Vigay: I was told to remove my Firefox 2 tutorial

Published: 20th Mar 2007, 01:42:47 | Permalink | Printable

For those of you not reading the Iyonix mailing list

Peter Naulls told Paul Vigay to remove his unofficial Firefox 2 install tutorial or take over support or development of the software, it was revealed. Paul uploaded a 'quick fix' guide to getting Firefox 2 working on RISC OS after users reported problems installing and running Peter's mammoth browser port. Peter has now said he is taking a break from RISC OS after Paul decided against pulling his online tutorial.

After Paul first disclosed that he had been told to take down his web page, Peter told him: "What I actually asked is for you to remove the page, for all the reasons I already stated, unless you are willing to take over support or development."

The full thread can be read here under 'Problem installing Firefox-2-r2'. Peter also told punters on the riscos.info mailing list he will now "be taking a break from RISC OS development."

He said: "I'll reassess the situation sometime in the future, and decide if people really are interested in even admitting that RISC OS has serious problems, and if so, how to go about tackling those.

"In the meantime, since Paul Vigay has been so insistent about providing support for Firefox, I suggest you contact him if you have any queries."

Paul said, contrary to belief, he has not offered to take over support of Firefox 2, adding: "I only wrote my introductory article in response to a number of people not being able to get it running."

One commercial software developer summed up the argument privately: "After a long and increasingly emotional argument on the Iyonix mailing list, Peter Naulls has decided to take a break from RISC OS programming.

"The entire argument started because Peter considered Paul Vigay's help page on installing Firefox to be unhelpful, preferring users to await a 'proper' fix rather than use Paul's workaround. The same argument was also on Drobe a few days ago."

Update at 22:16 20/03/2007
Apologies for forgetting to link to the Firefox wiki page on riscos.info, which has installation troubleshooting information.

Links

Firefox 2 RISC OS port website Paul Vigay's guide to installing and using FF2

Previous: VICE port for RISC OS finds new maintainer
Next: Quentin Pain woos 13,000 new users

Discussion

Viewing threaded comments | View comments unthreaded, listed by date | Skip to the end

What a disaster. Again, politics ruins any chance of progress on the platform. You have to wonder if contractual arguments behind closed doors are just going to be replaced with public arguments on forums in the Shared Source era.

timephoenix on 20/3/07 2:58AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

What a drag! Paul please do not delete the page since it does help ... well at least until Peter decides to offer help to get FF2r2 running and with that I mean that I expect that information to be linked to the download page or the Help file being updated. What does amaze me is that such a blatant and obvious bug (same bug is in Thunderbird) wasn't discovered before release and has not been fixed.

hzn on 20/3/07 5:01AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

A User tries to be helpful, Creator throws toys out of pram, citing a (imo) pathetic reason.

Same old story, again.

piemmm on 20/3/07 7:16AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The old friendliness of the RISC OS community has disappeared.

davehigton on 20/3/07 7:21AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Actually, what gets my goat is you see *hundreds* of workarounds / how-to pages for broken drivers / special configurations for things like X11, and *many* other open source packages. You do not see those maintainers throwing their toys out the pram...

What is so special about the RISC OS port of Firefox that changes this?

piemmm on 20/3/07 7:23AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Peter throwing out the dummy from the pram....surely not! I've said it elsewhere , he may have great technical skills but his people skills are practically zero. It's these childish attitudes that are slowly but surely killing what's left of RiscOS.......

mripley on 20/3/07 8:00AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

all above:

This is not going to persuade him to come back!

Paul: I support your decision to not remove it, had I had a computer suitable to load it onto, I would be using your documentation!

Peter: I understand your concerns for the platform, and I would have thought you might do something with the open source, soon to come.

em2ac on 20/3/07 8:23AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

All in all this is a very silly argument! Peter, if you have a good reason why Paul's tutorial is a bad thing, why not tell us. If you have laready told Paul, he clearly did not see it as a problem If it is wrong and will cause problems, we might then be able to make an informed decision, or perhaps Paul might be able to correct any errors.

I see nothing wrong with people working together, and I'm sure Paul's motives were trying to help Firefox users to get the software working. Developeers need to be prepared to work together is thebplatform is to survive.

mrtd on 20/3/07 8:55AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Trouble is Peter Naulls has a big chip on his shoulder and is far from a people person. He is also not a completer/finisher so nothing he does ever is complete. Its no wonder people are not lining up to help him.

