The RO situation once again looks bleak. I haven't been around for most of the last 10 days, but on re-entering the RO universe, I find that one of its last real-world users is jumping ship and its only serious developer of major new applications is taking time out.
FF2 keep me on board when I was considering quitting before Xmas, but now that it is to remain a work in progress, without full functionality being added (bookmarking, save page etc), it looks as if once again I'll have to consider selling the Iyonix on eBay and buying a cheaper and more capable machine at PC World with the proceeds.
So one last effort. It seems that what we lack is mechanism to link users (ie non-programmers) who want to support continued development with developers who might want to do it (given the market doesn't do it).
I have no obvious answer, but in the spirit of "think not what Risc OS can do for you, but what you can do for Risc OS", here's what I am willing to do to support continued development:
1) Fund small but significant developments by donation (up to a couple of hundred quid, say), if they provide me with useful additional functionality - along with other users if more, but not massively more, costly.
2) Underwrite more significant work (with others) so it takes some of the risk off developers on larger projects.
3) Invest in a more conventional commercial fashion on larger developments, subject to a reasonable business model.
4) Input whatever I can to projects in terms of user requirements, testing, documentation, promotion and support.
I have no time, inclination (or talent) to get involved in programming per se.
Naturally I'm interested in supporting things which are useful to me (though I'm willing to support other applications important to the platform but not much use to me - eg Artworks).
They must also work on the Iyonix, because that's what I use, but most applications software works or can be made to work across hardware platforms.
Here's what I would be interested in supporting, in descending level of importance. I presume others would be similarly interested, if with different priorities.
1) Adding the missing functionality to FF2 (bookmarking, save page, cut and save text, printing directly or indirectly, at a minimum - being able to display a £ sign would be nice too and being able to recognise a Shoutcast file and stream it).
2) Work on plug-ins, particularly a Realplayer using the freely available sources at https://helixcommunity.org/ (Realplayer in UK tell me this is the way to develop a player on a minority platform).
3) Continued development of Arm (particularly Iyonix) Linux - one way of providing missing applications on the same machine. (Porting would be better but ...)
4) A driver for an internal modem in the Iyonix - not bothered what the modem is, but desk space and sockets are at a premium here.
5) An updated PIM ... Thunderbird looks (looked?) interesting, but interfacing/integrating Messenger and Organizer would be an option too.
6) A multi-media front end that integrates the capabilities we already have - Stream (internet radio), Amplayer, Music Man, ROTunes, spc (podcasting), Digital CD, DVD-Burn are all there, but using them (Music Man excepted) is not always intuitive or user-friendly, particularly when transferring from one medium to another.
7) Voip.
8) Webcam application.
How to get from A to B ... well obviously it depends on people being willing to sign up either to do the work or support it. (A private email if this is too public?). Perhaps then an email group or a website to float project proposals - either developers seeking backers or users wanting particular applications.
I know each one involves major problems, but if, in the spirit of Netsurf, we can form small teams of collaborators (developers and supporters), maybe we can progress on at least some of them.
Worth a try ...
Nigel
(Off to watch the football now - another case of hope over experience!)
This one item I think would be a complete waste of time. To use VoIP on any computer requires the said computer to remain on all the time - otherwise calls cannot be made or received. Instead, and for less than twenty quid, you can get a dedicated VoIP telephone adaptor, where you just plug in any normal phone and an ethernet wire. Always on, always available and much simpler to use! If you're about to replace/upgrade your ADSL Modem anyway, then get one with VoIP capability. It gives you the same facility (i.e. an 'always on' actual telephone) and will also give the VoIP line priority over the connection's bandwidth.
I can't see any advantage whatever for having a software phone on any computer, be it Windows, RISC OS or anything else!
In message <81d7b8c84e.Ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> Nigel Willmott <nwillm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The RO situation once again looks bleak. I haven't been around for > most of the last 10 days, but on re-entering the RO universe, I find > that one of its last real-world users is jumping ship and its only > serious developer of major new applications is taking time out.
But I said that almost seven years ago in mid-2000, and RISC OS is in no more or less trouble now than it was then. As I recall the Phoebe crisis was back then, and then there was Acorn disappearing entirely, and so on . . . I suspect you (and I, and others) may be worrying needlessly. An OS that is still 'dying' seven years after I (and many others) said it was dying can't really be as sick as all that. Were I to make another similar post today, I'd give it another five years just as I did in 2000. and once again I'd be absolutely delighted to come back and have to eat my words sometime around 2015.
