Re: RISC OS Upgrade CD announced
druck
> Give yourself a Christmas present. Banish RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 and enjoy
> the benefits of the extra features of a later operating system at a
> bargain price.
That barrel is being well and truly scrapped now.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Ste (news)
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2008 Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Give yourself a Christmas present. Banish RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 and enjoy
> > the benefits of the extra features of a later operating system at a
> > bargain price.
>
> That barrel is being well and truly scrapped now.
On the plus side, hopefully this will move some more people away from crusty
old versions of RISC OS and make things a little easier for developers.
Steve
--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
druck
> In article <4aab1608...@druck.freeuk.net>,
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2008 Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Give yourself a Christmas present. Banish RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 and enjoy
>>> the benefits of the extra features of a later operating system at a
>>> bargain price.
>>
>> That barrel is being well and truly scrapped now.
> On the plus side, hopefully this will move some more people away from crusty
> old versions of RISC OS and make things a little easier for developers.
There is very little evidence that such people are still around, even
less that they would spend any money on such crusty old machines.
Theo Markettos
> On the plus side, hopefully this will move some more people away from crusty
> old versions of RISC OS and make things a little easier for developers.
Isn't the issue of the boot drive having to be old format going to cause
some pain for developers? Long filenames are a necessity for quite a lot of
software these days.
Theo
Russell Hafter News
Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> "Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
And users too!
I have three RPCs running 4.02 and one running 3.7, all
networked.
At first glance this looked like a pretty painless way of
upgrading the 3.7 machine, but it is still going to be more
or less impossible to backup a 4.02 (CD) machine onto a 4.02
(ROM) machine, both because of the long filenames issue and
the 77 directory items limit too.
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.de/?client=en__MT&customerId=416873103>
Ste (news)
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
It's one issue but I wouldn't call it "the" issue.
Stuart
Ste (news) <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> On the plus side, hopefully this will move some more people away from
> crusty old versions of RISC OS and make things a little easier for
> developers.
Well, my Kinetic is 4.39 (ROMs) but this "standard" Strongarm RPC, which I
am using, is 4.02 with some of the select upgrades (coudn't afford it any
longer) so this will get the upgrade.
--
Stuart Winsor
Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk/mug/show08/MUGshow.html
Theo Markettos
> At first glance this looked like a pretty painless way of
> upgrading the 3.7 machine, but it is still going to be more
> or less impossible to backup a 4.02 (CD) machine onto a 4.02
> (ROM) machine, both because of the long filenames issue and
> the 77 directory items limit too.
One way of fixing this would be to put the softload on a compactflash card
in an adaptor, and slave your harddrive to that. Then you boot from
ADFS::4 (the CF), and your real harddrive can be found at ADFS::5 (your HD)
Pitfalls:
Extra costs of CF card and adaptor (a tenner, maybe)
Finding a CF card that will allow other drives to slave reliably
Losing any other drive (CD-ROM?) that was on a slave on the IDE bus
The first two could be fixed by some enterprising person testing some
cards and readers and buying a bulk lot of working ones.
Theo
Jess Hampshire
Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The RISC OS Upgrade CD -
> A major RISC OS upgrade for RISC OS 3.6, 3.7 and 4.02 users for only 20 GBP.
This is a great idea.
> RISCOS Ltd are pleased to announce the new "RISC OS Upgrade CD" to be
> released at the MUG Christmas show on the 8th of December.
>
> * If your current operating system is RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 this CD will
> upgrade your computer to RISC OS 4.02.
> * If you are already running RISC OS 4 this CD will upgrade your computer
> to RISC OS 4.39 'Adjust'.
Is this due to requirements new format boot drive for adjust? I.E if
the module were added to a unipod or similar, could 3.x boot to
adjust?
[snip]
> * Suitable for RiscPC, A7000, A7000+, RiscStation 7500, Microdigital
> Mico & Omega and VirtualRPC-SE & -SA.
What about on RPCEmu?
--
Jess Hampshire
mailto:je...@itworkshop-nexus.net http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Plain text emails with interleaved, trimmed replies please. (RFC 1855)
Jess
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
!longfiles sorts that out doesn't it? (or is the files per directory
limit important too?)
--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
David Holden
On 4-Dec-2008, Jess Hampshire <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In message <ap.2efef55007.a...@argonet.co.uk>
> Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > * If you are already running RISC OS 4 this CD will upgrade your
> > computer to RISC OS 4.39 'Adjust'.
>
> Is this due to requirements new format boot drive for adjust? I.E if
> the module were added to a unipod or similar, could 3.x boot to
> adjust?
No. You can run RO 4.39 from an old filecore hard drive but you can't
sofload it on a machine with a 'base' OS of less than RO 4 if you've got an
expansion card like a Unipod.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Dave Plowman (News)
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > Give yourself a Christmas present. Banish RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 and enjoy
> > the benefits of the extra features of a later operating system at a
> > bargain price.
> That barrel is being well and truly scrapped now.
Unfortunately I don't seem to have the original of this. Be nice to know
what the offer actually is.
--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jess
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 4-Dec-2008, Jess Hampshire <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <ap.2efef55007.a...@argonet.co.uk>
>> Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > * If you are already running RISC OS 4 this CD will upgrade your
>> > computer to RISC OS 4.39 'Adjust'.
>>
>> Is this due to requirements new format boot drive for adjust? I.E if
>> the module were added to a unipod or similar, could 3.x boot to
>> adjust?
>
> No. You can run RO 4.39 from an old filecore hard drive but you can't
Really? I was pretty sure that the instructions for select required a
reformat if you had an old filecore drive. Was this fixed in adjust?
> sofload it on a machine with a 'base' OS of less than RO 4 if you've got an
> expansion card like a Unipod.
In which case is it down to incompatible CMOS usage? (I suffered from
that problem with early versions of select on RO 4.)
And if so, why does a softloaded OS need to use the CMOS at all, why
can't it have a file it reads with the settings in? (or some of them
at least.)
