> ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS > ==================================
How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and filetypes remain the same?
TTFN
Paul -- Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
On 2 Mar 2007 "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS > > ==================================
> How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer > now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't > that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and > filetypes remain the same?
Castle own the head licence, therefor they are the authority for allocations. Whether ROL take any notice is another matter. But while they aren't releasing anything, theres not much point in bothering about them.
On 2-Mar-2007, "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> > ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS > > ==================================
> How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer > now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't > that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and > filetypes remain the same?
RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and to ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always been handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
Unfortunately, after many years of performing this valuable service this person was no longer able to continue with this important work and this seems to have precipitated this action.
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:15:35 +0000, David Holden wrote: > RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn > previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and to > ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always been > handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
Alan Glover was hardly completely independent - he was on Acorn's payroll for quite some time. As for the other assertion, I have no experience, but know many who do...
In article <pan.2007.03.02.11.26.01.208...@rjek.com>, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:15:35 +0000, David Holden wrote: > > RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn > > previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and > > to ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always > > been handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party. > Alan Glover was hardly completely independent - he was on Acorn's payroll > for quite some time. As for the other assertion, I have no experience, > but know many who do...
Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him properly. It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
> On 2-Mar-2007, "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> > ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS >> > ==================================
>> How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a developer >> now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) and won't >> that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI chunks and >> filetypes remain the same?
> RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn > previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and to > ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always been > handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
> Unfortunately, after many years of performing this valuable service this > person was no longer able to continue with this important work and this > seems to have precipitated this action.
RISCOS Ltd took over the allocations themselves in 2001. Press release 09/08/2001 refers. According to that press release the work had been previously undertaken by Pineapple Software.
In message <fc2e44bd4e.b...@orpheusnet.co.uk> Adrian Crafer <acra...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <54q18nF21g60...@mid.individual.net> > David Holden <black_h...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>> RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn >> previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and to >> ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always been >> handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party.
>> Unfortunately, after many years of performing this valuable service this >> person was no longer able to continue with this important work and this >> seems to have precipitated this action.
> RISCOS Ltd took over the allocations themselves in 2001. Press release > 09/08/2001 refers. According to that press release the work had been > previously undertaken by Pineapple Software.
Yes, this is what their press release says, but nevertheless what David wrote above is true: Up to now, RISCOS Ltd have only acted as a front-end (in parallel with Castle) and it has always been Alan Glover of Pineapple Software who did the work.
Martin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/ ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier spamt...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
In message <4ebd412d6aj...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him properly. > It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and > seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to feel sure > that their work will remain confidential until they are ready for release. > Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and groups. It rules > out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
John,
I understand your logic but it needn't rule out Castle or ROOL. In my company we have interact with areas we need information from and some is restricted as long as the person/team doing it have some rules/checks in place to ensure confidentiality then this is not an issue. Bit like directors of ROL who may also have involvement with other companies, it's not an issue as long as auditable separation is in place.
Doug -- Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative operating system to Microsoft Windows.
<acra...@orpheusmail.co.uk> wrote: > In message <54q18nF21g60...@mid.individual.net> David Holden > <black_h...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 2-Mar-2007, "Paul F. Johnson" <p...@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> > ROOL TO HANDLE RISC OS ALLOCATIONS ==================================
> >> How does this fit in with allocations handled by ROS Ltd? Does a > >> developer now have to request from both ROS Ltd (OS4/6) and ROOL (OS 5) > >> and won't that make it a bitch ensuring that the same allocations of SWI > >> chunks and filetypes remain the same?
> > RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn > > previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and > > to ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always > > been handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party. > > Unfortunately, after many years of performing this valuable service this > > person was no longer able to continue with this important work and this > > seems to have precipitated this action. > RISCOS Ltd took over the allocations themselves in 2001. Press release > 09/08/2001 refers. According to that press release the work had been > previously undertaken by Pineapple Software.
As I understood it RISCOS Ltd took over *responsibility* for the allocations from Pineapple but continued to direct them to Allan Glover for processing and to keep them at arm's length. If Allan has given up the job then it's the responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find another neutral administrator.
