The Case For Linux (***Long***)
Mike Kinghan
attempt to make a detailed and persuasive argument here about the way
to steer Our Kind of Computer to survival, and it is posted only to
c.s.a.misc. Since I began writing this, on Tuesday, I may well have
missed relevant postings, developments of feeling and thought. I can't
read everything.
FUNDAMENTALISTS & REFORMERS
Most of us appear disposed to fight for the continued existence of Our
Kind of Computer. A schism threatens to develop between
Fundamentalists and Reformers.
The Fundamentalists demand the rescue and release of Phoebe. They will
have no truck with non-ARM hardware. They will not hear of the
desertion or adulteration of RISC OS. They will countenance no other
GUI. They bid defiance to the infidel.
The Reformers expound an imperative need, and a now-or-never
opportunity, to open and modernise and adapt Our Kind of Computer, if
it is going to survive. They are not enchanted with Phoebe. They are
enchanted with a New Machine, already baptised the Phoenix. They are
not ideologically wedded to the ARM. Their most consistent and
insistent theme is the adoption of a Linux variant as our OS, instead
of further iterations of RISC OS. They are at one with the
Fundamentalists in their admiration of the RISC OS GUI, but they
envisage its survival as a presentation layer on Linux, much as the
visionary NextStep was a presentation layer on Unix.
There are signs that the fundamentalists are rallying round a __man__,
Peter Bondar (whether he welcomes that particular alignment or not),
and reposing their hopes foremost in __business initiatives__ that he
might lead. The Reformers, on the other hand, are rallying to an
__idea__, and focusing foremost on organising its technical execution.
I also have the impression the Fundamentalist mood is strongest among
the Acorn faithful who are not computer professionals, while the
professional afficionados lean to Reform. This is just a hunch,
however.
I am one of the professionals, and I am one of the Reformers. But I
see unity as vital, and I also appreciate (paradoxically enough) an
element of worldly realism in the Fundamentalist stance. As a
Reformer, I am here to attempt to win round the Fundamentalists, and
to concede as much of their position as I think is right. The clearest
and most concrete Reforming vision so far seems to be that of Ross
Tierney at Eidos. The Tierney Specification
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/kraisee/phoenix/
is IMO the best hope yet visible for the future of Our Kind of
Computer.
I believe the Fundamentalists are probably right that Phoebe must be
rescued and released. I am not supremely confident about that. A
Phoebe rescue that all of us backed, if it flopped, would probably
exhaust the resources, the will, and the credibility of all concerned.
On the other hand, nothing but the rescue of the Phoebe is going to
keep Our Kind of Computer visibly alive and in any kind of contention
for another year. Nothing else is going to keep that user happy and
loyal who is now no longer adequately served by their RPC 1 or older
machine. Nothing else is going to stimulate, at all, the flow of
software and peripherals or the incomes of our developers. Nothing
else __might__ pay any of the bills for the development of a superior
machine. And nothing else will preserve the morale of the Acorn
following (I don't care if Fundamentalism is self-fulfillingly correct
on that point). Finally, if the Tierney Spec asserts that its computer
can be ready in the winter of 1999, I'd expect it the 2nd half of
2000, and that's too long to expect a dying platform, with our tiny
numbers, to stay alive. There's no safe and sound judgement on the
Pheobe, but mine is with the Fundamentalists.
I also, and this time confidently, endorse the Fundamentalists'
business bias, __even if__ (in some cases) it only stems from the
absence of a technical vision, a perception of the problem as one of
`wresting the Acorn from Acorn', and messianic faith in Peter Bondar!
There can't be any need to argue in general that the technical vision
and ability deployed by our cause had better be equalled by business
talent and organisation. And specifically, if the Phoebe __is__ to be
rescued, if __any__ of Acorn's intellectual property is to be
reclaimed for Our Kind of Computer, then Acorn have got to be dealt
with, and had better be dealt with in an expert, concilatory and
concerted manner. Peter Bondar has contributed valuably already if he
does nothing more than proclaiming that point. I hope he does more
than that.
HOME TRUTHS.
Now to the Reformist case. Our Kind of Computer, in the Fundamentalist
vision, is the indissoluble trinity of Our Unique Hardware, Our Unique
OS and Our Unique GUI, resplendently forged in 1987. Maybe I ought to
add to that Our Uniquely Great Programming Language: BBC Basic with
its integral assembler. Our Kind of Computer is like the Macintosh,
but better, and for programmers.
Alas, we __just can't have__ that kind of computer anymore. That kind
of self-enclosed, self-sufficient, self-sustaining computer still had
a window 10 years ago. Now it doesn't. That scene is dead. If our
one-of-a-kind computer had ever been a raging global success (like the
Mac or Amiga), it __might__ still have the vitality to be making a
living today (like the Mac, but not the Amiga). But it wasn't and it
doesn't. It has failed.
Today, it takes big-time resources to __have any chance__ of
developing a breakthrough processor architecture, like the ARM.
Likewise to have any chance of (continuously) developing a competitive
desktop OS. Likewise to have any chance of (continuously) developing
the range of programming languages and platform-specific programming
tools that software developers require to deliver the competitive
applications that sell computers. Likewise to absorb the Internet
technology torrent as fast as comes. Likewise to advertise on a scale
that can dent the public's settled common knowledge that computers are
Wintel.
Our one-of-kind computer never had the resources to stay the pace.
Sensational as it was in 1987, it was never nearly as successful as it
would have had to be. Yes, Acorn weren't smart and lucky enough to
make it that successful; they seemed hair-whiteningly dumb sometimes
(like at the end). But they'd have had to be miraculously smart and
lucky for the Fundamentalist vision to be vindicated today.
In fact, that vision has been substantially anachronistic for years.
No ARM architecture has been a desktop leader since 1990. The RISC OS
kernel-cum-filecore has been a frail and stunted platform for
commonplace computing uses at least since native Win32 defined the
expectations of the world at large. No need to deny the comparative
virtues of RISC OS, and futile to cry that it would have got loads
better really soon, if the market hadn't melted first. As an Internet
platform, the RPC and its software has never looked cool or hot.
RISC OS is an unsuccessful OS. It doesn't matter why or whether it's
"fair". The chances are near certainty that RISC OS will stay
unsuccessful, no matter what is done to it, just __because__ it is
unsuccessful. Because RISC OS is unsuccessful, it is a rational bet
that no machine it runs on will break big. The necessary development
of RISC OS to keep it __continuously__ in competetive contention with
the major platforms (including Linux) will always surpass the economic
power of its marginal following, whatever organisation or business
structure that following throws up. RISC OS will always be fighting
for life with the kind of resources that Bill Gates expends on wiring
his den. RISC OS 4 will not change that. As long as we're wedded to an
OS that can't deliver six figures of users to its developers, and
can't deliver four figures of developers to its users, we'll weave
along the edge of extinction until we weave off, and the OS will take
our machine and our GUI down with it.
BBC Basic remains, evidently, a life-shaping gift to apprentice and
recreational programmers. It is equally clearly a language, like PL/1
or C, which the art of programming has advanced decisively beyond. It
continues to dominate programming on our one-of-a-kind computer
because the uniqueness of our computer chokes the free influx of new
languages and tools. It's the same, only worse, for professional
programmers. The Wintel or Unix developer's armoury left ours at a
pimitive remove by 1992. Acorn Pascal never shaped up to Delphi. It
was dropped. So was Fortran. No Acorn C++ toolset, not even CFront,
appeared till 1993, and no native C++ compiler ever showed. Acorn was
quick to be Born Again for the Net, but its indispensable Java
implementation still came in meagre and last. In the ARM spin-off,
Acorn even relinquished its rights in the C compiler for the ARM. In
recent years, the Acorn has been a programmer's machine strictly for
programmers who don't know any better or who actually like programming
to be unnecessarily primitive, hard and unprofitable. __I__ like
programming to be unnecessarily primitive, hard and unprofitable (or I
wouldn't be here), but not to the extent of upholding a doomed
nostalagic purism about the computers I like to do it on.
And as for the RISC OS GUI...amazing though it is to say so about any
software artefact that's fundamentally unchanged this decade, it is
has no equal. It's a software design classic that makes the use of a
computer incomparably easy for any normal human past the age of 3.
It's the irresistable expression of Our Kind of Computer - the great
and better way it works. There can't be any Reformist sentiment for
the sacrifice of our GUI, because __that__ sentinent is simply
Defeatism. Where the GUI is concerned, there's maybe just one point of
difference between Reformers and Fundamentalists. Reformers envisage a
credible possibility of rescuing our GUI from the economics of
extinction and putting it on the Big Map. And that means porting it to
Linux:
WHY LINUX?
Linux already is an operating system of the modern calibre that RISC
OS urgently needs to achieve. And it is __free__. If you need a fully
specified modern OS for your desktop computer today, you don't
__need__ to write your own, or buy one, or for form a company to
develop it. You can have Linux. That's what it for.
Linux is GNU software and the de-facto target OS of Project GNU. It
runs on every significant computer architecure there is, bar
mainframes, and attracts software assets from them all. It hosts the
whole huge GNU software catalogue, all of it free and freely portable
to any Linux platform. If you want your desktop computer today to be
abundantly supported by applications, languages and tools, it doesn't
have to run Windows or grow its very own software industry. It can run
Linux and have GNU.
ARM Linux already exists. It's not rock-steady, dummy-ready or replete
with ported tools and applications. There's loads of work to be done.
No more and no harder than any other outlook entails.
Linux is not owned by a rapacious billionaire, or pension funds or
merchant banks. Nobody owns it. It is not controlled by accountants.
It is controlled by the free collaboration of its expert users. Its
source code is open. You can change it to suit your computer, your
needs and your taste. Your great ideas can become part of its standard
configuration. It's development and support is in the hands of its
huge programming community.
Any proprietory corporate future that we now initiate for RISC OS,
however idealistically, will in the unlikely even that it turns out
successfully eventually return us to the point where the OS is owned
by pension funds and controlled by accountants. The way Linux exists
is the way that we all ruefully wish RISC OS existed now. The notion
of our launching out a liberated RISC OS as "A Better Linux" (which it
wouldn't be) is too Quixotic to discuss. The alternative is obvious.
GNU and Linux are still small forces compared to MS and Windows, but
not that small. Linux numbers are already like Mac numbers and NT
numbers. Phenomenally, this free, voluntary collective enterprise
already has the heft - the software assets, the intellectual
resources, the industry penetration, the user base - that RISC OS
would need, but has no chance of getting, to survive and __thrive__ in
the face of Wintel as far out as we can see.
There is no way in which we can break out of the strangulating
uniqueness of our one-of-a-kind computer except by adopting a
__successful__ OS. Look around for alternatives to RISC OS that are
incontrovertibly winning; that are legally unchained; that Microsoft
cannot buy; that do not entail a virgin port to ARM hardware; where we
can take our GUI with us and welcome. Linux is a shortlist of one.
The thing that Linux still needs above all else to bring the toppling
of Windows within sight is a really great GUI. We might be able to
help with that.
WHAT ABOUT THE ARM?
ARM hardware is an article of Fundamentalism. It's got to be RISC OS
on the ARM, or it ain't Our Kind of Computer. I'm a silly old romantic
about the ARM. But today I'd quite happy with a high-end processor
(instead), if I could still have a computer that sings and dances the
way I like. That's the Reformist sentiment, and of course the Linux
strategy suits it: high-end processors are not a problem for Linux.
But let's go with the Fundamentalist sentiment, and see where we get.
ARM processors are not being developed any more for the purpose of
running Our Kind of Computer, or anything like it. They're being
developed to RUN STBs, PDAs, cellular phones and the like. No
foreseeble ARM design is going to approach the computing power of
contemporaneous Intel, Digital or SPARC designs that are __meant__ to
drive computers. So there'll never be another Archimedes, a
uniprocessor ARM-powered desktop that blows PCs away. There'll never
be a machine like that that's anything but dinky compared to the PC of
the day. Sorry. Reality bites.
That's a corrective to ARM nostalgia. A more urgently practical point
is that RISC OS on the ARM has hit the buffers. RISC OS is incapable
of running on the next generation of ARM designs (SA2 and ARM10)
without ground-up recoding. That drives us back to the issue of OS
strategy. The strategy of perpetuating RISC OS into the next millenium
is going to be costly, and disruptive to the software base, at least
on a scale comparable with the Linux strategy.
There is one prospect in which an ARM-powered computer can reclaim the
break-through power and charisma of the Archimides. That's in a
multi-processor configuration. The price/performance of ARM designs is
so superior to the heavyweight architectures that it could decisively
outweigh the price/performance penalty of a multi-processor
configurations.
