Re: Castle Press Release
Paul F. Johnson
> ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS
> ==================================
How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer
now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't
that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and
filetypes remain the same?
TTFN
Paul
--
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
druck
> > ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS
> > ==================================
>
> How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer
> now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't
> that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and
> filetypes remain the same?
Castle own the head licence, therefor they are the authority for allocations.
Whether ROL take any notice is another matter. But while they aren't
releasing anything, theres not much point in bothering about them.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
David Holden
On 2-Mar-2007, "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS
> > ==================================
>
> How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer
> now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't
> that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and
> filetypes remain the same?
RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn
previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and to
ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always been
handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
Unfortunately, after many years of performing this valuable service this
person was no longer able to continue with this important work and this
seems to have precipitated this action.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Rob Kendrick
> RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn
> previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and to
> ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always been
> handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
Alan Glover was hardly completely independent - he was on Acorn's payroll
for quite some time. As for the other assertion, I have no experience,
but know many who do...
B.
John Cartmell
Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him properly.
It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and
seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to feel sure
that their work will remain confidential until they are ready for release.
Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and groups. It rules
out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Adrian Crafer
David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
RISCOS Ltd took over the allocations themselves in 2001. Press release
09/08/2001 refers. According to that press release the work had been
previously undertaken by Pineapple Software.
Adrian Crafer
--
Martin Wuerthner
Adrian Crafer <acr...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, this is what their press release says, but nevertheless what
David wrote above is true: Up to now, RISCOS Ltd have only acted as a
front-end (in parallel with Castle) and it has always been Alan Glover
of Pineapple Software who did the work.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spam...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
Doug Webb
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>
> Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him properly.
> It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and
> seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to feel sure
> that their work will remain confidential until they are ready for release.
> Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and groups. It rules
> out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
>
John,
I understand your logic but it needn't rule out Castle or ROOL. In my
company we have interact with areas we need information from and some
is restricted as long as the person/team doing it have some
rules/checks in place to ensure confidentiality then this is not an
issue. Bit like directors of ROL who may also have involvement with
other companies, it's not an issue as long as auditable separation is
in place.
Doug
--
Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative
operating system to Microsoft Windows.
John Cartmell
As I understood it RISCOS Ltd took over *responsibility* for the allocations
from Pineapple but continued to direct them to Allan Glover for processing and
to keep them at arm's length. If Allan has given up the job then it's the
responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find another neutral administrator.
Martin Wuerthner
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As I understood it RISCOS Ltd took over *responsibility* for the
> allocations from Pineapple but continued to direct them to Allan
> Glover for processing and to keep them at arm's length. If Allan has
> given up the job then it's the responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find
> another neutral administrator.
It does not really matter what you or I think about who should find
another administrator. The point is that only the person with the
master records can do the job. Up to now, Alan (note the spelling)
held them. If what you write is true and RISCOS Ltd were solely
responsible then Alan will of course send the master records to RISCOS
Ltd and your will will be done.
As it happens I do not think your above assessment is true. I see very
little point in discussing which view is correct, but fortunately we
do not have to because all we need to do is wait and see where the
master records end up. From what you wrote I suppose you were happy
with Alan doing the job up to now and you agree that he is impartial,
so I am confident that you will also be happy with whomever Alan
chooses to send the master records to.
John Cartmell
<doug....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In message <4ebd412...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him
> > properly. It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is
> > accepted and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers
> > need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are
> > ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a number of
> > people and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
> I understand your logic but it needn't rule out Castle or ROOL. In my
> company we have interact with areas we need information from and some is
> restricted as long as the person/team doing it have some rules/checks in
> place to ensure confidentiality then this is not an issue. Bit like
> directors of ROL who may also have involvement with other companies, it's
> not an issue as long as auditable separation is in place.
It's not about being independent but being seen to be so by all the individual
developers. I'd hope that RISC OS Ltd find a truly independent individual to
replace Alan.
Doug Webb
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>
> It's not about being independent but being seen to be so by all the individual
> developers. I'd hope that RISC OS Ltd find a truly independent individual to
> replace Alan.
>
John
Well it could get even more confusing if RISCOS Ltd decide they don't
want to use ROOL and go there own way and then you have two groups
doing the allocations and that isn't satisfactory.
As I said you can have transparency and confidence as long as you set
up the correct framework and controls. Lots of companies and
organisations do it every day. The company I work for has parts of it
doing work for our very own competitors in the markets we are in, so I
can't see anything wrong in what is proposed.
druck
> Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him
> properly. It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is
> accepted and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers
> need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are
> ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a number of people
> and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
As someone who has never written an application, and never used the
registration service how can you possibly feel qualified to comment on this
subject?
The registration system is run on a first come first served basis for
application, module and SWI names, and numbers are allocated from a pool
which far from exhaustion. There has never been any allegation of partisan
behaviour, that you now feel you have to insinuate.
How about this radical idea; if you know nothing about the subject, shut up.
Steve Fryatt
<a2234dbd...@bach.planiverse.com>:
> In message <4ebd47d...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > As I understood it RISCOS Ltd took over *responsibility* for the
> > allocations from Pineapple but continued to direct them to Allan
> > Glover for processing and to keep them at arm's length. If Allan has
> > given up the job then it's the responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find
> > another neutral administrator.
>
> It does not really matter what you or I think about who should find
> another administrator. The point is that only the person with the
> master records can do the job. Up to now, Alan (note the spelling) held
> them. If what you write is true and RISCOS Ltd were solely responsible
> then Alan will of course send the master records to RISCOS Ltd and your
> will will be done.
>
> As it happens I do not think your above assessment is true. I see very
> little point in discussing which view is correct, but fortunately we do
> not have to because all we need to do is wait and see where the master
> records end up. From what you wrote I suppose you were happy with Alan
> doing the job up to now and you agree that he is impartial, so I am
> confident that you will also be happy with whomever Alan chooses to
> send the master records to.
Also, this is *not* an area for yet more of the yah-boo-sucks style of
politics which seems to be favoured by certain posters around here. There
can only be one set of master records, and if we ended up with two sets of
data because ROL weren't prepared to accept ROOL or vice versa, things
would descend into chaos.
It looks as if a decision has been made. Let's wait and see what comes
out of it, and then get on board, shall we?
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Ray Dawson
>
> It looks as if a decision has been made. Let's wait and see what comes
> out of it, and then get on board, shall we?
>
It seems as if there is at least one around who feels slighted that he
wasn't consulted ;)
Whereas everyone else knows he has no authority or knowledge on this (or
any other) subject, he does, as usual, have to insert his usual bent 2p
into a well oiled system that otherwise works.
