In article <4f8d64e461invalid-email-addr...@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul Vigay
<invalid-email-addr...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote: > In a dim and distant universe <4f8d63f924j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John > Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly: [Snippety snip] > Like I said
<advert snipped>
OK I understand. You wanted to advertise your point of view so attached it to a posting about something else. Please don't repeat with another ad! ;-(
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
How quickly some people can degenarate a thread. :-(
Less than 24 hours ago I asked a couple of serious questions, and now this thread has degenerated into a snarling match about who done what/why and to whom in the past.
We saw all the polarized garbage in the past discussions, until our eyes and minds were weary of the subject.
I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to wonder, where to next... I do have a Win Laptop with VRPC SA installed and working... Yadayadayada!
On 9-Apr-2008, Paul Stewart <paulstew...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> "I heard a rumour" (song by Bananarama) about the legal spat that took > place was due to Castle having a multi million pound buyer for RISC > OS. But it was lock stock and barrel. This meant disposing of RISC > OS Ltd. Hence the legal letters that went around. Which did not got > rid RISC OS Ltd, just caused more hardship.
You only need the application of a very small amount of logic to realise that can't be true. If there really was such an offer then all Castle had to do to 'dispose of' RISCOS Ltd would be to purchase about 30% of the shares and wind the company up. This would have required an investment of only a small fraction of the 'multi million pound' offer.
It's analogous to someone receiving an extremely attractive offer for a property with a sitting tenant. You just buy out the tenant (unless your name is Rackman - in which case you try violence and intimidation).
On 9 Apr, 16:47, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:45:25 -0700, Aaron wrote: > > It's only too overloaded because people like yourself and Paul Vigay use > > the term "open source" instead of the correct term(s).
> And I'm sure you speak from a position of extensive experience and > participation in open source and free software communities, having > contributed hundreds of hours of your own time and thousands of lines of > code to them. Your CV must be positively over-flowing with examples of > your organisation, efforts and management of such communities to be able > to pontificate so authoritatively.
Actually I have spent hundreds of hours on "free" software and contributed thousands of lines of code :-)
but not in the last few years:-(
Despite spending time doing this I still managed to read the relevant documents. I also studied contract law and licencing agreements as part of my degree. I also learnt to read :-)
> Parts of CTL's RISC OS source code have been made available to anyone to > view, fork and modify as they so wish. They're just not free to do the > things that free software typically allows.
Making something available does not make it open source - simple fact.
> The confusion people have who are new to this kind of thing are the > motivating factor for organisations like Debian having their own very > carefully worded descriptions of free software (which incidentally, the > ROOL licence fails miserably), and is a huge contributing factor to the > FUD surrounding free and open source software.
Well you aren't new to this, so that doesn't explain your confusion. The situation remains the same. Some parts of the sources to RISC OS 5 are available under a shared source, not open source.
Your Acorn User 1992 level comprehension doesn't alter the facts one jot. You have freely admited in the past that you don't read things, this appears to be yet another case :-(
In article <Ky5Lj.48077$5i5.7...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, Rob Kendrick
<n...@rjek.com> wrote: > On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:45:25 -0700, Aaron wrote: > > It's only too overloaded because people like yourself and Paul Vigay > > use the term "open source" instead of the correct term(s).
No need for 'term(s)', it's 'terms'.
> Parts of CTL's RISC OS source code have been made available to anyone > to view, fork and modify as they so wish. They're just not free to do > the things that free software typically allows.
Don't argue, just read this, or suggest other people read it if you have.
On 9 Apr 2008 Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> [Snip the lot] > How quickly some people can degenarate a thread. :-( > Less than 24 hours ago I asked a couple of serious questions, and now this > thread has degenerated into a snarling match about who done what/why and > to whom in the past. > We saw all the polarized garbage in the past discussions, until our eyes > and minds were weary of the subject. > I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is > getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to > wonder, where to next... I do have a Win Laptop with VRPC SA installed and > working... Yadayadayada!