A multi-processor ARM box __could__ blow away the PC of the day, which
would not only be what Our Kind of Computer is supposed to do, it
would sell it like hell - if wasn't bound to an esoteric OS with a
cottage software industry. Furthermore a multi-processor development
does __not__ require Intel-like resources. It requires engineering
talent. And it requires a multi-processor-capable OS, which Linux is,
but RISC OS isn't and isn't going to be without (once again) a radical
re-write.
The multi-processor ARM computer is Acorn folklore. It has always been
the idea that was going to put our one-of-a-kind computer back on top
with one mighty bound. Had it ever materialised, we would probably not
be foregathered here now. tearing hair and gnashing teeth. It never
materialised because RISC OS couldn't run it, and making RISC OS run
it was always too mighty a bound for Acorn to adventure, with the puny
profits of selling RISC OS computers. It's back to the OS.
THE TROUBLE WITH PLURALISM.
There's no __technical__ reason why, beyond the Phoebe, we should not
see __both__ OS strategies pursued, reformers and fundamentalists just
going their separate ways. That would be exactly the schism I want us
to head off now.
Two `Acorn breakaway' enterprises are bound to hurt each other's
chances of success, splintering their contested niche market. ARM
Linux in any event __is here to stay__, and is going to gain ground as
long as there are ARM computers to be bought, because Linux is gaining
ground everywhere.
The worst of all possible worlds is a scenario in which a
Fundamentalist enterprise, committed to the continuation of RISC OS,
succeeds in appearing to be `Acorn Continued', `the Official' ARM
computer business; fatally undermines the market for a Reformist
enterprise; succeeds in keeping ARM Linux `undergound'; and then
itself succumbs to the basically unchanged economic adversities that
Fundamentalism faces. Nothing would come out of that alive.
IT'S THE OS, STUPID. PHOEBE NOW, LINUX NEXT.
Enough said, surely.
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`I may not practice what I preach, but God forbid I should preach what I
practice' - G.K.Chesterton
Stephen Burke
> My aplogogies to readers for the extraordinary size of this posting. I
> attempt to make a detailed and persuasive argument here about the way
> to steer Our Kind of Computer to survival, and it is posted only to
Well written, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you say
(although I do agree with quite a lot of it). However, as a user, what happens
if I follow your logic? You're saying that current RISC OS machines have no
future, so there's not much point buying a Phoebe unless I absolutely need the
extra speed, and that Linux provides a good alternative. So I keep my current
machine to run my existing applications, which it will do for several years,
and I buy a PC, on which I can run all those Windows programs I can't get for
RISC OS (or Linux), and I also install Linux in a separate partition. That way
I can have all the advantages of both Windows and Linux *now*, and if in two
years the proposed "Risc OS for Linux" appears I can get that too. And if it
doesn't I haven't lost anything. What's wrong with that argument?
--
e----><----p | Stephen Burke | E-mail: (anti-junk mail version)
H H 1 | Gruppe FH1T (Lancaster) | stephen.burke@
H H 11 | DESY, Notkestrasse 85 | desy.de
HHHHH 1 | 22603 Hamburg, Germany | All junk mail deleted on sight!
H H 1 | "It is also a good rule not to put too much confidence in
H H 11111 | experimental results until they have been confirmed by theory"
Andy Carter
Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> IT'S THE OS, STUPID. PHOEBE NOW, LINUX NEXT.
Yup, I'm for that.
Andy
--
fr...@argonet.co.uk - http://www.argonet.co.uk/homepages/fruit/
for accessing Argo using PAP/CHAP authorisation
All contributions to my 'phone bill welcome.
Ezra
This man, he knows...
I seriously think that if we pull this off, if we get a RiscOSy Linux box
up and running by 1999, then for once, we might make some ground.
Anti-MS feeling is running high - and that feeling can only increase, MS
show no signs of producing a decent OS, no sign of stopping the bloatware
rot, no sign of improving their products and services.
The Millenium Bug will be high on the minds of users in '99 - Windows will
probably have eradicated the problem by then but at what price? Users of
legacy DOS boxen (schools, corporate users) are going to be faced with the
/necessity/ of upgrading as elderly BIOS's face up to their own mortality.
All those organisations who run outdated systems because they *work* are
going to be free to choose - they'll have no need to stick to Wintel,
2k-proof systems will be no better at running their ancient DOSsy software
than a totally new RiscOS flavoured Linux thumper.
Linux is gaining serious ground, by '99 it may well be peering it's head
above the trenches of techiedom and registering in the psyches of the
informed aboffinesque user. To see it clothed in the full splendour of
the RiscOS GUI, seductively flaunting its anti-aliased beauty, could
surely tempt significant quantities away from the drab inadequacy of
Windows.
Techies, it goes without saying, will quite simply orgasm violently at the
sight of a heavily-ARMed Linux box sporting Speilbergian levels of video
goodies available at consumer prices.
The leading light of the New Wave of Nutters (TM) strategy is Forbidden.
Not some well-meaning band of desperate Clan refugees, but a company set
up to protect an investment. An investment made by probably the biggest
software company in Britain. Even if they don't explicitly play up the
Eidos connection, the computer press will see it. That'll garner the
new-born Phoenix some serious respect. This is no oddity produced by some
obscure little Computers-for-Schools operation. This is *Eidos*, this is
Lara Croft, the BBC (post-82, which always helps...) the new, shining
beacon of British computer companies. They can't ignore that. If Eidos
do lend the weight of their name to the venture, then this is the computer
that Lara built, this is sex in a grey humming box. This is, without a
shadow of a doubt, the horniest desktop ever. This is what Playstation
kids will buy when they grow up.
It'll be British. The traditional, old-money crowd, pottering uncertainly
into this new-fangled Internet hooplah, will be impressed by that. They'd
want one to go with the Rolls. Kit one out in walnut veneer and get it
play 'Rule Britannia' on start-up, and the Fotherington-Smythes will want
six.
It'll be new, and British. Smiling Tony will like that. He might ask why
schools aren't using them. He might suggest that schools ought to use
them. He might use them as an example of how his party's policies are
working. I'm sure the ex-Acorn crowd will whore themselves a little to
see their favourite GUI patronised by the Government.
It'll be European. The EC will like that. They might even like it in a
financially-lubricating mannner. They might issue Directives. Brussels
might sprout Phoenices.
Should Forbidden persuade, and assist, the Acorn developing rabble in
porting their wares to the new OS, then suddenly Linux will have a
software library worth mentioning. Forget the fact that RiscOS is
supposed to be starved of applications - that's only compared to the Mac
and Windows. Compared to Linux, compared to the (possibly-)ressurected
Amiga, compared to BeOS, we have a cornucopia of end-user goodies.
Hopefully, we'll have Ovation Pro, Techwriter Pro, Project Avante,
Sibelius VMP, Photodesk, and Prophet. And the now-legendary much, much
more. But I choose those examples delibrately. They are (off the top of
my head) the packages that turn heads when RiscOS virgins chance upon
them. 4 of them are better than *anything* on *any* platform. These are
respectable flagships in anybody's estimation. Compared to what any other
niche OS sports at the moment, they are an argument for RiscOSy Linux
shouted at bowel-shattering volume. Add to that the battalion of other
stuff that should accompany the Acorn crowd, and you have the Holy Grail
of the anti-Wintel community, a new OS with a decade's worth of software.
Of course, the traffic won't all be one way; Linux is /the/ techie OS.
The programming tools that come with it make the 'RiscOS is no longer a
programmers platform' crowd look so silly, people will openly laugh at
them in the streets. The big yawning gap in the University and
professional scientist software catalogue for RiscOS will become a story
told by wisened old Mancunian physics lecturers to scare their unruly
first-years. Corel seem keen to see Linux succeed - what lack of a decent
integrated package?
Oh, and as for games, there should be Tek, Iron Dignity, Quake, Karma, oh,
and apparently some minor games house called Eidos is involved in the
project...
Yes, pull this off and we'll have a technically-faultless OS with the
finest GUI in the world. We'll have a robustly impressive software
library. We'll have, if not ideal, then certainly above-averagely funky
hardware. We'll have a throbbingly new system built on two established
foundations; the technically respectable Linux, and the sexy consumerist
Eidos.
I'm not saying we'll overthrow the Wintel hegemony, burn the scourge of MS
bloatware from the earth, and leave Billy-boy a penniless outcast, but I
am saying that we have the chance now to create a real alternative. One
that easily has the potential to find favour amongst the artistic,
academic, techie, and just-plain-awkward niches. We have the chance now
to create the *ideal* computer community - open, independant, and not
dominated by one giant software company. It might not displace Windows as
the OS of Mr. and Mrs. Everyman, but we seem now to have a realistic
chance of creating a significant, self-supporting minority. One that
doesn't live forever in the shadow of MS, but revells in the freedom; one
that doesn't live constantly in fear of extinction, but enjoys all the
Goodstuff that comes from being a niche community; one that doesn't *have*
to make billionaires out every nerd with a good idea, but provides
respect, support, and maybe a decent living amongst the Utopian gift
economy of the GNU ideal.
REALISTICALLY we have that chance. To all those with *any* way of
contributing to the success of this magnificent gambit, I say
"Carpe Diem, and throttle the bugger".
[Fanfare to fade].
--
"The Yetiman Roars..."
ez...@argonet.co.uk
Stuart Bell
> My aplogogies to readers for the extraordinary size of this posting.
[snip]
>
> IT'S THE OS, STUPID. PHOEBE NOW, LINUX NEXT.
>
> Enough said, surely.
Good stuff, Mike. I hope people will read it carefully before
responding. It deserves it. No idea what my response is. ????
--
Stuart Bell
writing from a Wintel-free zone.
Sveinung W. Tengelsen
> My aplogogies to readers for the extraordinary size of this posting. I
> attempt to make a detailed and persuasive argument here about the way
> to steer Our Kind of Computer to survival, and it is posted only to
> c.s.a.misc. Since I began writing this, on Tuesday, I may well have
> missed relevant postings, developments of feeling and thought. I can't
> read everything.
>
> FUNDAMENTALISTS & REFORMERS
>
> Most of us appear disposed to fight for the continued existence of Our
> Kind of Computer. A schism threatens to develop between
> Fundamentalists and Reformers.
<snip>
Pardon the gratuitous snip - your posting is a brill summary on the "status
presens". Keep the RISC OS GUI and legacy software, and aim at furthering
this technological plurality-booster (a.k.a. "alternative" but that word's
so loaded) by hardware and software development in accord with Acorns
licencing conditions and possibly even Acorn's advisory cooperation. Having
Peter Bondar as catalysator/liaison between Acorn and Forbidden would ensure
a smooth transition phase (that is, if Forbidden are the ones who *do* pick
up the challenge of bringing the "Acorn Desktop" and associated culture/
market/ARM-developer breed onwards).
As will be demonstrated soon enough, Acorn has everything to gain and
nothing to lose from "delegating" the development of h/w and s/w components
for DESKTOP COMPUTERS to those who would not only uphold the credibility and
integrity of the platform, but also offer Acorn STB clients' clients a
developer/contents-creation system to match. Wether this would be
impractical at length due to a widening gap between underlying OSes and
hardware (Acorn NCSTB/Forbidden Desktop) would have to be regarded as an
occupational hazard since no-one can offer any guarantees at the moment as
to what the situation will be like in a year. One can make more or less
informed guesstimates, but without knowing what Acorn *actually* wants to
gain from this situation, it is futile to even speculate. All I can do is
point towards the likelihood of a RISC OS-like GUI blasting away at 3 BIPS
this time next year, and hope that the techno savants within Acorn
appreciate this advantage as to NCSTB-complimentary server solutions and
developer/"Creator" systems. "It's RISC OS Jim, but knot as we know it." 8)
If done *elegantly* this endeavour can result IN SUM to what Acorn in many
ways *should* have become, with renewed focus from people who care and
probably will give Acorn quite a bit of extra revenue through increased/
boosted desirability of Acorn's *very* service- and content-rich thin-client
solution, and even a reasonable dash of licencing fees. The operation won't
cost Acorn a single cent, and they have *everything* to gain from being
*extremely* nice with us from now on, as is true the other way. :)
Now, the ball is with Acorn's board, Stan Boland, Peter Bondar and Stephen
B. Streater. Do we have any business interests in common to discuss?
--
Regards,
Sveinung W. Tengelsen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:pixe...@sn.no | I have one illusion;
http://www.sn.no/~pixeleye/Index.htm | I have no illusions.
alex...@my-dejanews.com
Does Linux need another GUI project? It already has KDE and Gnome. It looks
to me that you would be better off contributing to either of these projects,
introducing them to some of RISC OS's better ideas. The Unix way of doing
things probably leaves enough room for a "RISC OS themed" desktop on top of
Gnome or KDE (maybe less so for KDE).
Alex Farran
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Stuart Halliday
says...
