Re: RISCOS Ltd Press Release 24/04/2008
Peter Naulls
> Select 4i4 Key Features
> -----------------------------
[snip lots of cool stuff]
Impressive, most I think will agree.
Except not very relevant. Someone wake me when there's enthusiasm from
ROL to bring Select features to RISC OS 5. In the meantime,
I'll be looking at how RISC OS 5 can be improved to incorporate
some Select features independently, or in other ways.
My preference is to help coordinate such activities, rather than
do any substantial work on this myself per se (I'm working on having
parts build with GCC, so as to not require purchase of C/C++ tools), as
well as other riscos.info stuff.
News poster
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Paul Middleton wrote:
>
>
> > Select 4i4 Key Features
> > -----------------------------
>
> [snip lots of cool stuff]
>
> Impressive, most I think will agree.
>
> Except not very relevant. Someone wake me when there's enthusiasm from
> ROL to bring Select features to RISC OS 5.
[snip]
Looks like you are the first choice candidate for the position of 'Rip
van Winkel of the RISC OS World'.
Cheers
Stan
Dave Higton
> (I'm working on having parts build with GCC, so as to not require purchase
> of C/C++ tools), as well as other riscos.info stuff.
Now /that/ is cool stuff. Thanks for your continuing efforts, Peter.
Dave
Matthew Thompson
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <bc5d2d9...@casema.nl>,
> News poster <mistym...@casema.nl> enlightened us thusly:
> [Snippety snip]
>> Looks like you are the first choice candidate for the position of 'Rip
>> van Winkel of the RISC OS World'.
> I'm second in the list. Although it does look an impressive list, none of
> it is relevant to me, and I can't justify spending the money on my aging
> (and not much used) Risc PC.
> If it was available for the Iyonix, I'd buy five copies immediately.
Seconded, although i'd buy be buying 1 copy !
Matthew
--
Message sent from an IYONIX www.iyonix.com
Using RISC OS 5 : RISC OS Open Ltd www.riscosopen.co.uk
Peter Naulls
> In message <4f95314b50inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In a dim and distant universe <bc5d2d9...@casema.nl>,
>> News poster <mistym...@casema.nl> enlightened us thusly:
>> [Snippety snip]
>
>>> Looks like you are the first choice candidate for the position of 'Rip
>>> van Winkel of the RISC OS World'.
>
>> I'm second in the list. Although it does look an impressive list, none of
>> it is relevant to me, and I can't justify spending the money on my aging
>> (and not much used) Risc PC.
>
>> If it was available for the Iyonix, I'd buy five copies immediately.
>
> Seconded, although i'd buy be buying 1 copy !
>
> Matthew
At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line
or "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
Either they don't want to do Select for Iyonix or they
do and they can start actively asking for someone to do
such work so they don't have to rely on their limited resources.
If the former, then developers (who by and large have
an Iyonix) can start looking in earnest at ways to
improve RISC OS 5.
If the latter, and there are numerous ways the problem can be
approached, although I don't pretend that any such work is trivial,
then they should start by setting realistic goals and expectations.
I don't expect ROL to say anything much about this at Wakefield,
but I hope people might at least press them on such points.
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Matthew Thompson wrote:
>> In message <4f95314b50inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In a dim and distant universe <bc5d2d9...@casema.nl>,
>>> News poster <mistym...@casema.nl> enlightened us thusly:
>>> [Snippety snip]
>>
>>>> Looks like you are the first choice candidate for the position of 'Rip
>>>> van Winkel of the RISC OS World'.
>>
>>> I'm second in the list. Although it does look an impressive list, none of
>>> it is relevant to me, and I can't justify spending the money on my aging
>>> (and not much used) Risc PC.
>>
>>> If it was available for the Iyonix, I'd buy five copies immediately.
>>
>> Seconded, although i'd buy be buying 1 copy !
>>
>> Matthew
> At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
> another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line
> or "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
Just got my select renewal letter and in it, it says "...as we hope to
make some Select features available to Iyonix users during 2008"
Seems something is happening.
As an aside if you have a select subscription it covers up to 10
computers. So for my 5 machines its costs 20 ukp for each copy of the
OS - a bargain really.
[snip]
> I don't expect ROL to say anything much about this at Wakefield,
> but I hope people might at least press them on such points.
As I hope people will also press Iyonix Ltd and RISCOS Open Ltd about
when the next full release of RISC OS 5 is coming out !!
--
Chris Hughes
Don't miss the Wakefield Show - 26th April - www.wakefieldshow.org.uk
Peter Naulls
> In message <_znQj.3319$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
>
>> At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
>> another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line
>> or "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
>
> Just got my select renewal letter and in it, it says "...as we hope to
> make some Select features available to Iyonix users during 2008"
>
> Seems something is happening.
Unless that post-dates recent statements by David Holden and
Aaron, I rather doubt it. I fear it is more of the same
rhetoric. Of course, I'd welcome statements from ROL
to the contrary.
>
> As an aside if you have a select subscription it covers up to 10
> computers. So for my 5 machines its costs 20 ukp for each copy of the
> OS - a bargain really.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> I don't expect ROL to say anything much about this at Wakefield,
>> but I hope people might at least press them on such points.
>
> As I hope people will also press Iyonix Ltd and RISCOS Open Ltd about
> when the next full release of RISC OS 5 is coming out !!
Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
In addition, users like myself who only have 5.11 will able to be
able to softload (or perhaps flash) 5.13 or so.
In the meantime, I expect a variety of piecemeal updates to RISC OS
5 - some of that's already happened (cf ROOL forums for Clipboard
word I referred to) - from external developers.
The big difference here is that although Select has many of the
more desirable features, it's controlled by a small number of
people. RO5 at least is potentially open to many more people with
different ideas about what ought to be done, and immediately
able to make some of the changes themselves - especially so
with an emulator release above.
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Chris Hughes wrote:
>> In message <_znQj.3319$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
>> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
>>> another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line
>>> or "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
>>
>> Just got my select renewal letter and in it, it says "...as we hope to
>> make some Select features available to Iyonix users during 2008"
>>
>> Seems something is happening.
> Unless that post-dates recent statements by David Holden and
> Aaron, I rather doubt it. I fear it is more of the same
> rhetoric. Of course, I'd welcome statements from ROL
> to the contrary.
Its dated 21st April 2008
Note they said "some" not all. Whereas I think Aaron was on about a
full Select version (exceluding the obvious hardware driver bits I
assume).
>>
>> As an aside if you have a select subscription it covers up to 10
>> computers. So for my 5 machines its costs 20 ukp for each copy of the
>> OS - a bargain really.
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>> I don't expect ROL to say anything much about this at Wakefield,
>>> but I hope people might at least press them on such points.
>>
>> As I hope people will also press Iyonix Ltd and RISCOS Open Ltd about
>> when the next full release of RISC OS 5 is coming out !!
> Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
> some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
> release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
> version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
> and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
Unless it has changed they can't release all the sources, since they
don't own all the rights to all the OS, and need other peoples
permission before they can etc.. Steve Revill himself admitted this
when he visited the club last year, they were working on trying to get
permission from some parties with mixed success if I remember rightly
But best of luck anyway.
Seems to me a very good way to kill the rest of the commercial market
dead. But who cares anymore. :-(
> In addition, users like myself who only have 5.11 will able to be
> able to softload (or perhaps flash) 5.13 or so.
I assuming here you mean non-commercial version supported only by the
programmers and not by Iyonix Ltd? I say this because Jack when he
came to see us late last year said he did not expect another Full OS 5
release to come from them (as commercial quality anyway).
> In the meantime, I expect a variety of piecemeal updates to RISC OS
> 5 - some of that's already happened (cf ROOL forums for Clipboard
> word I referred to) - from external developers.
I am aware of them.
> The big difference here is that although Select has many of the
> more desirable features, it's controlled by a small number of
> people. RO5 at least is potentially open to many more people with
> different ideas about what ought to be done, and immediately
> able to make some of the changes themselves - especially so
> with an emulator release above.
Hopefully I have this wrong, but reading the above implies to me you
would be happy for a number of companies in the RISC OS market to
close since you would remove their market with your "FREE" OS
emulator.
Peter Naulls
> In message <IsoQj.3325$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
>> Chris Hughes wrote:
>>> In message <_znQj.3319$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
>>> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
>>>> another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line
>>>> or "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
>>> Just got my select renewal letter and in it, it says "...as we hope to
>>> make some Select features available to Iyonix users during 2008"
>>>
>>> Seems something is happening.
>
>> Unless that post-dates recent statements by David Holden and
>> Aaron, I rather doubt it. I fear it is more of the same
>> rhetoric. Of course, I'd welcome statements from ROL
>> to the contrary.
>
> Its dated 21st April 2008
Yes, your letter may be, but the Iyonix stuff may be boiler
plate that is older. In any case, the statements from DH
and Aaron are to the contrary.
> Note they said "some" not all. Whereas I think Aaron was on about a
> full Select version (excluding the obvious hardware driver bits I
> assume).
Aaron has asserted that most/all of Select must exist on the Iyonix
for it to make any kind of sense. I've remonstrated that that is
not the case. This makes the statement on your letter all the
more contrary with the current situation, and why I welcome
firm statements from ROL.
>> Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
>> some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
>> release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
>> version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
>> and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
>
> Unless it has changed they can't release all the sources, since they
> don't own all the rights to all the OS, and need other peoples
> permission before they can etc.. Steve Revill himself admitted this
> when he visited the club last year, they were working on trying to get
> permission from some parties with mixed success if I remember rightly
Yes, but that was some time ago and things change. Some bits
might have to be redone - exactly what, I don't know, but I don't
believe from what he's mentioned that there is anything substantial.
RISCOS_Lib is one of the obvious pieces that was missing and that is
coming along:
http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/2/topics/125
This is but one reference.
> Seems to me a very good way to kill the rest of the commercial market
> dead. But who cares anymore. :-(
A broad, and not very helpful statement. Work of MW, RComp and
more broadly, myself, will likely be enhanced by the further opening
of RO5 source. If you're talking about ROL specifically, then
they have long since dug themselves a hole (all IMO) and that
isn't going to change unless something radical occurs.
>> In addition, users like myself who only have 5.11 will able to be
>> able to softload (or perhaps flash) 5.13 or so.
>
> I assuming here you mean non-commercial version supported only by the
> programmers and not by Iyonix Ltd? I say this because Jack when he
> came to see us late last year said he did not expect another Full OS 5
> release to come from them (as commercial quality anyway).
Presumably supported by ROOL or indeed RISC OS developers. I don't
think that question matters much as long as there's some degree of
coordination over versions, etc. I can say that is likely that
some ROOL components will be offered as RiscPkg packages, which
will certainly help this.
> Hopefully I have this wrong, but reading the above implies to me you
> would be happy for a number of companies in the RISC OS market to
> close since you would remove their market with your "FREE" OS
> emulator.
Whether or not I want it, I think, is not really material (and
no, I don't). But such a release is in any case very likely to
occur, since many people do want it (emulator, not company
demise), and it might just lead to a revitalisation of RISC OS.
Many people want to try it, but are barred by the emulation
situation with ROMs and having to purchase something relatively
expensive just for a trial.