Jwoody on 20/3/07 8:59AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Its a great shame for the platform - Peter and Paul have done a lot for it - a lot more than most people who use RISC OS. However, it strikes me that Peter has always asked for help with his ports and due to the technical barriers there are many out there who would like to help but do not have the skills to boot - writting of tutorials etc to benefit other users can generally be a good way these people can contribute, but if there has been contribution made in the want to help users and this is thrown back in the creator'rs face then it must seem like a waste of time helping in the first place. I don't see what is wrong with providing this help until the proper fixed program is available (which would then render Paul's help obsolete.)

polas on 20/3/07 9:41AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Hmmmm.

Someone writes software that requires a bit of giggery-pokery to work. Someone else writes a helpful tutorial.

The software author refuses to be involved because the helper wont pull a webpage. Is PN in favour of internet sensorship? As long as it is not libelous then I don't see the problem.

And in any case the software is not finished to a usable standard. No surprise there then.

I've seen this before on RO-land. If they cant get rid of their ego's then the paltform is better off without them. I bet this silly attitude has driven more people away than the loss of one programmer ever has.

Cheers Bob

nijinsky on 20/3/07 9:55AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

What a very curious outcome. All this has come about because so many of us appreciate Peter's efforts to port Firefox 2 to the platform in the first place. I can't understand the attitude - we all appreciate the effort, so why be rewarded this way?

We can't always wait for software manufacturers etc. to come up with the goods, so we go to the internet, read tutorials, browse workarounds and hacks to get to achieve what we want.

Hope you enjoy the break Peter. When you return, don't expect us to be waiting - we might have all defected to Netsurf ;-)

sascott on 20/3/07 10:19AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

So I guess this is going to be a project that people have donated good money for that is not going to be finished?

Peter: If you didn't want people to use FF in it's current state why release it? Because telling people to wait for the fix rather than use a help guide to get a released version working is like saying.

Here is a program I have released but please don't try to use it till I make a fix.

It makes no sense at all and looks like an excuse for leaving.

just my 2p worth.

mrmac on 20/3/07 10:33AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Peter Naulls asks (and asks and asks and asks) for money for a piece of open-source software, releases it in a state that requires a fix, then proclaims he is ceasing development of said software because someone wrote a guide to get it working... What is there to say? Words fail me.

Surely NetSurf is the safest bet if this is what you get for your money.

Maybe it's high time Castle/ROL spent a proportion of coding their coding hours on Firefox, too. After all, having it available and working should *at least* help to retain users.

arenaman on 20/3/07 11:46AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

ROFLCOPTER. LMAO. I don't use RISC OS any more, but this kind of comedy is what keeps me reading the RISC OS news. Hilarious.

imj on 20/3/07 12:05PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The thread was an embarrassment to the RISC OS community, but at least it was only available to subscribers. Is it really in our platform's interest for a link to it to be put on a public site like drobe?

I think Peter has already won this year's Drobe "Own Goal" award unless something even worse than this fiasco comes along.

Any chance of Oregano 3? I tested it at Wakefield last year and was very impressed at how much better it was than O2. Ten months later it's still not on my Iyonix. What's going on?

cables on 20/3/07 12:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

imj's comment wasn't there when I made my earlier post, but I think he's proved my point.

cables on 20/3/07 12:16PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If Paul wants to do something useful he can get it to work on StrongARM machines!

AW on 20/3/07 12:31PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It's definitely not understandable what Peter Naulls is doing! He should have very very strong arguments which he should tell us. Paul Vigay very friendly tries to help the RISC OS community but Peter Naulls seems to like to destroy this community. Oh dear!

Is there really a chance that Peter Naulls can take legal action against Paul Vigay in a successful manner?

Gollum on 20/3/07 12:39PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why are so many of you repeating the obvious (and each other in different ways)?

Is the situation really what it is made out to be here? Who knows for sure? I will not judge Peter for his action, I just try to understand. It's not just that he has the technical abilities to do what he has done, it's more so that he has chosen to do so, despite his experiences with us in the past. I'm not judging these experiences, I'm just trying to reason how he might see some things and how they may affect his stance.

