f



Latest version of !Draw

I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. 
My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you 
recommend more up to date?

Michael Bell

-- 
0
michael104 (366)
11/1/2007 7:52:59 PM
comp.sys.acorn.misc 5707 articles. 0 followers. michael104 (366) is leader. Post Follow

648 Replies
2402 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 11

In message <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>
          Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:

> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing.
> My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
> recommend more up to date?

(Assuming you don't mean Artworks)

Either get select or drawworks or both.

(There is a free demo of drawworks.)

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/1/2007 8:46:03 PM
In article <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
   Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. 
> My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you 
> recommend more up to date?

Draw 2.30 with RISC OS 6.06 or ArtWorks 2.75.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/1/2007 8:58:52 PM
Please use the latest Artworks - it beats anything on any platform for ease, 
speed and ability to save out in almost any form...with VRPC it saves out 
directly into Windows as  pdf, gif, jpeg, bmp or eps readable by Corel Xara!

-- 
Yrs Quilly


0
not172 (131)
11/1/2007 10:16:08 PM
In article <qpOdnU9eKZynzbfanZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com>,
   Quilljar <Not@home.today> wrote:
> Please use the latest Artworks - it beats anything on any platform for
> ease, speed and ability to save out in almost any form...with VRPC it
> saves out directly into Windows as  pdf, gif, jpeg, bmp or eps readable
> by Corel Xara!

For ease of use I prefer DrawWorks. Perhaps because Artworks confuses me.

-- 
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.
0
dave137 (3026)
11/1/2007 10:32:38 PM
In a dim and distant universe
<8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
   Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. My
> version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
> recommend more up to date?

The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open website.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/1/2007 10:55:02 PM
Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>
>           Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing.
> > My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
> > recommend more up to date?
> 
> Either get select or drawworks or both.

ROOL have 1.14 downloadable from their site, or there's Vector (supplied
with RO4 or might be downloadable now) or DrawPlus (a free older version of
Vector).

There's a partial version history of the ROOL/Castle branch here:
https://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/castle/RiscOS/Sources/Apps/Draw/VersionNum

Theo
0
news539 (2440)
11/1/2007 11:16:37 PM
In message <jfo*vEPYr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
          Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In message <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>
>>           Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> > I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing.
>> > My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
>> > recommend more up to date?
>> 
>> Either get select or drawworks or both.
> 
> ROOL have 1.14 downloadable from their site, or there's Vector (supplied
> with RO4 or might be downloadable now) or DrawPlus (a free older version of
> Vector).
> 
> There's a partial version history of the ROOL/Castle branch here:
> https://www.riscosopen.org/viewer/view/castle/RiscOS/Sources/Apps/Draw
> /VersionNum
> 
> Theo

The version of Draw I have here in RISC OS Adjust 4.39 is 2.27 Jan 
2004 whereas 1.14 downloaded from RISC OS OPEN is 1.14 dated 22 Jan 
2007.  It seems to me that 2.27 is superior to 1.14 despite the dates.

I don't recall Vector unless it is somewhere on the RO4 CD



-- 
Richard Watkinson

Treasurer Sheffield Folk Festival

http://www.sheffieldfolkfestival.org/

 Turn left where the chip shop used to be.
0
rwatki1 (25)
11/2/2007 1:38:08 AM
In article <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
   Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. 
> My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you 
> recommend more up to date?

Artworks. Go on - treat yourself.

R

-- 

  Richard Travers 
  richtnews@uwclub.net
  

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
richtnews (271)
11/2/2007 9:52:50 AM
In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe
> <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
>    Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
>> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. My
>> version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
>> recommend more up to date?

> The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open website.
Is that version 2.30?

With the OS development in two forks the 'latest' version is not 
necessarily a clear thing any more. Who is in charge of version 
numbers so that RMEnsure works correctly?

-- 
Chris Hall <chris@svrsig.org>
0
chris4681 (177)
11/2/2007 2:09:10 PM
In message <8cfa773b4f.chris@chris.svrsig.org>
          Chris Hall <chris@svrsig.org> wrote:

> In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> wrote:

>> In a dim and distant universe
>> <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
>>    Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
>>> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. My
>>> version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
>>> recommend more up to date?

>> The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open website.
> Is that version 2.30?

> With the OS development in two forks the 'latest' version is not
> necessarily a clear thing any more. Who is in charge of version
> numbers so that RMEnsure works correctly?

Nobody. Even if someone was in charge it could not work anyway. The 
RMEnsure mechanism was never designed to cope with such a situation. 
In a single strand of development, you know exactly which minimum 
numeric version you need to ensure to ensure the features you need. 
With multiple strands this is no longer possible, no matter how much 
the two sides cooperate (unless they agreed to add exactly the same 
features in the same order and keep the version numbers exactly in 
step, which is not practical).

The only way to overcome this situation is to use a more sophisticated 
feature test system, e.g., modules providing a feature test facility 
that tests an input feature mask against the features provided by the 
module. Feature bits can then be allocated to both parties in 
arbitrary order without causing problems. A new *command could be 
added to allow features to be tested in !Run files.

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
   ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spamtrap@mw-software.com      [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
0
spamtrap3075 (2307)
11/2/2007 2:48:20 PM
In message <4f3b6082a7richtnews@uwclub.net>
          Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> wrote:

> In article <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
>    Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing.
>> My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
>> recommend more up to date?

> Artworks. Go on - treat yourself.

> R

I am willing enough to spend money and treat myself, if it works. But 
will it? I am running RISC OS 4.02 I should have said that before!

Michael Bell



-- 
0
michael104 (366)
11/2/2007 7:31:11 PM
On 2 Nov, Michael Bell wrote in message
  <ca75953b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>:

> In message <4f3b6082a7richtnews@uwclub.net>
>           Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> wrote:
> 
> > Artworks. Go on - treat yourself.

I would agree with that advice.
 
> I am willing enough to spend money and treat myself, if it works. But 
> will it?

Presumably -- I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't.  You could always
ask Martin if you wanted to be sure.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/2/2007 9:31:07 PM
In article <ca75953b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell
<michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4f3b6082a7richtnews@uwclub.net> Richard Travers
>           <richtnews@uwclub.net> wrote:

> > In article <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael
> >    Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. My
> >> version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
> >> recommend more up to date?

> > Artworks. Go on - treat yourself.

> I am willing enough to spend money and treat myself, if it works. But will
> it? I am running RISC OS 4.02 I should have said that before!

I'm not sure what you mean. Will it work on RO 4.02? - certainly. Will it do
what you want it to do? That depends upon what you want and how much time you
will put into learning how to use the bits of ArtWorks that you need.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/3/2007 12:59:09 PM
In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe
> <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
>    Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
>> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing. My
>> version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
>> recommend more up to date?

> The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open website.

Its a version! Newer by date only.

This is another reason this split is very bad and will simply lead to 
yet more people leaving the market.

I don't care which side is right or wrong. They are both wrong and it 
should never in the first place.

-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/3/2007 6:57:18 PM
In article <d431163c4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
<chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> Paul
> Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> > In a dim and distant universe
> > <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell
> > <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
> >> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing.
> >> My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
> >> recommend more up to date?

> > The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open
> > website.

> Its a version! Newer by date only.

Fairy nuff. So what does it do that 1.12 couldn't? To be honest, I still
use that version (naturally enough on RO 4.02), and I have no probs with
it.

> This is another reason this split is very bad and will simply lead to
> yet more people leaving the market.

> I don't care which side is right or wrong. They are both wrong and it
> should never in the first place.

Old news. I thought the split was supposed to be healing at some point.

-- 
 //\  // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
//  \//  "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"

.... Flash Gordon exposed himself to all sorts of danger.
0
miyuki1 (1402)
11/3/2007 8:35:46 PM
On 3 Nov, Chris Hughes wrote in message
  <d431163c4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>:

> In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
> wrote:
> 
> > In a dim and distant universe
> > <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
> >    Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
> > > I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of drawing.
> > > My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date! What can you
> > > recommend more up to date?
> 
> > The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open
> > website.
> 
> Its a version! Newer by date only.

