| |
What makes RISC OS, well er RISC OS :) |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Bryan Hogan |
Message #112751, posted by helpful at 10:36, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112750 |
Member
Posts: 255
|
No I don't! Oh yes you do!
(It is still panto season  )
[Edited by helpful at 10:36, 8/1/2010] |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #112752, posted by trevj at 10:51, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112751 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
(It is still panto season ) Oh no it isn't  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
richard cheng |
Message #112754, posted by richcheng at 11:50, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112744 |
Posts: 655
|
David Holden has an exclusive licence to grow beards within the RISC OS desktop market. We have no idea where John Cartmell got his from but he'll be hearing from our solicitors tomorrow. He does indeed, but I have paperwork here that clearly states that all of the beards grown in the RISC OS desktop market, regardless of origin, legally belong to me.
No, you can't see the paperwork.
I'm going to invent beards:
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=22 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #112755, posted by pnaulls at 15:24, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112750 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Besides, I know Peter probably doesn't agree with what I have to say, simply because he likes to be contrary ;-) No I don't!
Yes you do. I don't want to have repete myself. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #112756, posted by filecore at 17:32, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112755 |
Posts: 3868
|
Yes you do. I don't want to have repete myself. This thread's becoming quite a joke, isn't it? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Albert Bullen |
Message #112760, posted by JohnB at 19:20, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112756 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
It would be nice to see RISC OS move in a positive direction.
a) I grew up with an A3000 as my home computer .. lots of memories and a love for the system. It was great at the time and I'd love for it to become a viable option again.
b) GUI & community. Yes there's a lot of bitching on forums but there are a lot of nice people in the little RISC OS World.
c) Web Browser/plugins. It's essential for a system to be able to negociate the majority of websites and view online media.
New & faster hardware and the A9 Home to have it's OS finished and any bugs ironed out.
d) DVD player finished (I recall it was being worked on but even the Iyonix wasn't fast enough).
Active development ... I don't care if it's closed or open source as long as work is being done and a product provided.
Good luck with your plans Andrew. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #112761, posted by pnaulls at 19:46, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112760 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Active development ... I don't care if it's closed or open source as long as work is being done and a product provided.
Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you should care. We're now running into situations where code has been lost or is simply locked down because it was closed, or cannot even be converted to 32-bit. (in fairness, I can name one OSS case of this too)
Right now, the GCCSDK developers are updating quite a number of ports where the developer lost interest some years ago. In most cases, this is easy, because it's open.
That work is being done on RO5 so actively is because it its source is (relatively) open. Compare how much development is being done on RO6.
Realistic development means taking code that is open - already on RISC OS or elsewhere - not spending years writing from scratch. With so few developers, closed, one-person development means either slow or not at all.
Yes, there are still things that need to be done natively and hand crafted, but those can and and should be opened too.
Anyone who is proselytizing about RISC OS needs to understand this and understand it properly. Andy might, but I don't see much evidence to date (or from others who've tried to fill the shoes like Jason mentioned). Castle took a good shot at it, but I'd still like to see more from them. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Blind Moose |
Message #112763, posted by Acornut at 20:10, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112761 |
 No-eye-deer (No Idea)
Posts: 487
|
proselytizing  Indoctrinate or maybe catechize, I hardly think RISC OS is a religion !  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gavin Smith |
Message #112765, posted by SparkY at 20:29, 8/1/2010, in reply to message #112761 |
 Danger! Danger! High Voltage!
Posts: 697
|
Active development ... I don't care if it's closed or open source as long as work is being done and a product provided.
Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you should care.
I agree with Peter - open source is the only way forward for RISC OS now. And it's a positive thing, not a negative. Now that the RO5 sources are out there, RO can't "die" - it's no longer in the hands of a one or two man commerical company - it'll always be out there in some form. I'm sure there are others like me who have a renewed interest in RO since RISC OS Open came on the scene - not to mention the Beagleboard porting and the future possibilities this might lead to. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Albert Bullen |
Message #112771, posted by JohnB at 09:40, 9/1/2010, in reply to message #112765 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
Active development ... I don't care if it's closed or open source as long as work is being done and a product provided.
Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you should care.
I agree with Peter - open source is the only way forward for RISC OS now. And it's a positive thing, not a negative. Now that the RO5 sources are out there, RO can't "die" - it's no longer in the hands of a one or two man commerical company - it'll always be out there in some form. I'm sure there are others like me who have a renewed interest in RO since RISC OS Open came on the scene - not to mention the Beagleboard porting and the future possibilities this might lead to.
Having used RO5 vs RO6 it did seem that RO6 had more features than RO5. If an open source RO5 does get released onto new & easily available hardware then that would be a big plus. However outside of the A9Home there is no new system available to purchase (although you could buy a secondhand Iyonix from CJE etc) which was why one of my wishes was to see the bugs ironed out of the A9 and eventually RO6 running on it.