>IT'S THE OS, STUPID. PHOEBE NOW, LINUX NEXT.
> Enough said, surely.
Just this.
No user in their right mind would touch Linux for the most obvious reasons.
It is just too techy for 99% of the population atm.
Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
--
Stuart Halliday
Acorn Cybervillage
http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/
Ezra
Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
> Just this.
> No user in their right mind would touch Linux for the most obvious > reasons.
> It is just too techy for 99% of the population atm.
> Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
*Sigh*...
Ezra
> Does Linux need another GUI project? It already has KDE and Gnome.
You used a Unix GUI lately? These things make Windows look like a wise
and stylish way of doing things. They're all written by *spit* techies.
Techies might be able to make computers do colourfully outlandish things,
but they wouldn't know a decent GUI if it auctioned off their granny.
Is porting the best interface in the world to the best OS in the world
really such a daft idea? Or is it just a BLOODY OBVIOUS Goodthing?
Andrew Loukes
Is that flamebait or what?
Have you tried, KDE (http://www.kde.org ). It has to be one of the best
UIs around. There is work to be done but it is happening.
Englightenment is the most amazing window manager around you can make it
look like anything you want (http://e.themes.org )
This is probably not the best place to start a discussion of Unix window
managers and desktop environments but I would take a look at the latest
offerings.
--
Andy Loukes
Dave Roberts
> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
So what would be your future vision then? (just interested)
--
Dave Roberts
Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk
mrp...@leeds.ac.uk
Stuart Bell
> Just this.
> No user in their right mind would touch Linux for the most obvious reasons.
> It is just too techy for 99% of the population atm.
'atm' being the operative phrase. How about a system in which no source
was immediately accessible to the user, and it ran 'out of the box'?
>
> Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
>
> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
But, as the original poster said, there are large questions over:
1. the development of ARM chips suitable for the desktop market
2. the rewriting of RiscOS to get out of the 26-bit limit.
IMHO even if Pheobe is resurrected, what happens in two/three years'
time. I can't see anyone being able to generate enough income to build
RPC3.
Mike Kinghan
stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk (Stuart Halliday) wrote:
> In article <40adb08a48%I...@ttools.demon.co.uk>, I...@ttools.demon.co.uk
> says...
>
>
> >IT'S THE OS, STUPID. PHOEBE NOW, LINUX NEXT.
>
> > Enough said, surely.
>
> Just this.
> No user in their right mind would touch Linux for the most obvious reasons.
> It is just too techy for 99% of the population atm.
Well, conservatively 6 million users have plumped for it, so does it really
matter if they're all out of their minds? It's 120 times as popular as
RISC OS already and pulling away rapidly.
Indeed, it's too techy for ordinary folks atm. You would certainly have
made the same observation about the Internet a while back, while
Tim Berners-Lee was considering what could be done about it.
It's not even as if making a Unix handle as easily as RISC OS does has never
been before been imagined and done. NextStep is considered to have been the
sweetest GUI ever (by those of course who haven't seen our one).
>
> Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
No doubt. But anyone who read __my__ posting will have gathered that I back
the Pheobe __and__ understood why RISC OS 4 is in any case the end of the
line for that commercially failed operating system, unless RISC OS 5 is
a total renewal.
RISC OS 5 will be needed in 2000 latest, with ARM10 and SA2 shipping
next year, or else RISC OS will be relegated to superceded ARM processors.
How do you think that will sell?
And RISC OS 5 will be a software engineering project at least as formidable
as porting Linux to the ARM. 18 months? And porting Linux to the ARM has
already been done.
And I just can't think of any empirical basis for betting that RISC OS 5
will draw to the fine computers it runs on __a huge lot__ more
users and developers than any previous iteration of that OS. Which it needs
to. Or even a 10th as many, per square mile, as Linux __is__ drawing. That
would do fine.
Judging by __my__ email more than one ordinary user has been convinced that
ARM computers have a future and that it's Linux. I'm sure both things have
happened, for what it's worth.
>
> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
>
It's just a question of writing software. It'll be written if a bunch
of smart programmers sit down and write it and otherwise not.
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`Only dogs can hear my sense of humour' - Ruby Wax.
JaneBonnin
Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
> Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
Hear hear!
The market for Acorn machines is small enough already without syphoning
part of it off into an alternative project. The idea of giving RiscOS a
wider market by grafting it on to Linux is an attractive one for the
techies, but certainly won't attract many non-techie buyers. (Specially
not the schools who have bought software which is no longer being
developed and therefore has no chance of ever being ported to Linux.) It
could, however, remove support from Phoebe/Phoenix at a critical time.
> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
Jane
--
__ / /__ ____ ___ Jane Bonnin
/ /_/ / _ `/ _ \/ -_) mailto:grap...@tcp.co.uk
\____/\_,_/_//_/\__/
Darren Salt
In message <488b26b...@argonet.co.uk>
Ezra <ez...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
>> No user in their right mind would touch Linux for the most obvious
>> reasons. It is just too techy for 99% of the population atm.
>> Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
>> more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
>> Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
>> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
> *Sigh*...
OTOH Stuart does have a point. If I use Linux, it'll be (for as long as
possible) as well as RISC OS. *Not* instead of.
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| JSW. Bug. CTetris. Mindtrap. KPatience. SnakePit.
Windows 95. Shrug and Pray.
Matthew Wilcox
>
> In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
>
> > Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> > more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> > Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
Strange. perhaps people who are scared mail you and people who are
encouraged mail me ;-) I've had a lot of people contacting me with respect
to Linux.
> The market for Acorn machines is small enough already without syphoning
> part of it off into an alternative project.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The market for Acorn machines is already too
small. That's the conclusion Acorn's management reached, and as a
programmer, I think they were right. I agree it's sad. I was deeply touched
when the news came out, and it has affected a lot of people I know. But
there just aren't enough people there. Perhaps programmers see it first.
The latest versions of tools on other platforms just aren't arriving for RISC
OS. Users don't notice for a while; they're happy with what they have and
there's a certain lag before they notice they're not getting updates; they're
not getting new products. And the developers slowly start to move off to new
platforms, and before long there is no one developing new stuff, and it's
just too much effort.
> The idea of giving RiscOS a
> wider market by grafting it on to Linux is an attractive one for the
> techies, but certainly won't attract many non-techie buyers.
I don't understand your point here. Linux exists independently of buyers
;-) Techies do things to & with Linux because they feel like it.
> (Specially
> not the schools who have bought software which is no longer being
> developed and therefore has no chance of ever being ported to Linux.) It
> could, however, remove support from Phoebe/Phoenix at a critical time.
Okay, you want binary compatibility. That's quite a hard one. To be honest
Dave Gilbert's ARMulator is almost certainly the best way to go. If indeed
there is no software that is _already_ available for Linux which can replace
it.
> > Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
>
> I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
Actually, now is _exactly_ the moment. Now is when GNOME (www.gnome.org) is
in development, and input from people who have seen the wonders of RISC OS
can make their mark. It's probably not the moment for users to jump in and
get their feet wet with unix for the first time, but this is something for
the future. And I'm sorry, but I don't hold out much hope for the future of
Acorn kit.
--
Matthew Wilcox <wi...@bofh.ai>
"I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. There are
better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making use of
one's contributions to computer science." -- Donald E. Knuth, TAoCP vol 3
Stuart Bell
> The market for Acorn machines is small enough already without syphoning
> part of it off into an alternative project. The idea of giving RiscOS a
> wider market by grafting it on to Linux is an attractive one for the
> techies, but certainly won't attract many non-techie buyers. (Specially
> not the schools who have bought software which is no longer being
> developed and therefore has no chance of ever being ported to Linux.) It
> could, however, remove support from Phoebe/Phoenix at a critical time.
It's all a matter of time-scale.
Phoebe and Risc OS 4 are short-term solutions. It seems highly unlikely
that there will be a suitable CPU for a RPC3 without a major rewrite of
Risc OS (26 bit thingy). Risc OS 5 would not increase the sixe of the
'Acorn' user base significantly. Atm it's too small to have a really
viable lively future.
SO, good luck to the 'team' with Phoebe and RO4. But we need more
drastic solutions long term.
Jane Bonnin
Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Jane Bonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
I'd go along with that. However, to get Phoebe/RO4 of the ground we really
have to be all pulling in the same direction. You clipped the last line
from my previous posting:-
I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
Jane
Ross Tierney
stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk (Stuart Halliday) wrote:
>
> In article <40adb08a48%I...@ttools.demon.co.uk>, I...@ttools.demon.co.uk
> says...
>
>
>
> > Enough said, surely.
Mike's post was exceptionally good IMHO.
> Just this.
> No user in their right mind would touch Linux for the most obvious
> reasons.
> It is just too techy for 99% of the population atm.
>
> Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have
> scared off more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the
> future for getting Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
>
> Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the
> subject?
Hi Stuart,
I suspected that some people might be quit worried about the situation,
but I didn't want to frighten people away.
If you think it's necessary I'm uite happy to stop posting stuff here
to avoid people getting too worried. To be honest dealing with ng's
and 80+ emails a day is starting to wear anyway and we've got a lot
of work to do too.
Simple fact is this, We're going to do our own system anyway for
Optima. We can do the enthusiast system on the back of that.
I'll tell you what: I'll go off now and get some proper work done
and in a year I'll come back with a shiny new box and you and the
rest of the community can evanluate it then for what it is THEN :)
There's little point in talking any more about it anyway; I think
Stephen will do it anyway - for Optima and we can't say any more
than we have done already without giving things away.
See you in about a year...
Ross.
--
Ross Tierney.
r...@eidos.co.uk "Anger is an energy"
kra...@argonet.co.uk -John Lydon
Mike Kinghan
fake.a...@no.junk.email (Stephen Burke) wrote:
[snip]
> Well written, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you say
> (although I do agree with quite a lot of it). However, as a user, what happens
> if I follow your logic? You're saying that current RISC OS machines have no
> future, so there's not much point buying a Phoebe unless I absolutely need the
> extra speed, and that Linux provides a good alternative. So I keep my current
> machine to run my existing applications, which it will do for several years,
> and I buy a PC, on which I can run all those Windows programs I can't get for
> RISC OS (or Linux), and I also install Linux in a separate partition. That way
> I can have all the advantages of both Windows and Linux *now*, and if in two
> years the proposed "Risc OS for Linux" appears I can get that too. And if it
> doesn't I haven't lost anything. What's wrong with that argument?
>
My post started off: `Most of us appear disposed to fight for the
continued existence of Our Kind of Computer'. That was meant to express an
assumption that the rest of my rhetoric takes for granted.
Your argument clearly doesn't share that assumption. It's the argument of
a dinsterested rational consumer who stands ready to enjoy Our Kind of
Computer if it survives and is superior, but not ready to act contrary
to the principles of Which? magazine in order to increase the likelihood
of that coming to pass.
In that case there's nothing wrong with your argument as far I can see,
and I wouldn't care to try and dislodge you or anyone else from it. Nor
am I inclined to regard anyone as a Bad Person with whom your argument
prevails.
Supporting the Phoebe will be essentially an act of enthusiasm,
or at least `adventure capitalism', for all who do so. Some of my best
friends abandoned Acorns for PCs years ago. (But since you have evidently
haven't done that __already__, I'd give some odds you won't now).
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`Sometimes these cogitations still amaze the troubled midnight and the noon's
repose' - T.S.Eliot, "On First Looking Into comp.sys.acorn.programmer".
Mike Kinghan
JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
>
> > Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> > more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> > Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
>
> Hear hear!
>
> The market for Acorn machines is small enough already without syphoning
> part of it off into an alternative project. The idea of giving RiscOS a
> wider market by grafting it on to Linux is an attractive one for the
> techies, but certainly won't attract many non-techie buyers. (Specially
> not the schools who have bought software which is no longer being
> developed and therefore has no chance of ever being ported to Linux.) It
> could, however, remove support from Phoebe/Phoenix at a critical time.
Wake up at the back there :-) There are not going to be anymore Acorn
machines. Acorn stopped making computers on Thursday 17th Sept last.
`Linux RISC OS' is not `an alternative project' to further Acorn RISC OS
ARM computers beyond the Phoebe. It's the only project for further
RISC OS-alike ARM computers for which there exists a useable operating
system. The `alternative project' is RISC OS 5, which will be at least
as formidible and which neither Acorn nor anybody else has started yet.
RISC OS __has failed__ to attract enough buyers, techie or non-techie, to
keep Acorn computers in being. That is the problem.
The Linux project that the techies are proposing is about engineering
the RISC OS GUI as a presentation layer onto a bankably successful
operating system so that it __will be__ attractive to to non-techie users;
(and hence possibly even more successful that it is).
