sa110 (+1.1)
17/6/05 4:37PM |
Well I can't really much in the article that we don't already know. Was there really a point in returning to this dispute of last year? Or are you just trying to stir up another one? |
moss (+1.5)
17/6/05 4:47PM |
"Was there really a point in returning to this dispute of last year?"
But it *isn't* last year's dispute. It's continued up until the present day!
I think the article is a very valid piece. An article giving the current situation is totally justified - even it if is simply a summing up piece.
I personally feel I was lied to at Guildford. |
jc (+1.0)
17/6/05 4:59PM |
Whilst there is nothing here that insiders don't already know, much of what has been said in this article will be new to the general public.
I'd decided it would be best not to publish details of this material and was strongly criticised for the small amount that I did make public.
Certainly there has been plenty said in ignorance of what has really happened and criticism directed where it's not appropriate. Perhaps Chris' article will finally clear the air.
What we can rely on is that the RISC OS market will go much further by co-operation than by arguing - and everyone can profit by co-operation. |
sa110
17/6/05 5:07PM |
I still do not see the point in bringing back to the public forum the damaging rift between the CTL and ROL. What happened, happened and thankfully was to some extent sorted out last year. Both companies may still have issues with each other. However I do not see any reason to return to what transpired last year. Move on. |
moss
17/6/05 5:16PM |
"However I do not see any reason to return to what transpired last year. Move on."
When RISC OS is unforked, and Castle and ROL work together for the future of RISC OS, as was stated would happen at Guilford, then I will move on. As what was said would happen hasn't happened, then the subject is a valid piece for a news article. More than valid - it's a very responsible piece. |
jc (-1.0)
17/6/05 5:56PM |
Whilst moss believes he was lied to last year he must appreciate that few companies would ever be entirely transparent to the public. Their answer is in the development work that has been done over the last 12 months. In my estimation a massive amount has been done by a wide range of individuals and companies. It's that that indicates a future for the RISC OS platform - not the arguments. They have moved on for us.
|
ninja
17/6/05 6:15PM |
There was new (to me) information in this article, especially the fate of the Merlin project.
In reply to sa110:
In my opinion, it clearly hasn't been sorted out to a satisfactory degree. There is still a fork in the OS, which is making me hesitant about which fork to support. I can't say for sure if anyone else is in the same position, but if they are then this is damaging the market for new machines. While there's no point dragging names through the dirt, there is value in not sweeping the issue under the carpet completely. It still needs fixing. |
moss (+3.2)
17/6/05 6:16PM |
I'm certainly not denying lots of lovely and useful stuff has been developed in the last year. But "all companies do it" isn't a valid excuse for people having been mislead. Although frankly, it was obvious at the time in the Q+A session that nobody was entirely convinced, so I shouldn't be surprised. The forked nature of RISC OS is a big worry, despite the huge advances that have been made.
Of course, concentrating entirely on the negative is very bad and wrong as well, of course. There's lots of stuff to be excited about 
Anyway, my main point is (that you agree with) that this Drobe article is a valid one to write and publish. |
moss
17/6/05 6:18PM |
"While there's no point dragging names through the dirt, there is value in not sweeping the issue under the carpet completely. It still needs fixing."
What I tried to say but far better, there. |
AMS (+3.2)
17/6/05 8:20PM |
In reply to sa110:
Yes you're right.
So a rehash we have, fine. In the piece Chris says that sources close to ROL said " that few people with Iyonix computers have actually signed up to the 32bit Select scheme". Dead right, RISC OS 5 works fine, it is regularly updated (usually for free) and it was designed specifically for the hardware I bought. Additionally those who paid for Select Subscriptions on the strength of suggestions that ROL would eventually port Select to Iyonix have obviously decided (reasonably) to see the thing finished first (again quite reasonable).