I believe Peter has explained why he doesn't appreciate someone publishes an unofficial work around to get Firefox 2 to run. To illustrate, does anybody here remember similar efforts in the past to provide the original Deer Park port with an iconbar icon and some more RISC OS-ness? Remember what Peter said about it?

Is it just because Peter is an unlovable b*stard? Where's the respect people? Peter is a caring 'people' person, simply for coming back to help us poor buggers out with continued development of Firefox. He has said on many occasion that RISC OS has serious problems. One of these has been outlined by him on his riscos.info site and elsewhere a while back. One hint; how many IRC or VNC clients do we have?

Just for clarity, I completely understand Paul Vigay is trying to help which he and others certainly believe he's doing, but like certain previous efforts which enjoyed a great deal of attention on OSNews, they may not have results as positive as they were intended. It's just that this is Peter's project and I'm sure he really wants people to help with it, but it can only work out well if it's done in concerted effort with him. He's the main man in this case, take it or leave it. These provisional fixes can only be superficial and temporary at best. I won't pretend I have intricate knowledge of the project or the work involved, but I am sure most people are missing several points about this project and exactly why Peter has asked Paul to remove the work around - It surely is not because Peter is a egotistical funbreaker who doesn't want people to get Firefox running.

hEgelia on 20/3/07 12:44PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

We are currently urging Peter to make the patches available forthwith, as he is obliged to do under the Mozilla Public Licence. The only guaranteed thing to come from this will be a StrongARM compatible build, but hopefully more work will be done it by others. There are several things which are broken in release 2 of FF2 which worked in the intermediate releases which hopefully can be fixed easily.

druck on 20/3/07 12:45PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Gollum:

I've read Paul's page, even though I didn't need it - I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I see nothing in it that breaks the law.

cables on 20/3/07 12:46PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

As an attempt at some balance lets take a look at part of the message; [link]

It's ironic that you made no attempt to coordinate efforts with me _before_ you posted this. In the meantime, someone _has_ made a rather more accurate version on my Wiki, and so we once again have a situation because of your actions, where we have duplicated information on riscos.info and riscos.org. Meanwhile, I've been attributed with things I didn't say on drobe, in an attempt to stir the pot with this situation.

I believe part of Peter's problem was that Paul's guide contains errors, didn't discuss it with him before hand and couldn't be updated by anyone else. BTW the more accurate guide is at [link] but I guess that isn't news.

IvanDobski on 20/3/07 12:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Once again, this article has sliced and diced comments precisely so it can make these sort of out of context and incorrect quotes, so Chris can get a kick out of it. Of course, the issue has nothing to do with Firefox, but again, I won't discuss that here, since the issue has already strongly biased against me by such articles. Email me.

mrchocky on 20/3/07 2:17PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It's just so "Royston Vasey" that most of the contributors to this thread focus on criticising Mr Naulls because he disapproves of random hacks and workarounds to keep the free stuff flowing to the fickle punters. Sure, if it were me, I'd welcome even misguided attempts to remedy faults in any software or documentation I'd released, although I'd want people to publish genuinely useful and factual information. That said, if I were making RISC OS software available only to see other people's contributions top out at rituals and lucky charms from a community who largely doesn't aspire to be anything more than a bunch of tinkerers, even though they may pretend to be so much more, I think I'd blow my lid at some point, too.

As for the financial aspect, I guess it's another lesson for all those people who throw money in every direction and complain afterwards. If you suspect you're not getting value for money then you know who to talk to. I imagine, however, that most of the complainants haven't stumped up any cash at all and just want to use the financial element to vaguely suggest wrongdoing. I suggest that those people either properly make their case or keep their dubious accusations to themselves.

guestx on 20/3/07 2:18PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

This situation is a farce.

Peter's concerns about information being spead out are valid.

However his reaction seems totally out of proportion, (throwing toys out of pram springs to mind.)

Why wasn't the obvious solution of putting Paul's work on the wiki taken?

jess on 20/3/07 2:56PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Peter's Firefox port comes with documentation saying that no support will be given for the software. Finding that it doesn't run, what option do people have other than using an online guide? Someone on The Iconbar helped me get the software going.

If I knew what the underlying issue was, I would gladly give a proper fix a go. However, there was no information supplied with Firefox that described the issue.

Given what I have said above, this whole argument is pathetic. I will stand by Paul on this one.

ksattic on 20/3/07 3:08PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It is rediculous!