David Holden
On 4-Dec-2008, Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <6pqkulF...@mid.individual.net>
> "David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > No. You can run RO 4.39 from an old filecore hard drive but you can't
> > sofload it on a machine with a 'base' OS of less than RO 4 if you've got
> > an expansion card like a Unipod.
>
> In which case is it down to incompatible CMOS usage? (I suffered from
> that problem with early versions of select on RO 4.)
No, you should have read my reply more carefully. It's because of the way
the podules are placed in the memory map.
Kevin Wells
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4aab1608...@druck.freeuk.net>,
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> > Give yourself a Christmas present. Banish RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 and enjoy
>> > the benefits of the extra features of a later operating system at a
>> > bargain price.
>
>> That barrel is being well and truly scrapped now.
>
>Unfortunately I don't seem to have the original of this. Be nice to know
>what the offer actually is.
>
You can read it on drobe
<http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2357>
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Useless Fact 03 You burn 3.5 calories each time you laugh.
Kevin Wells
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
>In article <LJb*hN...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo
>Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> > On the plus side, hopefully this will move some more
>> > people away from crusty old versions of RISC OS and
>> > make things a little easier for developers.
>
>> Isn't the issue of the boot drive having to be old format
>> going to cause some pain for developers? Long filenames
>> are a necessity for quite a lot of software these days.
>
>And users too!
>
>I have three RPCs running 4.02 and one running 3.7, all
>networked.
>
>At first glance this looked like a pretty painless way of
>upgrading the 3.7 machine, but it is still going to be more
>or less impossible to backup a 4.02 (CD) machine onto a 4.02
>(ROM) machine, both because of the long filenames issue and
>the 77 directory items limit too.
>
A second hard drive formatted to the new format?
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
The older I get the faster I used to be.
Dave Plowman (News)
Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> >Unfortunately I don't seem to have the original of this. Be nice to know
> >what the offer actually is.
> >
> You can read it on drobe
> <http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2357>
Thanks. I'm still confused - I had to buy new ROMs last time I upgraded.
--
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *
Ste (news)
> Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> > >Unfortunately I don't seem to have the original of this. Be nice to know
> > >what the offer actually is.
>
> > You can read it on drobe
>
> > <http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2357>
>
> Thanks. I'm still confused - I had to buy new ROMs last time I upgraded.
Ever since we were developing RISC OS 4 in-house at Acorn (which was
originally meant for the Phoebe machine), there was a ROM image softloader
which was used to allow people to softload a RiscPC version of the RISC OS 4
ROM build on their older (RISC OS 3.7) RiscPC.
There was basically a bit added to the boot sequence which would see if the
machine was booting on RISC OS 4 and if not load the RISC OS 4 ROM into
memory and "reboot" into that - then the boot sequence would start again but
this time you'd be running RISC OS 4.
I presume RISCOS Ltd either inherited the ROM softloader or wrote one
themselves.
Martin Bazley
spouted the following:
> On 3 Dec 2008 Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Give yourself a Christmas present. Banish RISC OS 3.6 or 3.7 and enjoy
> > the benefits of the extra features of a later operating system at a
> > bargain price.
>
> That barrel is being well and truly scrapped now.
>
> ---druck
>
[Posting here because NewsHound won't allow me to reply to announce
messages, apparently even those with follow-ups set. It's either that
or Harriet.]
On the contrary, I have two RiscPCs with 3.7 in ROM. I also have no
intention of upgrading. This is partly because of all the software I'd
sacrifice, but also because the original post mentions in passing that
you need 20MB of free RAM. My first computer has 17MB in total, and
substantially less in practice. My second computer has 38MB (including
2MB VRAM), which would substantially reduce the amount of memory
available for day-to-day usage, which I use for handling oversized
images.
I also don't think there are many practical benefits without buying a
second hard drive (and there's always raFS for that sort of thing
anyway). I'm sure there is an infinite range of bigger, better and
faster machines out there (maybe not so many that aren't RiscPCs) but I
don't need any of the features.
Except filer thumbnailing. That would be cool.
I'm afraid there is still a reasonably thick layer of primeval ooze at
the bottom of that barrel, and as someone whose entire this year's
contribution to The Market was 12UKP to APDL for a games CD, I'm
probably going to remain at the bottom of it.
--
__<^>__ === RISC OS is a work of art. Some people adore it, ===
/ _ _ \ === others can't see the point of it, and it's really ===
( ( |_| ) ) === expensive. ===
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ===================
John Sandford
Martin Bazley <mar...@bazley.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Except filer thumbnailing. That would be cool.
Try !Photofiler www.davespace.co.uk
John
--
John Sandford West Herts UK
Hemel Hempstead RISC OS User Group email info @ hhrug.org
Timothy Baldwin
<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
A partitioning system would solve that. A special purpose partitioning
system for ADFS limited to partitions of 1MB and rest of the disc would
take a less than 40 lines of assembler and 20 lines of BASIC, as a
modification ADFS and HForm.
As a separate module it would twice that size, and slower.
Theo Markettos
> On the contrary, I have two RiscPCs with 3.7 in ROM. I also have no
> intention of upgrading. This is partly because of all the software I'd
> sacrifice, but also because the original post mentions in passing that
> you need 20MB of free RAM. My first computer has 17MB in total, and
> substantially less in practice. My second computer has 38MB (including
> 2MB VRAM), which would substantially reduce the amount of memory
> available for day-to-day usage, which I use for handling oversized
> images.
I think the announcement was a bit confusing in that respect. AFAIK a
softload only takes the size of the uncompressed ROM image, so for RO4.0
that would be 4MB. I think when they say '20MB free RAM' they actually mean
'20MB RAM'... if you had, say, 16MB RAM and lost 4MB you'd be down to 12MB
which would be a bit annoying these days. I don't know the size of the RO
Adjust image (am I right in thinking the ROMs in Risc PCs are compressed and
expand in RAM?), but let's assume it's 6-8MB. So you'd be down to 10 or
8MB, which would be even more annoying.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find some RAM for little cost... I have a
stack of 8MB SIMMs I'll happily send on if it's of any use.
