Forbidden Technologies
Forbidden Technologies
The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
- such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
perhaps in a year from now.
In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
I'm off to Italy for a few days, but will look through this thread
when I get back to see if anyone is interested in these ideas.
--
Stephen B Streater
Forbidden Technologies Limited
Steven Purchase
> As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
>
> 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
A nice idea, but would end up with a more out-dated mahine. Still, it be
very nice to see the Phoebe make it through to production, and I still
don't see why they don't try to make some of their R&D back by selling a
couple of thousand...?
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
Probably a good idea, but the existing ARM-based machines aren't anywhere
near as powerful as Phoebe could have been. So...
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
>
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
I think that might be a good way forward. Collaborating with the two
existing ARM-based machines that already exist would be a way to reduce
the time and money it takes to get a working machine available.
As for software, I feel there would be a bright, if slow future for
development of software on a new OS.
> Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
> and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
...And open the door to many more technologies that already exist for
Linux/Unix systems and will be ported in the future... I see a far better
future for a machine like this than I did for RISC-OS machines.
Please, if anyone has the money/power/will to make a go of a project like
this, go for it. I'm sure you'll be able to count on support for a very
large percentage of the Acorn community.
--
Steven Purchase of Technium220 st...@technium.demon_DOT_co_DOT_uk
Get Doh! and WimpBar2 for free at...
http://www.technium.demon.co.uk/
Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground... and missing.
Dave Roberts
<URL:mailto:Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
>
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
These sound like good ideas, and some in .advocacy would be quick to point
out they mentioned them first! I can see only one real downside, and that
being, what would up and coming software like Avante do? It would surely be
impossible without a *major* rewrite to make these work? I would sincerely
like to be told wrong on this point as maybe this *is* light at the end of
a torturously long tunnel.
One of the main disadvantages of Linux (listening only to what other
people have said) is the lack of decent commercial software. Maybe we have
what they are looking for?
--
Dave Roberts
Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk
mrp...@leeds.ac.uk
Rob Hemmings
>
>
> The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
>
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
<snip>
My interest is in continuing to use the Risc OS user interface and my
existing Risc OS based software with which I am very productive. I'm
certainly interested in any options to achieve this, including some
investment of money.
The first option sounds immediately attractive although perhaps the others
are more viable in the long term. What I would want to know for options 2
or 3 is what would happen to existing Risc OS software?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hemmings Southport
Tel: +44 (0)1704 573210 ro...@argonet.co.uk
Darrell Taylor
[snip]
> 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
Interesting thought, but is it really possible to raise that amount of
cash this way? maybe if everyone sent their 500UKP depsit to
Eidos/Forbidden Technologies instead of Acorn this would work?
Are their 6000 people who would put a 500UKP deposit down? How many
have actually placed orders for Pheobe already, my guess (though it may
be completely wrong) is < 500.
Companies who use RiscPCs in commercial/industrial applications may be
interested in investing in this venture.
Now then, if this did work would it be an Eidos badged workstation?
If it was an Eidos badged workstation it would have immediate exposure
just because it has the name Eidos attached to it. I think it would
certainly get the attention of the computing industry.
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
This would introduce an amount of stability to the future of RiscOS
(though it wouldn't actually be RiscOS but something that looks and
feels like it) because I don't thing Linux will be dissappearing in
a hurry, nor will ARM so it seems to be the logical choice. The Chalice
ARM motherboard thingy would fit the bill for this wouldn't it?
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
Hasn't this already been batted around before? ISTR seeing something
tucked away in a corner at either Wakefield or AW97.
> Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
> and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
I think the most important thing to remember if a RiscOS like window
manager was to be developed for Linux, is that it shouldn't lose any
of that RiscOS 'feel' in the transfer.
> I'm off to Italy for a few days, but will look through this thread
> when I get back to see if anyone is interested in these ideas.
Your ideas have certainly provoked some thoughts, and I too will be
interested to see what develops over the coming weeks.
--
Darrell
Dmitry Petrov
>
> The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
>
> As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
>
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
>
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
register and vote for these alternatives.
Then, with collected information, it will be much easier to decide what
would be the right thing to do.
I, personally, was going to get RPC2 (as well as some my friends in
Russia and USA).
Now, I may think about CATS offered by ChalTech
(http://www.chaltech.com).
Regards,
Dmitry Petrov
Liam Gretton
> 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
Nice idea, but sounds very risky for the casual investor (such as myself).
The experiences of the poor Amiga community spring to mind, waitng for years
for their boat to come in.
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
Bleugh. Much as I love Unix, if I wnated a unix box I'd get a PC or a cheap
Sun or Alpha.
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
Better but still sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky.
IMHO those of us who want an up to date RISC OS box want Phoebe; the best
thing about it was its PCI architecture and faster bus.
--
Liam Gretton
li...@binliner.demon.co.uk
l...@star.le.ac.uk
John Rees
dar...@rmtwenty.demon.co.uk (Darrell Taylor) wrote:
> If it was an Eidos badged workstation it would have immediate exposure
> just because it has the name Eidos attached to it. I think it would
> certainly get the attention of the computing industry.
Two words spring to mind, TOMB RAIDER. The publicity a machine built
by the people who brought the world Lara Croft would grab the attention of
not just the computing industry, but a large chunk of the general public.
One of Acorn's problems has been it is associated with schools and is seen
as fuddy duddy. The kudos of being connected to one of the leading lights
in the games world would do any new RISC OS machine a power of good.
--
John Campbell Rees
<jw...@argonet.co.uk> http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jwcr/index.htm
"Just like swatting flies with a laser cannon. The aims a bit tricky, but it sure takes care of the flies" - Lord Miles Vorkosigan from "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold
Ross Tierney
<URL:mailto:dar...@rmtwenty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Although I work for Stephen, don't assume I know anything about what
he's planning - Okay? :)
> > 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> > complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
>
> Interesting thought, but is it really possible to raise that amount of
> cash this way? maybe if everyone sent their 500UKP depsit to
> Eidos/Forbidden Technologies instead of Acorn this would work?
> Are their 6000 people who would put a 500UKP deposit down? How many
> have actually placed orders for Pheobe already, my guess (though it may
> be completely wrong) is < 500.
I heard a figure of less than 150 (146ish) had payed their deposits to
Acorn for an RPC2.
> Companies who use RiscPCs in commercial/industrial applications may be
> interested in investing in this venture.
>
> Now then, if this did work would it be an Eidos badged workstation?
> If it was an Eidos badged workstation it would have immediate exposure
> just because it has the name Eidos attached to it. I think it would
> certainly get the attention of the computing industry.
Stephen may not be able to reply until next week, but i thought I'd
better clear this up here once and for all.
It would NOT be an Eidos product, or in fact related to Eidos plc in
any way. It would be a product of "Forbidden Technologies Ltd." in
which Stephen has a directing hand.
The company exists now, but isn't doing anything yet. This 'box' would
pretty much be it's first product. It has nothing to do with Eidos
other than the fact Stephen is connecting them.
> This would introduce an amount of stability to the future of RiscOS
> (though it wouldn't actually be RiscOS but something that looks and
> feels like it) because I don't thing Linux will be dissappearing in
> a hurry, nor will ARM so it seems to be the logical choice. The Chalice
> ARM motherboard thingy would fit the bill for this wouldn't it?
Yeah. I'd say we need to make a move on this soon - I wanna do it, but
then I've got an ulterior motive: It'll keep me in a job.
What *I'd* like to manage also is to get the focus of the developer
community directed this way so they might be able to keep their jobs
too. If Avante, Ovation Pro, Photodesk and Top Model to list but a
very few of the great titles we currently have could be directed
towards this solution it may be a saving grace for the whole
community.
> I think the most important thing to remember if a RiscOS like window
> manager was to be developed for Linux, is that it shouldn't lose any
> of that RiscOS 'feel' in the transfer.
For me personally, I agree. If as much of the RISC OS 'Look and Feel'
can be retained under Linux, I'd be delighted. And as a bonus, we all
get an OS that's stable as hell and all the Pre-Emptive Multi-tasking
you could wish for. Also, theoretically a distriution could be made to
work on other platforms other than ARM to tempt some of the other 4
million Linux users to the RISC OS GUI.
Cheers,
Ross.
--
Ross Tierney.
r...@eidos.co.uk "...Breathing in... Breathing out..."
kra...@argonet.co.uk -An Old Friend
Ross Tierney
<URL:mailto:dpe...@acorn.ru> wrote:
> Forbidden Technologies wrote:
> May be it is a good idea to create a web page where people could
> register and vote for these alternatives.
We have the web *site* already. But there's nothing on it at the mo.
We've been very busy investigating all of Stephen's options already
(Thurs) and we havn't had time to do anything for the web site.
Because of this I doubt we'll have the chance to do anything soon
either. I'll get in contact with some friends and see if I can't get
something whipped-up in my spare-time.
Ross Tierney
<URL:mailto:rhem...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> The first option sounds immediately attractive although perhaps the
> others are more viable in the long term. What I would want to know
> for options 2 or 3 is what would happen to existing Risc OS software?
There are ways and means. Initial estimates say it would take about
six months for us to get some system that would run a large proportion
of code designed for RISC OS under Linux. Most of it would actually be
fairly straight-forward, but time-consuming.
We need to start something fairly soon, because the future of Optima
is centered around this hypothetical product and if we're going to do
a lot of work on it, we'll need to start fairly soon.
The more interest we have, the more likely we are to do it.
Cheers,
Ross.
(Not speaking in any official capacity what-so-ever!)
Ross Tierney
<URL:mailto:li...@binliner.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> > ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> > - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> > cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> > perhaps in a year from now.
>
> Better but still sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky.
In fact it's fairly straight forward. Our solution is actually simple
and elegant. After some enquiries I made yesterday (Thurs), we could
have such a system ready (and waiting for the ARM 10's) by Q3 of next
year.
> IMHO those of us who want an up to date RISC OS box want Phoebe; the
> best thing about it was its PCI architecture and faster bus.
(Hypothetical bit)
I said simple and elegant :-
* Main Processor Bus 32bit @ 66Mhz - Same as RPC2;
* 3 or 4 slot Standard PCI bus - Same as RPC2;
* Support for Graphics Cards in the OS. RISC OS was found to be too
heavily tied to the VIDC architecture to make this an
impossibility on the RPC2). Allows for more than 4Mb V-RAM;
[1}
* Up to 512Mb S-DRAM - Same as RPC2;
* Nothing to do with Micro$oft;
* Stable, PMT Operating System. 4 million fellow users instead of
40,000; [2]
* Big-name software developer backed platform - Corel, Oracle etc;
* RISC OS front-end providing familiar 'Look and Feel';
* DMA IDE/ATA Interface (4 devices);
* USB support;
* IRDA support;
* Very Fast SCSI and Ethernet Capability via PCI or perhaps on the
motherboard itself - freeing up PCI slot.
* Nothing to do with Int*l (optional: SA=Intel, ARM10=Not);
* Future upgrade-path clear:
(Now) StrongARM -> (1999) ARM10+FP/SA2 -> (2000+)ARM11/SA3.
* Multiple Processor only.
(Now) 2 or 4 x SA110 upgradable in later release to 8 or 10
ARM10s or SA2 or SA3's (whichever is fastest);
* True 32bit Mode ARM support in OS. RISC OS used 26bit which will be
dropped in the ARM 10. RISC OS >could< never run on an
ARM10 for the exact same reason it doesn't run on the
SA1500 super-processor now;
* Hardware Floating Point: ARM10 will provide this for the first
time;
Hopefully, we would also be able to write some software to make the
porting of RISC OS software written in C or C++ much easier to
transfer across so we might get your favourites: Ovation Pro, Top
Model, Photodesk, DataPower etc. Hey, maybe even !Zap could be
ported...
Cheers,
Ross.
---===---
[1] Because we would use standard PCI Graphics card, we remove the
cost and problem of tying the OS to something like VIDC. Reduces
complexity too.
[2] By using Linux, we remove the requirement of such things as IOMD2,
removing even more cost and complexity.
Peter Naulls
> My interest is in continuing to use the Risc OS user interface and my
> existing Risc OS based software with which I am very productive. I'm
> certainly interested in any options to achieve this, including some
> investment of money.
>
<aol>
Me too
</aol>
Peter
--
+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Peter Naulls | Phone 64-7-854-9478 |
| pna...@usa.net | Java and JVM Consultant |
| http://chocky.home.ml.org/ | Technical Author |
| Java for Risc OS: chocky.home.ml.org/java/ | Program performance analyst |
+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Unsolicted email received will be dealt with under the full extent of the law
Dave Roberts
<URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip poss machine spec]
> Hopefully, we would also be able to write some software to make the
> porting of RISC OS software written in C or C++ much easier to
> transfer across so we might get your favourites: Ovation Pro, Top
> Model, Photodesk, DataPower etc. Hey, maybe even !Zap could be
> ported...
If you can pull this off, and especially if current developers can move
their products over to it, it would have my money! What it would seem to
need is some sort of mass meeting! All developers of software and hardware
need to get together. To find out what can be salvaged from the ashes and
what would need to be done to make any new venture work. To find out
whether the will still exists to make this happen! With a concerted effort
I strongly believe that something good and better(!) may come out of this.
Arjan Bokx
<URL:mailto:Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...which would be called the Phoenix, of course.
(see, already people are rallying around and thinking about the future!)
Arjan Bokx
Andreas Dehmel
I don't understand why you all go on about Linux. Think more broadly,
think Unix in general. The best OS I know is Unix. The best GUI I
know is the Wimp. Write a standard lib + window manager that runs
on Unix (or X should be OK too, but keep away from any high-level
libs that force their dubious philosophy on you), and make that
_any_ Unix. Wouldn't it be grand if you could just buy an Alpha
box, get the Wimp environment for it and enjoy the best of both
worlds? Although most people would probably use Linux PCs for it
I think it'd be a very bad move to restrict yourself to just one
Unix variant. The additional effort in keeping it portable across
Unix flavours would be relatively small, the benefits for people
willing to get some serious equipment (or install it on their
workstation at work, even) would be massive.
IMHO going Unix is the best solution. The best hardware is there and
will probably always be there so we'll never have to worry about
slow processors or missing hardware FP again. The OS is unrivalled
in stability and power. It's just the current GUI that's completely
and utterly pathetic, and projects like KDE who're just trying to
emulate the latest Windows version are going in the wrong direction
entirely too.