Just look here: [link] - it is on Peter Naulls's WIKI. As a matter of fact he - that is Peter Naulls - mentioned it in a posting claiming it to be more accurate than Pauls guide. There you find just a few lines outlining how to create the default choices opposed to Paul Vigay who was so kind to outline the whole setup, that is merge the !Help and the choices setup. But as far as I can tell there are no errors in Pauls guide since following it does result in FF2r2 running. But there is a serious bug in PN's FF !Help since he even suggests to completely delete the choices which does guarantee FF2r2 not to run.

I asked PN to put a link to the good guide on his WIKI to the download page or to update his setup guide but we all know the answer. So I asked him what he expects to happen since FF2r2 won't run until he finds some time to fix it or update it (a simple few lines of code in FF2r2 !Run would be enough to create the default choices if the choices are not in place) or someone applies the hack outlined on Pauls pages and his WIKI. Well I understood his reply such that he expects nothing to happen except from whatever "armchair experts" happen to say.

And: PN claims lack of help but seems to ignore that quite a few users put up money since they want to help but can't see how they can help in a different manner... or rather not have to work togetether with PN due to the way he works or the way he thinks or the way he behaves. I remember asking for a bit more detailed documentation and/or a guide which is more simple to follow to get the grips with his environment ... the reply was along the lines that if I can't manage with the info up front I might as well not try in the first place. Well that advice I did follow.

But I do understand PNs wish for more help and do wish all of us that that happens by.

hzn on 20/3/07 4:06PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In my posting above the "In reply to And:" should read just "And:". The comment formatter was a bit to versatile for me on this one.

hzn on 20/3/07 4:08PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Out of interest, what is the real underlying problem with Firefox installation, and why is Paul Vigay's fix considered a temporary workaround?

dms on 20/3/07 5:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

OK I can understand both points of view, but really am getting to the 'what is the point' point. csam is full of off topic rubbish. ROL haven't released anything for yonks, the A9 isn't finished, 03 hasn't made an appearance, Firefox development has 'paused', internecine warfare has arrived on the Iyonix list.....My old Acorn User magazines have started the short journey to the recycling point.

If I total up what I have spent on FF1/2 development and commercial RISC OS browsers (none of which are being maintained at the moment), it would pay for a cheap PC to run Ubuntu on. Oh and Ubuntu comes with a copy of Firefox2.

I do genuinely admire the effort that PN has put into getting Unix programs ported to RISC OS. Also other developers who have taken an active role. I don't just mean the programs themselves but the infrastructure that makes new ports easier. I wish I could actually take part in development but I simply don't have the skills to do this, and am very unlikely to be able to develop them.

I think that if PN could find a go-between to improve communication, in BOTH directions, then maybe we could make progress. I'd certainly value a bit of clarity in a form I can understand. Then maybe we could all contribute in some small way to solving the many important issues that RISC OS is facing.

The alternative is to just add another program to the list of promising RISC OS developments that have fallen by the wayside.

blahsnr on 20/03/07 6:31PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If people keep behaving childish like this RISC OS will soon become the huge dinosaur it sometimes already seems: shot in the heart but taking ages before it's brain realizes it is dead!

Great! :-(

Ike on 20/03/07 8:28PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Doesn't this just really make you want to stick with RISC OS?

Ginger2 on 20/03/07 11:46PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Jess:

"Why wasn't the obvious solution of putting Paul's work on the wiki taken?"

I certainly suggested the idea to Paul (before and after his guidelines were published). It would have made much more sense for the article to be collaborative, given the nature of the problem and the nature of the Firefox project.

stevef on 21/03/07 00:23AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

stevef: There is a short guide on PN's WIKI which PN claimed to be more correct (but which is much shorter and the basic issue is solved in both in the same manner) but even adding a link or the like to that one on the download pages is something he doesn't care to do.

hzn on 21/03/07 05:28AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The problem here is a fundamental difference of opinion has opened up between Peter and others. He considers Firefox and the other parts of the UPP to be his pet project which is fair enough given the huge amount of work he as put in, and we are eminently grateful for. However he wants to control every aspect of the project and direct any effort that others are willing to put in, at and only at the places he thinks it should go. Which quite against the spirit of open source, which allows everyone to scratch their own itch.