My caveat was that provided there is continuing development I don't care. So if RO5 moves forward onto new hardware and is more active then I'd lean in that direction and again buy a RO5 system. However if ROL sorted themselves out and got the latest version of RO6 running properly on the A9 Home it would be a much more difficult decision. Unfortunately it's unlikely that I'll have any difficult decision to make but the closed/open issue wouldn't be a factor. I didn't install Linux on my iMac for instance just because Mac OS X is closed.
It comes down more to consumer confidence. At the moment there is no new RO5 system available to purchase. Likewise the A9Home has work to be done which isn't clear will ever be complete. So I'm happy (perhaps not the right word ) to wait and see what develops and support the strongest offering when and if it comes.
I might be a bit out of touch but besides the great efforts on the Beagle board port what else is being developed/improved on RO5 itself ? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #112772, posted by mavhc at 13:03, 9/1/2010, in reply to message #112730 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
I'm not sure a GUI that hides most of an application's functionality behind a physical and unlabelled button can ever be called "intuitive".. More intuitive than e.g. <SHIFT>-clicking for multiple selections IMHO.
Buh? How are these related? You can get by without selecting multiple objects. First time my mother used RISC OS, she thought she could only interact with objects she could see! That's /way/ more limiting.
So your entire reasoning on intuitiveness depends on you not printing out  for her? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #112777, posted by pnaulls at 15:56, 9/1/2010, in reply to message #112771 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Having used RO5 vs RO6 it did seem that RO6 had more features than RO5.
I don't think there's any argument that RO6 has more user interface features and generally more polished. But it has the benefit of 6-odd (guessed, based upon various things) years of Select development compared to RO5. But also, given that long time, the features aren't really substantial.
If an open source RO5 does get released onto new & easily available hardware then that would be a big plus.
It already has been.
My caveat was that provided there is continuing development I don't care.
Again, you should. The issue more than being about the OS, although that's obviously one important part.
So if RO5 moves forward onto new hardware and is more active then I'd lean in that direction and again buy a RO5 system. However if ROL sorted themselves out and got the latest version of RO6 running properly on the A9 Home it would be a much more difficult decision.
Well, if you found the RO6 improvements compelling, yes. But this is an uneven comparison. The Iyonix and A9 have long since ceased to be "new hardware", and there's no good reason to think we'll see RO6 on new hardware (I wrote an article on riscos.info about this).
Moreover, even with one meaningful update for A9, there's no reason to think it won't stagnate again after that. If it were open, then someone else could take it forward.
I didn't install Linux on my iMac for instance just because Mac OS X is closed.
This is a different sort of comparison - the relevance to RISC OS is pretty limited.
I might be a bit out of touch but besides the great efforts on the Beagle board port what else is being developed/improved on RO5 itself ?
Precisely what developers (and others) want to work on. That is both a strength and weakness, but it's a huge advantage over not in all practicality being able to work on the system at all. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #112778, posted by nunfetishist at 17:59, 9/1/2010, in reply to message #112772 |
 Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 524
|
So your entire reasoning on intuitiveness depends on you not printing out for her? Your troll attempt fails miserably, because I know full well that you're not stupid enough to not know what "intuitive" means. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Blind Moose |
Message #112779, posted by Acornut at 19:14, 9/1/2010, in reply to message #112778 |
No-eye-deer (No Idea)
Posts: 487
|
intuitive Maybe, he meant, instinctive. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Albert Bullen |
Message #112781, posted by JohnB at 11:36, 10/1/2010, in reply to message #112777 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
I'll say now I'm going to try and keep the quoting as it should be - but no guarantee it'll come out properly
Having used RO5 vs RO6 it did seem that RO6 had more features than RO5.
I don't think there's any argument that RO6 has more user interface features and generally more polished. But it has the benefit of 6-odd (guessed, based upon various things) years of Select development compared to RO5. But also, given that long time, the features aren't really substantial.
I'd agree that it's not as much as I'd have liked to see (I'm sure there's universal agreement there!) although I'd not go so far as to say unsubstantial. It was good to see the improvements/fixes that came however the A9 should have remained a priority until completed. That way RISC OS Ltd could have trumpeted having the latest version of RO6 running nicely on the only available new hardware we have (agreeing it's not that 'new' but you can at least purchase a new system) and showing they can successfully migrate their OS to new hardware. I can't really understand why they didn't go that route and then move on looking at porting RO6 to other hardware - thereby sustaining their business model.
If an open source RO5 does get released onto new & easily available hardware then that would be a big plus.
It already has been.
From what I can gather a great amount of work has been done on the beagle board port. But from what I can follow of the development it doesn't yet sound as if it's ready for someone like me to pick up and run with as a stable RISC OS system ?
<snipped caring >
So if RO5 moves forward onto new hardware and is more active then I'd lean in that direction and again buy a RO5 system. However if ROL sorted themselves out and got the latest version of RO6 running properly on the A9 Home it would be a much more difficult decision.