Also I don't like the suggestions about using ARM Unix machines
only, it's even worse than restricting yourself to x86 machines.
Don't make the same mistake Acorn did when they developed their
OS/GUI: KEEP IT PORTABLE!!! Since we're only talking the GUI here
that's even a lot simpler than if it involved a whole new OS too.
So by all means, port the Wimp to Unix (I've been toying with the
idea myself and with yesterday's devastating news there's no way
to go for me but in that direction). Now that Acorn programmers
_have_ to get their act together something like this might even
be done faster than you'd think.
Also it shouldn't be too hard to write something like OSlib for Unix
to make programs written in high-level languages more portable.
Alas the days of ARM-hacking are probably gone forever, but that's
a little price to pay if the Wimp can be safed and Acorn developers
are willing to migrate to Unix/Wimp -- just imagine Ovation Pro on
an Alpha box... :-)
Andreas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Dehmel When asked how his parrot had died
Orleansstr. 34 the mathematician replied:
D-81667 Muenchen ``Polynomial. Polygon.''
deh...@forwiss.tu-muenchen.de
Tel. 089 / 28095-218 http://www.forwiss.tu-muenchen.de/~dehmel
Henning Hansen
<URL:mailto:Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
>
> As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
>
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
Acorn dropped it, and in a year it will not be any better.
>
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
Too boring. We want to be something different.
>
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
Yes, that's the vision I would go for. With lots of ARM's, you not only
move the Acorn community, but also grab a great deal of the Linux people
out there. Hopefully, some good RISC OS software could be ported, like
Avante, Photodesk, Ovation, etc. - and software developers could be
attracted from other platforms as well (Tomb Raider ?)
I'm concerned about the laptop issue - it would be a good idea to have
a software compatible Linux laptop in mind.
>
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
>
> Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
> and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
>
> I'm off to Italy for a few days, but will look through this thread
> when I get back to see if anyone is interested in these ideas.
>
Henning Hansen
--
2M ELECTRONIC A/S, Holsbjergvej 41 B, DK-2620 Albertslund
http://www.2m.dk fax: +45 43620092 phone: +45 43624433
André van den Berg
> > I'm
> > certainly interested in any options to achieve this, including some
> > investment of money.
> >
>
> <aol>
> Me too
> </aol>
>
> Peter
AND WE!!!
Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
Andre van den Berg
ECD Computers Automatisering / Detachering
Patrijsweg 16
2289 EX Rijswijk / The Netherlands
Tel. +31(0)70 319 4343
Fax: +31(0)70 319 4963
VATNo: NL009507590B01
Acorn E-mail : ec...@xs4all.nl
ECD E-mail : a...@ecd.nl
PC E-mail : in...@ecd.nl
Detachering E-mail: detac...@ecd.nl
Homepage : http://www.ecd.nl
Daniel Pead
>1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
... provided you can find several thousand "enthusiasts" with a couple
of grand burning a hole in their pocket and a fetish for yellow objects
you might get your money back - although turnover isn't the same thing
as profit & Acorn would no doubt want their palms crossed with silver.
The only hope I can see is for some vertical market where you can ship a
RPC2 as part of a 5-figure turnkey package - maybe (e.g.) some of the
groups working on video editing could make this happen.
A safer bet for a buyout might be a cheap A7000 replacement for schools
- some sort of "IMac-killer" - rather than a geek's dream machine... or
a "modular" system which could be used to build either & sold as
components to home-brew enthusiasts and niche-market "turnkey"
manufacturers.
Otherwise, you can get too much tasty PC or Mac G3 hardware for the
price, and if you can't face making Billgatus $100 richer you can run
one of the free unixoid operating systems on it. Heck, you can even get
UNIX applications off the shelf in PC World now.
>
>2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
>
>3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
Oh by the way - most of the exiting new 3D graphics cards and stuff are
now coming out for AGP, not PCI; Affordable scanners and storage devices
are probably more likely to be a mixture of parallel port, USB and IDE
than SCSI... so think carefully about that spec!
I'd say that the new RiscPC should be in the form of a CD-ROM that you
plug into your existing RiscPC, Intel, Alpha or G3 box. Much cheaper to
produce.
Get a UNIX distribution, strip out all the gunk (TeX, 15 different
Tetris clones, 8 different mailers etc), make sure all the GUI-based
admin tools actually work, set up an X-based GUI that *really is* a GUI
and not just a tool for running 8 copies of XTerm side by side, and
clean up the documentation so there's one source for everything instead
of the current motley collection of man pages, TeXInfo, HTML, Postscript
and plain text.
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Mike Clarkson
<URL:mailto:li...@binliner.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> > complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
>
myself).
> The experiences of the poor Amiga community spring to mind, waitng
for years
> for their boat to come in.
>
> > and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
a cheap
> Sun or Alpha.
>
> > ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.
cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> > - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for
graphics
> > cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be
launched
> > perhaps in a year from now.
>
>
the best
> thing about it was its PCI architecture and faster bus.
>
seems to me to be the inability to run on anything post SA1 - ie. not
on ARM10, SA2 etc., due to lack of 32-bit compliance in RiscOS. Any
thoughts on this one?
--
Mike Clarkson, Shrewsbury School.
Mike Clarkson
>
> > The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> > because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
>
>
> > As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> > not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> > in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> up front outlay of ~500 ukp necessary.
>
> > I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
>
> > complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
>
> recoup their costs and make some sort of profit in any licensing deal
> but this may be feasible if there is enough interest. From the n/g
> postings, I doubt the orders for PRPC2 much exceeded a couple of
> hundred and, unfortunately, we've no way of knowing what the recent
> offer would have produced in orders.
>
> Should Acorn hold out for much more than their development costs then
> it's probably going to be too expensive.
>
> I can't help thinking that the timing of this alarming turn of events
> might not solely be down to accountancy control but could be due to
> some unforeseen and expensive problems with Phoebe. This path could be
> very risky; I might venture a thou or so (if the October crash doesn't
> come sooner than expected) but not without seeing some confidence
> boosting figures.
I think the timing was just that it was time to write the cheque for the first production batch. They decided not to.
>
> >
> > 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> > and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
> >
> > 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> > ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.
cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> > - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for
graphics
> > cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be
launched
> > perhaps in a year from now.
> >
> > In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
>
> Probably either of these is the best long-term solution. One point
here
> is that the Acorn (as was) or RISC OS (as it must now be thought of)
> following is not due just to the front end look and feel of the GUI
but
> to the ease with which moderate skilled users can create WIMP
> applications in Basic. I doubt this facility can easily be ported
into
> Unix.
>
> A far better option, if feasible, would be to forget about the Acorn
> machine's architecture and port a RISC OS front end onto a PC/Linux
> base. I've heard reasons why this can't be done but, hell, look at
the
> size of Windows 98 and see how kludgy that still is. RISC OS is tiny
> and fast in comparison - how much code would it take, and how much
> speed loss would ensue from initially inserting a level of
translation
> and gradually converting RISC OS modules from ARM code to the Intel
'86
> family?
>
> > Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to
date
> > and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
>
> Let us down gently, do you mean?
>
> > I'm off to Italy for a few days, but will look through this thread
> > when I get back to see if anyone is interested in these ideas.
>
> Do the words 'straws' and 'clutching' suggest anything?
Bill Oldroyd
>
> The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
Sorry to hear this.
... snipped - sensible ideas on what to do next ...
ARM based Linux systems, with the familar and well-liked bits of the
RiscOS GUI, multi-processor support etc..
This is what Acorn should have been doing for some time (like since the
early 1990's), but were being lead in the wrong direction by RiscOS.
The only addition I would make to your proposals is to think carefully
about how existing users would transfer to this new platform,
maintaining their investment in existing software/hardware. It doesn't
mean transferring everything we have now to the new system, just making
a good link between out existing kit and new kit, and perhaps making it
easier to use Linux on our existing kit in parallel with RiscOS.
Bill
dav...@argonaut.com
> In fact it's fairly straight forward. Our solution is actually simple
> and elegant. After some enquiries I made yesterday (Thurs), we could
> have such a system ready (and waiting for the ARM 10's) by Q3 of next
> year.
After a mass of depressing articles a nice constructive solution was pleasant
to find. This idea seems well thought out and has many benefits (not least the
large user base that Linux already has). Also it would provide a focus for all
those developers that must be wondering what to do now.
> Hopefully, we would also be able to write some software to make the
> porting of RISC OS software written in C or C++ much easier to
> transfer across so we might get your favourites: Ovation Pro, Top
> Model, Photodesk, DataPower etc. Hey, maybe even !Zap could be
> ported...
If this can be achieved and is as clean and elegant as you describe you have
a very interested customer here. I have supported Acorn as a good customer
and as a developer of software and I would like to see this community move on
to something that provide all those features we have desired for years.
If software can be made easy to port then we have the prospect of a good
collection of software that due to the nature of Linux would be available to
the masses for the first time. Another benefit would be a decent C++ compiler
that would enable far more complex programs to be created *and* without
Acorn's tie to education could enter more interesting markets.
I hope other people can see this as a very bright prospect if it gets the
backing it deserves.
...David
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Ernst Dinkla
> I heard a figure of less than 150 (146ish) had payed their deposits to
> Acorn for an RPC2.
Reading the messages of potential and disappointed buyers the
rate of the last week before thursday 12.00 hrs must have been
quite high. Pricedrop and included software information is
recent so one should judge the figure with some extrapolation
in mind.
However a PRPC2 resurrection seems to me a dangerous adventure.
One should thoroughly investigate what is actually finished in
hardware and software and what can be dropped to keep the price
low without losing any aspect of the specifications as they are
low already.
The path towards a unix OS system with a dual boot platform must
the best and than it is better to merge RiscOs with one of the
Linux/Arm systems. I do remember a discussion with Neil Carson of
Chaltech in this newsgroup about RO running on the Cats board.
Main issue was the replacement of the VIDC by graphic cards and
the change of the OS that was needed. He and others thought this
was possible. RiscOs running on CATS may be easier than marketing
the PRPC2 in quantities and it also assures a better future.
> The company exists now, but isn't doing anything yet. This 'box' would
> pretty much be it's first product. It has nothing to do with Eidos
> other than the fact Stephen is connecting them.
Whether the names of Stephen and Eidos are on the box doesn't matter,
enough people will know there's some link and that is a positive
influence. A company 'Forbidden Technologies' seems as attractive
and that company must be able to give their first product a name
that is at the same level.
There is enough ARM based hardware available that could be adapted
one way or another to cover the near future demands.
Chaltech's Cats
Corels initiatives
Toshiba's Java portable
The Acorn klones.
Remains the question whether Acorn is willing to license the latest
version of RiscOs with sources etc. and allows any changes to it.
If they restrict the use to desktop systems and are no longer losing
money its development I can't see a commercial disadvantage for
them. If they aren't willing for one reason or another I wonder
whether a legal action against them might change their mind. Their
promises to the last moment and changing that by a complete turnaround
have an impact on the commercial activities of dealers, developers and
business users. Acorn isn't bankrupt.
The software that would be included with PRPC2 was to some extent
from third parties so if they participate the deal will not loose its
appeal.
> For me personally, I agree. If as much of the RISC OS 'Look and Feel'
> can be retained under Linux, I'd be delighted. And as a bonus, we all
> get an OS that's stable as hell and all the Pre-Emptive Multi-tasking
> you could wish for. Also, theoretically a distriution could be made to
> work on other platforms other than ARM to tempt some of the other 4
> million Linux users to the RISC OS GUI.
As someone else wrote in this thread do not restrict the RO GUI to
Linux make it available to unix in general. And a universal vector
format like Draw included and even more PostScript compatible than
Draw is now. Or has unix already something like that? Could be EPS
or PDF as well of course.
Ernst
--
Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk edi...@inter.nl.net
All views expressed are my own and may have no relation whatsoever
to the views of Acorn, Intel, Oracle, IBM, ARM, Sun, Compaq, Micro-
Richard J. Hesketh
> As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
Eeek! This is beginning to sound very interesting... Is this for /real/?!
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
>
> 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
Hmmm... Phoebe looks good now, but by (say) Q2 1999, she'll look really
/very/ indequate! Too little even later, I think!
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
Not bad - this would be a satisfactory quick fix...
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
Yowzer!!! Given sufficient development of ARM Linux, this would be by far my
most favoured option! Not sure how many units it would shift - many of the
remaining die-hard Acorn enthusiasts are not UNIX-literate and don't want to
be - they just want another RISC OS box... However, I (and, I'm sure, many
hundreds like me) would love this option!
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
Sounds good...
> Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
> and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
...all of which can only be a good thing!
> I'm off to Italy for a few days, but will look through this thread
> when I get back to see if anyone is interested in these ideas.
Funnily enough I'm off to Milan myself next week, providing that I can shake
off the bug that's keeping me in/near my bed this week!
Please, please, please keep me up to speed on this, Stephen - ANS will be
happy to act as a conduit for information on this project if it proves to be
viable, whichever path you take!
Regards,
Richard
--
o o Richard J. Hesketh ric...@glory-box.demon.co.uk o o
o o WebMaster, Acorn News Service http://www.acornusers.org/ANS/ o o
o o o o
o o DISCLAIMER: The Acorn News Service is an independent service. It is o o
o o in no way connected with, or supported by the Acorn Group PLC. o o
Sam Smith
This group will probably contact you themselves, but I believe a
lot of the groundwork has been done by a group trying to get Risc
OS on Linux. I *know* they exist. I don't know who they are. I
believe they are a couple of weeks from Beta.
Cheers
Sam
In article
<ant180523f7fxn%n...@ross.skarpsey.demon.co.uk>, Ross Tierney
<URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <na.5131774887....@argonet.co.uk>, Rob Hemmings
> <URL:mailto:rhem...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The first option sounds immediately attractive although perhaps the
> > others are more viable in the long term. What I would want to know
> > for options 2 or 3 is what would happen to existing Risc OS software?
>
> There are ways and means. Initial estimates say it would take about
> six months for us to get some system that would run a large proportion
> of code designed for RISC OS under Linux. Most of it would actually be
> fairly straight-forward, but time-consuming.
