’s
    and try to state clearly my position regarding your desire for a broad-based
    standards committee.

    I have a rather strict definition of ‘standard’. Most of the things you
    appear to be alluding to fall, at best, in the category of practices – not
    standards. You’ve mentioned only one subject which might qualify as a
    standard; i.e., defining certain signals. But you haven’t provided any
    examples of where or why this is needed. Also, who else in the industry
    agrees that this is a problem which needs to be addressed or are you
    addressing a problem peculiar to your Company’s hardware/software. I don’t
    know. I suggest you define the problem you perceive clearly in your mind
    first. Then discuss the specifics with representatives of other Companies
    in the OS-9 community; i.e., OEMs, VARs, programmers and other interested
    parties. You will also have to consider possible backward compatibility
    problems. If you can get a concensus from them that this is indeed a problem,
    prepare and submit a proposal to the UG outlining the problem, what the objec-
    tive is and a list of experts in the specific area willing to serve on that
    committee. I will certainly look favorably on such a proposal.

    The rest of the subjects you mentioned appear to fall in the category of
    practices or information but not as a standard. For example, you mentioned
    preparing a ‘library’ that would include many functions (beyond MW’s I assume)
    to make it easier for programmers. I don’t have a problem with you or anyone
    else doing this. But I don’t see where UG endorsement or sponsorship is
    necessary for this. This ‘library’ could be submitted to the existing UG
    library or otherwise made available to programmers. However, I’d think that
    if the ‘library’ is truly worthwhile and will be supported, you’d want to
    sell it to programmers. Anyway, I don’t see that making such a ‘library’
    a ‘standard’ will necessarily benefit the community. Most experienced C
    programmers already have their own libraries which they would probably prefer
    to use. But again, you may always discuss this with others as I described
    above and if there is a consesus that a standard library of the type you
    propose is necessary, submit a proposal to the UG. I will listen.

    David, I’d suggest you read the Constitution of the UG. Among the primary
    objectives are the expansion of the UG by bringing in industrial members and
    new users as well as expanding support for existing members. You may have
    some excellent ideas consistant with these objectives but you will have to
    define and present these ideas more clearly than you have. You will have to
    do your homework first. And I will not vote for a committee with nebulous
    objectives and broad powers regardless of who heads it. I will favor a
    separate committee to address each problem/objective. BTW, if you look
    into how ANSII or the IEEE does this, I think you’ll find the procedure
    they follow is similar to what I’m asking for; i.e., they do not initiate
    such committees. Proposals are presented to them by an informal group.
    Then, after credentials and many other factors are examined, they may
    endorse the establishment of a committee to prepare ‘draft specifications’
    under their ‘umbrella’.

    Please remember that for a standard to be credible, it must be accepted by
    the entire community – Industrial, VARs, programmers, users, etc. Calling
    something a standard does not make it so. UG endorsement of a standard
    without the participation and agreement of all interested parties, would
    only serve to discredit the UG.

    Ed Gresick
    Director, OS-9 Users Group

  • pucc_unknown

    84030 14-DEC 00:37 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83982)
    From: ILLUSIONIST To: NIMITZ (NR)

    I think you are on the right track..the UG should help in developing
    standards…I am sure many of us in the OS-9 community (myself included)
    we donate time and help in developing standard for a variety of problems
    .all that is needed is an idea, and for someone to simply ask for help.

    The UG should be a part of it. After all, they are the Users Group..
    What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if our official users
    group just sits around and adopts the standards the users make, esp when
    there is little or no input by the UG (until the very end), or from
    the industrial users (at all)..

    The UG should at the very least “poll” its members somehow, find out
    as much as they can about what the users need, and what they would like
    to do, then relay that info to those working on the standard..

    -* Mike

  • pucc_unknown

    84042 14-DEC 18:42 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84030)
    From: EDELMAR To: ILLUSIONIST

    Mike,

    > I think you are on the right track..the UG should help in developing
    > standards…I am sure many of us in the OS-9 community (myself included)
    > we donate time and help in developing standard for a variety of problems
    > .all that is needed is an idea, and for someone to simply ask for help.

