Open sourcing RISC OS won't help says ROL - RISC OS News, Software and Information

Open sourcing RISC OS won't help says ROL

Published: 3rd Sep 2006, 15:19:35GMT Source: drobe.co.uk
By the Drobe news desk

Page 1 of 1

Plus, corporate ID theft threat prompts action

RISC OS cannot be saved by simply open sourcing it, said RISCOS Ltd boss Paul Middleton. He added that Castle's wish to open source RISC OS "would have no effect on RISCOS Ltd's products".

Paul, pictured, told subscribers over the weekend: "Making RISC OS open source, or free as some people want, is not the panacea for suddenly taking RISC OS forward. No operating system can be developed solely for free.

"People have to make money somewhere along the line, and the experience of making the front end to !Printers open source a few years ago did not unfortunately produce masses of new development on it.

"To develop RISC OS requires customers, developers and cash. RISCOS Ltd's customers are the end users. We don't have a second source of income from major developers who will pay megabucks for specific support that can then subsidise the home users."

Meanwhile, the company has been forced to quickly change its bank account details following an attempted corporate identity theft attack. Customers with standing orders for Select and Foundation subscriptions are urged to update their bank payment details. The company's new details are:

Account Name: RISCOS Ltd

Barclays Bank

Sort Code: 20-18-15

Ac No: 60221651

In other RISCOS Ltd news

Paul apologised for the "protracted release of Select 4", adding that Select 4 is built from the same source code as Adjust 32 - which is still being bug fixed and polished off. Hundreds of changes have been checked into the kernel since RISC OS 4.39, according to RISCOS Ltd, who are keen to stress that work is still on-going. Drobe has learnt that version 4.42, as seen running on A9homes, is also now in the hands of RiscPC beta testers with the latest builds dating from August this year. Paul also added to subscribers that the amount of time the volunteer testers are able to give this year is lower than previous years.
Subscribers who had paid-up subscriptions as of August 30th 2005 will be allowed to download the first Select 4 release, or be posted a CD if they subscribed with that option. They must re-subscribe though to continue receiving updates. Punters who re-subscribed recently will be rewarded with a bonus three month extension.
Paul revealed that in May 2002, a number of engineers left Pace but continued to provide contracted support of RISC OS to the corporation while developing the Iyonix product for Castle. Paul said the differences between RISC OS 5 and 4 were already noticeable back then, and now the two operating systems are now very different internally. We understand that RISC OS 4 has become particularly modularised with the introduction of its hardware independence, and the way in which the components communicate with each other is significantly different between RISC OS 5 and 4. The current time table for the Iyonix port of Select is: the 32bit version of RISC OS 4 must first be finished, then Select 4 has to be released, and then ROL will look at doing an Iyonix port. Around 120 Iyonix users have expressed an interest directly to ROL, which Paul says isn't enough to convince them that it is a priority.
An extra 1000 ROM chips have been sourced by ROL for more RISC OS Adjust impressions, bringing the price down to 79 quid including postage for UK users.
Paul also expressed frustration with Drobe readers who recently called for RISC OS to undergo a 'facelift', despite ROL coming under fire at the launch of the Select scheme for adding what some described as 'purely cosmetic features'. He said: "You can't win, can you?" Meanwhile, other readers called for an overhaul of the riscos.com website.
Paul alleged that, of the Drobe readers who "regularly complain about
the lack of RISC OS development", very few of them have apparently bought RISC OS 4 or subscribed to Select.

Links
RISCOS Ltd website - ROL will be closed between September 2 and 17 for holidays

This article has been linked to, or is available in the following formats:

[Printable] [Digg this] [Blog search]

guestx (+3.0) 3/9/06 5:38PM	"Open sourcing RISC OS won't help ROL says ROL" - that's the real breaking news here.
markee174 (+3.1) 3/9/06 6:28PM	Or Paul was saying that Open Source on all by itself is not a magic solution which is guaranteed to make everything better. My biggest 'regret' with ROL is that I want to buy Select for my Iyonix but ROL do not yet have a product to sell me....
Jwoody (+3.0) 3/9/06 6:30PM	"He added that Castle's wish to open source RISC OS "would have no effect on RISCOS Ltd's products" Well if Castle Open source then this may be the best way to get back to an unforked operating system. Either Open source works and RISCOS Ltd go bust as unable to compete. Or open source fails and RISC OS carries on it merry old weddling way. Sounds like a good solution to me
bucksboy (+1.0) 3/9/06 7:56PM	If Select for Iyonix is something that ROL either can't (due to fundamental kernel differences) or don't ever intend to (for deep-seated personal/political/religious - delete as appropriate - antipathies) do, I wish Paul M would just stand up and say so. Then we Iyonix users could stop worrying about it and just get on with our lives.
thesnark 3/9/06 8:49PM	*In reply to bucksboy:* The fact that Paul M hasn't said that Select for Iyonix can't be done (or is not intended) suggests that it may happen. Presumably you wouldn't like him to rule it out just because it is not 100% certain?
bucksboy (+1.0) 3/9/06 9:06PM	*In reply to thesnark:* no of course not, but I'm not holding my breath. It still seems extraordinary that ROL puts supplying a (relatively) large and active sector of the market with a demonstrated willingness to spend serious money on RO hardware at the bottom of the priority list. That said, I have no complaints about RO 5.11, which I have found to be noticeably more stable on this Iyonix than Select 4.37 ever was on its predecessor.
fwibbler (-0.6) 3/9/06 11:01PM	I think Pauls point is that for ROL, the Iyonix sector of the market isn't that large. What I mean by that is that the number of people who own an Iyonix /and/ who would buy Select for it is relatively small. Also, FWIW I always found my RiscPC running RO4.39 to be far more stable than my Iyonix ever was running OS5 but I don't take this as any indication of the stability of either Operating system. Having said all that, I now find Windows to be far superior in every way except GUI, to any version of RISC OS. Ok, you can all start foaming at the mouth now
markee174 (+1.0) 3/9/06 11:40PM	*In reply to fwibbler:* ROL asked for 100 potential names and they got that....
flibble 4/9/06 12:34AM	"To develop RISC OS requires customers, developers and cash.", well one out of 3 ain't bad. Keep up the good work Paul, but just remember the customers might go away if Select 4 never appears.
stevef (+1.1) 4/9/06 1:13AM	*In reply to markee174:* "ROL asked for 100 potential names and they got that...." And oddly enough, now that they have 120 people interested, that isn't enough. It seems that every time they are in danger of getting enough interest to actually have to do something about the Iyonix, they just move the goalposts again. I don't care about the personal feuds; I just want a version of Select that I can buy, please -- is that too much to ask?
rmac (+6.3) 4/9/06 5:04AM	Select for the Iyonix: There are probably many out here like myself who have sat back to see what will happen on this front. Depending on what select offers and the price it is set at will determine if I put my hand in my wallet! This could well be the case for many others. Not ideal but until I know exactly what is on offer how can I be expected to commit or express a real interest. The lack of a 'brochure' (electronic will do), in terms understood by the novice, listing what one is likely to get for the money, coupled with the past performance in 'delivery' of 'the goods' will have made many Iyonix users wary or unable to make a decision one way or the other.
mripley (+1.1) 4/9/06 9:26AM	His comment about facelifting RISC OS and the new "purely cosmetic features" is targetted at two entirely different groups of people (I very strongly suspect), not the same group as implied by his "can't win" comment. Those who complained about cosmetic features were those expecting more from a new OS release i.e. 32-bit, HAL etc. The other group (like myself) recognise that compared to other OS's RISC OS needs a serious uplift. The welcome cosmetic features merely updated the OS from a 1980's look to a 1990's look. We have a decade and half of catch up to go yet if we wish to attract new users.