>
> We need to start something fairly soon, because the future of Optima
> is centered around this hypothetical product and if we're going to do
> a lot of work on it, we'll need to start fairly soon.
>
> The more interest we have, the more likely we are to do it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross.
>
> (Not speaking in any official capacity what-so-ever!)
Sam Smith
mailto:Sa...@techie.com http://sams.base.org
Friends Spoiler List - mailto:Friend...@mindless.com
--
29 ways to decline a date :
25: I'd love to go out with you, but the last time I went out, I
never came back.
James Hammerton
Technologies' plan offers the best and most realistic hope of keeping
RiscOS, or rather a RiscOS-like platform using ARM chips alive. I
don't think buying up Phoebe would be a good idea, the machine IMHO
was simply not competitive with PCs. However the idea of creating a
RiscOS-like GUI for Unix is growing on me (despite my comments in
another thread), especially if it is accompanied by porting the Acorn
applications across to it such as Ovation, TechWriter, Artworks,
Avante, etc. This would potentially open up the market for the Acorn
applications to a wider market, especially if once the ARM Linux
version were created work started on making them available for other
Unix platforms. Thus the companies from the Acorn market could develop
ARM based Linux machines with this software being developed to run on
them and other Unix platforms. Existing users could run Linux/RiscBSD
on their RiscPCs. It may be worth making a ARM Linux port of BBC Basic
to run the RiscOS apps that have been written. It would be a painful
move since ultimately one cannot recreate the Acorn platform with 100%
accuracy on another OS but it would allow a relatively smooth
transition to the new platform. Consulting with the developers of ARM
Linux and machines based around it should probably be the first step.
I think this *could* work. After all Unix systems are much better
established than RiscOS, Linux is very widespread on peoples PCs let
alone anything else, and the RiscOS/GUI and software for Acorns does
have something to offer.
James
--
James Hammerton, Research Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/
Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
Replace "seemysigfile" with "james" in my email address
Paul Wilkinson
Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
>
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
No question in my mind that this option would be the way to go. Phoebe was
primarily for the users who wanted more oomph anyway (although I was going
to buy one, I was dissappointed by the still absent hardware FP).
In addition to creating the WIMP for Linux, I believe a few more things
will need to be ported across as well:-
Drawfile support (by far the best of the commonly supported native Acorn
formats)
BBC Basic support (superb for writing even fairly large apps, and one of the
main reasons I use Acorn kit)
And perhaps most importantly, the anti-aliasing font display. I don't mind
if it uses TrueType fonts, but the Acorn font display is *without parallel*
on any other system. I'm far too used to it on my desktop to let it go now!
Oh, and of course, !Zap (no question about this I hope?!)
Also, I would like to add to the messages of sympathy for the ex-Acorn staff.
In my mind, you can't crap on talent like that (in addition to a v. loyal
user base) and surive. I can't see Acorn being around much longer ...
Cheers
Paul
--
Paul Wilkinson (paul.wi...@diamond.co.uk)
Andrew P. Harmsworth Esq.
> What *I'd* like to manage also is to get the focus of the developer
> community directed this way so they might be able to keep their jobs
> too. If Avante, Ovation Pro, Photodesk and Top Model to list but a
> very few of the great titles we currently have could be directed
> towards this solution it may be a saving grace for the whole
> community.
Don't forget Sibelius! I wonder what the brothers Finn think of all this?
Sibelius VMP (I have the PC demo) is a killer app., and then some. I hope
they finish the job with the Acorn version - I suspect they will, as they
have a large installed base of RiscPC users, who won't necessarily want to
'downgrade' to a PC or Mac.
--
Science Coursework http://start.at/scirep * Warwick School * * *
Warwick School http://welcome.to/warwick * WARWICK * Physics Dept
Solar System http://travel.to/theplanets * CV34 6PP, UK * 01926 776464
* * * * * * my own views * * * a...@warwick.warwks.sch.uk * * * *
Andrew P. Harmsworth Esq.
off is beginning to appeal! It is ironic that the company name is such -
seeing as Acorn have forbidden us the Phoebe.
Your attempt at a basic spec for the machine is much more elegant than what
Acorn had to cope with - although I don't pretend to understand all of it.
I think we'll all be watching this thread closely, while a modicum of faith
still remains in the continuation of the platform.
I also think that if you went to the DTI for additional investment capital,
backed by the chaps at the BBC who use Optima... then maybe you could pull
this off. There's an app called Elements (the talking one) which a chap at
the DTI said "why doesn't every school have this?" It runs under RiscOS...
APH
Simon John
John Rees <jw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <19980917....@rmtwenty.demon.co.uk>,
> dar...@rmtwenty.demon.co.uk (Darrell Taylor) wrote:
> > just because it has the name Eidos attached to it. I think it would
> > certainly get the attention of the computing industry.
> Two words spring to mind, TOMB RAIDER. The publicity a machine built
> by the people who brought the world Lara Croft would grab the attention of
> not just the computing industry, but a large chunk of the general public.
> One of Acorn's problems has been it is associated with schools and is seen
> as fuddy duddy. The kudos of being connected to one of the leading lights
> in the games world would do any new RISC OS machine a power of good.
Exactly - most of these sad PC owners do little but play Tomb Raider and Doom
- probably to let out their anger on Win95 crashing on them again! Our
computers made Tomb Raider and we have the best Doom on any platform - and
it's even compatible with the other platform's WADs etc!
Sibelius and Corel Xara came from Acorns too, let us not forget.
So is it going to be this Eidos/Forbidden Technologies lot or IMS who are
going to save our butts?!
--
Simon E. John
Email: sim...@argonet.co.uk
WWW: http://surf.to/simonsite
ICQ: 15267939
128-Bit encryption and you can *still* read this?!
Neil A. Carson
> The path towards a unix OS system with a dual boot platform must
> the best and than it is better to merge RiscOs with one of the
> Linux/Arm systems. I do remember a discussion with Neil Carson of
> Chaltech in this newsgroup about RO running on the Cats board.
> Main issue was the replacement of the VIDC by graphic cards and
> the change of the OS that was needed. He and others thought this
> was possible. RiscOs running on CATS may be easier than marketing
> the PRPC2 in quantities and it also assures a better future.
Indeed. It'd certainly be easier than rewriting chunks of RiscOS to run
on Linux. This would explode into a *massive* job and take too long for
it to be worthwhile.
Neil A. Carson
> Oh, and of course, !Zap (no question about this I hope?!)
Want to try direct screen access for different graphics modes inside X?
Be my guest. This thread gets more and more silly by the minute.
> Also, I would like to add to the messages of sympathy for the ex-Acorn staff.
> In my mind, you can't crap on talent like that (in addition to a v. loyal
> user base) and surive. I can't see Acorn being around much longer ...
Indeed (to the sympathy). I think Acorn might be around for a while yet,
however.
Neil
James Hammerton
> In article <ant180540345xn%n...@ross.skarpsey.demon.co.uk>, Ross Tierney
> <kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > What *I'd* like to manage also is to get the focus of the developer
> > community directed this way so they might be able to keep their jobs
> > too. If Avante, Ovation Pro, Photodesk and Top Model to list but a
> > very few of the great titles we currently have could be directed
> > towards this solution it may be a saving grace for the whole
> > community.
>
> Don't forget Sibelius! I wonder what the brothers Finn think of all this?
> Sibelius VMP (I have the PC demo) is a killer app., and then some. I hope
> they finish the job with the Acorn version - I suspect they will, as they
> have a large installed base of RiscPC users, who won't necessarily want to
> 'downgrade' to a PC or Mac.
What Sibelius make of this is a good question. They probably will
produce "Sibelius for RiscOS" or whatever they'll call it, but will
they continue to develop it after its first release? I hope they do.
My feeling about this is that if the idea being float of porting
RiscOS to Linux and producing a ARM-based Linux machine running the
RiscOS for Linux goes ahead, the people developing it should contact
Sibelius and offer to help with porting their app to the new
platform. It could then be offered to existing users who obtain ARM
Linux for their machines, and potentially could be ported to other
versions of Linux.
rsim...@ewrcsdra.cut_this_out.demon.co.uk
: I don't understand why you all go on about Linux. Think more broadly,
: think Unix in general. The best OS I know is Unix. The best GUI I
: know is the Wimp. Write a standard lib + window manager that runs
: on Unix (or X should be OK too, but keep away from any high-level
: libs that force their dubious philosophy on you), and make that
: _any_ Unix. Wouldn't it be grand if you could just buy an Alpha
: box, get the Wimp environment for it and enjoy the best of both
: worlds?
desktop computer platform you can think of and a lot of servers as well.
Unfortunately, most current commercial Linux software is available for i386
only, despite the fact that in many cases only a recompile is required to
support the other platforms. The same problem would exist if some aspects
of RiscOS were ported to Linux. Open-Source software would be available for
all platforms, but commercial would mostly be available only for the most
popular. Going to Unix in general would not reduce this problem.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Simpson
Farnborough, Hants, Uk Fax: 01252 392976
rsim...@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk
James Hammerton
Does this hold for producing a RiscOS-style GUI from scratch, with an
eye to porting existing applications over?
Thomas Boroske
Dave Roberts <Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> These sound like good ideas, and some in .advocacy would be quick to point
> out they mentioned them first! I can see only one real downside, and that
> being, what would up and coming software like Avante do? It would surely be
> impossible without a *major* rewrite to make these work?
Yes - unless some genius comes up with a nice new idea to emulate
RiscOS, but I doubt that. We can only hope that existing developers
would support the switch, and port their apps.
> One of the main disadvantages of Linux (listening only to what other
> people have said) is the lack of decent commercial software. Maybe we have
> what they are looking for?
:-) Nice thought, but consider that people saying that are comparing
with the Windoze market, ie there ARE commercial apps for Linux.
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
Thomas Boroske
Steven Purchase <st...@technium.demon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> > ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> > - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> > cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> > perhaps in a year from now.
> >
> > In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
>
> I think that might be a good way forward. Collaborating with the two
> existing ARM-based machines that already exist would be a way to reduce
> the time and money it takes to get a working machine available.
OTOH, work on the user-interface could be started NOW on any
Linux machine (PCs, Alphas, whatever) that have stable Linux
versions and toolchains available.
In the last 5 years, the ARM has never been the ideal desktop
processor - at the moment, a plain PC seems significantly more
attractive for such a system. So I really think such a
project should try to support multiple hardware platforms,
among them ARM (of course), but surely PC, and anything else
would be a nice extra. I mean, doing an ARM version first
means you have to do a stable Linux - how good is ARMLinux
actually ?
Option 3) mentions an interesting spec, some would say dream machine.
But I feel any hardware produced for the Acorn userbase should
ideally justify itself, ie not only by being the only hardware
the new RiscOS 5 runs on. That way, if it proves to be too
expensive / not viable to build such a machine, or the next
ARM-based machine even further in future, you can easily sack
it and choose another processor platform.
> As for software, I feel there would be a bright, if slow future for
> development of software on a new OS.
Agree.
> > Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
> > and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
>
> ...And open the door to many more technologies that already exist for
> Linux/Unix systems and will be ported in the future... I see a far better
> future for a machine like this than I did for RISC-OS machines.
I've been advocating that approach for ages :-)
> Please, if anyone has the money/power/will to make a go of a project like
> this, go for it. I'm sure you'll be able to count on support for a very
> large percentage of the Acorn community.
Here's one !
Thomas Boroske
deh...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Andreas Dehmel) wrote:
> I don't understand why you all go on about Linux. Think more broadly,
> think Unix in general. The best OS I know is Unix.
Yes. But people would probably want to buy a complete package.
The OS would be Linux in this case. Why not ?
> The best GUI I
> know is the Wimp. Write a standard lib + window manager that runs
> on Unix (or X should be OK too, but keep away from any high-level
> libs that force their dubious philosophy on you),
X is a *must*, otherwise you use the capability to view
remotely on any Unix box, XTerm or PC.
> and make that
> _any_ Unix. Wouldn't it be grand if you could just buy an Alpha
> box, get the Wimp environment for it and enjoy the best of both
> worlds?
Yes - or even a PC and have a games machine + the machine that
runs RiscOS x ?
I'm quite sure you get Linux for Alpha, btw.
> Although most people would probably use Linux PCs for it
> I think it'd be a very bad move to restrict yourself to just one
> Unix variant.
The problem with supporting ANY Unix variant is that some
components may not be available, or be implemented differently.
Hell, some of the SunOS boxes here don't even have a standard
X11 distribution, but some wierd openwindows system instead.
Then there's all those differences in command line tools -
it's easy to write a GUI frontend for ps or top, but
it means a lot of work if you want to support all those
slightly different options and output formats.
Linux (or NetBSD or whatever) has the advantage that it
is available for 'enough' platforms, and that all these
platform can use an identical system, in effect.
Sure, if it turns out that it's only a matter of a recompile,
then do it for any platform you like. But I guess that
to get a 100% flawless system you have to rely on there
being a standard distribution underneath.
> The additional effort in keeping it portable across
> Unix flavours would be relatively small,
Do you think this is so trivial ?
> the benefits for people
> willing to get some serious equipment (or install it on their
> workstation at work, even) would be massive.
It would be ideal, but I happen to think that Linux or NetBSD or
some freely available Unix would be a reasonable compromise.
Just don't restrict it to one hardware platform only !
> IMHO going Unix is the best solution. The best hardware is there and
> will probably always be there so we'll never have to worry about
> slow processors or missing hardware FP again.
<fx: dreams come true ...>
> The OS is unrivalled
> in stability and power. It's just the current GUI that's completely
> and utterly pathetic, and projects like KDE who're just trying to
> emulate the latest Windows version are going in the wrong direction
> entirely too.
Yes :-) Projects trying to emulate and *better* RiscOS are
the way forward !
> Also I don't like the suggestions about using ARM Unix machines
> only, it's even worse than restricting yourself to x86 machines.
/me hugs Andreas with affection
:-)
> Don't make the same mistake Acorn did when they developed their
> OS/GUI: KEEP IT PORTABLE!!! Since we're only talking the GUI here
> that's even a lot simpler than if it involved a whole new OS too.
Agree one hundred times.
> So by all means, port the Wimp to Unix (I've been toying with the
> idea myself and with yesterday's devastating news there's no way
> to go for me but in that direction). Now that Acorn programmers
> _have_ to get their act together something like this might even
> be done faster than you'd think.