    The UG is comprised only of volunteers; that includes the officers, directors,
    and people like the MOTD Editor and the Librarian. No one is paid or compen-
    sated for their time or expenses nor are there any paid employees. The
    only resources (assets if you will) the UG has are its name and membership.

    The simple fact we might have a problem, doesn’t mean we need a standard.
    Standards are useful only if all parties concerned agree that there is a
    problem, participate in their preparation, agree to them and follow them.

    > The UG should be a part of it. After all, they are the Users Group..
    > What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if our official users
    > group just sits around and adopts the standards the users make, esp when
    > there is little or no input by the UG (until the very end), or from
    > the industrial users (at all)..

    What will industrial users and “outsiders” think if the UG adopts standards
    without all interested parties being involved. Worse, what if it is a
    standard contrary to what they have been doing.

    In all cases, it will have to be the interested parties that will do the
    work. The question is whether the UG will endorse the work. There are
    several steps involved whether the UG is involved or not. Let’s look at
    how most standards committees have been formed in the past.

    Typically, someone will encounter a problem. Most people will contact their
    local expert to get a solution. If no solution can be found, several other
    people are contacted. (Along the way, the problem is further defined.)
    Finally, leading experts will be contacted. Most often, the ‘problem’ will
    have been resolved along the way. Occassionally, there is no satisfactory
    resolution and the people involved will form an informal committee with the
    intent of preparing a standard. They will contact an organization like the
    IEEE, ANSII, ISO, etc. (but it could be the OS-9 Users Group as well if the
    subject is applicable). These organizations have certain requirements before
    they will formally ‘adopt’ a committee; i.e., statement of the problem(s),
    why they are problem(s), what experts (including their credentials) concur
    that this is a problem and the names of the Companies and/or individuals who
    will serve on the committee. If all of the requirements of the standards
    organization are met, they will issue the committee a ‘charter’ which will
    among other things, define the scope of their work and the expected end
    result (there are many other provisions but they’re not important for this
    example). At this point, a working committee will be formed which will do
    the actual work of preparing the specifications which can later be formalized
    as a standard. During the preparation of the specification, ‘draft specifi-
    cations’ are often circulated for review. Interested parties send in their
    comments and the specification is revised. This continues until the
    differences are resolved. At this point the specification becomes a standard
    and the committee is dissolved having completed its work.

    Even when one of the large standards organizations sponsors the effort, it is
    the people who called for forming the committee who usually do most of the
    work. The sponsoring organization provides no help – indeed, in most cases,
    they may not even understand the work being done by its various committees

    Should the UG do things differently? Granted, being small, we do not need
    all the paper work the larger organizations require but I think the same
    requirements should hold. If the UG is be responsible, professional and gain
    the respect of the entire OS-9 community, can it do any different?

    > The UG should at the very least “poll” its members somehow, find out
    > as much as they can about what the users need, and what they would like
    > to do, then relay that info to those working on the standard..

    I agree with you that we must find out what the membership needs and wants.
    My preference is for a questionaire sent to members (maybe part of the MOTD?)
    every year. I can bring this up at the next BOD meeting but I’d suggest you
    contact Carl Boll, UG President (CBJ on Delphi), directly and inform him of
    your needs.

    As to getting information to those working on standards, if the UG follows
    a procedure similar to what I outlined above, every interested party will
    have the opportunity to review the specification being prepared and present
    their views.

    Ed Gresick
    Director – OS-9 UG

  • pucc_unknown

    84008 13-DEC 18:37 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83994)
    From: EDELMAR To: DSRTFOX

    Frank,

    > … Why don’t you ask the UG to appoint YOU as head of the “standards
    > committee” and then you can go on your merry way… at least with the
    > groups blessing, and you can probably get a little more interest since
    > you will at least have the endorsement of the UG. The few workers in the
    > group do have their hands full, but I can’t see why they wouldn’t at least
    > give you an endorsement!