Well said, Grumpmaster! Where has tolerance gone, O wonder? :-(
With best wishes,
Peter.
-- Peter \ / zfc Er \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52 Anne \/ __ __ \ England. and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyo...@ormail.co.uk.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:37:37 -0700, Aaron wrote: > Actually I have spent hundreds of hours on "free" software and > contributed thousands of lines of code :-)
By free, I mean libre, not dreadful cross-stitch programs given away free on CDs to subscribers :) What have you done, out of interest?
> but not in the last few years:-(
A shame.
> Despite spending time doing this I still managed to read the relevant > documents. I also studied contract law and licencing agreements as part > of my degree. I also learnt to read :-)
But not to spell or form cogent sentences, as some of your recent posts are anything to go by! :)
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.
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?
However, I recognise that such concerns don't trouble the average Joe so we've been very careful on the ROOL site to stick to the OSI definition of "Open Source" and not use it when referring to the bulk of the RISC OS sources (although you will find that some of it is GPL, some BSD, etc).
"Shared source" is a horrible term, IMHO. I'd much rather we (all) were realistic in calling open sources "open source" (as opposed to "closed source") and free (libre) software "free software".
Hey ho.
Steve
-- Steve Revill @ Home Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
> How quickly some people can degenarate a thread. :-(
> Less than 24 hours ago I asked a couple of serious questions, and now this > thread has degenerated into a snarling match about who done what/why and > to whom in the past.
> We saw all the polarized garbage in the past discussions, until our eyes > and minds were weary of the subject.
Newshound is most capable of resolving this. With my fud killing arrangements there are only 17, and generally sensible, posts in the thread whereas in the raw there are 40.
> I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is > getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to > wonder, where to next... I do have a Win Laptop with VRPC SA installed and > working... Yadayadayada!
Where to next, boils down to but few options. The only current fully functioning RISC OS platforms that can be purchased right now are the Iyonix and VRPC on WindowsXP. (I cannot speak for VRPC on Macs as I do not have one and I think I am right to say it is still in beta.)
In message <gemini.jz3key00asdhc0516.n...@pittdj.co.uk> David Pitt <n...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Where to next, boils down to but few options. The only current fully > functioning RISC OS platforms that can be purchased right now are the > Iyonix and VRPC on WindowsXP.
Why limit it to VRPC on XP? I run VRPC on both XP and Vista and see no reason to describe the copy on Vista as not fully functioning. Care needs to be taken when installing VRPC on Vista, most notably it pays off to consult Aaron's notes before trying it, but once done properly it works fine.
True, you have to switch of Vista's UAC, but XP does not have that to begin with so you are no worse off than using XP in the first place.
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]
Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote: > In message <gemini.jz3key00asdhc0516.n...@pittdj.co.uk> > David Pitt <n...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> > Where to next, boils down to but few options. The only current fully > > functioning RISC OS platforms that can be purchased right now are the > > Iyonix and VRPC on WindowsXP.
> Why limit it to VRPC on XP
VRPC does not run well on my Vista laptop. I am aware that others have no such issues with VRPC/Vista, but I do. I have listed my issues many times in many places, I will not go over all that again just now. Because I find significant problems with VRPC/Vista I cannot recommend it and must warn others of the potential hazards.
I bought an expensive, and very splendid, Vista laptop to run VRPC on, only to find trouble. It is something that irks my soul.
What happens to VRPC when the Vista machine is hibernated or put to sleep, one of the issues here but not the actual show stopper?
> I run VRPC on both XP and Vista and see no > reason to describe the copy on Vista as not fully functioning. Care needs > to be taken when installing VRPC on Vista, most notably it pays off to > consult Aaron's notes before trying it, but once done properly it works > fine.
I have done that and have consulted Aaron.
> True, you have to switch of Vista's UAC, but XP does not have that to > begin with so you are no worse off than using XP in the first place.
I would argue that that should be unnecessary, it might do as an expedient but in the longer term VRPC should be fully Vista compliant if it is to be sold as such.