> Also it shouldn't be too hard to write something like OSlib for Unix
> to make programs written in high-level languages more portable.
> Alas the days of ARM-hacking are probably gone forever, but that's
> a little price to pay if the Wimp can be safed and Acorn developers
> are willing to migrate to Unix/Wimp -- just imagine Ovation Pro on
> an Alpha box... :-)
OK. Now what is required for this project ? I suddenly realise that
I don't know an awfull lot of Unix programming...
Obviously, a windowmanager/desktop would be required. Plus some
standard toolset library for menus/dialogue boxes.
How can messages/events be passed around ? I guess the X api
contains functions for that ? Must be the natural place, since
applications can be running on different systems, with the
X server being their only common link.
How are filetype actions done ? You could just define file$type_xxx
and alias$run variables as usual, and the filer could search these,
but would that be efficient ? Maybe we want a *better* system too ?
And what about application directories ? And the RiscOS-way of actually
navigating and starting apps in the filer ? I think applications
should be linked to (a requirement for multiuser), but should we
stay with the application directory structure ? I think it would
be nice if apps didn't have to be "seen" to work.
What about a /usr/riscos/bin, /usr/riscos/boot, /usr/riscos/resource
directory (/usr/riscos/bin could of course contain !run files too,
the actual runimage would then reside in resource - or this could
always be the case). .../boot contains all the filetype-claims
and such, and they could all be run at once without the system
having to search - clashes would have to be dealt with, but
it's time for that anyway. .../resource (could be called .../lib too)
would contain the "rest" of the applications in individual
application directoriess - these would also contain physical links to
the files inside .../boot and .../bin
The nice thing here is that it's easy for a shell to search just
the one bin-directory.
How do we get the usual RiscOS filer-appearance now ? First,
users could have ~/riscos directories. Inside this, they
have dirs with their private user data as usual, but they
could also link to the appdirs inside /usr/riscos/lib - the
filer could recognize it, put a "!" in front of it and
display an icon and open the directory on shift-doubleclick.
As standard, users would get an "app" directory that just contains
all wimp applications, maybe grouped in a way.
OK so far, but would the RiscOS-way of "install this app, try it,
delete it if it isn't interesting" work ? Yes, probably -
after all, apps are completely contained in one directory.
If a user installs/copies such a directory (=application)
using the filer, it could be recognized (have a file named
!!riscosapp inside the directory as a marker) and the boot and
run-files be copied into a private copy of the aforementioned
dir-structure (so that running from the shell works too).
Similar when deleting.
Not quite thought out, but what do you think ? The tricky
thing is to retain the good sides of RiscOS, while getting
the good sides of Unix on top...
Please get the discussion going.
Nick Boalch
Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
Well, its a nice idea but I don't think you'd be able to get the
capital, since it would be too risky an investment. Even the enthusiast
would be doubtful...
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
Sounds OK. Linux /is/ excellent, and with a decent RiscOs-alike
window manager we'd be home and dry.
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
Brilliant. Again, Linux with a RiscOs window manager (for X
perhaps?) would be a great solution. And the spec sounds impressive.
With the ability to add all the expansion cards that RiscOS doesn't
support ATM, this would be rather good...
The only other things you'd need would be support for Drawfiles.
Hopefully RiscOS developers could be encouraged to port their apps.
I would hate to be without such gems as Zap and Messenger. And as
for Avante...
Options two and three would seem to me to be much safer investments
since releasing the Phoebe next year would just be plain stupid. It
would be so under-specced (?) by then that you'd never get your money
back.
Well, I'm definitely interested in 2/3. Keep in touch.
Cheers, Nick
--
!nick boalch
--> ni...@greenbeak.demon.co.uk
--> http://www.greenbeak.demon.co.uk/
--> ICQ# 17407400
Professor: Someone who talks in somebody else's sleep.
.
J.William Kay
<URL:mailto:seemys...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> What Sibelius make of this is a good question. They probably will
> produce "Sibelius for RiscOS" or whatever they'll call it, but will
> they continue to develop it after its first release?
Well, according to Ben Finn, posting to the Opus Mailing List:
> We have not made a decision on this (only having had a few hours to
> ponder it) but on an initial analysis this development at Acorn clearly
> would make a big difference to the viability of new-Sib for Acorn.
> Firstly because I doubt anyone would buy it other than as an upgrade,
> and secondly because a lot of users may decide to get a PC or Mac
> instead. So I can't say it looks like there will be much demand for it.
> However, we will consider this further and come to a decision in the
> next few days. You'll be the first to know.
> Whatever happens, you can rest assured that we'll continue supporting
> all of our customers whether they continue with Acorn or follow the
> PC/Mac route.
So, no firm decisions as yet from the Sibelius camp.
Regards,
William.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.William Kay Acorn StrongARM RiscPC 202MHz/26MB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Once you understand your computer it is obsolete
The Sherratt Clan
Tony Hopstaken <webr...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > What about a /usr/riscos/bin, /usr/riscos/boot, /usr/riscos/resource
> > directory (/usr/riscos/bin could of course contain !run files too,
> > the actual runimage would then reside in resource - or this could
> > always be the case). .../boot contains all the filetype-claims
> Arrgh. Just like windows. Splatering files all over the place....... :-(
Um, not as I read it. It is sort of like now but inside outŚ instead of
!app.!boot , !app.!run , !app.!etc
you have /boot.app , /run.app , /etc.app
If it is set up properly, it could work OK. But !App dirs are best for
neatness.
I like option 3Ś 1 is probably DoDo'd. By the time it is out it'll be
what, Q2 1999? It'll seem so lame by thenŚ
TTFN, Karl
Peter Naulls
> > I think the most important thing to remember if a RiscOS like window
> > manager was to be developed for Linux, is that it shouldn't lose any
> > of that RiscOS 'feel' in the transfer.
>
> For me personally, I agree. If as much of the RISC OS 'Look and Feel'
> can be retained under Linux, I'd be delighted. And as a bonus, we all
> get an OS that's stable as hell and all the Pre-Emptive Multi-tasking
> you could wish for. Also, theoretically a distriution could be made to
> work on other platforms other than ARM to tempt some of the other 4
> million Linux users to the RISC OS GUI.
One thing most of you won't be aware of is that Java 1.2 (and Java
1.1 with Swing/JFC) has LookAndFeel (yes, spell it like that :) classes,
so you can make your Java application look like it's running natively -
i.e. with all the native widgets and things) or like it's an app
from a different platform. Swing comes with 3 LAFs, and it's
quite easy to make a Java app in Windows look like it's a Motif app. The
other LAF being something called "Metal" which is a custom one.
There's also a MacOS LAF, but apparently Apple hasn't yet allowed it
to be used on non-Macs yet.
Peter
--
+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Peter Naulls | Phone 64-7-854-9478 |
| pna...@usa.net | Java and JVM Consultant |
| http://chocky.home.ml.org/ | Technical Author |
| Java for Risc OS: chocky.home.ml.org/java/ | Program performance analyst |
+--------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Unsolicted email received will be dealt with under the full extent of the law
Alisdair McDiarmid
Dave Roberts <Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What it would seem to need is some sort of mass meeting!
Like Acorn World?
--
Alisdair McDiarmid \ <mailto:alis...@illusion.co.uk>
Illusion Software \ <http://www.illusion.co.uk/software/>
Illusion Web Design \ <http://www.illusion.co.uk/web/>
010000EF62696720696E666C75656E63652062792064707440740D000EF0A0E1
Darren Salt
"Neil A. Carson" <ne...@causality.com> wrote:
> Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>> The path towards a unix OS system with a dual boot platform must the best
>> and than it is better to merge RiscOs with one of the Linux/Arm systems. I
>> do remember a discussion with Neil Carson of Chaltech in this newsgroup
>> about RO running on the Cats board. Main issue was the replacement of the
>> VIDC by graphic cards and the change of the OS that was needed. He and
>> others thought this was possible. RiscOs running on CATS may be easier
>> than marketing the PRPC2 in quantities and it also assures a better
>> future.
> Indeed. It'd certainly be easier than rewriting chunks of RiscOS to run on
> Linux. This would explode into a *massive* job and take too long for it to
> be worthwhile.
Such a move (dual-boot system) - even using some of the work done on the RPC2
- would seem to be a good thing. I'd likely be interested in a nice fast
SA-based machine in a year or two, but only so long as it has RISC OS.
If you can sell it for less than £500, so much the better; if this involves
leaving some expansion capability out, so be it, though allowing its easy
addition I can only see as a Good Thing...
--
| Darren Salt anti-UCE | nr. Ashington, | ds@youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| Risc PC, Spectrum +3, | Northumberland | ds@zap,uk,eu,org
| A3010, BBC Master 128 | Toon Army | arcsalt@spuddy,mew,co,uk
| BMPSprite. DrawMerge. DrawShape.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Thomas Boroske
> Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
> > The path towards a unix OS system with a dual boot platform must
> > the best and than it is better to merge RiscOs with one of the
> > Linux/Arm systems. I do remember a discussion with Neil Carson of
> > Chaltech in this newsgroup about RO running on the Cats board.
> > Main issue was the replacement of the VIDC by graphic cards and
> > the change of the OS that was needed. He and others thought this
> > was possible. RiscOs running on CATS may be easier than marketing
> > the PRPC2 in quantities and it also assures a better future.
>
> Indeed. It'd certainly be easier than rewriting chunks of RiscOS to run
> on Linux. This would explode into a *massive* job and take too long for
> it to be worthwhile.
Something like that will have to be done anyway, sooner or later.
And every programmer trying to adapt RiscOS to non-Acorn hardware
would be missing at the new-OS project.
And a clean-slate approach has the added advantage that you wouldn't
need to license *anything* from Acorn.
Thomas Boroske
Paul Wilkinson <paul.wi...@diamond.com.uk> wrote:
> In message <ant17192706c%2...@surprise.demon.co.uk>
> Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In addition to creating the WIMP for Linux, I believe a few more things
> will need to be ported across as well:-
>
> Drawfile support
How extensive support are you thinking of ? IMO a draw2eps converter
would be enough.
> (by far the best of the commonly supported native Acorn
> formats)
"Better" than eps, for example ?
> BBC Basic support (superb for writing even fairly large apps, and one of the
> main reasons I use Acorn kit)
You'll be amazed on what languages are available for Linux...
I guess someone will even dig out a BASIC variant for you.
> And perhaps most importantly, the anti-aliasing font display. I don't mind
> if it uses TrueType fonts,
I think you can use several font types on Unix, but I don't think
TrueType is one of the classics. More ps level 1 ?
> but the Acorn font display is *without parallel*
> on any other system. I'm far too used to it on my desktop to let it go now!
ISTR something about Linux getting an antialiasing X server ? Font manager ?
Will have to research this...
> Oh, and of course, !Zap (no question about this I hope?!)
Emacs ! :-)
Thomas Boroske
Daniel Pead <d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd say that the new RiscPC should be in the form of a CD-ROM that you
> plug into your existing RiscPC, Intel, Alpha or G3 box. Much cheaper to
> produce.
.. and another one for my list of "close personal friends" ...
> Get a UNIX distribution, strip out all the gunk (TeX,
... too early, it seems :-)
> 15 different
> Tetris clones, 8 different mailers etc), make sure all the GUI-based
> admin tools actually work, set up an X-based GUI that *really is* a GUI
> and not just a tool for running 8 copies of XTerm side by side, and
> clean up the documentation so there's one source for everything instead
> of the current motley collection of man pages, TeXInfo, HTML, Postscript
> and plain text.
That's one possible way to go, of course.
Thomas Boroske
Ross Tierney <kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> (Hypothetical bit)
[ SNIP ]
This has all got to do with hardware !
> Hopefully, we would also be able to write some software to make the
> porting of RISC OS software written in C or C++ much easier to
> transfer across so we might get your favourites: Ovation Pro, Top
> Model, Photodesk, DataPower etc. Hey, maybe even !Zap could be
> ported...
Hmmm - this is the only part that deals with software, actually.
For some reason I'm much more interested in this part...
We were asked us to give opinion on the 3 options - OK, give us
more info on the software then.
How is it going to be done ? Examples ? How is old software going
to integrate with Linux ? What (advantages) of Linux will remain,
what will go, what will be changed ?
RiscOS software interacts with, well, RiscOS. If an application
calls OS_File, it requests a certain service from the OS. If
it calls wimp_poll, it expects some wimp message/event to be
delivered ....
Things like OS_File may look as if you could easily map them
onto the equivalent Unix FS function - but I fear that there
is so much *state* involved everywhere that it'll be quite
impossible. And we aren't even talking about integrating this
with existing Unix apps...
Of course, you didn't say you wanted to 'emulate' RiscOS. However,
"make the porting [...] much easier" can mean anything from
almost nothing to full emulation.
So I'm hoping for more info soon.
Thomas Boroske
seemys...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote:
> them and other Unix platforms. Existing users could run Linux/RiscBSD
> on their RiscPCs. It may be worth making a ARM Linux port of BBC Basic
> to run the RiscOS apps that have been written. It would be a painful
> move since ultimately one cannot recreate the Acorn platform with 100%
> accuracy on another OS but it would allow a relatively smooth
> transition to the new platform.
The guys at Forbidden Technology might surprise me in a big way, who
knows, but I really doubt the transition to Linux will be in any way
smooth as you suggest.
Nor do I think it SHOULD be:
- Every person working on backwards-compatibility issues will
be missing in the team implementing the new OS
- Do you think anyone really wants to port software several times,
over several intermediate steps ?
- I don't see why people really think a sort of emulation is *required*.
After all, we're not switching to a totally new OS, but to *Linux* -
there're thousands of Linux apps available, it's not as if we'd
have to stare at an empty prompt all day.
And (this is so obvious) people who don't want to use these apps
can use their existing RiscOS apps on their existing RPC SA hardware.
- Developers who are willing to convert to the new platform could
promised reduced upgrade prices for future Linux/RiscOS versions
of their existing products. That would encourage users *greatly*
to buy their RiscOS products until the new desktop is
in a user-releasable state.
Of course, it's sensible to create Ex-RiscOS-User-specific
tools like file converters and such.
Graham Allan
> In fact it's fairly straight forward. Our solution is actually simple
> and elegant. After some enquiries I made yesterday (Thurs), we could
> have such a system ready (and waiting for the ARM 10's) by Q3 of next
> year.