Peter's goal is that we eventually end up with a situation where the latest Mozilla Firefox code can be combined with the RISC OS patches and a new versions can pop out of the autobuilder every night, which is very admirable, but just isn't happening. The place of change at Mozilla outstrips the resources at this end to keep up with it. By chasing the tail of Mozilla we end up with a stream of never finished partially functional releases, which can't even be got in to a state that works for most people without effort from those such as Paul to find workarounds.

What RISC OS users really want is a browser capable of accessing the vast majority of the internet, they are less concerned with whether the name ends in 1.5, 2.0 or 3.0, only that it works. Version 1.5 gives RISC OS users vastly more web capability than they have had previously, and version 2 only increases the web capability by a small fraction, the noticeable difference to users being UI changes. I'd like to put more effort in getting one version of FireFox fully functional and 'RISCOSified', before moving on to the next then concentrate on plug-ins before coming back to Firefox 3.0 or 4.0.

With open source both aims can be achieved, Peter can either take a break or and start chasing 3.0. Someone else can take on 1.5 or 2.0 and get it in to state people can actually use.

druck on 21/03/07 09:38AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In Reply to Druck

I think this does seem sensible to concentrate on one release at this stage and though version 2 only has some minor extra capabilities, it has the advantage of still being supported at the moment rather than 1.5 which is end of life/support soon.

If this frees up Peter to do some forward work then I see it as a win/win.

I have supported Peter in the only way I can at the moment and that is with cash donations for each release and I have been saddened by the way this seemed to have quickley got out of hand but hey if something comes of it in that Peter gets some help, though maybe not in the way he totally wants, then perhaps there was something to be had by having the dicussion.

The MUG team are also looking at ways we can support initiatives and I hope that as the year progresses we may be able to start helping in a number of ways.

bluenose on 21/03/07 6:38PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why would anyone volunteer in such an atmosphere?

flibble on 21/03/07 11:13PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

flibble: I know you love a bit of S&M like the next developer ;-)

(Or was that M&S? I can never remember.)

rjek on 21/03/07 11:23PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Is the source to the RISC OS version of Firefox even available anywhere? Does someone need to ask Peter for it?

krisa on 22/03/07 11:08AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I dont know the open source agreements at all - or what agreement Firefox is under, but if asked for, does Peter have to give the source code of the RISC OS version up, or can he refuse to?

polas on 22/03/07 11:51AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Its under the Mozilla Public Licence, see [link] The most pertinent requirement as stated in the FAQ:-

"I want to distribute a modified version of Firefox (or other MPL-covered code). What do I have to do? You must add a conspicuous notice stating where to find the exact source to the binary you are distributing. If you wish, you may point at mozilla.org for the base code and then ship diffs between our version and yours."

druck on 22/03/07 12:17AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Peter is required to release his patches under the licence which Firefox is distributed. However, what he's said basically boils down to if anybody he considers unworthy demands the patches, he'll give them the patches, and then walk away from the project.

Why/how anybody tolerates this man is beyond me.

rjek on 22/03/07 12:18AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

rjek: "However, what he's said basically boils down to if anybody he considers unworthy demands the patches, he'll give them the patches, and then walk away from the project."

If that's true then we really are in "Royston Vasey" territory. Everyone who acquired the software has the right to the source code, and whilst Mr Naulls can walk away from the project if he likes, he is obliged to supply that source code regardless of whether the requester is "elite" enough or not to understand it.

As for the MPL, after reading parts of it I can't see how people can complain about the readability of the GPL. At least the GPL doesn't start Capitalizing different Nouns and other random Concepts as if It were Translated from German very Badly. Get on the GPLv3 bandwagon already, you dinosaurs!

guestx on 22/03/07 3:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Goodness me, license advocacy wars. How will we ever cope with the excitement :-)

dgs

dgs on 22/03/07 3:50PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

flibble: "Why would anyone volunteer in such an atmosphere?"

What atmosphere? Peter and Paul had an argument, a few other people got involved. Why should that be perceived as so much more of an "atmosphere" than any of the arguments in the RISC OS market five years ago, or ten years ago, or fifteen years ago? This one seems relatively polite, by comparison with some of them.

And of course, other platforms have plenty of arguments too.

I would say the same to S Williams' comment above. "Internecine warfare has arrived on the Iyonix mailing list" seemingly is one of his reasons for being fed up with RISC OS. I'm afraid that's totally misleading, all the Iyonix list saw was a few dozen angry emails. They have now stopped (although perhaps not in the best way), and the list has gone back to its usual quietly helpful self.

