ROX founder: Why I brought RISC OS to Unix

By Nick Brown. Published: 25th Jul 2007, 00:56:04 | Permalink | Printable

Making Linux easy to use, advice for ROL and CTL, and more

Drobe's Nick Brown has been granted an exclusive interview with Thomas Leonard, the creator and visionary behind the ROX desktop. Here, Dr Leonard answers questions on ROX, how RISC OS inspired him, what he thinks about the current state of the OS, and what the future holds for his desktop.

According to rumour, the start menu and task bar in Windows was included after Bill Gates used an A5000 - who knows if that is true, but the design of RISC OS has inspired many developers way beyond the platform itself. One such developer is Thomas Leonard and the open source ROX (RISC OS On X Windows) Desktop project.

The aim of ROX has always been to combine the best features of RISC OS with those of traditional Unix desktops, including Linux. Its ever growing user base has meant that many people who have never heard of RISC OS can experience aspects of the operating system's design which have proven to be popular. Essentially, ROX acts as a desktop environment within the X Windows system, often found running on Unix-like computers.

A typical ROX desktop. Click for larger.

Drobe: Firstly, please tell us a little about your RISC OS background - how long have you been using RISC OS and what was it that that attracted you to it?

Dr Leonard: "I started with RISC OS 2 in 1990 on an A3000, upgrading from a BBC B. It was a pretty easy choice back then."

In total how many active developers are there working on ROX - how many of them would you think have used RISC OS?

"It's hard to say. There are 160 people currently subscribed to the developers' mailing list, with perhaps 20 or so people actively sending patches and writing code over a long period."

"I'm impressed that RISC OS still exists. It does sometimes get mentioned on news sites, and the question that is always asked (and never answered) is 'why would I want this?' What is the vision for the future? Castle and ROL need to communicate the advantages more clearly."

Broadly, what was it about RISC OS that inspired you to write a new desktop? What features in particular did you find lacking on other desktops?

"The main ones were: a filer-centric interface; drag-and-drop everywhere, especially saving; application directories and a simple file-system layout; and decent font rendering."

How much of the current ROX is based on RISC OS? As you have developed ROX, and features have been enhanced, do you feel it has grown away from the initial brief of 'RISC OS On X' at all or do you keep a tight control on the development? Apart from RISC OS, where in particular have you drawn design inspiration from?

"ROX has always been about combining the best of Linux and RISC OS, rather than simply recreating RISC OS. The main features from Linux I've tried to include are: a general focus on security everywhere, for example, no !Boot files; the powerful command-line interface and scripting support; and keyboard-shortcuts through-out.

"We've tried to take concepts rather than details. For example, we use pop-up menus, as in RISC OS, but you open them using the right button by default, not the middle one. We write most of our programs in an interpreted language, but we use Python rather than BASIC."

From a purely interface point of view, do you feel that a RISC OS user could easily migrate over to ROX, and if so, what do you think would they benefit from the most from?

"Many already have. The first thing you're going to notice is the huge range of software available at no cost. Applications may not all follow the ROX style, but they often integrate pretty well. You can have any non-ROX application on the iconbar and drag files onto it to load them, for example."

The ROX desktop will appear familiar to RISC OS users. Click for larger.

A major feature of both RISC OS and ROX is that applications are directories. This affords flexibility that many desktops do not. As people consider this both very useful and natural - do you feel that other desktop developers have missed out on the idea?

"For a long time there were arguments about which way was better. The RISC OS way puts the user in control: when you install an application, you know exactly what happened to your system - that is, a new directory was created where you dropped it.

ROX application directories. Click for larger.

"The traditional Linux way is to use an installer that downloads the program and any required libraries and then scatters the files all over your disc. It's quicker and easier, and makes upgrading simpler, but you lose control. All kinds of strange things can happen. For example, I installed one program recently that, as a side-effect, changed the background image of my login screen.

"For ROX, I created a hybrid system called Zero Install. It has the same properties as plain application directories, which ROX also supports, but with automatic dependency handling, security checks and updates. That is, you can ask to install Edit (the ROX text editor), and it will also install ROX-Lib, which is a library Edit requires, like the SharedCLibrary or the Toolbox on RISC OS. But it will do so in a controlled and predictable way.