Actually, if you check the changelog, you'll find that version 1.13 has
some (albeit small) changes over 1.12.  By extension then, 1.14 (which
just appears to be build tweaks) *is* improved over 1.12.

1.13 is the version in the current Iyonix ROM, FWIW.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/3/2007 9:20:07 PM
In article <0945233c4f.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>,
   Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 3 Nov, Chris Hughes wrote in message
>   <d431163c4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>:

> > In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> >           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > In a dim and distant universe
> > > <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell
> > > <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
> > > > I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of
> > > > drawing. My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date!
> > > > What can you recommend more up to date?
> > 
> > > The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open
> > > website.
> > 
> > Its a version! Newer by date only.

> Actually, if you check the changelog, you'll find that version 1.13 has
> some (albeit small) changes over 1.12.  By extension then, 1.14 (which
> just appears to be build tweaks) *is* improved over 1.12.

> 1.13 is the version in the current Iyonix ROM, FWIW.

Chappies,
Sorry to be the dimwit here... I've been following this thread, strangely
subject titled as it is, and my confusion remains, so could some kind, or
even unkind person explain please?

Why are you all nattering about Draw version 1.12 or 1.13 they are so
ancient, is anyone still using something that old?

Why?

I've just looked, and the version I'm using is 2.30 which as far as I'm
aware *is* the latest version of !Draw.

Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/4/2007 7:31:07 AM
In message <4f3c5b3491dfs@ukgateway.net>
  Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:

>In article <0945233c4f.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>,
>   Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov, Chris Hughes wrote in message
>>   <d431163c4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>:
>
>> > In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>> >           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> > > In a dim and distant universe
>> > > <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell
>> > > <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
>> > > > I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of
>> > > > drawing. My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date!
>> > > > What can you recommend more up to date?
>> > 
>> > > The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open
>> > > website.
>> > 
>> > Its a version! Newer by date only.
>
>> Actually, if you check the changelog, you'll find that version 1.13 has
>> some (albeit small) changes over 1.12.  By extension then, 1.14 (which
>> just appears to be build tweaks) *is* improved over 1.12.
>
>> 1.13 is the version in the current Iyonix ROM, FWIW.
>
>Chappies,
>Sorry to be the dimwit here... I've been following this thread, strangely
>subject titled as it is, and my confusion remains, so could some kind, or
>even unkind person explain please?
>
>Why are you all nattering about Draw version 1.12 or 1.13 they are so
>ancient, is anyone still using something that old?
>
>Why?

For shame Sir, to poke such fun at Iyonix users with their five year old
OS.

>I've just looked, and the version I'm using is 2.30 which as far as I'm
>aware *is* the latest version of !Draw.

That will be the more developed !Draw.

I have now moved to VRPC from an Iyonix, a move that seems backwards in
returning to 26bit but in reality is not as the main thing 32bit had
going for it was faster processors whereas I now have a similarly fast
26bit emulated processor. I perceive the ROL/Castle split to disappear
in that it used to irritate that Select features were not available for
the Iyonix but the converse is not true, I have no need of Iyonix
features on this VRPC. The only downsides with Select/Adjust I can think
of are the small 28MB WimpSlot and 2MB VRAM where applicable.

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/4/2007 8:26:02 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3c5b3491dfs@ukgateway.net>,
   Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Why are you all nattering about Draw version 1.12 or 1.13 they are so
> ancient, is anyone still using something that old?

As far as I'm concerned, the latest version is 1.14 - which fixes a number
of irritating bugs. One seriously irritating one (scaling grouped objects
with DrawWorksXL causing it to crash for one example) has now been fixed in
1.14 - so I'm a happy bunny at least.

> I've just looked, and the version I'm using is 2.30 which as far as I'm
> aware *is* the latest version of !Draw.

The problem with this (as I see it) is that RISCOS Ltd have simply jumped a
large version number which tends to confuse people. I don't see 10-15
interim versions between 1.12 and 2.30, which leads me to conclude that
they simply changed the version number to 2.xx in order to leapfrog
Castle's versions - in the same way they incremented RISC OS 4.39 to RISC
OS Six instead of going to RISC OS 4.5 or something.

It's this petty politics which annoys me. From a purely technical point of
view, I'd prefer to follow the RISC OS Open fork of RISC OS, simply because
it's open, you can download the source code and development can be dynamic
and ongoing, whereas RISCOS Ltd are still developing something they should
have released several years ago (ie. Iyonix Select), so their development
cycle doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

Now that RISC OS Open have the main repository of source code and
development on their website (www.riscosopen.co.uk) I'd tend to encourage
people to support their efforts and continue to grow and develop RISC OS in
an open and non-political 'point scoring' way.

RISCOS Ltd haven't exactly been honest with people all the time they've
been blackmailing Iyonix users to subscribe to Select, even though it has
absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever, and the chances of Select ever
coming out for the Iyonix are looking more and more like a scam everyday.
They've simply been dangling the (Iyonix Select) carrot in front of people
in order to extort money from them.
At least by supporting RISC OS Open, people have the opportunity to see
RISC OS develop and grow - and even add the features they want into RISC OS.

For this reason, I'd urge people to use the version of Draw at RISC OS
Open's website
(http://www.riscosopen.co.uk/content/downloads/risc-os-tarballs) as the
'definitive' latest version.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/4/2007 9:09:05 AM
In article <ad907b3b4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>,
   Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> The only way to overcome this situation is to use a more sophisticated 
> feature test system,

Or change the name of a module entirely and the problem can go away to
some extent.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Things must be as they may" Henry V, Act ii. Sc.1
0
tim155 (1564)
11/4/2007 9:13:10 AM
In message <4f3c642d80invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
  Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>Now that RISC OS Open have the main repository of source code and
>development on their website (www.riscosopen.co.uk) I'd tend to encourage
>people to support their efforts and continue to grow and develop RISC OS in
>an open and non-political 'point scoring' way.

It is fine to have preferences but to say that ROOL have the "main"
anything is wrong. They have one of two equal forks and I say equal
because which of the forks one indulges in will depend on the platform
in use, ROOL is "main" for Iyonix users and ROL is "main" for (V)RPC and
A9home.

I too hope that in addition to moving OS5 on that ROOL will also work
for the benefit of the whole platform.

>RISCOS Ltd haven't exactly been honest with people all the time they've
>been blackmailing Iyonix users to subscribe to Select, even though it
>has absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever, and the chances of Select
>ever coming out for the Iyonix are looking more and more like a scam
>everyday. They've simply been dangling the (Iyonix Select) carrot in
>front of people in order to extort money from them. At least by
>supporting RISC OS Open, people have the opportunity to see RISC OS
>develop and grow - and even add the features they want into RISC OS.
>
>For this reason, I'd urge people to use the version of Draw at RISC OS
>Open's website
>(http://www.riscosopen.co.uk/content/downloads/risc-os-tarballs) as the
>'definitive' latest version.

Is that advice really intended also to apply to Select/Adjust users?


-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/4/2007 9:51:18 AM
In a dim and distant universe <bf0a683c4f.pittdj+@pittdj.plus.net>,
   David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> muttered:
> It is fine to have preferences but to say that ROOL have the "main"
> anything is wrong. They have one of two equal forks and I say equal
> because which of the forks one indulges in will depend on the platform in
> use, ROOL is "main" for Iyonix users and ROL is "main" for (V)RPC and
> A9home.

Not at all. I have RISC OS Six on my Risc PC, and I've installed much of
the RISC OS Open stuff on the RPC, which works fine. I would say that RISC
OS Open stuff, is the only open system which will benefit *all* RISC OS
users.

> I too hope that in addition to moving OS5 on that ROOL will also work for
> the benefit of the whole platform.

Indeed. They do already.

> Is that advice really intended also to apply to Select/Adjust users?

I'm a Select/Adjust subscriber myself and I've not noticed any major
differences between Draw 2.30 and Draw 1.14 on the Iyonix.

