Spriteman (-1.0)
13/9/03 7:34PM |
This dual lines of development of RISC OS is just such a nonsense.
--
Spriteman. |
The Doctor
13/9/03 8:27PM |
Personally I feel that ROL really have got to get it together with Castle.
If ROL do make thier own 32bit OS, who is going to build a machine to use it?
Cheers! |
Spriteman
13/9/03 8:50PM |
Doc:
Well, the answer to that is easy. Acorn made the machines that most of these copies of RISC OS will run on. The Omega, Alpha and other VA computers will make up the rest.
--
Spriteman. |
jlavallin
13/9/03 8:53PM |
From this I take it that a 32 bit OS is Omega only, when it manages to get its Xscale working.
The future is not all sweetness and light then...
|
mrchocky
13/9/03 9:10PM |
In reply to jlav:
...based upon what? A 32-bit OS will work find on any ARM6+ machine, given suitable hardware support. This has been explained many times.
--
Peter, drobe.co.uk |
Smiler (-0.5)
13/9/03 9:31PM |
Perhaps a merger would be a good idea? Castle RISC OS Technologies Ltd? At least then they own RISC OS and can develop as a single unit and all the money from RISC OS sales will go towards RISC OS development. It wouldn't be split as it is now.
--
Smiler - 
Alex Melhuish |
russebay (-1.0)
13/9/03 10:00PM |
How about Castle buy 50,000 ROS Ltd shares. What sort of stakeholding would that give them? |
JWCR (-1.0)
13/9/03 10:19PM |
I can almost imagine the "Monty Python" character marching into the AGM at the mention of ROL developing a 32bit RISC OS, and demanding that the sketch be stopped right there, because it is too silly.
It is time that RISCOS Ltd admitted that it had served its useful purpose of keeping the OS alive, and gracefully merged with Castle.
--
Keep Flying |
john (-1.0)
13/9/03 11:23PM |
Since most of the kernel is written in C it should only be a simple recompile to get it working for 32 bit? They should open source it really.
On a serious note(!), it is good news that they're seriously considering 32 bit RO, it would make an iyonix a whole lot more appealing. Merging Castle and ROL isn't really going to magically merge their version of RISC OS. They still have 26 bit select and 32bit RO5. I think when ROL get their 32 bit select/whatever finished things will become more unified.
However, all IMHO, and best of luck to them.
--
http://www.duffell.riscos.me.uk/ |
Grek1 (-1.5)
13/9/03 11:34PM |
Last I heard, was that around 50% of RISCOS is assembler. |
md0u80c9
14/9/03 12:51AM |
In reply to Grek1:
and I bet the same person told you that 56.7% of all statistics are made up  .
Smiler - that merger company you mention would be a CaRTeL?
OK - general point. Select and RISC OS 5 are very different, particularly in terms of base-level stuff like the kernel and Wimp, so the development of Select on an Iyonix /does/ involve an almost complete replacement of RISC OS 5 in any case; I see this as non-news from what has been said previously and I'm surprised that everyone else does.
--
Andrew Hill, |
timephoenix
14/9/03 1:03AM |
Perhaps Castle might decide to sell RISC OS 5+ for their own machines exclusively, and let ROL sell their own 32-bit versions for the rest of us (MD and RS users). It's not the perfect scenario but some competition between the companies might benefit the OS eventually. |
Grek1
14/9/03 1:10AM |
In reply to Andrew:
The 'person' is the annual report from RISCOS Ltd. 2002.
It says: 46% of the source code is written in C
44% in assembler
10% in BASIC. |
ksattic
14/9/03 3:50AM |
If RISCOS Ltd pursue their own version of 32 bit RISC OS, then I can only hope we don't have the situation where some software requires two different versions or hacks to run on both OSs. I would like to hear ROL's reasoning.
Perhaps they would like a 32 bit OS for the RiscPC, but so many people have stated that it would be pointless. Is there any truth behind this?
--
Simon Wilson, Boulder, Colorado |
simo
14/9/03 7:06AM |
Is it possible that Castle developed/bought 32-Bit RO5 just to have an OS for the Iyonix, whilst they wait for a "proper" version from ROL?
I do think that Castle should buy the 50k shares and work with ROL to merge RISC OS 5/4+, even if we don't really need a 32-Bit RISC OS, we do need a centralised OS again.
--
C'mon, mod me down, PUNK! |
md0u80c9
14/9/03 10:11AM |
In reply to Grek1:
Still curious how that figure would be calculated. And I suspect it's now well out of date, too, given the amount of work that's gone into Select 3 (and 2?) since those figures were published. Also doesn't allow for how much of that is 26/32 neutral assembler, and how much is 26 only.
I wasn't saying /you/ made the figure up - but statistics are incredibly misleading :o(.
--
Andrew Hill, |
arawnsley
14/9/03 10:43AM |
Surely the most interesting announcement was confirmation of "Select on ROM". Many people have wanted this for some time, and it is good to hear it announced. From a developer perspective, it should make it much easier to support a baseline Select OS  |
rick11
14/9/03 10:45AM |
It is clear that ROL has expressed the wish of staying independent. I even read some form of challenging Castle in it.
I find it suprisingly that some people are actually speculating on Castle buying the 50.000 shares, since ROL can decide to sell it only to the companies or individuals which it wants to.
One burning question pops up reading this story : What did Castle actually acquire when it bought risc os?