The antics that have gone on (and that are still apparent from this article and some of the comments) shows that one fundemental truth has not been appreciated - and that is that irrespective of how much cooperation ROL get off Castle that ultimately its the customers who will determine how many copies of Select will sell (and after this particular rehash you can take me out of the *wait and see* column and put me in the never buy column) - and if this keeps up I might not find myself alone. |
hexa0503 (+0.2)
17/6/05 10:13PM |
A debate on whether anything should be said? What happened to Freedom of Speech? Or is that something found only in the US? Surely Castle and ROL would respect that freedom. Let us now hear what they have to say. |
sa110 (+1.5)
17/6/05 11:14PM |
In reply to hexa0503:
As both CTL and ROL did not want to make any comments, what have we to hear? |
SimonC (+3.2)
18/6/05 1:13AM |
Actions speak louder than words is all I can think to say on this subject. |
moss
18/6/05 7:08AM |
"As both CTL and ROL did not want to make any comments, what have we to hear?"
A nice summing up of the current situation that some people didn't know about, and clarifies a few points for many others? |
nunfetishist (-1.5)
18/6/05 10:56AM |
In reply to AMS:
"it was designed specifically for the hardware I bought"
Not really. It was just made to work on the hardware you bought. I imagine it was actually specically designed for one of the M4, A680 or A500. I can't remember which was the earliest to run RISC OS. (Excluding the BBC tube ARM, etc.) |
jc (-1.0)
18/6/05 11:24AM |
nunfetishist:
Going back to origins is one thing - but that is reasonably well documented and the move from 3.7 to 4.00 is well known. Has anyone described the OS development from 3.7 to 5.0? And I haven't seen a public description of the other OS development work done by Pace & elsewhere of the OS from 3.7 or earlier on machines outside our normal area of interest.
I think the Acorn history is reasonably covered but someone should really bring together the details of the more recent history. |
Jaco
18/6/05 12:06PM |
nunfetishist:
AMS was talking about RISC OS 5!
|
TTX9 (+1.5)
18/6/05 12:20PM |
Seems to me there is inadequate strategic thinking going and a lack of direction within the RISC OS community. That comes down to a lack of forward vision. I have never seen an article on Drobe that poses this, where is the RISC OS community going, what does it want to be, what does it want to achieve? The direction as I see it is always to play catch up with the big developers. Ok, I appreciate that from a small platform this is to be expected. However, it does seems a real waste that the potential of RISC OS has not been recognised by the wider community. The potential decline of virus-ridden Windows and with Apple sales slowly increasing - surely the opportunity is there. If there is a desire for diversity of OS within the market place maybe in the future investment banks will offer RISCOS Ltd enough venture capital. Alternatively, make RISC OS open source.
|
nunfetishist
18/6/05 12:50PM |
In reply to Jaco:
Yes. Are you suggesting that RISC OS 5 was completely rewritten for the Iyonix, or adapted from the OS for another machine? It's a silly point, yes. Almost as silly as saying that RISC OS 5 was designed for the Iyonix. |
AMS
18/6/05 1:37PM |
In reply to hexa0503:
"freedom of speech"
Look anyone can quite freely talk about and disagree with whoever they want. The point is is there a purpose for this article at this time. Ask what purpose does it serve? what agenda is at the back of all this? To simply assume people have the 17th of June marked off in their diary as the "Let's remind people about the RISC OS dispute day" is probably a tad nieve.
Once you start asking the right questions then things begin to make sense, obvious patterns emerge, the DVD that ROL produced that plays on Select but specifically not on Iyonix (as mentioned in Drobe here by Chris). The "sniping" from the sidelines at CTL/Iyonix and (now apparently) Iyonix users who are (wait for it) the cause of the OS "fork" (what in the name of God is Select but a fork in the OS and how come no one appears to be at fault for that ?).
And then we have Jc (Hi) asking us about the origins of RO5. Yet another tact eh? Here's the rub John, it [RO5] works it works on the fastest RISC OS platform (A9 not widthstanding), on a more expandible machine, it is regularly updated and because it works and because it works on native hardware and because it works on the fastest RISC OS Machine guess what I DON'T CARE WHERE IT CAME FROM. And I bet you most of the people who spent 1200+ quid on one don't care either.
Then there's Select, a scheme where Iyonix users have paid money in under the understanding (apparently mistaken) that ROL would port Select to Iyonix. ROL have valiantly put Select on the PC, on the A9, the A6, Riscube and so forth - but not a peep (until recently) on the Iyonix. And, guess what, the by now well and truly pi**ed off Iyonix users haven't signed up. That's a sign of intelligence that is.