Ray D
diodesign
On 2 Mar, 12:09, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:15:35 +0000, David Holden wrote:
> > > RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn
> > > previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and
> > > to ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always
> > > been handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
> Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him properly.
> It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and
> seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to feel sure
> that their work will remain confidential until they are ready for release.
> Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and groups. It rules
> out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
Castle and ROL both seem happy with ROOL taking over for Alan.
http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1857.html
Chris.
Ray Dawson
>
> Castle and ROL both seem happy with ROOL taking over for Alan.
That's immaterial. What's important is that JC is happy with it.
After all, he is the 'power of the press' and could make life very
difficult if he wasn't personally consulted ;-)
Ray D
David
Have you tried aromatherapy? Or green tea?
--
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
David
Or perhaps just lying down in a darkened room for a short while?
Ray Dawson
>
> Have you tried aromatherapy? Or green tea?
>
Not since I got them mixed up once ...
Ray D
Steve Fryatt
<1172916158.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
Hmm. Given that John Cartmell has also said that "it's the responsibility
of RISCOS Ltd to find another neutral administrator," I look forward to
him now retracting that statement about ROOL. It looks as if ROOL,
despite the views of one magazine editor who admits to having no practical
experience of developing RISC OS software, are the preferred people to
handle allocations in the opinion of both major OS developers.
Since it looks as if both key parties are happy with the new arrangements,
let's let the developers get on with their jobs and stop using this as yet
another excuse to snipe from the sidelines. Or is that too sensible an
idea?
Aaron
> Since it looks as if both key parties are happy with the new arrangements,
> let's let the developers get on with their jobs and stop using this as yet
> another excuse to snipe from the sidelines. Or is that too sensible an
> idea?
Well said Steve. As a RISCOS Ltd director I am happy to confirm
that RISCOS Ltd are more than happy with ROOL taking over
the allocations on a trial basis.
So strangely, as Paul Vigay said, "nothing to see here", and
you know what, he was right.
Aaron
Steven Pampling
Green tea smells OK - what's the problem? :-)
--
Steve Pampling
Tim Hill
No doubt some sharp-eyed journalist will pounce on that.
The press release makes no mention of it being a trial.
--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* (t...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)
... "A contract of eternal bond of love confirm'd by mutual joinder of hands" Twelfth N, Act v, Sc.1
Steven Pampling
Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <1172921264....@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Aaron
> <atim...@aol.com> wrote:
> > ROOL taking over the allocations on a trial basis.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No doubt some sharp-eyed journalist will pounce on that.
> The press release makes no mention of it being a trial.
Presumably they didn't mean to and it was merely a slip of the
tongue/finger on Aarons part signifying only that he and others won't know
how well it will work until a little time has passed. Indeed I dare say
ROOL don't know how much or little effort it will require until they
have done it for a while.
Anyway, is anything happening that could cause the world to end?
--
Steve Pampling
Adam
wrote:
> ROOL taking over the allocations on a trial basis.
Blimey, each allocation request is going to be judged by twelve of the
requestor's peers? Sounds like requests might take more than a "few
days" ;)
Adam
--
Adam Richardson Carpe Diem
http://www.snowstone.org.uk/riscos/
Ste (news)
>
> > Since it looks as if both key parties are happy with the new
> > arrangements, let's let the developers get on with their jobs and stop
> > that too sensible an idea?
>
> Well said Steve. As a RISCOS Ltd director I am happy to confirm that
> RISCOS Ltd are more than happy with ROOL taking over the allocations on a
> trial basis.
>
> So strangely, as Paul Vigay said, "nothing to see here", and you know
> what, he was right.
Agreed. The bottom line with allocations is that it's something that you
want to happen in a timely manner and from a central point and anyone who
cares about RISC OS wants to see it done correctly. Whoever does the
allocations should not care about politics or commercial interests; you just
check the allocations and make them and return the response. Alan Glover has
done this tirelessly for years and for that he deserves the praise of all
developers.
I'm sure either Castle or RISCOS Ltd could perfectly well manage the
allocations service but the ROOL team are more than capable also. Plus we're
not Castle or ROL so there's a nice distinction there for all to see.
On top of all that, we've got the ROOL web site which will be increasingly a
centre of RISC OS development for the Shared Source project so it's a
natural place for the allocation requests to go. When we have time, we also
intend to make the process easier by having it available on our site rather
than via the !Allocate application.
http://www.riscosopen.org/content/allocate
Steve
--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
David
Adam
> On top of all that, we've got the ROOL web site which will be
> increasingly a centre of RISC OS development for the Shared Source
> project so it's a natural place for the allocation requests to go.
> When we have time, we also intend to make the process easier by having
> it available on our site rather than via the !Allocate application.
Presumably there's also scope to automate a lot of the most common
requests? I know I've only ever got names allocated and presumably
that's just a simple process of comparing the requested name with those
in the existing database and saying "yes" or "no".
VinceH
[...]
> When we have time, we also intend to make the process easier by
> having it available on our site rather than via the !Allocate
> application.
Now *that* is something I particularly wanted to hear. Top stuff.
--
"A general-purpose solution to these problems is under discussion
and you should contact Acorn for a copy of the relevant
application note." - the RISC OS Style Guide.
John Cartmell
<diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1857.html
If RISCOS Ltd are able to find an individual within ROOL, who fits the
requirements, then I'm not going to quibble. The developers that I contacted
all stressed the importance of independence and confidentiality and that's the
aspect I voiced. I've long supported individuals that I know within ROOL and
see no reason why one of them shouldn't be capable of the job if they are
willing to take on the task. My concern was with the appearance of partiality
and that now seems to have been dealt with properly.
John Cartmell
<ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> It looks as if ROOL, despite the views of one magazine editor who admits to
> having no practical experience of developing RISC OS software, are the
> preferred people to handle allocations in the opinion of both major OS
> developers.
Despite your attention to detail re programming you miss a very important part
of what I said. There is the world of difference between the company entity
ROOL and a named individual who may be a director of ROOL. There is the world
of difference between a decision made internally within Castle and a formal
appointment agreed between RISC OS Ltd and Castle.
Jeremy C B Nicoll
> [...]
>
> > When we have time, we also intend to make the process easier by
> > having it available on our site rather than via the !Allocate
> > application.
> Now *that* is something I particularly wanted to hear. Top stuff.
Provided though that one can't use speculative requests via a website
to see if someone is developing an app with a similar likely function
to something you're contemplating doing.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll, Edinburgh, Scotland - my opinions are my own.
VinceH
> In article <gemini.jec7kf0...@softrock.co.uk>,
> VinceH <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 3 Mar 2007, Ste (news) wrote:
> > > When we have time, we also intend to make the process easier
> > > by having it available on our site rather than via the
> > > !Allocate application.