RISC OS /is/ only - well mostly - a minority or hobbyist OS, but I really don't think any the less of it for that. I say, keep your expectations realistic, contribute where you can, and enjoy using the OS as long as it's available. That's all I'm doing. And given that I don't make unreasonable demands of it, its reliability, consistency, ease of use etc. have repaid me manyfold. What more can one ask?
<snip suggestions and wish list>
-- Simon Smith
When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web site at http://www.simon-smith.org
In message <81d7b8c84e.Ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> Nigel Willmott <nwillm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> So one last effort. It seems that what we lack is mechanism to link > users (ie non-programmers) who want to support continued development > with developers who might want to do it (given the market doesn't do > it).
[snip]
Nigel,
You may wish to contact Graham Shaw, of RISC Packaging fame who may give you some interesting information.
I totally agree with what you say in that what is required is a sort of "Select" for Apps only with a more of an input from the users in what should be done and some sort of guiding hand(s) to get development going and completed.
There are some of us in the MUG user group who might also be interested in seeing what we could do.
Doug
-- Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative operating system to Microsoft Windows.
> > So one last effort. It seems that what we lack is mechanism to link > > users (ie non-programmers) who want to support continued development > > with developers who might want to do it (given the market doesn't do > > it). > [snip] > Nigel, > You may wish to contact Graham Shaw, of RISC Packaging fame who may > give you some interesting information.
And if Nigel does perhaps he could let us all know what Graham has to say rather than us all bombarding him - I'm sure many would be interested.
In article <81d7b8c84e.Ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Nigel Willmott <nwillm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The RO situation once again looks bleak. I haven't been around for > most of the last 10 days, but on re-entering the RO universe, I find > that one of its last real-world users is jumping ship and its only > serious developer of major new applications is taking time out.
[Snip]
> So one last effort. It seems that what we lack is mechanism to link > users (ie non-programmers) who want to support continued development > with developers who might want to do it (given the market doesn't do > it).
[Snip]
> I have no time, inclination (or talent) to get involved in programming > per se. > Naturally I'm interested in supporting things which are useful to me > (though I'm willing to support other applications important to the > platform but not much use to me - eg Artworks).
[Snip]
> Worth a try ...
I agree. Not necessarily with all your priorities but many of them and some of your solutions. I have the impression that RO is rapidly becoming a hobbyist niche - the equivalent of model train enthusiasm with all that implies with its obsession with the correctness of company liveries and its disregard of the world outside the model area. I actually like using my RO machines and I would very much like to continue doing so without having to worry my head with the (to me) arcane niceties of programming issues.
> > The RO situation once again looks bleak. I haven't been around for > > most of the last 10 days, but on re-entering the RO universe, I > > find that one of its last real-world users is jumping ship and its > > only serious developer of major new applications is taking time > > out. > Yes, that's just what I said here: > http://www.dunx.org/cgi-bin/forum?forum=game00009&bookmark=20000509:0... > (link should all be on one line) > But I said that almost seven years ago in mid-2000, and RISC OS is in > no more or less trouble now than it was then. As I recall the Phoebe > crisis was back then, and then there was Acorn disappearing entirely, > and so on . . . I suspect you (and I, and others) may be worrying > needlessly. An OS that is still 'dying' seven years after I (and many > others) said it was dying can't really be as sick as all that. Were I > to make another similar post today, I'd give it another five years > just as I did in 2000. and once again I'd be absolutely delighted to > come back and have to eat my words sometime around 2015.
Yebbut... I bet the number of users is no more than half of what it was when you said it.
> RISC OS /is/ only - well mostly - a minority or hobbyist OS, but I > really don't think any the less of it for that. I say, keep your > expectations realistic, contribute where you can, and enjoy using the > OS as long as it's available. That's all I'm doing. And given that I > don't make unreasonable demands of it, its reliability, consistency, > ease of use etc. have repaid me manyfold. What more can one ask?
The GUI is wonderful; the co-operative multitasking & modular design is wonderful; BASIC with embedded m/c should be (and used to be) the bees knees; the window back button and 3-button mouse system is pure ecstasy (for non-fingerlarly challenged folks); the non-standard, slothly slow hardware sucks molasses through a hollow microfibre.