Well the plan sounds good enough, but ironically has almost nothing to do
with Acorn's recent decision - you're really suggesting a higher-end
version of the other unix-based ARM products (Chaltech, Shark, Corel)?
And these existing products conveniently give you a ready-made hardware
platform on which to start development.
If by this you are writing off RISC OS as dead, then the important thing
is to bring the best RISC OS applications over to the new OS. I always
thought that Ovation Pro, TechWriter, et al would be wonderful products
on unix/linux (they are wonderful on RISC OS but would never reach the
wider audience they deserve there).
As the "low end" of this market is already served by Corel and Chaltech,
it would certainly be interesting to have a high performance system
to keep them company.
Graham
Graham Allan
> In article <ant17192706c%2...@surprise.demon.co.uk>, Forbidden Technologies
> <URL:mailto:Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> > and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
> Too boring. We want to be something different.
> >
> > 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> > ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> > - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> > cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> > perhaps in a year from now.
>
> Yes, that's the vision I would go for. With lots of ARM's, you not only
> move the Acorn community, but also grab a great deal of the Linux people
> out there. Hopefully, some good RISC OS software could be ported, like
> Avante, Photodesk, Ovation, etc. - and software developers could be
> attracted from other platforms as well (Tomb Raider ?)
I think you probably have to do (2) in order to do (3).
You can start 2 immediately; the hardware is ready and waiting, cheap, and
even inclusive of the existing user base (ie, you can run linux or RiscBSD
on RPC-I).
Graham
Alisdair McDiarmid
In message <360298BE...@causality.com>
"Neil A. Carson" <ne...@causality.com> wrote:
> Paul Wilkinson wrote:
>
> > Oh, and of course, !Zap (no question about this I hope?!)
>
> Want to try direct screen access for different graphics modes
> inside X? Be my guest. This thread gets more and more silly by
> the minute.
How difficult do you think it would be to replace ZapRedraw?
Obviously, there's a heck of a lot more than that which needs
doing; if the SWI interface can't be emulated you can forget
porting Zap.
> > Also, I would like to add to the messages of sympathy for
> > the ex-Acorn staff. In my mind, you can't crap on talent
> > like that (in addition to a v. loyal user base) and surive.
> > I can't see Acorn being around much longer ...
>
> Indeed (to the sympathy). I think Acorn might be around for a
> while yet, however.
I personally couldn't care less.
Bitter? Moi?
--
Alisdair McDiarmid \ <mailto:alis...@illusion.co.uk>
Illusion Software \ <http://www.illusion.co.uk/software/>
Illusion Web Design \ <http://www.illusion.co.uk/web/>
010000EF62696720696E666C75656E63652062792064707440740D000EF0A0E1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNgL9RUbU8Dr90Aa9AQFmZQP/fLU8HEBOPkaBnhlRmMale/keMKzoP06q
PKA4SDUXDsql5elg1naxs0VtivZ8L4S9kBhdAeHEd+burhENo+m4RGdbP8QhU+Hz
V+iKmRJKbBhgBmMpCZWZ+0pqhmieYCUveXA5cUjn0I+8TCstarVmVthBDgEhexKs
08Ds825z58k=
=TrRp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Cooper
>
>
> The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
>
> As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
<1 to 3 snipped>
my number 4:-
4) Get in touch with Peter Bondar
Regards, Dave C.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ ______________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / StrongArm Risc Pc (586 PcCard) Clan & MAUG.
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | / ArgoRing.AcornRing.Interests-Comp.Sat.AV.SF
___________________________/ Classical music & Wine. d...@argonet.co.uk
Homepage (inc.free photos) http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/dac/index.html
Dave Mullard
In article <ant17192706c%2...@surprise.demon.co.uk>,
Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
> As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
> I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
> 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
To me this is the only realistic option. There is no future unless you can
offer 100 pct compatibility with existing applications. Even the
relatively minor changes that the StrongARM needed would, I suspect, no
longer be acceptable. The development community would not now take the
risk of even that much cost. To keep the existing Acorn community on board
then you must offer improvements over what exists at the moment together
with the ability to carry on using what they have at the moment.
To make it work though, you will need sufficient numbers committed to
purchase before you dare go ahead with having the machines built. If Acorn
failed to get even a fraction of the numbers needed then there isn't much
chance unless you can improve on the RPC2 spec considerably to attract
more buyers, or get the price down. I might be willing to but up a few
thousand but I would want some chance of recovering my investment.
Can I suggest that, as a first step, you contact Acorn to at least find
out what they might be willing to release and for how much. Full scope to
develop RiscOS without having to pay royalties, would be a minimum to gain
credibility and offer any future. Acorn are not in a strong bargaining
position as they want to settle quickly. To quote their Interim Accounts -
If disposals are unable to be completed in a meaningful timeframe, then
some material closure of business activities will be required and
implemented. This, to me, means that if they cannot sell it then they will
just scrap it and accept the loss.
>
> 2) move the Acorn community on to an ARM-based Unix (eg Linux) box
> and spend the money on tools to assist this process;
>
> 3) build a new machine running eg Linux with say eight ARM10s
> ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> perhaps in a year from now.
>
> In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
> Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to date
> and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in ARM chips.
I appreciate that the Linux fan club would love a system that offered the
best of both systems but you wouldn't get many takers. I have been a
RiscOS user since the A420 came out and I would not move to a Unix system.
I suspect that the majority of users would have the same feeling. I also
do some programming, C and C++, and after becoming very familiar with
RiscOS and it's idiosyncrasies, and deficiencies, I am not about to
change. If no replacement to the RiscPC comes along I will stick with
that. It is still a damn good machine. There are many Acorn users who
still happily continue with old machines so why not me. I might consider a
MAC but only after much heartache.
--
Dave Mullard <dmul...@argonet.co.uk>
Ross Tierney
<sim...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> So is it going to be this Eidos/Forbidden Technologies lot or IMS who
> are going to save our butts?!
There's no reason it can't be both.
IMS are still planning for a 1998 release. They want to make sure that
the enthusiast market will still exist by Christmas before they spend
a lot of cash on production, but Paul Corke up there seems pretty
confident (usual technical problems allowing). The sales of that
system will be THE tell-tale identifyer of whether the scene will
prosper or die.
If the Peanut sells and makes a profit for IMS, then the chance of
Forbidden doing the desktop machine would be greatly increased.
Up at Forbidden we ALL want a Peanut. It'll be around a minimum of 6
months before our system would be ready.
Paul; If you're listening here in public - We all want one!!!
Ross.
--
Ross Tierney.
r...@eidos.co.uk "...Breathing in... Breathing out..."
kra...@argonet.co.uk -An Old Friend
Ross Tierney
deh...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Andreas Dehmel) wrote:
>
> I don't understand why you all go on about Linux. Think more broadly,
> know is the Wimp.
The RISC OS GUI is still one of the best I've seen anywhere. On a new
machine, we do need something *very* similar.
> Write a standard lib + window manager that runs on Unix (or X should
> be OK too, but keep away from any high-level libs that force their
> dubious philosophy on you), and make that _any_ Unix. Wouldn't it be
> grand if you could just buy an Alpha box, get the Wimp environment
> for it and enjoy the best of both worlds? Although most people would
> probably use Linux PCs for it I think it'd be a very bad move to
> restrict yourself to just one Unix variant. The additional effort in
> keeping it portable across Unix flavours would be relatively small,
> the benefits for people willing to get some serious equipment (or
> install it on their workstation at work, even) would be massive.
Hi Andreas,
Sadly, there is no money in *just* making a Unix OS. There are
hundreds already available for free.
To allow Forbidden to spend thousands of pounds on development work we
need to have a turnover of an appropriate size. In short; that means
we need to make a hardware & software 'package'. Otherwise we couldn't
afford to *just* do RISC OS for Unix.
To reduce costs and development, I say lets use one of the two Unix
ports already available for the ARM.
You have to remember that they both have MAN-YEARS of development work
behind them now.
Getting either ARMLinux or RiscBSD would mean the machine would get
here in 1999 instead of 2000 and cost a lot less too.
And anyway, Linux for Alpha is meant to be about as good as Digital's
own, home-grown, flavour last I heard.
Once we have gotten the development costs back, then perhaps we could
consider selling the RISC-OS/Linux for other platforms, but that is
not our priority just yet. One thing at a time.
> IMHO going Unix is the best solution. The best hardware is there and
> will probably always be there so we'll never have to worry about
> slow processors or missing hardware FP again. The OS is unrivalled
> in stability and power. It's just the current GUI that's completely
> and utterly pathetic, and projects like KDE who're just trying to
> emulate the latest Windows version are going in the wrong direction
> entirely too.
By the time the system would be available (Q3 of next year perhaps),
ARM will have their ARM10 processors available. That has Hardware FP
and costs a fraction of the cost of an x86 or Alpha.
8 x 400MHz ARM10's would cost *lots less* than a *single* Alpha 700MHz
today.
> Also I don't like the suggestions about using ARM Unix machines
> only, it's even worse than restricting yourself to x86 machines.
> Don't make the same mistake Acorn did when they developed their
> OS/GUI: KEEP IT PORTABLE!!! Since we're only talking the GUI here
> that's even a lot simpler than if it involved a whole new OS too.
Optima codecs work now on ARM processors. We will continue to use
ARM's for that reason. Also Forbidden can do massively parallel
machines with little cost; using ARM processors.
We like that idea.
> So by all means, port the Wimp to Unix (I've been toying with the
> idea myself and with yesterday's devastating news there's no way
> to go for me but in that direction). Now that Acorn programmers
> _have_ to get their act together something like this might even
> be done faster than you'd think.
They'll all be looking for new jobs at new companies in other markets
unless somebody creates a new platform around which the focus can
concentrate. I personally think this could be the one.
> Also it shouldn't be too hard to write something like OSlib for Unix
> to make programs written in high-level languages more portable.
Yeah, that's the spirit. Porting the vast majority of software would
not be that hard. I'm not saying it's a walk in the park, but I
believe truly that it offers a sane business plan for developers to
examine.
Especially as tools can be made to aide the transfer process.
> Alas the days of ARM-hacking are probably gone forever,
ARM hacking might yet be possible on our box. It'll still have ARM's
in it! That makes it *possible* for a start.
> but that's a little price to pay if the Wimp can be safed and Acorn
> developers are willing to migrate to Unix/Wimp -- just imagine
> Ovation Pro on an Alpha box... :-)
Imagine it on 8 x 400MHz ARM10's all with hardware FPU's. @ 500Mips of
procesing power each. That's a lot of oomph.
Cheers,
Ross Tierney
<ar...@a-bokx.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> ...which would be called the Phoenix, of course.
I like that.
It brings images of the old 'Elite' logo to mind. It also runs off the
tounge smoothly. "The Forbidden Phoenix".
BTW, that was no sort of official comment. I'm just saying *I* like it
:)
Ross Tierney
>
> Yes, that's the vision I would go for. With lots of ARM's, you not only
> move the Acorn community, but also grab a great deal of the Linux people
> out there. Hopefully, some good RISC OS software could be ported, like
> Avante, Photodesk, Ovation, etc. - and software developers could be
> attracted from other platforms as well (Tomb Raider ?)
Well, with about 4 million more users than the Acorn market has, it
certainly has more presence than the Acorn market ever had. Companies
like Eidos/Core can possibly find financial justification in doing
products for a Linux based system.
> I'm concerned about the laptop issue - it would be a good idea to have
> a software compatible Linux laptop in mind.
I'm sooo glad somebody raised that :)
I'd like the portable to be released this year as planned. Put RISC OS
(3.71 presumably) on it to start with and then, when we do this RISC
OS/Linux work, it could be easy moved across to the Peanut.
God. I want a Peanut more than ever now.
Ross Tierney
<m...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The biggest single problem facing anyone developing RISCOS boxes
> seems to me to be the inability to run on anything post SA1 - ie. not
> on ARM10, SA2 etc., due to lack of 32-bit compliance in RiscOS. Any
> thoughts on this one?
I suspect that's one of the reasons Stan Boland pulled the plug. He
knows RISC OS won't go any further once ARM10 hits and he knows then
that the RPC2's future was in jeopardy because of that.
Maybe we are starting to see the many reasons which must have led to
'that' decision.
Ross.
Ross Tierney
>
> The only addition I would make to your proposals is to think
> carefully about how existing users would transfer to this new
> platform, maintaining their investment in existing software/
> hardware. It doesn't mean transferring everything we have now to
> the new system, just making a good link between out existing kit
> and new kit, and perhaps making it easier to use Linux on our
> existing kit in parallel with RiscOS.
A good point. We were briefly looking at it initially today. The
point would be that we could provide a turn-key box which would run
an environment very, very similar in look and feel to current RISC OS
products. It woun't actually be RISC OS underneath, but in use it
could be made very similar.
From a developer PoV, some work would need to be done to move across,
but we can put a lot of code into the distribution to allow easy
access to Linux functions by addressing them in RISC OS ways.
Any ARM-optimised bits would need 'looking at' as we may even be
able to use them - We'd still be using ARM processors after all :)
It would mean *that* software could only work on a machine with an
ARM in it, but that's not a problem for us lot here - is it? :)
Lots of other clever functions and run-time applications could be
written to make the porting *much* easier than a standard RISC OS ->
Linux port though.
Ideally, a good range of familiar software could be made to run on
the new platform without too much hastle. Over time, more and more
of the software could be changed to make use of more Unix-specific
features though.
Once this work had been done, I can't see any major reason why it
shouldn't work on any ARMLinux / RiscBSD assuming proper drivers
where required.
Cheers,
Ross Tierney
<edi...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>
> In article <ant180540345xn%n...@ross.skarpsey.demon.co.uk>, Ross Tierney
>
> > The company exists now, but isn't doing anything yet. This 'box'
> > would pretty much be it's first product. It has nothing to do with
> > Eidos other than the fact Stephen is connecting them.
>
> Whether the names of Stephen and Eidos are on the box doesn't matter,
> enough people will know there's some link and that is a positive
> influence.
True enough I suppose :)
> A company 'Forbidden Technologies' seems as attractive and that
> company must be able to give their first product a name that is at
> the same level.