Indeed, this thread made me go and compare the two, and cosmetically I can
see no difference at all. There is less difference anyway between the
actual Draw module (1.22 on ROS 6 compared to ROOL's 1.17) so the big
version jump seemed to occur with the wimp front-end rather than the
underlying modules. And I certainly can't see any major changes to the GUI
that justify taking it to version 2.

Paint is a bit more noticeable because of the additional features and
toolbar etc., but not with Draw. The only difference I can see is to add a
choices panel to Draw, but I've set all the options I require via
Draw$options anyway.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/4/2007 10:25:57 AM
In message <4f3c6b36c3invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
  Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

>In a dim and distant universe <bf0a683c4f.pittdj+@pittdj.plus.net>,
>   David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> muttered:

[snip]

>> Is that advice really intended also to apply to Select/Adjust users?
>
>I'm a Select/Adjust subscriber myself and I've not noticed any major
>differences between Draw 2.30 and Draw 1.14 on the Iyonix.

I would not argue with that. As far as the original point of this thread
goes, I would think that Draw 1.12 from OS4 would remain satisfactory
and in that sense ROOL's Draw 1.14, with its bug fixes, would be even
more satisfactory on OS4.

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/4/2007 11:06:33 AM
In message of 4 Nov, Paul Vigay
<invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

<snip and snip of the snips>

> RISCOS Ltd haven't exactly been honest with people all the time
> they've been blackmailing Iyonix users to subscribe to Select, even
> though it has absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever, and the
> chances of Select ever coming out for the Iyonix are looking more and
> more like a scam everyday. They've simply been dangling the (Iyonix
> Select) carrot in front of people in order to extort money from them.
> At least by supporting RISC OS Open, people have the opportunity to
> see RISC OS develop and grow - and even add the features they want
> into RISC OS.

I was at the ROUGOL meeting recently where Paul Middleton muttered words
to the effect that the RISC OS 6 project for Iyonix was not going to
happen as there were not and would not be enough people who would
subscribe to cover the cost.

There was some excitement a year or so back when it was said that a
commitment had been made by RISCOS Ltd to do RISC OS Select for the
Iyonix if 100 people would give undertakings that they would subscribe.
I did not see the original of this and, to be fair, 100 subscriptions
does not sound like very much programmer's time so I doubted the
commitment.

But what I did do was send RISCOS Ltd a written and signed promissory
note for significantly more than the RISC OS Select subscription that
would come into effect when the Iyonix version was being delivered.  The
advantage of promissory note is that they are legal documents and one
can be sued if you fail to carry out the promise when the conditions
have been met.  Anyhow I got a nice letter back from RISCOS Ltd but with
not a hint that the Iyonix project was unlikely to be viable.  

I do not disagree with the core of your summary of the situation.

-- 
Tim Powys-Lybbe������������������������������������������tim@powys.org
�������������For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
0
tim222 (1366)
11/4/2007 12:17:08 PM
In message <4f3c642d80invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
wrote:

> For this reason, I'd urge people to use the version of Draw at RISC OS
> Open's website
> (http://www.riscosopen.co.uk/content/downloads/risc-os-tarballs) as the
> 'definitive' latest version.

Does it work on the A9home or is your suggestion merely unhelpful?


-- 
Chris Hall <chris@svrsig.org>
0
chris4681 (177)
11/4/2007 12:30:37 PM
In article <4f3c6b36c3invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> There is less difference anyway between the
> actual Draw module (1.22 on ROS 6 compared to ROOL's 1.17) so the big
> version jump seemed to occur with the wimp front-end rather than the
> underlying modules. And I certainly can't see any major changes to the GUI
> that justify taking it to version 2.

Try saving as SVG from Draw on the Iyonix. There are much more obvious
differences between the versions of Paint (see next issue of Qercus for a
short introduction to the RO6 version) but there are underlying differences in
Draw as well. I don't want to re-start the old argument (Paul seems to want to
really mix it!) but I'd just like to record that he has most of his facts back
to front - and I disagree with most of the opinions he puts forward. His is a
recipe for a dead platform with no future. I'd like to see an end to the
divergence in the OSs and applications - and the only way forward is through
cooperation.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/4/2007 1:15:09 PM
On 4 Nov 2007 David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> For shame Sir, to poke such fun at Iyonix users with their five year old
> OS.

RISC OS 5.13 (23-Feb-2007)

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/4/2007 1:32:06 PM
On 4 Nov 2007 Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
> There was some excitement a year or so back when it was said that a
> commitment had been made by RISCOS Ltd to do RISC OS Select for the
> Iyonix if 100 people would give undertakings that they would subscribe.
> I did not see the original of this and, to be fair, 100 subscriptions
> does not sound like very much programmer's time so I doubted the
> commitment.

Over 100 absolute committed orders is not something to be sniffed at 
when at its peak just before the Select scheme effectively disappeared 
for a 3 year break, they had around 800 subscribers. I doubt if all of 
them stuck with it until RO6/Select4i2 came out, although I've 
resubscribed to give ROL one last chance at providing something for 
RPC/VRPC/A9 users. I'm not holding any hope for Select on the Iyonix, 
not with the current 'personalities' calling the shots.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/4/2007 1:38:47 PM
In message <58de7c3c4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
  druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

>On 4 Nov 2007 Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
>> There was some excitement a year or so back when it was said that a
>> commitment had been made by RISCOS Ltd to do RISC OS Select for the
>> Iyonix if 100 people would give undertakings that they would subscribe.
>> I did not see the original of this and, to be fair, 100 subscriptions
>> does not sound like very much programmer's time so I doubted the
>> commitment.
>
>Over 100 absolute committed orders is not something to be sniffed at 
>when at its peak just before the Select scheme effectively disappeared 
>for a 3 year break, they had around 800 subscribers. I doubt if all of 
>them stuck with it until RO6/Select4i2 came out, although I've 
>resubscribed to give ROL one last chance at providing something for 
>RPC/VRPC/A9 users. I'm not holding any hope for Select on the Iyonix, 
>not with the current 'personalities' calling the shots.

I am not so sure 100 sales would be that exciting. The last speculation
I saw was that there were no more than 1000 Iyonixes in the Desktop
market, so that 100 is a measly 10%  Did we ever get as far as
establishing what the cost would have been for an Iyonix Select
subscription? My understanding from the straws in the wind is that
Select for the Iyonix is not financially viable and is off the menu,
again.

Moving sideways, how many A9homes are there out there in the desktop
market, us that is. 100 maybe? That does not sound financially viable
either.

It seems to me, with the benefit of hindsight obviously, that 32 bitting
the OS was a huge mistake, the bigger market being VRPC and RiscPCs. 

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/4/2007 2:38:08 PM
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:32:06 +0000, druck wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2007 David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>> For shame Sir, to poke such fun at Iyonix users with their five year
>> old OS.
> 
> RISC OS 5.13 (23-Feb-2007)

So what's new, other than simply maintenance? ie, bug fixes and drivers 
for hardware that's actually available for purchase?

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/4/2007 2:51:28 PM
David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> It seems to me, with the benefit of hindsight obviously, that 32 bitting
> the OS was a huge mistake, the bigger market being VRPC and RiscPCs. 

But, surely 32 bitting RISC OS didn't /exclude/ VRPC and Risc PCs - it
opened it for those using 32 bit machines, which provided extra revenue
over and above VRPC and RPCs.

Cheers,

Ray D
0
Ray6068 (3130)
11/4/2007 3:04:51 PM
On 4 Nov 2007 David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> I am not so sure 100 sales would be that exciting. The last speculation
> I saw was that there were no more than 1000 Iyonixes in the Desktop
> market, so that 100 is a measly 10%

Thats 100 firm commitments to fund the development, not the far 
greater number that understandably wont trust ROL with their money 
until and not before there is something to show for it.

> Did we ever get as far as establishing what the cost would have been
> for an Iyonix Select subscription?  My understanding from the straws
> in the wind is that Select for the Iyonix is not financially viable
> and is off the menu, again.