    First, I’d like to suggest you look up the definition of the word ‘standard’
    in the dictionary and then find out what it means and how it is used in
    industry.

    As to your statement ‘and then you can go on your merry way…’, absolutely
    not. Not even the President of the UG can go his ‘merry way’ and most
    fortunately, (as he demonstrated at our first BOD meeting) Carl does not wish
    to do so. Rather, he has demonostrated a very stong dedication to guide the
    UG to a position where membership in the UG will be attractive to all members
    of the OS-9 community and where the UG will serve the community as a whole.
    I should add that the other members of the BOD demonstrated a similar
    dedication.

    I’m not singleing out David Graham – I have nothing against him. (But, he
    is the one raising the issue.) However, I think to give him or anyone carte
    blanche to act in the name of and/or under the mantle of the OS-9 User Group
    is inappropriate. Further, he has not made such a request to the UG or the
    BOD. Nor, does he know how the BOD will respond to such a request. (However,
    he does know my position but I’m only 1 of 5 directors.) David is demonstra-
    ting a great deal of enthusiasm. But rather than use a shot-gun approach,
    I’d like to see him zero in on a specific issue and follow through on that.
    If he can demonstrate that the issue is indeed a problem, can convince other
    interested parties to appoint competent persons to serve on such a committee,
    I don’t think he’ll have any problem getting the endorsement and full support
    from the BOD – he will get support from me.

    Ed Gresick
    Director – OS-9 Users Group

  • pucc_unknown

    84015 13-DEC 20:36 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 83994)
    From: NIMITZ To: DSRTFOX

    Actually Frank, that is exactly what I asked for. I simply beleive that the
    ‘standards organization’ belongs under the Users Group. However, the members
    of the BOD who are aware and have contacted me, seem to think otherwise. I
    figure, if I gotta do the
    work before I can have an endorsement, why bother with the endorsement. See,
    the OS9 UG endorsement SHOULD make the job a liettle easier. So, if I gotta do
    it the hard way, why involve the UG after the hard part is done?

  • pucc_unknown

    84016 13-DEC 20:48 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84008)
    From: NIMITZ To: EDELMAR

    Ed, I like the shotgun analogy you used. Perhaps this can allow me to get
    my point accross to you. If you want to go hunting , in a group (in this case
    a necessity), you do not just say, let’s hunt quail. You set out a plan that
    avoids wasted effort, and injuries to the hunters. And it you are hunting for
    survival purpos
    es, you don’t restrict yourself to quail. (Ignoring the problem of game
    regulations, though I don’t intend to ignore the law in real world
    applications). So, committing myself to fixing one problem now is not
    necessarily soemthing I want to do. Beside
    s, I want this group to be free to take on additional problems as they arise.
    However, if I had to attack one problem first, it would be the lack of
    standards for graphics format handling libraries for all OSK machines. I
    would assemble a group of GWi
    ndows, KWindows, MM/1 , System IV and V programmers (and other machines – if
    possible), and work on assembling standards for and working examples of a
    libarary that would allow use of PCX, VEF, GIF, TIFF, PBM and other popular
    graphics file formats accross
    (across) all as many platforms as possible using the same syntax. But, I
    would not wait until this project was done to start on a committee for DBM tool
    development. Now, I realize that using this group for library development
    might offend some, but I
    see this as an essential part of a shared plan to revitalize our market place.
    And this group (or these groups) would and rightfully should be restricted from
    developing entire applications, that should be undertaken only by commercial
    organizations, tho
    ugh licensing of the commonly developed library for a minimal fee would be used
    to finance further shared development projects, such as QIC readers if
    possible.

    David M. Graham
    BlackHawk Enterprises, Inc.