I certainly don't believe that the model that ROL/VA have in
place is the only business model - indeed, it is one which
increasingly become old fashioned, nor do I believe that
the market for VA/RO6 is going to vanish over night, but I might
hope it'd be something of a wake up call to a desperately
cloistered market.
Chris Wraight
<ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
>> some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
>> release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
>> version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
>> and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
[snip technicalities of releasing full OS source]
>Seems to me a very good way to kill the rest of the commercial market
>dead. But who cares anymore. :-(
I don't agree. There will probably always be those who prefer
commercial software with all its advantages (support, presentation,
ease of use) and those who prefer free versions with all *its*
advantages (larger developer pool, access to open-source libraries,
cheapness). IMO, the two best pieces of software for RISC OS, NetSurf
and ArtWorks, show that it's possible to make both models work.
I care about RISC OS, and I'm sure you do too really ;-) Frankly, I
think there's lots of reasons to be optimistic. The fact that *both*
RPCEmu/ROOL and VRPC/RO6 are being developed strikes me as cause for
celebration.
[snip]
>> The big difference here is that although Select has many of the
>> more desirable features, it's controlled by a small number of
>> people. RO5 at least is potentially open to many more people with
>> different ideas about what ought to be done, and immediately
>> able to make some of the changes themselves - especially so
>> with an emulator release above.
>
>Hopefully I have this wrong, but reading the above implies to me you
>would be happy for a number of companies in the RISC OS market to
>close since you would remove their market with your "FREE" OS
>emulator.
Again, I think the implication is unwarranted. Having a free,
RO5-based solution will hopefully tempt ex-RISC OS developers back to
the platform who would otherwise baulk at VRPC's cost. I doubt it will
tempt many 'natural' VRPC customers away, though, since an open-source
OS solution is likely to be less user-friendly and presentatinally
polished than the more established commercial offerings for some time.
Chris
Andrew
Matthew Thompson <m...@red-squirrel.com> wrote:
> In message <4f95314b50inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In a dim and distant universe <bc5d2d9...@casema.nl>,
>> News poster <mistym...@casema.nl> enlightened us thusly:
>> [Snippety snip]
>
>>> Looks like you are the first choice candidate for the position of 'Rip
>>> van Winkel of the RISC OS World'.
>
>> I'm second in the list. Although it does look an impressive list, none of
>> it is relevant to me, and I can't justify spending the money on my aging
>> (and not much used) Risc PC.
>
>> If it was available for the Iyonix, I'd buy five copies immediately.
>
> Seconded, although i'd buy be buying 1 copy !
>
Thirded.
--
Dave Symes
I don't have an Iyonix.
I would get one ASAP if Select was available for it.
Dave S
--
John Pearson
Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't have an Iyonix.
> I would get one ASAP if Select was avalable for it.
H'm. So Why is it ROL's responsibility (the implicit assumption
throughout this thread) to do something about it? Its a Castle machine
and a Castle OS.
--
John Pearson
http://www.westcairn.net
Peter Naulls
> In message <4f95b4a...@triffid.co.uk>
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't have an Iyonix.
>> I would get one ASAP if Select was avalable for it.
> H'm. So Why is it ROL's responsibility (the implicit assumption
> throughout this thread) to do something about it? Its a Castle machine
> and a Castle OS.
Last time I checked, Select belonged to ROL. Did you mean something
else? It's ROL's "responsibility" because they've been saying
for the last several years that they wanted to do such a project.
If that's no longer true, then they should let us know.
Dave Symes
Indeedy, I've subscribed to Select RO since the beginning, and I was under
the distinct impression, from postings by RO Ltd a year or two ago, that
they were up for the job, and that some of the changes being introduced,
post RO 4.39 were to make the job possible.
Maybe I misremember... but it appears quite a few others read the same
material I did back then.
Dave S
--
Ray Dawson
>
> > Last time I checked, Select belonged to ROL. Did you mean something
> > else? It's ROL's "responsibility" because they've been saying for
> > the last several years that they wanted to do such a project. If
> > that's no longer true, then they should let us know.
>
> Indeedy, I've subscribed to Select RO since the beginning, and I was
> under the distinct impression, from postings by RO Ltd a year or two
> ago, that they were up for the job, and that some of the changes being
> introduced, post RO 4.39 were to make the job possible.
Yes, but ROL can't do it without cooperation from Castle - which doesn't
seem to have been forthcoming.
Cheers,
Ray D
Peter Naulls
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
And so back to the original rhetoric. Which cooperation - i.e,
information has not been forthcoming? In any case, I've already pointed
out that not a whole lot, or anything is required from Castle. Some
from ROOL would help certainly (and be best for coordination), but
wouldn't be critical.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/
Aaron
> In message <gemini.jzxm3k000c8r403rs....@magray.freeserve.co.uk>
> � � � � � Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Last time I checked, Select belonged to ROL. �Did you mean something
> > > > else? � It's ROL's "responsibility" because they've been saying for
> > > > the last several years that they wanted to do such a project. If
> > > > that's no longer true, then they should let us know.
>
> > > Indeedy, I've subscribed to Select RO since the beginning, and I was
> > > under the distinct impression, from postings by RO Ltd a year or two
> > > ago, that they were up for the job, and that some of the changes being
> > > introduced, post RO 4.39 were to make the job possible.
>
> > Yes, but ROL can't do it without cooperation from Castle - which doesn't
> > seem to have been forthcoming.
>
> And so back to the original rhetoric. �Which cooperation - i.e,
> information has not been forthcoming? �In any case, I've already pointed
> out that not a whole lot, or anything is required from Castle. �Some
> from ROOL would help certainly (and be best for coordination), but
> wouldn't be critical.
Peter, are you actually serving a purpose here? Both myself and Dave
Holden have explained the situation at length to you. Here it
is again in case you have forgotten:
ROL wants to do Select for the Iyonix
ROL tried to do Select for the Iyonix
ROL discovered it couldn't get Select for the Iyonix to work properly
ROL asked Castle for some assistance
Castle asked for thousands of pounds
ROL couldn't justify Castle's price due to the limited potential
market
ROL carried on anyway and got stuck
ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
Anything else you "point out" is speculation at best and
FUD at worst.
Now I have spent all day at Wakefield. I've come home, and I've just
been issuing unlock codes. As such I am very tired and I
find myself yet again having to explain things to you.
Now will you please read and understabd what I have said.
Aaron
Peter Naulls
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> Peter, are you actually serving a purpose here?
Yes I am, let me restate what I'd like to occur:
"At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
another, ... If [not] then developers (who by and large have an Iyonix)
can start looking in earnest at ways to improve RISC OS 5."
So in short, my purpose here is to ask ROL to consideribly clarify the
situation, since there are contradictions and inconsistencies. In other
words, if ROL can't/won't/isn't interested, then developers (who have
Iyonixes) can look at other ways to move the OS forward.
> Both myself and Dave Holden have explained the situation at length to
> you. Here it is again in case you have forgotten:
>
> ROL wants to do Select for the Iyonix
> ROL tried to do Select for the Iyonix
> ROL discovered it couldn't get Select for the Iyonix to work properly
> ROL asked Castle for some assistance
> Castle asked for thousands of pounds
> ROL couldn't justify Castle's price due to the limited potential
> market
> ROL carried on anyway and got stuck
My memory is excellent, and thank you for your summary of but one
possible approach to the problem, but I too have replied at length, and
in rather more (I think) technical detail about flaws with your
explantions to date; possible realistic approaches and why your
explanations fail when examined closely by experienced developers. Most
of what I've said has (AFAIK) been ignored. That doesn't make it
magically go away.
> Anything else you "point out" is speculation at best and
> FUD at worst.
Tell me again, since I seem to have missed it - what am I speculating
about? Yes, it's most certainly true that for any large software
project I must make guesses about how things must work (based upon
experienced with 1000s of pieces of software) since it's not realistic
to understand everything in detail, by to apply that to RISC OS is
disingeneous.
I've pointed out, and will "point out" again, as evidenced by a very
real example that some amount of Select functionality is possible on
RISC OS 5 with a straightfoward approach.
Also, what is this FUD you suggest? At best, I'm trying to increase the
certaintly, suggest different ways forward.
> ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
And so the claim goes on. I ask one more time - what is this magical
information that ROL lacks? RISC OS 5 in structure is nothing
mysterious - it is likely very very close to RISC OS 4 which ROL has
considerable experience with. None of the hardware (except the NVidia
initialisation) is even remotely secret (Omega even has the same
southbridge IIRC).
On the other side of the coin - has ROL openly asked for help of any
RISC OS developers in resolving issues it has, or doing any of the work
free/cheaply? I remind you of my offer of advice (bearing in mind that
I do have other things to do which most would deem more important for
RISC OS).
> Now I have spent all day at Wakefield. I've come home, and I've just
> been issuing unlock codes. As such I am very tired and I
> find myself yet again having to explain things to you.
> Now will you please read and understabd what I have said.
I understand well. But you haven't said a great deal. And I remind you
of your statement about the limits of your technical ability.
Also, I'd like clarification over Chris's renewal letter - the
statements in it condradict what you say above. I presume that this is
purely due to some outdated boilerplate oversight - but in any case,
it's certainly misleading.
Jess
ups.com>
Aaron <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip no select on Iyonix]
> ROL carried on anyway and got stuck
> ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
The flaw in this logic is that you are saying we can't do it all, so
we won't do anything.
Select has loads of enhancements over RO 5. They can't all rely on
replacing the core OS.
Most iyonix users are likely to have a second RISC OS machine (or
emulator), while they wouldn't justify Select for just a second
machine, if some (and progressively increasing) components worked with
the Iyonix, then it would be different.
--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Adam
> On Apr 26, 3:07?pm, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > In message <gemini.jzxm3k000c8r403rs....@magray.freeserve.co.uk>
> > ? ? ? ? ? Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > [select for iyonix]
> >
> > > Yes, but ROL can't do it without cooperation from Castle - which
> > > doesn't seem to have been forthcoming.
> >
> > And so back to the original rhetoric. ?Which cooperation - i.e,
> > information has not been forthcoming? ?In any case, I've already
> > pointed out that not a whole lot, or anything is required from
> > Castle. ?Some from ROOL would help certainly (and be best for
> > coordination), but wouldn't be critical.
>
> Peter, are you actually serving a purpose here? Both myself and Dave
> Holden have explained the situation at length to you.
I've found Peter's postings in this thread quite clear and constructive.
As I've read it, he's been trying to nail down the /specifics/ about the
situation.
> [snip]
> ROL carried on anyway [on Select for Iyonix] and got stuck
> ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
This is a good example of some unspecific statements and I can quite
see why Peter called stuff like this "rhetoric".
Adam
--
Adam Richardson Carpe Diem
http://www.snowstone.org.uk/riscos/
Ray Dawson
> > [snip]
> > ROL carried on anyway [on Select for Iyonix] and got stuck
> > ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
>
> This is a good example of some unspecific statements and I can quite
> see why Peter called stuff like this "rhetoric".
I actually found Aaron's statements very clear and concise, and certainly
not rhetoric.