> I also don't think there are many practical benefits without buying a
> second hard drive (and there's always raFS for that sort of thing
> anyway). I'm sure there is an infinite range of bigger, better and
> faster machines out there (maybe not so many that aren't RiscPCs) but I
> don't need any of the features.
Fair enough. Though 'buying' probably means 'grabbing a hard drive from the
nearest skip' if you're so inclined. It'll almost certainly cost less than
12 quid :)
Theo
Timothy Baldwin
<Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
[About softloading RISC OS 4.39 over pre-RISC OS 4]
> No, you should have read my reply more carefully. It's because of the way
> the podules are placed in the memory map.
I fail to see how this is relevant, would not the new version reinitialise
the page tables as required? And if not, it is trivial for the bootloader
to change the mappings.
David Holden
On 4-Dec-2008, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> I think the announcement was a bit confusing in that respect. AFAIK a
> softload only takes the size of the uncompressed ROM image, so for RO4.0
> that would be 4MB. I think when they say '20MB free RAM' they actually
> mean '20MB RAM'... if you had, say, 16MB RAM and lost 4MB you'd be down
> to 12MB which would be a bit annoying these days. I don't know the size
> of
> the RO Adjust image (am I right in thinking the ROMs in Risc PCs are
> compressed and expand in RAM?), but let's assume it's 6-8MB. So you'd
> be down to 10 or 8MB, which would be even more annoying.
You are perfectly right. I'm very sorry if anyone was confused, but you have
stated the case perfectly. A user would lose 4MB of their free RAM for RISC
OS 4.02 and 6MB with RISC OS 4.39.
Jess
> You are perfectly right. I'm very sorry if anyone was confused, but you have
> stated the case perfectly. A user would lose 4MB of their free RAM for RISC
> OS 4.02 and 6MB with RISC OS 4.39.
But 4.39 fits in ROM on a normal RPC. Why does it take 6 MB if
softloaded? (I remember 4.37 was 6MB)
David Holden
It's compressed to fit in 4MB ROMs but expands during initialisation.
druck
> You are perfectly right. I'm very sorry if anyone was confused, but you have
> stated the case perfectly. A user would lose 4MB of their free RAM for RISC
> OS 4.02 and 6MB with RISC OS 4.39.
Or 12MB originally due to a bug in the softloader that came with
Select 3i4. I assume this has been fixed now as the one with RO 6.x
doesn't exhibit the fault.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
druck
> Ever since we were developing RISC OS 4 in-house at Acorn (which was
> originally meant for the Phoebe machine), there was a ROM image softloader
> which was used to allow people to softload a RiscPC version of the RISC OS 4
> ROM build on their older (RISC OS 3.7) RiscPC.
The softloader goes back far further than that. I was softloading
RO3.6 black over 3.5.
> I presume RISCOS Ltd either inherited the ROM softloader or wrote one
> themselves.
It fell of the back of a lorry ;-)
Jess
[snip]
> On the contrary, I have two RiscPCs with 3.7 in ROM. I also have no
> intention of upgrading. This is partly because of all the software I'd
> sacrifice, but also because the original post mentions in passing that
> you need 20MB of free RAM. My first computer has 17MB in total, and
> substantially less in practice. My second computer has 38MB (including
> 2MB VRAM), which would substantially reduce the amount of memory
> available for day-to-day usage, which I use for handling oversized
> images.
32 MB SIMMs should be freely available (ie postage cost). And 64 MB
should be pretty cheap.
I'm sure if RAM is the problem, suppliers will do a bundle of upgrade
CD and RAM.
Harriet Bazley
Martin Bazley wrote:
> [Posting here because NewsHound won't allow me to reply to announce
> messages, apparently even those with follow-ups set. It's either that
> or Harriet.]
>
Sigh.
The reason why your message was bounced by Newshound - at least, judging
by the numerous occasions on which the same has happened to me - is
undoubtedly that you typed and sent it while Newshound was still
fetching from the FreeUK news server. Newshound then tried to post it
as soon as it started its next news fetch, which happened to be from (at
a guess) news.gmane.org, which does not carry the comp.sys.acorn groups.
Therefore it bounced back with a 'no such group known here' error, or
words to that effect.
It is a known problem with using Messenger/Newshound with multiple news
servers, and has been complained about before. So far as I know,
however, no-one has ever come up with a fix.
--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==
Computers can never replace human stupidity.
Rob Kendrick
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Is it even worth the hassal of trying to rip the image out of some
> ROMs (not that I'd even know where to start) ?
It's a single * command to do it. Googling will get you the rune you
need, and I suspect the RPCemu documentation already have it.
B.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
They do. But it is unnecessarily complicated in splitting the roms into
four parts; someone suggested that this was to allow transfer by floppy
discs.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Doug Webb
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> B.
No doubt it is but unless you were then going to mothball said RiscPC
or it's ROMS that you have saved the ROM image from or it was an
earlier version of RISC OS you had spare and had just put in the
RiscPC, then I suspect a little thing called copyright and end user
licence might come in to play.
For those of us who want to stay the right side of legality then for
the sake of a £5 the RISC OS "Virtaully Free" option is a good one.
Doug
--
The Xmas MUG Show 2008 - 6th December at Birmingham University Guild
of Students. Visit http://www.mug.risos.org/show08/ for more
information. Using an IYONIX pc and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking
person's alternative operating system to Microsoft Windows.
diodesign
> In message of 7 Dec, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:24:33 +0000 (GMT)
> > Stuart <Spam...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Is it even worth the hassal of trying to rip the
> > > image out of some ROMs (not that I'd even know where
> > > to start) ?
>
> > It's a single * command to do it. Googling will get you
> > the rune you need, and I suspect the RPCemu documentation
> > already have it.
>
> They do. But it is unnecessarily complicated in splitting
> the roms into four parts; someone suggested that this was
> to allow transfer by floppy discs.