Which is rubbish. ROL cannot afford to ignore a large part of their 
target audience, they risk becoming an irrelavance when changes from 
ROOL start feeding back in.

> Moving sideways, how many A9homes are there out there in the desktop
> market, us that is. 100 maybe? That does not sound financially viable
> either.

Seeing that the A9 was designed to run the Select OS varient, there is 
a lot smaller step to support it, even if due to fewer numbers it wont 
generate as much revenue.

> It seems to me, with the benefit of hindsight obviously, that 32 bitting
> the OS was a huge mistake, the bigger market being VRPC and RiscPCs.

That would be a very unwise market to rely on. You either have an ever 
shrinking number of aging machines, or people who've moved to another 
platform and want to retain compatibility with their legacy 
applications and data. Neither of which group really needs to keep at 
the leading edge of OS developments.

Iyonix and A9 owners on the other hand have shown their commitment to 
the platform by a substantial investment in new hardware in the 
previous few years, and are just the sort of people who want the 
latest OS run on it.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/4/2007 5:04:45 PM
On 4 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:32:06 +0000, druck wrote:

>> On 4 Nov 2007 David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>>> For shame Sir, to poke such fun at Iyonix users with their five year
>>> old OS.
>> 
>> RISC OS 5.13 (23-Feb-2007)

> So what's new, other than simply maintenance? ie, bug fixes and drivers
> for hardware that's actually available for purchase?

So in what way does an OS which has been constantly developed and 
extended to handle new hardware over the past 5 years, become a 5 year 
old OS?

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/4/2007 5:06:58 PM
In message <4f3c6b36c3invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> Indeed, this thread made me go and compare the two, and cosmetically I can
> see no difference at all. There is less difference anyway between the
> actual Draw module (1.22 on ROS 6 compared to ROOL's 1.17) so the big
> version jump seemed to occur with the wimp front-end rather than the
> underlying modules. And I certainly can't see any major changes to the GUI
> that justify taking it to version 2.

Paul,

Many changes within Select in general are under the hood.  I can't believe
how many people slate ROL for "only making cosmetic changes" and then someone
comes out and says that there are no "visible differences"!

Just because you can't see a cosmetic difference it doesn't mean that nothing
has changed.

As a developer of software, you'll no doubt be aware that some versions
of software never see public release because of incremental changes which
might lead to Alpha and Beta releases containing bugs and subsequently being
fixed.

> Paint is a bit more noticeable because of the additional features and
> toolbar etc., but not with Draw. The only difference I can see is to add a
> choices panel to Draw, but I've set all the options I require via
> Draw$options anyway.

Just because a feature is not used by you, it doesn't mean it has no value to
others.

Now, I've not got an Iyonix and not got easy access to one, but I'd take a
guess that the older version of Draw that it has cannot do what the new ROL
versions can in terms of graphics file import.

You might like to try throwing different graphics file types at Draw
(ArtWorks for example) and see what happens.

By running older versions of software on your RISC OS 6 platform, you'll be
missing out on some of those newer features.  That is of course you're
decision.

Regards
Steve

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/4/2007 5:37:26 PM
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:06:58 +0000, druck wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:32:06 +0000, druck wrote:
> 
>>> On 4 Nov 2007 David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> For shame Sir, to poke such fun at Iyonix users with their five year
>>>> old OS.
>>> 
>>> RISC OS 5.13 (23-Feb-2007)
> 
>> So what's new, other than simply maintenance? ie, bug fixes and drivers
>> for hardware that's actually available for purchase?
> 
> So in what way does an OS which has been constantly developed and
> extended to handle new hardware over the past 5 years, become a 5 year
> old OS?

In what way is a device driver changed slightly to cope with a newer 
version of the chip set and a handful of bug fixes in any way "constant 
development" ?

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/4/2007 5:52:22 PM
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:04:45 +0000, druck wrote:

>> Moving sideways, how many A9homes are there out there in the desktop
>> market, us that is. 100 maybe? That does not sound financially viable
>> either.
> 
> Seeing that the A9 was designed to run the Select OS varient, there is a
> lot smaller step to support it, even if due to fewer numbers it wont
> generate as much revenue.

This isn't true.  The only things in the A9 Home that already had a 
driver written for it when it came to porting RISC OS to it was the NIC 
and USB chip sets.  Everything else was entirely new to RISC OS: CPU, 
memory controller, video chip set, PS/2, NVRAM, IDE, even the power 
button.  That's just to name a few of the many things you'd need to 
change to port the OS.  Porting RISC OS to the A9 Home would have in no 
way been trivial - it would have been a huge amount of effort and work.

The only difference is that the people who ported RISC OS to it had free 
access to the API of the machine's boot loader (which knows nothing of 
RISC OS at all anyway - RISC OS pretends to be a Linux kernel), the 
arrangement of memory and devices, and how everything is connected up.

I doubt porting RISC OS to the Iyonix would be any more difficult if ROL 
had access to the same information - in fact, I suspect it would be 
somewhat easier, as most of the ground work to make ROL's strand of the 
OS run on non-RiscPCs has already been done.

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to if it's ROL caring about the 
Iyonix, or if it's CTL not caring about ROL enough to give them access to 
the information required.  Suffice to say, history has a lot of evidence 
that the two companies hate each other and won't co-operate - it just 
depends on who is being more obstructionist for who to blame.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/4/2007 6:00:28 PM
In message <472e08bc$0$13940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:04:45 +0000, druck wrote:
> 
> >> Moving sideways, how many A9homes are there out there in the desktop
> >> market, us that is. 100 maybe? That does not sound financially viable
> >> either.
> > 
> > Seeing that the A9 was designed to run the Select OS varient, there is a
> > lot smaller step to support it, even if due to fewer numbers it wont
> > generate as much revenue.
> 
> This isn't true.  The only things in the A9 Home that already had a 
> driver written for it when it came to porting RISC OS to it was the NIC 
> and USB chip sets.  Everything else was entirely new to RISC OS: CPU, 
> memory controller, video chip set, PS/2, NVRAM, IDE, even the power 
> button.  That's just to name a few of the many things you'd need to 
> change to port the OS.  Porting RISC OS to the A9 Home would have in no 
> way been trivial - it would have been a huge amount of effort and work.
> 
[snip]

Interesting how you put that Rob and well written.  I think a lot of people
falsely believed that the A9Home was designed to run RISC OS and couldn't run
Linux - which of course is incorrect. 

Having seen a very early development bit of hardware of the A9 kit running
RISC OS (only just able to run a Desktop) before all the porting was done, I
can see how far that work has progressed.  The first time I saw it, there was
not even a proper mouse pointer (just a 1 pixel dot) and the mouse / keyboard
ports were I think on flying leads soldered to the development board.

It is indeed a big task to move away from the VIDC / MEMC stuff, but as you
say hopefully future ports won't be quite so difficult now that there is
some driver abstraction in the OS.

Cheers
Steve.
-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/4/2007 6:21:49 PM
In message <472e06d6$0$13940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
  Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:06:58 +0000, druck wrote:
>
>> On 4 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:32:06 +0000, druck wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 4 Nov 2007 David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> For shame Sir, to poke such fun at Iyonix users with their five year
>>>>> old OS.
>>>> 
>>>> RISC OS 5.13 (23-Feb-2007)
>> 
>>> So what's new, other than simply maintenance? ie, bug fixes and drivers
>>> for hardware that's actually available for purchase?
>> 
>> So in what way does an OS which has been constantly developed and
>> extended to handle new hardware over the past 5 years, become a 5 year
>> old OS?
>
>In what way is a device driver changed slightly to cope with a newer 
>version of the chip set and a handful of bug fixes in any way "constant 
>development" ?

The "five years" bit is prompted by a rather accurate RISCOS Ltd jibe.
Castle did very little with OS5 a state of affairs now changing after
they dumped it and RISC OS Open Ltd picked up the ball.

