Re: RONWUG's recommended RISC OS web sites
Peter Naulls
> As announced previously, at the October meeting of RONWUG, we did something
> a little different to the norm and asked members to recommend various
> websites that might be worth a look by other members and the larger RISC OS
> community.
>
> The results are now on our web site as a consolidated list for all to have a
> look through. The sites are linked to from:
>
> http://www.ronwug.org/Useful
>
> When you're bored on a rainy afternoon over the coming weeks, why not work
> your way through the list and take a deep look at each of the sites.
> There's some real gems amongst the list that may not be known by everyone.
Hm, slightly odd selection. I guess that riscos.info, drobe and TIB are
are not listed because "everyone knows about them", but they are still
odd omissions.
Also:
Instead of linking to the ROL documentation, this is a better link
which tries to consolidate all RISC OS documentation:
http://www.riscos.info/index.php/RISC_OS_Documentation
http://www.flypig.co.uk/?page=riscos&dnload=risc%20os
David has some excellent software, but note newer OpenTTD:
http://www.riscos.info/index.php/OpenTTD
Unfortunately, many developers seem to have abandoned RISC OS
in 2005/2006, so there is a multitude of software out there
which could do with an update:
http://www.riscos.info/index.php?title=Special:AWCforum&action=st/id63/Ports_needing_Love
http://www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/rot/index.html
I haven't looked through this in detail, but looks pretty good. However
a complimentary page is:
http://www.riscos.info/index.php/Introduction_to_RISC_OS
http://www.vigay.com/webring/
My feeling is that webrings are very dated, and probably many of
the pages in it are gone or hopelessly out of date.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that pages which are just
lists of links are a 1990s web anachronism, and don't have a lot of
value (e.g. riscos.net). Maybe dmoz.org would have some value if the
RISC OS section were being updated, but that too is way out of date.
M Harding
Steve Potts <spo...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> As announced previously, at the October meeting of RONWUG, we did
> something a little different to the norm and asked members to
> recommend various websites that might be worth a look by other
> members and the larger RISC OS community.
An extremely helpful list - many thanks.
Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ris...@mdharding.org.uk
Martin Hansen
The Iconbar seems to be where it's now at for things RISC OS.
Regards,
Martin.
Steve Fryatt
Or, as Peter said, http://www.riscos.info/ -- which does seem to be trying
to provide a useful and regular news service (to which anyone can
contribute, AFAIK).
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Theo Markettos
> Or, as Peter said, http://www.riscos.info/ -- which does seem to be trying
> to provide a useful and regular news service (to which anyone can
> contribute, AFAIK).
Looks like Peter's doing most of it himself. Thanks Peter. So if other
people help out he'll have more time for Firefox ;-)
Theo
Steve Fryatt
<hd9jnb$t3v$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
> http://www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/rot/index.html
>
> I haven't looked through this in detail, but looks pretty good. However a
> complimentary page is:
>
> http://www.riscos.info/index.php/Introduction_to_RISC_OS
I hadn't spotted that page before; thanks.
As if two wasn't enough, there's also http://www.wrocc.org.uk/riscos/ --
which is yet another attempt to do the same (some of the 'fruther reading'
links there could do with an update at some point, to be more useful and/or
relevant, and it should also mention some of the new RISC OS 5 hardware).
Rebecca
Rob Kendrick
Rebecca <r.sha...@tideway.com> wrote:
> You could also take a look at http://84.92.157.78:8080/riscology/
Cor, that's slow; and could really do with a splash of DNS :)
It gets some interesting results, for example searching for
"Applications" and "NetSurf" returns HTML chunks as * commands, and
then provides a link to here:
http://84.92.157.78:8080/riscology/index?searchCriteria=\b%2Fhelp_rootview\.html%22%3EViewVC\b
Which yields some amusingly broken HTML due to bad escaping.
B.
Ollie Clark
> You could also take a look at http://84.92.157.78:8080/riscology/
How does it work?
I've tried putting "application" "can be downloaded from" "netsurf" into
likely looking boxes but it comes up with no results.
A search engine that needs instructions is bad.
One that needs instructions and doesn't provide any is useless.
Vince M Hudd
There are instructions - found by clicking the "info" icon just under the
"Regular Expression" box, to the right of the "search" button.
Unfortunately, though, that button needs - and IMO, this is very stupid for
a RISC OS specific website, when one of the most widely used (if not THE
most widely used) browser on RISC OS doesn't support it - JavaScript.
Oh dear. Having actually clicked on that button in another browser, on
another platform, I can now see that with the above comment I have
contravened the terms and conditions:
"In becoming a user of the RISCology search engine, you agree:
* Not to criticise RISCology in any public forum."
Not only that, but I'm going to contravene the next one, as well:
" * To add a link to RISCology on each and every RISC OS web site you are
responsible for."
The rest of the terms and conditions are very "noble" in what they try to
get users to do - but, honestly, you can't put any of those things in the
Ts&Cs for anything. Seriously. You can't. You might as well include one that
says:
" * You will agree that the sky is a nice shade of pink, with green spots."
--
Vince M Hudd - Soft Rock Software
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://misc.vinceh.com
Ollie Clark
> Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
>> Rebecca wrote:
>
>> > You could also take a look at http://84.92.157.78:8080/riscology/
>
>> How does it work?
