Drobe :: The archives
About Drobe | Contact | RSS | Twitter | Tech docs | Downloads | BBC Micro

Reply to thread

David Boddie wrote >"Ironically, the GPL, while wrongly perceived to be an anti-commercial license by many people, might be more appropriate than other more permissive licenses, such as the modified (or new) BSD license, simply because it doesn't allow the code to be forked then closed."

If RO [source] were forked and then closed that might not be a particularly good thing, in such a circumstance yes perhaps GPL would be better. Thing is arriving at a situation where the future of RISC OS is assured and that it continues to run on native hardware (as this gives best compatibility and performance IMHO) is I believe the best outcome. If that were by using GPL, BSD, some bespoke license or even just remaining closed so be it.

David Boddie wrote>"In the end, I'd be more interested in seeing the source to various applications so that I could figure out their file formats and convert my data to open formats, rather than looking at the WIMP source, for example, and trying to figure out how I could get RISC OS applications running on another system using a compatibility layer. "

I can understand that, but you do see how that might give some people a bad case of jitters. The phrase "get RISC OS applications running on another system using a compatibility layer" - how does that help RISC OS ? Does it simply give another OS the ability to run RISC OS programs (in a fashion) and further weaken RISC OS ?

Yes if you're a big fan of that other OS and don't (ultimately) care what happens to RISC OS that might make sense - but for us RISC OS adherents it sounds very much like appealing.

David Ruck wrote>"If you have the source you can feed it in to a cross assembler and have that spit out code for any other architecture."

Perhaps I was a little rash - but ok I'll accept that.

David Ruck wrote >"With a couple of passes you can even optimise the nasty 2 operand register poor x86 junk resulting from our beautiful ARM instructions, although going straight to the slightly less crap x86/64 would be a better idea"

Still though it is difficult to hold back the tears isn't it !!!!!

If your speed estimates are even close to being right (and given your expertise I'd be prepared to accept them on face value) then that would allow RISC OS "on" x86 to be a possibility, trouble is what OS would it run on Windows/Linux or would it in fact be "stand alone" (but that would need a lot of work surely). Thing is it all sounds like a recipe where the coffin has another nail hammered in..... is that *really* where we want to go ?

Just because something is technically feasible does not make it the right thing does it ?

 is a RISC OS UserAMS on 25/08/06 6:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

  • Article graphics insight
    Easy when you know how
     10 comments, latest by thesnark on 21/8/04 10:59PM. Published: 18 Aug 2004

  • Random article

  • Wakefield 2008 show live news
    Latest gossip from the hall floor
     30 comments, latest by nijinsky on 1/5/08 12:36PM. Published: 26 Apr 2008

  • Useful links

    News and media:

    Top developers:
    RISCOS LtdRISC OS OpenMW SoftwareR-CompAdvantage SixVirtualAcorn

    CJE MicrosAPDLCastlea4X-AmpleLiquid SiliconWebmonster


    RISCOS.org.ukRISCOS.orgRISCOS.infoFilebaseChris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collectionNetSurf

    Non-RISC OS:
    The RegisterThe InquirerApple InsiderBBC NewsSky NewsGoogle Newsxkcddiodesign

    © 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
    Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
    "We accept Drobe likes to be [controversial], no problem there - but a sinister pattern has appeared over the past year or so"
    Page generated in 0.0974 seconds.