> > Now *that* is something I particularly wanted to hear. Top
> > stuff.
> Provided though that one can't use speculative requests via a
> website to see if someone is developing an app with a similar
> likely function to something you're contemplating doing.
Please explain; I'm not clear on what you are suggesting might be
possible via the website that isn't already a possibility via the
Allocate application.
John Cartmell
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ebdded...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
> > see no reason why one of them shouldn't be capable of the job if they are
> > willing to take on the task. My concern was with the appearance of
> > partiality and that now seems to have been dealt with properly.
> So in other words you're admitting you got all worked up about nothing....?
No Paul. Though I will now say that you are trying to turn an agreement into a
conflict. What I clearly said is included in the piece you snipped, and your
snipping was obviously designed to misrepresent me. I stand by my original
comments and my welcome for the agreed approach as described in drobe.
Ste (news)
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Developers need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential
> until they are ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a
> number of people and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
It seems that the people who make the decisions don't think it rules ROOL
out.
In article <4ebdf18...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I stand by my original comments and my welcome for the agreed approach as
> described in drobe.
Oh, I feel ever so welcome.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <4ebd412...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Developers need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential
>> until they are ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a
>> number of people and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
>
> It seems that the people who make the decisions don't think it rules ROOL
> out.
Tsk! You know full well that John said this in an *entirely* different
context in relation to something utterly different... or something. ;-)
B.
Jeremy C B Nicoll
VinceH <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Please explain; I'm not clear on what you are suggesting might be
> possible via the website that isn't already a possibility via the
> Allocate application.
Suppose one had an idea for a killer application. With the current
system if you try to register !KillrApp, Alan will tell you that's not
possible without telling you anything at all about whatever existing
allocation of that name there might be. One wouldn't want a website to
say "no you can't have that name because it was registered yesterday.
I agree that if currently he refused to register that name, you'd
possibly still have a clue.
VinceH
> VinceH <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> > Please explain; I'm not clear on what you are suggesting might
> > be possible via the website that isn't already a possibility
> > via the Allocate application.
> Suppose one had an idea for a killer application. With the
> current system if you try to register !KillrApp, Alan will tell
> you that's not possible without telling you anything at all
> about whatever existing allocation of that name there might be.
> One wouldn't want a website to say "no you can't have that name
> because it was registered yesterday.
the website would be dealt with any differently than as it
currently is?
You go to the site. You fill in the form. You click submit. You
wait. You get a response that tells you the resource is now
allocated to you, or it couldn't be allocated. Exactly as now.
(That response could possibly be immediately for some types of
allocations, but that remains to be seen, otherwise it'll take the
form of an email once a human has looked at it, as currently.)
> I agree that if currently he refused to register that name,
> you'd possibly still have a clue.
Exactly my point.
Theo Markettos
> Presumably there's also scope to automate a lot of the most common
> requests? I know I've only ever got names allocated and presumably
> that's just a simple process of comparing the requested name with those
> in the existing database and saying "yes" or "no".
Presumably, though you don't want denial-of-service attacks (people
registering a million names) nor them going on 'fishing expeditions' to try
to guess what their competitors have registered so it still needs to be
sanctioned by a human. Though presumably that sanction could just be a
yes/no tickybox on a webform.
Theo
Steve Fryatt
<pan.2007.03.03....@rjek.com>:
And it's *your* fault for not understanding John's intended meaning
correctly. ;-)
John Cartmell
I do apologise for not keeping it all at KS2 level.
Gary Locock
Jeremy C B Nicoll <Jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <gemini.jec7kf0...@softrock.co.uk>,
> VinceH <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 3 Mar 2007, Ste (news) wrote:
[Snip]
> Provided though that one can't use speculative requests via a website
> to see if someone is developing an app with a similar likely function
> to something you're contemplating doing.
I'm looking forward to this flood of competitive new applications. When will
it start?
Gary
--
Gary Locock, Network Manager, Bablake Junior School
Coundon Road, Coventry CV1 4AU
School Website: http://www.bablakejs.co.uk
Private mail: g a r y (at) l o c o c k . c o . u k
Ray Dawson
> In article <4ebde4b7...@omba.demon.co.uk>,
> Jeremy C B Nicoll <Jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <gemini.jec7kf0...@softrock.co.uk>,
> > VinceH <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 3 Mar 2007, Ste (news) wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > Provided though that one can't use speculative requests via a website
> > to see if someone is developing an app with a similar likely function
> > to something you're contemplating doing.
>
> I'm looking forward to this flood of competitive new applications. When
> will it start?
When the piglets have finished their flying lessons.
Cheers,
Ray D
Stuart
Gary Locock <gary...@locock.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm looking forward to this flood of competitive new applications. When
> will it start?
> Gary
Ah, Gary. Are you interested in:-
------------------------------------------------------------------
The next meeting of the RISCOS Midland User Group (MUG®) will take
place on Saturday, 17th March 2007.
At this meeting we have the great pleasure to announce that Paul
Middleton Managing Director of RISCOS Ltd will be our guest speaker.
Paul will be discussing amongst other things RISC OS 6/Select4, plans
for the release of Select components for the Iyonix and A9Home and a
printed version of the RISC OS 6 manuals. It is also hoped that he
will be able to demonstrate components of Select working on a Iyonix.
The meeting starts at 2.00pm and it is held at The Methodist Church
Hall, Greenhill, Blackwell Bromsgrove B60 1BL. A small entrance fee
will be payable to cover costs and refreshments will be available.
The location of the hall is some 2 miles from Junc 1 of the M42 and
the following Streetmap link gives further details.
The user groups details can currently be found at:
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/index.htm
We look forward to welcoming new and existing members at the meeting.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Neil Spellings
> Presumably, though you don't want denial-of-service attacks (people
> registering a million names) nor them going on 'fishing expeditions' to try
> to guess what their competitors have registered
I'm interested as to which software developers you see as being in
competition with each other in today's RISC OS marketplace.
Regards,
Ams
> In article <1172916158.532895.187...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, diodesign
<snip>
>
> If RISCOS Ltd are able to find an individual within ROOL, who fits the
> requirements, then I'm not going to quibble. The developers that I contacted
> all stressed the importance of independence and confidentiality and that's the
> aspect I voiced. I've long supported individuals that I know within ROOL and
> see no reason why one of them shouldn't be capable of the job if they are
> willing to take on the task. My concern was with the appearance of partiality
> and that now seems to have been dealt with properly.
As far as I can tell (from Aaron Timbrell's comment earlier) at least
he, and possibly ROL corporately, don't have a problem with ROOL
handling allocations. In effect ROL (and Castle) were handing the
details over to Alan Glover *anyway*. All that happens now is details
are handed over to ROOL. I would imagine both ROL and Castle would be
quite pleased to have a single point to which developers can request
resources *without* having to go through them.