I still liked that "Phoenix" one that Arjan mentioned above. If
nothing else, I might suggest it as a development name. It's certainly
appropraite enough.
> There is enough ARM based hardware available that could be adapted
> one way or another to cover the near future demands.
>
> Chaltech's Cats
> Corels initiatives
> Toshiba's Java portable
> The Acorn klones.
Some of these might be good platforms for prototyping on, but for the
final product you do need something custom designed.
We've looked at considering EtherSCSI on the motherboard, and perhaps
a digitiser and/or PAL output too. You've got to remember that Optima
will have to run on this or the whole project is eneconomical to even
consider.
> Remains the question whether Acorn is willing to license the latest
> version of RiscOs with sources etc. and allows any changes to it.
> If they restrict the use to desktop systems and are no longer losing
> money its development I can't see a commercial disadvantage for
> them.
Yes. They'd do a lot worse than try to satisfy the market by allowing
RISC OS licences for other systems now that they have no vested
interest any longer.
It would go a long way towards repairing the damage they have done
between them and the developer network and would re-open a lot of
civilised communication channels again. They have nothing to lose,
and a lot of public support to try to re-attain.
> If they aren't willing for one reason or another I wonder whether
> a legal action against them might change their mind. Their
> promises to the last moment and changing that by a complete
> turnaround have an impact on the commercial activities of dealers,
> developers and business users. Acorn isn't bankrupt.
There isn't any point. They are perfectly within their rights.
Micro$oft does it all the time to their 'partners'. It also would
just put their back up, and they'd just become more determined not
to realease it.
If we stress them out too much, they can always just delete all the
files and then nobody could have them. They havn't a use for them any
more.
The way to do it is to ask politely and in numbers. If 10,000 users
all ask to be able to buy a copy of RISC OS. They'll sell it for any
platform you choose - as long as they don't have to do anything to
make it work on that platform.
> As someone else wrote in this thread do not restrict the RO GUI to
> Linux make it available to unix in general. And a universal vector
> format like Draw included and even more PostScript compatible than
> Draw is now. Or has unix already something like that? Could be EPS
> or PDF as well of course.
Lets not get into those details just yet.
I'm sure that this is a PERFECT OPORTUNITY for somebody like
Alternative Publishing to step in and take the reigns for 'filetypes'
and conversions on the new system.
Perhaps this is time for Avante to step in too and become the default
grahics system too instead of !Draw. :)
See ya,
Ross Tierney
Esq. <dna...@ni.edam.maps> wrote:
>
> I have to say that the idea of 'Forbidden Technologies Ltd.'
> pulling this off is beginning to appeal! It is ironic that the
> company name is such - seeing as Acorn have forbidden us the Phoebe.
Who says the universe doesn't have a sence of humour?
The name was around long before this mess. Thank the chap who wrote
Memphis for the name: Brian Brunswick. Ta Brian! Magic name! :)
> Your attempt at a basic spec for the machine is much more elegant
> than what Acorn had to cope with - although I don't pretend to
> understand all of it.
>
> I think we'll all be watching this thread closely, while a modicum
> of faith still remains in the continuation of the platform.
>
> I also think that if you went to the DTI for additional investment
> capital, backed by the chaps at the BBC who use Optima... then
> maybe you could pull this off. There's an app called Elements
> (the talking one) which a chap at the DTI said "why doesn't every
> school have this?" It runs under RiscOS...
I don't think that backing this sort of computer comes under the
business plan of Aunty Beeb any longer. Shame really. Backing the
model B made it world famous. You'd think the Beeb would like cheap
advertising seeing as it's not allowed to on the telly.
Ross Tierney
<y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> OTOH, work on the user-interface could be started NOW on any
> Linux machine (PCs, Alphas, whatever) that have stable Linux
> versions and toolchains available.
Yes some work can be started soon. However only by staff working for
Forbidden Tech. Currently, that company has a staff-count of Zero.
Once we know that there is enthusiasm, and that we can re-coupe our
outlay, we can start the ball rolling. Not before then though.
> In the last 5 years, the ARM has never been the ideal desktop
> processor - at the moment, a plain PC seems significantly more
> attractive for such a system. So I really think such a
> project should try to support multiple hardware platforms,
> among them ARM (of course), but surely PC, and anything else
> would be a nice extra. I mean, doing an ARM version first
> means you have to do a stable Linux - how good is ARMLinux
> actually ?
What we're actually talking about though is basically one years time.
In a year or so Pentium technology will have moved to bigger and
better blocks of cheesy-spoo. :)
We'll be on the ARM10 by then too. It has FPU's for the first time.
It's also virtually dirt cheap. Lets say that the pentium nanages to
double in speed to say 800MHz by then (Over 600 is quite likely).
That processor will cost something like 2 grand when it comes out.
For a tenth of that cost, we could afford 8 ARM10's. Each running
parallel tasks at 400-500MHz and producing about 500Mips of
processing power.
I know what I'd like on my desk.
> Option 3) mentions an interesting spec, some would say dream machine.
> But I feel any hardware produced for the Acorn userbase should
> ideally justify itself, ie not only by being the only hardware
> the new RiscOS 5 runs on. That way, if it proves to be too
> expensive / not viable to build such a machine, or the next
> ARM-based machine even further in future, you can easily sack
> it and choose another processor platform.
>
>
> > As for software, I feel there would be a bright, if slow future
> > for development of software on a new OS.
>
> Agree.
>
> > > Moving to Linux would remove the cost of keeping RISC OS up to
> > > date and would allow support for the more modern 32 modes in
> > > ARM chips.
> >
> > ...And open the door to many more technologies that already
> > exist for Linux/Unix systems and will be ported in the future...
> > I see a far better future for a machine like this than I did for
> > RISC-OS machines.
>
> I've been advocating that approach for ages :-)
Because Acorn was producing a machine nobody was willing to spend
money to do it - it wouldn't have sold enough units. With that
obstacle removed it is now plausible.
> > Please, if anyone has the money/power/will to make a go of a
> > project like this, go for it. I'm sure you'll be able to count
> > on support for a very large percentage of the Acorn community.
I personally think we'll do a cut-down version for Optima systems
anyway. Piggybacking an Enthusiast spec machine off the back of that
helps us and helps you. Perfect symetry.
All we need to know is how popular such a product would be. If its
popular enough to pay for the additional costs...
Ross Tierney
<paul.wi...@diamond.com.uk> wrote:
>
> In message <ant17192706c%2...@surprise.demon.co.uk>
> Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ( see http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?EET19980803S0011 )
> > - such a new machine would have hardware FP, PMT, PCI for graphics
> > cards and SCSI, standard Unix tools eg C++, and would be launched
> > perhaps in a year from now.
> >
> > In cases 2 and 3, we would create a RISC OS user-interface.
>
> Phoebe was primarily for the users who wanted more oomph anyway
> (although I was going to buy one, I was dissappointed by the still
> absent hardware FP).
It would never have gotten it either because of the 26bit mode
problems inherant in RISC OS.
> In addition to creating the WIMP for Linux, I believe a few more
> things will need to be ported across as well:-
>
> Drawfile support (by far the best of the commonly supported native
> Acorn formats)
I thought the guys behind Avante were looking at something even more
suitable than 'DrawFile' format?
Avante could even be the killer app for this box.
Sell a cut-down version for a few hundred pounds and I'd say Forbidden
might even be interested in selling a Professional Turn-key system for
about £5000. If you're listening: Talk to Stephen.
> BBC Basic support (superb for writing even fairly large apps, and
> one of the main reasons I use Acorn kit)
I've heard rumour that there is already a 'BBC BASIC' available for
Linux. If it's version V (or pretty similar) we could perhaps bundle
it in the distribution.
Anyone know where I should look?
> And perhaps most importantly, the anti-aliasing font display.
> I don't mind if it uses TrueType fonts, but the Acorn font display
> is *without parallel* on any other system. I'm far too used to it
> on my desktop to let it go now!
It does kick the... Errr. Ooops. Public forum. Better stop that. :)
...out of other display systems doesn't it. I think we all know that
a system without that sort of capability would be pointless.
> Oh, and of course, !Zap (no question about this I hope?!)
I have no idea. Nobody has contacted me yet. Hint hint. :)
BTW, I probably AM the person you should contact if you are
interested in this. Somehow (I think it's cause I can chat to
people) I've landed myself as unofficial liaison. S'pose I didn't
really need sleep any more... :)
> Also, I would like to add to the messages of sympathy for the ex-
> Acorn staff.
I can't believe the list of people they ditched. Many of them, I
consider friends. Such a crying shame. So-long and farewell` to all of
our missing friends. Please keep in contact, and I wish you all the
very, very best.
> In my mind, you can't crap on talent like that (in addition to a
> v. loyal user base) and surive. I can't see Acorn being around
> much longer ...
My best guess is 12 months. <SOB>
Ross Tierney
<y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> In message <ant1721231cbXL#k...@pharpech.demon.co.uk>
> Dave Roberts <Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > These sound like good ideas, and some in .advocacy would be
> > quick to point out they mentioned them first! I can see only one
> > real downside, and that being, what would up and coming software
> > like Avante do? It would surely be impossible without a *major*
> > rewrite to make these work?
>
> Yes - unless some genius comes up with a nice new idea to emulate
> RiscOS, but I doubt that. We can only hope that existing developers
> would support the switch, and port their apps.
I hope so too.
There are all sorts of clever tricks we're looking at to make that
process much less painful. I suggest those that are interested,
should probably contact me or Stephen.
Ta,
Ross Tierney
<Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <ant180618313xn%n...@ross.skarpsey.demon.co.uk>, Ross Tierney
> <URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip poss machine spec]
>
> > Hopefully, we would also be able to write some software to make the
> > porting of RISC OS software written in C or C++ much easier to
> > transfer across so we might get your favourites: Ovation Pro, Top
> > Model, Photodesk, DataPower etc. Hey, maybe even !Zap could be
> > ported...
>
> move their products over to it, it would have my money! What it
> would seem to need is some sort of mass meeting!
Yes. That will be needed.
Okay, nothing can be set out now, but we *all* have holes in our
schedules for the 16th thru 18th October, Yes? It might be possible
to get /SOMETHING/ sorted for then. It's kinda short notice and
nothing will be set in stone, but it might still be a good idea
nontheless.
With Stephen away, there's not much *I* can arrange yet. Let me get
something sorted out next week and get it posted to csa.announce.
That's the best solution.
> All developers of software and hardware need to get together. To
> find out what can be salvaged from the ashes and what would need
> to be done to make any new venture work. To find out whether the
> will still exists to make this happen! With a concerted effort I
> strongly believe that something good and better(!) may come out
> of this.
So do I.
;)
Ross Tierney
seemys...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote:
>
> What Sibelius make of this is a good question. They probably will
> produce "Sibelius for RiscOS" or whatever they'll call it, but will
> they continue to develop it after its first release? I hope they do.
> My feeling about this is that if the idea being float of porting
> RiscOS to Linux and producing a ARM-based Linux machine running the
> RiscOS for Linux goes ahead, the people developing it should contact
> Sibelius and offer to help with porting their app to the new
> platform. It could then be offered to existing users who obtain ARM
> Linux for their machines, and potentially could be ported to other
> versions of Linux.
If they're nearly there with a version for RISC OS, then they have an
installed user base waiting for it. It's worth polishing off for them
as an upgrade (I assume that was part of the original plan?).
If it's all basically written in C/C++, then a port to Linux should
be fairly straight forward. I'd love to see Sibelius on our system.
If the Finn's are interested, then I'd love to hear from them.
Cheers,
Ross Tierney
> > Yes - unless some genius comes up with a nice new idea to emulate
> > RiscOS, but I doubt that. We can only hope that existing
> > developers would support the switch, and port their apps.
>
> But on a multiprocessor platform that is maybe not such a problem.
> One/two processors for emulation and the other(s) for the programs
> that run....?
There is no point at all in emulating RISC OS under Linux.
For that metter there is little point in having ANYTHING from RISC OS
in Linux.
What we can do are lots of little tricks to make code 'believe' it's
talking to RISC OS, when in actual fact it isn't.
The tricks are clever, technical and time consuming to write, but
they work very well indeed.
Any progarms written basically in C or C++ will be even easier to
port once they are re-compiled.
> I already has a larger userbase. So it would be more worthwhile for
> 'Acorn' programmers to invest in bigger projects. With may attrack
> more users.......
Ovation Pro could sell to millions.
Top Model = ditto.
Avante could sell to professionals. They require a stable OS which
they've at least heard of: Linux.
> The only thing I like about my RPC is RiscOS. For me it doesn't
> matter on what platform it runs.
Are you SURE it's RISC OS you like, not just the GUI?
Okay, the fact that you can 'get at' the system easily helps, but
that's still UI at least. Most users aren't interested whether it's
the "WindowManager" module or "X" that's shoing them their work - as
long as it looks good, clean and is very responsive and easy.
That's what we really want to provide.
Emulating RISC OS to get it would take away the 'responsive' aspect
for sure.
See ya,
Ross Tierney
<y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> In message <3602975D...@causality.com>
> > on Linux. This would explode into a *massive* job and take too long for
> > it to be worthwhile.
>
> Something like that will have to be done anyway, sooner or later.
> And every programmer trying to adapt RiscOS to non-Acorn hardware
> would be missing at the new-OS project.
>
> And a clean-slate approach has the added advantage that you wouldn't
> need to license *anything* from Acorn.
The 'clean-slate' approach IS what would be done, but it would be done in a
virtually transparent way from the point of view of a typical "user".
Programmers and hackers would be able to find out that it's not RISC OS and
is in fact just a front-end on Linux that seems to be wonderfully stable,
but ideally "users" should barely be able to tell the difference, except
wher some terminology might change and some interfaces may lose/gain
options.
As far as developers go, we'll encourage them to come and dive in by
making it as simple as we possibly can. We won't run RISC OS itself,
but programs may not know that! :)
There's lots we can do.
Ross Tierney
<y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> In message <EzHHF8.9t7.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
> seemys...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote:
>
> > them and other Unix platforms. Existing users could run Linux/
> > port of BBC Basic to run the RiscOS apps that have been written.
> > It would be a painful move since ultimately one cannot recreate
> > the Acorn platform with 100% accuracy on another OS but it would
> > allow a relatively smooth transition to the new platform.