  • pucc_unknown

    84033 14-DEC 00:50 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84008)
    From: ILLUSIONIST To: EDELMAR

    I think there should be 2 standards commitees, 1 for OSk, and 1 for OS-9
    or at least 2 divisions under the standards commitee, I would like to
    get the OS-9/6809 patch problem fixed up, then maybe “printercap” file,
    and a file to control basic graphics functions, if possible, or some
    type system to have 1 binary (for OSk, though it would work with OS-9 too)
    work with the various windowing systems…

    -* Mike

  • pucc_unknown

    84046 14-DEC 22:21 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84008)
    From: DSRTFOX To: EDELMAR

    Actually, Ed, I sort of meant that David should more or less do as you
    suggested, though I was more than a little “loose” in terminology!

  • pucc_unknown

    84026 13-DEC 23:29 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84015)
    From: WA2EGP To: NIMITZ (NR)

    How about making it an “informal suggestion” group, submit it the the UG and
    see how they react to “it” (it referring to the suggestions).

  • pucc_unknown

    84041 14-DEC 18:41 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84016)
    From: EDELMAR To: NIMITZ (NR)

    David,

    I hear (and have heard) everything you’re saying. But, I don’t think
    you’re hearing me. I will try to be as clear as possible. There is no
    intent in what I’m about to say to insult or otherwise discredit you or
    anyone else. Again, I’m not speaking for the UG or the BOD – only myself.

    One of the primary objectives of the UG is to bring in industrial, educational
    and other professional users; without their participation and support, I
    don’t believe the UG can have much of a future. This objective transcends
    national boundaries – we want participation and support from all users
    throughout the world. Additionally, we want to spread the word about OS-9.
    I’d like to see the latter effort coordinated with MW. I don’t believe an
    effective PR campaign can be implemented without the financial support the
    industrial market can provide.

    Another objective is to provide support for OS-9 Users. This will include
    all OS-9 users – not just those who are members, or are on this forum, or
    on FIDO or own MM/1s. This should include the user with the expensive,
    super 68040 VME system as well as the CoCo and everything in between. And,
    it includes OS-9000.

    (Still another objective is the support of OS-9/6809, the CoCo Users but
    I don’t think that is part of this discussion.)

    One of the biggest problems the UG has is to restore credibility with MW
    (does effect UG efforts re OS-9/6809) and the industrial, educational,
    professional and other members of the _entire_ OS-9 community and bring
    them in as active and supporting members. I’ll repeat what I said before.
    IMO, without their participation and support, I don’t believe the UG has
    much of a future.

    The above represents the factors I’ll consider when discussing UG policies
    including the establishment of committees.

    I believe I’m being consistent when I object to any one person or any one
    committee having broad powers under the mantle of the OS-9 Users Group. I
    want to be certain that whatever work is done, is done by a broad representa-
    tion of the OS-9 Community by qualified and experienced people, that the
    problem being addressed is a real problem common to the entire community and
    that the final results will be meaningful, accepted by and available to the
    _entire_ community thereby reflecting positively on the UG. Depending on the
    problem, it may that MW will resolve the issue. Above all, any work done
    under the mantle of the OS-9 Users Group should not be for the benefit of an
    individual, Company or ‘class’ of user. Benefits must accrue to and be
    available to all.

    Let’s examine a few of your comments -
    > However, if I had to attack one problem first, it would be the lack of
    > standards for graphics format handling libraries for all OSK machines. I
    > would assemble a group of GWindows, KWindows, MM/1 , System IV and V
    > programmers (and other machines – if possible), and work on assembling
    > standards for and working examples of a libarary that would allow use of
    > PCX, VEF, GIF, TIFF, PBM and other popular graphics file formats accross
    > (across) all as many platforms as possible using the same syntax.

    First, let me comment that when this was proposed 3 or 4 years ago, I received
    a message, that I (DELMAR) should conform to MM/1 standards; that in 1 or 2
    years there would be between 5000 and 10000 MM/1s out there and the SYSTEM
    IV and other hardware would _have_ to conform to K-Windows and other MM/1
    standards. Wonder what happened? (OK, I got my lick in.)