FWIW, it's not a mandatory requirement to split the ROMs up. I use a
single ROM image file called 'rom'. You can copy the
ripped ROM image from your ROS machine to your PC or Mac over a
network, rather than split it up for floppies - I can't remember the
last time I even used a floppy.
C.
Jess
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1eba830...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> Jess Hampshire <jessha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> In message <ap.2efef55007.a...@argonet.co.uk>
>> Paul Middleton <ris...@paulmidd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > The RISC OS Upgrade CD - A major RISC OS upgrade for RISC OS 3.6, 3.7
>> > and 4.02 users for only 20 GBP.
>
>> This is a great idea.
>
> Well, I went with the intention of buying this to upgrade this RPC, saw
> the 4.39 ROMs at 35 quid, thought "what the hell" and bought the ROMs
> instead
Even better. (But a limited supply as I understand.)
>> What about on RPCEmu?
>
> That is covererd by "Risc OS virtually free" a fully licensed copy of
> R4.02, with installation notes for emulators, on a CD available from RO Ltd
> for a fiver.
Yes, but I wonder if this would allow 4.39 on an emulator.
Paul Stewart
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> What about on RPCEmu?
>>
>> That is covererd by "Risc OS virtually free" a fully licensed copy of
>> R4.02, with installation notes for emulators, on a CD available from RO Ltd
>> for a fiver.
> Yes, but I wonder if this would allow 4.39 on an emulator.
I don't see why not. 4.39 would simply softload over the orginal ROM,
like it currently does if you are running Select on a 4.02 ROM based
system.
However for clarification, I suggest your drop RISCOS Ltd and email
and ask.
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)
RISC OS Midlands Show 6th of December. Be there and be seen!
http://mug.riscos.org/show08/index.htm
Greg
doug....@btinternet.com says...
> In message <20081207023...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:24:33 +0000 (GMT)
> > Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Is it even worth the hassal of trying to rip the image out of some
> >> ROMs (not that I'd even know where to start) ?
>
> > It's a single * command to do it. Googling will get you the rune you
> > need, and I suspect the RPCemu documentation already have it.
>
> > B.
> No doubt it is but unless you were then going to mothball said RiscPC
> or it's ROMS that you have saved the ROM image from or it was an
> earlier version of RISC OS you had spare and had just put in the
> RiscPC, then I suspect a little thing called copyright and end user
> licence might come in to play.
So, you've never recorded a TV programme for your Mum or another family
member?
> For those of us who want to stay the right side of legality then for
> the sake of a £5 the RISC OS "Virtaully Free" option is a good one.
I totally agree.
--
Greg Harris
Theo Markettos
> For those of us who want to stay the right side of legality then for
Indeed. As I said in one of the RPCEmu threads, I'd be happy to pay upfront
for a licensed copy of RISC OS for emulators at the right price. 5 pounds
is definitely the Right Price. I think Mr Middleton may be receiving some
of my money tomorrow...
(Fortuitously, RISC OS 4.02 is the version that works best with RPCEmu
networking. I've had a look at it on 4.39 but so far not been able to track
down the problem.)
Theo
druck
> For those of us who want to stay the right side of legality then for
> the sake of a £5 the RISC OS "Virtaully Free" option is a good one.
I'm afraid it isn't possible to remain legal when dealing with ROL.
Aaron has re-read the secret runes of the ROL licence and decided that
they have actually owned the head licence for RISC OS all along, and
that RISC OS 5 is derived from RISC OS 4 and belongs to them.
I fully expect Aaron to issue further claims that because you have
bought an ROL product, he owns your house and you should now be paying
him rent, and he will be asserting his Lord of the Manor rights to
sleep with your daughter on her wedding night.
For the latest installment in this hillarious RISC OS based commedy
tune in to Drobe http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact2357.html
Paul Stewart
druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> I fully expect Aaron to issue further claims that because you have
> bought an ROL product, he owns your house and you should now be paying
> him rent, and he will be asserting his Lord of the Manor rights to
> sleep with your daughter on her wedding night.
Druck, you need to cut back on the LSD!
Stuart
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> If you read the thread druck linked to, you can see for yourself that
> Aaron is talking rubbish, and quite inaccurate rubbish at that.
Yes, the usual old boring interminable "who owns what" argument - best not
bothered with.
I wonder how pleased Aaron was with the decision to sell a ROM image you
can use on RPCemu etc. Mind you, since he stubbornly refused to produce a
version of VA to run on Linux he only has himself to blame.
--
Stuart Winsor
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> In article <500a2aea6ai...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I wonder how pleased Aaron was with the decision to sell a ROM image you
> can use on RPCemu etc. Mind you, since he stubbornly refused to produce a
> version of VA to run on Linux he only has himself to blame.
From my experience with RPCemu, it desperately needs a little more
development to be usable on my Ubuntu environment. In addition to the
difficulty with the networking, the mouse operation is very flakey,
though some of this is to be seen on VA on Mac. Further I found RPCemu
a tad slow.
Now if you were to build a speed-tester that worked on all RISC OS
environments, that would be most useful. The trouble with the various
current speed testers are:
1. I don't know what they are testing
2. Their code is closed so we can't examine or modify it
3. There are some machine they won't work on
4. Do they really test all of:
(a) Processor speed
(b) Application performance
(c) Input/output performance?
My suspicion with the current speed testers is that they are half
desgined to show a particularly environment more favourable than others.
Part of this suspicion is from the closed nature of those testers. The
suspicion may be wrong, of course.
David Holden
On 7-Dec-2008, Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <3eb2220a...@druck.freeuk.net>
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > I fully expect Aaron to issue further claims that because you have
> > bought an ROL product, he owns your house and you should now be paying
> > him rent, and he will be asserting his Lord of the Manor rights to
> > sleep with your daughter on her wedding night.
>
> Druck, you need to cut back on the LSD!
Indeed. he's done this before. Druck's intimate knowledge of documents he's
never seen is based on rumour and innuendo from other people who have also
never seen them but once met a man in a pub whose cousin got a 'spirit
message' about them.
