As an aside to another thread about Castle USB and Pendrives, I was wondering...
So aside from releasing the same old Iyonix in a series of different shaped and coloured boxes, has Castle actually done anything new on the RO scene in the past months/year?
Aside from splitting the OS into two streams, has Castle done anything since the disagreement and reconciliation (Cough/Larf) to enhance the RO operating system?
In message <4f8cf8e48dd...@triffid.co.uk> Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> Aside from splitting the OS into two streams, has Castle done anything > since the disagreement and reconciliation (Cough/Larf) to enhance the RO > operating system?
I think you are mistaken. Castle did not split the OS into two streams. That happened years before Castle got involved.
As for what they have done to enhance the RO operating system - via the RISC OS Open project they have managed to give everyone access to the source code, thus allowing developers to enhance it, which is the best thing that has happened to RISC OS for a long time.
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 <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 > The split was done by Acorn already back in 1996 or so when they developed > their net computer.
No, that was a different split and the two source trees were merged when Online Media was folded back into Acorn. The split we observe today happened because the system was developed by RISCOS Ltd. and Pace (and later Tematic and Castle) in parallel.
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 <78cafb8c4f.mar...@bach.planiverse.com> Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <4f8cf8e48dd...@triffid.co.uk> > Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote: >> Aside from splitting the OS into two streams, has Castle done anything >> since the disagreement and reconciliation (Cough/Larf) to enhance the RO >> operating system? > I think you are mistaken. Castle did not split the OS into two > streams. That happened years before Castle got involved.
I think this is splitting hairs somewhat, It was Castle that produced RISC OS 5 not Acorn or Pace.
> As for what they have done to enhance the RO operating system - via > the RISC OS Open project they have managed to give everyone access to > the source code, thus allowing developers to enhance it, which is the > best thing that has happened to RISC OS for a long time.
I have seen no actual benefits, When will the new OS be released?
None of the changes that have been done so far will appear in a new OS release (per Jack himself).
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 > > The split was done by Acorn already back in 1996 or so when they developed > > their net computer. > No, that was a different split and the two source trees were merged > when Online Media was folded back into Acorn. The split we observe > today happened because the system was developed by RISCOS Ltd. and > Pace (and later Tematic and Castle) in parallel.
Perhaps Dave intended to refer solely to the desktop market. There are a number of splits outside that area - and none of those would appear to be relevant to us.
-- 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 <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 > > > The split was done by Acorn already back in 1996 or so when they > > > developed their net computer. > > No, that was a different split and the two source trees were merged > > when Online Media was folded back into Acorn. The split we observe > > today happened because the system was developed by RISCOS Ltd. and > > Pace (and later Tematic and Castle) in parallel. > Perhaps Dave intended to refer solely to the desktop market. There are a > number of splits outside that area - and none of those would appear to be > relevant to us.
Thank you all for your slightly strange answers. :-)
Indeedy John, I have no interest in other areas of use for RO, just the desktop computer.
I had forgotten about "Riscosopen" as it kind of lifted its head a while back, then quickly dropped back out of sight... What amazing enhancements have they produced that I might have missed? Last I heard about them, they were messing about with an old version of Paint... Doh!
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.
In message <4f8cf8e48dd...@triffid.co.uk> Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>As an aside to another thread about Castle USB and Pendrives, I was >wondering...
>So aside from releasing the same old Iyonix in a series of different >shaped and coloured boxes, has Castle actually done anything new on the RO >scene in the past months/year?
>Aside from splitting the OS into two streams, has Castle done anything >since the disagreement and reconciliation (Cough/Larf) to enhance the RO >operating system?
What Castle did to to their fork of the OS was to enhance it to make best use of their hardware. In addition to the HAL concept that is big wimpslots, big screens unlimited by finite VRAM and USB2
In my view ROL have been non too clever, Select/Adjust does have very nice user enhancements but Select programming features that could be of benefit to the platform as a whole are not used because developers develop to include the Iyonix which cannot run those Select features.
As far as I can see neither side of the fork is going anywhere much at the moment. ROOL do not have the full source as yet and it is not clear what their intentions are, other than bug fixes, for the Iyonix. ROL just seems to be stirring the porridge, or put another way I have forgotten again what the visible differences between OS4.39 and OS6.06 are, apart from breakages that is.
In my view a bigger problem will be the want of new hardware.
On Apr 8, 10:36 pm, Chris Hughes <n...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <78cafb8c4f.mar...@bach.planiverse.com> > Martin Wuerthner <spamt...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> > In message <4f8cf8e48dd...@triffid.co.uk> > > Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote: > >> Aside from splitting the OS into two streams, has Castle done anything > >> since the disagreement and reconciliation (Cough/Larf) to enhance the RO > >> operating system? > > I think you are mistaken. Castle did not split the OS into two > > streams. That happened years before Castle got involved.
> I think this is splitting hairs somewhat, It was Castle that produced > RISC OS 5 not Acorn or Pace.
Sorry, that's not correct. If you recall the original Iyonix machines had a Copyright Pace acknowledgment
The version of RISC OS was produced by Pace Engineers as a "black book" project (i.e. with no paperwork and without the knowledge for some senior managers).
It was part of the "Tungsten" project. This was an X-Scale powered set top box designed to replace the Arm7500 powered Bush device. This was all being done at Pace Cambridge. Then the plug was pulled on the Cambridge operation by Pace Shipley.
This left the whole thing in limbo. I believe that a collection of Pace engineers were then allowed to take the new RISC OS (which was a 32bit version of RISC OS 4) along with the prototype hardware designs (the Tungsten design plus an Arm9 powered portable device) to see if they could interest a third party in taking the project(s) on.
> > I think you are mistaken. Castle did not split the OS into two > > streams. That happened years before Castle got involved.
> I think this is splitting hairs somewhat, It was Castle that produced > RISC OS 5 not Acorn or Pace.
I thought Castle used a ripped off version produced by Pace engineers?
IIRC, that was one of the issues between RISC OS Ltd and Castle, that the latter were using a ripped off OS for a desktop computer in violation of ROL's rights.
In article <4f8d42a2e4invalid-email-addr...@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul Vigay <invalid-email-addr...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe > <gemini.jz1vpi004v71c02ow....@magray.freeserve.co.uk>, > Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> enlightened us thusly: > > I thought Castle used a ripped off version produced by Pace engineers? > Why are some people still harping on about the past? > Fact is that Castle bought RISC OS lock, stock and barrel from Pace, and > now own it themselves. They've open sourced it by passing it onto RISC OS > Open, so that the community can all benefit from enhancements. > Lets look to the future, not keep arguing about the past!
Ray's comments aside... As you say past history and not what I was enquiring about... I'm more interested in what's happening now, and aside from ROOL it seems nothing is happening in Castle land.