While I would agree with you that the person administering the
allocations should be impartial I have no reason to believe that ROOL
would not act in this way. As to your point about an "individual"
doing it is a little to miss the point. The allocations should be (and
probably are) stored in a database - in short anyone with access to
the database should be able to update it. In which case *who*
precisely updates it does not matter.
As to things appearing impartial why should that matter? The whole OS
is in the possession of ROOL after that surely their having the
administrative role of allocating chunk number/filetypes/registering
app names and so on is small beer.... if you're going to use RISC OS,
ROOL is going to loom large - in which case fretting over imagined
partiality on their part over allocations is, frankly, a waste of
time.
Regards
Annraoi
John Cartmell
<a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> As to your point about an "individual" doing it is a little to miss the
> point.
We must agree to differ. Like ROL I can think of individuals attached to ROOL
who might do the job well. As an individual entity in law ROOL does *not*
match the criteria.
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1173274946....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Ams
> <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> > As to your point about an "individual" doing it is a little to miss the
> > point.
> We must agree to differ. Like ROL I can think of individuals attached to
> ROOL who might do the job well. As an individual entity in law ROOL does
> *not* match the criteria.
in your opinion
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Aaron
> As far as I can tell (from Aaron Timbrell's comment earlier) at least
> he, and possibly ROL corporately, don't have a problem with ROOL
> handling allocations. In effect ROL (and Castle) were handing the
> details over to Alan Glover *anyway*. All that happens now is details
> are handed over to ROOL. I would imagine both ROL and Castle would be
> quite pleased to have a single point to which developers can request
> resources *without* having to go through them.
Indeed the way the system works hasn't changed one jot, the
only change is with ergard to the person/company
responsible for issuing the allocations.
> While I would agree with you that the person administering the
> allocations should be impartial I have no reason to believe that ROOL
> would not act in this way. As to your point about an "individual"
> doing it is a little to miss the point. The allocations should be (and
> probably are) stored in a database - in short anyone with access to
> the database should be able to update it. In which case *who*
> precisely updates it does not matter.
Not entirely correct. There are obligations that need to be
adhered to. So it does matter who is doing it, as long
as it's ROOL then that's not a problem a far as I am
concerned.
> As to things appearing impartial why should that matter? The whole OS
> is in the possession of ROOL
Now you've wondered into the world of fiction. ROOL are
working towards making RISC OS 5 available and only
RISC OS 5. RISC OS 4/6 are RISCOS Ltd products and
are not in ROOL's "possession".
> after that surely their having the
> administrative role of allocating chunk number/filetypes/registering
> app names and so on is small beer.... if you're going to use RISC OS,
> ROOL is going to loom large - in which case fretting over imagined
> partiality on their part over allocations is, frankly, a waste of
> time.
As long as the party doing the allocations can fulfil the
criteria there is no problem. As you can see from the
press releases and comments both ROL and Castle
are happy for ROOL to handle allocations. Part of this
criteria does include impartiality and also includes
confidentiality.
Since ROOL are taking on the work on a trial basis
you can conclude that neither ROL or Castle currently
have any concerns in this area and are actually very
pleased.
Aaron
News poster
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and
> seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased.
It would be nice if Qercus were edited by someone 'accepted and seen by
everyone to be independent and unbiased'.
Regards
Stan
[snip]
Rob Kendrick
> In article <4ebfe31...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> We must agree to differ. Like ROL I can think of individuals attached to
>> ROOL who might do the job well. As an individual entity in law ROOL does
>> *not* match the criteria.
>
> Why don't you just shutup about it? Everyone else appears to be happy with
> the arrangement, leaving just you to be ranting and raving about it.
What else would he have to do? :) I can't wait to hear about how he spins
it in his organ ;-)
B.
Qercus editor
News poster <mistym...@casema.nl> wrote:
> In message <4ebd412...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> > It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and
> > seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased.
> It would be nice if Qercus were edited by someone 'accepted and seen by
> everyone to be independent and unbiased'.
As some people can never be satisfied we offer a second editorial spot, a
letters column and welcome articles that differ from the editor's view.
--
John Cartmell - editor AT qercus.com www.qercus.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus/Acorn User: reporting on computers & computing since 1982
Qercus/Acorn User, 30 Finnybank Rd Sale M33 6LR == 0845 006 8822
John Cartmell
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ebfe31...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > ROOL who might do the job well. As an individual entity in law ROOL does
> > *not* match the criteria.
> Why don't you just shutup about it? Everyone else appears to be happy with
> the arrangement, leaving just you to be ranting and raving about it.
Perhaps you didn't see the long comment from AMS that I replied to. Your
attempts to stir things are now getting quite farcical.
druck
> In article <4ebfe627dbinval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > Why don't you just shutup about it? Everyone else appears to be happy with
> > the arrangement, leaving just you to be ranting and raving about it.
>
> Perhaps you didn't see the long comment from AMS that I replied to. Your
> attempts to stir things are now getting quite farcical.
Number of posters to topic : 23
Supporting the announcement : 22
Questioning the announcement : 1 (John Cartmell)
Number of posts in topic : 69
Nonsense by Cartmell/Qercus : 11
Complaining about Cartmell : 51
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Steven Pampling
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ebfe627dbinval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul
> Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4ebfe31...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > We must agree to differ. Like ROL I can think of individuals
> > > attached to ROOL who might do the job well. As an individual entity
> > > in law ROOL does *not* match the criteria.
> > Why don't you just shutup about it? Everyone else appears to be happy
> > with the arrangement, leaving just you to be ranting and raving about
> > it.
> Perhaps you didn't see the long comment from AMS that I replied to. Your
> attempts to stir things are now getting quite farcical.
We all saw it, we probably all agreed with it and you did not.
What you said implied a deep bias against ROOL.
Now given that both ROL and Castle appear to agree (for once) that ROOL are
suitable[1] then you being in apparent minority of one doesn't give you
much weight in the argument.
Does that about cover the situation?
[1] If they are in agreement then arguing the toss merely fans embers to
flames. There has been enough ill feeling so to quote a ROL director:
" So strangely, as Paul Vigay said, "nothing to see here", and
you know what, he was right. "
--
Steve Pampling
Finnybank Ltd
Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> In article <4ec0174...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4ebfe627dbinval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul
> > Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4ebfe31...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > We must agree to differ. Like ROL I can think of individuals
> > > > attached to ROOL who might do the job well. As an individual entity
> > > > in law ROOL does *not* match the criteria.