Both Aaron and myself speak with authority. We have copies of the documents
before us when we write and everything we have said on Drobe is fact. So far
no-one who posesses an actual copy of ROL's agreement with E14 has
contradicted anything we've said.
David Holden
On 7-Dec-2008, Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I wonder how pleased Aaron was with the decision to sell a ROM image you
> can use on RPCemu etc.
Well since Aaron has been involved with this from it's conception I can tell
you he's perfectly happy with it. Why shouldn't he be? It's obviously better
for everyone if people who want to use RISC OS on Linux can obtain a legal
version and he's repeatedly stated it's not a market he's interested in.
Rob Kendrick
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> Both Aaron and myself speak with authority. We have copies of the
> documents before us when we write and everything we have said on
> Drobe is fact. So far no-one who posesses an actual copy of ROL's
> agreement with E14 has contradicted anything we've said.
The whole mess sounds like SCO all over again. Except this time,
there's no actual money at stake.
B.
Rob Kendrick
Except that this directly competes with VA even in markets he is
interested in.
B.
Tim Hill
<Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> On 7-Dec-2008, Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <3eb2220a...@druck.freeuk.net> druck
> > <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I fully expect Aaron to issue further claims that because you have
> > > bought an ROL product, he owns your house and you should now be
> > > paying him rent, and he will be asserting his Lord of the Manor
> > > rights to sleep with your daughter on her wedding night.
> >
> > Druck, you need to cut back on the LSD!
If 'twere LSD he wouldn't be that coherent. Believe me.
> Indeed. he's done this before. Druck's intimate knowledge of documents
> he's never seen is based on rumour and innuendo from other people who
> have also never seen them but once met a man in a pub whose cousin got
> a 'spirit message' about them.
> Both Aaron and myself speak with authority. We have copies of the
> documents before us when we write and everything we have said on Drobe
> is fact. So far no-one who posesses an actual copy of ROL's agreement
> with E14 has contradicted anything we've said.
Did you and Aaron each mean to say IANAL?
Do you have a copy of Castle's Licence in that folder?
The implication is that Castle's 5 was Licensed by ROL so you do have the
licence and the matter can be laid to rest once and for all and could
have been long ago. Perhaps in the spirit of Christmas these documents
could be placed in the public domain and someone with an independent
legal brain and no agenda could look them over.
At the moment it all sounds like "my dad is bigger than your dad" and
there's no point interested parties arguing their rights any more than an
ice-cream salesman is believed when he says his ice cream is better than
everyone else's.
It's all academic to users though really, except we witness those who
should be above bickering, bickering. Again.
Merry xmas.
--
Better Telecoms:
www.thephone.coop/receive.htm?name=Affinity_AF0311&name2=index.html
Genuine and spam-proof addresses for Usenet: www.invalid.org.uk
Email address for replies: substitute postmaster@ for tim@
... "Alas, poor world, what treasure hast thou lost!" Venus & Adonis
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> In article <088f320...@southfarm.plus.com>,
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> > From my experience with RPCemu, it desperately needs a little more
> > development to be usable on my Ubuntu environment. In addition to
> > the difficulty with the networking, the mouse operation is very
> > flakey, though some of this is to be seen on VA on Mac. Further I
> > found RPCemu a tad slow.
>
> Well, anyone visiting the Birmingham show on Saturday would have seen
> my Apple Mac running Ubuntu 8.10 under VMWare and then running RISC OS
> 4.39 under RPCemu.
My problem here is that it needs two commands to start it up and then at
least one other window has to be left open. Are you able to get it
started with networking with just one executable? If so, how please?
<eat>
> I'll see if I can do some speed tests and put them up on one of my websites.
Do you mean tests that can be used on any RISC OS machine? They would
be most welcome.
Theo Markettos
> My problem here is that it needs two commands to start it up and then at
> least one other window has to be left open. Are you able to get it
> started with networking with just one executable? If so, how please?
If that's what you want try something like this:
#!/bin/sh
./rpcemu &
sleep 20
iptables <all the stuff we talked about before>
The '&' runs rpcemu in the background, then it waits for 20 seconds, and
then does the iptables stuff.
I've forgotten what your original script had in it, but just try inserting a
sleep in it. You might need to adjust the timing a bit.
Make this script executable and setuid with:
sudo chown root start-rpcemu
sudo chgrp tim start-rpcemu
sudo chmod 4754 start-rpcemu
(assuming the script is called 'start-rpcemu' and your own username is 'tim')
Put it in the rpcemu directory, and you should be able to run it by double
clicking.
The '4754' is divided up into four groups, each with a digit. From left to
right they're 'special bits', 'root user', 'users in the group this file
belongs to', 'other users'.
In this case:
first 4: setuid bit
7: root can read, write and execute this program
5: users in the group of this program can read and execute it
(we set the group to 'tim' and usually the group of your own username should
only contain you)
4: other users can only read it but not execute it
(another way of writing this is -rwsr-xr-- which is where all the u+rx stuff
comes from)
Note of caution: setuid programs are those which can be run by a user to
give complete access to the whole machine that they would not normally have.
By making a script run as setuid, anyone who can edit the script can take
over the machine. So I've set the permissions carefully so that only root
can edit the script, but other users can run it.
Theo
druck
To quote myself from drobe:
No matter how they are interpreted, either ROLs or Castles licences
are effectively unenforceable and worthless, apart from to certain
individuals claiming access to the secret source to massage their
overinflated egos.
And:
The affect this has on users and developers is to make them run away
from the platform even faster than they have been, as its a
embarrassment to be associated with this nonsense.
David Holden
On 9-Dec-2008, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> To quote myself from drobe:
>
> No matter how they are interpreted, either ROLs or Castles licences
> are effectively unenforceable and worthless, apart from to certain
> individuals claiming access to the secret source to massage their
> overinflated egos.
Wow. Since you're quoting yourself it *must* be true, even though you've
never seen any of the documentation you're claiming authorities knowledge
of.
"overinflated egos"? Whose, I wonder?
David Pitt
> On 7 Dec 2008 Doug Webb <doug....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > For those of us who want to stay the right side of legality then for the
> > sake of a £5 the RISC OS "Virtaully Free" option is a good one.