timephoenix (+3.5) 4/9/06 10:27AM	Wow, some positive PR for ROL! I must congratulate Paul - his company seems to be slowly but surely digging themselves out of the terrible mess they were in. I'm interested to know how ROL will affect the Open Sourcing of RISC OS though; I would hope they wouldn't cause the OS fork to continue by not cooperating with the Open Source Community. "It still seems extraordinary that ROL puts (Iyonix Select) ...at the bottom of the priority list." The priority list seems fair enough to me. Considering all the furore caused by ROL working on Adjust32 prior to finishing Select 4, I doubt current subscribers would be very impressed if Iyonix Select was released before the 26-bit version. Having all incarnations originating from the same source is also a big step forward. As for facelifting RISC OS, I think functionality should be a higher priority. Yes, RO does need a makeover sooner or later. But what's the good of a smooth new 3D desktop when you can't play a video, browse the web properly or even run the OS on the fastest native machine? People cite the lack of developers - what will get them back is fixing up the backend of the OS. Finding the balance is difficult, but not impossible.
JGZimmerle (+1.0) 4/9/06 12:16PM	@ stevef: ROL asked for a minimum of 100 interested people to determine the viability of Select for Iyonix. That does mean, that 100 people are also enough to make it a top-priority.
cables 4/9/06 12:35PM	Changing the subject, but still related to this article: is it really a good idea to display ROL's bank account details on a public web site? Why make life easier for the people who indulge in identity theft (yesterday's Sunday Times refers).
steelpillow (+2.0) 4/9/06 1:03PM	"No operating system can be developed solely for free." "People have to make money somewhere along the line," These two statements are only loosely connected. Yes the OS developers have to eat, but their food need not come from license fees on the sale of the OS kernel. Linux, and even Apple, have made this abundantly clear. Companies lile ROL can olny survive in their present form if they can find enough punters willing to pay those fees - and as the OS falls behind that is getting harder and harder in a vicious circle. Guess I am saying that ROL is probably doomed. The time for scraping by one a few more promises and the goodwill of the buyer is long gone. What takes its place will have no real revenue stream for a long time - until the OS is fixed. The example of !printers is not a good one. Where is the romance in hacking a printer driver? And why bother when the rest of the OS is broken and you are forbidden to fix it your way? It's just not a priority. At least if RISC OS itself is opened up, it can survive the death of the old guard and maybe, just maybe, will attract some talent. To all RISC OS businesses I would say, if your personal dreams must crash and burn, please don't feel the need to drag our OS down along with them.
JGZimmerle (+1.0) 4/9/06 1:43PM	@steelpillow: Well said. IMHO RISCOS Ltd is doomed if they do not embrace the open source idea. They would have a good survival chance if they become a distribution-supplier (like SuSE or Redhat for Linux). In the RISC OS market, the users are willing to pay for a well-configured default installation with good end-user documentation, wrapped in a nice package.
em2ac (+1.0) 4/9/06 3:11PM	I don't care what people say about RISCOS Ltd... Adjust is fantastic, and can only wait till I have enough money to bring my other SA up to line with my main one... "Paul alleged that, of the Drobe readers who "regularly complain about the lack of RISC OS development", very few of them have apparently bought RISC OS 4 or subscribed to Select." Trust me, the stability of Adjust, the ShareFS incorporated into it, AND the ability to use samba server stabily has meant that I currently use it as a web server, and can develop it from my other half's laptop. I say buy adjust! :@P *In reply to timephoenix:* its a starting place isn't it...
Ike (+2.1) 4/9/06 3:33PM	I was just about to make a long comment, but suddenly the thought came up "why? It just isn't worth the effort". Let ROL come up with a working Iyonix Select first. Announcements just before a vacation seem just smokescreens to me.
steelpillow 4/9/06 4:17PM	'JGZimmerle:' If only. I think the individual desktop market is now too small to support even this. Remember, RedHat and SuSE built themselves from nothing on the back of vibrant kernel development. From what little that leaks out, I get the impression that the main opportunities are now in the embedded STB/smart box market. Selling to OEMs is thus more important than shrinkwrapping. But OEMs are into convergence, standards compliance and security. It is here that Linux is slowly becoming the beast to beat.
druck (+1.1) 4/9/06 5:51PM	wm2ac: Adjust is 2.5 year old Select code, it what is/isn't happening now thats under discussion. *In reply to ike:* I typed in exactly that last night, but couldn't even be bothered to hit submit.