ROL have tried to provide a version of Select for Iyonix without any help
from Castle, even though it was asked. Thery got to a point where they can
go no further without information and/or help from Castle.
Aaron said it in a few less words. What more do you want him to say?
Cheers,
Ray D
John Cartmell
Adam <ne...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:
> > ROL carried on anyway [on Select for Iyonix] and got stuck
> > ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
> This is a good example of some unspecific statements and I can quite
> see why Peter called stuff like this "rhetoric".
It appears to me to be far more specific than you might reasonably demand of a
company regarding company to company discussions. Had Peter prefaced his
comments with something like "Are you able to tell us more about ..." then
there would be no quibble. As it appeared to be more like "You're lying ..."
then it really is not appropriate to call Peter's comments 'constructive'.
As I have long understood the situation ROL can do the work (at a cost that is
unlikely to be recovered directly) with support from Castle. It may be that
such support is minor. Alternatively they could do the work without Castle's
help at great expense that could not possibly be recovered directly or
indirectly. I don't *know* Castle's reasoning in all this but have made a
couple of what might be described as informed guesses. Castle haven't come
under public pressure on this as a number of commentators on this and other
forums have loudly claimed that the fault is entirely with ROL - and been
quite abusive when some have suggested that might not be the case.
--
John
Gavin Wraith
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Adam <ne...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
> > > ROL carried on anyway [on Select for Iyonix] and got stuck
> > > ROL is now waiting for information it does not have.
> >
> > This is a good example of some unspecific statements and I can quite
> > see why Peter called stuff like this "rhetoric".
>
> I actually found Aaron's statements very clear and concise, and certainly
> not rhetoric.
>
> ROL have tried to provide a version of Select for Iyonix without any help
> from Castle, even though it was asked. Thery got to a point where they can
> go no further without information and/or help from Castle.
>
> Aaron said it in a few less words. What more do you want him to say?
I do not think Peter was complaining about Aaron's clarity or his
conciseness. He was complaining that his statements were not specific.
I myself am not complaininmg about anything, but I am curious to know
about what sort of information Castle was reluctant to give out without
oodles of cash, and which parts of Select ROL cannot implement on
the Iyonix in consequence. I suggest that others might also like to
know.
That is the "more" that _I_ would be grateful to hear. Maybe this information
has already been given out. If so, I apologize for suggesting by my
ill-informed request that it has not. Perhaps some of the previous
communications on this thread have been misinterpreted or have invited
misinterpretation because they were insufficiently explicit themselves.
I hope these words, which I have read through more than twice, will
cause no offence to anybody involved in the thread.
--
Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
druck
> Unless it has changed they can't release all the sources, since they
> don't own all the rights to all the OS, and need other peoples
> permission before they can etc.. Steve Revill himself admitted this
> when he visited the club last year, they were working on trying to get
> permission from some parties with mixed success if I remember rightly
Everything in RISC OS 5 except for the NVidia driver is now available
and can be built in to a functioning ROM image, according to the guys
when I spoke to them yesterday.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
druck
> And so back to the original rhetoric. Which cooperation - i.e,
> information has not been forthcoming? In any case, I've already pointed
> out that not a whole lot, or anything is required from Castle. Some
> from ROOL would help certainly (and be best for coordination), but
> wouldn't be critical.
Well here's a little competition. ROOL have now made available the
entire buildable RO5 ROM image apart from the NVidia driver and the
HAL. Therefor it is in a condition where with a suitable HAL it could
run on a RISC PC. Lets see if anyone can write a RISC PC HAL before
ROL do whatever they need to do to Select to get it to run on the
Iyonix. It should be roughly comparable in terms of difficulty and
effort.
Peter Naulls
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2008 Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > And so back to the original rhetoric. Which cooperation - i.e,
> > information has not been forthcoming? In any case, I've already pointed
> > out that not a whole lot, or anything is required from Castle. Some
> > from ROOL would help certainly (and be best for coordination), but
> > wouldn't be critical.
>
> Well here's a little competition. ROOL have now made available the
> entire buildable RO5 ROM image apart from the NVidia driver and the
> HAL. Therefor it is in a condition where with a suitable HAL it could
> run on a RISC PC. Lets see if anyone can write a RISC PC HAL before
> ROL do whatever they need to do to Select to get it to run on the
> Iyonix. It should be roughly comparable in terms of difficulty and
> effort.
Hm, not sure why you'd say that. The RPC HAL at least partially exists
(AFAIK), and several people will be able to work on it. And I think
technically it is considerably less challenging by an order of magnitude
or more. Moreover, there's actual motivation for it to be done ;-)
What's a little less clear to me is the situation with the video support
for the RiscPC - obviously VIDC support exists, but how that fits into
the RISC OS 5 setup, I don't know.
I'm still waiting for the latest sources to appear on the site, but all
in good time, I'm sure.
Simon Challands
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I actually found Aaron's statements very clear and concise, and certainly
> not rhetoric.
>
> ROL have tried to provide a version of Select for Iyonix without any help
> from Castle, even though it was asked. Thery got to a point where they can
> go no further without information and/or help from Castle.
>
> Aaron said it in a few less words. What more do you want him to say?
What it is that's actually causing these problems for ROL is what
Peter appears to want. All I've heard is that "ROL needed / asked for
help" repeated time and time again in response to questions along the
lines of "Hmm, can't think what should be causing the problems, would
you elaborate?" What is the unknown aspect of the Iyonix that's
throwing a boulder in the way of progressing on this? Of course help
from Castle would no doubt make the job easier, but as far as I can
tell from this thread we're none the closer to knowing why progress is
impossible without it.
--
Simon Challands
charles
> <pe...@chocky.org> enlightened us thusly:
> > At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
> > another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line or
> > "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
> I asked Paul Middleton point blank at the Wakefield Show and he said,
> "it's not going to happen",
I'm also pretty sure he also said that at Guildford last autumn in answer
to a question during his theatre presentation.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Tim Powys-Lybbe
And I would swear that I heard him say the same at some other show.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Peter Naulls
Simon Challands <simon_...@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:
> What it is that's actually causing these problems for ROL is what
> Peter appears to want. All I've heard is that "ROL needed / asked for
> help" repeated time and time again in response to questions
[snip summary]
Yes, essentially - that is the major question. But for the sake of
clarity, I'd like to outline in one place my contentions:
* As you've said, we don't know what this missing information is.
* The Select renewal letter says:
"...as we hope to make some Select features available to Iyonix users
during 2008"
Which might be in good faith, but it's been the same line for the last
5 years, and since Aaron insists they are in fact stuck and with PM's
statements about "never going to happen", this is more than a bit
misleading.
* Select modularity. I know from considerable 1st hand experience and
information (apart from ROL crowing about it) that much modularity was
added to Select (which I think it great). This is contrary to the
situation of an "all (or considerable portions thereof) or nothing"
approach which ROL have insisted is required for Select on Iyonix.
* It's _already_ possible, even assuming there is information missing to
make some partial Select functionality work on RISC OS 5 - this was
demonstrated long ago with a real (albeit not 100% feature complete)
example. e.g, the standard RISC OS apps. In fact, this is as much as
many Iyonix users asked for.
* Aaron says that to make just Paint work on Iyonix requires 40% of
Select to work on Iyonix. This is an understandable figure, but
it implies 100% Paint functionality, which isn't required straight
away, and again contradicts the modularity sitation. Finally,
it's not even remotely exhastive of the list of technical approaches,
which include further decoupling, optional features (runtime or
compile time), reoraganisation, and finally, realistic goals.
* Aaron states (this might be a paraphrase) that he reached the
limits of his expertise. Understandable also, but I don't
believe at any time that ROL have asked for developers to
come forward and help them.
* Most importantly, the task isn't going to be easy. I don't want
anyone to be under that impression.
In some ways, it'd be better if ROL (all representatives thereof) to say
they weren't going to do it - at least, any time soon (I don't want them
to commit to a 'never'). This isn't the perfect approach, but it would
go some way towards clearing the air, and make the way forward clearer
for developers using the ROOL source.
Steve Fryatt
<1c5fcc9...@jdp.westcairn.net>:
> In message <4f95b4a...@triffid.co.uk>
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't have an Iyonix.
> > I would get one ASAP if Select was avalable for it.
>
> H'm. So Why is it ROL's responsibility (the implicit assumption
> throughout this thread) to do something about it? Its a Castle machine
> and a Castle OS.
Aside from anything else, RISCOS Ltd are the ones trying to get developers
using RISC OS 5 to support the new features of Select. Making their OS as
widely available as possible is the only way that new features of RISC OS
6 will be taken on board in new software.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Steven Pampling
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Had Peter prefaced his comments with something like "Are you able to
> tell us more about ..." then there would be no quibble. As it appeared
> to be more like "You're lying ..." then it really is not appropriate to
> call Peter's comments 'constructive'.
Do give it a rest John.
The implication that Peter was implying that someone was lying is not
constructive.
Actually I've not seen anything you've put out recently that has been
constructive, so just give everything a rest eh?
On topic - what seems necessary is that ROL either:
1. State they aren't going to develop a Select version for the Iyonix
or
2. State what problem items exist as a barrier to producing a Select
version for the Iyonix in any shortish period.
It may well be that what they perceive as a problem in option 2 can
actually be resolved by one of the developers that read these groups.
Unless I misread something really badly that was what Peter has been saying
for some while. He isn't alone.
--
Steve Pampling
Steffen Huber
> In message <IsoQj.3325$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
[huge snip]
>> Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
>> some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
>> release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
>> version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
>> and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
[snip]
> Seems to me a very good way to kill the rest of the commercial market
> dead. But who cares anymore. :-(
I think it is worth discussing these thoughts, scenarios and fears
in a broader context as well as developing a "vision" for the
future of RISC OS.
I can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed in the future, mainly
because available ARM implementations are not powerful enough and cost
is high due to small production numbers. The existing solutions are
too expensive and too slow to attract new users and even convince
current RPC users to upgrade.
Even a port to existing ARM hardware is rather unlikely, and if it
will be done, it will be of limited interest for the desktop
(i.e. "classic RISC OS") market.
So we will have to stick to emulation for the forseeable future.
Like it or not, the computer market has changed a lot in recent
years. Many people now expect "free" solutions, especially for
trying out things and for hobbyist things. To be able to
interest new (and perhaps ex-) developers for RISC OS, it is
absolutely essential to provide a no-cost solution to RISC OS.
If such a solution is not available, users will go somewhere
else.
If the lowest cost entry is V-RPC (79 UKP), it is very likely
that this is a high entry barrier for many people and potential
developers. Please note that I am not saying that VA-RPC is too
expensive for what it does - I bought it a long time ago and I
think it is worth every penny. However, it is an old (and
often working) strategy to provide something for free, and
offering a better solution for money.
So consider a situation where a free RISC OS solution like
Peter's suggested RPCemu + RO5 exists. This does not mean that
all reasons buying V-RPC suddenly vanish. V-RPC has features
not found in RPCemu, it comes as a well-bundled package, and
you get commercial-quality support for it. I expect people
who just want to "use" RISC OS on their PC/Mac will still buy
V-RPC or one of the more advanced versions (which will have
Adjust/Select features exclusively btw).