>
> I'm afraid it isn't possible to remain legal when dealing with ROL. Aaron
> has re-read the secret runes of the ROL licence and decided that they have
> actually owned the head licence for RISC OS all along, and that RISC OS 5
> is derived from RISC OS 4 and belongs to them.
The announcement of 'RISC OS "Virtually Free"' by Paul Middleton, Managing
Director, RISCOS Ltd, has this 'take' on the issue :-
[quote csa.announce]
RISCOS Ltd Managing Director Paul Middleton explained that ..
"We have been looking at ways of making a low cost, or 'Virtually
Free' version of RISC OS available for some time. With RISCOS
Ltd having now confirmed it's ownership of all versions of RISC OS
produced since February 1999 we are now in a position to
offer a low cost product that acts as an introduction to RISC OS."
[/quote]
What struck me as odd about this was not the substance of it and any
possible implications, real or imagined, about OS5 but why was the statement
there at all. All ROL is doing is opening up the legal use of RPCemu to
wider usership, emulation being the only option now.
What is happening is ROOL intending to enter the same arena with OS5 on
RPCemu.
Well so what, I find myself thinking, OS4.02 on RPCemu for a fiver or OS5 on
RPCemu for nothing.
So why now, why would ROL appear to be resurrecting this issue that was
never resolved when there was value in the market?
--
David Pitt
David Pitt
> In article <mpro.kblo5f00...@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > What is happening is ROOL intending to enter the same arena with OS5 on
> > RPCemu.
>
> Not quite, because OS5 is open source, so anyone can freely inspect it or
> help become involved by developing it further.
I can see me using both OS4.04 and OS5 under emulation. As you say OS5 is
more interesting as it allows user involvement but Pipedream4 requires
OS4.04.
> As druck has said previously, ROSL appear to be feeling the potential
> competition from ROOL, so are scraping the bottom of the barrel by
> flogging off stuff that people are presumably no longer buying at the more
> expensive previous prices.
There are two markets out there, one for users of 26bit hardware still using
old OSes and another for emulation on other platforms.
> > So why now, why would ROL appear to be resurrecting this issue that was
> > never resolved when there was value in the market?
>
> Perhaps they perceive Castle and/or Iyonix Ltd as having left the market,
> and thus no competition for them, and/or unlikely to argue about
> legalities...?
Could be, but the downside is that we are all just fed up of the issue,
annoy us some more, why not!
I see no problem with having both OS5 and OS4 for emulation, we are where we
are with the 'split', I just do not see the need for further posturing.
--
David Pitt
Rob Kendrick
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 9-Dec-2008, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > To quote myself from drobe:
> >
> > No matter how they are interpreted, either ROLs or Castles
> > licences are effectively unenforceable and worthless, apart from to
> > certain individuals claiming access to the secret source to massage
> > their overinflated egos.
>
> Wow. Since you're quoting yourself it *must* be true, even though
> you've never seen any of the documentation you're claiming
> authorities knowledge of.
His point is that ROL and CTL can't both be right, and that you should
either sort it out for once, or both shut up about it. It's not as if
you're fighting over money, or anything.
B.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> > My problem here is that it needs two commands to start it up and
> > then at least one other window has to be left open. Are you able to
> > get it started with networking with just one executable? If so, how
> > please?
>
> If that's what you want try something like this:
<snip of the commands>
Many thanks (again!). I'll try it out later.
David Pitt
> In article <mpro.kblo5f00...@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > emulation being the only option now.
>
> Not while Advatage 6 are still around!
>
> Even if you personally have had problems
>
I most certainly do discount Adv6, until such time as the OS is finished.
--
David Pitt
Ray Dawson
>
> > So why now, why would ROL appear to be resurrecting this issue that
> > was never resolved when there was value in the market?
>
> Perhaps they perceive Castle and/or Iyonix Ltd as having left the
> market, and thus no competition for them, and/or unlikely to argue about
> legalities...?
Or perhaps they do now have the proof that they own all versions of RISC
OS from 1999 onwards and are making that statement so that we all know the
outcome.
You can't just disbelieve ROL because you supported the Castle camp which
is now defunct. Perhaps Castle gave up because they couldn't get away with
ripped off versions of EISC OS any more ;-)
Cheers,
Ray D
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Wow. Since you're quoting yourself it *must* be true, even though you've
> never seen any of the documentation you're claiming authorities knowledge
> of.
Can you please publish these documents somewhere. Public argument can
only proceed on the basis of publicly available resources.
David Holden
On 9-Dec-2008, Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Or perhaps they do now have the proof that they own all versions of RISC
> OS from 1999 onwards and are making that statement so that we all know the
> outcome.
>
> You can't just disbelieve ROL because you supported the Castle camp which
> is now defunct. Perhaps Castle gave up because they couldn't get away with
> ripped off versions of EISC OS any more ;-)
How dare you come onto Usenet and make a sensible suggestion based on
published facts rather than rumour and inuendo. You should be ashamed of
yourself ;-)
Rob Kendrick
"David Holden" <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > You can't just disbelieve ROL because you supported the Castle camp
> > which is now defunct. Perhaps Castle gave up because they couldn't
> > get away with ripped off versions of EISC OS any more ;-)
>
> How dare you come onto Usenet and make a sensible suggestion based on
> published facts rather than rumour and inuendo. You should be ashamed
> of yourself ;-)
What published facts are there here? I agree that Castle's all but
defunct, but not officially. What else is there? (Yes, I know certain
aspects of Ray's posting is accurate, but I don't believe any of that
knowledge is in the public domain.)
B.
David Pitt
> In article <mpro.kblrpp00...@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > I can see me using both OS4.04 and OS5 under emulation. As you say OS5
> > is more interesting as it allows user involvement but Pipedream4
> > requires OS4.04.
>
> Does it? I've got Pipedream4 running quite happily on the Iyonix. :-)
>
And there is me thinking we are talking about RPCemu.