Non-techie buyers will have __nothing__ to attract them beyond next year,
when the new lines of ARM processors become incompatible with the
RISC OS kernel. Not unless a bunch of techies can be mustered right
now to start a fundamental re-engineering of RISC OS. That is the the
RISC OS 5 alternative.
Ask yourself why the market for RISC OS 5 machines is likely to be
dramatically more viable than it is for RISC OS machines today. You like
RISC OS machines, and so do I. Unfortunately there were never more than a
couple of 100K folk who shared our fondness and there's only about 40 or
50K of us left. Linux puts on that many users every couple of months.
That schools' software you're talking about that's no longer being developed.
That would be because there weren't enough people who wanted to buy it
anymore? So the next operating system should be backward compatible to
lines of software that died commerically on RISC OS?
Nobody's going to port that software to Linux. Right. Nobody's going to
port it to RISC OS 5, either, and it'll need it, if RISC OS 5 ever
exists. Schools can keep running it on the machines they've got. Nobody's
going to take it or them away. They can run it on the Pheobe, if we manage
to get the Phoebe, and schools want to buy it. Which neither Acorn nor
Xemplar nor anyone else ever thought they would.
> > Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
>
> I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
The `Linux-RISC OS' project won't materialise before winter of 99, if
we're dead lucky - just about the time RISC OS 4.0 reachs it's
sell-by on ARM achitectures. So you needn't really worry about being
rushed into it ;-)
> Jane
>
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
Thomas Boroske
> In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>,
> Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
>
> > Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> > more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> > Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
>
> Hear hear!
>
> The market for Acorn machines is small enough already without syphoning
> part of it off into an alternative project. The idea of giving RiscOS a
> wider market by grafting it on to Linux is an attractive one for the
> techies, but certainly won't attract many non-techie buyers.
[ SNIP ]
Why don't you all get it ?
Techies use Linux now. Techies don't need a RiscOS GUI on Linux.
This discussion is not about "what the techies want" but "what can
we do to make a new and better RiscOS (perhaps by building upon
Linux) ?".
I dunno - but all those people waffling about "oh please, not toooo
techie, pleeeaase !" and "I want RiscOS and nothing else" talk
crap - did they say the same thing when RiscOS 3 was released, when
RiscOS 2 was released, when they were using their BBC Master or
whatever and asked to switch to Arthur ?
My point is you can be as non-techie a user as it gets, but that
doesn't stop you from being affected by technology. If you
can't see that RiscOS is at the end, then why not ignore the
Linux discussions. If you see some magical way of keeping
everything as it is while still making the progress needed
then please enlighten us.
Please, get one thing in your mind: You may think that RiscOS is
perfect as it stands - very well, your opinion. But I assure
you, if there won't be a big step to something with a bit
more perspective then it's *dead*. We can reject any plan
involving anything but pure RiscOS on pure ARM hardware,
but I personally think a long death doesn't make a difference.
> > Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
>
> I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
Indeed - it should have been started years ago.
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
Mike Kinghan
Jane Bonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1dfxryo.ci...@userk828.uk.uudial.com>,
> Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > SO, good luck to the 'team' with Phoebe and RO4. But we need more
> > drastic solutions long term.
>
> I'd go along with that. However, to get Phoebe/RO4 of the ground we really
> have to be all pulling in the same direction. You clipped the last line
> from my previous posting:-
>
> I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
>
> Jane
>
I'm at a loss Jane. What is the direction that you want me to pull in that
I am not pulling in? Please read (or re-read more slowly) the post with
which I started this thread. And don't skip the 2nd last line :-)
Andy McMullon
<URL:mailto:I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Wake up at the back there :-) There are not going to be anymore Acorn
> machines. Acorn stopped making computers on Thursday 17th Sept last.
> `Linux RISC OS' is not `an alternative project' to further Acorn RISC OS
> ARM computers beyond the Phoebe. It's the only project for further
> RISC OS-alike ARM computers for which there exists a useable operating
> system. The `alternative project' is RISC OS 5, which will be at least
> as formidible and which neither Acorn nor anybody else has started yet.
What needs to be clarified here is Acorn's intentions with RiscOS.
Are they binning this along with desktop computing? They don't seem
to have said.
Will it be further developed to run STBs and DigTV?
I don't suppose they are going to give RiscOS 4 away whetever they do.
Are they likely to let someone else develop it in a direction they don't
want to take?
--
Andy: skyp...@bigfoot.com / http://www.mcfamily.demon.co.uk
Greg Hennessy
<I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>RISC OS __has failed__ to attract enough buyers, techie or non-techie, to
>keep Acorn computers in being. That is the problem.
>
Which if you believe the rumours is the product of an
Wintel/Bilderburger global conspiracy. The more mundane reality as
raised above is completely ignored however.
>The Linux project that the techies are proposing is about engineering
>the RISC OS GUI as a presentation layer onto a bankably successful
>operating system so that it __will be__ attractive to to non-techie users;
>(and hence possibly even more successful that it is).
>
The GUI is not enough though, The applications have to comply in order
to make the whole effect work properly.
>Non-techie buyers will have __nothing__ to attract them beyond next year,
Realistically speaking non techie buyers have had nothing to attract
them for at least the past 2 years. How else does one explain the
collapse in sales ? Black Helicopters are not a valid answer.
>when the new lines of ARM processors become incompatible with the
>RISC OS kernel. Not unless a bunch of techies can be mustered right
>now to start a fundamental re-engineering of RISC OS. That is the the
>RISC OS 5 alternative.
>
To make this happen in a reasonable timeframe they would need to
access to the OS source. I dont see Acorn being particularly 'open
source' about RISC-OS.
>Ask yourself why the market for RISC OS 5 machines is likely to be
>dramatically more viable than it is for RISC OS machines today.
Which is the reason why any talk of producing 'Phoenix' hardware is
complete pie in the sky.
>You like
>RISC OS machines, and so do I. Unfortunately there were never more than a
>couple of 100K folk who shared our fondness and there's only about 40 or
>50K of us left. Linux puts on that many users every couple of months.
Not to put a dampner of this. I would respectfully suggest that the
number of active RISC-OS users are < 1000. c.f the 146 who put their
name down for a phoebe. Of course Messrs Vigay et al will be along RSN
to claim otherwise. However the cold harsh light of reality bears me
out on this.
>
>That schools' software you're talking about that's no longer being developed.
>That would be because there weren't enough people who wanted to buy it
>anymore? So the next operating system should be backward compatible to
>lines of software that died commerically on RISC OS?
Of course the Anorak Tendancy will not accept this unpalatable fact.
>
>Nobody's going to port that software to Linux. Right. Nobody's going to
>port it to RISC OS 5, either, and it'll need it, if RISC OS 5 ever
>exists. Schools can keep running it on the machines they've got. Nobody's
>going to take it or them away. They can run it on the Pheobe, if we manage
>to get the Phoebe, and schools want to buy it. Which neither Acorn nor
>Xemplar nor anyone else ever thought they would.
>
You have just entered the twilight zone inhabited by the blind
advocate.
>The `Linux-RISC OS' project won't materialise before winter of 99, if
>we're dead lucky
I would say you are being optimistic here. Remember the RISC-OS GUI is
pointless without supporting applications. Given the critical mass
behind projects like GNOME & KDE. I only see any RISC-OS-wm having
minor curiousity value.
greg
Greg Hennessy
<skyp...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I don't suppose they are going to give RiscOS 4 away whetever they do.
>Are they likely to let someone else develop it in a direction they don't
>want to take?
Some delicious irony given that even if they did give RO4 away it
would not work with the majority of SA-RPCS due to a processor bug.
Cold comfort to the idiots who claim the ARM architecture is the
pinnacle of comtemporary processor development.
greg
Greg Hennessy
<y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>Please, get one thing in your mind: You may think that RiscOS is
>perfect as it stands - very well, your opinion. But I assure
>you, if there won't be a big step to something with a bit
>more perspective then it's *dead*. We can reject any plan
>involving anything but pure RiscOS on pure ARM hardware,
>but I personally think a long death doesn't make a difference.
>
Well said ! I detect the same level of hokum as was demonstrated by
various Amiga types.
greg
Luke Bosman
Greg Hennessy <cmk...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> Not to put a dampner of this. I would respectfully suggest that the
> number of active RISC-OS users are < 1000. c.f the 146 who put their
> name down for a phoebe. Of course Messrs Vigay et al will be along
> RSN to claim otherwise. However the cold harsh light of reality bears
> me out on this.
Sorry, but you cannot claim that the 146 people who put their name down
is sufficient evidence for this. I accept that I would never have paid
1500 UKP for a Phoebe, but the final offer (of you give Acorn 500 quid
and they knock another five hundred off the price) was only around for
about a week.
Phoebe was to be launched in November and probably demonstrated at
AW98. Would you pay money for a computer that you had never seen
working? I know I wouldn't.
Besides, if we add up the number of posters to the argonet.acorn
groups, c.s.a. groups and others then we have over 200 already. Surely
most computer users think that there are better things to do with their
lives than hang around on Usenet discussing computers. (They're wrong,
of course, but that's beside the point. ;-)
I suspect that a more useful indicator of the numbers of active RISC OS
users would be the number of people who buy Acorn User. I wonder if Mr.
Turnbull could give us a vague indication.
I accept most of the rest of your argument in this post. I wouldn't
mind knowing how to give Linux a try on this machine here but I suspect
it would be difficult. The ARM Linux pages look just a smidge
complicated.
> >That schools' software you're talking about that's no longer being
> >developed. That would be because there weren't enough people who
> >wanted to buy it anymore? So the next operating system should be
> >backward compatible to lines of software that died commerically on
> >RISC OS?
> Of course the Anorak Tendancy will not accept this unpalatable fact.
Of course we won't. We love RISC OS and most of us have never used any
OS other than Windows or RISC OS.
Cheers,
Luke
--
* How do I set my laser printer on stun?
Reply-to address in header ICQ# 13198442
PGP key available from http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lukebosman/luke.txt
For Southend Utd. news and results: http://surf.to/blue.anorak
For Fulwood Methodist Church: http://welcome.to/fulwood
Mike Kinghan
Andy McMullon <skyp...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[snip]
> What needs to be clarified here is Acorn's intentions with RiscOS.
>
> Are they binning this along with desktop computing? They don't seem
> to have said.
>
> Will it be further developed to run STBs and DigTV?
>
> I don't suppose they are going to give RiscOS 4 away whetever they do.
> Are they likely to let someone else develop it in a direction they don't
> want to take?
>
Quite so. Let no effort be spared to obtain RISC OS 4 for the Pheobe
(cf its performance contribution in the `Phoebe Benchmarks' thread.
Without ROS 4, the box is a minor advance on RPC 1. Pheobe __needs__
ROS 4). Let it also be realised that those efforts are not assured of
success, and in any event not going to pan out before a whole lot of
talking.
Meanwhile, the shelf-life of ROS 4 for any credible new ARM desktop is
already little more than a year. It it doesn't come out for the Pheobe,
it's no use to any later ARM computer. And __if__ Acorn plan to heave
RISC OS forward onto ARM10, SA2 or later, we can be damned sure (a) they're
not going to be designing a desktop OS anymore, (b) they're not going to
have fits philanthropy about the source code.
But the future's bright. The future's black and white.
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`It takes a lot of money to look this cheap' - Dolly Parton
JaneBonnin
Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <488b9e4c9...@tcp.co.uk>
> Jane Bonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <1dfxryo.ci...@userk828.uk.uudial.com>,
> > Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > > SO, good luck to the 'team' with Phoebe and RO4. But we need more
> > > drastic solutions long term.
> >
> > I'd go along with that. However, to get Phoebe/RO4 of the ground we really
> > have to be all pulling in the same direction. You clipped the last line
> > from my previous posting:-
> >
> > I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
> >
> > Jane
> >
> I'm at a loss Jane. What is the direction that you want me to pull in that
> I am not pulling in? Please read (or re-read more slowly) the post with
> which I started this thread. And don't skip the 2nd last line :-)
It seems to me that the Linux solution and the resurrection of Phoebe are
two entirely different directions to be going in. Are we going for "real"
RISC OS, running on ARM machines, or are we going for a RISC Os look alike
running on Linux? I'm confused, and I suspect I'm not the only one! ;-)
Both solutions have their attractions, but trying to do both at once under
the same name is, IMHO, very dangerous - we risk falling between the stools.
Phoebe, is very near completion and should be allowed a chance to finish and sell
as many machines as possible using the name of Risc OS. Posters to this thread
are, however, using the name of RiscOS for the future developments under Linux.
That could be potentially damaging to Phoebe, as it creates confusion.
On reflection, perhaps it's not the timing that's causing the problem, it's the
terminology. This sounds like an excellent project, with real long term benefits,
but it isn't RiscOS.