So maybe a few new customers (and customers who are p*ssed off
with V-RPC pseudo copy protection) will no longer buy V-RPC
for the only reason that it is the only solution that exists,
but will use the "no cost" solution instead.
But this will also lead to many positive effects for the market,
especially in the long term:
- more customers for commercial software developers
- more customers for VirtualAcorn - it is a lot easier
to convince someone to upgrade to a better solution than
to buy something completely new!
- more developers for RISC OS, both apps and the OS itself
- more competition for VA, leading to a better product
- more potential for cool products utilizing the underlying
OS of RPCemu
So coming back to your "good way to kill the rest of the
commercial market dead", possible negative effects are
restricted to VirtualAcorn (if they are not capable of
convincing customers that their product is "value for
money") and RISCOS Ltd (if they keep doing nothing for
RO5 users).
Frankly, I can live with this risk considering those
many positive aspects.
[snip]
Steffen
--
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
John Cartmell
Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
> I can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed in the future, mainly
> because available ARM implementations are not powerful enough and cost
> is high due to small production numbers. The existing solutions are
> too expensive and too slow to attract new users and even convince
> current RPC users to upgrade.
> Even a port to existing ARM hardware is rather unlikely, and if it
> will be done, it will be of limited interest for the desktop
> (i.e. "classic RISC OS") market.
> So we will have to stick to emulation for the forseeable future.
That may seem reasonable to you - but it is not logical. Just because *you*
can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed does *not* mean that it won't
be developed. I can see new hardware being developed - but the 'free' options
that Chris worries about may well make that possibility less likely to happen.
I'm not worried because I don't think there is much (or any) chance that the
'free' options will surface in a quality that will pose a challenge - but I do
see Chris' worry as more reasonable than your pessimism.
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Chris Hughes
Chris Wraight <no.email@please> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:54:28 +0100, Chris Hughes
> <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
>>> some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
>>> release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
>>> version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
>>> and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
> [snip technicalities of releasing full OS source]
>>Seems to me a very good way to kill the rest of the commercial market
>>dead. But who cares anymore. :-(
> I don't agree. There will probably always be those who prefer
> commercial software with all its advantages (support, presentation,
> ease of use) and those who prefer free versions with all *its*
> advantages (larger developer pool, access to open-source libraries,
> cheapness). IMO, the two best pieces of software for RISC OS, NetSurf
> and ArtWorks, show that it's possible to make both models work.
Sorry about not responding sooner, as you can probably guess been
rather a busy few days for me!
I can see your point. I just see some people posting oh don't buy this
get the free stuff, so in my eyes it does not encourage developers in
the commercial side.
> I care about RISC OS, and I'm sure you do too really ;-) Frankly, I
> think there's lots of reasons to be optimistic. The fact that *both*
> RPCEmu/ROOL and VRPC/RO6 are being developed strikes me as cause for
> celebration.
Oh I care about RISC Os, but am becoming more and more disillusioned,
because of the split and the on going attacks. It is and has done harm
to the remaining market.
> [snip]
>>> The big difference here is that although Select has many of the
>>> more desirable features, it's controlled by a small number of
>>> people. RO5 at least is potentially open to many more people with
>>> different ideas about what ought to be done, and immediately
>>> able to make some of the changes themselves - especially so
>>> with an emulator release above.
>>
>>Hopefully I have this wrong, but reading the above implies to me you
>>would be happy for a number of companies in the RISC OS market to
>>close since you would remove their market with your "FREE" OS
>>emulator.
> Again, I think the implication is unwarranted. Having a free,
> RO5-based solution will hopefully tempt ex-RISC OS developers back to
> the platform who would otherwise baulk at VRPC's cost. I doubt it will
> tempt many 'natural' VRPC customers away, though, since an open-source
> OS solution is likely to be less user-friendly and presentatinally
> polished than the more established commercial offerings for some time.
Thats a far comment, I would tend to agree with it.
> Chris
--
Chris Hughes
Don't miss the Wakefield Show - 26th April - www.wakefieldshow.org.uk
Chris Hughes
John Pearson <j...@westcairn.net> wrote:
> In message <4f95b4a...@triffid.co.uk>
> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>> I don't have an Iyonix.
>> I would get one ASAP if Select was avalable for it.
> H'm. So Why is it ROL's responsibility (the implicit assumption
> throughout this thread) to do something about it? Its a Castle machine
> and a Castle OS.
That is something I have wondered about and one answer I got along
time ago now from someone at Castle/Iyonix, is they don't want it,
because they would somehow not make as much money.
Me, I would have thought it would have been to their benefit....
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Chris Hughes wrote:
>> In message <IsoQj.3325$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
>> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Hughes wrote:
>>>> In message <_znQj.3319$26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
>>>> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> At this point, I'd just like ROL to make a commitment one way or
>>>>> another, and quit with the bogus "not enough information" line
>>>>> or "we're committed to all RISC OS computers" rhetoric.
>>>> Just got my select renewal letter and in it, it says "...as we hope to
>>>> make some Select features available to Iyonix users during 2008"
>>>>
>>>> Seems something is happening.
>>
>>> Unless that post-dates recent statements by David Holden and
>>> Aaron, I rather doubt it. I fear it is more of the same
>>> rhetoric. Of course, I'd welcome statements from ROL
>>> to the contrary.
>>
>> Its dated 21st April 2008
> Yes, your letter may be, but the Iyonix stuff may be boiler
> plate that is older. In any case, the statements from DH
> and Aaron are to the contrary.
>> Note they said "some" not all. Whereas I think Aaron was on about a
>> full Select version (excluding the obvious hardware driver bits I
>> assume).
> Aaron has asserted that most/all of Select must exist on the Iyonix
> for it to make any kind of sense. I've remonstrated that that is
> not the case. This makes the statement on your letter all the
> more contrary with the current situation, and why I welcome
> firm statements from ROL.
I can fully understand that.
>>> Well, maybe I can answer that in part. A "full release" is likely
>>> some considerable time away, and probably first depends upon full
>>> release of the RISC OS 5 sources. At which point I imagine a RiscPC
>>> version will shortly follow - this should immediately work on RPCEmu,
>>> and then a full free RISC OS + Emulator + ROM distribution can be made.
>>
>> Unless it has changed they can't release all the sources, since they
>> don't own all the rights to all the OS, and need other peoples
>> permission before they can etc.. Steve Revill himself admitted this
>> when he visited the club last year, they were working on trying to get
>> permission from some parties with mixed success if I remember rightly
> Yes, but that was some time ago and things change. Some bits
> might have to be redone - exactly what, I don't know, but I don't
> believe from what he's mentioned that there is anything substantial.
> RISCOS_Lib is one of the obvious pieces that was missing and that is
> coming along:
> http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/2/topics/125
> This is but one reference.
OK if that the case we will have to see what happens then.
>> Seems to me a very good way to kill the rest of the commercial market
>> dead. But who cares anymore. :-(
> A broad, and not very helpful statement. Work of MW, RComp and
> more broadly, myself, will likely be enhanced by the further opening
> of RO5 source. If you're talking about ROL specifically, then
> they have long since dug themselves a hole (all IMO) and that
> isn't going to change unless something radical occurs.
I don't entirely agree with this, but lets just agree to diagree on
this and see what happens. :-)
>>> In addition, users like myself who only have 5.11 will able to be
>>> able to softload (or perhaps flash) 5.13 or so.
>>
>> I assuming here you mean non-commercial version supported only by the
>> programmers and not by Iyonix Ltd? I say this because Jack when he
>> came to see us late last year said he did not expect another Full OS 5
>> release to come from them (as commercial quality anyway).
> Presumably supported by ROOL or indeed RISC OS developers. I don't
> think that question matters much as long as there's some degree of
> coordination over versions, etc. I can say that is likely that
> some ROOL components will be offered as RiscPkg packages, which
> will certainly help this.
The use of RiscPkg would certainly help agreed, I am just concerned at
the level of support that is likely to be needed to be provided for
those users who just download a patch or say 'new' version of Draw and
then install it on a select machine for instance for some reason, what
happens then. Who sorts it. End users need there hands holding on
these sorts of thing and this cost money usually.
>> Hopefully I have this wrong, but reading the above implies to me you
>> would be happy for a number of companies in the RISC OS market to
>> close since you would remove their market with your "FREE" OS
>> emulator.
> Whether or not I want it, I think, is not really material (and
> no, I don't). But such a release is in any case very likely to
> occur, since many people do want it (emulator, not company
> demise), and it might just lead to a revitalisation of RISC OS.
> Many people want to try it, but are barred by the emulation
> situation with ROMs and having to purchase something relatively
> expensive just for a trial.
> I certainly don't believe that the model that ROL/VA have in
> place is the only business model - indeed, it is one which
> increasingly become old fashioned, nor do I believe that
> the market for VA/RO6 is going to vanish over night, but I might
> hope it'd be something of a wake up call to a desperately
> cloistered market.
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on this.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In message <gemini.jzxm3k0...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>
> Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dave Symes <da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Last time I checked, Select belonged to ROL. Did you mean something
>>>> else? It's ROL's "responsibility" because they've been saying for
>>>> the last several years that they wanted to do such a project. If
>>>> that's no longer true, then they should let us know.
>>>
>>> Indeedy, I've subscribed to Select RO since the beginning, and I was
>>> under the distinct impression, from postings by RO Ltd a year or two
>>> ago, that they were up for the job, and that some of the changes being
>>> introduced, post RO 4.39 were to make the job possible.
>>
>> Yes, but ROL can't do it without cooperation from Castle - which doesn't
>> seem to have been forthcoming.
> And so back to the original rhetoric. Which cooperation - i.e,
> information has not been forthcoming? In any case, I've already pointed
> out that not a whole lot, or anything is required from Castle. Some
> from ROOL would help certainly (and be best for coordination), but
> wouldn't be critical.
The latest batch release from ROOL might indeed help, but it will then
be subject to the commercial licence (of which AFAIK and last time I
checked the Castle website via the ROOL links there was note on the
website saying it coming sometime) I believe at least three people
have posted recently saying they have been asking for details from
Castle of wht the terms of the commercial licence would be and got no
where!
--
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls
> In message <0dpQj.525$506...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
>> Presumably supported by ROOL or indeed RISC OS developers. I don't
>> think that question matters much as long as there's some degree of
>> coordination over versions, etc. I can say that is likely that
>> some ROOL components will be offered as RiscPkg packages, which
>> will certainly help this.
>
> The use of RiscPkg would certainly help agreed, I am just concerned at
> the level of support that is likely to be needed to be provided for
> those users who just download a patch or say 'new' version of Draw and
> then install it on a select machine for instance for some reason, what
> happens then. Who sorts it. End users need there hands holding on
> these sorts of thing and this cost money usually.
Such things working on a Select machine are probably without issue,
but an interested developer might have to do some work if not. In
any case, no one's required to use software that don't perceive
as "official". Even so, both ROL and Castle quite reasonably did
and still do rely heavily on their user bases for peer support. So
not that much has changed in terms of support for most users.
Steffen Huber
> In article <67m29sF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> I can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed in the future, mainly
>> because available ARM implementations are not powerful enough and cost
>> is high due to small production numbers. The existing solutions are
>> too expensive and too slow to attract new users and even convince
>> current RPC users to upgrade.