Compare this with other RISC OS-related mailing lists, which can see hundreds of off-topic posts in a similar timescale... and no end in sight despite the problem having persisted for some years now and having been addressed in a variety of ways.

Or compare the Iyonix mailing list to the Select one. When I was subscribed to it, the Select list mainly saw vast periods of silence, occasionally punctuated by angry outbursts from subscribers wanting to find out when they were going to get anything for their money, followed by the usual excuses; then more outbursts and then more silence.

dgs

dgs on 22/03/07 4:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I amazed OpenBSD continues to exist with such a caustic character at the helm - let us hope some RISC OS personalities don't get similar delusions of grandeur, and consider themselves vastly more important than they are, and have people believe them.

Oh. That's already happened.

rjek on 22/03/07 4:36PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

dgs: This is the atmosphere I was referring too.

At the crux of the matter is Peter Naulls' inability to handle someone writing a tutorial on how to use a piece of Open Source software, if that's an issue for Mr Naulls then I'm afraid volunteering to help on projects with him is out of the question, he has a proven track record of arguing with anyone not working towards his set agenda.

The difference between this argument and those of the past, is this time we're being asked to contribute in time, expertise and money, whilst at the same time Paul Vigay is being shouted at for contributing in the 'wrong way'.

It is in this atmosphere that I wonder if anyone will volunteer to help.

flibble on 22/03/07 5:20PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Peter Howkins (flibble):

Excellent comment! You got to the heart of the discussion.

Gollum on 22/03/07 6:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to dgs, I wouldn't even say we had an argument. I certainly don't have a problem with Peter or anything else. I was just slightly bemused that he took such offense at what I perceived to be a bit of a helpful work around for some people having problems running FF2. He said my article was wrong, so I asked him to point out what was wrong with it and I'd correct it - but he didn't reply, instead going off on one - which made me think "what the ...." and just go and have a cuppa and go back to lurking in the background of the mail list - can't be doing wasting time on petty arguments!

pv on 22/03/07 6:32PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why is it that existence talent is often directly related to an express inability to work with others? There is no doubt that PN has contributed a hell of a lot for the RISC OS platform, but he is seem so stroppy. Someone fetch his rattle from his pram, or perhaps maybe it's best lying in a puddle?

When I read articles I'm glad that I didn't bother getting a new RISC OS machine and ended up using a Linux box. I do believe that the developers behind RISC OS and it's associated software truly don't deserve the avid following it still gets.

One day perhaps we'll all grow up.. but that would make life so much less interesting.

Snig on 27/03/07 9:10PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Judging which platform to use on the basis of personalities (and perceived views based on comments on Internet sites) seems rather bizarre as all platforms have their share of arguments and characters you might disagree with.

markee174 on 27/03/07 10:21PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Ah bugger! Not typing that again.

fwibbler on 27/03/07 11:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Snig: I understand what you're saying. I think the platform community needs consensus, leadership and sense of direction. This is where either Castle / ROOL or RISCOS Ltd comes in. The problem is, they don't. It seems they've completely washed their hands of any association with the community, except ofcourse for the few products they still want to sell.

I've gone the Mac way a while ago, and whilst it's very nice, I still use RISC OS almost daily and with more pleasure than OS X can give me. There are a lot of people around like me, whatever the other OS, still using RISC OS with great satisfaction. Likewise, there are still developers who like to write a RO app or contribute code once in a while. This all means there's still lifeblood left, but sadly the current OS developers and hardware manufacturers don't seem to understand, or even care, how to properly harness it. They just seem to take the few remaining customers for granted, while promising nothing and offering little perspective. The clear exception would be ROOL, but that's still largely talk with little activity. Nevertheless, it is something for us all to look forward to and hopefully gain a more 'communal' approach to the platform's predicament.

hEgelia on 28/03/07 00:08AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to snig:

I don't think you can tar all RISC OS developers with the same brush. I stay with RISC OS because of Andrew Rawnsley, Martin Wurthner, Neil Spellings, Mike Glover, and despite Peter Naulls. Apologies to any good people I have inadvertently forgotten.

cables on 28/03/07 12:38AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Adam: The complaint about leadership is not new. I expresssed it in September 2001 (Acorn User Nov 2001). In retrospect my specific criticism was unfounded (but Paul kindly didn't object) but the general criticism was valid. Putting that right now - or any time in the last three years - is probably out of the question.