    For native mode use, both the SYSTEM IV and SYSTEM V computers already have
    a gfx library based on Microsoft Quick C. Many of my customers have written
    software using these libraries. What benefit would it be to me or my custo-
    mers to change. Isn’t it a little late?

    As to G-WINDOWS, any changes would have to be made and approved by GESPAC.
    They own and control G-WINDOWS. Have you talked to them? Considering the
    number of copies of G-WINDOWS sold and the number of platforms it has been
    ported to, I, personally, see no valid reason to change G-WINDOWS to conform
    with some standard you might prefer (K-Windows?) unless you can present a
    very compelling case.

    I see 2 alternatives for you. The first is for you to arrange to port K-
    Windows to all the other platforms, convince the other programmers, users and
    OEM’s to use it and prove that it is better than what they have; the second
    is for you to port G-WINDOWS to the MM/1. (Unless I get another 10 orders in
    the next 2 weeks, I will not be doing a port of G-WINDOWS to the MM/1.)
    The latter option may not be such a bad idea – it would bring the MM/1 into
    the mainstream.

    As to the gfx file formats, several already exist for the SYSTEM IV/V, as
    well as for G-WINDOWS. I am working on bringing some of the other gfx
    formats to G-WINDOWS. Much of this has been done with my time, effort and
    expense. Several SYSTEM VI/V owners have contributed such programs. Or,
    I paid for them when I purchased the G-WINDOWS Port Pack and license. It
    appears to me that you want these for the MM/1 but are unwilling to expend
    the effort/funds to get them. Certainly, you may assemble a team to write
    these for the MM/1 but since I fail to see what benefits I or OEMs, VARs
    and other non-MM/1 users will receive, why should the UG sponsor such an
    effort?

    > But, I would not wait until this project was done to start on a committee
    > for DBM tool development.

    Don’t we already have several DBMS? Starting at $75, an older version of the
    SCULPTOR development pacakge is available. Next we have DATADEX written by
    Steve Carville. For a simple database, it is surprisingly powerful and
    versatile. Then, I believe IMS is available for a few hundred dollars. I
    think this is similar to DBase 3. At the upper end we have SCULPTOR again.
    Also, I think there are a couple of PD DBMS in the Database here and/or on
    CIS. Why should the UG sponsor an effort that would compete with already
    available commercial software? I hope we can get MPD (SCULPTOR) and whoever
    is putting out IMS to join the UG. Do you think they will join if the UG
    sponsors and supports others to compete with them? This is just this type
    of action that I believe must be avoided by the UG.

    > … but I see this as an essential part of a shared plan to revitalize our
    > market place.

    Perhaps you can share your ideas with the UG. At the BOD meeting we grappled
    with this problem. It is going to take a great deal of time and effort to
    effectively address it. If you have a workable plan, I can assure you the
    UG BOD will welcome it.

    David, it appears to me (from the ideas you’ve presented) that you are asking
    for sponsorship for a committee that will benefit you, your Company and the
    MM/1. I don’t see where you’ve identified and addressed problems the main-
    stream OS-9 community may have. Nor do you appear to want to make a concerted
    effort to involve them to determine if your perception of problems are in
    fact problems and involve them in solving them – particularly if a standard
    is required. In several previous messages, you intimated you would solve
    industry’s problems for them by means of your committee but do you know what
    their problems are? How can you do this without involving them?

    You complain certain members of the BOD (including me) don’t want to help
    but want the credit. Perhaps the best way of stating it is if work done
    under the UG mantle benefits the entire OS-9 community, then the UG and its
    membership will benefit. If the entire OS-9 community doesn’t b
    enefit, we
    can expect criticism which will be detrimental to the UG. As I see it, the
    only help the UG, as an organization, can give you is a mantle of legitimacy
    by sponsoring your committee. If this mantle is provided, how do I, as a
    Director, know your efforts will reflect positively on the UG?