"I'm trying to build this to be useful beyond ROX, so that when other people use it to distribute their programs it becomes trivial to convert them into ROX application directories automatically. You say to your computer, 'Get me the application on that web page as an application directory,' and a save-box appears letting you save it, even if the author of the program has never heard of application directories or ROX.

"For example, you can drag Xara Xtreme (the new name for Artworks) from this web page to ROX and get an application directory ready to use, even though the authors of that program never designed it for ROX."

Are there any features of RISC OS that you would still like to implement in ROX?

"There are still lots of Linux applications that don't do drag-and-drop saving. On the other hand, the font situation improved massively a few years ago so that's no longer an issue. That wasn't due to our efforts, but that's the point of ROX: to take advantage of advances in hardware and software going on in the mainstream computing world without extra effort on our part."

Drag and drop saving on the Unix platform.

One of the comments that people mention about ROX is that, even though the desktop and its applications follow the design principals set by yourself, all the other system software follows a different design. Is there any way that this might change at all, or will applications need to be rewritten in order to follow the ROX design and employ features such as drag and drop?

"The main ROX feature missing from most applications is drag-and-drop saving. Actually modifying any individual program to support it is easy, perhaps the work of an afternoon, but then you have to keep releasing new patched versions as new versions are released by the original authors, or the ROX version quickly becomes out-of-date.

"Ideally, applications shouldn't need changing at all. An author should write a program and publish it, and a user should say how they want their programs to behave - for example: 'I want application directories and drag-and-drop saving.'

"Without a large body of users asking for that kind of flexibility the people writing the core libraries probably aren't going to do anything, though."

Have you kept up with the RISC OS scene at all - what do you make of its current state?

"I'm impressed that it still exists. I do wonder what might be done with ROX with similar levels of funding, though... one full-timer can make a lot of difference."

If you could give RISC OS Ltd or Castle some desktop design advice, what would it be and what feature do you feel is most missing from RISC OS?

"RISC OS does sometimes get mentioned on news sites, and the question that is always asked (and never answered) is 'why would I want this?' What is the vision for the future?

"Riscos.com says they have a 'goal of releasing a full 32 bit version of RISC OS within 12 months'. It's hard to see why any new user would care about that. Castle's site lists a few things, such as 'anti-aliasing, Unicode font handling,' but nothing that other systems don't offer too.

"They need to communicate the advantages more clearly."

Lastly have you any major new features planned for the Desktop?

"Right now, I'm mainly focussed on the installation system and getting more applications using that.

"Thanks to its integration with Linux and Unix, though, almost every new feature planned for Linux also applies to ROX. For example, there are people working on using 3D acceleration for transparent windows and special effects, others working on new security technologies and virtual machines, longer battery life for laptops, support for even more devices, new types of file-system, improved programming languages, better web-browsers... the list of exciting new stuff is endless."

Links

ROX website - what is ROX?
Zero Install website All images courtesy of the ROX website.

Previous: Free virtual memory app for CD mag readers
Next: Peter Bondar speaks: He heads software company

Discussion

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

ROX looks very interesting, but has one killer failing from the POV of RISC OS users.

It is an addon to other systems. (It is supposed to work on OS X, but I've not been able to find instructions).

What would be nice (for PCs) would be a live CD, and a bootloader that allows booting from ISOs.

Is there any scope for collaboration between the Unix Porting Project and the ROX developers. (At least in the area of making apps drag and drop, there is a common issue.)

Would it be possible/desirable to produce apps from interpreted languages (python or brandy perhaps) that work on both platforms?

jess on 25/7/07 10:03AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Congratulations - a fascinating interview. A long time ago I had access to a Riscix workstation, whose GUI was designed by Gnome. This provided a scriptable way of associating user-actions (e.g. clicking on an icon, dragging, etc) to filer-actions. The interface was quite RISC OS-like, of course.

GavinWraith on 25/7/07 10:04AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Yeah, interesting interview. I'm ashamed to admit that I've never used ROX, but it always struck me as one of the best ways to take the best RISC OS user interface ideas forward.

It also looks like there are interesting ideas from ROX that might be good to feed back into RISC OS too.

flypig on 25/7/07 11:39AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Good article. However, to think that Bill had much input to Windows 95's GUI at all is... naive

(And anyway, the Start menu is clearly a rip-off from the Apple menu, and there are more functionally similar things to the task bar than RISC OS's iconbar with some UNIX X Window managers from around the same time RISC OS happened.)