Without apps, the platform says nothing to the general user; and without an economic speed, even apps might well wonder what they're supposed to be doing.
On 24 Mar, Alan Calder wrote in message <4ec8cec754alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk>:
> I agree. Not necessarily with all your priorities but many of them and > some of your solutions. I have the impression that RO is rapidly > becoming a hobbyist niche - the equivalent of model train enthusiasm > with all that implies with its obsession with the correctness of company > liveries and its disregard of the world outside the model area. I > actually like using my RO machines and I would very much like to > continue doing so without having to worry my head with the (to me) > arcane niceties of programming issues.
The problem is, you don't get any new software without /someone/ worrying about the "arcane niceties of programming issues".
While I'm not even going to try and defend what has been said in the most recent Firefox spat, there does seem to be a worrying trend towards the users attacking those at the sharp end when the awkward realities of RISC OS software development are pointed out. If we're going to get anywhere, users have to realise that developers will have good reasons for indicating the way in which they wish development to proceed. That those reasons are technical doesn't make them any less valid.
Developers are not argumentative for the sake of it; if a request can be answered, it usually will be. But, users also *have* to accept replies that are more like "that's not practical" or "yes, but X and Y will have to be done first" without writing petulant posts to usenet claiming that developers don't live in the real world. This is especially true if the users don't wish to try and understand the "arcane niceties of programming issues" which constrain what can be done given the resources available and the best order in which to do it.
> One is that you can not only talk to someone, with webcams you can see > them and they can see you at the same time.
As I understand it, VoIP does not allow for cameras to be used. Skype - which does not follow the open VoIP protocols - have adapted the process to their own purposes, which includes web cams. MSN also allows voice and web cams, but that's not VoIP either!
By definition, VoIP cannot deal with anything other than voice!
Skype is a closed protocol, so it can't be developed by anyone but Skype themselves. We already have an MSN client for RISC OS - this would be the most sensible option to develop for web cam use, but that's different to VoIP!
As for 'cluttering the desk top with electronic gizmos', my VoIP adaptor is nobbut a large bulge in the wire - not what I would call 'clutter'! But I understand that some people like to consolidate their facilities in one unit. Personally, I like to use a phone for phone calls, just as I like to use a TV for watching telly. But I accept that some prefer to watch telly on a computer, or use 'the clutter :-)' of headsets etc to phone via a computer. Even accepting this, I don't see giving RISC OS a VoIP softphone is a priority. Developing the MSN client to use web cams, though, would be a helpful development!
In article <2b6ed3c84e.st...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
<n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote: > On 24 Mar, Alan Calder wrote in message > <4ec8cec754alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk>: > > I agree. Not necessarily with all your priorities but many of them > > and some of your solutions. I have the impression that RO is rapidly > > becoming a hobbyist niche - the equivalent of model train enthusiasm > > with all that implies with its obsession with the correctness of > > company liveries and its disregard of the world outside the model > > area. I actually like using my RO machines and I would very much like > > to continue doing so without having to worry my head with the (to me) > > arcane niceties of programming issues. > The problem is, you don't get any new software without /someone/ > worrying about the "arcane niceties of programming issues".
Sorry I din't express myself clearly. I understand that "/someone/ worrying about the "arcane niceties of programming issues" is essential but it for asking non-programmers to do so is a recipe for frustration and confusion. Transfer the idea to any other consumer item and you might see what I mean. Customer: "I have just bought this washing machine but it won't start. Can you help". John Lewis spokesperson: "I am sorry, unless you understand the problems with the UK electricity supply and are willing to work to get them fixed then we cannot help you. Furthermore, if you attempt attempt to get the machine to start on your own then we will invalidate your guarantee".
> While I'm not even going to try and defend what has been said in the > most recent Firefox spat, there does seem to be a worrying trend towards > the users attacking those at the sharp end when the awkward realities of > RISC OS software development are pointed out. If we're going to get > anywhere, users have to realise that developers will have good reasons > for indicating the way in which they wish development to proceed. That > those reasons are technical doesn't make them any less valid.
