On Apr 10, 2:00 pm, Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> Vista itself doesn't work properly.
Depending on how you define "properly", nor does any Operating System ever developed, including RISC OS. Vista has its good points and its bad points; what's new?
> Vista's enhanced security is a serious pain in the arse, and > the only thing it does is hinder the interface between the user > of the machine and the machine.
The scourge of spam email and malware, from which everybody suffers, is to no small degree because of security weaknesses in Windows. If you've disabled Vista's enhanced security features I trust you never connect the machine to the internet!
In article <c3d98098-2e4e-4410-8f82-923fdf26a...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Richard Russell <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2:00 pm, Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote: > > Vista itself doesn't work properly. > Depending on how you define "properly", nor does any Operating System > ever developed, including RISC OS. Vista has its good points and its > bad points; what's new? > > Vista's enhanced security is a serious pain in the arse, and > > the only thing it does is hinder the interface between the user > > of the machine and the machine. > The scourge of spam email and malware, from which everybody suffers, > is to no small degree because of security weaknesses in Windows. If > you've disabled Vista's enhanced security features I trust you never > connect the machine to the internet! > Richard.
Of course I connect the accursed thing to the internet, I have a fire wall active, Antivirus, Malware monitor, and it connects through a Nat enabled Router. All are of my choice, and if I did so desire it, or was foolish enough, I could switch any or all of them off... A Choice, and It's mine.
I don't require a F***wit at Microsoft to decide for me in advance.
> In article <4f8d04efdbj...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, > John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <3539ff8c4f.mar...@bach.planiverse.com>, >> Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: >> > In message <4f8cfcb5c4mai...@gmx.de> >> > Michael Gerbracht <mai...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > > In article <4f8cf8e48dd...@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes >> > > <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> Aside from splitting the OS into two streams, has Castle done >> > >> anything
[snip]
> Thank you all for your slightly strange answers. :-)
[snip OS bits]
> No one seems to have bothered with the hardware question, and considering > the vitriol still sometimes directed at Aaron and VRPC, I just wondered > what amazing new machinery Castle/Anyone had produced recently.
> Cheers > Dave S
None so far as is well-known (I did wonder if your original question was merely rhetorical) but I think we can be sure of 2 things:
1) We won't know about any new Castle hardware until it's actually in nice shiny boxes ready to buy (in stark, and welcome, contrast to virtually every other RO hardware developer); and
2) The ROOL project, in which Castle play a key part, is our best chance to port the OS to existing more capable hardware, if new bespoke hardware is no longer commercially viable.
> It might even amuse you know that even some Microsoft staff have been > diabling it, due to having problems. One reason its probably going to > go in Vista's replacement scheduled for as early as possible next > year.
Well today after 1 year of use, on what was then a new laptop with vista, I intend to return to XP. I am utterly fed up with it.
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:54:52 +0100, george wrote: > 2) The ROOL project, in which Castle play a key part, is our best chance > to port the OS to existing more capable hardware, if new bespoke > hardware is no longer commercially viable.
It's not been commercially viable since the RiscPC: as another poster has already mentioned, the Iyonix was not a completely new design by Castle, and the A9 Home was not a designed as a RISC OS box either. The last machine designed specifically for RISC OS was the Phoebe, and we all know what happened there.
Still, using hardware from other sources has plenty of advantages: cheaper to bring to market, cheaper to buy as the hardware's cost is spread between many other places, and more likely to be updated for hardware errors and such - to name a few.
> I remain optimistic.
It's always good to be cautiously optimistic - but being overly optimistic is dangerously close to being delusional of course.
In message <UraLj.60361$jH5.23...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net> Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> My argument is thus: "Open source" is a vague and overloaded term, but by > the most generous and meaningful definition, anything whose source is > available for study can be referred to as such. This leaves the problem > that such "shared source" schemes, as well as software whose source is > available for security auditing purposes (such as PGP) are also included; > which is why we have terms like "free software" and "software libre" to > separate them from projects under licences such as the GPL and MIT.
I agree with you. I would also support "open source" as a correct description of the source code available from ROOL.
In message <4f8def6e3frjse...@zetnet.co.uk> Robert Seago <rjse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> <Vista snipped>
> > It might even amuse you know that even some Microsoft staff have been > > diabling it, due to having problems. One reason its probably going to > > go in Vista's replacement scheduled for as early as possible next > > year.
> Well today after 1 year of use, on what was then a new laptop with vista, > I intend to return to XP. I am utterly fed up with it.
In message <4f8d842e5cst...@revi11.plus.com> "Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> In article <UraLj.60361$jH5.23...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, > Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote: > > My argument is thus: "Open source" is a vague and overloaded term, but by > > the most generous and meaningful definition, anything whose source is > > available for study can be referred to as such.
> I agree - if that wasn't the case, what on Earth _is_ the overarching term > you can use to describe software whos source is open such that anyone can > look at it or contribute changes?