Another question : Since it is unclear what Castle bought how about that story that Ro 5 didnt had the proper licence/ contracts ? Is that settled with the acquisition of RISC OS ?
IMHO both Castle and ROL need to inform the public better. This looks like a grand scale split up in the RISC OS market in two different 32 bit Oses. Not something where anyone of us is waiting or hoping for....i hope.
Still there is too much left in the dark.....
regards,
Rick
|
skeeter (-1.5)
14/9/03 11:04AM |
Just a thought... with the acquisition of RISC OS, Castle Technology own 19.9% of RISC OS Limited anyway. Why would they wish to buy another 50,000 shares when the money (from their business perspective) could perhaps be better invested elsewhere?
50,000 lots of 1.25 is £62,500 - Castle Technology Limited do not need to own RISC OS Limited, they own the source product of RISC OS Limited (RISC OS itself).
It'll be interesting to see what developments occur anyway. |
AndrewDuffell (+1.5)
14/9/03 12:44PM |
It is perfectly legal to trade at a loss (many companys make a loss in the short run). As long as they make money in the long run it is OK. |
moss
14/9/03 12:54PM |
Trading at a loss illegal? Hardly any companies would start up if that was the case... |
dgs (-1.0)
14/9/03 1:39PM |
Rick said "This looks like a grand scale split up in the RISC OS market in two different 32 bit OSes".
I would say that's putting it rather strongly, given that (as far as we know) the fully 32-bit RISC OS 4/Select from ROL doesn't actually exist yet. The words Peter used in his article were "still considering pursuing" - much like ROL are "still considering pursuing" the RON project, if the funding and interest is forthcoming from elsewhere.
Most of the comments here seem to be re-writing "still considering pursuing" as "preparing to release".
dgs |
mrchocky
14/9/03 2:27PM |
In reply to cynic:
"detailed" was probably the wrong word. "extensive" would have been better. I expect the report will detail precisely as much as it needs to, but unlike last year's, leave out lots of background detail.
--
Peter, drobe.co.uk |
AMS (+1.5)
14/9/03 2:35PM |
In reply to Rick11:
I quote from the Pace press announcement (issued it June 2003) it says "Castle Technology Ltd today announced the purchase of the RISC OS technology from Pace Micro Technology plc. The transaction involves the payment of an undisclosed cash sum, ongoing technical support for Pace's existing products and the grant of a licence back to Pace for intellectual property rights"
So in effect CTL bought RISC OS off Pace and then they [CASTLE] granted Pace back an IP license to use RISC OS in their products.
It's pretty unambiguous, Castle own RISC OS. Where Pace were the owner Castle now are, Pace have a license from Castle. RISCOS Ltd have a four year license (which if I am correct should expire in October 2003). Presumably Castle will simply renegotiate the license with ROL for them (ROL) to continue to use it.
As to E-14 didn't they sell the rights to Pace first under the condition that ROL were granted rights to develope RISC OS for the desktop (by Pace) while Pace would do likewise for settop boxes (and the like).
As to the Select stuff any new stuff RISCOS Ltd has done would be theirs, but as that is a small part of the OS, and as the OS will work without it it is small beer and nothing to worry about. I also remember that under the old license weren't Pace (now Castle) allowed to use anything ROL produced, would that still be the case - I think so.
If ROL had sense they'd make (at least some) parts of Select work with RO5. This would be more beneficial than simply supporting emulators whose major effect is to boost the sales of Windows XP I would have thought.
Regards
--
Annraoi |
cynic
14/9/03 2:57PM |
Reply to moss & mrchocky
Trading at a loss may be acceptable if the company can show that it reasonably expects to turn the situation around - otherwise the company is heading to insolvency. It is illegal, so far as I understand it, to run up company debt with no prospect of heading back into profitability. Just what has been paying the MD's salary for so long?
ROL goes through something like 70k a year with a large operational loss (nearly 20k). Can the sale of VA products and Select ROMS make this up? |
Revin Kevin
14/9/03 3:26PM |
Reply to cynic
The trading at a loss is not the problem with regards to the law, what is the prblem is when about to go into bankrupcy is to order things which you know you cannot pay back.
As for MD they do not just make computers.
--
British by birth English by the Grace of God.
http://kevsoft.topctiies.com |
mrchocky
14/9/03 3:38PM |
In reply to cynic:
actually, I made no mention of the state of ROL's finanical affairs. It's worth pointing that MD is a different type of company, and it does not have the same obligations wrt to its reporting.
In reply to AMS:
I don't belive you've read my article fully. ROL's Select developments belong to ROL.
--
Peter, drobe.co.uk |
apdl
14/9/03 3:53PM |
Paul that's not the only thing AMS hasn't read properly.
Just about every point he made is wrong - but then he isn't privvy to RISCOS Ltd's licence, nor does he know anything about the deal between Pace and CTL, so how could it be anything but speculation based upon rumours and other people's speculation? |
rick11
14/9/03 4:09PM |
In reply to Annraoi:
If the license expires next october it is up to Castle to renew it or not. So if this is true what you are writing then the "move" made by ROL seems to be a pretty dangerous one.
It doesnt add anything to keeping a good relation with Castle.
It all seems to me something like a political statement to get Castle back to the table. A sort of: " We can do it without you".
Lets hope its all politics...
Regards,
Rick
|
| 2 comment(s) are below your moderation threshold. Login to view them. |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