The sort of public villification of Castle, Iyonix users and their hardware is playing badly guess you guys should stop slagging people off and "spinning" things as this does not win arguments or win minds - logic, reason and integrity does - it's not too late to start. |
jc (-1.0)
18/6/05 5:20PM |
AMS seems to have got everything wrong:
There can't really be one single purpose. As individuals and companies we're all likely to have our own purpose & agenda. Mine was made publicly clear a year ago when I said, "But unless the market has a range of products at a range of prices to suit people, you won't have the software writers receiving any income at all and we'll all be gone. You do need a range." and Peter Wild of Castle responded, "True, I don't disagree with that. But, I think we need... what we need in the market is more lower cost hardware products"
Earlier I had said, "Castle will be judged on the way they managed to deal with the situation as it is at the moment."
The co-operation between ROL and Ad6 produced what Peter Wild and I were asking for last year and that result has produced congratulations from everyone - Jack Lillingstone in particular went out of his way to ensure that his own "well done" was properly publicised.
Now you seem to want ROL to have also ported Select to the Iyonix though you don't seem to appreciate the work required or the fact that a version of Select was seen working on an Iyonix at Wakefield.
I don't see where you get the idea that anyone has vilified Iyonix users. What I do see is that where you say you don't care some people docare: about co-operation, about a future for RISC OS - and even about properly documenting its history.
If Iyonix users want Select then presumably they will make their feelings known and Castle will co-operate with ROL to ensure that it's available as quickly as possible. The big difference between last June and now is that we now appear to have a viable future. Like Jack Lillingstone I'd congratulate those at ROL and Ad6 (and the SIMON team &c) for their work. They've done much to ensure that future. Do you echo that applause opr do you have a different agenda from the rest of us? |
Jaco
18/6/05 7:15PM |
nunfetishist:
Saying that RISC OS 5 was designed for the Iyonix is silly and saying it was actually specically designed for one of the M4, A680 or A500 isn't?
Nobody is suggesting that RISC OS 5 was completely rewritten, but it was developed for the Iyonix wasn't it? Although also hardware abstraction is build in.
|
Jaco (+1.6)
18/6/05 7:36PM |
By the way why is ROL trying to port RISC OS 4 to the Iyonix instead of merging Select with RISC OS 5?
Merging was last years agreement right? It also seems a lot easyer to port the features then writing and support your own drivers. |
bengershon (+6.1)
18/6/05 7:51PM |
I have an Iyonix.
I am a Select subscriber.
I do not recall ever having been asked whether I wanted to subscribe to Select for the Iyonix.
I am sure I am not the only one.
No wonder the 'response' of Iyonix users has been so low ... |
moss
18/6/05 9:11PM |
You've hit the nail on the head there, bengershon. |
fylfot (+0.1)
18/6/05 9:25PM |
In reply to bengershon:
Indeed you are right. ROL is simply pathetic at communicating with its customers. The only reason I heard about the 'Select 32 Development query' was because I happened to be subscribed to the support mailing-list. (They emailed the group on 15th November 2004). I am certain that not all of ROL's Select subscribers are also subscribers of the mailing-list.
ROL are no more serious about Select on the Iyonix than Castle are. |
jc (+1.2)
18/6/05 9:35PM |
In reply to Jaco:
If Chris is right there is no new agreement. In any case merging would require that it is technically possible and a great deal of co-operation between the parties. I know of no evidence for the former (though I'd be interested to hear of possibilities) and no agreement suggests no co-operation.
On the other hand ROL now have a 32-bit friendly OS that appears to work on a range of machines.
In reply to bengershon:
You say you haven't been contacted by ROL - but do they have your contact details? I've been critical of ROL's marketing but it wouldn't be right to criticise them for not doing something they couldn't do. In any case have you been in touch with them? And NB Chris hasn't got the information direct from ROL.
|
fylfot
18/6/05 9:41PM |
In reply to jc:
"critical of ROL's marketing"?
What marketing exactly? They sent a lousy email to a support mailing-list which only some of their Select customers subcribe to. That's not marketing.
Besides, if they had been serious about Select on Iyonix they would have marketed the idea to the whole of the RISC OS community. |
| 2 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them. |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
After exhaustive negotiations, Castle and RISCOS Ltd. eventually signed 