I've long used ROX's filer outside its deskop, and love it. Continue to good work.

Jess: It should be reasonably easy to create a ROX live CD based on some of Ubuntu's work or similar. Certainly, you can get ROX working on Ubuntu's Live CD if you have enough RAM (as you need to install it into RAM).

GavinWraith: One assumes Gnome the RISC OS company, and not GNOME the modern desktop environment? I suspect running GNOME under RISC iX would be utterly painful.

rjek on 25/7/07 11:43AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

rjek: "...there are more functionally similar things to the task bar than RISC OS's iconbar with some UNIX X Window managers from around the same time RISC OS happened."

You mean NeXTSTEP's dock? I believe the early pre-release versions go back to '86, including its application dock. I'm still not sure what it is, an app launcher or merely a convenient place to put stuff, but on screenshots of Windows 1.0 (1985), the row of icons on the bottom of the screen sure reminds me of Arthur. Even the psychedelic colour scheme is reminiscent of Arthur, though slightly less trippy to my tastes.

Indeed a thoroughly interesting article. One wonders why a Drobe interview hasn't appeared sooner?

It seems to me any RO user on Linux should give it a try. I know Puppy Linux comes on a Live CD, and uses the ROX filer, though not the entire (integrated) ROX desktop. Since it's a quite small distribution, it's an easy way of trying it out.

For a long time, I've noticed a tendency by RISC OS users to automatically fall back to Windows when RISC OS (applications) doesn't meet their requirements. To those individuals I'd like to say - Take a look at ROX. It's closer to RISC OS than Windows will ever be and it's free too! I think ROX is gaining popularity and has become more easy to add or try out, so I hope that'll feed back into its development.

hEgelia on 25/7/07 2:44PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hEgelia: NeXTSTEP is but one example, yes. You're right in noting that versions of Windows pre-95 did basically have an iconbar, but it filled the whole screen and doubled as the pinboard.

rjek on 25/7/07 3:13PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@jess: Your posts seems a little confused. - No, no distro includes ROX. I've been discussing with Peter "Mr Flibble" Howkins building a distro based around ROX but I confess I've not done much with the idea as of yet. - It's not really viable to boot a PC from an ISO stored on hard disk. However, if you want to play with ISO images, most PC VM programs can do it. MS' VirtualPC or VMware Server are free, run on Windows, and can boot an OS from ISO inside a window. On Linux there's VMware Server, QEMU, KVM, Xen and others. - I don't see what possible relevance there is between UPP (porting Unix apps to RISC OS) and ROX (a RISC OS-like desktop for Unix). What were you thinking of? - Cross-platform apps might be doable, but we are talking about 2 totally different OSs with only a cosmetic resemblance. It would be decidedly non-trivial. Why would you want this? It might be more relevant to ask if a RISC OS emulator for Linux could be made capable of running apps inside a RISC OS window on the Linux desktop, in the style of Mac OS X's Classic support, OS X VMware's Fusion or Parallels Desktop's Convergence.

lproven on 25/7/07 4:50PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@rjek: I think you're being over-generous to NeXT and perhaps even unkind to RISC OS. As I understand it, the resemblance between the RISC OS icon bar and the Win95 taskbar is considerably closer than either's resemblance to the NeXT Dock. Considering both W9x and RO, both are [1] a full screen width bar [2] across the bottom of the screen with [3] dynamically-generated icons representing running apps; [4] those icons can be manipulated via context menus to manipulate the icon's and thus the app's state, e.g. closing it. [5] The bar is the home of the primary UI of the machine; for instance, it's where you go to shut down.

It is my suspicion that the resemblance is too close to be mere coincidence, but that Win9x's GUI was based on vague recollections rather than directly copied.

Similarly, I don't buy that the Start menu is an Apple menu ripoff. The Start menu is an app launcher and the main interface to system-wide tasks like shutdown, tasks Apple used the Finder and its menus for. The Start menu was always user-customisable; Apple only added this quite late. App installers automatically update the Start menu; most added nothing to the Apple menu. And so on. I think that resemblance /is/ just cosmetics and coincidence; indeed I reckon that the MacOS 8 & 9 Apple menu borrowed ideas from Win9x.

lproven on 25/7/07 4:59PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@hegelia: I entirely agree. I'm amazed how readily people - even RISC OS advocates - buy and use Windows when there are better alternatives available.