>
>> Even a port to existing ARM hardware is rather unlikely, and if it
>> will be done, it will be of limited interest for the desktop
>> (i.e. "classic RISC OS") market.
>
>> So we will have to stick to emulation for the forseeable future.
>
> That may seem reasonable to you - but it is not logical.
It is both reasonable and logical for the reasons I mentioned which
you quoted above. It does not mean that it can't happen.
> Just because *you*
> can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed does *not* mean that it won't
> be developed.
This is true, but it doesn't change anything I have said. And it is
certainly not an option to wait
> I can see new hardware being developed - but the 'free' options
> that Chris worries about may well make that possibility less likely to happen.
Sorry, this is not logical. Whether the 'free' option exists or not,
new hardware is going to compete with an emulation solution. Compared
to the likely price of hardware+RISC OS (based on past experience
like the IYONIX pc or the A9home), the price for commercial emulation
is very small, so having a completely free solution does not change
this price gap significantly.
V-RPC is 80 UKP, the A9home is 600 UKP. You see my point?
> I'm not worried because I don't think there is much (or any) chance that the
> 'free' options will surface in a quality that will pose a challenge
Pose a challenge to what? I am sure that the quality of a 'free'
solution will be good enough for many users. I think it is comparable
to the situation we have e.g. with R-Comp's PDFmaker vs.
GhostScript/PrintPDF. Different things for different people, but
enough of an overlap to appeal to the same users.
> - but I do
> see Chris' worry as more reasonable than your pessimism.
Pessimism? I thought it was a very optimistic post. Just not for the
idea of developing and manufacturing hardware to run RISC OS. For
which it was realistic and largely agnostic.
Chris Hughes
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <67m29sF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> I can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed in the future, mainly
>> because available ARM implementations are not powerful enough and cost
>> is high due to small production numbers. The existing solutions are
>> too expensive and too slow to attract new users and even convince
>> current RPC users to upgrade.
>> Even a port to existing ARM hardware is rather unlikely, and if it
>> will be done, it will be of limited interest for the desktop
>> (i.e. "classic RISC OS") market.
>> So we will have to stick to emulation for the forseeable future.
> That may seem reasonable to you - but it is not logical. Just because *you*
> can't see new RISC OS hardware being developed does *not* mean that it won't
> be developed. I can see new hardware being developed - but the 'free' options
> that Chris worries about may well make that possibility less likely to
> happen.
> I'm not worried because I don't think there is much (or any) chance that the
> 'free' options will surface in a quality that will pose a challenge -
> but I do
> see Chris' worry as more reasonable than your pessimism.
Sadly I don't see any new RISC OS hardware ever appearing simply
because the market is now probably too small (except as a lucky
spin-off from some other OEM work - like the A9home - which is our
newest real RISC OS hardware computer - even this is now 2 years old,
the Iyonix and Omega older still.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Wraight
<ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
[snip discussion of open source vs commercial products]
>I can see your point. I just see some people posting oh don't buy this
>get the free stuff, so in my eyes it does not encourage developers in
>the commercial side.
I certainly didn't take that message away from, e.g., Peter and
Steffen's recent posts here. Commercial publishers need to develop
stuff that people are prepared to pay for. If they do, it will sell.
If they don't, then free products will be produced to fill the gap. In
fact, I think the free software guys have recently been much better
than the commercial crowd at spotting the relevant gaps in RISC OS
coverage and filling them. If a genuinely capable commercial browser
existed, I doubt we'd have got NetSurf and Firefox. Similarly, if a
genuinely capable hardware solution existed, the momentum for
VRPC/RPCEmu would be much less.
>Oh I care about RISC Os, but am becoming more and more disillusioned,
>because of the split and the on going attacks. It is and has done harm
>to the remaining market.
I sympathise! The attacks are annoying. But, with a couple of
predictable exceptions, things seem more cordial now than they've been
for a while. And feedback from Wakefield has been uniformly good. So
(a) it looks like there is hope (to me), and (b) that your efforts
continue to instrumental in helping the community out. That's all good
stuff.
Cheers,
Chris
Doug Webb
Chris Wraight <no.email@please> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:55:53 +0100, Chris Hughes
> <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>Oh I care about RISC Os, but am becoming more and more disillusioned,
>>because of the split and the on going attacks. It is and has done harm
>>to the remaining market.
> I sympathise! The attacks are annoying. But, with a couple of
> predictable exceptions, things seem more cordial now than they've been
> for a while. And feedback from Wakefield has been uniformly good. So
> (a) it looks like there is hope (to me), and (b) that your efforts
> continue to instrumental in helping the community out. That's all good
> stuff.
> Cheers,
> Chris
I second this in that I saw a lot of interesting and positive things
about the show.
In addition I must say the support that the likes of Chris and the
rest of WROCC gave in again mounting the show must not go unnoticed.
With out their efforts we would be left with the impressions that are
left by some newsgroup postings so it's great to be able to go see ,
listen and discuss with a lot of the community.
Personally I think there is a place for "free" and commercial stuff
still and as long as they enhance or compliment each other then this
is fine.
--
Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative
operating system to Microsoft Windows.
John Cartmell
But our resident pessimist agreed with you! ;-)
Agree to differ. If the hardware appears you can buy me one ... ;-)
Chris Hughes
Chris Wraight <no.email@please> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:55:53 +0100, Chris Hughes
> <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip discussion of open source vs commercial products]
>>I can see your point. I just see some people posting oh don't buy this
>>get the free stuff, so in my eyes it does not encourage developers in
>>the commercial side.
> I certainly didn't take that message away from, e.g., Peter and
> Steffen's recent posts here. Commercial publishers need to develop
> stuff that people are prepared to pay for. If they do, it will sell.
> If they don't, then free products will be produced to fill the gap. In
> fact, I think the free software guys have recently been much better
> than the commercial crowd at spotting the relevant gaps in RISC OS
> coverage and filling them. If a genuinely capable commercial browser
> existed, I doubt we'd have got NetSurf and Firefox. Similarly, if a
> genuinely capable hardware solution existed, the momentum for
> VRPC/RPCEmu would be much less.
While I take you point on the browser front especially, oddly enough
if I do websurf on the RISCOS side of things (getting less and less),
its with Oregano 1 and sometimes Netsurf. Otherwise I use Ubiserver to
open the webpage links in Firefox on the PC across the network.
Sadly I honestly don't see any new RISC OS hardware come soon.
My comments were more aimed at some people who even thought we have a
freeware/shareware version of something available promptly seem to
attack a commercial version doing a similar job being released
intended for real end users (i.e. non-techies / anoraks types!).
It is simply not good enough for people to keep being told to open up
this configuration text file or edit this !Run file etc. - its all
techie stuff, not for end users and these are the people we need to
get back into the market. Its a big turnoff.
>>Oh I care about RISC Os, but am becoming more and more disillusioned,
>>because of the split and the on going attacks. It is and has done harm
>>to the remaining market.
> I sympathise! The attacks are annoying. But, with a couple of
> predictable exceptions, things seem more cordial now than they've been
> for a while. And feedback from Wakefield has been uniformly good. So
> (a) it looks like there is hope (to me), and (b) that your efforts
> continue to instrumental in helping the community out. That's all good
> stuff.
Well I am asking for more feedback in another thread as well.
--
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls
>
> My comments were more aimed at some people who even thought we have a
> freeware/shareware version of something available promptly seem to
> attack a commercial version doing a similar job being released
> intended for real end users (i.e. non-techies / anoraks types!).
I'm not sure when the last time any shareware was released for
RISC OS.
> It is simply not good enough for people to keep being told to open up
> this configuration text file or edit this !Run file etc. - its all
> techie stuff, not for end users and these are the people we need to
> get back into the market. Its a big turnoff.
Perhaps you underestimate the amount of time taken for final polish
to be put on products - it can sometimes take just as long as the
actual core development. If you want shiny programs, then you
need to find more developers than we have. And pay a lot
more to get it done. Right now, you're getting something
for nothing.
_And_ we need to strongly move away from the hackery, wheel
reinvention, and fly by night programming that is prevalent
in the RISC OS market.
In any case, we've been saying for a long time that properly
packaging stuff in fact solves many of the present manual
processes that are present.
Theo Markettos
> The latest batch release from ROOL might indeed help, but it will then
> be subject to the commercial licence (of which AFAIK and last time I
> checked the Castle website via the ROOL links there was note on the
> website saying it coming sometime) I believe at least three people
> have posted recently saying they have been asking for details from
> Castle of wht the terms of the commercial licence would be and got no
> where!
In 2003 I was speccing up single board computers for a product at the
company I was working for. Volume was a few thousand units a year - not
huge, but a reasonable number. I phoned Castle to ask for information about
their Neuron board. They said they'd send something. Nothing arrived.
Meanwhile the competition had salesmen who visited with samples and let us
play with the product. Their product was in the same price range and better
specced. Guess who got the order?
Theo
John Cartmell
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> It is simply not good enough for people to keep being told to open up
> this configuration text file or edit this !Run file etc. - its all
> techie stuff, not for end users and these are the people we need to
> get back into the market. Its a big turnoff.
Agreed.
It's possible to make many things much more simple - but as soon as someone
(R-Comp) does that they get a bunch of critical responses from techies.
Rob Kendrick
> In 2003 I was speccing up single board computers for a product at the
> company I was working for. Volume was a few thousand units a year - not
> huge, but a reasonable number. I phoned Castle to ask for information
> about their Neuron board. They said they'd send something. Nothing
> arrived.
What ever happened about this? Has anybody actually ever seen one? What
were its unique selling points that something from people like Simtec or
Digilent?
B.
druck
[snip]
> the A9home - which is our newest real RISC OS hardware computer - even
> this is now 2 years old
2? I seem to remmeber quite a few Wakefields since it first appeared.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Aaron
The USP was that it didn't work.
Aaron
Rob Kendrick
> The USP was that it didn't work.
I'll take ten!
B.
Alex' A. Interrants
Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> hat geschrieben:
[snip]
>> I can see new hardware being developed - but the 'free' options
>> that Chris worries about may well make that possibility less likely to
>> happen.
>
> Sorry, this is not logical. Whether the 'free' option exists or not,
> new hardware is going to compete with an emulation solution. Compared
> to the likely price of hardware+RISC OS (based on past experience
> like the IYONIX pc or the A9home), the price for commercial emulation
> is very small, so having a completely free solution does not change
> this price gap significantly.
>
> V-RPC is 80 UKP, the A9home is 600 UKP. You see my point?
V-RPC doesn't run itself. You have to get a computer for it, too. I
think for security reasons there is a small gap for original hardware
for RISC OS because of "background problems" of emulated software.
Still means when the skeleton OS shoots up the system V-RPC is broken,
too.
Today people are often saturated because of consumption. There "are"
people who are looking more and more for quality and no more only for
the price. Catch them.
[snip]
A.
--
Venusberg, Upper Bavaria
British A7000+ (computer) running RISC OS 4.39 Adjust (OS)
Portrait & email: http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/
Steven Pampling
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Perhaps you underestimate the amount of time taken for final polish
> to be put on products - it can sometimes take just as long as the
> actual core development.