If this repeats something you've already said, I apologise - I don't have
a complete set of postings for this thread. It was Stuart I was responding
to - I'd obviously taken the discussions that I had read in much the same way
that he had.
JaneBonnin
Thomas Boroske <y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> In message <488b4e5c5...@tcp.co.uk>
> JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>,
> > Stuart Halliday <stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Judging by my email all these postings about using Linux have scared off
> > > more than one ordinary user and may be damaging the future for getting
> > > Phoebe and RISC OS 4 to the market place.
> >
> > Hear hear!
> >
> > The market for Acorn machines is small enough already without syphoning
> > part of it off into an alternative project. The idea of giving RiscOS a
> > wider market by grafting it on to Linux is an attractive one for the
> > techies, but certainly won't attract many non-techie buyers.
> [ SNIP ]
> Why don't you all get it ?
> Techies use Linux now. Techies don't need a RiscOS GUI on Linux.
> This discussion is not about "what the techies want" but "what can
> we do to make a new and better RiscOS (perhaps by building upon
> Linux) ?".
I don't disgree with that. My point was simply that many non-techies are
scared of Linux.
> I dunno - but all those people waffling about "oh please, not toooo
> techie, pleeeaase !" and "I want RiscOS and nothing else" talk
> crap - did they say the same thing when RiscOS 3 was released, when
> RiscOS 2 was released, when they were using their BBC Master or
> whatever and asked to switch to Arthur ?
> My point is you can be as non-techie a user as it gets, but that
> doesn't stop you from being affected by technology. If you
> can't see that RiscOS is at the end, then why not ignore the
> Linux discussions. If you see some magical way of keeping
> everything as it is while still making the progress needed
> then please enlighten us.
I agree, RiscOS is falling behind the times and needs further development.
That further development might well be best done using Linux as a base.
I'm with you so far.
On reflection, though , perhaps it's not the timing that's the problem -
it's the name.
I think there is a risk of confusing the punters (well, it confuses me,
though that's not too hard! ;-) ) When it comes down to it, any further
developments are going to be dependent on paying customers.
They're going to ask "Which is the _real_ RiscOs?" It won't take much
confusion to tip many of them over to Wintel - especially the schools,
whose bulk orders have provided much of the money that's kept the platform
afloat so far. That can only be damaging to the Phoebe project - and it
won't help the Linux folk either.
We're not talking about RiscOS any more in this thread (though I think the
discussion started off that way.) We're talking about a completely new
operating system.
Perhaps the best solution is to give the Linux solution a completely
different name. Then it can go on developing quite independently from
Phoebe, without confusing the customers (or the hapless posters to this
thread! ;-) ). It has a chance, I think, of becoming something pretty good
and maybe quite important - but substantially different from RiscOS as we
know it today. Son of RiscOS? ;-)
> Please, get one thing in your mind: You may think that RiscOS is
> perfect as it stands - very well, your opinion. But I assure
> you, if there won't be a big step to something with a bit
> more perspective then it's *dead*. We can reject any plan
> involving anything but pure RiscOS on pure ARM hardware,
> but I personally think a long death doesn't make a difference.
Nor me.
> > > Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
> >
> > I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
> Indeed - it should have been started years ago.
I think you're right about that, too!
Ezra
> pointless without supporting applications. Given the critical mass
> behind projects like GNOME & KDE. I only see any RISC-OS-wm having
> minor curiousity value.
Some people just don't understand...
The 'critical mass' behind GNOME and KDE is composed of techies. In
consumer gravitational terms, the mass of a techie is negligible. Left to
its own devices, Linux (possibly driven by those dear old Corel folk)
might just start to make an impact as an end-user OS, but I can't see that
happening for some years.
In the hands of just about any other British company, a RiscOS-flavoured
Linux would indeed vanish into some obscurist footnote in the Great Big
Book of Computery Stuff, but Eidos is behind this.
Without getting too foamy-at-the-mouth again, that's *Eidos*, the company
that went from producer of video codecs for a minority machine to THE
ENTIRE BRITISH GAMES SOFTWARE INDUSTRY in the time it takes most companies
to write their Strategy Statements. The company behind the biggest game
since, well, ever.
Their plan is to get current Acorn developers to port their apps to
Forbidden Linux, so it'll arrive with a ready-made software library. In
Linux terms, an almost heart-breakingly wonderful software library.
Doubtless, they'll also get some code furglers to port existing Linux apps
to the Riscy interface. Little things like Netscape...
I'm a cynic. If anyone else were behind this proposal, I'd already have
taken delivery of the new Wintel box. But this is Eidos. This is the
company that made the startlingly obvious observation that to sell a
computer game, and computer games generally have target audience of
adolescent males, you just need to make the central character a woman with
enormous breasts. Obvious I know, but how long is it since someone tried
something similar? They've got money, they've got sex-appeal, and most
importantly, they've got an investment to protect.
Eidos is a big company. The only big company to get involved with Linux
thus far is Corel with their 'careful, we don't want to upset Microsoft
*too* much' toe-dipping. Corel make desktop applications, they have
reason to be fearful of MS. Eidos make games. Some of the best-selling
in the world. They can happily laugh in the face of MS. People talk of
the time when major company interest will bring about Linux's breakthrough
into the mass-market. Perhaps some of the nay sayers might take the time
to consider that we are on te very cusp of that moment?
You can stop saluting now...
Malcolm Knight
<URL:mailto:LukeN...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> I suspect that a more useful indicator of the numbers of active RISC OS
> users would be the number of people who buy Acorn User. I wonder if Mr.
> Turnbull could give us a vague indication.
Far too vague. :-)
I think I've bought more Acorn computers (including Beebs) than I have
bought copies of AU.
--
Malcolm
Mike Kinghan
cmk...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Greg Hennessy) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 19:15:54 +0000, Mike Kinghan
> <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
[snip my stuff]
> Which if you believe the rumours is the product of an
> Wintel/Bilderburger global conspiracy. The more mundane reality as
> raised above is completely ignored however.
>
[snip my stuff]
>
> The GUI is not enough though, The applications have to comply in order
> to make the whole effect work properly.
>
[snip my stuff]
>
> Realistically speaking non techie buyers have had nothing to attract
> them for at least the past 2 years. How else does one explain the
> collapse in sales ? Black Helicopters are not a valid answer.
>
[snip my stuff]
>
> To make this happen in a reasonable timeframe they would need to
> access to the OS source. I dont see Acorn being particularly 'open
> source' about RISC-OS.
>
Don't think I care to dispute any of that.
[snip my stuff]
> Which is the reason why any talk of producing 'Phoenix' hardware is
> complete pie in the sky.
>
Nonplussed. (You'd better email Tierney & Streater before they start
trying to build it ;-) )
>
> Not to put a dampner of this. I would respectfully suggest that the
> number of active RISC-OS users are < 1000. c.f the 146 who put their
> name down for a phoebe. Of course Messrs Vigay et al will be along RSN
> to claim otherwise. However the cold harsh light of reality bears me
> out on this.
>
If you say so. Even worse than I thought :-(
[snip]
>
> You have just entered the twilight zone inhabited by the blind
> advocate.
>
Crikey :-(
>
> I would say you are being optimistic here. Remember the RISC-OS GUI is
> pointless without supporting applications. Given the critical mass
> behind projects like GNOME & KDE. I only see any RISC-OS-wm having
> minor curiousity value.
>
>
You're right, I'm being optimistic. I'm hoping the hardier RISC OS
developers would port rather than perish, __and__ that ports would come in
from Linux if a cool machine breaks, __and__ that Tierney is telling the
truth when he says that his geniuses can software-assist RISC OS porters.
Tell me what GNOME & KDE are doing GUI-wise. Maybe I don't even need to be
optimistic.
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
Terry Wogan - `Do you find yourself looking back at your childhood?'
Spike Milligan - `No, it hurts my neck.'
Greg Hennessy
>The 'critical mass' behind GNOME and KDE is composed of techies. In
>consumer gravitational terms, the mass of a techie is negligible. Left to
>its own devices, Linux (possibly driven by those dear old Corel folk)
>might just start to make an impact as an end-user OS, but I can't see that
>happening for some years.
Unlikely given that KDE is nicely RPM wrapped & the out of the box GUI
on distributions like S.u.s.e & Caldera. KDE is not just for techies
anymore.
>In the hands of just about any other British company, a RiscOS-flavoured
>Linux would indeed vanish into some obscurist footnote in the Great Big
>Book of Computery Stuff, but Eidos is behind this.
>Without getting too foamy-at-the-mouth again, that's *Eidos*, the company
>that went from producer of video codecs for a minority machine to THE
>ENTIRE BRITISH GAMES SOFTWARE INDUSTRY in the time it takes most companies
>to write their Strategy Statements. The company behind the biggest game
>since, well, ever.
So ? What relevance has this to producing an alternative GUI. Once
upon a time CC produced a very credible alternative (Impulse IIRC) to
both Arthur & RiscOS 2. I dont see it on every desktop today.
>Their plan is to get current Acorn developers to port their apps to
>Forbidden Linux, so it'll arrive with a ready-made software library.
Ah yes, I can really see this happening.
>In
>Linux terms, an almost heart-breakingly wonderful software library.
>Doubtless, they'll also get some code furglers to port existing Linux apps
>to the Riscy interface.
Dont kid yourself.
[Snip Eidos Eulogy]
>Eidos make games.
Yes, The bean counters will come along shortly & say, WTF are we
wasting valuable development resources on this for ?
> They can happily laugh in the face of MS.
A lot of companies thought that also.
greg
Andreas Dehmel
>Englightenment is the most amazing window manager around you can make it
>look like anything you want (http://e.themes.org )
Why is it that whenever people mention how you can change the outward
appearances of a desktop environment that I get the feeling they don't
know the first thing about what's _really important_ in a gUI...?
Andreas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Dehmel When asked how his parrot had died
Orleansstr. 34 the mathematician replied:
D-81667 Muenchen ``Polynomial. Polygon.''
deh...@forwiss.tu-muenchen.de
Tel. 089 / 28095-218 http://www.forwiss.tu-muenchen.de/~dehmel
Stuart Halliday
Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>, Stuart Halliday
>
> > Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
>
I see RISC OS 4 being continually developed by Acorn and the Steering Group
and then sold onto us.
--
Stuart Halliday
Acorn Cybervillage
http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/
Darren Salt
Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> The future's black and white.
I know :-)
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | ds@zap,uk,eu,org | Northumberland
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk | Toon Army
| Nothing much, coming your way *soon*,..
No matter what they're talking about, they're talking about money.
Darren Salt
JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps the best solution is to give the Linux solution a completely
> different name. Then it can go on developing quite independently from
> Phoebe, without confusing the customers (or the hapless posters to this
> thread! ;-) ). It has a chance, I think, of becoming something pretty good
> and maybe quite important - but substantially different from RiscOS as we
> know it today. Son of RiscOS? ;-)
You could be right... RISCux?
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| BMPSprite. DrawMerge. DrawShape.
If several things can go wrong, the worst one will.
Stuart Bell
> It won't take much
> confusion to tip many of them over to Wintel - especially the schools,
> whose bulk orders have provided much of the money that's kept the platform
> afloat so far.
Psst. It hasn't. At the moment. That's the problem.
FWIW, IMHO you can forget the schools market. If something amazing
happens with Eidos/Linux/RiscOS, then they might start coming back in
five years' time after two generations of PCs have been a disaster, but
I can't see many schools investing a single penny in Risc PCs or A7000s
atm. People recommending that would be on a hiding to nothing until the
Acorn desktop is not simply resurrected, but is shown to have a truly
viable long-term future.
--
Stuart Bell
running a PowerBook 100, Color Classic and PowerMac 6500/275.
PB-100 FAQ at www.argonet.co.uk/users/sabell/pb100.html
Greg Hennessy
<I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tell me what GNOME & KDE are doing GUI-wise. Maybe I don't even need to be
>optimistic.
IIRC
&
G
Dave Roberts
<URL:mailto:grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> On reflection, though , perhaps it's not the timing that's the problem -
> it's the name.
[SNIP]
> Perhaps the best solution is to give the Linux solution a completely
> different name.
RiscOS-TNG? It's like the old OS in ethos but in everything else it's far
superior :).
--
Dave Roberts
Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk
mrp...@leeds.ac.uk
Roger Lynn
> Not to put a dampner of this. I would respectfully suggest that the
> number of active RISC-OS users are < 1000. c.f the 146 who put their
> name down for a phoebe. Of course Messrs Vigay et al will be along RSN
> to claim otherwise. However the cold harsh light of reality bears me
> out on this.
This is rubbish. There are hundreds of people who were just waiting to
see Phoebe before putting down their money, and I'm sure many more would
have bought one in the months following the launch. I had decided that
I was going to buy one, but hadn't put my name down. I was still
deciding which dealer to order from and didn't see much to be gained
from putting my name down on a list.