That's why we can put in an abstraction layer between a lot of the
RISC OS native code and run them in an environment which makes them
believe they're talking to RISC OS when they aren't.
It quite an elegant solution.
> The guys at Forbidden Technology might surprise me in a big way, who
> knows, but I really doubt the transition to Linux will be in any way
> smooth as you suggest.
There is no doubt: You won't just be doing a re-compile; but if you
have any doubts. Consider this pretty obvious situation:
We'll be converting the whole Optima Suite using our 'wonder-tools'
(for want of a better name).
If we can do that...
> Nor do I think it SHOULD be:
> - Every person working on backwards-compatibility issues will
> be missing in the team implementing the new OS
Sorry. I don't understand that?!?
> - Do you think anyone really wants to port software several times,
> over several intermediate steps ?
I'd say that we put the RISC OS abstraction in and leave it there.
It would allow a lot of backward compatibility (with some work of
course - it is a new OS y' know).
I'd probably encourage developers to develop a version for the new
machine based on their current versions. Then, once they're settled
and they know more about the specs of the system, they can write
more 'native' versions later if they so choose.
> - I don't see why people really think a sort of emulation is
> *required*.
Agreed, but I suspect for different reasons.
> After all, we're not switching to a totally new OS, but to
> *Linux* - there're thousands of Linux apps available, it's not
> as if we'd have to stare at an empty prompt all day.
> And (this is so obvious) people who don't want to use these
> apps can use their existing RiscOS apps on their existing RPC
> SA hardware.
Why not have the OPTION though. I know I'd still rather use Fresco
(Type-5's and all) rather than Netscape. I'd like the choice.
> - Developers who are willing to convert to the new platform could
> promised reduced upgrade prices for future Linux/RiscOS versions
> of their existing products. That would encourage users *greatly*
> to buy their RiscOS products until the new desktop is
> in a user-releasable state.
That's up to the individual companies concerned.
The problem is; Acorn have caused major ripples throughout the market. Every
dealer/developer is having to re-evaluate the situation. With Peanut and
Medi and the remaining RPC's to support them until next year.
Can they afford to keep their overheads up for a whole year and then offer
lots of discounts too?
I'm not sure it's wise for the enthusiasts to force that sistuation.
Developers and dealers may not be ABLE to survive in that climate.
Cheers,
Ross.
> Of course, it's sensible to create Ex-RiscOS-User-specific
> tools like file converters and such.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
--
Ross Tierney
<alis...@illusion.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In message <ant1807190b0XL#k...@pharpech.demon.co.uk>
> Dave Roberts <Da...@pharpech.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What it would seem to need is some sort of mass meeting!
>
As I said above, I'd like to start arranging something.
Can anybdy out there tell me who has the reins on that now?
If nobody does and it's been canned, lets find another venue.
Are there any clubs/user groups in the Londo area (thats where
everybody was expecting to go anyway) which might be able to help at
this short notice?
Thanks,
Ross.
Ross Tierney
His employment-termination terms probably exclude him from working
for any company who could be perceived as a competitor to Acorn for a
pretty long time (6 or 12 months I'd guess).
I'd still like to see him around though :)
Ross Tierney
<dmul...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The opinion of one utterly depressed Acorn enthusiast.
>
> In article <ant17192706c%2...@surprise.demon.co.uk>,
> Forbidden Technologies <Forb...@surprise.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The cancellation of the Risc PC 2 is inconvenient for me at Eidos
> > because we were planning an on-line version of Optima for RPC2.
>
> > As it happens, I have this new company with some cash in it, but
> > not enough on its own to launch RPC2 which would need UKP 2m-3m
> > in working capital (to complete development and build stock).
>
> > I wondered what people thought of these alternatives:
>
> > 1) raise a few million quickly from Acorn users eg on this NG to
> > complete and launch RPC2 next year (1999);
>
> To me this is the only realistic option. There is no future unless
> you can offer 100 pct compatibility with existing applications.
> Even the relatively minor changes that the StrongARM needed would,
> I suspect, no longer be acceptable.
Firstly, let me quallify that: That would be true if we were staying
in the same machine. We're not. This is basically a complete break
with Acorn technology. The focus is more on pushing what the *ARM* can
do.
Secondly, let me remind everybody: RISC OS had no future past the
ARM9, so it would have had to have been completely re-gigged. That
would have made ARM7 to SA look like a glitch in the power-supply.
Thirdly, One of the main reasons for alteering software is likely
to be the multi-processor system. To make use of it, you're going to
have to re-write your software anyway - exactly as you would have on
RPC2. The difference being, we're not limited by IOMD2 to dual-
processors.
We're planning to stick EIGHT processors on the first generation
board, no more no less.
That's a BIG evolutionary step people. It's *still* ahead of where
RPC2 would be this time next year though.
> The development community would not now take the risk of even that
> much cost. To keep the existing Acorn community on board then you
> must offer improvements over what exists at the moment together
> with the ability to carry on using what they have at the moment.
I want to make the break from Acorn's proprietry equipment because
we've had out fingures all burned by them this week. I don't want them
able to do the same thing to us agian with RISC OS in a years time.
What I would say though, is that we will help everybody we CAN to
convert their software so it runs smoothly, reliably and brilliantly
on our system. We'll put in whatever we can to make the transition as
smooth as possible.
Don't have any illusions. This is a big job. It will take a lot of
commitment from us and afrom the developers, but it will also keep
the enthusiast community happy, Wintel free and on a track that HAS
a future.
Developers also need to realise that porting their software opens it
up for sale to a market 1,000 times as large as the current market.
There are 4 million Linux users out there. How many of those might
buy Avante? Top Model?
It's in the software houses interest to look at this as an investment
in the future.
> To make it work though, you will need sufficient numbers committed
> to purchase before you dare go ahead with having the machines
> built. If Acorn failed to get even a fraction of the numbers
> needed then there isn't much chance unless you can improve on the
> RPC2 spec considerably to attract more buyers, or get the price
> down. I might be willing to but up a few thousand but I would want
> some chance of recovering my investment.
Lets get some proper prototypes built before we start talking about
deposits. One thing at a time. Let us examine the feasability study
of the project and commit to making prototypes first. That will tell
us what we can/can't achieve.
As long as we stick to the ARM hardware, porting stuff will likely
be much simpler. Once the transition has ben made, then lets look at
fully Linux-native versions of the software.
> Can I suggest that, as a first step, you contact Acorn to at least
> find out what they might be willing to release and for how much.
> Full scope to develop RiscOS without having to pay royalties, would
> be a minimum to gain credibility and offer any future.
RISC OS source may not be all that useful. I mean it is tightly tied
to IOMD and VIDC hardware which we simply aren't going to use. There
may not be much use for the source.
Personally, as they don't want it any longer I'd say they could make
a big PR thing out of releasing it under GNU.
> Acorn are not in a strong bargaining position as they want to
> settle quickly. To quote their Interim Accounts - If disposals are
> unable to be completed in a meaningful timeframe, then some
> material closure of business activities will be required and
> implemented. This, to me, means that if they cannot sell it then
> they will just scrap it and accept the loss.
That is what they have just done with Phoebe. The whole lot has been
bagged and put into cold-storage.
> I appreciate that the Linux fan club would love a system that
> offered the best of both systems but you wouldn't get many takers.
> I have been a RiscOS user since the A420 came out and I would not
> move to a Unix system. I suspect that the majority of users would
> have the same feeling. I also do some programming, C and C++, and
> after becoming very familiar with RiscOS and it's idiosyncrasies,
> and deficiencies, I am not about to change. If no replacement to
> the RiscPC comes along I will stick with that. It is still a damn
> good machine. There are many Acorn users who still happily continue
> with old machines so why not me. I might consider a MAC but only
> after much heartache.
Personally I would have stuck with RISC OS if it was a viable option.
Knowing the things I know, I don't think it has more than about 18
months max before it comes to the end of it's track and hits it's
buffers.
If somebody is going to commit serious money to building a
replacement, they need to look for a much loner-term than that.
With our solution, as long as you look in our PRM's (when we make
them), you'll find all the old SWI calles in them (except "OS_Enter"
IIRC) and they'll all generally behave the same way they do now. A
port of OSLib and/or DeskLib to Linux and your c programs will
probably run too.
As long as you're not dooing anything particularly raucious to the
machine, it won't be that different withing the abstraction layer.
Outside of that, you then have Linux native and the direct support
for multi-processors.
That's a much better arrangement than the bastardised hack Acorn
were going to have to do to get more than 2 processors into a
Phoebe. I know...
Don't worry. It's better than you fear. Remember one thing: The guys
who wrote all those incredible applications like Ovation Pro, Top
Model, Photodesk etc are the same guy's we'll be helping make the
transition. They are good programmers who love challenges to get
their teeth into.
They always have risen to the challenge and they will again.
First time I've said it, but I believe with the support of you guys
here; the 'Phoenix' may just be starting to rise again.
Ernst Dinkla
<URL:mailto:seemys...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Neil A. Carson (ne...@causality.com) wrote:
> > Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> >
> > > The path towards a unix OS system with a dual boot platform must
> > > the best and than it is better to merge RiscOs with one of the
> > > Linux/Arm systems. I do remember a discussion with Neil Carson of
> > > Chaltech in this newsgroup about RO running on the Cats board.
> > > Main issue was the replacement of the VIDC by graphic cards and
> > > the change of the OS that was needed. He and others thought this
> > > was possible. RiscOs running on CATS may be easier than marketing
> > > the PRPC2 in quantities and it also assures a better future.
> >
> > Indeed. It'd certainly be easier than rewriting chunks of RiscOS to run
> > on Linux. This would explode into a *massive* job and take too long for
> > it to be worthwhile.
>
> eye to porting existing applications over?
You need time to make a RiscOs-style GUI for unix. You need time to
port the essential applications like Draw etc. If you can buy a
platform that runs both OSses you still are able to use your old
applications and change to unix more and more when your favorites
are ported. It makes the investments you make and made last longer
and the road to a new RiscUnix less bumpy. For the people among us
that can't fork out the money for a machine like that there's
the cheaper way of putting a kind of unix on their existing
equipment. In the end it will result in what Stephen Streater
proposed as number 3.
This way the software developments that are almost finished aren't
waisted and the developers get their time to recuperate and change
course.
Ernst
--
Ernst Dinkla Serigrafie,Zeefdruk edi...@inter.nl.net
All views expressed are my own and may have no relation whatsoever
to the views of Acorn, Intel, Oracle, IBM, ARM, Sun, Compaq, Micro-
Rob Hemmings
<kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant180802b49$s...@a-bokx.demon.nl>, Arjan Bokx
> <ar...@a-bokx.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > ...which would be called the Phoenix, of course.
> I like that.
> It brings images of the old 'Elite' logo to mind. It also runs off the
> tounge smoothly. "The Forbidden Phoenix".
>
> BTW, that was no sort of official comment. I'm just saying *I* like it
> :)
> Ross.
What a brilliant name!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hemmings Southport
Tel: +44 (0)1704 573210 ro...@argonet.co.uk
Rob Hemmings
<kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> > BBC Basic support (superb for writing even fairly large apps, and
> > one of the main reasons I use Acorn kit)
>
> I've heard rumour that there is already a 'BBC BASIC' available for
> Linux. If it's version V (or pretty similar) we could perhaps bundle
> it in the distribution.
>
> Anyone know where I should look?
I also think BBC Basic would be essential on any new machine but this would
be almost useless without support for all the SWIs that are used by Wimp
programs.
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
.
>
>For a tenth of that cost, we could afford 8 ARM10's. Each running
>parallel tasks at 400-500MHz and producing about 500Mips of
>processing power.
>
>I know what I'd like on my desk.
>
>
Parallel ARMS everwhere but lacking an OS to run them.... Get Real..
greg
Thomas Boroske
Ross Tierney <kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <2cdcb68748%y000...@tu-bs.de>, Thomas Boroske
> <y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> > The guys at Forbidden Technology might surprise me in a big way, who
> > knows, but I really doubt the transition to Linux will be in any way
> > smooth as you suggest.
>
> There is no doubt: You won't just be doing a re-compile; but if you
> have any doubts. Consider this pretty obvious situation:
>
> We'll be converting the whole Optima Suite using our 'wonder-tools'
> (for want of a better name).
>
> If we can do that...
Well - sounds good !
> > Nor do I think it SHOULD be:
> > - Every person working on backwards-compatibility issues will
> > be missing in the team implementing the new OS
>
> Sorry. I don't understand that?!?
Not ? What I essentially meant is: Don't waste too much time
making the new system as RiscOS-compatible as possible.
The less work you put into these issues, the more you
can put into developing the new GUI/OS.
> > - Do you think anyone really wants to port software several times,
> > over several intermediate steps ?
>
> I'd say that we put the RISC OS abstraction in and leave it there.
See: If you think you can do it, do it. ATM I just can't imagine
how it could be done easily. If it can, then I'm all for it.
> > After all, we're not switching to a totally new OS, but to
> > *Linux* - there're thousands of Linux apps available, it's not
> > as if we'd have to stare at an empty prompt all day.
> > And (this is so obvious) people who don't want to use these
> > apps can use their existing RiscOS apps on their existing RPC
> > SA hardware.
>
> Why not have the OPTION though.
Agreed.
> I know I'd still rather use Fresco
> (Type-5's and all) rather than Netscape. I'd like the choice.
Choice is nice, yes, but I'd rather hope for a version of
Mozilla being done using the new Toolset (ie RiscOS x / Phoenix - aware).
> > - Developers who are willing to convert to the new platform could
> > promised reduced upgrade prices for future Linux/RiscOS versions
> > of their existing products. That would encourage users *greatly*
> > to buy their RiscOS products until the new desktop is
> > in a user-releasable state.
>
> That's up to the individual companies concerned.
Sure.
> Can they afford to keep their overheads up for a whole year and then offer
> lots of discounts too?
That's going to be tough. But - the damage has been done, in the long run
RiscOS developers can only pack if a new system isn't developed :-(
> I'm not sure it's wise for the enthusiasts to force that sistuation.
> Developers and dealers may not be ABLE to survive in that climate.
Not thinking of force at all. However, It will happen automatically
that we'll get discussions about "developer x is going to leave"
and "let's support the remaining loyal developers" and all that.
Can't you see it too ? That'll be a problem for other developers
too, ie even those who don't leave. And they need to do something
that restores confidence ....