davehigton (+3.5) 4/9/06 10:35PM	To pick up on Paul's comment that open sourcing Printers+ didn't attract much attention: do I recall correctly that, shortly after it was open sourced, there were comments from well-placed sources that this was illegal? Because that would surely rule out most chances of help from the rest of us: we would have been working on illegal code, with no chance that any of our work could have been released. To my mind, there is still some mileage in open sourcing /some elements/ of RISC OS, such as the CDFS drivers.
VinceH 5/9/06 10:35AM	*In reply to Cables:* In practice it's not letting people know the account details that's the problem - this is done whenever you give someone a cheque, or pay with a debit card, or give a customer your details so they can pay you by BACS or direct transfer or whatever. The link in the above article, while it's described (and titled) as corporate identity theft, actually talks about bog standard phishing from the point of view of the end customer who's bank account details are compromised - it's corporate identity theft from the point of view of the banks etc. Note that the following is pure speculation on my part: This suggests that someone @ ROL fell for a phish email and as a result gave online banking passwords to a scammer. Judging by what the articule talks about (that the banks etc should register all permutations of their domain names) it's likely that the phishermen probably made it very plausible and actually used a domain name that was a legit looking variation on ROL's bank's domain.
highlandcattle (+1.0) 5/9/06 12:01PM	Isn't the point of open-sourcing parts of riscos5 that there would be no longer a need for Select on the Iyonix? I personally feel that ROLtd has done more wrong than right for the riscos community. First telling the world that they would never 32bit the OS. (which let to many coders leaving the RO scene ) So Castle searches an alternative route: Pace's riscos 5 Then RO Ltd DOES 32bit their fork of the OS and does this in a way that it's even more incompatible with RO5 and to make mathers worse another shared C lib too. People always seem to blame Castle for the OS fork but in thruth only RO ltd seems responsible. You should read the early year reports of RO ltd.( around 1999). A lot of people got always fired and there seemed to be a lot of arguments all the time. Thus a lot of money being wasted!
VirtualAcorn (-1.0) 5/9/06 12:06PM	*In reply to davehigton:* I think you better dig out your dictionary and find the definition for the word "illegal". A typical definition would be "prohibited by law". It seems doubtful that there is a law in the UK preventing someone from open sourcing RISC OS !Printers. Open Sourcing RISC OS components might be a "contractual" issue, but it wouldn't be "illegal".
markee174 (+1.0) 5/9/06 1:19PM	*In reply to VirtualAcorn:* It might be a breach of copyright if you did not have the original rights to release the code under a GPL license. *In reply to highlandcattle:* Going round the houses again does not really achieve anything. We are where we are, so how are we going to get to where would like to be?
hEgelia (+2.1) 5/9/06 1:34PM	*In reply to markee174:* By being more careful and perhaps more questioning towards ROL in future. It'll depend on Select 4 and what it does to further RO in practice. In other words, if Select 4 doesn't convince the majority of (ex-)subscribers, then ROL will have probably lost their business. They can start earning back the respect of the community by providing a comprehensive webpage on Select 4, with plenty screenshots and practical examples of its new features in terms most users can understand, ie. no programmer logs. On this page they may also give a better than vague description of what an Iyonix Select might provide. In a later stage, for example after the release of Select 4, they can start rebuilding their website to make it generally more interesting to look at, up-to-date and a place where interested parties can look up what RO is all about - meaning a bit more 'outsider' friendly.
markee174 (+2.0) 5/9/06 1:43PM	*In reply to HEgelia:* You may not agree with ROL (and I don't always either), but we are not party to their business. They are presumably trying to stay in business and make money. If they disappear all their work (and they have invested a lot of development time) is likely to be lost so they fork will 'disappear' in the worst way.
JWCR (+1.0) 5/9/06 5:03PM	*In reply to hEgelia:* Surely, if RISC OS were to go out of bussiness, surely they would call in an official Reciever to wind the business up. The Recever would try to sell of the company's assets, wsurely that would include its intellectual properties, ie all its work on RISC OS 4. So, it is possible that someone wluld buy ROS 4 to prevent it disappearing forever. Not that I can see RISCOS Ltd going bust any time soon.
1 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them.
Use the forum for more comments on this article