I've not seen signs of users attacking developers. What I have seen is frustration on the part of many of being asked to get involved in something they have no real understanding of. Many have been/are willing to help in the way they can be it by providing funds/being testers/ writing documentation but being asked to become software writers is just hopeless.
> Developers are not argumentative for the sake of it; if a request can be > answered, it usually will be. But, users also *have* to accept replies > that are more like "that's not practical" or "yes, but X and Y will have > to be done first" without writing petulant posts to usenet claiming that > developers don't live in the real world. This is especially true if the > users don't wish to try and understand the "arcane niceties of > programming issues" which constrain what can be done given the resources > available and the best order in which to do it.
Again I believe you have it the wrong way round. If I was a programmer I would be delighted to join in where I could. If I was a Mandarin speaker I would get a job in China etc. Yes, I could learn to program/Mandarin but life's short now - I have to get by with the phrasebook. Again, I have not seen 'petulant' posts but I have seen puzzled and frustrated posts from users, including myself, who cannot understand why their offers of help are brushed aside if they don't involve the writing of code.
In message <81d7b8c84e.Ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> Nigel Willmott <nwillm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip - someone else worried about RISC OS]
>I have no obvious answer, but in the spirit of "think not what Risc OS >can do for you, but what you can do for Risc OS", here's what I am >willing to do to support continued development:
>1) Fund small but significant developments by donation (up to a >couple of hundred quid, say), if they provide me with useful >additional functionality - along with other users if more, but not >massively more, costly.
> In message <81d7b8c84e.Ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> > Nigel Willmott <nwillm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip - someone else worried about RISC OS]
>>I have no obvious answer, but in the spirit of "think not what Risc OS >>can do for you, but what you can do for Risc OS", here's what I am >>willing to do to support continued development:
>>1) Fund small but significant developments by donation (up to a >>couple of hundred quid, say), if they provide me with useful >>additional functionality - along with other users if more, but not >>massively more, costly.
> I tried that with Select and even an A9home.
Think of Select as being that you donate and you have no say in what is put in to future Select versions. If on the other hand you had a more collective approach and those putting in to a fund directed what they want from a none programming point and offering funding for development then it could work. Of course some feedback from programmers would be required to ensure something was technically feasible but in essence the users become the the co-operative/group behind things rather than mere end users and recipients.
Now the funding could come day from a user group or the whole of the RISC OS user groups or from a purposely set up vehicle with a binding charter.
Equally non programmers can also assist by becoming "Development" enablers or contributing time to pull the required development together and assisting developers by providing testing and feedback or documentation etc.
All it needs is a willingness to do it and a little thought and we could have some developments going that not only filled the gaps in RISC Os but also enabled developers to get some reward for their contributions. This might also get around the obvious issue that we face in that developers most often develop something using their own time for free as it is something they either need or interests them. Some monetary reward might help a developer to donate their time on something other than this. Now the monatary gain is not going to be great but it might just help.
Doug
-- Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative operating system to Microsoft Windows.
In article <2b6ed3c84e.st...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> I'll get off my soapbox now.
Please don't. We *need* a dialogue between programmers and users. Normally that's facilitated by marketing people and lubricated with cash. If programmers want to explain what they know are the constraints on development, and users want to discuss their needs, then Qercus will be very happy to publish - moderated to remove any petulance. If it cannot be discussed on usenet without argument (and thank you Steve for avoiding it!) then we *can* use an alternative.
-- John Cartmell - editor AT qercus.com www.qercus.comwww.acornuser.com Qercus/Acorn User: reporting on computers & computing since 1982 Qercus/Acorn User, 30 Finnybank Rd Sale M33 6LR == 0845 006 8822
>In message <914305c94e.pitt...@pittdj.plus.com> > David Pitt <n...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <81d7b8c84e.Ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> >> Nigel Willmott <nwillm...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> [snip - someone else worried about RISC OS]
>>>I have no obvious answer, but in the spirit of "think not what Risc OS >>>can do for you, but what you can do for Risc OS", here's what I am >>>willing to do to support continued development:
>>>1) Fund small but significant developments by donation (up to a >>>couple of hundred quid, say), if they provide me with useful >>>additional functionality - along with other users if more, but not >>>massively more, costly.
>> I tried that with Select and even an A9home.
>Think of Select as being that you donate and you have no say in what >is put in to future Select versions.
That is not quite what I think of Select. Donate money yes. It does not matter whether one has any say in the output or not because there is no substantive output.