The existence of two news stand magazines and several other subscription
magazines proves the existence of many more than 1000 active RISC OS
users. You don't think the WHSmiths would stock AU and AW if they only
sold 1000 copies each (or that they would both still be in existence)?
And that's assuming that every active RISC OS user buys both. I have
only occasionally bought AU for nearly a year now, and never AW.
Roger
Roger Lynn
Ezra <ez...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm a cynic. If anyone else were behind this proposal, I'd already have
> taken delivery of the new Wintel box. But this is Eidos. This is the
> company that made the startlingly obvious observation that to sell a
> computer game, and computer games generally have target audience of
> adolescent males, you just need to make the central character a woman with
> enormous breasts. Obvious I know, but how long is it since someone tried
> something similar? They've got money, they've got sex-appeal, and most
> importantly, they've got an investment to protect.
ISTR that Superior Software tried something similar. It made reading
BAU in school quite embarassing.
Roger
Mike Kinghan
stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk (Stuart Halliday) wrote:
> In article <ant2516480b0XL#k...@pharpech.demon.co.uk>,
> Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk says...
> > In article <MPG.1075a08e9...@news.ecs.local>, Stuart Halliday
> > <URL:mailto:stu...@cybervillage.co.ouch.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Linux-RISCOS is never going to happen so let us all drop the subject?
> >
> > So what would be your future vision then? (just interested)
>
>
> I see RISC OS 4 being continually developed by Acorn and the Steering Group
> and then sold onto us.
>
And do you believe this will __work__ commerciallly, or are you just
resigned to a slightly delayed demise? What do you think the roadmap's
going to be?
Why do you think (if indeed you don't) that Forbidden Tech will not
do what what Tierney say's they're going to do or that, if they do do it,
RISC OS 4.x,5.x boxes will withstand the competition?
None of the above are rhetorical questions. I won't be surprised if this
is attempted and I'd like someone who believes in the commercial and
technical logic to explain it to me.
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
Mike Kinghan
JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <30d7d18b48%I...@ttools.demon.co.uk>,
> Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > I'm at a loss Jane. What is the direction that you want me to pull in that
> > I am not pulling in? Please read (or re-read more slowly) the post with
> > which I started this thread. And don't skip the 2nd last line :-)
>
> It seems to me that the Linux solution and the resurrection of Phoebe are
> two entirely different directions to be going in.
No they're not. They don't overlap in time.
> Are we going for "real"
> RISC OS, running on ARM machines, or are we going for a RISC Os look alike
> running on Linux? I'm confused, and I suspect I'm not the only one! ;-)
We (at least those of my persuasion) are going for real RISC OS on ARM
machines until ARM architecture ceases to support RISC OS. That means the
ARM10 and SA2, next year. They won't support RISC OS addressing mode, a
fundamental obstacle. Phoebe is the end of the line for the existing RISC
OS kernel - a mountain of ARM assembler that's in any case jealously owned
by Acorn. And all the software that runs on it.
We need to start deciding where to go for the __next__ operating system
__now__, if we hope for any market continuity of competitive ARM computers
beyond Phoebe. The timescale is really tight already. The view I speak for is
that Linux is the no-brain choice, for commercial reasons, technical reasons,
legal reasons and timescale.
I believe the RISC OS GUI is the (only) Unique Selling Proposition of our
computers so I want it saved, as intactly as can be achieved, as a
presentation layer on Linux. We'll be damned lucky if even that can be
accomplished with Acorn's aquiescence.
>
> If this repeats something you've already said, I apologise - I don't have
> a complete set of postings for this thread. It was Stuart I was responding
> to - I'd obviously taken the discussions that I had read in much the same way
> that he had.
My original post's coming atcha by email. (Better get comfy.)
>
> Jane
>
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
James White
<URL:mailto:sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It won't take much
> > confusion to tip many of them over to Wintel - especially the schools,
> > whose bulk orders have provided much of the money that's kept the platform
> > afloat so far.
>
> Psst. It hasn't. At the moment. That's the problem.
>
> FWIW, IMHO you can forget the schools market. If something amazing
> happens with Eidos/Linux/RiscOS, then they might start coming back in
> five years' time after two generations of PCs have been a disaster, but
> I can't see many schools investing a single penny in Risc PCs or A7000s
> atm. People recommending that would be on a hiding to nothing until the
> Acorn desktop is not simply resurrected, but is shown to have a truly
> viable long-term future.
There must be an element of truth in what you say, as always, Stuart.
It is also true to say that people are still buying Acorn kit. I have
been surprised by two requests for RPCs last Friday from individual
teachers and over the weekend discussed a plan from a group of teachers
wanting to set up a complete suite as music school / publishers.
It's easy to be blown off course trying to see into the future. At this
very moment these people are telling me the RPC and its software is
perfectly relevant for certain tasks for certain people. That must be
the criteria, and that criteria must also apply surely to that small
selection of a/m schools.
Had I been a prophet I would have predicted the manufacturing downfall
of the Mac (as distinct from its enthusiast following). There was a
period 1996 / 1997 when people wern't buying Macs because other people
wern't buying them, a self-fulfilling doom scenario which cut market
share drastically. Now they are doing OK. But then comes a recent
(Antipodean) report indicating schools are replacing Macs with PCs and
I've just heard a BBC business report indicating the margins on the iMac
are wafer thin and the millions spent on advertising must be
outstripping that margin. The financial bod was issuing a veiled
warning.
But I'm no prophet, otherwise I would have to say the looming schism
between MSoft and Intel portends a new era where the PC monolith
fragments and the paper value of the Gates software empire devalues even
further than the present nine billion $ loss it has suffered since its
peak. I could confidently predict an alternative OS taking market share
away from Windows, and I could well see that the thin end of the wedge
for all this was forged at ARM.
The only certainty is that there IS change and it IS exciting.
'Soy muy ilusianado' is an apt Spanish phrase. It means I'm very
excited, although it looks like I'm full of illusions. A true False Friend.
JW
--
----------------
Acorns in Spain
----------------
James White
<URL:mailto:ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> In message <488c4f4ca...@tcp.co.uk>
> JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Phoebe, without confusing the customers (or the hapless posters to this
> > thread! ;-) ). It has a chance, I think, of becoming something pretty good
> > and maybe quite important - but substantially different from RiscOS as we
> > know it today. Son of RiscOS? ;-)
>
> You could be right... RISCux?
>
ROLux!
Designed especially for rowing against the tide.
Mike Kinghan
Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> In message <488c4f4ca...@tcp.co.uk>
> JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Perhaps the best solution is to give the Linux solution a completely
> > different name. Then it can go on developing quite independently from
> > Phoebe, without confusing the customers (or the hapless posters to this
> > thread! ;-) ). It has a chance, I think, of becoming something pretty good
> > and maybe quite important - but substantially different from RiscOS as we
> > know it today. Son of RiscOS? ;-)
>
> You could be right... RISCux?
>
RISCix? Well...?
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`I may not practice what I preach, but God forbid I should preach what I
practice' - G.K.Chesterton
Mike Kinghan
James White <jac...@ibm.net> wrote:
[snip]
> But I'm no prophet, otherwise I would have to say the looming schism
> between MSoft and Intel portends a new era where the PC monolith
> fragments and the paper value of the Gates software empire devalues even
> further than the present nine billion $ loss it has suffered since its
> peak. I could confidently predict an alternative OS taking market share
> away from Windows, and I could well see that the thin end of the wedge
> for all this was forged at ARM.
>
Well, definitely not unless ARM start seeing themselves as seriously in
the __CPUs for computers__ business, which they probably won't unless
somebody builds a no-kiddingly successful ARM computer (again), at a
time when ARMs are increasingly positioned as lightweight devices.
Chicken & egg :-(. But you do get eggs from chickens, and vice versa ;-)
> The only certainty is that there IS change and it IS exciting.
>
True enough.
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`The truth is rarely pure and never simple' - Oscar Wilde
`Guinness is rarely pure and never ample' - Ned Kinghan
John Fenton
James White <jac...@ibm.net> wrote:
[that somebody wrote that somebody wrote something about...]
> > You could be right... RISCux?
>
> ROLux!
If I have understood the 'case' then all the "-ux"s should really
be "WM"s, however!
--
John Fenton http://www.gnarumen.demon.co.uk/
==============================================================
This message sent using an Acorn Risc PC 600 (+StrongARM)
Acorn : RISC based desktop computers since 1987
David Courtney
Take Phoebe + unix
Take out beu where they join.
swap the oe
And it's Pheonix. (Duh) :-)
...
jura ner jr tbvat gb urne fbzrguvat sebz Crgr Obaqne.
--
Toodle Pip
_________________________________________________
David A. Courtney http://www.jinksies.com/fun.htm Interactive Fun
Risc OS Stuff at ftp://ftp.jinksies.oaktree.co.uk/pub/raw '-'-'-'-'-'-'-'
Thomas Boroske
> In article <6271d78b48%y000...@tu-bs.de>,
> Thomas Boroske <y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you all get it ?
> > Techies use Linux now. Techies don't need a RiscOS GUI on Linux.
> > This discussion is not about "what the techies want" but "what can
> > we do to make a new and better RiscOS (perhaps by building upon
> > Linux) ?".
>
> I don't disgree with that. My point was simply that many non-techies are
> scared of Linux.
Quite clearly. But - what has this got to do when discussing a possible
RiscOS-alike desktop *on* Linux ? The purpose of the entire exercise
is to hide the 'scary Linux' from the users, so why do the same people
who're so scared of Linux say they don't want it (the new desktop,
that is) ?
> > My point is you can be as non-techie a user as it gets, but that
> > doesn't stop you from being affected by technology. If you
> > can't see that RiscOS is at the end, then why not ignore the
> > Linux discussions. If you see some magical way of keeping
> > everything as it is while still making the progress needed
> > then please enlighten us.
>
> I agree, RiscOS is falling behind the times and needs further development.
> That further development might well be best done using Linux as a base.
> I'm with you so far.
Great :-)
> On reflection, though , perhaps it's not the timing that's the problem -
> it's the name.
Hmm ?!?
> I think there is a risk of confusing the punters (well, it confuses me,
> though that's not too hard! ;-) ) When it comes down to it, any further
> developments are going to be dependent on paying customers.
> They're going to ask "Which is the _real_ RiscOs?"
Real RiscOS is what we're using now, as well as RiscOS 4 that we'll
maybe use on Phoebe. In the long run, RiscOS will die out though,
and users can then switch to Risc-Linux/Phoenix-OS or whatever
it'll be called. In that sense, RiscOS as we know it will be
as unimportant in five years time as Arthur is know, and if
the Risc-Linux project proves successfull, it will be the OS
former RiscOS users will switch to. Hopefully.
> It won't take much
> confusion to tip many of them over to Wintel - especially the schools,
> whose bulk orders have provided much of the money that's kept the platform
> afloat so far. That can only be damaging to the Phoebe project - and it
> won't help the Linux folk either.
Yes, could be.
> We're not talking about RiscOS any more in this thread (though I think the
> discussion started off that way.) We're talking about a completely new
> operating system.
Well, not quite, the OS is Linux, with a new desktop + bits'n'pieces ...
> Perhaps the best solution is to give the Linux solution a completely
> different name.
Will be needed anyway, since Acorn will hardly agree to it being
called RiscOS.
> Then it can go on developing quite independently from
> Phoebe, without confusing the customers (or the hapless posters to this
> thread! ;-) ). It has a chance, I think, of becoming something pretty good
> and maybe quite important - but substantially different from RiscOS as we
> know it today. Son of RiscOS? ;-)
Yeah ;-)
> > > I hope that's not a "never", but now really isn't the moment.
>
> > Indeed - it should have been started years ago.
>
> I think you're right about that, too!
Hey, we should team up :-)
OK, so your concerns are mainly with naming and confused users. I recognize
that, but I believe that'll be quite a small problem after a few things
are sorted out, projects really started.
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
Ian Lowry
David Courtney <da...@jinksies.com> wrote:
> Take Phoebe + unix
> Take out beu where they join.
> swap the oe
> And it's Pheonix. (Duh) :-)
It is even simpler if you spell Phoenix correctly.
Actually, the original Greek word appears to also mean the colour purple.
Perhaps this is a sign that we should change the colour of the case.
Ian
--
Ian Lowry, Cardiff Cadair wag. Gwaetha'r modd.
David Courtney
<i...@lowri.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Take Phoebe + unix
> > Take out beu where they join.
> > swap the oe
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > And it's Pheonix. (Duh) :-)
> ^^
> It is even simpler if you spell Phoenix correctly.