To be fair all round in the same period RISCOS Ltd filled that time with
two years development and three years paid holiday.

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/4/2007 6:23:58 PM
In message <4f3c5b3491dfs@ukgateway.net>
          Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> In article <0945233c4f.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>,
>    Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov, Chris Hughes wrote in message
>>   <d431163c4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>:

>>> In message <4f3b24497einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>>>           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In a dim and distant universe
>>>> <8f9e133b4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell
>>>> <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> muttered:
>>>>> I am starting on a project which will involve a fair bit of
>>>>> drawing. My version of !Draw is version 1.12. Very out of date!
>>>>> What can you recommend more up to date?
>>> 
>>>> The latest version is available to download on the RISC OS Open
>>>> website.
>>> 
>>> Its a version! Newer by date only.

>> Actually, if you check the changelog, you'll find that version 1.13 has
>> some (albeit small) changes over 1.12.  By extension then, 1.14 (which
>> just appears to be build tweaks) *is* improved over 1.12.

>> 1.13 is the version in the current Iyonix ROM, FWIW.

> Chappies,
> Sorry to be the dimwit here... I've been following this thread, strangely
> subject titled as it is, and my confusion remains, so could some kind, or
> even unkind person explain please?

It started when I asked what was the latest version of !Draw and where 
could I get it, to start with this thread made some kind of effort to 
answer that question, and then it drifted off into this quarelling. 
Really, I despair!

Michael Bell

-- 
0
michael104 (366)
11/4/2007 6:24:46 PM
In article <4f3c603c4f.pittdj+@pittdj.plus.net>,
   David Pitt <news@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:

[Snippy]
> The only downsides with Select/Adjust I can think
> of are the small 28MB WimpSlot and 2MB VRAM where applicable.

The version of VRPC I have on the Laptop VRPC-Adjust has 8Mb of VRAM
available, though as you say the 28Mb WimpSlot is a problem sometimes.

Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/4/2007 6:32:34 PM
In message <d8b98f3c4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
  druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Iyonix and A9 owners on the other hand have shown their commitment to 
>the platform by a substantial investment in new hardware in the 
>previous few years, and are just the sort of people who want the latest
>OS run on it.

What crap.

I have an Iyonix and A9home both bought to support progress, I already
had a Kinetic300 that met my needs.

Now running VRPC I do have the latest, the most developed OS, Adjust
4.39. I even have VRPC twice which is one more than strictly necessary.

The reasoning behind moving to VRPC is to meet all my needs on one box
with easy interchange between RISC OS and Windows. 


-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/4/2007 6:36:14 PM
In article <a964753c4f.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
   Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
[Snippy]
> I was at the ROUGOL meeting recently where Paul Middleton muttered words
> to the effect that the RISC OS 6 project for Iyonix was not going to
> happen as there were not and would not be enough people who would
> subscribe to cover the cost.

> There was some excitement a year or so back when it was said that a
> commitment had been made by RISCOS Ltd to do RISC OS Select for the
> Iyonix if 100 people would give undertakings that they would subscribe.
> I did not see the original of this and, to be fair, 100 subscriptions
> does not sound like very much programmer's time so I doubted the
> commitment.

There are/were probably a number if folks like me, who, as I've mentioned
a number of times would purchase an Iyonix tomorrow, if it came with the
Select/Adjust OS.

Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/4/2007 6:38:00 PM
On 4 Nov 2007  Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

[big snip]

> That is of course you're decision.

<pedantic, and proud of it>

Ouch! Ouch!! And again I say Ouch!!!

I think this needs reporting to alt.possessive.its.has.no apostrophe, 
and may well qualify for the Gold Medal for Apostrophe Abuse for 2007. 
What it means, is, "You are decision". Perhaps appropriate for Paul V, 
but I doubt that it's the intended meaning of its author.

</pedantic>

I feel better now :-)

With best wishes,

Peter.

-- 
Peter  \  /      zfc Er       \     Prestbury, Cheltenham,  Glos. GL52
Anne    \/ __            __    \                              England.
and     / /  \ | | |\ | /  _    \      http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family /  \__/ \_/ | \| \__/     \______________ pnyoung@ormail.co.uk.
0
pnyoung1 (1656)
11/4/2007 6:53:48 PM
In article <472e08bc$0$13940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to if it's ROL caring about the 
> Iyonix, or if it's CTL not caring about ROL enough to give them access to 
> the information required.  Suffice to say, history has a lot of evidence 
> that the two companies hate each other and won't co-operate - it just 
> depends on who is being more obstructionist for who to blame.

Probably "six of one and half a dozen of the other"

-- 
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
0
SW_NOSPAM (1409)
11/4/2007 7:13:55 PM
On 4 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:04:45 +0000, druck wrote:
>> Seeing that the A9 was designed to run the Select OS varient, there is a
>> lot smaller step to support it, even if due to fewer numbers it wont
>> generate as much revenue.

> This isn't true.  The only things in the A9 Home that already had a
> driver written for it when it came to porting RISC OS to it was the NIC
> and USB chip sets.  Everything else was entirely new to RISC OS: CPU,
> memory controller, video chip set, PS/2, NVRAM, IDE, even the power
> button.  That's just to name a few of the many things you'd need to
> change to port the OS.  Porting RISC OS to the A9 Home would have in no
> way been trivial - it would have been a huge amount of effort and work.

That didn't come out quite as I intended. ROL were commissionsed to 
write the OS for the A9, which is based on Select/Adjust. Therefor 
continuing to ship versions of Select for it, regardless of the 
numbers, is a smaller step than replacing RO5 on the Iyonix hardware.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/4/2007 7:41:13 PM
In article <340d973c4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell
<michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4f3c5b3491dfs@ukgateway.net> Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net>
>           wrote:

> > Chappies, Sorry to be the dimwit here... I've been following this
> > thread, strangely subject titled as it is, and my confusion remains,
> > so could some kind, or even unkind person explain please?

> It started when I asked what was the latest version of !Draw and where
> could I get it, to start with this thread made some kind of effort to
> answer that question, and then it drifted off into this quarelling.
> Really, I despair!

Sorry about that, but I see that there is still some idea that there has
been some change to it since 1.12, yet nobody seems to be too forthcoming
about what that change actually is beyond "tweaks" and such.

I'd be more likely to ask you what you want to use it for, then see if the
version you have is capable of doing what you want it to do and leave it
at that. No doubt I could go looking for the answer on various websites,
but 1.12 is what I currently have too, and it has never let me down yet.

-- 
 //\  // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
//  \//  "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"

.... I was an atheist until I realised I was God.
0
miyuki1 (1402)
11/4/2007 7:51:56 PM
In message <95b5993c4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>
          Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2007  Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> 
> [big snip]
> 
> > That is of course you're decision.
> 
> <pedantic, and proud of it>
> 
> Ouch! Ouch!! And again I say Ouch!!!
> 
[snip]

Yeah, obviously I know the error, but my touch typing took over and was
faster than my brain in this case.  A rushed post if ever there was one.

But lets (sic) not go discussing the missing or extra punctuation! ;-)

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/4/2007 7:53:52 PM
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:41:13 +0000, druck wrote:

> On 4 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:04:45 +0000, druck wrote:
>>> Seeing that the A9 was designed to run the Select OS varient, there is
>>> a lot smaller step to support it, even if due to fewer numbers it wont
>>> generate as much revenue.
> 
>> This isn't true.

> That didn't come out quite as I intended. ROL were commissionsed to
> write the OS for the A9, which is based on Select/Adjust. Therefor
> continuing to ship versions of Select for it, regardless of the numbers,
> is a smaller step than replacing RO5 on the Iyonix hardware.

Of course, I doubt there's anything stopping CTL commissioning ROL to 
port their RISC OS to the Iyonix either, other than their pride.  (And 
perhaps money.)