In message <2b6ed3c84e.st...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk> Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Mar, Alan Calder wrote in message > <4ec8cec754alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk>:
>> I actually like using my RO machines and I would very much like to >> continue doing so without having to worry my head with the (to me) >> arcane niceties of programming issues.
> The problem is, you don't get any new software without /someone/ worrying > about the "arcane niceties of programming issues".
Which is where people like me come in since a large part of my continued use of RISC OS is due to my enjoyment of those arcane niceties. But the money isn't there to sustain full-time development.
> In article <2b6ed3c84e.st...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt > <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 24 Mar, Alan Calder wrote in message > > <4ec8cec754alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk>:
> > > I agree. Not necessarily with all your priorities but many of them > > > and some of your solutions. I have the impression that RO is > > > rapidly becoming a hobbyist niche - the equivalent of model train > > > enthusiasm with all that implies with its obsession with the > > > correctness of company liveries and its disregard of the world > > > outside the model area. I actually like using my RO machines and I > > > would very much like to continue doing so without having to worry my > > > head with the (to me) arcane niceties of programming issues.
> > The problem is, you don't get any new software without /someone/ > > worrying about the "arcane niceties of programming issues".
> Sorry I din't express myself clearly. I understand that "/someone/ > worrying about the "arcane niceties of programming issues" is essential > but it for asking non-programmers to do so is a recipe for frustration > and confusion.
No-one is expecting users to fully understand the issues. However, I don't consider it unreasonable for users to understand that there /are/ issues which affect what gets developed, beyond the obvious "we want realplayer *now*, because we want to use the BBC website", even if they don't understand (or don't want to, or need to, understand) what those reasons actually are.
> Transfer the idea to any other consumer item and you might see what I > mean. Customer: "I have just bought this washing machine but it won't > start. Can you help". John Lewis spokesperson: "I am sorry, unless you > understand the problems with the UK electricity supply and are willing > to work to get them fixed then we cannot help you. Furthermore, if you > attempt attempt to get the machine to start on your own then we will > invalidate your guarantee".
There's a big difference here, though. If I buy a product from John Lewis, I expect it to be finished (or at least well supported).
But, when we're talking about *beta* software or software that's otherwise pre-release (eg. Firefox, NetSurf), the rules are a bit different. In this case, it has been released for others to test and fault-find; by its very nature, it isn't really a product for end users, unless they are happy to accept that things may be unfinished or may not work, and that they are on their own if anything goes wrong.
If such software works, fine; if it doesn't, walk away and come back when a new version is out or it's been fully released. This is similar to the approach used in the Linux world, where end users are specifically encouraged *not* to touch the most recent releases until they have been stabilised.
And in those circumstances, Peter's requests (although badly expressed and arrogantly followed up) that people don't report issues to him unless they know what they're doing, don't ask for help and don't provide hacks around known issues seem more reasonable. Bug reports of "it doesn't work" are next to useless, and reports based on systems which have been changed from that which the developer created (eg. by applying Paul V's patch) are totally meaningless. With lots of known problems, documenting them and providing help can be a complete non-starter.
This isn't just a Firefox issue, by the way. It affects (and I've seen it affect) several other pre-release RISC OS applications which Peter has no hand in. A few years ago, beta software would have been released to a select few experienced people to play with; these days, with a market the size it is, that ideal approach isn't practical any more.
> > While I'm not even going to try and defend what has been said in the > > most recent Firefox spat, there does seem to be a worrying trend > > towards the users attacking those at the sharp end when the awkward > > realities of RISC OS software development are pointed out. If we're > > going to get anywhere, users have to realise that developers will have > > good reasons for indicating the way in which they wish development to > > proceed. That those reasons are technical doesn't make them any less > > valid.
> I've not seen signs of users attacking developers. What I have seen is > frustration on the part of many of being asked to get involved in > something they have no real understanding of. Many have been/are > willing to help in the way they can be it by providing funds/being > testers/ writing documentation but being asked to become software > writers is just hopeless.
I have. Prior to the current (perhaps self-inflicted) abuse, Peter has received public complaints that he won't look at the plugins needed to view flash, Java and audio/video until the base Firefox is finished. I doubt that many of those complaining understand the reasons for the route being taken. He's also been villified on a few occasions for "losing focus" and releasing stuff like Thunderbird or simple X-Windows apps, despite the fact that I suspect these have simply 'fallen out' of the main development work he's doing with little or no additional effort required.
