andypoole (+1.0)
23/4/07 11:56PM |
Time for people to start using NetSurf, then?  |
hzn
24/4/07 6:21AM |
Pity but no real surprise ...
ROOL give us the Phoenix browser, please. |
CrazyRisc (+2.0)
24/4/07 6:53AM |
I never really found much use for Oregano 2 to be honest. It always crashed out, or could not handle the websites I browsed. NetSurf seems to be the way forward. |
druck (+5.2)
24/4/07 9:37AM |
It's a great shame as it was a much more RISC OS complient browser than Firefox, offering close its degree of web compatibility of, very good rendering quality with near full support of CSS2, and with without the treacle like responsiveness.
However it was let down by its hopeless fetcher, what should be the easiest part of the browser to write. Whilst it initially showed some improvement in early betas, but had a latent defect that caused it to stop working after 20 or so pages. It was then replaced with a slower and less reliable version of the O2 fetcher which was show stopper. Time and time again release opportunities were missed while this remained unfixed, and eventually betas came less and less frequently from Oregan with no sign of progress.
I've still got it on my icon bar to handle the occasional javascript site that NetSurf can't cope with, as its easy to drag the URL from NetSurf to its iconbar icon, a RISC OS feature Firefox severely lacks, making it suitable only for dedicated sessions on particular stubborn sites. |
cables (-0.2)
24/4/07 10:17AM |
I believe this is as bad a day for the RISC OS market as the day Acorn announced they were pulling out of the desktop computer market. Where does our market go now without a quality browser and without the prospect of there being one in the future?
Netsurf has been my browser of choice for some time, but there are times I have to use the Mac for sites that just will not work with Netsurf. I hope to see javascript support in Netsurf in the future - it's already the best browser for RISC OS; js support would make it the quality browser we so sadly lack at present.
I said on a different thread yesterday that Techwriter and Artworks 2 are the only reasons I still use RISC OS. I'm sorry to say those words are truer today than they were yesterday. |
druck (+1.2)
24/4/07 10:30AM |
In reply to cables:
a massive over reaction. |
cables (+1.0)
24/4/07 10:40AM |
In reply to druck:
I hope you're right.
I saw O3 demonstrated at Wakefield last year and thought it was just what we needed to stop people from leaving the RO market for other OSs. What's to keep people using RO now? How are we going to persuade people to stick with a market without a quality browser? |
mrmac (+2.0)
24/4/07 11:41AM |
Is it possible we could find out what still needs done and how much it was going to cost?
I suppose it may be somthing RISC OS users could get together and raise the money to pay for the work??? There always seemed to be money for the various unix porting projects so can't see it would be the hardest thing in the world to raise money for...
What does everyone else think?
John
|
rjek (+4.6)
24/4/07 11:45AM |
In reply to mrmac:
I seem to recall that a 6-figure sum was being suggested. Remember, it's likely that there's a flat fee for Oregan to do the work, and then most likely a commission. Obviously I'm bias, but if the RISC OS community could raise that sort of cash, I'd suggest it would be better donated to the NetSurf project - with that kind of money we might even be able to have some people work on it full-time. |
Sawadee
24/4/07 11:46AM |
I still use my 12 year old RiscPC600 with my "limited edition" Oregano2.
I downloaded Firefox but needed more RAM to make it run on my old machine.
Never got around to buying a new RISC OS type computer as the 32 bit machines won't run my !Sibelius7 music software being the main purpose of my owning a RISC OS computer since the beginning.
So I procrastinate over the fact of updating my RISC OS one day, but I survive through the painful school's Windows laptop I use most days. At least with the school's Windows PC laptop I use it has Firefox and allows me to use the PC software provided by Vodafone in New Zealand to use their neat little Vodem internet modem device [Link: www.geekzone.co.nz]
I also often use Skype, which is not available on RISC OS. Apart from a decent browser needed for RISC OS, there are lots of other add ons available only for PC that disappointing to my RISC OS visions of the future. 
Unfortunately, I am finding that I use the PC to keep me going in areas where my RISC OS misses out.