Everyone underestimates.
I can put together what I label as rough arsed scripts at work that do the
job - provided I'm driving them.
No one seems to understand why altering them to something anyone can use
takes me 5 times longer (or more).
I will just briefly mention the managerial comment "well it's just a few
buttons so it can't take long" that had one of my colleagues ready to rip
heads off.
--
Steve Pampling
Steffen Huber
> In der Nachricht <67m98nF...@mid.individual.net>
> Steffen Huber <sp...@huber-net.de> hat geschrieben:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I can see new hardware being developed - but the 'free' options
>>> that Chris worries about may well make that possibility less likely to
>>> happen.
>> Sorry, this is not logical. Whether the 'free' option exists or not,
>> new hardware is going to compete with an emulation solution. Compared
>> to the likely price of hardware+RISC OS (based on past experience
>> like the IYONIX pc or the A9home), the price for commercial emulation
>> is very small, so having a completely free solution does not change
>> this price gap significantly.
>>
>> V-RPC is 80 UKP, the A9home is 600 UKP. You see my point?
>
> V-RPC doesn't run itself. You have to get a computer for it, too.
An educated guess of the percentage of RISC OS users who happen to
also own and/or use x86 hardware is 99%.
I am in that position since around 1996, when it became too
frustrating to use the Risc PC's PC card solution.
I don't think you will find many users today who are exclusively
using a RISC OS machine. And if they do, how many will favour one
of the native solutions against x86+emu?
In 2002, there were good reasons to buy an IYONIX compared to
an x86+emu machine. 6 years later, the unique selling points of
an IYONIX are much harder to find.
> Today people are often saturated because of consumption. There "are"
> people who are looking more and more for quality and no more only for
> the price. Catch them.
The problem with this approach is that you can't provide a better
level of certain important kinds of "quality" when using native
RISC OS systems: two crucial ones like portability and performance
immediately spring to my mind. Compatibility with hardware devices
is another.
Chris Evans
>
> Everyone underestimates.
> I can put together what I label as rough arsed scripts at work that do the
> job - provided I'm driving them.
> No one seems to understand why altering them to something anyone can use
> takes me 5 times longer (or more).
If you include documentation I'd say 10 fold.
I remember one of our first customers for an A310 needed to transfer some
data from a BBC.
Whilst he stood over me I wrote a comms program 10-20 lines of BASIC for
both server and client, so about 15 minutes.
It then took me a full day to include error trapping on screen messages and
brief documentation.
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Chris Evans
<URL:mailto:sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
> An educated guess of the percentage of RISC OS users who happen to
> also own and/or use x86 hardware is 99%.
From talking to customers I'd say about 20% only have access to RISC OS ARM
hardware. About 60-75% have access to x86 hardware and a few more % with
non x86 Apple hardware.
Bill (Adopt)
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <67r2uvF...@mid.individual.net>, Steffen Huber
> <URL:mailto:sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
> > An educated guess of the percentage of RISC OS users who happen to
> > also own and/or use x86 hardware is 99%.
> From talking to customers I'd say about 20% only have access to RISC OS ARM
> hardware. About 60-75% have access to x86 hardware and a few more % with
> non x86 Apple hardware.
Oh dear ..a 1994 ex works Risc PC, now with a
standard SA card seems to suit my needs, mostly!
I do have a 486 card 'in the slot', rarely used
and mostly there because it's nice and safe, out
of harms way and where it can do little or no
damage to the surrounding environment...
I must admit I would like to add dvd and film
editing, tv capture and editing and also use one
of the really effective flight simulators (not
the bash-crash game type), but to do that I might
have to consider an Apple ..perhaps.
Meanwhile, I'll keep stroking my Risc PC and showing
that I still do care for it ..regularly feeding it
with clean power ..and wiping it's !Fresco and
blowing it's !Schema 2, whilst whispering sweet
nothings into it's unsprung Orphean flaps...
;'))
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
Bryn Evans
> It then took me a full day to include error trapping on screen messages and
> brief documentation.
..And that is the essential difference between an 'own use' fix,
where YOU know what NOT to do, and a Public offering.
Some people don't seem to grasp this.
--
|) [
|)ryn [vans mail to - Bryn...@bryork.com
Dave Symes
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
> And keep an eye on the CMOS battery :-)
Do you realise how impossible that is if you have two slices with rather a
lot of things stuffed inside the case.
I have tried to look using a dentist mirror, no chance.
The last time I looked was probably two years or so ago when I stripped it
down to remove an old hard drive from the basement of the case, and stick
a new one in the top of the second slice.
However, I have heard (Maybe a myth) if the machine is being used every
day, and it has been for 13 years (Occasional day out here and there) the
battery is less likely to pop its juice, than if it's left off for long
periods.
Dave S
--
Dave Symes
[Snip]
> Indeedy, I've subscribed to Select RO since the beginning, and I was
> under the distinct impression, from postings by RO Ltd a year or two
> ago, that they were up for the job, and that some of the changes being
> introduced, post RO 4.39 were to make the job possible.
> Maybe I misremember... but it appears quite a few others read the same
> material I did back then.
> Dave S
This very evening I went to the RO Select site to see if the download was
available yet... Discovered not.
But the real interesting bit was on the subs/pricing page... And I paste
as copied from there without comment.
******************
RISC OS 6 for Iyonix users
We are still planning on producing a version of RISC OS Select for Iyonix
users. Iyonix users may contribute to the development of RISC OS 6 by
renewing their Select subscriptions. New Iyonix users who wish to join the
Select scheme will have to pay the same initial subscription prices as
those listed above for other users.
******************
Dave S
--
Steffen Huber
> But the real interesting bit was on the subs/pricing page... And I paste
> as copied from there without comment.
>
> ******************
> RISC OS 6 for Iyonix users
> We are still planning on producing a version of RISC OS Select for Iyonix
> users. Iyonix users may contribute to the development of RISC OS 6 by
> renewing their Select subscriptions. New Iyonix users who wish to join the
> Select scheme will have to pay the same initial subscription prices as
> those listed above for other users.
>
> ******************
This is not exactly news: RO Ltd. said the same thing since the launch
of the IYONIX: give us your money, and there might be a slight chance
that you will get something back.
5 years and counting...
Harriet Bazley
Dave Symes wrote:
> In article <4f98329d...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > And keep an eye on the CMOS battery :-)
>
> Do you realise how impossible that is if you have two slices with rather a
> lot of things stuffed inside the case.
At least you don't have to undo six screws!
>
> I have tried to look using a dentist mirror, no chance.
> The last time I looked was probably two years or so ago when I stripped it
> down to remove an old hard drive from the basement of the case, and stick
> a new one in the top of the second slice.
>
> However, I have heard (Maybe a myth) if the machine is being used every
> day, and it has been for 13 years (Occasional day out here and there) the
> battery is less likely to pop its juice, than if it's left off for long
> periods.
>
Well, mine seems to be losing a steady 3 minutes per day at the moment,
or rather more if not switched on.... I don't think the battery is
recharging properly any more. :-(
--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==
ObChocolate: Nice!
Dave Symes
I believe there's quite a difference between a battery degrading over time
and not holding its charge, and being left unused and squirting it's juice
over the board.
The clock on my 13 year old tends to gain time rather than lose it, and
even though the machine was left without use over the Easter period (away
at an SF convention in London) for four and a half days, it booted okay,
and the clock was okay when I returned.
Dave S
--
Alex' A. Interrants
Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> hat geschrieben:
Don't forget at this point that RISC OS is very transparency in these
things and you can learn a lot out of it just by playing. To fiddle
with unworking programmes is often annoying, though.
David Pitt
> On 26 Apr, da...@triffid.co.uk wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > Indeedy, I've subscribed to Select RO since the beginning, and I was
> > under the distinct impression, from postings by RO Ltd a year or two
> > ago, that they were up for the job, and that some of the changes being
> > introduced, post RO 4.39 were to make the job possible.
>
> > Maybe I misremember... but it appears quite a few others read the same
> > material I did back then.
That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to the
idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required out of
Castle.
> This very evening I went to the RO Select site to see if the download was
> available yet... Discovered not.
Yes, it is conspicuous by its absence.
>
> But the real interesting bit was on the subs/pricing page... And I paste
> as copied from there without comment.
>
> ****************** RISC OS 6 for Iyonix users We are still planning on
> producing a version of RISC OS Select for Iyonix users. Iyonix users may
> contribute to the development of RISC OS 6 by renewing their Select
> subscriptions. New Iyonix users who wish to join the Select scheme will
> have to pay the same initial subscription prices as those listed above for
> other users.
>
> ******************
That is a bit dubious. Developer has spoken on the Select mailing list. A
full Select on the Iyonix "is simply not economically viable".
My Select subscription renewal has this, "... we hope to make some Select
features available for Iyonix users in 2008.". That's "some" and "hope".
Some hope then, fat chance?
ROL wants our money, that'll be it.
As an Iyonix user, ROOL rules.
--
David Pitt
Email by Gemini on Vista
Alan Griffin
<da...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f98329d...@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
> <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
> > And keep an eye on the CMOS battery :-)
> Do you realise how impossible that is if you have two slices with
> rather a lot of things stuffed inside the case.
I've just looked inside mine which is 13 years old, and it is just
beginning to show signs of corrosion. It only takes about 5 minutes to
remove everything and get down to the motherboard.
They were selling CMOS batteries at the show for about £12. I have bought
a tagged Maplins NiMH battery 1000 mAH for a quarter of that. It is 2/3
AF-size tagged (AG29).
It is a good thing to go into a taskwindow, type *Status and then save
the file, so you can reinstate the computer after changing the CMOS
battery.
Alan Griffin
Rob Kendrick
> They were selling CMOS batteries at the show for about £12. I have
> bought a tagged Maplins NiMH battery 1000 mAH for a quarter of that. It
> is 2/3 AF-size tagged (AG29).
We touched on this subject the other day, and we discovered that APDL
sell the batteries significantly more cheaply than CJE (ie, something
like a third of the price), or you could get them from Farnell for a few
pence less.
B.
Theo Markettos
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:22:33 -0700, Aaron wrote:
>
> > The USP was that it didn't work.
Ah. So it was vapourware? Or that the business model didn't work? I can't
see how slapping an ARM7500FE on a board could be that tricky. After all in
that period everyone+dog was doing it (RiscStation, Microdigital, Castle,
IMS etc)
> I'll take ten!
I probably should correct my confusion over volumes - that product was
actually hundreds of units per year not thousands. So perhaps not exactly
high enough volume to bother with if you're an OEM, but I'd have though the
way to handle such enquiries you don't want is to price in your hassle
factor and if the customer still wants to pay up then you're quids in. I
never even received a bit of paper through the post.
Theo
Rob Kendrick
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:22:33 -0700, Aaron wrote:
>>
>> > The USP was that it didn't work.
>
> Ah. So it was vapourware? Or that the business model didn't work? I
> can't see how slapping an ARM7500FE on a board could be that tricky.