In parallel, I've seen a number of angry postings from users of NetSurf, when they have been asked to provide more detailed or more concise reports of problems. Again, a lack of understanding of what pre-release software is about is probably the cause. In the NetSurf case, it's worth noting that many issues are diffused precisely because, IIUC, they have a middle-man between developers and those testing/using the software, who has the time (because he isn't trying to write code) to explain issues in more detail and in a more accessible way.
> > Developers are not argumentative for the sake of it; if a request can > > be answered, it usually will be. But, users also *have* to accept > > replies that are more like "that's not practical" or "yes, but X and Y > > will have to be done first" without writing petulant posts to usenet > > claiming that developers don't live in the real world. This is > > especially true if the users don't wish to try and understand the > > "arcane niceties of programming issues" which constrain what can be > > done given the resources available and the best order in which to do > > it.
> Again I believe you have it the wrong way round. If I was a programmer I > would be delighted to join in where I could. If I was a Mandarin > speaker I would get a job in China etc. Yes, I could learn to > program/Mandarin but life's short now - I have to get by with the > phrasebook.
I repeat: no-one is expecting end users to become programmers. But, what /would/ be helpful is if users can accept that there may be constraints as to what can be developed (and in what order it can be done) which are not clear to them. I don't expect them to understand what those constraints are, but just to realise that developers don't always decide what to do next on a whim and a fancy.
If we can get just that across, I imagine that it would ease a lot of the current friction. Developers (generally) aren't being perverse for the hell of it: they're users too, and know what RISC OS needs (a lot of 'PD' developments start because the developer needs the software in question). But, they also have an idea (in some cases a very good idea) of what needs to be done in order to get there. Sadly, these days on RISC OS, the old adage of "I wouldn't start from here" often applies.
> Again, I have not seen 'petulant' posts but I have seen puzzled and > frustrated posts from users, including myself, who cannot understand why > their offers of help are brushed aside if they don't involve the writing > of code.
I don't believe they have. Peter has (inarticulately, it must be said) on many occasions offered ways for non-programmers to get involved: documentation, structured testing and packaging are but three possibilities.
Other developers (myself included) have asked for help with documentation and icon design on a number of occasions. I don't know about anyone else, but I've *never* received any signs that users are even remotely interested in the idea of helping with these.
If nothing else, maybe some people would like to offer to do "PR" for some of the other developers: becoming a point of contact for users and answering the 'easy' questions without bothering those doing the programming? I don't know if it would work, but it may be worth a try?
One thing to point out is this. Writing this post (and its predecessor), re-reading it to try and remove ambiguities, and then re-reading it again to check that I've been as clear as I can be, has taken a couple of hours all in. I had originally set this morning aside to do some work on IcnClipBrd, which badly needs a few tweaks and was due an updated release probably this week. That now hasn't been done, and is unlikely to be done any time soon as my RISC OS To Do list is quite big at present. Therefore, I don't think that it's too far fetched to say that trying to explain this has cost users an update to a piece of software. That isn't to blame Alan, but simply to try and illustrate that the demand for better communication does have consequences.
In article <4ec90a43dfalan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, Alan Calder
<alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote: > Again, I have not seen 'petulant' posts but I have seen puzzled and > frustrated posts from users, including myself, who cannot understand why > their offers of help are brushed aside if they don't involve the writing of > code.
The simplest help that end users can give is: 1. Say what they want. 2. Pay for it when it becomes available.
Developers who demand more are being unrealistic. End users who complain whilst being unwilling to do 1 & 2 are being unrealistic. End users who are willing to do more than 1 & 2 should be welcomed with open arms.
NB There is a number 3 that is especially important in the case of software provided free: say thanks and provide feedback that can help improve the product.
-- John Cartmell - editor AT qercus.com www.qercus.comwww.acornuser.com Qercus/Acorn User: reporting on computers & computing since 1982 Qercus/Acorn User, 30 Finnybank Rd Sale M33 6LR == 0845 006 8822
In message <4ec91ebb03edi...@qercus.com> Qercus editor <edi...@qercus.com> wrote:
> In article <4ec90a43dfalan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk>, Alan Calder > <alan_cal...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote: >> Again, I have not seen 'petulant' posts but I have seen puzzled and >> frustrated posts from users, including myself, who cannot understand why >> their offers of help are brushed aside if they don't involve the writing of >> code.