> > > Why don't you just shutup about it? Everyone else appears to be happy
> > > with the arrangement, leaving just you to be ranting and raving about
> > > it.
> > Perhaps you didn't see the long comment from AMS that I replied to. Your
> > attempts to stir things are now getting quite farcical.
> We all saw it, we probably all agreed with it and you did not.
> What you said implied a deep bias against ROOL.
Don't be bloody stupid. druck has his own agenda that can be understood even
if he is an evil bastard - but you don't even have that excuse.
Try reading what I've said about ROOL before this thread.
If you can get *any* form of bias out of that then you really have gone
totally bonkers.
> Now given that both ROL and Castle appear to agree (for once) that ROOL are
> suitable[1] then you being in apparent minority of one doesn't give you
> much weight in the argument.
And I've said that I can think of at least one individual within ROOL who
could replace Alan perfectly - if he is willing to do the job.
> Does that about cover the situation?
No.
I suggest we wait and see. If you want to start to understand what I'm talking
about then read some background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(law)
Then try explaining to me what the legal entity ROOL has to offer.
And try to work out why druck and PV are working very hard to fabricate a
conflict that doesn't exist.
Rob Kendrick
> And try to work out why druck and PV are working very hard to fabricate a
> conflict that doesn't exist.
They don't need to work hard - your efforts in this thread make such
pretty obvious.
B.
druck
> Don't be bloody stupid. druck has his own agenda that can be understood even
> if he is an evil bastard - but you don't even have that excuse.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
> And try to work out why druck and PV are working very hard to fabricate a
> conflict that doesn't exist.
Paul, myself and the other 22 contributors to this thread agree with each
other that this change has absolutely no consequence and the registration
service will carry on as it always has. You are the only person arguing
ROOL can't be trusted to run an unbiased service.
We all know you are incapable backing down in any argument or even
acknowledging what you have said earlier in this topic, so you have two
choices; either stop your nonsense now and try to crawl away with some
dignity, or we'll continue to show you up for the deluded fool that you are.
Steve Fryatt
<4ec089b...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
> In article <4ec0796355st...@dsl.pipex.com>,
> Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
[Snip stuff]
> > We all saw it, we probably all agreed with it and you did not. What
> > you said implied a deep bias against ROOL.
>
> Don't be bloody stupid. druck has his own agenda that can be understood
> even if he is an evil bastard - but you don't even have that excuse.
I get the distinct impression that you may also have your own agenda,
too... Castle are happy with the situation (we assume, given that they
seem to have organizsed it). Aaron says that ROL are happy with it (and
Aaron should know, given that he's a ROL director). The developers who
have commented seem happy with it.
It would seem that Finnybank Ltd /aren't/ happy with it, but suppose we
deal with that issue when Finnybank Ltd first find themselves in the
position of having to register something with the Allocations Service? In
the meantime, it's the developers who will have to work with the new
system and the developers are all... oh, we've been here before.
> Try reading what I've said about ROOL before this thread. If you can get
> *any* form of bias out of that then you really have gone totally
> bonkers.
It's this thread that we're talking about, John.
> > Now given that both ROL and Castle appear to agree (for once) that
> > ROOL are suitable[1] then you being in apparent minority of one
> > doesn't give you much weight in the argument.
>
> And I've said that I can think of at least one individual within ROOL
> who could replace Alan perfectly - if he is willing to do the job.
Good. So why don't we simplify things, then, by assuming that said one
individual will be the person who always deals with the allocations within
ROOL? There... that's better, isn't it? Everybody happy now?
Finnybank Ltd
Take a look back. I thanked Alan, confirmed the criteria for a replacement,
(that others have agreed), and said that I agreed someone at ROOL would likely
be good for the job.
And when AMS quibbled as said we'd best agree to differ.
Now look at what druck has said and see who wants to stir things.
Finnybank Ltd
Rob Kendrick
> In article <732d90c0...@druck.freeuk.net>,
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> We all know you are incapable backing down in any argument
>
> I'm not arguing. When are *you* going to shut up?
The irony of this just made me coat my monitor in tea and bits of mature
cheddar and rosemary cheesy things. Who do I send the bill for repair to?
B.
druck
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > We all know you are incapable backing down in any argument
>
> I'm not arguing. When are *you* going to shut up?
The regular contributors to these newsgroups are sick to death of your
pathetic behaviour, we will not let you continue to play such stupid games
and make the platform a laughing stock. Anytime you make inaccurate or
unjustifiable statements, we will not be swayed in presenting the facts and
combating the idiocy of your position with logic and reasoning.
Finnybank Ltd
Steven Pampling
<jo...@finnybank.com> wrote:
> Take a look back. I thanked Alan, confirmed the criteria for a
> replacement, (that others have agreed), and said that I agreed someone
> at ROOL would likely be good for the job.
What you said implied a bias against ROOL, although certain individuals
might match your personal criteria.
"Like ROL I can think of individuals attached to ROOL
who might do the job well. As an individual entity in law ROOL does *not*
match the criteria."
--
Steve Pampling
Steven Pampling
Did it remind you of the Monty Python sketch too?
BTW I think this is "the full half hour"
--
Steve Pampling
David Holden
On 9-Mar-2007, Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> Did it remind you of the Monty Python sketch too?
> BTW I think this is "the full half hour"
The way some of the people on these groups carry on I think they've prepaid
for a half century rather than a half hour and are determined to get their
money's worth, no matter how much damage they do :-(
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Ray Dawson
>
> > We all saw it, we probably all agreed with it and you did not.
> > What you said implied a deep bias against ROOL.
>
> Don't be bloody stupid. druck has his own agenda that can be understood
> even if he is an evil bastard - but you don't even have that excuse.
>
John, I have had many spats with druck but I wouldn't even consider
calling him him an 'evil bastard'. That is totally out of order, but that
does seem to be the way that you operate now.
If anyone disagrees with your blinkered and inaccurate views they are
liars - and now 'evil bastards'. Such statements on usenet only go to fuel
conjecture about the drivel spouted in your occasional rag.
Perhaps a page one apology to those you have offended?
On the other hand, not many would see it.
Ray D
Ray Dawson
> In article <4ec089b...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> Finnybank Ltd <jo...@finnybank.com> wrote:
> [Snip]
>
> > And try to work out why druck and PV are working very hard to
> > fabricate a conflict that doesn't exist.
>
> You're doing very well at that yourself, by continuing to argue about
> something which really is a non-entity. Like I said originally, nothing
> to see here, move along please.
>
> Why persist in arguing about something when you're the only person who
> perceives a problem?
>
Because John Cartmell IS the problem?
Ray D
Rob Kendrick
>> >> We all know you are incapable backing down in any argument
>
>> > I'm not arguing. When are *you* going to shut up?