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/4/2007 7:55:04 PM
On 4 Nov 2007  Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

> In message <95b5993c4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>
>           Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

>> On 4 Nov 2007  Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
>> 
>> [big snip]
>> 
>>> That is of course you're decision.
>> 
>> <pedantic, and proud of it>
>> 
>> Ouch! Ouch!! And again I say Ouch!!!
>> 
> [snip]

> Yeah, obviously I know the error, but my touch typing took over and was
> faster than my brain in this case.  A rushed post if ever there was one.

> But lets (sic) not go discussing the missing or extra punctuation! ;-)

Fairy nuff! :-)

With best wishes,

Peter.

-- 
Peter  \  /      zfc Er       \     Prestbury, Cheltenham,  Glos. GL52
Anne    \/ __            __    \                              England.
and     / /  \ | | |\ | /  _    \      http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family /  \__/ \_/ | \| \__/     \______________ pnyoung@ormail.co.uk.
0
pnyoung1 (1656)
11/4/2007 8:29:49 PM
In article <4f3c9b8d29SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>, Stuart
<SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> In article <472e08bc$0$13940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
>    Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> > I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to if it's ROL
> > caring about the Iyonix, or if it's CTL not caring
> > about ROL enough to give them access to the
> > information required.  Suffice to say, history has a
> > lot of evidence that the two companies hate each other
> > and won't co-operate - it just depends on who is being
> > more obstructionist for who to blame.

> Probably "six of one and half a dozen of the other"

Surely not! That smacks of even-handed dealing and we can't
be having any of that around here. What ever next?

-- 
John
newsmcc@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk
http://www.jm689.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
0
newsmcc (301)
11/4/2007 8:54:40 PM
In article <340d973c4f.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>,
   Michael Bell <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:
>  then it drifted off into this quarelling

Quarrelling requires two sides arguing. Paul made an inaccurate and
inflammatory statement and no one has taken him up on the points he claims.
Thankfully others don't want to make things worse.

There are two 'latest' versions of Draw. I know of no reason for not choosing
the Select version with RO6 if your system is capable of running RO6 or is an
A9. If you have an Iyonix you can upgrade to whatever ROOL provide.

What the question *does* open out to is that ROOL may simply be working to
bring the RO5 applications up to RO6 standard (though with enough differences
to cause problems). That would be a terrible waste of resources.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 12:53:21 AM
Chika <miyuki@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry about that, but I see that there is still some idea that there has
> been some change to it since 1.12, yet nobody seems to be too forthcoming
> about what that change actually is beyond "tweaks" and such.

I posted a link to the log page.  Namely:


1.14 22 Jan 2007:
Summary:
  Minor tweaks to build and install correctly.
Detail:
  Some changes were required in order for this component to build and install
  correctly. These changes are required for the ROOL 'Disc' build.
Admin:
  Tested in Iyonix 'Disc' build using ROOL 'BuildEnv' build environment
Version 1.14. Tagged as 'Draw-1_14'

1.13 17 Jan 2003:
Active point of "crosshairs" pointer was previously hardwired, now it
is calculated to be the centre of the sprite - fixes problem with new
high-res pointer. Also removed the colour 3 dot from the middle of the
sprite, and added stripdepnd to !Clean.
Version 1.13. Tagged as 'Draw-1_13'

1.12 13 Jan 2003:
New tool sprites added,plus associated change to Template file.
Version number now taken from VersionNum file at build time not the
messages file.
Saveing a draw file when a file of the same name already exists now
preserves the old files' attributes.
Tiny tickle for C99.
Version 1.12. Tagged as 'Draw-1_12'

(dates are from CVS commits, not necessarily the same as those in the
application)

There are various changes between RISC OS 3.6, 3.7 and 3.71 in CVS but the
version history isn't recorded explicitly.  None of them look huge.

Theo
0
news539 (2440)
11/5/2007 1:05:55 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3cbaa0c1john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> What the question *does* open out to is that ROOL may simply be working
> to bring the RO5 applications up to RO6 standard (though with enough
> differences to cause problems). That would be a terrible waste of
> resources.

OR, RISCOS Ltd could bring the RO6 version up to RO5 standard....

This is precisely the problem. Both forks have probably developed in
different ways so you can no longer say one is better than the other. The
RO6 one may have some new features in it but the ROOL version certainly has
some bugs fixed which are still present in the RO6 version.

Someone would need to go through *both* versions source code and compare
and combine the two, which *IS* a huge waste of resources.

There's no easy way out of this mess, simply because we are where we are. 

However, looking to the future, I'd have said the ROOL project has more
future than RISCOS Ltd, simply because being open source, anyone can
examine the code, make improvements, fix bugs and feed the changes back to
ROOL so that all may benefit.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/5/2007 1:37:42 AM
In article <4f3cbeb025invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
[Snippy]
> However, looking to the future, I'd have said the ROOL project has more
> future than RISCOS Ltd, simply because being open source, anyone can
> examine the code, make improvements, fix bugs and feed the changes back
> to ROOL so that all may benefit.

Mmnn! Thought I'd pop along and have a looksee...
Downloaded Binaries-one/zip and extracted !Draw.
Shame it doesn't work on this machine.
SARPC RO Select 6.06

Dave S

Error is:
Unable to start application (Decompression failed).

Whatever that might mean?

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/5/2007 6:13:56 AM
In article <4f3cbaa0c1john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> What the question *does* open out to is that ROOL may simply be
> working to bring the RO5 applications up to RO6 standard (though
> with enough differences to cause problems). 

ROOL are doing no such thing. If the components they've so far
released (or for that matter whatever gets released in the future)
under the shared source licence are further developed "up to R06
standard" (with or without enough differences to cause problems) then
that is down to *US* - people out here in the country of Userland, in
particular those living in the county of Developshire (and who have
time to work on the provided sources).

> That would be a terrible waste of resources.

Given that you specifically said "the RO5 applications" and not
"RO5", which has the potential to include differing API changes, I
think I can safely say that I disagree. If the applications differ,
be that in a small way, or a royally huge one, ATEOTD it doesn't
matter - just so long as they are better than they were before, and
the user can therefore benefit from those changes in the version
appropriate to his OS.

It *would* arguably be a terrible waste of resources further
developing (say) Draw, if there was a version of the ROL version that
Iyonix users could run on their machines - is there?

The only area where differently progressed versions could potentially
be a problem is in the area of support - but provided the version in
use is easily identifiable (through, oooooh, say, an "info" window)
then that problem loses most of its potential.

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/5/2007 9:01:23 AM
In article <4f3ce7d601spam@softrock.co.uk>,
   VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> It *would* arguably be a terrible waste of resources further
> developing (say) Draw, if there was a version of the ROL version that
> Iyonix users could run on their machines - is there?

It *is* a terrible waste of resources if two teams produce updates to two
versions of Draw (& the rest) for two groups of RISC OS users.

NB I'm *not* arguing the actualite: just indicating that we are no longer at
the stage Paul is vacuously arguing to himself about. The question now
(whatever happened in the past - and again Paul has just about all his facts
wrong) is about best use of very limited resources. Making that best use does
mean acknowledging aspects of the past - and old-style arguing will make that
impossible. It makes one wonder whether Paul has been getting spots over the
past week or so ... ;-(

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 10:48:40 AM
In message <4f3cf12134john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <4f3ce7d601spam@softrock.co.uk>,
>    VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>> It *would* arguably be a terrible waste of resources further
>> developing (say) Draw, if there was a version of the ROL version that
>> Iyonix users could run on their machines - is there?

> It *is* a terrible waste of resources if two teams produce updates to two
> versions of Draw (& the rest) for two groups of RISC OS users.

It's not a terrible waste. For Iyonix users ROL may as well not exist 
- in fact I've never seen it - so any effort isn't duplicated. I'd be 
extremely surprised if any iyonix user held out any hope for RO6. RO5 
will go it's own merry way separate from RO6 as it is highly unlikely 
that contributors to RO5 development will have convergence with RO6 in 
mind they will contribute their own vision of the OS - ie they will 
add what they want.

People who want to develop for both OS versions will continue to 
develop for RO4 or add RO6 features to RO5 to get their programs to 
work on both.