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
In message <4ebd47d321j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As I understood it RISCOS Ltd took over *responsibility* for the > allocations from Pineapple but continued to direct them to Allan > Glover for processing and to keep them at arm's length. If Allan has > given up the job then it's the responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find > another neutral administrator.
It does not really matter what you or I think about who should find another administrator. The point is that only the person with the master records can do the job. Up to now, Alan (note the spelling) held them. If what you write is true and RISCOS Ltd were solely responsible then Alan will of course send the master records to RISCOS Ltd and your will will be done.
As it happens I do not think your above assessment is true. I see very little point in discussing which view is correct, but fortunately we do not have to because all we need to do is wait and see where the master records end up. From what you wrote I suppose you were happy with Alan doing the job up to now and you agree that he is impartial, so I am confident that you will also be happy with whomever Alan chooses to send the master records to.
Martin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/ ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier spamt...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
<doug.j.w...@btinternet.com> wrote: > In message <4ebd412d6aj...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell > <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: > [snip] > > Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him > > properly. It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is > > accepted and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers > > need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are > > ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a number of > > people and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL. > I understand your logic but it needn't rule out Castle or ROOL. In my > company we have interact with areas we need information from and some is > restricted as long as the person/team doing it have some rules/checks in > place to ensure confidentiality then this is not an issue. Bit like > directors of ROL who may also have involvement with other companies, it's > not an issue as long as auditable separation is in place.
It's not about being independent but being seen to be so by all the individual developers. I'd hope that RISC OS Ltd find a truly independent individual to replace Alan.
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
In message <4ebd505986j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> It's not about being independent but being seen to be so by all the individual > developers. I'd hope that RISC OS Ltd find a truly independent individual to > replace Alan.
John
Well it could get even more confusing if RISCOS Ltd decide they don't want to use ROOL and go there own way and then you have two groups doing the allocations and that isn't satisfactory.
As I said you can have transparency and confidence as long as you set up the correct framework and controls. Lots of companies and organisations do it every day. The company I work for has parts of it doing work for our very own competitors in the markets we are in, so I can't see anything wrong in what is proposed.
Doug
-- Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative operating system to Microsoft Windows.
On 2 Mar 2007 John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him > properly. It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is > accepted and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers > need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential until they are > ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out a number of people > and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
As someone who has never written an application, and never used the registration service how can you possibly feel qualified to comment on this subject?
The registration system is run on a first come first served basis for application, module and SWI names, and numbers are allocated from a pool which far from exhaustion. There has never been any allegation of partisan behaviour, that you now feel you have to insinuate.
How about this radical idea; if you know nothing about the subject, shut up.
> In message <4ebd47d321j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> > John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > As I understood it RISCOS Ltd took over *responsibility* for the > > allocations from Pineapple but continued to direct them to Allan > > Glover for processing and to keep them at arm's length. If Allan has > > given up the job then it's the responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find > > another neutral administrator.
> It does not really matter what you or I think about who should find > another administrator. The point is that only the person with the > master records can do the job. Up to now, Alan (note the spelling) held > them. If what you write is true and RISCOS Ltd were solely responsible > then Alan will of course send the master records to RISCOS Ltd and your > will will be done.
> As it happens I do not think your above assessment is true. I see very > little point in discussing which view is correct, but fortunately we do > not have to because all we need to do is wait and see where the master > records end up. From what you wrote I suppose you were happy with Alan > doing the job up to now and you agree that he is impartial, so I am > confident that you will also be happy with whomever Alan chooses to > send the master records to.
Also, this is *not* an area for yet more of the yah-boo-sucks style of politics which seems to be favoured by certain posters around here. There can only be one set of master records, and if we ended up with two sets of data because ROL weren't prepared to accept ROOL or vice versa, things would descend into chaos.
It looks as if a decision has been made. Let's wait and see what comes out of it, and then get on board, shall we?
> It looks as if a decision has been made. Let's wait and see what comes > out of it, and then get on board, shall we?