--
David Pitt
David Pitt
Has something changed? A closer look at the ROL announcement shows this,
"With RISCOS Ltd having now confirmed it's ownership of all versions of RISC
OS produced since February 1999...". There is that "now" in the phrase.
Put another way, is a torpedo being lined up on ROOL and OS5 on RPCemu.
--
David Pitt
Rob Kendrick
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Has something changed? A closer look at the ROL announcement shows
> this, "With RISCOS Ltd having now confirmed it's ownership of all
> versions of RISC OS produced since February 1999...". There is that
> "now" in the phrase.
Sure, they say that, but are unwilling to provide any evidence to back
the assertion up, which is the problem.
B.
Ray Dawson
Why do they need to back it up publicly? Presumably the written evidence
is something which is sensitive or not meant to be made public. You just
have to believe their word.
BTW, please could you publish a copy of your tax return so that we can
scrutinise your income and your house deeds so that we know exactly what
you own and any conditions attached?
Cheers,
Ray D
Rob Kendrick
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:02:39 +0000
> > David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Has something changed? A closer look at the ROL announcement shows
> > > this, "With RISCOS Ltd having now confirmed it's ownership of all
> > > versions of RISC OS produced since February 1999...". There is
> > > that "now" in the phrase.
> >
> > Sure, they say that, but are unwilling to provide any evidence to
> > back the assertion up, which is the problem.
>
> Why do they need to back it up publicly? Presumably the written
> evidence is something which is sensitive or not meant to be made
> public. You just have to believe their word.
Because otherwise we've gotten nowhere, because Castle will no doubt
say ROL are talking out of their hat. Back to square one. If you're
going to make an assertion publicly that affects your competition,
back it up. Or be prepared to be laughed at like you're SCO.
B.
David Pitt
> In article <mpro.kblvp200...@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > And there is me thinking we are talking about RPCemu.
>
> What's the problem you're getting? It also works quite well under RPCemu
> too.
Too much has been snipped here, I have lost track of this. The responses do
not seem to bear any relationship to the point I had in mind.
The starting point was finding uses for both OS5 and OS4 on RPCemu. I
suggested using OS4 on RPCemu for the 26bit PipeDream4. PipeDream4 does run
perfectly on the Iyonix but would Aemulor do anything useful with OS5 on
RPCemu. PipeDream4 runs without any problems here with OS4.04 on RPCemu on
Ubuntu.
There is no problem. The only question there might be is what to do with
26bit software on any future ROOL OS5 RPCemu offering. Even with that the
easy answer is to use ROL's "virtually free" arrangement.
--
David Pitt
Theo Markettos
> His point is that ROL and CTL can't both be right, and that you should
> either sort it out for once, or both shut up about it. It's not as if
> you're fighting over money, or anything.
Quite. I suspect druck means that conditions are only enforceable if you're
prepared to get the lawyers involved. Neither CTL nor ROL seem to have the
cash to do that, so one can moan at the other but this will not have any
effect other than to drive away the customers.
Sort it out behind closed doors, or shut up, sounds like a sensible policy.
Theo
David Pitt
That's right in so far as we are no further forward in our understanding of
the real issue. Simply put ROL contended that Castle had no right to do what
they did with OS5 and Castle contended that is was none of ROL's business.
The issue was never resolved so who knows, or even cares any more. That is
all old news.
In the here and now ROL are claiming that their position, ownership, is
"now" confirmed. We do not know whether something really has changed or
whether ROL are (still) talking out of their hat.
So far it is just words. ROL can enjoy their state of "now confirmed"-ness
and ROOL can get on with OS5 on RPCemu, ROL have not said anything directly
on that point as far as I am aware.
The only residual issue of importance it to work out what the acronym "SCO"
means, or is it better not to know.
--
David Pitt
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:02:39 +0000
> > David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Has something changed? A closer look at the ROL announcement shows
> > > this, "With RISCOS Ltd having now confirmed it's ownership of all
> > > versions of RISC OS produced since February 1999...". There is that
> > > "now" in the phrase.
> >
> > Sure, they say that, but are unwilling to provide any evidence to back
> > the assertion up, which is the problem.
>
> Why do they need to back it up publicly? Presumably the written evidence
> is something which is sensitive or not meant to be made public. You just
> have to believe their word.
Like we believe whatever a government (of any cloth) says?
You must be joking. We should seldom take words without some evidence
and so far there is absolutely none.
> BTW, please could you publish a copy of your tax return so that we can
> scrutinise your income and your house deeds so that we know exactly what
> you own and any conditions attached?
He has made no assertions about his ownings and income, so this is a
ridiculous comparison. Whereas assertions have been made about the
ownership of RISC OS and no evidence produced to support same.
David Pitt
> In article <mpro.kbm0jr00...@pittdj.co.uk>, David Pitt
> <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
> > > Or be prepared to be laughed at like you're SCO.
>
> > The only residual issue of importance it to work out what the acronym
> > "SCO" means, or is it better not to know.
>
> Maybe:-
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies
Ta, a further Google shows links between SCO and "laughing stock".
--
David Pitt
Rob Kendrick
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> The only residual issue of importance it to work out what the acronym
> "SCO" means, or is it better not to know.
Basically, SCO said IBM contributed SCO's code to Linux, but refused to
say what. It later turned out that SCO counted IBM's own code as
theirs. Which is the kind of claim RISCOS Ltd. would have to make if
they were to say the OS that runs on the Iyonix is theirs.
B.
David Pitt
> In article <mpro.kblzbo00...@pittdj.co.uk>,
> David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > The starting point was finding uses for both OS5 and OS4 on RPCemu. I
> > suggested using OS4 on RPCemu for the 26bit PipeDream4. PipeDream4 does
> > run perfectly on the Iyonix but would Aemulor do anything useful with
> > OS5 on RPCemu. PipeDream4 runs without any problems here with OS4.04 on
> > RPCemu on Ubuntu.
>
> I'm not running Aemulor on the Iyonix. I'm running the 32-bit native
> version of Pipedream4.