[ Snip OSI, etc]
Normally I'd called that Open Source (yes, the strict OSI definition). Unfortunately, I can't agree that the RISC OS source is "open such that anyone can look at it or contribute changes". You may beg to differ, but the reality is that there are significant hurdles to doing so in a commercial context (assuming that that made sense in the RISC OS world). Where as for GPL (even though I'm not its biggest fan) and other blessed licences, there's no problem - and such contributions (or mostly just use of) are something I've done for a long time in just such a context. And there's argubably even worse hurdles using RO code closely with other such OSS code.
I agree that "Shared Source" is a terrible term, not least because of its MS connotations, but also because it could mean anything. Indeed, part of the problem, and one of the reasons I argued against CTL's choice, is the profusion of licensing which exists, from companies and people who decided that they'd prefer to license in some special way which ultimately didn't help them or their audience that much. There's numerous examples of this (Debian non-free has some doozies), and I very much doubt CTL will be the last.
Personally I'd also object to calling the ROL source "open source" simply because the phrase has taken on in the last 10 years the much more specific meaning of its proper nouned namesake.
-- Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/
On Apr 10, 9:34 pm, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:54:52 +0100, george wrote: > > 2) The ROOL project, in which Castle play a key part, is our best chance > > to port the OS to existing more capable hardware, if new bespoke > > hardware is no longer commercially viable.
> It's not been commercially viable since the RiscPC: as another poster has > already mentioned, the Iyonix was not a completely new design by Castle, > and the A9 Home was not a designed as a RISC OS box either. The last > machine designed specifically for RISC OS was the Phoebe.
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:33:24 -0700, Aaron wrote: >> It's not been commercially viable since the RiscPC: as another poster >> has already mentioned, the Iyonix was not a completely new design by >> Castle, and the A9 Home was not a designed as a RISC OS box either. >> The last machine designed specifically for RISC OS was the Phoebe.
> Actually it was the MicroDigital Omega.
You are correct: I had forgotten about that as so few were made and it was never finished.
On Apr 10, 11:13 am, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:03:03 -0700, Aaron wrote: > > If you want to call anything I have ever done "dreadful" then I would > > prefer that you had at least some experience of the product concerned.
> I do.
And all the other projects I have worked on...?
> > You have not one clue about me or the work I've done over the last 25 > > years.
> Which is why I asked. But you've still not made clear your credentials. > If you think the stuff given away to RISCWorld subscribers is "free > software", then you're demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of > the terms, and are thus in no way qualified to pontificate on what any > term in that family of phrases means - which is why I asked what you > *had* contributed that gives you that background.
Rob, the only "profound lack of understanding", I am sorry to say, comes from you. It's easy enough to find out most of the projects I have been involved with in the last few years. Not, I hasten to add, that they have any relevance to this point.
> > Rob, you are a complete waste of space.
> If that were the consensus, I'd remove myself from all the work on do in > the public interest (including all the RISC OS-related work), and you'd > have succeeded in alienating another developer because of your profound > obnoxiousness. Do you really want that?
As for obnoxiousness, you are constanly alienating people with your dismissive arrogance. I appreciate you believe that you are right, but you are clearly wrong (the paperwork supplied by Castle says so).
> > We already have one John Cartmell, we don't need another one.
> I find the comparison deeply insulting: I suspect John will too.
I unreservedly apologise to John. For all his perceived faults, his contribution to the RISC OS market far, IMHO, exceeds your own efforts.
> > Now why not simply back up your position that RISC OS has been open > > sourced by proving two links:
> > Link1 - the open source licence for RISC OS. Link2 - the complete source > > code to this open source RISC OS.
> > Unless you can provide both (and we both know that you can't, then you > > are wrong). Period.
> Your logic astounds me. Read what Steve has said, and see if you can > fathom the distinctions required. Then, if you wish to continue to back > up your opinion, provide some background for why your opinion should have > more value than the opinions of people who are actually involved.
So (as far as posting the links for me) that's a no then.
With the greatest respect to Steve (who is doing a cracking job), the code concerned is owned by a third party (Castle) and is supplied under a licence.
The fact that the source code is available does not make it open source. What matters here is the licence offered. That licence was written by Castle. If they had wanted the code to be open source why does the licence not say it.
> And how on earth would providing a link to the entire source code of RISC > OS prove anything? Have you thought this through at all, or are you just > trying to make a big splash in your tiny fish bowl to make it seem you're > more important than you really are? Why not actually back stuff up with > more than "it's true because I am right, thus you must be wrong." ?
You really are very silly. The point I am making is that this "open source" RISC OS simply does not exist. Some components are available under a shared source licence. One cannot go and download this "open source" version of RISC OS - as it does not exist (currently).
What is available currently has too many restrictions to make it open source. Hopefully this will change in time.
You can carry on with this if you like. I'm not going to bother. I have two releases to work on for Wakefield. They, unlike you, really are "important".