It seems as if there is at least one around who feels slighted that he wasn't consulted ;)
Whereas everyone else knows he has no authority or knowledge on this (or any other) subject, he does, as usual, have to insert his usual bent 2p into a well oiled system that otherwise works.
On 2 Mar, 12:09, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:15:35 +0000, David Holden wrote: > > > RISCOS Ltd have never handled allocations themselves. Because, like Acorn > > > previously, they realised the highly confidential nature of this work and > > > to ensure that developers have confidence in the process it has always > > > been handled by a completely independent and unbiased third party. > Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him properly. > It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who is accepted and > seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. Developers need to feel sure > that their work will remain confidential until they are ready for release. > Without any criticism that rules out a number of people and groups. It rules > out Castle and it rules out ROOL.
Castle and ROL both seem happy with ROOL taking over for Alan.
In article <gemini.jearpw0091w2l01js....@magray.freeserve.co.uk>, Ray
Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > It looks as if a decision has been made. Let's wait and see what > > comes out of it, and then get on board, shall we?
> It seems as if there is at least one around who feels slighted that > he wasn't consulted ;) > Whereas everyone else knows he has no authority or knowledge on this > (or any other) subject, he does, as usual, have to insert his usual > bent 2p into a well oiled system that otherwise works.
> > Castle and ROL both seem happy with ROOL taking over for Alan. > That's immaterial. What's important is that JC is happy with it. > After all, he is the 'power of the press' and could make life very > difficult if he wasn't personally consulted ;-)
Or perhaps just lying down in a darkened room for a short while?
On 3 Mar, diodesign wrote in message <1172916158.532895.187...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> On 2 Mar, 12:09, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Alan has had a thankless task - and it's about time we thanked him > > properly. It is critical that allocations are handled by someone who > > is accepted and seen by everyone to be independent and unbiased. > > Developers need to feel sure that their work will remain confidential > > until they are ready for release. Without any criticism that rules out > > a number of people and groups. It rules out Castle and it rules out > > ROOL.
> Castle and ROL both seem happy with ROOL taking over for Alan.
Hmm. Given that John Cartmell has also said that "it's the responsibility of RISCOS Ltd to find another neutral administrator," I look forward to him now retracting that statement about ROOL. It looks as if ROOL, despite the views of one magazine editor who admits to having no practical experience of developing RISC OS software, are the preferred people to handle allocations in the opinion of both major OS developers.
Since it looks as if both key parties are happy with the new arrangements, let's let the developers get on with their jobs and stop using this as yet another excuse to snipe from the sidelines. Or is that too sensible an idea?
On Mar 3, 10:53 am, Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> Since it looks as if both key parties are happy with the new arrangements, > let's let the developers get on with their jobs and stop using this as yet > another excuse to snipe from the sidelines. Or is that too sensible an > idea?
Well said Steve. As a RISCOS Ltd director I am happy to confirm that RISCOS Ltd are more than happy with ROOL taking over the allocations on a trial basis.
So strangely, as Paul Vigay said, "nothing to see here", and you know what, he was right.
In article <1172921264.674659.80...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Aaron
<atimbr...@aol.com> wrote: > ROOL taking over the allocations on a trial basis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No doubt some sharp-eyed journalist will pounce on that.
The press release makes no mention of it being a trial.
-- * Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php * Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk * (t...@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)
... "A contract of eternal bond of love confirm'd by mutual joinder of hands" Twelfth N, Act v, Sc.1
In article <4ebdc8ca61...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <1172921264.674659.80...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Aaron > <atimbr...@aol.com> wrote: > > ROOL taking over the allocations on a trial basis. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > No doubt some sharp-eyed journalist will pounce on that. > The press release makes no mention of it being a trial.
Presumably they didn't mean to and it was merely a slip of the tongue/finger on Aarons part signifying only that he and others won't know how well it will work until a little time has passed. Indeed I dare say ROOL don't know how much or little effort it will require until they have done it for a while.
Anyway, is anything happening that could cause the world to end?
|