A sense of direction is a different matter and that has been given by someone who, until recently, was effectively anonymous. A sense of direction needs a view of the future and a belief that we had an operating system that could be developed for the future. We have been given such a view. Over the next 12 months or so we will see how many people buy into it.

jc on 28/03/07 2:13PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

markee174: "Judging which platform to use on the basis of personalities (and perceived views based on comments on Internet sites) seems rather bizarre as all platforms have their share of arguments and characters you might disagree with."

Yes, but many platforms have much larger communities. For example, you can happily find your niche and ignore lots of other people in the wider Linux community. Don't like the GNOME people? Hang out with the KDE people or the XFCE people or the GNUStep people instead! Or have nothing to do with any of them and find your own like-minded group.

Meanwhile in the RISC OS scene, if you don't get on with a particular goldfish in the bowl you can be sure they'll be in full view again in less than the obligatory seven seconds. And one of the platform's most serious problems is that no-one seems to have the motivation to change the water any more, either.

guestx on 28/03/07 2:32PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

There is just one golden rule to stay happy in any given community: ignore the idiot(s). Works fine for me. Sometimes, you discuss things with idiots. Just forget their comments after a short while and continue to be happy. No problem really.

hubersn on 28/03/07 3:53PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to guest X:

So if you don't like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (who are both all-pervausive in their platforms), that rather narrows the platform field....

markee174 on 28/03/07 4:00PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Steffen - I take it you don't regard customers of your CDBurn that way?

AW on 28/03/07 4:24PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Andrew: I don't think a customer relationship qualifies for the term "community".

hubersn on 28/03/07 5:35PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Thing is, I would've thought that the method of putting together a correctly formatted profiles/ini file [1] and letting Firefox 2 set itself up would be much better than the previous workaround of copying the old Firefox 1.5 choices out of !UnixHome.

I put quite a bit of time into a Usenet article [2] in response to Peter saying he couldn't reproduce the bug and didn't get a reply from him, although I accept there may have been good reasons for that. Probably should've CC'd it.

Notes 1. See, for example, [link]

2. Message ID 5ab008af4e.jades@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com

Jades on 06/04/07 8:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

markee174: "So if you don't like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (who are both all-pervausive in their platforms), that rather narrows the platform field...."

That might be the case, yes. Some people don't get on with Torvalds, Stallman, and so on, although these two can hardly be considered all-pervasive in their realm, particularly since you don't need to brush up against them on a daily basis. Meanwhile, judging by some people's behaviour, Steve Jobs presumably visits you personally in your sleep and Bill Gates probably degrades your dream quality because your synapses aren't certified for the right kind of DRM...

guestx on 06/04/07 11:14PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

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

+++ Message board +++

Read messages or start a new thread

Search the archives

Today's featured article

LCD monitors and RISC OS
Shopping for TFT?

25 comments, latest by skock on 9/4/04 1:23PM. Published: 13 Mar 2004

Random article

Omega ethernet ships
Another tick on the features list

34 comments, latest by anon/195.227.111.2 on 24/05/04 1:59PM. Published: 17 May 2004

Create a new account
Forgot your password?

Useful links

News and media:
Iconbar • MyRISCOS • ArcSite • RISCOScode • ANS • C.S.A.Announce • Archive • Qercus • RiscWorld • Drag'n'Drop • GAG-News

Top developers:
RISCOS Ltd • RISC OS Open • MW Software • R-Comp • Advantage Six • VirtualAcorn

Dealers:
CJE Micros • APDL • Castle • a4 • X-Ample • Liquid Silicon • Webmonster

Usergroups:
WROCC • RONE • NKACC • IRUG • SASAUG • ROUGOL • RONWUG • MUG • WAUG • GAG • RISCOS.be

Useful:
RISCOS.org.uk • RISCOS.org • RISCOS.info • Filebase • Chris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collection • NetSurf

Non-RISC OS:
The Register • The Inquirer • Apple Insider • BBC News • Sky News • Google News • xkcd • diodesign

© 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
" So, where's your DHCP port?" "Unreleasable for legal reasons""
Page generated in 0.1205 seconds.