> After all in that period everyone+dog was doing it (RiscStation,
> Microdigital, Castle, IMS etc)
I suspect so. And yeah, ARM 7500FEs are trivial to slap on a PCB; it's
what they were designed for. It only becomes slightly tricky if you want
to use SDRAM with them - and Simtec will sell you a CPLD programmed with
the right magic to make even that easy.
> I probably should correct my confusion over volumes - that product was
> actually hundreds of units per year not thousands. So perhaps not
> exactly high enough volume to bother with if you're an OEM, but I'd have
> though the way to handle such enquiries you don't want is to price in
> your hassle factor and if the customer still wants to pay up then you're
> quids in. I never even received a bit of paper through the post.
I should imagine even 100 sales for Castle would get them excited at the
time. I seem to recall Aaron asserting that Castle/Iyonix Ltd had sold
fewer than a thousand Iyonixes - so even a hundred would be a big chunk
of their income.
Certainly there are other small embedded electronics companies who would
have no problem supplying only a hundred or so.
B.
Peter Naulls
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to the
> idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required out of
> Castle.
I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this.
ROL still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I
talked to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on
it.
> That is a bit dubious. Developer has spoken on the Select mailing list. A
> full Select on the Iyonix "is simply not economically viable".
A much more credible explanation, at least.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In message <gemini.k06gbi0...@pittdj.co.uk>
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>> That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to the
>> idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required out of
>> Castle.
> I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this.
> ROL still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I
> talked to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on
> it.
Yes they have it was posted again on the Select list.
>> That is a bit dubious. Developer has spoken on the Select mailing list. A
>> full Select on the Iyonix "is simply not economically viable".
> A much more credible explanation, at least.
If you and others want it on your Iyonix's why not pester Castle to
give the ROL the necessary information, which they have requested at
least three times keep being promised it by Castle and then they don't
get it. to me as an outsider its *Castle* at fault not ROL.
--
Chris Hughes
Paul Stewart
> In message <gemini.k06gbi002xkpm01uo.n...@pittdj.co.uk>
> David Pitt <n...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to the
> > idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required out of
> > Castle.
>
> I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this.
> ROL still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I
> talked to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on
> it.
On the Select Mailing list, Developer(in response to a direct question
on the issue) has detailed what information they require from Castle/
Iyonix Ltd in order make a full Iyonix Select release possible.
Regards
Paul Stewart
Rob Kendrick
>> I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this.
>> ROL still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I
>> talked to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on
>> it.
>
> Yes they have it was posted again on the Select list.
Can we not be told more publicly?
B.
Peter Naulls
> In message <b2f8a998...@chocky.org>
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
>> In message <gemini.k06gbi0...@pittdj.co.uk>
>> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to the
>>> idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required out of
>>> Castle.
>
>> I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this.
>> ROL still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I
>> talked to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on
>> it.
>
> Yes they have it was posted again on the Select list.
That's no use to non-Select owners, is it? So, for about the 10th time
in about as many days, what is this information?
>>> That is a bit dubious. Developer has spoken on the Select mailing list. A
>>> full Select on the Iyonix "is simply not economically viable".
>
>> A much more credible explanation, at least.
>
> If you and others want it on your Iyonix's why not pester Castle to
> give the ROL the necessary information, which they have requested at
> least three times keep being promised it by Castle and then they don't
> get it.
I've never said I "want it". I've already explained at length in this
thread why your argument doesn't stack up (please review that).
Even without the mystery information, I've already demonstrated that
ROL could do _something_. Moreover, if there really is information that
ROL desperately need (I doubt it) then ROL could easily in the
last 5 years asked one of the many Iyonix-owning developers to
try and find it.
No, I just want ROL to clarify their inconsistent statements to date,
so we can clear the air. If ROL really aren't interested in Select
for Iyonix in any form, then we can get on with RO5 development,
and have some actual focus.
> to me as an outsider its *Castle* at fault not ROL.
It's easy to point fingers, isn't it? My interest is finding
solutions, not laying blame (and there's plenty to go around).
Peter Naulls
I wait in anticipation, but let me highlight this point very carefully,
which I presume is an accurate summary, but is a false premise on the
part of ROL.
There is no _need_ to immediately (or even any time soon) make a
full Select release. I rather suspect that this however is
what ROL _want_, since it would give them some kind of lever in regards
to "owning" desktop RISC OS development, and not being so reliant on
ROOL/Castle. It is however, not required, and not what users have
asked for. And it would certainly take much longer (5+ years to date).
Rob Kendrick
> The information that would be required from Castle for a full RISC OS
> Six port would be the full technical details of how the Iyonix hardware
> is initialised by its own BIOS prior to the point where it starts to
> load up RISC OS. This all happens invisibly to the user during the
> period when the Iyonix appears to be doing nothing for a while before
> the RISC OS startup information appears. To go with this would be the
> full video hardware information, and the USB card information.
Great - almost all of this information is now available. I suppose we
can look forward to ROL announcing that they're working on this real soon
now. :)
(Incidentally, unlike the A9 Home, and like RiscPCs, the Iyonix has no
'BIOS' or boot loader.)
B.
David Pitt
> In message <gemini.k06gbi0...@pittdj.co.uk>
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to
> > the idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required
> > out of Castle.
>
> I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this. ROL
> still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I talked
> to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on it.
Developer has coughed up some information on the Select list, that was on
the 30th April. That refers to the Iyonix's initialisation by "its own
BIOS". I do know what that means, but a follow-up question has been put, is
this something that is not part of the released source.
Aaron has recently written of an interchange between ROL and Castle. There
was no meeting of minds and no result.
I would not expect ROOL to know anything of this. I am sure the events I
refer to happened some time ago.
Right now ROL still states it would need information from Castle. ROOL was
not mentioned in the developer post. That would be for a "full RISC OS 6
port".
In my view the will is not there, neither with Castle or ROL, they don't
like each other.
The evidence, such as it is, is in developer's utterances and one can take a
view on the credence to be placed on that.
It's not going to happen, so the hogwash sloshing around is not too
relevant.
What is being trawled before us is the "hope" of "some" Select components
for the Iyonix.
> > That is a bit dubious. Developer has spoken on the Select mailing list.
> > A full Select on the Iyonix "is simply not economically viable".
>
> A much more credible explanation, at least.
Certainly, a plausible justification not to do something they do not want to
do.
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Chris Hughes wrote:
>> In message <b2f8a998...@chocky.org>
>> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <gemini.k06gbi0...@pittdj.co.uk>
>>> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is quite correct. Looking back ROL was just paying lip service to the
>>>> idea. It was never really on as ROL could not get the info required out of
>>>> Castle.
>>
>>> I need to point out again that there simply is no evidence for this.
>>> ROL still haven't told us what the mystery information is, and when I
>>> talked to ROOL about this matter, they were unable to shed any light on
>>> it.
>>
>> Yes they have it was posted again on the Select list.
> That's no use to non-Select owners, is it? So, for about the 10th time
> in about as many days, what is this information?
See another post by Paul Vigay
>>>> That is a bit dubious. Developer has spoken on the Select mailing list. A
>>>> full Select on the Iyonix "is simply not economically viable".
>>
>>> A much more credible explanation, at least.
>>
>> If you and others want it on your Iyonix's why not pester Castle to
>> give the ROL the necessary information, which they have requested at
>> least three times keep being promised it by Castle and then they don't
>> get it.
> I've never said I "want it". I've already explained at length in this
> thread why your argument doesn't stack up (please review that).
> Even without the mystery information, I've already demonstrated that
> ROL could do _something_.
They have done something as you yourself have already indicated by
having some OS6 bits on an Iyonix but not in a stable manner.
> Moreover, if there really is information that
> ROL desperately need (I doubt it) then ROL could easily in the
> last 5 years asked one of the many Iyonix-owning developers to
> try and find it.
Might I ask how they (ROL) can then use this code/informations since
it would be Castle copyright, without their permission.
> No, I just want ROL to clarify their inconsistent statements to date,
> so we can clear the air. If ROL really aren't interested in Select
> for Iyonix in any form, then we can get on with RO5 development,
> and have some actual focus.
> > to me as an outsider its *Castle* at fault not ROL.
> It's easy to point fingers, isn't it? My interest is finding
> solutions, not laying blame (and there's plenty to go around).
You keep pointing the finger at ROL ! ;-)
--
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls
> In a dim and distant universe <cClSj.320$EH2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Can we not be told more publicly?
>
>
> "Yes, we would very much like to make some Select components available to
> Iyonix users however ....
Bzzt. "Select components" is different to "A full Select on Iyonix".
Detailed hardware information is not required for the former.
> The information that would be required from Castle for a full RISC OS Six
> port would be the full technical details of how the Iyonix hardware is
> initialised by its own BIOS prior to the point where it starts to load up
> RISC OS. This all happens invisibly to the user during the period when the
> Iyonix appears to be doing nothing for a while before the RISC OS startup
> information appears. To go with this would be the full video hardware
> information, and the USB card information.
Bzzt again. Where's this "BIOS" in the Iyonix? In any case, I've
already debunked all this. A full Select (which is what we must
be talking about here - that is a softload which replaces RISC OS 5)
can simply rely upon the RISC OS 5 NVidia initialisation - no problem
there. Sadly this is NVidia NDA voodoo, but no matter. The issue
of USB is hardly any secret - The USB sources were recently made
available by ROOL and the hardware is not unusual. Plus the Linux
port does just such initialisation. Although the obvious question
here is why they're reimplementing drivers. And yes, I know
there's some issue with requiring early USB access for the keyboard.
The remaining hardware is the Southbridge, which is hardly secret
either - it's even used in the Omega, so they already know how to use
it.
> This would be the minimum information required. However the amount of work
> required beyond that point to get RISC OS Six running on Iyonix hardware is
> very substantial and at present is simply not economically viable with the
> current numbers of people using Iyonixes. So having the information does
> not mean that it would be justifiable to actually do the work."
So let's make some components available, like everyone wants.
Peter Naulls
> They have done something as you yourself have already indicated by
> having some OS6 bits on an Iyonix but not in a stable manner.
So make it stable, or disable bits that contribute to instability.
Work on sensible and achievable targets. This is how
software development works.
>
>> Moreover, if there really is information that
>> ROL desperately need (I doubt it) then ROL could easily in the
>> last 5 years asked one of the many Iyonix-owning developers to
>> try and find it.
>
> Might I ask how they (ROL) can then use this code/informations since
> it would be Castle copyright, without their permission.
I didn't mention code, but most of such information couldn't reasonably
copyrighted - at least not by Castle. As for "code use" - they'd
be no more doing so than any other application or module which
runs on RISC OS.
>
>
>> No, I just want ROL to clarify their inconsistent statements to date,
>> so we can clear the air. If ROL really aren't interested in Select
>> for Iyonix in any form, then we can get on with RO5 development,
>> and have some actual focus.
>
>> > to me as an outsider its *Castle* at fault not ROL.
>
>> It's easy to point fingers, isn't it? My interest is finding
>> solutions, not laying blame (and there's plenty to go around).
>
> You keep pointing the finger at ROL ! ;-)
I keep asking ROL questions, if that's what you mean. ROOL to
date have been pretty good at answering questions.