    So long as I’m a Director of the UG, I will not vote to give you, or anyone,
    the kind of broad authority you want to establish standards you decide are
    necesary under the auspices of the UG. I will judge each request on its
    merits; i.e., is the problem one that can only be resolved by a standard, do
    experts in the field (including MW) concur, what are the credentials of those
    serving on the committee, who will comprise the working committee, what
    assurance is there that the OEMs, VARs, programmers, etc. comply with such a
    standard and how will it benefit the OS-9 community as a whole. I don’t
    believe it is up to the UG to do the preliminary work. Rather, I believe we
    should follow the practices of other organizations regarding standards; i.e.,
    the interested party(s) do their homework and present a package to the UG
    for consideration. If the information provided substantiates the need,
    approval will most certainly be given and the committee can proceed with the
    work under the auspices of the UG.

    Ed Gresick
    Director, OS-9 UG

  • pucc_unknown

    84043 14-DEC 18:42 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84033)
    From: EDELMAR To: ILLUSIONIST

    Mike,

    The UG is committed to supporting OS-9/6809. We have a VP designated with
    that responsibility but he hasn’t been on the job very long – he’s just
    getting his feet wet. He will probably need the help of others to resolve
    the patch and other problems.

    The UG is taking the first step to re-establish our credibility with MW.
    This will be followed, I hope, with the necessary steps to acquire the
    rights to the 6809 code from MW and, with their help, the gfx code from
    Tandy.

    If the UG is successful in its effort to obtain OS-9/6809 rights, the UG
    will be able to support the code since MW has stopped supporting it and
    there should be no conflicts.

    Ed Gresick
    Director – OS-9 UG

  • pucc_unknown

    84047 14-DEC 22:24 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84042)
    From: ILLUSIONIST To: EDELMAR

    I agree Ed, and that is what I am saying, the UG shouldnt make the
    standards, we should, but those standards should be accepted by all (most?)
    of the OS-9 world. Not just the CoCoers, not just those with the MM/1,
    Kix’s or System IV’s, and not just the industrial users. It should be all
    of us. And only the UG can really be called “all” of us, thus far anyway.
    If the UG put out a poll, asked its users what they want, and then we all
    get on the horn to the companies, and get in contact with the industrial
    users, and the standard we make has to be more than “ok, I can live with that”
    it has to be “OK! Thats and idea! THAT would make life easier for aof
    us”…

    that is the kind of standards we need to make, and the only way a group
    of us will be able to find out with the industrial users are doing, and
    what the rest of the OS-9 world is doing is with help from the UG..and that
    help has to come before work is even started…with a poll. find out
    what the users want, and what the programmers want..and lets do it..
    I see alot of talk. Zero action. At least Dave is trying to get something
    done here..I am not trying to knock you or the UG, I just think the
    OS-9 community for a long time has talked about how our OS is better than
    everyone elses, and how we talked about doing this, and that, and what
    we need..but very few times has anyone DONE anything..cant we change that?
    At least 1 time out of 100.

    Give me a list of what patches people use most. and Say, 10 people to
    help me, and will put helluva effort into getting the patch problem
    fixed up the best we can.. (until we get source for os-9/6809)..

    who can give me a list of what patches are used most? the UG. Poll the
    users. Now, I just need some help.

    -* Mike

  • pucc_unknown

    84048 14-DEC 22:29 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84043)
    From: DSRTFOX To: EDELMAR

    Ed, I guess what I should do is submit the list of patches I currently sell to
    the UG as a “recommendation” of patches for a “standard” OS-9/CoCo system.
    They ARE the most useful and used patches. It wouldn’t deteriorate the value
    of my product, as I have them all combined and won’t be contributing the
    auto-install program.. which is the major attraction in the case of the
    commercial compilation. Who would I submit this to? I must also point
    out that Rick Ulland did most of the patch compilations also…

  • pucc_unknown

    84133 18-DEC 03:58 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84043)
    From: DIETER To: EDELMAR

    Ed, I’m interested in G-Windows! What is the cost, and how much do You need as
    a downpayment or Advance?