I use RISC OS mostly at work, it still is such a pleasant, simple and reliable machine that does most things I need in my school teaching job.
Steve
-- |
hEgelia (+4.7)
24/4/07 11:50AM |
Indeed sad news, but frankly not really surprising, like hzn points out.
How many commercial browsers do people use nowadays, or even know of? The era of commercial web browsers has ended for other platforms years ago and it seems to me the lack of a market was the final nail in the coffin for Oregano 3, meaning the five-figure sum involved would have little chance of ever getting recouped.
Recent years have only confirmed my belief that the future of RO browsing lies with NetSurf, simply looking at how far it has come and through what means. Indeed we have Firefox, but somehow I feel it may not enjoy the same level of attention and success as NetSurf, which is shaping up to become a standard app like Draw is. It belongs in every RO users' Apps directory |
lym (+9.2)
24/4/07 11:53AM |
In reply to mrmac:
The community can't keep on trying to support half a dozen browsers. We have two credible projects right now: NetSurf and Firefox. Let's get behind them, either by donating, testing, or contributing code. I admit that the development prognosis of the latter looks bleak right now, but that's no excuse not to support NetSurf, which is the best managed software project on the platform. If you really want to organise a fund-raising drive (and aren't just hoping someone else will do it), why not talk to the NetSurf people and see if they're interested in something? Perhaps a flash plug-in, or the start of work on Javascript?
Oregano has been a pipedream, IMO, for months now, if it ever was viable. Let's move on. |
mrmac (+4.5)
24/4/07 11:57AM |
Agreed... I would be happy to donate somthing towards Netsurf (even if not a huge sum I would give something every few months as and when I could afford it).
I would even be happy to give up some time to help with the fundraising if it needs someone to do it.
Is there a route to donate at the moment or does this need setup.
John |
lym (+3.5)
24/4/07 12:09PM |
In reply to mrmac:
As far as I can see, there's no 'donate' button on the NetSurf site, which indicates that there's no mechanism for making use of funds atm (although I'd be happy to be corrected by those who know). If you're serious about this, I would strongly recommend raising the issue on the NetSurf mailing list and canvassing the views of the developers, who may have ideas about how to proceed. Like many users, I would be prepared to donate to a well thought-out scheme which had the agreement of all parties. |
mrmac (+3.5)
24/4/07 12:12PM |
Ok I will drop a mail into the Netsurf mailing list and see if donations to help with the development would be welcomed. If yes I will see if they have ideas as to how they might like it structured and offer my time to help if they wish it.
Thanks
John |
bluenose (+5.6)
24/4/07 12:35PM |
In replay to Sawadee
You can do !Sibelius on a 32bit machine by having AemulorPro.
In reply to others here re-browsers then Peter Naulls was asking £4K to develop Firefox2 and that wasn't achieved and rather than just start up another "lets donate" for a RISC OS browser then some thought needs to go in to this. Netsurf will take time to get Javascript etc whilst Firefox can already so this fund should be universal to ensure that Firefox gets added features and funding Netsurf development otherwise you will be waiting another 2 years potentially for say Netsurf with Javascript and by that time the market will be even more difficult. Blind knee jerk reactions and throwing money around with out a fully scoped plan is not the way to do this. |
adamr (+1.0)
24/4/07 12:43PM |
In reply to bluenose:
Netsurf will take time to get Javascript etc
Indeed. I don't mean to rain on everyone's parade but I think it's worth re-iterating that, even if the NetSurf team do decide to go down the JavaScript route - it will take *years*!
Adam |
mrmac (+4.5)
24/4/07 12:48PM |
I am just going to ask if the netsurf people think it's a good idea and offer help if they want it...
I like netsurf and think it is a fantastic example of how software should be developed, they have impressed me in the professional way they have worked and are constantly driving forward in an impressive manner...
I think firefox is bloated and slow (even for an ionix) and IMHO isn't a solution to the RISC OS browser issue (it's a headline grabbing stop gap for ionix users).
Also I only have an RPC and with all of that in mind why would I want to offer firefox my personal time and/or help?