Rob Kendrick
> Bzzt again. Where's this "BIOS" in the Iyonix? In any case, I've
> already debunked all this.
And anyway, didn't previous members of ROL's development team reverse-
engineer the HAL in RO5 years ago in their spare time? Double bzzt.
> A full Select (which is what we must be
> talking about here - that is a softload which replaces RISC OS 5) can
> simply rely upon the RISC OS 5 NVidia initialisation - no problem there.
> Sadly this is NVidia NDA voodoo, but no matter.
It's not as if there aren't half-a-dozen open-source NVIDIA drivers out
there available for study in any case.
> The issue of USB is
> hardly any secret - The USB sources were recently made available by ROOL
> and the hardware is not unusual. Plus the Linux port does just such
> initialisation. Although the obvious question here is why they're
> reimplementing drivers. And yes, I know there's some issue with
> requiring early USB access for the keyboard.
Isn't the USB card an off-the-shelf one? Obtaining the specs for such
should be reasonably easy and not require Castle's co-operation in any
case. Additionally, RISC OS 4/6 doesn't actually have a USB stack for a
driver to be written for. I suppose they could use Simtec's/Advantage
6's, or just reuse RO5's, now its source is available (and most of it is
under a BSD licence anyway).
The boot issue is pretty simple to solve: USB keyboards have a "boot"
mode which is trivial to write an entire stack and driver for so PC
BIOSes don't need the whole of a USB stack (although they tend to now
anyway, so they can boot off mass storage.)
B.
David Pitt
Is he? It is ROL that would need to build Select components for the Iyonix.
ROL could do somethings straight away. The 32bit Draw 2.30 runs on the
Iyonix.
Rob Kendrick
> Might I ask how they (ROL) can then use this code/informations since it
> would be Castle copyright, without their permission.
You cannot copyright information, only works. If ROL are worried about
looking at ROOL code to work out what is needed to port their OS to the
Iyonix, there's a simple solution: hire a contractor to study the ROOL
code and document it. That way, no-one who writes code for ROL have have
directly seen any ROOL sources. This is a very common way of getting
around this very issue.
B.
Steffen Huber
> In a dim and distant universe <cClSj.320$EH2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>
> "Yes, we would very much like to make some Select components available to
> Iyonix users however ....
Ah, there's hope: "some Select components". Why not start with CDFS
as a first step of goodwill.
> The information that would be required from Castle for a full RISC OS Six
> port
Please note: here's the old theme "all or nothing" wrt. Select on the
IYONIX.
> would be the full technical details of how the Iyonix hardware is
> initialised by its own BIOS prior to the point where it starts to load up
> RISC OS. This all happens invisibly to the user during the period when the
> Iyonix appears to be doing nothing for a while before the RISC OS startup
> information appears.
This information is not needed, since it is all done by
RO5, and Select could just "do a Linux". There is no need
to flash Select into the IYONIX. I am not sure if any
IYONIX owner would *want* Select flashed.
Apart from that, the IYONIX hardware is not secret. Starting
up the XScale does not need magic, and all the attached
hardware is connected via the PCI bridge, which is also
standard hardware. Intel has suppled much documentation, and
patches for Linux to support the IOP processor range.
> To go with this would be the full video hardware
> information, and the USB card information.
They want to replace a perfectly working graphics and USB driver?
Seriously?
Apart from that, the USB card is a bog-standard NEC chipset card
with open source drivers for every known OS. There is nothing
mythical about it.
Same goes for the nVidia information - there is enough information
out there to build a basic driver. Of course, "full video hardware
information" will never be available, since nVidia keeps them
secret. However, this has not stopped my IYONIX from working
last time I looked.
> This would be the minimum information required. However the amount of work
> required beyond that point to get RISC OS Six running on Iyonix hardware is
> very substantial and at present is simply not economically viable with the
> current numbers of people using Iyonixes. So having the information does
> not mean that it would be justifiable to actually do the work."
Don't know what this means apart from "yes, RISC OS Six is still
a difficult-to-port OS and our hardware abstraction is crap".
Depends on their definition of the word "substantial" of course.
If they can't do it for the money they would get from at least
100 new subscribers, something is wrong.
It could also mean "We don't want Select on the IYONIX" of
course.
Rob Kendrick
>> To go with this would be the full video hardware information, and the
>> USB card information.
>
> They want to replace a perfectly working graphics and USB driver?
> Seriously?
I suspect the main issue with the video is that RISC OS 6's abstraction
for video is very very different from RISC OS 5's. Still, it shouldn't
be difficult to write a reasonably dumb one for RO6 given existing freely-
available NVIDIA documentation. I suspect some of the performance
improvements that RO4 and 6 have had that RO5 has not would help counter
the simple nature of such a driver.
B.
Peter Naulls
> Same goes for the nVidia information - there is enough information
> out there to build a basic driver. Of course, "full video hardware
> information" will never be available, since nVidia keeps them
> secret. However, this has not stopped my IYONIX from working
> last time I looked.
>
I want to clarify this, since it might not be clear to all.
Yes, there is extensive information on 2D programming of the NVidia
card, and you can just use it (a little slowly) as a plain frame
buffer.
There is in fact a BIOS for the Video card. This contains
the voodoo I have referred to; x86 code at that. On an x86
machine, it is run by the system BIOS to start up the card.
Under RISC OS 5 the NVidia module pokes a series of (for all
intents and purposes) random stuff at the card to start it up.
On many non x86 systems (PPC Macs, Simtec's ARM systems) often
instead an x86 emulator is employed - this is generally pretty
simplistic, and sometimes a bit slow, but gets the job done.
The story with the ViewFinder is of course, similar. In any
case, Select can simply rely upon RISC OS 5 doing this.
Rob Kendrick
> On many non x86 systems (PPC Macs, Simtec's ARM
> systems) often instead an x86 emulator is employed - this is generally
> pretty simplistic, and sometimes a bit slow, but gets the job done.
Indeed. On the CATS (Simtec's only PCI-based system), ABLE (Simtec's
boot loader) uses an x86 emulator to run the BIOS in the video card you
have installed - it also of course emulates the entry points in the main
system BIOS the video BIOS may wish to call. On a 233MHz StrongARM,
initialising the card this way for an S3 Virge takes about 10 seconds. I
imagine the NVIDIA BIOS is somewhat more involved, but this should be
easily offset by the fact that the Iyonix's CPU is at least three times
faster.
B.
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Chris Hughes wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>> Moreover, if there really is information that
>>> ROL desperately need (I doubt it) then ROL could easily in the
>>> last 5 years asked one of the many Iyonix-owning developers to
>>> try and find it.
>>
>> Might I ask how they (ROL) can then use this code/informations since
>> it would be Castle copyright, without their permission.
> I didn't mention code, but most of such information couldn't reasonably
> copyrighted - at least not by Castle. As for "code use" - they'd
> be no more doing so than any other application or module which
> runs on RISC OS.
If it is Castle's "code" they they would own that code and want some
payment I would assume for its use in a "commercial" use, since
Castle, still have not released what those terms would be even after
repeatedly be asked, by at least 3 people/companies so far with a
blank response. How might I ask do we progress. Castle have to do
something (its nothing whatever to do with ROOL).
>>> No, I just want ROL to clarify their inconsistent statements to date,
>>> so we can clear the air. If ROL really aren't interested in Select
>>> for Iyonix in any form, then we can get on with RO5 development,
>>> and have some actual focus.
>>
>>>> to me as an outsider its *Castle* at fault not ROL.
>>
>>> It's easy to point fingers, isn't it? My interest is finding
>>> solutions, not laying blame (and there's plenty to go around).
>>
>> You keep pointing the finger at ROL ! ;-)
> I keep asking ROL questions, if that's what you mean. ROOL to
> date have been pretty good at answering questions.
But its got nothing to do with ROOL - Its Castle !! that need to make
the information availabl, both the requested info plus the terms of
any licence for its use!
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
Its NOT ROOL code, its Castle's. ROOL are acting as agents for CASTLE,
in the "shared source releases", Since ROL is commercial they have to
deal with Castle, not ROOL.
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Hughes
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
Yes he is. As I keep saying Castle, have to do several things, release
details of their "commercial use licence" been waiting to see this for
nearly 2 years! Plus let ROL know the information they need to have
any chance of progress select for Iyonix.
To be honest Castle don't want it on the Iyonix, so will not release
the info. So go pester them if you really want it on Iyonix, the
longer they take to supply the info the less likely it is it will
happen.
Even a partial release will cost money to do far more then is probab;y
viable for the numbers of machines supposedly sold.
Perhaps its time to call an end to this thread all we are doing is
going round in circles.
--
Chris Hughes
Peter Naulls
> In message <RmmSj.432$3O7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
>
>> Chris Hughes wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Moreover, if there really is information that
>>>> ROL desperately need (I doubt it) then ROL could easily in the
>>>> last 5 years asked one of the many Iyonix-owning developers to
>>>> try and find it.
>>> Might I ask how they (ROL) can then use this code/informations since
>>> it would be Castle copyright, without their permission.
>
>> I didn't mention code, but most of such information couldn't reasonably
>> copyrighted - at least not by Castle. As for "code use" - they'd
>> be no more doing so than any other application or module which
>> runs on RISC OS.
>
> If it is Castle's "code" they they would own that code and want some
> payment I would assume for its use in a "commercial" use, since
> Castle, still have not released what those terms would be even after
> repeatedly be asked, by at least 3 people/companies so far with a
> blank response. How might I ask do we progress. Castle have to do
> something (its nothing whatever to do with ROOL).
Excellent job of conflating several different issues. And it's
interesting that you're now an expert on OS development when
it comes to your role as a ROL apologist (no pun intended).
If your argument held any water, every single commercial
RISC OS application running on RISC OS 5 would be subject to
such terms. I refer you to the discussion of "derivative works"
cf the GPL and RISC OS, which happens to be very much relevant
here.
If there _was_ any magical information that ROL was lacking
(there isn't), then ROOL would be the go to people for that
information, since after all, they actually develop RISC OS.
>
>> I keep asking ROL questions, if that's what you mean. ROOL to
>> date have been pretty good at answering questions.
>
> But its got nothing to do with ROOL - Its Castle !! that need to make
> the information availabl, both the requested info plus the terms of
> any licence for its use!
Only if you insist upon the line that ROL keep feeding you - that
there's mystery information and that a complete implementation
of Select is required to bring _any_ Select features to RISC OS.
And _even then_ it isn't required.
As has been noted, Select Paint _and Draw run just fine on
RISC OS 5 - sure, they may need a few tweaks, but no surprises there.
Rob Kendrick
> Its NOT ROOL code, its Castle's. ROOL are acting as agents for CASTLE,
> in the "shared source releases", Since ROL is commercial they have to
> deal with Castle, not ROOL.
I say "ROOL code" as in code obtained from ROOL. And no, they wouldn't
have to deal with Castle. As I said, all they need do is hire a
contractor to download the sources from ROOL's website, document its
working, and pass that information to ROL.
This technique shares a lot with "clean-room reimplementation", and is
entirely legal, moral, and in fact legally protected in UK law.
It's precisely the same technique (except swap "sources" for
"disassemblies") as Compaq used to clone the original IBM PC.
B.