Believe me it's even easier if you spell Phoenix correctly, ;-)
Anyway perhaps if I my brain were not so flexible with spelling,
I wouldn't of seen the similarity. (Duh) :-)
I think it does give the Phoebe unix thing, a kind of inevitability.
Ernst Dinkla
<URL:mailto:da...@jinksies.com> wrote:
> In article <488d95...@lowri.demon.co.uk>, Ian Lowry
> <i...@lowri.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Take Phoebe + unix
> > > Take out beu where they join.
> > > swap the oe
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > And it's Pheonix. (Duh) :-)
> > ^^
> > It is even simpler if you spell Phoenix correctly.
>
> Believe me it's even easier if you spell Phoenix correctly, ;-)
>
> Anyway perhaps if I my brain were not so flexible with spelling,
> I wouldn't of seen the similarity. (Duh) :-)
>
> I think it does give the Phoebe unix thing, a kind of inevitability.
To keep it simple and attractive for everyone involved just Funix.
In 500 years after several spelling reforms and the erosion by
internet chat the word Phoenix would become Funix anyway ;-)
Ernst
--
Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk edi...@inter.nl.net
All views expressed are my own and may have no relation whatsoever
to the views of Acorn, Intel, Oracle, IBM, ARM, Sun, Compaq, Micro-
James White
<URL:mailto:I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ant29124...@jacorn.ibm.net>
> James White <jac...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > But I'm no prophet, otherwise I would have to say the looming schism
> > between MSoft and Intel portends a new era where the PC monolith
> > fragments and the paper value of the Gates software empire devalues even
> > further than the present nine billion $ loss it has suffered since its
> > peak. I could confidently predict an alternative OS taking market share
> > away from Windows, and I could well see that the thin end of the wedge
> > for all this was forged at ARM.
> >
> Well, definitely not unless ARM start seeing themselves as seriously in
> the __CPUs for computers__ business, which they probably won't unless
> somebody builds a no-kiddingly successful ARM computer (again), at a
> time when ARMs are increasingly positioned as lightweight devices.
> Chicken & egg :-(. But you do get eggs from chickens, and vice versa ;-)
>
What I said about the ARM wedge is too simplistic, of course.
Firstly we do know that Intel broke away from their one-time impregnable
ethos, that of ONLY designing and producing in-house CPUs. They did that
when they decided after much agonising to licence ARM's SA. This was
not premeditated, but IS I think turning out to be a catalyst for a more
rapid change in the industry.
Intel wants the SA for it's own vision of the NC - see the article at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/980923-000028.html just in this morning
which points that up. We can presume that whatever mighty Intel decides,
it brings to fruition.
Merrill Lynch's recent report that the industry is moving away from PCs
as the driving force, towards more specialised computing such as NCs,
seems to parallel the contention that the M$ software hegemony
is...what? fragmenting? losing ground?
Add in Intel's interest in Linux, now confirmed as a move to BREAK
Wintel - see http://www.theregister.co.uk/980927-000003.html and the
case gets stronger.
You will see in this last article that Intel's SERVER strategy is to
supply cost-effective solutions for small businesses that do not demand
evermore powerful machines - 8Mb in a 386 will do. That reminds me -
isn't that the RiscOS Desktop ethos? And isn't a certain StrongARM a
proven CPU-for-computers? What characterised the Acorn way of doing
things now seems to be the likely new trend.
Just some interesting developments. (Fx. smug feeling writing off M$)
Oh.. we'll leave aside just for the moment the prophesy that M$ will
sometime in the future come back from the dead; rise from the ashes like
a Ph.... ;-)
> > The only certainty is that there IS change and it IS exciting.
> >
> True enough.
>
Thank you for your interest.
Darren Salt
Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <488C6C4C60%ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk>
> Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.com.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>> Son of RiscOS? ;-)
>> You could be right... RISCux?
> RISCix? Well...?
I see that you've noticed the similarity of the name... :-)
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | ds@zap,uk,eu,org | Northumberland
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk | Toon Army
| I don't ask for much, just untold riches,..
Whizzo Butter - contains 10% more less.
James White
<URL:mailto:ez...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3610327f...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>,
> Eidos is a big company. The only big company to get involved with Linux
> thus far is Corel with their 'careful, we don't want to upset Microsoft
> *too* much' toe-dipping. Corel make desktop applications, they have
> reason to be fearful of MS.
Stand to attention, Ezra. Take a look at this...
"...Intel has a long history of Unix involvement, which is scarcely
surprising considering the number of companies running Intel-based Unix
servers."
All in http://www.theregister.co.uk/980927-000003.html
Makes good reading.
Right, you can stand at ease..
JW
Darren Salt
David Courtney <da...@jinksies.com> wrote:
[snip]
> jura ner jr tbvat gb urne fbzrguvat sebz Crgr Obaqne.
Tbbq dhrfgvba...
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| ZapEmail. ZapDS. MakeExtern.
Windoze has great support for device drivers. Plug and Pray.
BR
<snip stirring speech>
> Hmmm. Wouldn't it be ironic if Linux endedup with a RISCOS-like GUI?
> 8-)
>
> Anyway, Given what Corel is doing with an ARM based machine, as well
> as Netscape/Intel's investment in Red Hat, it's not too hard to
> imagine (as I've mentioned before in c.o.l.a,) a specific-use NetPC
> with Communicator running on a StrongARM. It's THE perfect machine to
> make networked computing univeral. It'd be cheap, fast, easy to use
> and serve as a stop-gap measure while work on a opensource, consumer
> friendly Linux GUI is being completed.
>
> lee, who's interested in seeing some RISCOS GUI screenshots.
Think of all the nice RISCOS programs that are out there.
Each side has something that benefits the other.
>
> L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
> Nattering Nabob of Narcissism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum/
> ICQ#: 9393354 * "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time
> to reform." -- Mark Twain
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to foresee the consequences of being clever.
{Christopher Strachey}
-------------------------------------------------------------
JaneBonnin
Thomas Boroske <y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> In message <488c4f4ca...@tcp.co.uk>
> JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> > I don't disgree with that. My point was simply that many non-techies are
> > scared of Linux.
> Quite clearly. But - what has this got to do when discussing a possible
> RiscOS-alike desktop *on* Linux ? The purpose of the entire exercise
> is to hide the 'scary Linux' from the users, so why do the same people
> who're so scared of Linux say they don't want it (the new desktop,
> that is) ?
To hide the "scary Linux", you also need to hide the "scary Linux" name.
> > I think there is a risk of confusing the punters (well, it confuses me,
> > though that's not too hard! ;-) ) When it comes down to it, any further
> > developments are going to be dependent on paying customers.
> > They're going to ask "Which is the _real_ RiscOs?"
> Real RiscOS is what we're using now, as well as RiscOS 4 that we'll
> maybe use on Phoebe. In the long run, RiscOS will die out though,
> and users can then switch to Risc-Linux/Phoenix-OS or whatever
> it'll be called. In that sense, RiscOS as we know it will be
> as unimportant in five years time as Arthur is know, and if
> the Risc-Linux project proves successfull, it will be the OS
> former RiscOS users will switch to. Hopefully.
Agreed (though even if if real RiscOS doesn't die out, the Risc-Linux
should still be developed as a separate entity).
> > We're not talking about RiscOS any more in this thread (though I think the
> > discussion started off that way.) We're talking about a completely new
> > operating system.
> Well, not quite, the OS is Linux, with a new desktop + bits'n'pieces ...
Well, yes, but isn't the idea to present it as a single package (and hide
the Linux)?
> > Perhaps the best solution is to give the Linux solution a completely
> > different name.
> Will be needed anyway, since Acorn will hardly agree to it being
> called RiscOS.
True, but I was thinking a bit sooner than that.
> > I think you're right about that, too!
> Hey, we should team up :-)
I think my husband might have something to say about that! ;-)
> OK, so your concerns are mainly with naming and confused users. I recognize
> that, but I believe that'll be quite a small problem after a few things
> are sorted out, projects really started.
Correct, but what I'm concerned about is the confusion now.
Jane
--
__ / /__ ____ ___ Jane Bonnin
/ /_/ / _ `/ _ \/ -_) mailto:grap...@tcp.co.uk
\____/\_,_/_//_/\__/
Shelton Garner
<I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>WHY LINUX?
(For comp.os.linux.advocacy folks--this post is an excellent Vision of
Linux being the savior of the RISCOS platform...at least in some
shape...I think it's quite an interesting idea...)
>Linux already is an operating system of the modern calibre that RISC
>OS urgently needs to achieve. And it is __free__. If you need a fully
>specified modern OS for your desktop computer today, you don't
>__need__ to write your own, or buy one, or for form a company to
>develop it. You can have Linux. That's what it for.
>
>Linux is GNU software and the de-facto target OS of Project GNU. It
>runs on every significant computer architecure there is, bar
>mainframes, and attracts software assets from them all. It hosts the
>whole huge GNU software catalogue, all of it free and freely portable
>to any Linux platform. If you want your desktop computer today to be
>abundantly supported by applications, languages and tools, it doesn't
>have to run Windows or grow its very own software industry. It can run
>Linux and have GNU.
>
>ARM Linux already exists. It's not rock-steady, dummy-ready or replete
>with ported tools and applications. There's loads of work to be done.
>No more and no harder than any other outlook entails.
>
<snip>
>The thing that Linux still needs above all else to bring the toppling
>of Windows within sight is a really great GUI. We might be able to
>help with that.
Hmmm. Wouldn't it be ironic if Linux endedup with a RISCOS-like GUI?
8-)
Anyway, Given what Corel is doing with an ARM based machine, as well
as Netscape/Intel's investment in Red Hat, it's not too hard to
imagine (as I've mentioned before in c.o.l.a,) a specific-use NetPC
with Communicator running on a StrongARM. It's THE perfect machine to
make networked computing univeral. It'd be cheap, fast, easy to use
and serve as a stop-gap measure while work on a opensource, consumer
friendly Linux GUI is being completed.
lee, who's interested in seeing some RISCOS GUI screenshots.
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Thomas Boroske
JaneBonnin <grap...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <74477b8d48%y000...@tu-bs.de>,
> Thomas Boroske <y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> > Quite clearly. But - what has this got to do when discussing a possible
> > RiscOS-alike desktop *on* Linux ? The purpose of the entire exercise
> > is to hide the 'scary Linux' from the users, so why do the same people
> > who're so scared of Linux say they don't want it (the new desktop,
> > that is) ?
>
> To hide the "scary Linux", you also need to hide the "scary Linux" name.
Oh come on ;-) OK, let's never mention the L-word again, shall we ? :-)
> > Real RiscOS is what we're using now, as well as RiscOS 4 that we'll
> > maybe use on Phoebe. In the long run, RiscOS will die out though,
> > and users can then switch to Risc-Linux/Phoenix-OS or whatever
> > it'll be called. In that sense, RiscOS as we know it will be
> > as unimportant in five years time as Arthur is know, and if
> > the Risc-Linux project proves successfull, it will be the OS
> > former RiscOS users will switch to. Hopefully.
>
> Agreed (though even if if real RiscOS doesn't die out, the Risc-Linux
> should still be developed as a separate entity).
Yep, that's what I think too.
> > Well, not quite, the OS is Linux, with a new desktop + bits'n'pieces ...
>
> Well, yes, but isn't the idea to present it as a single package (and hide
> the Linux)?
Certainly is ! Only if you come from the direction of "what needs to
be done to make such a system" the fact that <beep> is already
there is not completely insignificant.
> > Will be needed anyway, since Acorn will hardly agree to it being
> > called RiscOS.
>
> True, but I was thinking a bit sooner than that.
OK - proposals for a name used in the context of these discussions ? ;-)
> > Hey, we should team up :-)
>
> I think my husband might have something to say about that! ;-)
LOL ;-)
Paul Clark
> OK - proposals for a name used in the context of these discussions ? ;-)
I've already said this, but that thread is probably in most people's
killfiles by now ;-)
'Flame'
P.
--
Paul Clark mailto:p...@sysmag.com $ whois pc52
Systems Magic Ltd. http://www.sysmag.com
Stuart Bell
"Linux marches into the big league.
M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried at
the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost operating
system. . ."
Obviously Bill has been reading the protagonists on this thread, then.
;-)
--
Stuart Bell
running a PowerBook 100, Color Classic and PowerMac 6500/275.
PB-100 FAQ at www.argonet.co.uk/users/sabell/pb100.html
Andy Piper
> "Linux marches into the big league.
> M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried
> at the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost
> operating system. . ."
I spotted this, too, and read it with interest... and not a little
trepidation.
Historically, it seems to me that Microsoft recognising a significant
competitor is only one step away from their launching a concerted
campaign to eliminate it. I realise that Linux is much harder for
them to dig their claws into than, say, Java/Netscape/Netware - but
it certainly rang a couple of alarm bells.