>
>> The irony of this just made me coat my monitor in tea and bits of mature
>> cheddar and rosemary cheesy things.
>
> Did it remind you of the Monty Python sketch too?
> BTW I think this is "the full half hour"
That's not arguing, that's just contradiction ;-)
(No it isn't.)
B.
Jeremy C B Nicoll
> Don't be bloody stupid. druck has his own agenda that can be
> understood even if he is an evil bastard - but you don't even have
> that excuse.
And you don't have an agenda? Come on!
And what right do you have to call anyone an evil bastard?
Just for once John, why don't you think - use some of that
philosophical intellect of yours - about something that you seem not to
realise. That's the FACT that you manage to piss-off so many people.
Why don't you try and work out why that is? It seems to me that
there's two possibilities:
a) you're Mr Reasonable and everyone else has ganged-up on you for
some childish reason.
b) you're - often - wrong and no matter how tactfully people try to
explain that you persist in picking stupid areguments with them.
People have lost patience with you.
Which reason do you think it is?
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll, Edinburgh, Scotland - my opinions are my own.
Steve Potts
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
> If anyone disagrees with your blinkered and inaccurate views they are
> liars - and now 'evil bastards'. Such statements on usenet only go to fuel
> conjecture about the drivel spouted in your occasional rag.
>
> Perhaps a page one apology to those you have offended?
I think there are probably a great many apologies due from all directions
over the past year or so on newsgroups and mailing lists. I'm still waiting
for one from someone who's not in this thread and is apparently unable to do
such things.
From what I recall, we're all also waiting for Druck to eat his hat regarding
a certain issue of Qercus which would never see the light of day.
There is far too much nastyness around at the moment. Sure people can
disagree, but I think there are many people on here who keep on at it long
after the issue in question has passed. While I'm on the subject, this comes
in many forms besides name calling and it is in far too much supply here.
You all know who you are.
> On the other hand, not many would see it.
More needless sniping.
> Ray D
Please, all of you stop it.
--
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
David Holden
On 10-Mar-2007, Steve Potts <nos...@all.invaliid> wrote:
> I think there are probably a great many apologies due from all directions
> over the past year or so on newsgroups and mailing lists. I'm still
> waiting for one from someone who's not in this thread and is apparently
> unable to do such things.
IME the people who are the quickest to cause dissent are the also those who
are least likely to apologise when proven wrong.
>
> From what I recall, we're all also waiting for Druck to eat his hat
> regarding a certain issue of Qercus which would never see the light of
> day.
See above. It would make a great story for Qercus, especialy if complete
with full colour centrefold pullout. That issue would probably become a
highly prized collector's item and sell many thousands of extra copies since
a lot of people would love to have such a picture on their wall.
>
> There is far too much nastyness around at the moment. Sure people can
> disagree, but I think there are many people on here who keep on at it long
> after the issue in question has passed. While I'm on the subject, this
> comes in many forms besides name calling and it is in far too much supply
> here.
Hear hear. Unfortunately a lot of it goes unchallenged, not because it
doesn't cause offence, but because those who find it *most* offensive are no
longer around, either just not bothering with usenet or having abandoned
RISC OS altogether.
I don't say the endless bickering is the primary cause of their departure,
but it is a factor, as I know from conversations with such people.
diodesign
On 8 Mar, 22:53, Paul Vigay <invalid-email-addr...@invalid-
domain.co.uk> wrote:
[ snip argument about allocations with John Cartmell ]
> Why persist in arguing about something when you're the only person who
> perceives a problem?
As a quick aside, Paul, your above comment grabbed me by the lapels.
You run websites that argue that 9/11 was inside job, crop circles are
more than just hoaxes, and other 'underground' viewpoints. So surely,
you should be used to arguing about things when you're the only person
(or one of a few) who perceives a problem ;-)
Anyway, back on topic: As far as I've been told briefly last week,
when someone takes over the allocations process, they have to sign an
NDA to enforce the confidentiality part of the service and therefore
promise they won't leak stuff. A comapny can't 'sign' this, it has to
be a named individual - like Alan Glover was when he was part of
Pineapple.
As no one has been formally/publically nominated by ROOL/CTL to do the
requests, this is why (I guess) John is getting upset but can't
elucidate it sufficiently. I really don't see what the problem is,
tbh, ROOL offered to take it on, they have, and they'll work out who
will do it specifically, I bet. ROL wouldn't have backed this there
was a problem.
I'm personally amazed and pleased that CTL and ROL have agreed on
something.
Tea. Storm. Cup. In a.
Chris.
charles
diodesign <diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, back on topic: As far as I've been told briefly last week,
> when someone takes over the allocations process, they have to sign an
> NDA to enforce the confidentiality part of the service and therefore
> promise they won't leak stuff. A comapny can't 'sign' this, it has to
> be a named individual -
Why is this. A company is a legal entity and can 'sign' on behalf of all
it's employees/ owners, surely?
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Rob Kendrick
> In article <1173518936.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> diodesign <diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, back on topic: As far as I've been told briefly last week,
>> when someone takes over the allocations process, they have to sign an
>> NDA to enforce the confidentiality part of the service and therefore
>> promise they won't leak stuff. A comapny can't 'sign' this, it has to
>> be a named individual -
>
> Why is this. A company is a legal entity and can 'sign' on behalf of all
> it's employees/ owners, surely?
Not if the agreement says it must always be a person.
B.
Tim Hill
<ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007 Finnybank Ltd <jo...@finnybank.com> wrote:
> > In article <732d90c0...@druck.freeuk.net>, druck
> > <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > > We all know you are incapable backing down in any argument
> >
> > I'm not arguing. When are *you* going to shut up?
> The regular contributors to these newsgroups are sick to death of your
> pathetic behaviour, we will not let you continue to play such stupid
> games and make the platform a laughing stock. Anytime you make
> inaccurate or unjustifiable statements, we will not be swayed in
> presenting the facts and combating the idiocy of your position with
> logic and reasoning.
If you (and me and Ray) and others feel so strongly, why not everyone
<plonk> the plonker and stop feeding the troll that he aspires to be.
Not buying a certain magazine is another way not to support vacuous
nonsense, or at least the opportunity to not read similar,
poorly-expressed and ill-considered thoughts. he doesn't seem to
understand how his illogical ranting here affects his business.
I am sure that IF and WHEN problems with resource allocation come to
light, that will be the time to carp on about it to ROOL, ROL, and Castle
(and NOT in a public forum such as this). Let not go looking for problems
which don't exist; we have enough trouble with magazine editors who
can't, and one or two developers with all the charm of Atilla the Hun.