Ah, I see where the confusion crept in, the 32bit PipeDream4.
--
David Pitt
Paul Stewart
Paul Vigay <invali...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> As druck has said previously, ROSL appear to be feeling the potential
> competition from ROOL, so are scraping the bottom of the barrel by flogging
> off stuff that people are presumably no longer buying at the more expensive
> previous prices.
Don't forget that if someone purchases RISC OS 4 for use with RPCEmu,
they can then in the future purchase a version of RISC OS 6 or
subscribe to RISC OS Select to run this as a softload over the RISC OS
4 ROM image. When ROOL do release a version of RISC OS 5 ROMS for the
RPCEmu, users will be limited to run that branch of RISC OS only and
any updates that are forthcoming from ROOL (similar to those chosing
the RISC OS 4 branch).
Perhaps RISCOS Ltd's strategy is to hope that enough people plump for
the £5 RISC OS 4 ROM images then in turn either subscribe to the
Select scheme or purchase one of RISC OS 6 upgrade CD's that RISCOS
Ltd have produced, therefore sending more money to RISCOS Ltd so they
can pay their programmer(s) to do more development.
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk)
RISC OS Midlands Show 6th of December. Be there and be seen!
http://mug.riscos.org/show08/index.htm
Paul Stewart
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
Well, the information I heard was that back in the day when OS5 and
Iyonix was released, ROL shareholders decided not to rock the boat and
take legal action against Castle. Since then Castle decided that
since ROL had no backbone, they would simply do what they wanted!
How much of that is true, I have no idea. Also, as it has already
been pointed out, now that Castle are all but defunct(or so it would
appear), does it really matter?
Paul Stewart
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
SCO is short for Santa Cruze Operation(I think)
druck
> On 9-Dec-2008, Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Or perhaps they do now have the proof that they own all versions of RISC
>> OS from 1999 onwards and are making that statement so that we all know the
>> outcome.
>>
>> You can't just disbelieve ROL because you supported the Castle camp which
>> is now defunct. Perhaps Castle gave up because they couldn't get away with
>> ripped off versions of EISC OS any more ;-)
At least you never disappoint when it comes spouting nonsense which is
designed to lower my opinion of you Ray.
> How dare you come onto Usenet and make a sensible suggestion based on
> published facts rather than rumour and inuendo. You should be ashamed of
> yourself ;-)
Facts are backed up with evidence, you and Aaron are making *claims*.
Claims which you repeatedly refuse to substantiate, using the pathetic
JC defence of "I know something you don't, but cant (wont) tell you".
Those formerly involved with Acorn, E14, Pace, and currently in Castle
and ROOL, dispute these claims. Tellingly prior to Aarons reading of
the secret runes, neither Paul Middleton, any former directors of ROL,
or shareholders ever make such claims.
Unless you & Aaron are willing to either make public the contracts on
which you base these claims, or take the companies you claim are
transgressing them to court, we can only assume you are full of shit.
The only problem is this shit is sticking everyone still involved with
the platform and making us sort the running joke that only association
with low rent blackmailers like SCO have previously managed. You and
Aaron would do well to observe their fate, and avoid similar.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
David Holden
On 10-Dec-2008, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> Those formerly involved with Acorn, E14, Pace, and currently in Castle
> and ROOL, dispute these claims.
Where? I haven't seen anything of the kind. Certainly not from anyone who's
ever seen the paperwork.
> Tellingly prior to Aarons reading of
> the secret runes, neither Paul Middleton, any former directors of ROL,
> or shareholders ever make such claims.
>
There are good reasons why nothing was said before and good reasons why it's
necessary now.
> Unless you & Aaron are willing to either make public the contracts on
> which you base these claims, or take the companies you claim are
> transgressing them to court, we can only assume you are full of shit.
No, druck. We are in a position to know because we have the necessary
documentation. The "shit" is coming from another direction. It's been tried
before, and despite many, many thousands of pounds spent on solicitors it
all collapsed. Before you write any more perhaps you should ask yourself
why, if there was any substance in the accusations, it all came to nothing.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<chomp>
> We are in a position to know because we have the necessary
> documentation.
I don't believe you. You are not prepared to produce anything to
support this apparently baseless claim. So you must be lying.
Michael Harding
David Holden <Spa...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10-Dec-2008, druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > Tellingly prior to Aarons reading of the secret runes, neither
> > Paul Middleton, any former directors of ROL, or shareholders ever
> > make such claims.
> >
> There are good reasons why nothing was said before and good reasons
> why it's necessary now.
> > Unless you & Aaron are willing to either make public the
> > contracts on which you base these claims, or take the companies
> > you claim are transgressing them to court, we can only assume you
> > are full of shit.
Perhaps you need an independent arbitrator, then, rather than the
courts.
> No, druck. We are in a position to know because we have the
> necessary documentation.
[ . . . ]
As a comparative outsider (1), I think it's time to reveal the
documentation rather than make assertions.
(1) Outsider in the sense that though I extensively use a Kinetic
machine and VRPC and have residual shares in ARM from my Acorn shares,
I consider myself as not favouring either side in this argument.
Michael Harding
--
Rev. Preb. M. D. Harding mdha...@ormail.co.uk
Ollie Clark
> In message <20081209120...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:46:00 +0000
>> say ROL are talking out of their hat. Back to square one. If you're
>> going to make an assertion publicly that affects your competition,
>> back it up. Or be prepared to be laughed at like you're SCO.
>
> Well, the information I heard was that back in the day when OS5 and
> Iyonix was released, ROL shareholders decided not to rock the boat and
> take legal action against Castle. Since then Castle decided that
> since ROL had no backbone, they would simply do what they wanted!
>
> How much of that is true, I have no idea. Also, as it has already
> been pointed out, now that Castle are all but defunct(or so it would
> appear), does it really matter?
I think it matters quite a lot. If ROL own RO completely then ROOL are
stuffed unless ROL allow them to carry on. Given ROL are now competing
with ROOL directly, it doesn't bode well for ROOL.