Moving on, I do have another Vista PC, a media centre. I could try VRPC on that but it would need whatever has to be done with the unlock code to be done, I really do not need to run VRPC on that machine. And then done again when Vista SP1 turns up for this laptop. I do not have any great hopes of SP1 doing anything useful but I will give it a try.
Which by any sensible definition means it does not work properly under Vista.
> but XP does not have that to begin with so you are no worse off > than using XP in the first place.
No worse off, maybe, but disabling a large element of Vista's enhanced security can't be desirable. Windows' vulnerability to malware, which RISC OS users tend to sneer at, stems to a considerable degree from people running their PCs in Administrator mode rather than in User mode. Vista's UAC is designed to make that unnecessary.
[aside]Of course, BBC BASIC for Windows runs fins under Vista, and you certainly don't need to disable UAC.[/aside]
On Apr 9, 10:21 pm, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:37:37 -0700, Aaron wrote: > > Actually I have spent hundreds of hours on "free" software and > > contributed thousands of lines of code :-)
> By free, I mean libre, not dreadful cross-stitch programs given away free > on CDs to subscribers :) What have you done, out of interest?
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. You have not one clue about me or the work I've done over the last 25 years.
Rob, you are a complete waste of space. We already have one John Cartmell, we don't need another one.
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.
At least I am begining to understand why so many people call you Knob Kendrick :-(
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.
> 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, 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?
> We already have one John Cartmell, we don't need another one.
I find the comparison deeply insulting: I suspect John will too.
> 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.
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." ?
And no, mocking somebody's name is not an example of good argument: it's an example of school yard behaviour. Given I've never heard that specific childish corruption before, I'm assuming the "some people" are actually you.
In article <4f8d704fe7d...@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't care who done what/why and to whom in the past, this SARPC is > getting very old (13) and occasionally has little fits, so I have to > wonder, where to next...
Perhaps your question was badly phrased. Don't ask about a particular company: ask if it's possible that anyone might be planning RISC OS hardware; ask if there are reasons to suppose that there is a future for RISC OS.
The answer is yes. There is a possible future that can be made more certain by people going to Wakefield (26th April), updating their software and hardware, and talking about a future. Possible developers will be there taking note of the interest. That there could be a future is why ROL produced RO6 - and presumably why ROOL are releasing those sources.
Where next? from a RPC is to one of the current hardware offerings. As is always the case the more people buy current hardware the more chance that future hardware will happen or happen earlier.
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
In message <e8b14b77-85f7-44c3-9378-6f76c8627...@s50g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com> Richard Russell <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:50 am, Martin Wuerthner wrote: >> True, you have to switch of Vista's UAC > Which by any sensible definition means it does not work properly under > Vista.
No the problem appears to be the way they have implimented the UAC is broken in Vista. Its been one of the biggest area of complaints about Vista
>> but XP does not have that to begin with so you are no worse off >> than using XP in the first place. > No worse off, maybe, but disabling a large element of Vista's enhanced > security can't be desirable. Windows' vulnerability to malware, which > RISC OS users tend to sneer at, stems to a considerable degree from > people running their PCs in Administrator mode rather than in User > mode. Vista's UAC is designed to make that unnecessary.
You would be surprised how many people have now removed UAC to stop a large variety of problems caused by it with a wide variety of apps.
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.
On Apr 10, 12:28 pm, Chris Hughes <n...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> No the problem appears to be the way they have implimented the > UAC is broken in Vista. Its been one of the biggest area of > complaints about Vista
That's irrelevant. When one talks about compatibility with Windows Vista, one means Vista as it is currently implemented, warts and all. A software vendor cannot argue that his product 'would be' compatible if Vista was different from what it is; that is nonsense. If an application requires UAC to be disabled it cannot claim to be Vista- compliant.
> You would be surprised how many people have now removed UAC to > stop a large variety of problems caused by it with a wide variety > of apps.
Equally irrelevant. How many of those "problems" are caused by applications not being properly written, rather than with Vista's UAC implementation?