> The simplest help that end users can give is: > 1. Say what they want. > 2. Pay for it when it becomes available.
3. Be realistic and accept that there are some things they may want that are hopelessly uneconomic to provide.
> > The simplest help that end users can give is: > > 1. Say what they want. > > 2. Pay for it when it becomes available.
> 3. Be realistic and accept that there are some things they may want that are hopelessly uneconomic to provide.
Agreed. One might possibly add that sometimes unrealistic expectations are encouraged then when they aren't achieved people leave. Best approach is promise little and deliver more than that. The opposite of that has already done far too much damage to this platform.
In message <1174832545.915099.296...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Ams" <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:33 pm, Alan Wrigley > <spamha...@keepyourfilthyspamtoyourself.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > 3. Be realistic and accept that there are some things they may want that > > are hopelessly uneconomic to provide.
> Agreed. One might possibly add that sometimes unrealistic expectations > are encouraged then when they aren't achieved people leave. Best > approach is promise little and deliver more than that. The opposite > of that has already done far too much damage to this platform.
I think there is evidence that some companies are choosing the "promise little and try to deliver more" approach.
Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote: > There's a big difference here, though. If I buy a product from John > Lewis, I expect it to be finished (or at least well supported).
[snip]
Thanks, that's a good assessment of the situation.
Part of Peter's complaint (not tactfully put) is that sometimes user and developer actions can make things worse, not better, and this is where some sort of co-ordination is required. Look at the number of hard disc formatters we have - one for every disc interface. If someone had sat down and designed a formatter that could cope with multiple disc interfaces then it would make programmers' lives easier (as they didn't have to write and support a new one for a new interface) and also users' (because the formatter could format the latest drives on the oldest interfaces, and it would be maintained properly).
If you look at the Wikipedia model, small contributions from many people make a much better end result than large contributions from a few - and this is something we might aim to follow. http://www.riscos.info/ is the most obvious way that follows from this: it's a collaboratively developed resource, not Peter's personal website. For example, look at the following pages:
I bet many people here could add to those straightaway - that's the idea. It takes a few minutes to add some content, and then it's available for everyone. By writing a tutorial, say, you help other people use their time more efficiently and so things can progress more quickly. But also the advantage of the collaborative process is that it's easy to expand the tutorial - even just correcting the spelling mistakes is easy. Look at the edits for this tutorial, and see how it's grown over time: http://www.riscos.info/index.php?title=Using_GCCSDK&action=history (click on a date for the tutorial as it was then).
There are other ways in which small contributions from many can join to create a much larger whole. This is better than only financial contributions, because developer time is an expensive resource (so we can only afford a little) but contributor time isn't.
I think everyone agrees that we have very limited manpower in all sorts of areas. The idea is to suggest that it's targeted better, while accepting that people only have certain skills and do what they're interested in.
In message <Hfu*N0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> If you look at the Wikipedia model, small contributions from many people > make a much better end result than large contributions from a few - and > this is something we might aim to follow. http://www.riscos.info/ is the > most obvious way that follows from this: it's a collaboratively developed > resource, not Peter's personal website. For example, look at the following > pages:
> I bet many people here could add to those straightaway - that's the idea.
Thanks for pointing that one out. I've now done my bit and added the entries which were previously only available from my web site.
It was also refreshing to be able to use a WIKI that works under RISC OS (Netsurf), although some of the copy / paste behaviour was a little strange and I had to leave plenty of room either side when pasting to make sure it didn't mess with the previous material.
In article <732ec1c84e.Jer...@pressxpress.co.uk>, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
> I can't see any advantage whatever for having a software phone on any > computer, be it Windows, RISC OS or anything else!
I've got to agree with that one. Strictly speaking, te transmission and reception of real time voice traffic has been possible on computers with access to sufficient bandwidth and the necessary sound bits for many years now, regardless of OS. The trick is to get it away from the computer, and the various folk making the kit are getting there now and at a price that brings it within reach of the ordinary farty.
-- //\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk> // \// "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"
|