Perhaps - just perhaps - a ROX-based Linux might be more appealing.

A side issue that's occurred to me is that Microsoft's FUD bluster about Linux desktops and OpenOffice infringing ~250 MS patents seems very likely to me to refer to the many Windows-like controls implemented by the leading Linux desktops: task bars, launch menus, Explorer-like file browsers, file-selector file open & save dialogs and so on. A less Windows-like and more RISC OS-like Linux desktop would, I suspect, infringe far fewer of these patents and thus be safer from MS threats.

lproven on 25/7/07 5:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

lproven: Debian/Ubuntu certainly ship with ROX Filer. Rather than creating a new distro, why not package the rest of the ROX Desktop, and create an Ubuntu derivative? Perhaps, Roxuntu?

Also, it was not I that suggested the NeXT dock. Pre-Windows 95 also had features 1, 3 and 4 that you mention. Mac OS has always had 1 and 5. In my experience of early Mac OS, applications, configuration, shutdown, etc were in the Apple menu in edition to the Finder. This has changed somewhat in OS X. Most early X desktops had a pop-up menu that included apps and logout/shutdown options, just not attached to a button as to save space. I don't think we can credit any single OS for the design of either RISC OS's iconbar, or Windows's task bar. They all borrow ideas from other places. My point was that the idea was never unique to RISC OS, and Windows's implementation draws from many places, not just RISC OS, and includes many unique ideas. After all, RISC OS's GUI borrows ideas from all over the place - even fundamental things like drag-and-drop.

rjek on 25/7/07 5:06PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

@lproven:

I have played with ISOs booting a VM, on Parallels on a Mac. That's the reason I think it would be a good idea to have a bootloader that loads an OS from an ISO. I'm sure there would be strict limitations on what filesystem and partition the ISO were on, and the OS would probably need to be modified to be able to use it, but the benefits to users in simplicity of upgrades and installation would be significant. (Install the bootloader, and copy the ISO to the correct partition.)

UPP and ROX. Both have one problem in common, the UI of apps being ported needs changing to RISC OS style. Does this need to be done twice separately or can one set of work be applied to both projects?

Cross platform, I'm thinking in the same way a BBC basic app can run on RISC OS. Since both systems use the same GUI and application directories, if a program were written in an interpreted language available on both systems, could it not be common? It would be advantageous potentially to both systems if it were possible. I wasn't thinking in terms of emulators.

jess on 25/7/07 5:41PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

This is a very good article.

I've been a ROX desktop user for about 2 years now, and a Linux user for about 3. I've not switched on my RPC for about 6 months. There is very little that you can't do with ROX that you could with R O, what is more there is a *lot* you can do that isn't possible with R O. Especially when it comes to personalisation. R O was an industry leader at one time, but totally lost its way, with an inward-looking community and 'domestic' disputes.

Incidentally I only came here, because the article was marked up on another discussion group, and i realised I still hade a drobe account.

Bungee on 25/7/07 7:26PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

rjek: unfortunately my experience of trying to create ubuntu packages for ROX desktop was not great. I spent quite a lot of time experimenting trying to get complete .

So Dr Leonard, any chance of supporting ROX without Zero Install (yes Zero Install has some advantages but I think it might be hindering uptake compared to a standard distro package)

So it can be packaged in a distribution's common format (rpm, deb etc) So it doesn't check for updated versions outside of the distribution's common format. So it can be installed for all users of a system. So it can be installed in full (with all 'on demand' parts pre installed), so there isn't a need for network connection to get the help files etc)

flibble on 25/7/07 10:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

flibble: Complete what?

Creating Debian packages can be a chore. Were you using any of the helper packages?

rjek on 25/7/07 10:07PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

complete ... locally working copies from the source repositories in a style that was suitable for packaging.

I hadn't got as far as packaging, not yet having something to pack.

flibble on 25/7/07 10:50PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Just at the time I am about to dip my toes into the Linux world I read this article...great. That's done it for me. I was tempted to buy a new ARM based RO machine now that RO6 is out, but not anymore. I will upgrade to RO6 on my RiscPC and hope that things improve over the next 12 months but I won't hold my breathe. I love the RiscOS desktop, applications, drag n drop etc so its the interface that's important. I will have far more chance of seeing multimedia with Linux/ROX than native RiscOS.