Its about time we buried the past and accept that there are 2 versions 
of the OS which are completely separate and will never converge. Those 
who like RO6 I'm happy for them. For those who want to contribute to 
RO5 do it your own way, add the features you want, don't slavishly 
copy RO6.

I would like to see an effort not to bring RO6 features to the Iyonix 
RO6 but to bring RO5 to other machines. I may even consider getting 
VRPC if it ran RO5.

-- 
Colin
0
11/5/2007 12:12:44 PM
In article <lfo*CS5Yr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Chika <miyuki@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > Sorry about that, but I see that there is still some idea that there
> > has been some change to it since 1.12, yet nobody seems to be too
> > forthcoming about what that change actually is beyond "tweaks" and
> > such.

> I posted a link to the log page.  Namely:

<snip informative history>

Thanks for that.

> There are various changes between RISC OS 3.6, 3.7 and 3.71 in CVS but
> the version history isn't recorded explicitly.  None of them look huge.

There seems to be a few bits and pieces that might be useful but,
especially depending on which system (specifically what display) is in
question, there's nothing there I couldn't live without.

-- 
 //\  // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
//  \//  "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"

.... Hackers do it with bugs.
0
miyuki1 (1402)
11/5/2007 12:29:01 PM
In message <b4d3f83c4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>
          Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]  Very well put comment.
> 
> I would like to see an effort not to bring RO6 features to the Iyonix 
> RO6 but to bring RO5 to other machines. I may even consider getting 
> VRPC if it ran RO5.
I thought I was the only one who though that.

Even better would be a version of RO5 for one of those natty ARM powered
tablet 'PCs'.

However I am not holding my breath waiting for either, and in the
meantime getting more and more familiar and at ease with MacOSX. 

Regards
Stan
-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/5/2007 1:20:46 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3cf12134john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:

> NB I'm *not* arguing the actualite: just indicating that we are no longer
> at the stage Paul is vacuously arguing to himself about. 
[Snippety snip of silly rant]

If you wish to lose your argument by resorting to petty personal insults,
then be my guest.

I've expressed my views on the situation (and judging by the feedback I've
received, many people agree with me), so you can continue spouting your
insults, but I'm exiting this thread. You can talk to yourself.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/5/2007 1:34:16 PM
In message <4f3cbeb025invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <4f3cbaa0c1john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> [Snippety snip]

>> What the question *does* open out to is that ROOL may simply be working
>> to bring the RO5 applications up to RO6 standard (though with enough
>> differences to cause problems). That would be a terrible waste of
>> resources.

> OR, RISCOS Ltd could bring the RO6 version up to RO5 standard....

> This is precisely the problem. Both forks have probably developed in
> different ways so you can no longer say one is better than the other. The
> RO6 one may have some new features in it but the ROOL version certainly has
> some bugs fixed which are still present in the RO6 version.

> Someone would need to go through *both* versions source code and compare
> and combine the two, which *IS* a huge waste of resources.

> There's no easy way out of this mess, simply because we are where we are.

> However, looking to the future, I'd have said the ROOL project has more
> future than RISCOS Ltd, simply because being open source, anyone can
> examine the code, make improvements, fix bugs and feed the changes back to
> ROOL so that all may benefit.

Just to correct this last statement its a "Shared Source" not Open 
Source - a big difference. Please be more careful when making these 
kinds of statements.

Personally, I have serious concerns about this so-called 
"shared-sourcing", I do not believe its the best way forward at this 
time (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from 
iyonix only users will start to get some of the features in Select, 
etc) - But we are where we are with two camps trying to score points 
off each other.



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/5/2007 1:38:41 PM
In article <540eff3c4f.news@casema.nl>,
   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> In message <b4d3f83c4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>
>           Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:

> [snip]  Very well put comment.
> > 
> > I would like to see an effort not to bring RO6 features to the Iyonix 
> > RO6 but to bring RO5 to other machines. I may even consider getting 
> > VRPC if it ran RO5.
> I thought I was the only one who though that.

> Even better would be a version of RO5 for one of those natty ARM powered
> tablet 'PCs'.

What does RO5 have that RO6 users might want? NB please treat this as a simple
(neutral) question. What does RO6 not have that RO5 users would miss?

There is much in Richard Hallas' RO5 design but using RO5 applications gives
the impression of going back in time after getting used to RO6 - and RO6 is
much more versatile in use (for graphics import/export options alone). Any
regular users of both OSs care to comment?

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 2:07:47 PM
In article <4f3d004abbinvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I've expressed my views on the situation

= tried to start a nasty argument.

There is a difference. You *don't* understand the background to the false
statements you are making. You are raking up arguments when co-operation is
required. You seem to think that you can say what you want as long as it's
simply your 'personal view' that is aired. My personal view is that your
personal view is based on half-baked untruths and misunderstandings - but as
such arguments will get us nowhere I'll not set out any details.

Can we please drop all such stupidity and keep to simple comparisons and
attempts to get somewhere by co-operation?

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 2:29:49 PM
In message <4f3d035c2ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <540eff3c4f.news@casema.nl>,
>    News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
>> In message <b4d3f83c4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>
>>           Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:

>> [snip]  Very well put comment.
>>> 
>>> I would like to see an effort not to bring RO6 features to the Iyonix
>>> RO6 but to bring RO5 to other machines. I may even consider getting
>>> VRPC if it ran RO5.
>> I thought I was the only one who though that.

>> Even better would be a version of RO5 for one of those natty ARM powered
>> tablet 'PCs'.

> What does RO5 have that RO6 users might want? NB please treat this as
> a simple
> (neutral) question. What does RO6 not have that RO5 users would miss?

> There is much in Richard Hallas' RO5 design but using RO5 applications gives
> the impression of going back in time after getting used to RO6 - and RO6 is
> much more versatile in use (for graphics import/export options alone). Any
> regular users of both OSs care to comment?

It's nothing to do with RO6 as it is irrelevant to RO5 users. We as 
RO5 users are saying what we would like to happen to RO5. Why keep 
fueling a my OS is better than your OS debate they are different full 
stop.

As a magazine editor I feel you should be embracing both OSes but as I 
see it you think RO6 will sort things out in the end and RO5 will 
become an irrelevance.

-- 
Colin
0
11/5/2007 2:49:55 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3d035c2ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> much more versatile in use (for graphics import/export options alone).
> Any regular users of both OSs care to comment?

I'm a regular user of both. I have an Iyonix ROS 5.13 here (which I'm
typing on) and a RISC OS Six SA RPC sitting next to it. I use both
extensively during the day.

I've already expressed my views, and I prefer RISC OS 5. It's more reliable
for a start, but as it's pointless arguing with you, I shall stop here.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/5/2007 3:09:22 PM
In article <b937073d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>, Colin Granville
<vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
> As a magazine editor I feel you should be embracing both OSes

I do. I just reject the stupid arguments. That the argument from Paul appeared
to favour RO5 made not a jot of difference: it was wrong, it was wrongly
timed, and it appeared to come from someone intent on destroying the market.

RO5 has seen little development since released whilst RO6 was released this
year. The latter obviously gets the spotlight now.

> but as I see it you think RO6 will sort things out in the end and RO5 will
> become an irrelevance.

What I'd hate to see is two groups working independently - one repeating work
done by the other group. On the surface that appears to be what is happening.
How I'd like to see the co-operation working is in a way that won't destroy
the market. Whilst RO5 has relevance to Iyonix users it will be relevant to me
as a magazine editor: reality not wishful thinking. (Wishful thinking = Castle
had backed ROL to produce RO5 and hence avoid the split: it didn't happen and
the reasons it didn't happen aren't relevant for this discussion which is
about the future, not the past).

RO6 have sorted out a path for development of the operating system and RO6 and
the RO6 apps do have more than RO5 - in some areas considerably more. What I
asked for though was for people who use both OSes to comment on the actual
perceived differences between RO5 and RO6 - and certainly not attempt to
re-start any argument about politics or personalities.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 3:29:15 PM
In article <4f3d08ff83invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I've already expressed my views, and I prefer RISC OS 5. It's more reliable
> for a start, but as it's pointless arguing with you, I shall stop here.

