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: "