Andy
--
Andy Piper <an...@argonet.co.uk>
Fareham, Hampshire
Acorn Resources and More at <http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/andyp>
*** All views expressed are my own! ***
Chika
Andy Piper <an...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I spotted this, too, and read it with interest... and not a little
> trepidation.
> Historically, it seems to me that Microsoft recognising a significant
> competitor is only one step away from their launching a concerted
> campaign against it. I realise that Linux much harder for them to dig
> their claws into as opposed to, say, Java/Netscape/Netware - but it
> certainly rang a couple of alarm bells.
Maybe. "Free W98 for all" isn't really a possibility but they could make
things hot for Linux in other ways. The war has only just started.... :)
--
______
| /\ | Chika (irc #anime) - mad...@argonet.co.uk Phoebe? Wherefore
| //\\ | The Lurkers' Retreat / Madoka's Crash Pages ART thou, Phoebe?
|_/__\_| http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/madoka/ (ZFC A / CAPOW)
... "Bother", said Pooh, as he saw the mushroom cloud.
Stuart Bell
> In article <1dgfq7c.fx0...@usern466.uk.uudial.com>,
> Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Computing, 1st October:
>
> > "Linux marches into the big league.
>
> > M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried
> > at the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost
> > operating system. . ."
>
> I spotted this, too, and read it with interest... and not a little
> trepidation.
>
> Historically, it seems to me that Microsoft recognising a significant
> competitor is only one step away from their launching a concerted
> campaign to eliminate it. I realise that Linux is much harder for
> them to dig their claws into than, say, Java/Netscape/Netware - but
> it certainly rang a couple of alarm bells.
Hmm. Isn't Linux so amorphous and diversified that even BG couldn't buy
it? They could make the originator chap a milti-billionaire, but even
that wouldn't work. Simply because Linux transcends companies and
property rights, this might be the only way that M$ get their
come-uppance. That's probably why they're worried. If it was a 'normal'
product, then they'd just buy the company concerned in a hostile
take-over. :-)
Ernst Dinkla
Even the originator hasn't the rights on the product.
That's why I expected that Linux has a far better chance than for
example Java to undermine the power of M$. What I fear however is
what M$ did with Java; a slow intoxication with software and tools
that are not entirely Linux compatible but can be used with special
M$ products etcetera etcetera.
They don't need the source to poison the well.
I fear the day that M$ announces that they will make Linux consumer-
friendly. An up to date Explorer version for Linux?
So let RiscOs get there first.
Ernst
--
Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk edi...@inter.nl.net
It's a bright day that brings forth the adder.
Chika
Ernst Dinkla <edi...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> > Hmm. Isn't Linux so amorphous and diversified that even BG couldn't buy
> > it? They could make the originator chap a milti-billionaire, but even
> > that wouldn't work. Simply because Linux transcends companies and
> > property rights, this might be the only way that M$ get their
> > come-uppance. That's probably why they're worried. If it was a 'normal'
> > product, then they'd just buy the company concerned in a hostile
> > take-over. :-)
> Even the originator hasn't the rights on the product.
Mind you, the GNU license that does cover Linux is a useful protection
just in case BG tries anything funny directly on Linux...
> That's why I expected that Linux has a far better chance than for
> example Java to undermine the power of M$. What I fear however is
> what M$ did with Java; a slow intoxication with software and tools
> that are not entirely Linux compatible but can be used with special
> M$ products etcetera etcetera.
> They don't need the source to poison the well.
> I fear the day that M$ announces that they will make Linux consumer-
> friendly. An up to date Explorer version for Linux?
I would tend to favour the current industry scenario, which seems to be
that all of the third party producers defect leaving just M$ on the
W98/WNT platform, only moving to Linux when all other options are
exhausted and with a depleted user base. Depends on how M$ handles itself
in the future, especially if Windows continues to bloat out with each
successive release and M$ tries to control more of the market each time it
regenerates its GUI. (In other words, M$ may be the biggest voice but if
it booms too loud and too often ppl will turn on it).
But then this is all speculation. All we can do is play our part out, then
wait... :)
--
______
| /\ | Chika (irc #anime) - mad...@argonet.co.uk Phoebe? Wherefore
| //\\ | The Lurkers' Retreat / Madoka's Crash Pages ART thou, Phoebe?
|_/__\_| http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/madoka/ (ZFC A / CAPOW)
... You can make it foolproof. But you can't make it damn foolproof!
Paul Vigay
> Computing, 1st October:
>
> "Linux marches into the big league.
>
> M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried at
> the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost operating
> system. . ."
>
> ;-)
Nah! He's been reading my anti Microsoft site. I have a nice up to date news
page which details "Good News about Microsoft having Bad News" at
http://www.interalpha.net/customer/pvigay/antiwintel/goodnews.html on which I
put links to all the latest news stories etc, including all the various events
in the Linux world over the last couple of weeks. I recommend people bookmark
it as it's a handy place to see all the various events around the world.
--
Paul Vigay Computer Resources Manager,
__\\|//__ Bohunt Community School
http://www.matrix.clara.net (` o-o ') Liphook, Hampshire
---------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-----------------------------
All views my own and I reserve the right to change them without warning!
Mike Kinghan
sab...@argonet.co.uk (Stuart Bell) wrote:
> Andy Piper <an...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1dgfq7c.fx0...@usern466.uk.uudial.com>,
> > Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Computing, 1st October:
> >
> > > "Linux marches into the big league.
> >
> > > M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried
> > > at the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost
> > > operating system. . ."
> >
> > I spotted this, too, and read it with interest... and not a little
> > trepidation.
> >
> > Historically, it seems to me that Microsoft recognising a significant
> > competitor is only one step away from their launching a concerted
> > campaign to eliminate it. I realise that Linux is much harder for
> > them to dig their claws into than, say, Java/Netscape/Netware - but
> > it certainly rang a couple of alarm bells.
>
> Hmm. Isn't Linux so amorphous and diversified that even BG couldn't buy
> it? They could make the originator chap a milti-billionaire, but even
> that wouldn't work. Simply because Linux transcends companies and
> property rights, this might be the only way that M$ get their
> come-uppance. That's probably why they're worried. If it was a 'normal'
> product, then they'd just buy the company concerned in a hostile
> take-over. :-)
>
Indeed. How do you defeat competitors who work for nothing and nobody?
He'll have to start giving Windows away.
(Think I'm joking?)
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`Only dogs can hear my sense of humour' - Ruby Wax.
James White
<URL:mailto:sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Piper <an...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1dgfq7c.fx0...@usern466.uk.uudial.com>,
> > Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Computing, 1st October:
> >
> > > "Linux marches into the big league.
> >
> > > M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried
> > > at the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost
> > > operating system. . ."
> Hmm. Isn't Linux so amorphous and diversified that even BG couldn't buy
> it? They could make the originator chap a milti-billionaire, but even
> that wouldn't work.
One trick that share-watchers have is studying the FT's 'Director's
Bought/Sold' column.
The directors of M$ Corp have just liquidated substantially their
holdings, and made 'huge wadges of cash'.
The rats.
--
----------------
Acorns in Spain Tel: +34 971 872322 Fax: +34 971 872309
----------------
Paul Shayler
<URL:mailto:sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Piper <an...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1dgfq7c.fx0...@usern466.uk.uudial.com>,
> > Stuart Bell <sab...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Computing, 1st October:
> >
> > > "Linux marches into the big league.
> >
> > > M$ expects to face stiffening competition from Linux and is worried
> > > at the gathering pace of industry support for the low-cost
> > > operating system. . ."
Intresting to see the INTEL, yes that INTEL are investing in LINUX
via RED HAT! IBM are also very intersted in doing stuff for LINUX,
DB2 will be the first. Micro$oft is getting vey worried about this,
what a shame!!
--
This message originated from a WINDOZE.... free zone.............
Paul G6TSF g6...@amsat.org
Andy Piper
Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1dgg8g9.9wj...@usern627.uk.uudial.com>
> sab...@argonet.co.uk (Stuart Bell) wrote:
> > Hmm. Isn't Linux so amorphous and diversified that even BG
> > couldn't buy it? They could make the originator chap a
> > milti-billionaire, but even that wouldn't work. Simply because
> > Linux transcends companies and property rights, this might be the
> > only way that M$ get their come-uppance. That's probably why
> > they're worried. If it was a 'normal' product, then they'd just
> > buy the company concerned in a hostile take-over. :-)
> >
> Indeed. How do you defeat competitors who work for nothing and
> nobody? He'll have to start giving Windows away.
> (Think I'm joking?)
Nails and heads spring to mind. IE bundled with the OS, FrontPage
bundled with Office 2000, the whole lot bundled with your new PC...
why buy or get hold of anything else? especially when it actually
involves some *effort*...
All of this is really interesting. Yes, it probably is possible for a
commercial venture (MS) to overcome something which, *in theory*, is
vendor-independent, and fiercely so. But it isn't as easy for this to
happen as it is for Microsoft to tie down a competitor on their own
home soil, i.e. within their own operating system for example, and
screw it out of existence. Which was my earlier point.
The fact remains that Linux's apparently galloping market penetration
(probably rather overpainted by a PC press eager to dig any knife it
can find into the behemoth that is Windows/MS/Gates) is due in large
part to the distros, which are rapidly becoming more commercial - the
RedHat/Intel/etc tie-up springs straight to mind, as does the fact
that Intel have apparently invested in having Linux ported to Merced
before the superchip even appears...
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> I fear the day that M$ announces that they will make Linux consumer-
> friendly. An up to date Explorer version for Linux?
Could happen. There's one for Unix (HP-UX, I think?) already...
Consumer-friendliness is probably the major advantage MS holds over
Linux at the moment (believe it or not!)
Just random witterings really. As a relatively-recent recruit to the
Linux camp I'm as interested in its long-term future as most
enthusiasts, but I'm so paranoid about what Microsoft will/won't do
to destroy eveything and everyone else in their path I'm fascinated
by the arguments both ways here.
Shelton Garner
wrote:
Linux on an ARM process _would_ be a GREAT idea for an ultra-cheap PC,
but it'd have to be just that. None of that "It'll be $1k now, then
get cheaper later..." crap. It'd have to be $500 from the start and be
chocked full of goodies...
>Just some interesting developments. (Fx. smug feeling writing off M$)
The Corel project (that of running Linux on a ARM processor) is THE
type of idea that's going to turn the computing world upside down.
It's just a matter of Linux building the proper momentum (which it's
steadily getting as we speak) Rather than one general-purpose PC
running Windblows, we'll have several _cheap_ specific-use networked
information appliances that we use for different purposes.
Cheap PC prices are the wild card in this trend, tho. If PCs break the
$600 price-point (which they appear about to do...much to the future
detriment of Dell and Gateway...) then things change...and the need
for a Linux desktop for homeuse grows less urgent. Linux would be
perfect for a rock-sold Smartphone (later Videophone...hmmm..that's M$
doing building phones nowadays...) which would totally hide Linux
itself from the end-user. (Ironically, if the NC idea had lived up to
its potential PC prices probably would have stayed at $2000....)
It'd be neat to see what Apple could come up with in the way of a
smartphone/videophone....
lee
Mike Kinghan
Andy Piper <an...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <efa39148%I...@ttools.demon.co.uk>,
> Mike Kinghan <I...@ttools.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <1dgg8g9.9wj...@usern627.uk.uudial.com>
> > sab...@argonet.co.uk (Stuart Bell) wrote:
>
> > > Hmm. Isn't Linux so amorphous and diversified that even BG
> > > couldn't buy it? They could make the originator chap a
> > > milti-billionaire, but even that wouldn't work. Simply because
> > > Linux transcends companies and property rights, this might be the
> > > only way that M$ get their come-uppance. That's probably why
> > > they're worried. If it was a 'normal' product, then they'd just
> > > buy the company concerned in a hostile take-over. :-)
> > >
> > Indeed. How do you defeat competitors who work for nothing and
> > nobody? He'll have to start giving Windows away.
>
> > (Think I'm joking?)
>
> Nails and heads spring to mind. IE bundled with the OS, FrontPage
> bundled with Office 2000, the whole lot bundled with your new PC...
> why buy or get hold of anything else? especially when it actually
> involves some *effort*...
Yes. __Windows preloaded__ on your new PC (inc. IE, inc. Office, etc. etc. )
is the basic MS lock on the market. I'm watching for the watershed when
one of the big vendors sees a percentage in breaking ranks, and offers
Linux preloaded. Can't be long. I wonder if it'll be IBM?
[snip]
> Andy
>
--
Mike Kinghan,
Turing Tools, 20 Don Bosco Close, Temple Cowley, Oxford OX4 2LD
Tel. 01865 438231
`It takes a lot of money to look this cheap' - Dolly Parton