I wrote: "The only thing I like about RISC OS is the UI and (some) of the applications. If these can be ported to another system, with more stability; better hardware compatibility and greater room for growth, why should I care?"
timephoenix wrote: "Perhaps because in such a case, Castle, current owners of the OS, would lose all their income from selling desktop ARM hardware, and desktop RISC OS itself would disappear."
That's why open sourcing RISC OS is a good idea for *users* - there's no dependency on Castle (or anyone else) maintaining a viable business and RISC OS being lumped in with other assets when administrators or bean counters sell off the bits.
markee174 wrote: "Unless RISC OS can use any Windows device driver, you are going to end up with lots of unimpressed people. Apple focuses on their own hardware and they seem to be doing rather well at the moment...."
Apple is a wonderful example here: they've moved to commodity hardware, but are still building it themselves. They can get the benefits of the speed on x86, and users are increasingly seeing the benefits of running on x86: proprietary drivers without porting, Windows running at full speed in a virtualised environment etc. etc.