Well, what do I know.
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>That's why we can put in an abstraction layer between a lot of the
>RISC OS native code and run them in an environment which makes them
>believe they're talking to RISC OS when they aren't.
>
>It quite an elegant solution.
>
Yes that will be very easy to do.You obviously write virtual machines
everyday.
>
>> Nor do I think it SHOULD be:
>> - Every person working on backwards-compatibility issues will
>> be missing in the team implementing the new OS
>
>Sorry. I don't understand that?!?
>
You suprise me.
greg
Daniel Pead
<kra...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>Sadly, there is no money in *just* making a Unix OS. There are
>hundreds already available for free.
>
hours assembling them only to give them away or sell for peanuts -
they're shovelware for propellerheads - hardly contenders for the mass,
desktop PC market, especially when it comes to GUI use.
Although X has potential, too many of the X developers are Unix-heads
who only regard it as a convenient way of running 3 copies of EMACS and
2 Xterms side-by-side. Even in some of the visually impressive file &
window managers their idea of GUI-based configuration is a button that
loads the .rc file into EMACS.
Its no good just making X look like Win95/NeXTStep/RISC-OS - when you
install an application its got to add its icon to the "Applications"
menu; If you want a program to run on startup you've got to be able to
drag its icon into the "Startup" folder, not scratch your head trying to
work out which of 100 possible .rc files it should go into.
You'd also have to "unify" the help system - currently its a mess with
umpteen different formats and be fairly ruthless at chucking out "cool"
packages that were buggy, incomplete, incomprehensible and/or
undocumented.
If someone could come up with a Linux/Unix release that was as
superficially slick as Win95 and came with a suite of software that
actually worked and integrated well with the GUI then I think it might
be a contender.
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Malcolm Knight
<URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> The sales of that
> system will be THE tell-tale identifyer of whether the scene will
> prosper or die.
>
> If the Peanut sells and makes a profit for IMS, then the chance of
> Forbidden doing the desktop machine would be greatly increased.
That's not logical. I could use two new desktop machines but I could
not justify a Peanut.
I *might* buy a Peanut just for fun as an adjunct to a new desktop machine
but I have no pressing need for it and so without the reassurance that a new
desktop machine would provide for the future I would certainly not buy a
machine less powerful than my RPC1 just for fun thing to own.
--
Malcolm
Neil A. Carson
> Concerning rewriting Risc OS, all you would need is a BASIC
> interpreter, most of the code is written in C, C++ or other high
> level languages which could be altered reasonably quickly and
> recompiled. All it would take is the UI to be copied. Which is
> being done already I believe. If it is written in low level ARM
> code, then yeah, maybe it wont work, but not that much is.
Do you know this as an authority? I mean, I've regularly seen under
NDA from a licensee a RiscOS source tree. Have you?
I don't want to be rude, but "you really don't know the half of it"
and this all assumes that you can get hold of the source tree in
the first place which I'd consider unlikely, unless someone wants
to pay 1.5 million to license that too (I think that's the current
going rate). You're playing with fire, and can't even begin to
comprehend the volume of work required.
Regards,
Neil
--
Neil A. Carson
Richard J. Hesketh
<URL:mailto:d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> one of the free unixoid operating systems on it. Heck, you can even get
> UNIX applications off the shelf in PC World now.
Really?! Purely out of curiousity - I've been around long enough to know
better than to give my money to PC World - what are they selling in terms of
UNIX apps?
--
o o Richard J. Hesketh ric...@glory-box.demon.co.uk o o
o o WebMaster, Acorn News Service http://www.acornusers.org/ANS/ o o
o o o o
o o DISCLAIMER: The Acorn News Service is an independent service. It is o o
o o in no way connected with, or supported by the Acorn Group PLC. o o
Richard J. Hesketh
<URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I personally think we'll do a cut-down version for Optima systems
> anyway. Piggybacking an Enthusiast spec machine off the back of that
> helps us and helps you. Perfect symetry.
>
> All we need to know is how popular such a product would be. If its
> popular enough to pay for the additional costs...
Well, it'd certainly be popular in this bachelor-pad in Oxford!!!
Richard Walker
Ross Tierney <kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <na.5131774887....@argonet.co.uk>, Rob Hemmings
> <URL:mailto:rhem...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The first option sounds immediately attractive although perhaps the
> > others are more viable in the long term. What I would want to know
> > for options 2 or 3 is what would happen to existing Risc OS software?
>
> There are ways and means. Initial estimates say it would take about
> six months for us to get some system that would run a large proportion
> of code designed for RISC OS under Linux. Most of it would actually be
> fairly straight-forward, but time-consuming.
Wow! You could do that in six months?! Get coding! :-O
> We need to start something fairly soon, because the future of Optima
> is centered around this hypothetical product and if we're going to do
> a lot of work on it, we'll need to start fairly soon.
The only thing I'm wondering about is... do we /have/ to restrict such a
system to ARM processors? I suppose that we do to get existing software
running, unless someone fancies doing an ARM machine code interpreter!
If this 'Linux RISC OS' could function on 'standard PC hardware' (you know,
a bog standard Pentium box) then the potential market is so much greater.
And there's the possibility of a Windows dual-boot for playing games! :-)
Unless, of course, you can come up with a way of running Windows games
under Linux...
> The more interest we have, the more likely we are to do it.
Interest registered!
--
Richard.
"And of course Henry The Horse dances the waltz!"
Richard Walker
Ross Tierney <kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
That was quite an interesting machine specification. I like the idea of
lots of ARM chips, but wouldn't the thing be rather expensive to produce,
and therefore expensive to buy?
Couldn't something be done with 'standard' motherboards (e.g. the PII BX
type) whereby the ARM(s) are placed on a PCI card? Well, not necessairly
that, but some way of using more 'standard' parts.
If this amazing new (Linux) user interface (a la RISC OS) etc. were able to
run on a significant number of EXISTING Linux machines, the potential
market would be SO much greater.
> Hopefully, we would also be able to write some software to make the
> porting of RISC OS software written in C or C++ much easier to
> transfer across so we might get your favourites: Ovation Pro, Top
> Model, Photodesk, DataPower etc. Hey, maybe even !Zap could be
> ported...
Hmm... Zap... that does it for me!
--
Richard.
"You think you lost your love, when I saw her yesterday."
Andrew P. Harmsworth Esq.
<ric...@glory-box.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: The Acorn News Service is an independent service. It is
Yes, but that's hardly surprising - nothing else is! :o(
--
Science Coursework http://start.at/scirep * Warwick School * * *
Warwick School http://welcome.to/warwick * WARWICK * Physics Dept
Solar System http://travel.to/theplanets * CV34 6PP, UK * 01926 776464
* * * * * * my own views * * * a...@warwick.warwks.sch.uk * * * *
Andrew Veitch
<URL:mailto:cmk...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> Parallel ARMS everwhere but lacking an OS to run them.... Get Real..
Obviously a comment from someone who's been reading the thread
about new OS development really closely ;-)
--
Andrew Veitch mailto:a...@who.net
Vision Internet Services http://www.vision.u-net.com/
(Speaking personally)
|- The future's bright - the future's yellow ... -|
Andrew Veitch
<URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <na.80bd3f48...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Cooper
> <d...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > 4) Get in touch with Peter Bondar
>
> His employment-termination terms probably exclude him from working
> for any company who could be perceived as a competitor to Acorn for a
> pretty long time (6 or 12 months I'd guess).
But as Acorn are no longer producing desktop computers, surely any
venture that did this could not be perceived as a competitor?
Neil A. Carson
> Something like that will have to be done anyway, sooner or later.
> And every programmer trying to adapt RiscOS to non-Acorn hardware
> would be missing at the new-OS project.
>
> And a clean-slate approach has the added advantage that you wouldn't
> need to license *anything* from Acorn.
But to really get it to work, you'd need to provide most of RiscOS,
right? Have you ever seen just how much is in RiscOS?
Neil A. Carson
> In article <36056b75...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>, Greg Hennessy
> <URL:mailto:cmk...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > Parallel ARMS everwhere but lacking an OS to run them.... Get Real..
>
> Obviously a comment from someone who's been reading the thread
> about new OS development really closely ;-)
"Okay then *you* implement SMP on ARMs."
I stand by Greg's comment.
Ross Tierney
<mal...@digidark.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <na.7dce1b4887...@argonet.co.uk>, Ross Tierney
> <URL:mailto:kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The sales of that
> > system will be THE tell-tale identifyer of whether the scene will
> > prosper or die.
> >
> > If the Peanut sells and makes a profit for IMS, then the chance of
> > Forbidden doing the desktop machine would be greatly increased.
>
> That's not logical. I could use two new desktop machines but I could
> not justify a Peanut.
The thing is: It will be tangible proof for somebody like Stephen to
look at and confirm that the market IS still there.
If the Peanut DOES sell, then it would just confirm that the desktop
box is viable. That's all. It's an indicator of how healthy the market
is.
Ross Tierney
cmk...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Greg Hennessy) wrote:
>
> >> Nor do I think it SHOULD be:
> >> - Every person working on backwards-compatibility issues will
> >> be missing in the team implementing the new OS
> >
> >Sorry. I don't understand that?!?
> >
>
> You suprise me.
You have mentioned something constructive. I did not explain myself
all that clearly in my statement above. I appologise. Let me expand...
I do not understand what he means by the term quoted. There are a few
different explanations, but the sentence isn't explicit. Could he
just clarify for me please, exactly which people he means.
I'm assuming, for now, he's talking about those within Acorn who were
responsible for maintaining BW/compat. on the Phoebe project, but it's
just not that clear to me. Sorry, Perhaps it's fatigue setting in...
Ross Tierney
<y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> In message <na.29e4364887...@argonet.co.uk>
> Ross Tierney <kra...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <2cdcb68748%y000...@tu-bs.de>, Thomas Boroske
>
> > > Nor do I think it SHOULD be:
> > > - Every person working on backwards-compatibility issues will
> > > be missing in the team implementing the new OS
> >
> > Sorry. I don't understand that?!?
>
> making the new system as RiscOS-compatible as possible.
> The less work you put into these issues, the more you
> can put into developing the new GUI/OS.
Ahhh. That makes it obvious :) Sorry for my misinterpretation Thomas.
You're right: It IS the way to go for this project. A port of RISC OS
is a waste of resources for Linux.
A front end and enough hand-holds to *make* apps work is far better.
> > > - Do you think anyone really wants to port software several times,
> > > over several intermediate steps ?
> >
> > I'd say that we put the RISC OS abstraction in and leave it there.
>
> See: If you think you can do it, do it. ATM I just can't imagine
> how it could be done easily. If it can, then I'm all for it.
It's just a long process. It'd actually be /fairly/ simple, but time
consuming.
The difficult part has been done. We KNOW, in explicit details what
needs to be done already. Now we just need to attain it.
> > Can they afford to keep their overheads up for a whole year and
> > then offer lots of discounts too?
>
> That's going to be tough. But - the damage has been done, in the
> long run RiscOS developers can only pack if a new system isn't
> developed :-(
That's whywe need a coordinated approach. Either to re-create the
Phoebe project under new management, or to make a break.
Leave the situation for a few weeks for the primary options to become
clearer and the pro's and con's lists to be made available. Then we
should choose as a community IMHO.
> > I'm not sure it's wise for the enthusiasts to force that sistuation.
> > Developers and dealers may not be ABLE to survive in that climate.
>
> Not thinking of force at all. However, It will happen automatically
> that we'll get discussions about "developer x is going to leave"
> and "let's support the remaining loyal developers" and all that.
> Can't you see it too ?
Yes, but I was referring to the argument that we should get hold of
RISC OS source from Acorn. Fighting for it in court would be a waste
of time and resources. Nobody would make any friends either, only
enemies.
I fear that without a real 'focus' in the next month, some
dealers/developers will have little option but to move to the Mac/
PC worlds. That's something I, for one, would like to prevent.
> That'll be a problem for other developers too, ie even those who
> don't leave. And they need to do something that restores
> confidence ....
> Well, what do I know.
Yes. There seem to be (currently) two emerging options:
1) Re-light the embers of the Phoebe: Risc PC 2 project.
2) Adopt a new platform with all the best features of RISC OS but
with a more stable base under it. Linux is available and has a
future ahead of it. Can we now say that RISC OS has the same
bright future?
I don't want to discount either possibility at this early stage, but I
would suggest that we arrange to discuss the issues soon.
Ross Tierney
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Its no good just making X look like Win95/NeXTStep/RISC-OS - when
> you install an application its got to add its icon to the
> "Applications" menu; If you want a program to run on startup you've
> got to be able to drag its icon into the "Startup" folder, not
> scratch your head trying to work out which of 100 possible .rc files
> it should go into.
That is *precisely* our feeling too.
If we do this project, it has to be a REALLY tight distribution. It
needs all of the functionality of RISC OS integrated seamlessly into
X.
(properllerhead? Cool! :) )
> You'd also have to "unify" the help system - currently its a
> mess with umpteen different formats and be fairly ruthless at
> chucking out "cool" packages that were buggy, incomplete,
> incomprehensible and/or undocumented.
Obviously, we'd leave things like MAN in the Linux distribution under
the GUI, but a new help system for inside would be needed. It should
be possible to also use the interactive help system which currently
exists for RISC OS or something pretty similar.
These are details that would need to be carefully worked out during
the development cycle. It would be done properly.
The point is to make it EASY and somewhat transparent for "users" to
switch.
> If someone could come up with a Linux/Unix release that was as
> superficially slick as Win95 and came with a suite of software
> that actually worked and integrated well with the GUI then I think
> it might be a contender.
'Superficially' was dead right :)
I want it as slick as RISC OS is today. That's still five years ahead
of Windows.
Ross.
--
Ross Tierney.
r...@eidos.co.uk "Anger is an energy"
kra...@argonet.co.uk -John Lydon
Stuart Bell
> His employment-termination terms probably exclude him from working
> for any company who could be perceived as a competitor to Acorn for a
> pretty long time (6 or 12 months I'd guess).
But if Acorn aren't developing desktop machines any more. . . . . . .
--
Stuart Bell
writing from a Wintel-free zone.
Ezra
Windows...
--
"The Yetiman Roars..."
ez...@argonet.co.uk