> One reason its probably going to go in Vista's replacement > scheduled for as early as possible next year.
UAC was always seen as a stop gap to allow poorly-written and legacy applications to run in an environment with increased security. Hopefully as applications get rewritten so as not to require Adinistrator access (other than for installation) UAC will become irrelevant.
One of the remarkable *strengths* of Windows is that most 'properly written' Windows 95 applications will still work satisfactorily under Windows Vista, 13 years later. Microsoft should be congratulated for achieving this, and UAC was one of the tools that made it possible.
In article <604b95e7-79f6-45f4-8351-01d9c93df...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Aaron
<atimbr...@aol.com> wrote: > Rob, you are a complete waste of space. We already have one John Cartmell, > we don't need another one.
Insults are cheap. Following the Kendrick line is beneath you.
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
In article <9LlLj.35397$4f4.1...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> And no, mocking somebody's name is not an example of good argument: it's > an example of school yard behaviour.
Correct. Can we have an end to the silly arguments? The ROOL releases are *not* Open Source (if we accept one easily accessible definition of the term). Anyone saying it is should add warnings - you didn't when you disagreed with Aaron and you are at fault there. Accept that for once. All the rest is silly school yard stuff because we all know what the ROOL releases are (and are not). The only reason for continuing the thread is because casual readers might be misled - and we need to reply to insults aimed at us personally.
Back to the original question (as amended by the original questioner):
There may well be new hardware (not necessarily from Castle) and that is because people have worked on the OS to bring it up to date for new hardware.
There is more likely to be new hardware if questions about it didn't get bogged down in slanging matches.
<I'd say kiss and make up - but ughh! ;-) >
-- John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
In article <gemini.jz3pa000ac32804xf.n...@pittdj.co.uk>, David Pitt <n...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> What happens to VRPC when the Vista machine is hibernated or put to > sleep, one of the issues here but not the actual show stopper?
Aside from the above noted problem, I've had no other difficulties with running VRPC on a Vista laptop. And using ShareFS I can move data between the VRPC install and the real SARPC in either direction without the problems that exist trying to do the same between the Real SARPC and Vista using LM98.
In article <e8b14b77-85f7-44c3-9378-6f76c8627...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Richard Russell <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:50 am, Martin Wuerthner wrote: > > True, you have to switch of Vista's UAC > Which by any sensible definition means it does not work properly under > Vista.
Vista itself doesn't work properly.
> > but XP does not have that to begin with so you are no worse off > > than using XP in the first place. > No worse off, maybe, but disabling a large element of Vista's enhanced > security can't be desirable. Windows' vulnerability to malware, which > RISC OS users tend to sneer at, stems to a considerable degree from > people running their PCs in Administrator mode rather than in User > mode. Vista's UAC is designed to make that unnecessary.
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.
UAC was the first thing I switched off when I got the snotty OS, and I only wish there were ways to switch off or excise much of the other security crap. Such stuff should be made optional.
In message <04789afd-3047-4305-a8f1-1b253b10a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com> Richard Russell <n...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:28 pm, Chris Hughes <n...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote: >> No the problem appears to be the way they have implimented the >> UAC is broken in Vista. Its been one of the biggest area of >> complaints about Vista > That's irrelevant. When one talks about compatibility with Windows > Vista, one means Vista as it is currently implemented, warts and all. > A software vendor cannot argue that his product 'would be' compatible > if Vista was different from what it is; that is nonsense. If an > application requires UAC to be disabled it cannot claim to be Vista- > compliant.
Its not irrelevant at all, when you consider *microsoft* have admitted that their implimentation of UAc in the release version of Vista is partly broken.
>> You would be surprised how many people have now removed UAC to >> stop a large variety of problems caused by it with a wide variety >> of apps. > Equally irrelevant. How many of those "problems" are caused by > applications not being properly written, rather than with Vista's UAC > implementation?
See above. Some might be applications, but other are a result of the way microsoft moved the goal posts.
|