;-)
T
--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* (t...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)
... "Men at some time are masters of their fate" Jul Caesar, Act i, Sc.2
Steve Fryatt
<4ec153ea...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>:
> In article <1173518936.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> diodesign <diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, back on topic: As far as I've been told briefly last week,
> > when someone takes over the allocations process, they have to sign an
> > NDA to enforce the confidentiality part of the service and therefore
> > promise they won't leak stuff. A comapny can't 'sign' this, it has to
> > be a named individual -
>
> Why is this. A company is a legal entity and can 'sign' on behalf of
> all it's employees/ owners, surely?
I'm fairly sure that I've been covered by NDAs signed 'on my behalf' by my
employer in the past.
Tim Hill
Indeed but we seem to have been wandering into areas of FUD about which
we know some but not all (usenet = no change there then!;).
IANAL (but have a legal qualification and used to teach this contract
stuff to aspiring old-school bankers).
A registered limited company is indeed one of many 'separate legal
entities' which can join in contracts just as a person can. Its officers
sign on its behalf, binding the entire company to this and that. A
company's members (those who are bound) are its shareholders who engage
officers (directors etc) to implement these 'bindings' (and to sign
things on their behalf). In doing so, the officers will have employees
whose contracts of employment (express or implied) bind them to the
'bindings' of the company.
It seems to me that ROOL are a registered, limited company and therefore
can join in contracts. However, the contract relating to managing the
database (the NDA or whatever it's called) may have clauses which specify
that it is only valid when entered into by a person, rather than a
corporate entity. In which case, it's not ROOL who are managing the
database but a specific employee. The one who signs it.
I suspect the responsibility is non-transferrable and also that neither
party would want to publish the exact terms; anything hereabouts is
probably speculation(!).
Nevertheless, to announce that ROOL are doing it, isn't really true if
the contract is entered into by an individual. However, I speculate and
I'll bet the arrangement isn't as straightforward as perhaps it could be.
Only the parties truly know.
T
--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* (t...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)
... "Some innocents 'scape not the thunderbolt" Ant & Cleo, Act ii, Sc.5
John Cartmell
> something.
Agreed.
> Tea. Storm. Cup. In a.
It is - though I was getting upset that, having explained the situation,
certain people insisted that I'd said something quite different. I presume
that I'll be asked at Wakefield why I'm biased against ROOL even though I've
(repeatedly) stated that I support them.
Back in October I described one ROOL director (Qercus 277) as "one of the most
approachable ... and helpful members of the Acorn development team" and " RISC
OS would be poorer for not being able to keep the like of [...] busy doing
much needed development work.".
For some reason that's not the view David Ruck wants remembered.
fwibbler
[super snip]
> I don't say the endless bickering is the primary cause of their departure,
> but it is a factor, as I know from conversations with such people.
>
It is indeed!
Cheers!
--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk
druck
> In article <1173518936.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> diodesign <diod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tea. Storm. Cup. In a.
>
> It is - though I was getting upset that, having explained the situation,
> certain people insisted that I'd said something quite different.
In your own alternative universe you might like to imagine this is the pages
of Qercus rather than usenet, where your posts are the only source of
information in the RISC OS world, and you are gracing us with your news
gathering skills and explaining things to the great unwashed masses.
In reality the csa.announce posting explained the situation, and your
contributions to this thread were snide comments about how ROOL could not
be trusted to the job. Incase you don't remember, your first two posts were:-
: From: John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
: Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.apps
: Subject: Re: Castle Press Release
: Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:51:22 +0000 (GMT)
:
: [Snip quoted text]
:
: If RISCOS Ltd are able to find an individual within ROOL, who fits the
: requirements, then I'm not going to quibble. The developers that I
: contacted all stressed the importance of independence and confidentiality
: and that's the aspect I voiced. I've long supported individuals that I know
: within ROOL and see no reason why one of them shouldn't be capable of the
: job if they are willing to take on the task. My concern was with the
: appearance of partiality and that now seems to have been dealt with
: properly.
:
:
: From: John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
: Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn.apps
: Subject: Re: Castle Press Release
: Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:50:04 +0000 (GMT)
:
: In article <1173274946....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Ams
: <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
: > As to your point about an "individual" doing it is a little to miss the
: > point.
:
: We must agree to differ. Like ROL I can think of individuals attached to
: ROOL who might do the job well. As an individual entity in law ROOL does
: *not* match the criteria.
> I presume that I'll be asked at Wakefield why I'm biased against ROOL even
> though I've (repeatedly) stated that I support them.
You only have yourself to blame, for writing things such as the above.
> Back in October I described one ROOL director (Qercus 277) as "one of the
> most approachable ... and helpful members of the Acorn development team"
> and " RISC OS would be poorer for not being able to keep the like of [...]
> busy doing much needed development work.".
Again this is usenet not Qercus, you post here, you are judged on your posts
here.
> For some reason that's not the view David Ruck wants remembered.
What I, and the other 20+ contributors who have taken issue with you, want
remembered, is what you actually said, not what you imagined you might have
said. Now either you still stand by your allegations against ROOL, or you
withdraw them. Which is it to be?
Steven Pampling
> (No it isn't.)
Specious argument time:
(yes I'm aware that it is bad nettiqette/manners to quote this but then the
actual item being sent at all was bad manners)
" Finnybank wouldn't do. Do you think I'm biased against Finnybank?
Advantage 6 wouldn't do. Do you think I'm biased against Advantage 6?
DBAD."
Yes, well. Thank you and goodnight for Mr.Cartmell and any correspondence
from Finnybank or associated addresses.
In public, as a repeat:
John - doing these mails is equivalent to continuing a pub argument by
following the person home and shouting through the letter box.
Don't do it. Go away.
On topic.
You are wrong, in a minority and worthy only of rude dismissal, but I'm
being kind.
The interested parties (and you aren't one) have all agreed. Be a good boy
and follow the line otherwise we will need to treat to treat you like all
the other badly behaved five year olds.
--
Steve Pampling
John Cartmell
wrote:
> your contributions to this thread were snide comments about how ROOL could
> not be trusted to the job
It's very hard to ignore malicious lies like this - so I won't. We are all
waiting for your long overdue apologies for your last bundle.
I have made no critical comments about ROOL or the developers at ROOL, quite
the opposite. Your claims are a figment of your imagination.
--
John
Rob Kendrick
> We are all waiting for your long overdue apologies for your last bundle.
Sorry; I couldn't take you seriously before - that serious quotient has
now become negative.
B.
druck
We would all appreciate if you stopped the pathetic childs game of
calling other people liars when you cann't justify what you have said.
I quoted your exact messages, so perhapse you would like to explain to
everyone here exactly how your words should be interpreted, if not at face
value.
Steve Fryatt
<4ec1913...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
Um, pardon?