I purchased a laptop recently to act as a server for all my music, films (to other XP boxes), data, backup and central printer for the whole house. This works wonderfully even for RiscOS (except the films!). I then unplugged the laptop and took it on holiday. It became a very useful photo backup/CD burner, portable compressed Xvid player, information booth via the wireless connection. The only downside of all this was the need to use XP, which I hate.

So here I am realising that the laptop as a piece of portable multimedia hardware would be perfect if wasn't for XP......hello Linux and an even bigger hello to ROX. With my large storage requirement farmed off to USB drives, USB printer and USB card reader I have no need of a traditional desktop PC. So my current laptop will be plugged back in as the silent,small,low power server. A new laptop will be purchased with Linux/ROX installed and access the NFS served central storage which will mimic my RiscPC setup almost exactly with the added benefit of being able to use far more multmedia content.

Then I'm afraid it will be goodbye to native RiscOS. It just cannot do what a computer is used for these days. It is sad but I think 2007 will be the last time I have a native RiscOS machine switched on in my house......

mripley on 26/7/07 8:55AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mripley - I can understand where you are comming from, although I would suggest trying ROX for a while before you confine the RPC to the bin. I use ROX everyday in the office (need Linux for work) and within this context it is a good solution (I much prefer it to gnome, kde etc... and it makes a Linux desktop bearable for me) however personally it does not replace RISC OS - the feel and user experience I get from RISC OS is still unique and is still my prefered computer at home.

lproven - I think you made a very interesting point about the MS "patents", although without the list being released who knows!

polas on 26/7/07 10:45AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

lproven: "...~250 MS patents seems very likely to me to refer to the many Windows-like controls implemented by the leading Linux desktops"

On the contrary, the Microsoft FUD is centred on Linux (the kernel), not GNU/Linux, KDE, GNOME, or any of the graphical environments.

Meanwhile, people interested in ROX might be interested in XFCE and Xubuntu - at one point there was some overlap between the projects, although I think they've drifted apart of late.

guestx on 26/7/07 4:42PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Has anyone looked at gobolinix? It has a lot of similarities to RISCOS in that the 'traditional' linux/unix/posix directory structure has been replaced with one that has far more similarlities to the RISCOS one.

As delivered though, ISTR that it comes with either GNOME or KDE. Given what ROX does, would it work better/easier on gobolinux?

DS1 on 26/7/07 4:58PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

for those looking for a distro with ROX as the default filer, you can do worse than giving fluxbuntu a try. it's at [link]

Still a bit rough around the edges, but nice for a taster.

jymbob on 26/7/07 10:25PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

flibble:

Getting it accepted by a distro probably means converting to a non-application-directory format. You can do that if you want, but I don't see any benefit.

I'm not sure why you want to disable checking for updates, but you can do that from Zero Install's Preferences window. Set Freshness to "No automatic updates".

Zero Install already handles installing for all users of a system, so that only one copy of the program is actually downloaded and stored on disk. This way, you don't need to give your users root access, but malicious users still can't hurt other users. Just follow these instructions: [link]

To install in full, make a list of the URIs of all the programs you consider to be a 'full' install and run '0launch --download URI' on each one. If you don't want to be prompted to confirm each one, use --console as well.

talex on 27/7/07 9:27AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Nick, I do intend to test things first hence why I have just purchased RO6 and will wait a year. However, in that time I will work at finding a RO alternative. I have to! I do a lot of multimedia stuff (who doesn't these days) and RiscOS is just not up to the task. It may be that I'll write my own solutions to any holes missing in the Linux/ROX setup. I had contemplated an Apple but they are expensive and you are then stuck with paying quite heavily for all software, especially the serious multimedia stuff. I was a hairs breadth away from purchasing one then RO6 was announced, hence last chance saloon! What I'll probably do is purchase a couple of mini macs for my kids and wean them off XP since any software needed to satisfy them would have to be purchased anyway for XP.

Here's a thought: what would happen to ROX if the p***ed off developers in RiscOS world switched their efforts to improving ROX?

mripley on 27/7/07 9:55AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

talex: I think I best ask on the rox devel mailing list, makes more sense than here.

flibble on 27/7/07 12:35PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mripley: Well, if you can be a bit more clear on what you wish to do, I'm certain I can provide you with some advice.

