Re: Castle Press Release

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul F. Johnson

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 7:10:18 PM3/1/07
to
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?

TTFN

Paul
--
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

druck

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 7:39:35 PM3/1/07
to
On 2 Mar 2007 "Paul F. Johnson" <pa...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > 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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 2:15:35 AM3/2/07
to

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>

Message has been deleted

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 6:26:01 AM3/2/07
to
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 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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 7:09:03 AM3/2/07
to
In article <pan.2007.03.02....@rjek.com>,

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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 7:41:53 AM3/2/07
to
In message <54q18nF...@mid.individual.net>
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

--


acr...@orpheusmail.co.uk

Martin Wuerthner

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 7:56:51 AM3/2/07
to
In message <fc2e44b...@orpheusnet.co.uk>
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 8:22:08 AM3/2/07
to
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.
>

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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 8:21:42 AM3/2/07
to
In article <fc2e44b...@orpheusnet.co.uk>, Adrian Crafer

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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 9:19:43 AM3/2/07
to
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.

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 9:54:47 AM3/2/07
to
In article <1cde47bd4e...@btopenworld.com>, Doug Webb

> [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.

Message has been deleted

Doug Webb

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 11:05:56 AM3/2/07
to
In message <4ebd505...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 12:51:43 PM3/2/07
to
On 2 Mar 2007 John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 2:51:31 PM3/2/07
to
On 2 Mar, Martin Wuerthner wrote in message
<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

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

Ray Dawson

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 5:27:32 PM3/2/07
to
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

>
> 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:02:38 AM3/3/07
to
Hi,

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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:14:17 AM3/3/07
to
"diodesign" <diod...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:27:16 AM3/3/07
to
In article <gemini.jearpw0...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>, Ray

Have you tried aromatherapy? Or green tea?

--
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

David

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:30:27 AM3/3/07
to
In article <gemini.jebofs0...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>, Ray

Or perhaps just lying down in a darkened room for a short while?

Ray Dawson

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:44:21 AM3/3/07
to
David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:

>
> Have you tried aromatherapy? Or green tea?
>

Not since I got them mixed up once ...

Ray D

Steve Fryatt

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:53:57 AM3/3/07
to
On 3 Mar, diodesign wrote in message
<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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 6:27:44 AM3/3/07
to
On Mar 3, 10:53�am, Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 7:02:25 AM3/3/07
to
In article <gemini.jebptx0...@magray.freeserve.co.uk>,

Green tea smells OK - what's the problem? :-)

--

Steve Pampling

Tim Hill

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 7:50:19 AM3/3/07
to
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.

--
* 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 9:03:07 AM3/3/07
to
In article <4ebdc8...@invalid.org.uk>,

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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 10:10:24 AM3/3/07
to
In message <1172921264....@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Aaron
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)

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 10:23:43 AM3/3/07
to
> On Mar 3, 10:53#am, Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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.

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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 10:33:02 AM3/3/07
to
In article <4ebdc467e5st...@dsl.pipex.com>,

He had his Hobnobs with a cup of castor oil...

Adam

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 11:36:43 AM3/3/07
to
In message <4ebdd6d5d3s...@revi11.plus.com>, Ste (news) wrote:


> 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 12:07:27 PM3/3/07
to
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.

--
"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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 11:51:22 AM3/3/07
to
In article <1172916158.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, diodesign
<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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 11:58:12 AM3/3/07
to
In article <1023bebd...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt

<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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 12:55:19 PM3/3/07
to
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.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll, Edinburgh, Scotland - my opinions are my own.

Message has been deleted

VinceH

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 2:53:40 PM3/3/07
to
On 3 Mar 2007, Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 3:15:01 PM3/3/07
to
In article <4ebde76390inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
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)

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 4:53:09 PM3/3/07
to
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.

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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:16:28 PM3/3/07
to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:53:09 +0000, Ste (news) wrote:

> 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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 5:11:51 PM3/3/07
to
In article <gemini.jecf9g0...@softrock.co.uk>,
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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 6:28:52 PM3/3/07
to
On 3 Mar 2007, Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
> In article <gemini.jecf9g0...@softrock.co.uk>,
> 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.

But who has suggested that a method of requesting allocations via
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

unread,
Mar 3, 2007, 7:41:14 PM3/3/07
to
Adam <ne...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 4, 2007, 6:09:56 AM3/4/07
to
On 3 Mar, Rob Kendrick wrote in message
<pan.2007.03.03....@rjek.com>:

And it's *your* fault for not understanding John's intended meaning
correctly. ;-)

John Cartmell

unread,
Mar 4, 2007, 8:26:52 AM3/4/07
to
In article <9b6f43be...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>,

I do apologise for not keeping it all at KS2 level.

Gary Locock

unread,
Mar 4, 2007, 12:02:09 PM3/4/07
to
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?

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

unread,
Mar 4, 2007, 12:48:08 PM3/4/07
to
Gary Locock <gary...@locock.co.uk> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Mar 4, 2007, 4:23:18 PM3/4/07
to
In article <4ebe62dae...@locock.co.uk>,
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.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=398973&y=272178&z=1&sv=398973,272178&st=OSGrid&lu=N&tl=~&ar=y&bi=~&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf


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

unread,
Mar 4, 2007, 5:32:53 PM3/4/07
to
Theo Markettos wrote:

> 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,


Neil
www.purleyhosting.com

Ams

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 8:42:26 AM3/7/07
to
On Mar 3, 4:51 pm, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 9:50:04 AM3/7/07
to
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.

charles

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 10:14:00 AM3/7/07
to
In article <4ebfe31...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,

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

Message has been deleted

Aaron

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 10:32:51 AM3/7/07
to
On Mar 7, 1:42?pm, "Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 12:31:51 PM3/7/07
to
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'.

Regards
Stan
[snip]

--
http://mistymornings.net

Rob Kendrick

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 12:50:41 PM3/7/07
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:23:28 +0000, Paul Vigay 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.

What else would he have to do? :) I can't wait to hear about how he spins
it in his organ ;-)

B.

Qercus editor

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 7:25:58 PM3/7/07
to
In article <1ae9f1b...@casema.nl>,

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

unread,
Mar 7, 2007, 7:20:16 PM3/7/07
to
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.

druck

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 1:00:00 PM3/8/07
to
On 8 Mar 2007 John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 1:11:38 PM3/8/07
to
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.
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

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 4:10:10 PM3/8/07
to
In article <4ec0796355st...@dsl.pipex.com>,

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

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 5:00:26 PM3/8/07
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:10:10 +0000, Finnybank Ltd wrote:

> 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

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 5:20:33 PM3/8/07
to
On 8 Mar 2007 Finnybank Ltd <jo...@finnybank.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 5:16:40 PM3/8/07
to
On 8 Mar, Finnybank Ltd wrote in message
<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?

Message has been deleted

Finnybank Ltd

unread,
Mar 8, 2007, 5:49:52 PM3/8/07