"It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted
and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to
feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are ready
for release. Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and
groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL."
I believe that was a post that purported to be from you, John. Perhaps
someone is spoofing your identity?
jbw...@googlemail.com
> On 10 Mar 2007 John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1173518936.834766.171...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> > diodesign <diodes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Tea. Storm. Cup. In a.
>
> > It is - though I was getting upset that, having explained the situation,
> > certain people insisted that I'd said something quite different.
>
> In your own alternative universe you might like to imagine this is the pages
> of Qercus rather than usenet, where your posts are the only source of
> information in the RISC OS world, and you are gracing us with your news
> gathering skills and explaining things to the great unwashed masses.
>
> In reality the csa.announce posting explained the situation, and your
> contributions to this thread were snide comments about how ROOL could not
> be trusted to the job. Incase you don't remember, your first two posts were:-
[snip spam]
Please druck, you are always telling us not to rebroadcast spam, so
why are you not taking your own advice. I spend a lot of time trying
to filter out the noise that comes from this direction so I really
don't want to see it rebroadcast.
Says he, with tongue firmly in cheek:-)
--
Regards
JBW
John Cartmell
Perhaps you're struggling with the English language.
Try reading the passage without the snide side comment that druck appears to
put on everything. Try reading "Without any criticism" to actually mean what
it says rather than be an underhand back-swipe. Most of all try reading
"someone who is accepted and seen by everyone" to actually mean some*one* and
the restrictions (and potential criticism if you must) to be in the mind of
any of 'everyone'.
But that reading is just standard and I'm merely asking you to read what is
there and not read something into it that isn't there.
I have no criticism of ROOL. I never have had any criticism of ROOL. Your
storm *is* in a teacup. But there *is* a big question that needs answering:
why does druck want to make a very nasty argument when everyone else finds
agreement?
--
John
Steve Fryatt
<4ec1db0...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
> In article <58f39ec1...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
> <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > Perhaps someone is spoofing your identity?
>
> Perhaps you're struggling with the English language.
I don't think so, John. It's interesting that every time someone
disagrees with you, you end up resorting to an ad hominem argument to try
and win. It's also interesting that you only seem to do this on usenet,
and not in person.
> Try reading the passage without the snide side comment that druck
> appears to put on everything. Try reading "Without any criticism" to
> actually mean what it says rather than be an underhand back-swipe. Most
> of all try reading "someone who is accepted and seen by everyone" to
> actually mean some*one* and the restrictions (and potential criticism if
> you must) to be in the mind of any of 'everyone'.
>
> But that reading is just standard and I'm merely asking you to read what
> is there and not read something into it that isn't there.
They key point that you're missing here is that no-one else found it
necessary to point out any of the above. Everyone else was perfectly
happy to say "Thanks, Alan" and leave it at that.
You were the only person to raise any kind of dissenting voice, despite
now claiming to be happy with the new arrangements. Why did you feel it
necessary to do so, when no-one else (including those who the changes
affect) thought it worthwhile?
> I have no criticism of ROOL. I never have had any criticism of ROOL.
> Your storm *is* in a teacup. But there *is* a big question that needs
> answering: why does druck want to make a very nasty argument when
> everyone else finds agreement?
Sorry; my irony detector has just overloaded on that last statement.
Alan Griffin
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Try reading "Without any criticism" to actually mean what it says
> rather than be an underhand back-swipe.
But it doesn't mean what it says!
You wrote: I quote:
"It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted
and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to
feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are ready
for release.
That rules out a number of people and groups. It rules out Castle and it
rules out ROOL."
That is most definitely an implied criticism of Castle and ROOL. How can
you say it is "without any criticism"?
> I have no criticism of ROOL. I never have had any criticism of ROOL.
(apart from your own statement above).
Alan Griffin
Steve Potts
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
> They key point that you're missing here is that no-one else found it
> necessary to point out any of the above. Everyone else was perfectly
> happy to say "Thanks, Alan" and leave it at that.
>
> You were the only person to raise any kind of dissenting voice, despite
> now claiming to be happy with the new arrangements. Why did you feel it
> necessary to do so, when no-one else (including those who the changes
> affect) thought it worthwhile?
Steve,
In fairness, maybe others who've got reservations over announcements (not
just this one) are reluctant to take those concerns to the public forums for
fear of exactly what is happening here. This results in very one-sided views
being perceived by the public at large.
Maybe those people with alternate opinions don't have time for such
discussions. Or maybe they do respond with very careful, precise, yet
infrequent responses which say what was intended in subtle ways but
then are drowned out by the arguments and more frequent posters.
There are many posters on here that have time to post freqently and loudly
(a few in this thread), such that other posts get overlooked, drowned out or
fogotten very easily.
I for one am now completely sick of this cyclic argument. Can we pleeeeese
*all* just let it drop?
Thank you.
Steve.
John Cartmell
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> They key point that you're missing here is that no-one else found it
> necessary to point out any of the above. Everyone else was perfectly
> happy to say "Thanks, Alan" and leave it at that.
But they didn't. I was the first to thank Alan. I also did my homework:
before I made any comment I checked on the background from the original news
announcements regarding the transfer of overall responsibility from Acorn to
Pineapple, and from Pineapple to ROL; the individual responsibility taken on
by Alan; the response of a selection of developers (before the news was made
public) asking what they thought was important about the work Alan did; &c.
What I wrote was correct and hardly a matter of opinion. It did not criticise
anyone. It thanked Alan for his work - and having done that homework it became
clear that he could be under pressure that others might not properly
appreciate. The original announcement from Castle was that Alan's work would
be given to ROOL; past experience was that it should and would be the direct
responsibility of an individual. That Castle and ROL both agree (and seem to
have independently considered) that someone from ROOL might best take on that
individual responsibility, is an excellent indicator of sensible working
together.
I accept that, working with the druck view of the universe, one must see
criticism of Castle (and by extension presumably ROOL) in everything I say.
I'm surprised that anyone of goodwill would accept the druck view of the
universe - remember that it is druck whose 'insider' information told everyone
not to subscribe to Qercus because issue 277 was the last that would ever be
produced. He failed to apologise for that comment after the publication of
issue 278 - even though he could have done so privately and quietly at the
Midlands Show, ignored the publication of issue 279, studiously avoided
eye-contact with me at the SW Show after the publication of issue 280 and will
probably do his best to pretend that it never happened when issues 281 and 282
remind readers of the Wakefield Show. His lies are potentially commercially
damaging (and hence cannot always be ignored - which is what they deserve) and
anyone repeating his lies should be aware that he has an agenda. You need to
ask him what his agenda is because I have never criticised the work that he
does for the RISC OS community.
--
John