If you can code, every new Mac comes bundled with reasonably advanced developer tools. I think current Intel Macs aren't that expensive, when compared to PC's of equal build and design quality and software accompaniment. What's more, they can natively run Windows, whereas PC's won't run OS X without a great deal of hacking. Of course, both will run Linux perfectly well. Although in certain ways ROX resembles RISC OS a lot, I've found OS X to functionally come closer in every day use.

I've yet needed to purchase anything for my Mac, multimedia or otherwise. It comes with very useful software. Furthermore, the available range of free software for it is more comprehensive than what's available for RISC OS. Moreover, a lot of existing Linux software can be made to work on a Mac through a compatibility layer. Have you ever tried (the bundled) iLife '06? Personally, I find that software suite excellent value, with powerful, fully integrated multimedia functionality which is extremely straightforward to access and use creatively. I'm sure you won't easily find anything available for Windows comes close, especially not freely bundled.

"Here's a thought: what would happen to ROX if the p***ed off developers in RiscOS world switched their efforts to improving ROX?"

I don't think there are much p***ed off developers left, if any. Indeed, in such case it would be pointless to keep at RISC OS. However, it's certainly interesting to wonder what developers familiar with RISC OS could achieve with ROX, seeing some of the current limitations in RO could be easily overcome, or simply are non-existent, in Linux.

hEgelia on 27/7/07 3:36PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

"Although in certain ways ROX resembles RISC OS a lot, I've found OS X to functionally come closer in every day use." Closer, but that doesn't mean close. The thing with RISC OS is that, out-dated as it may be in many ways, it is still more enjoyable, productive and intuitive to use than any other system of my acquaintance (including Mac OSes X and Classic, and Windows XP back to 3.11 - i've not sampled Linux or Vista). If that were not so, it would have disappeared long ago. Just my own POV, of course.

bucksboy on 27/7/07 4:07PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

bucksboy: Yes, I agree. I'm still an avid RISC OS user for exactly those reasons. I love being able to actively use apps and windows without having to bring them to the foreground. However, to a certain extent OS X Tiger supports it too. Surely not as fully as RO, but it comes close. Indeed, the use of drag&drop is quite widespread in OS X, even surpassing RO in certain areas. The nice thing is OS X supports the Windows approach, but when used to RO as I am, it reacts familiarly as well. Many relatively unknown things, e.g. dragging windows behind and between other windows, are possible. Like on RO, it rewards experimentation.

In the end, it's all about personal preferences. Although drag&drop saving in OS X is limited, i.e. no pop-up save boxes, the ROX and RISC OS implementations are uniquely advanced and still unsurpassed.

hEgelia on 27/7/07 6:23PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Puppylinux [link] uses ROX filer, and is a very compact linux.

Would that be a good starting point for a ROX linux?

jess on 29/7/07 9:32AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mripley: Why bother to learn a whole new world of Linux? I'd suggest buying VRPC for your Windows laptop and use that as you need to. You get the best of both worlds - you can keep doing your multi-media stuff in Windows and dip into RISC OS easily for other things as you see fit. It's what I do and it works very well

Adam

adamr on 30/7/07 12:36PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

"Castle and ROL need to communicate the advantages more clearly."

This is the key. Everytime I talk to normal people (=not computer geeks) they know about Win, they know about Mac, they even know about Linux (ofcourse they have not any clue about what they are), but NONE of them have ever heard about RISCOS.

W/O advertising there's no business. RISCOS web site looks crap, there's no advertising in computer mags or via google ads. In a fast computer world like the one we're living in, you've no hopes if you don't move faster & faster. Today who hates Win, wanna MAC, and who wanna be "intimate" with the machine wants Linux. The fun is that RISCOS can be as much MAC-like or as much LINUX-like as one wants, as it's simpler than mac and deeper than linux.

nodoubt73 on 4/8/07 7:19AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

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

Search the archives

Today's featured article

Of C Libraries and RISC OS
Unixlib versus the World

14 comments, latest by mrchocky on 21/1/05 3:23PM. Published: 3 Jan 2005

Random article

Frobnicate returns
Rick Murray's opinionated e-zine is back

17 comments, latest by NoMercy on 13/3/04 7:43PM. Published: 9 Mar 2004

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
"'Public interest' is what tabloids use to trot out all sorts of tat. It's turned into a meaningless term meaning 'I'm just trying to be sensationalist'"
Page generated in 0.107 seconds.