    Dieter

    —Dieter—

    **** Edited with KVed and ****
    *** Uploaded with InfoXpress Version 1.0.1 ***

  • pucc_unknown

    84054 15-DEC 00:01 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84041)
    From: WA2EGP To: EDELMAR

    I tend to agree with what you said but I don;t think we need to get our “lick”
    in. That tends to turn people off. I don’t think the UG needs that right now.
    I’m also getting the impression from some individuals’ comments that K-Windows
    users will be left out in the cold. I hope that it will be supported in some
    manner until us K-Window users finally get G-Windows or whatever is there at
    the time. (Personlly, I can’t afford it right now…..no offense or anything,
    but my budget is very tight at this time. That is why I haven’t ordered it.)
    Maybe the UG could poll users, both industrial and personal, and see what
    turns up. I know there are ideas and practices out there that I don’t know
    about (grin).

  • pucc_unknown

    84055 15-DEC 00:39 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84041)
    From: KSCALES To: EDELMAR

    > I see 2 alternatives for you. The first is for you to arrange to port
    > K- Windows to all the other platforms, convince the other programmers,
    > users and OEM’s to use it and prove that it is better than what they have;
    > the second is for you to port G-WINDOWS to the MM/1. (Unless I get
    > another 10 orders in the next 2 weeks, I will not be doing a port of
    > G-WINDOWS to the MM/1.) The latter option may not be such a bad idea – it
    > would bring the MM/1 into the mainstream.

    Sigh. I do hope that more orders are forthcoming. But if the MM/1 port
    doesn’t happen, I will probably use the money I had committed for G-Windows
    and the Developer’s Pak to buy a bigger hard drive so that I can install
    Linux on my OS-9000 box.

    ————————————————————————–
    Ken Scales Delphi:KSCALES Internet:kscales [at] delphi [dot] com CIS:74646,2237
    I’ve ordered G-Windows for my MM/1: Have you? Deadline Dec 31/93.

  • pucc_unknown

    84062 15-DEC 02:47 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84054)
    From: JOELHEGBERG To: WA2EGP (NR)

    > I’m also getting the impression from some individuals’ comments that
    > K-Windows users will be left out in the cold. I hope that it will be
    > supported in some manner until us K-Window users finally get

    K-Windows is receiving more support now than G-Windows (simply based on
    programs that are readily available in databases, BBS’s, and by
    vendors), so I don’t think we’ll be left out in the cold… we just have
    to realize we’re not the only one’s running OS-9, which I think is
    sometimes forgotten.

    — Joel Mathew Hegberg.

    Delphi : JOELHEGBERG
    GEnie : j.hegberg
    Internet : JoelHegberg [at] delphi [dot] com

  • pucc_unknown

    84148 18-DEC 12:01 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84133)
    From: EDELMAR To: DIETER (NR)

    To do the port of G-WINDOWS, I need 20 confirmed orders @ $200.00. Payment
    with order. Payment may be by check or credit card. VISA, AMEX, MC, Discover
    and RS are acceptable. CC will not be processed nor will checks be deposited
    until I have 20 orders. Count stands at 10 confirmed orders.

    It will probably take me about 2 to 3 months to do the port. I can’t spend
    full-time at it – I do have other customer obligations to take care of, too.

    I’ll look forward to receiving your order.

    Ed Gresick
    DELMAR CO
    302-378-2555

  • pucc_unknown

    84207 19-DEC 21:34 Standards
    RE: OS9 UG and Standards group (Re: Msg 84148)
    From: DSRTFOX To: EDELMAR (NR)

    Well, you ARE a major distributor in the “hobby/personal” OS-9 market anyway!