Well, if you found the RO6 improvements compelling, yes. But this is an uneven comparison. The Iyonix and A9 have long since ceased to be "new hardware", and there's no good reason to think we'll see RO6 on new hardware (I wrote an article on riscos.info about this).
Moreover, even with one meaningful update for A9, there's no reason to think it won't stagnate again after that. If it were open, then someone else could take it forward.
Perhaps. That's why I alluded to not expecting to have a difficult decision to make - although I'd wish it otherwise. From the way things stand at the moment I'm not betting on ROL pulling the proverbial rabbit out of a hat. But time will tell.
I didn't install Linux on my iMac for instance just because Mac OS X is closed.
This is a different sort of comparison - the relevance to RISC OS is pretty limited.
I'd say it's because Apple is much stronger and able to guarantee to the satisfaction of their consumers that they will be around for the foreseeable future and continuing to update their closed OS. People are leaning over to ROOL because of a lack of confidence in ROL and a failure to provide a direction for future development and a complete port to new hardware.
I might be a bit out of touch but besides the great efforts on the Beagle board port what else is being developed/improved on RO5 itself ?
Precisely what developers (and others) want to work on. That is both a strength and weakness, but it's a huge advantage over not in all practicality being able to work on the system at all.
Sounds a bit like ROL But I take your point. Perhaps it would be a good topic for an Iconbar article to show what progress has been made so far. Positive news is always a good thing. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Edward Rogers |
Message #112826, posted by Monty at 22:40, 14/1/2010, in reply to message #112717 |
Member
Posts: 154
|
Surely, Mr Hodgson, you can see where this skepticism is coming from? You are correct in that none of the above commentators know what you are or aren't up to. You are, however, no doubt with good intent, knowingly teasing the RISC OS community by talking at some length about how you and some vague organisation intend to improve the OS in unspecified ways. Whatever is going on behind the scenes, repeatedly announcing that you can't announce anything yet was bound to irritate the always terse RISC OS internet community.
Don't expect people to appreciate or even trust your efforts to instill as yet baseless enthusiasm until they can see some tangible improvements.
That said, the best of luck with whatever mystery project you have embarked on. Here's to it being as good as the little dual-core present the Amigans got for Christmas. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #112828, posted by pnaulls at 23:53, 14/1/2010, in reply to message #112826 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
That said, the best of luck with whatever mystery project you have embarked on. Here's to it being as good as the little dual-core present the Amigans got for Christmas.
As best I can tell, that's vapourware. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5246 |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #112833, posted by filecore at 07:42, 15/1/2010, in reply to message #112828 |
Posts: 3868
|
Here's to it being as good as the little dual-core present the Amigans got for Christmas. As best I can tell, that's vapourware.
I suspect that was rather the point |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #112836, posted by andypoole at 08:39, 15/1/2010, in reply to message #112828 |
Posts: 5558
|
That said, the best of luck with whatever mystery project you have embarked on. Here's to it being as good as the little dual-core present the Amigans got for Christmas.
As best I can tell, that's vapourware. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5246
Would that make it the Omega of the Amiga world?
Andy. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #112837, posted by filecore at 09:10, 15/1/2010, in reply to message #112836 |
Posts: 3868
|
Would that make it the Omega of the Amiga world? An Amiga Omega? Sheesh, try saying that ten times, fast. Anyway, the Omega at least mostly existed. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Blind Moose |
Message #112838, posted by Acornut at 09:11, 15/1/2010, in reply to message #112836 |
No-eye-deer (No Idea)
Posts: 487
|
Omega ... Naa! They make watches don't they? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #112840, posted by andypoole at 09:41, 15/1/2010, in reply to message #112837 |
Posts: 5558
|
Would that make it the Omega of the Amiga world? An Amiga Omega? Sheesh, try saying that ten times, fast. Anyway, the Omega at least mostly existed.
Yeah, but the ones that did didn't work properly 
Andy. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #112849, posted by pnaulls at 17:22, 16/1/2010, in reply to message #112840 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Would that make it the Omega of the Amiga world? An Amiga Omega? Sheesh, try saying that ten times, fast. Anyway, the Omega at least mostly existed.
Yeah, but the ones that did didn't work properly
Andy.
In fairness, quite of a few of them did work reasonably well. The rate of problems in such an initial short run was high yes, but I don't think atypical. The difference with the very early Iyonix is that they had Castle to promptly respond to problems and had had some degree of testing before they went to the wider user base.
The main problem with the Omega is that ultimately as a RiscPC replacement, it was significantly more expensive than the Iyonix (I did a price breakdown for Archive at one point), slower than the Iyonix (although did run legacy code, which Iyonix didn't at first), and its fantasy features were ridiculously hyped.
From what I've been told about this Amiga, it also shares the same hype (and some of the details are scarily similar with an FPGA, etc), and the basic machine also mostly exists (being based upon a 2001 design). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (3): |< <
3
|
