VinceH>Actually I deliberately put off winning the lottery for three weeks....
As to my original point it still stands, considering something doesn't mean it will happen. My point about why changing the ownership of 25% of Castle's voting shares should make a difference also stands. I mean Peter Wild has written at some length as to *why* it would be a good idea to open source RISC OS, he has the 25% of the shares - surely if that *means* anything then he'd have recommended that (and had that outcome already). Simply handing that 25% to someone else I don't believe will make any difference. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
nx wrote>"Now that Castle have effectively got rid of all their hardware and software engineers I reckon the same thing is going to happen all over again. We'll have another variant of RO."
Have they, or is that just another Drobe "look the Iyonix CPU is out of production", "the EU has banned the Iyonix" type rubbish is it?
If that were true then it would mean no more new native hardware to run RISC OS. Might as well shrug my shoulders and content myself with writing C# code on windows as effectively RISC OS would be dead. When RISC OS becomes something you emulate on a PC (and only on a PC) then I see little point in continuing with it. Feel free to disagree, I'll refer you to Monty Python's dead parrott sketch which adequate would sum up that situation if it were to occur
Expo 2005 show report Writing from the Netherlands, Michael Gerbracht reveals the highlights and lowlights of the top mainland RISC OS show of the year 13 comments, latest by TonyStill on 20/6/05 9:46PM. Published: 20 Jun 2005