>
>> I've tried putting "application" "can be downloaded from" "netsurf" into
>> likely looking boxes but it comes up with no results.
>
>> A search engine that needs instructions is bad.
>
>> One that needs instructions and doesn't provide any is useless.
>
> There are instructions - found by clicking the "info" icon just under the
> "Regular Expression" box, to the right of the "search" button.
Ah yes. I hadn't scrolled down that far. It looked more like information
on how it was developed. Didn't realise the instructions for using it
would be relegated to the bottom of long and detailed technical
information on how it works.
> Unfortunately, though, that button needs - and IMO, this is very stupid for
> a RISC OS specific website, when one of the most widely used (if not THE
> most widely used) browser on RISC OS doesn't support it - JavaScript.
>
> Oh dear. Having actually clicked on that button in another browser, on
> another platform, I can now see that with the above comment I have
> contravened the terms and conditions:
>
> "In becoming a user of the RISCology search engine, you agree:
> * Not to criticise RISCology in any public forum."
I don't think I'll be using it then. I think limiting free speech is an
odd condition for being allowed to use some software.
Cheers,
Ollie
Rob Kendrick
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
> > "In becoming a user of the RISCology search engine, you agree:
> > * Not to criticise RISCology in any public forum."
>
> I don't think I'll be using it then. I think limiting free speech is
> an odd condition for being allowed to use some software.
And casts significant doubts onto the author's own confidence of said
software.
B.
druck
> Vince M Hudd wrote:
>> "In becoming a user of the RISCology search engine, you agree:
>> * Not to criticise RISCology in any public forum."
> I don't think I'll be using it then. I think limiting free speech is an
> odd condition for being allowed to use some software.
It's entirely uneforcable in law, but worth exposing to public scorn
nevertheless.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
32 bit Conversions Page - http://www.armclub.org.uk/32bit/
Jess
Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> "In becoming a user of the RISCology search engine, you agree:
> * Not to criticise RISCology in any public forum."
Perhaps that should be modified to *request* that all criticism should
be constructive.
--
Jess Iyonix
Ollie Clark
It should be removed completely really. As Druck says, it's unenforceable
in law. Then again, if the author has such a lack of confidence in the
software that they feel the need to have this condition then its probably
not worth using.
Cheers,
Ollie
Jess
Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>> Rebecca wrote:
>> > You could also take a look at http://84.92.157.78:8080/riscology/
[snip]
> Unfortunately, though, that button needs - and IMO, this is very stupid for
> a RISC OS specific website, when one of the most widely used (if not THE
> most widely used) browser on RISC OS doesn't support it - JavaScript.
Two things spring to mind. The fact that it is an ip address rather
than a host name is offputting (and blocked by some security
policies), could it get a subdomain on drobe for example?
If it is RISC OS specific, then wouldn't a RISC OS client app make
sense?
(Similar to the google search tool, you put a request into the app,
the answer comes in a web browser)
--
Jess Iyonix
Jess
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
As an alternative, perhaps they have an excess of confidence in the
bitchiness of usenet posters.
--
Jess Iyonix
Rob Kendrick
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It should be removed completely really. As Druck says, it's
> > unenforceable in law. Then again, if the author has such a lack of
> > confidence in the software that they feel the need to have this
> > condition then its probably not worth using.
>
> As an alternative, perhaps they have an excess of confidence in the
> bitchiness of usenet posters.
I think you mean "realism". The site is beyond constructive
criticism. Dancing around that helps nothing.
B.
Vince M Hudd
> In message <slrnhgkqnd...@greedy.zen175545>
> Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
[RISCology's terms consist entirely of unreasonable restrictions on free
speech, some perhaps done with good intention - eg to keep websites up to
date, and the spelling and capitalisation of RISC OS - but the one under
discussion here attempts to curtail any criticism of it in public]
> > It should be removed completely really. As Druck says, it's
> > unenforceable in law. Then again, if the author has such a lack of
> > confidence in the software that they feel the need to have this
> > condition then its probably not worth using.
> As an alternative, perhaps they have an excess of confidence in the
> bitchiness of usenet posters.
Usenet posters can be bitchy about something that is genuinely the best
thing since sliced bread. The developer of the best thing since sliced bread
would have enough confidence in his or her product that they can rise above
it. Developers of things that aren't the best thing since sliced bread,
including those that are so far from it that they're actually the worst
thing since having a bird shit in your chips, should also have confidence in
their products, or they shouldn't be making them available to public
scrutiny.
To attempt to curtail criticism by including an unenforceable and entirely
unreasonable condition demonstrates either or both of a complete lack of
confidence in the product, or a total disregard for other people's right to
air their opinions.
Not only that, but I reiterate once again the incredible stupidity of hiding
this information behind a button/link that requires a JavaScript enabled
browser. Even if the terms *were* reasonable and sensible, then doing that
would render them useless and unenforceable - Ts and Cs have to be easily
visible by one and all, or they are as useless as shrinkwrapped Ts and Cs,
where you don't get to see them until the package is opened. In fact, more
so, since you can happily be using the site without being aware of the terms
that doing so supposedly constrains you to. When the terms are for the use
of the site itself, they should be on a clearly visible link of their own,
which is easily accessible.
And, of course, they should be sensible.