Nobody is suggesting knee jerk reactions and this is why I am going to approach the developers and ask if they think it is a good idea, Offer any help I can to them and only if it is a "Yes" to the above invite suggestions as to how any fundraising should be structured so it isn't just a mess with money being thrown at nothing in particular.
John. |
mrmac (+0.3)
24/4/07 12:51PM |
Meant to say....
If everyone else thinks a universal independent fund for RISC OS browsers is the best idea then I would be happy to offer nay help I can to that as well.
John |
bluenose (+2.5)
24/4/07 1:18PM |
In reply mrmac
Totally agree with you in that the Netsurf team have done a fantastic job and I'm sure they would give a honest appraisal of what was best. Firefox2 is OK on a Iyonix and also newer hardware like the A9 as opposed to StrongARM RISCPC's so you have a point but I'm sure that Firefox can be put in a state where it is usable in a more RISC OS way sooner than added functionality can be put in to Netsuf and thats why I suggested a two prong attack.
I have also suggest before that some sort of universal "software" development fund was required to move the platform forward. |
cables (+1.5)
24/4/07 1:19PM |
In reply to mrmac:
I agree with your suggestion about approaching the Netsurf people about setting up a donation scheme. If it gets off the ground I will happily contribute. |
polas (+1.0)
24/4/07 1:45PM |
From reading the two articles linked from this page where O3 was first announced and then when it was shown off at the user group, the situation seems so much more upbeat than we are currently in. Apart from the fact that how it seems that both O3 and Firefox are not to be, we are relient on Netsurf for our browser needs. Also, symbolically its another software company ceasing RiscOS software production.
On another note, what would be the objection of GeneSys to realising their current version to the public (apart from that it might detract from O2 sales) - it seems such a waste for all that work and effort to be completely wasted
Nick |
druck (+4.8)
24/4/07 1:51PM |
I suspect a small amount of money really wouldn't have much bearing on such projects (although it might be welcomed by developers) as its time that is really needed rather than money. There are only so many hours in the day to earn a crust and work on voluntary projects. A substantial amount of money would need to be found to allow even one person to work full time on a project, and I think we can agree that isn't going to happen. |
mrmac (+1.0)
24/4/07 2:43PM |
In reply to Druck:
So do we just give up??? Give in??? and hope a browser with modern standards appears with no funding at all which seems even less likely than one with even a little funding???
If anyone has some good suggestions now is the time to make them.
John
|
cables (+0.9)
24/4/07 2:56PM |
I have sympathy with the views expressed by both druck and mrmac. I want this platform to survive, but it won't without a good browser. If small donations persuade just one programmer to carry on working on Netsurf rather than walking away from RISC OS it's worth a try.
If we're going to go down, let's go down fighting. |
polas (+1.1)
24/4/07 3:15PM |
I think there is plenty to keep people interested and we are in a much better position than many other platforms (such as Amiga, even if they have got new hardware) but I agree with jms that recently the platform has seen some negative activity |
adamr (+1.0)
24/4/07 3:30PM |
In reply to cables:
"If we're going to go down, let's go down fighting."
I really think you're over-reacting.
I doubt anyone will leave or join the RISC OS platform, just because Oregano 3 won't appear sometime in the future. After all, anyone who really required a fully-fledged, all bells and whistles browser must have left sometime in, um, about 1995!
In fact, I suspect we can access a greater proportion of websites from RISC OS now than at any time since the early 90s.
Adam |
VinceH (+1.0)
24/4/07 3:49PM |
In reply to mrmac:
Druck is hardly saying any such thing - he's merely pointing out the reality of the true cost of serious software development.
However, there are other costs that the Netsurf developers are incurring - such as that of web hosting - so it's still worth asking on the list if they are looking for donations (or suggesting that they set something up for the purpose on the site) in order for users to contribute towards covering those costs. |
| 2 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them. |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
Oregano 3 was today canned, ending all hope of a release of the promising web browser for RISC OS. Earlier today, GeneSys, the company expected to distribute Oregano 3, announced it had instead cancelled the product. Company boss Richard Brown, pictured, added the beta-builds often seen demonstrated at shows are not suitable for a public release.