I don't know whether it is the hardware or software - but RO5 on the Iyonix
and RO6 on a RiscPC have their own sets of unreliabilities. To me the RO5
sometimes reluctance to restart and the way it runs iffy software - and then
falls over - is possibly more annoying than the RO6's reluctance to start some
applications that have been badly made.

Reliability is a difficult subject - but RO6 on my RiscPC is the most reliable
OS that RiscPC (3.5, 3.7, 3.8!, 4.02, 4.??, 6.06) has ever had.

> as it's pointless arguing with you, I shall stop here.

Now that Paul has thrown his toys out of his pram would anyone else like to
mention any differences less subjective than reliability? Looking at the
advantages of those differences (without the arguments) could be constructive.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 3:52:30 PM
In message <4f3d035c2ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <540eff3c4f.news@casema.nl>,
>    News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> > In message <b4d3f83c4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>
> >           Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > [snip]  Very well put comment.
> > > 
> > > I would like to see an effort not to bring RO6 features to the Iyonix 
> > > RO6 but to bring RO5 to other machines. I may even consider getting 
> > > VRPC if it ran RO5.
> > I thought I was the only one who though that.
> 
> > Even better would be a version of RO5 for one of those natty ARM powered
> > tablet 'PCs'.
> 
> What does RO5 have that RO6 users might want? NB please treat this as
> a simple (neutral) question. What does RO6 not have that RO5 users
> would miss?
No idea. I have long since given up on ROL's offerings after I got and
Iyonix and it was immediately clear they were never going to release
anything for it.

I would like RO5 on a portable because then I am using the SAME OS. It
is a bit annoying that there are subtle differences between MacOSX
Panther and Tiger I'd prefer our Macs to have the same OS (but not
enough to pay the upgrade price).

Much the same principle with RISC OS. The only machine I use regularly
is the Iyonix. I keep on meaning to 're-grade' the RiscPC that gets used
occasionally to RO4.02 to speed up boot up. I experience no advantages
with RO4.37 and only confusion when I have to fiddle around with network
configs (the 4.37 config application is significantly different to both
RO4 and RO5).
>
> There is much in Richard Hallas' RO5 design but using RO5
> applications gives the impression of going back in time after getting
> used to RO6 -
For me Paint has always been an irritating application that gets in the
way of DplngScan, and Draw is a waste of ROM space. As far as I am
concerned developing them further was not a good way to spend my Select
subs. 

>and RO6 is much more versatile in use (for graphics import/export
>options alone). Any regular users of both OSs care to comment?
I cannot recall experiencing problems with RO5 and image import export.
I use Photodesk, DplngScan, Photofiler, Artworks and JCut on the Iyonix.

These will also run happily on a RiscPC. Thus I can use the same apps
and same methods on all machines. The same cannot be said of the RO6
apps so they are of no interest at all to me.

Does RO6 make these third party applications run more quickly (as
Geminus can on the Iyonix)?
 Regards
 Stan

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/5/2007 3:55:04 PM
In message <4f3d0ad16bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <b937073d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>, Colin Granville
> <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
> > As a magazine editor I feel you should be embracing both OSes
> 
> I do. I just reject the stupid arguments. That the argument from
> Paul appeared to favour RO5 made not a jot of difference: it was
> wrong, it was wrongly timed, and it appeared to come from someone
> intent on destroying the market.
[snip]

> What I asked for though was for people who use both OSes to comment on
> the actual perceived differences between RO5 and RO6 - and certainly
> not attempt to re-start any argument about politics or personalities.
Remember that drawing game where you draw a head and shoulders on a
piece of paper and then fold the paper so your head and shoulders cannot
be seen?

The next person then adds a body, and folds the paper to hide their
contribution.

Finally the last person adds legs and feet and the picture is unfolded.

Reading this posting reminded me of that process. The head does not
match the body or feet.

Regards
Stan
-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/5/2007 3:59:23 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3d0ad16bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> I do. I just reject the stupid arguments. That the argument from Paul
> appeared to favour RO5 made not a jot of difference: it was wrong, it was
> wrongly timed, and it appeared to come from someone intent on destroying
> the market.

I didn't. You jumped in and started arguing. The original discussion was
about the latest version of !Draw, to which I offered a solution that the
OP could have got the latest version for free by downloading it from the
ROOL website.

I don't think you can get the latest ROS Ltd version of Draw without
subscribing to Select/Adjust or buying RISC OS Six.

You then jumped in and started banging on about ROS 5 vs 6.

> RO5 has seen little development since released whilst RO6 was released
> this year. The latter obviously gets the spotlight now.

Does it? From my casual observing of newsgroups and mailing lists, there's
more traffic on the Iyonix mailing list than the Select mailing list. I
think they're both in the spotlight quite well.

The only time I saw major discussions about RISC OS Six it was about people
discussing the brokenness of trying to unplug modules over 128, which seems
like a *major* problem to me.

> What I'd hate to see is two groups working independently - one repeating
> work done by the other group. On the surface that appears to be what is
> happening.

But that happens quite a bit anyway, and I don't think you'll stop that.
Many people like working on their pet projects and doing development that
is personal to them. Many of my own software projects are similar to other
projects (WebGallery and StickyPad being two which have other similar
applications available).

However, my ones do precisely what I want them to do, so I don't regard it
as wasted development time, because the alternatives didn't do what I
required.

Likewise, I'm not interested in colourful icons or curved buttons in
Select/Adjust, so I don't see any point in adding them to RISC OS 5.

However, various graphic import/export functions are handy, so I expect
they'll find their way into RISC OS 5. At the end of the day, it's pretty
much down to what developers want to see added.

But, the *big* difference is that anyone can join in the development of
RISC OS 5, so it's likely to have more suggestions and development than
RISC OS Six, which is limited to what ROS Ltd decide to add themselves. And
from what I've heard, user suggestions are often ignored - so you're
entirely at the mercy of the ROS Ltd development cycle.

Not so with RISC OS 5 which allows for a potentially more dynamic and fluid
development where anyone can submit ideas, suggestions and code.

As I see it, only the ROOL development model is aiming for growth and
ongoing development. The ROS Ltd path seems to be pretty stagnant.

Sure, this is my personal view, but as I'm asked so often and by so many
people, then it makes sense for me to publicly air my views rather than
keep replying to the same issues via email. Perhaps I ought to add an FAQ
to my website?

> asked for though was for people who use both OSes to comment on the
> actual perceived differences between RO5 and RO6 - and certainly not
> attempt to re-start any argument about politics or personalities.

I use both, and like I said, I've not perceived many changes at all. I
don't like coloured or rounded icons so all that is irrelevant to me and
there's not much else obvious.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/5/2007 4:01:03 PM
In article <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > RO5 has seen little development since released whilst RO6 was released
> > this year. The latter obviously gets the spotlight now.

> Does it? From my casual observing of newsgroups and mailing lists, there's
> more traffic on the Iyonix mailing list than the Select mailing list. I
> think they're both in the spotlight quite well.

I don't measure development by mailing list traffic. Neither does anyone else
interested in discussion rather than argument.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 4:34:24 PM
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:24 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
>    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>> > RO5 has seen little development since released whilst RO6 was
>> > released this year. The latter obviously gets the spotlight now.
> 
>> Does it? From my casual observing of newsgroups and mailing lists,
>> there's more traffic on the Iyonix mailing list than the Select mailing
>> list. I think they're both in the spotlight quite well.
> 
> I don't measure development by mailing list traffic. Neither does anyone
> else interested in discussion rather than argument.

Tell me again why refuting somebody's metric and following with a slur is 
not "argument" ?

(I agree incidentally - greater traffic on a support mailing list would 
appear to indicate greater difficulties experienced by users in addition 
to number of users, but certainly not how wonderful the users think the 
product is.)

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/5/2007 4:51:31 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3d10c84ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> In article <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
>    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > > RO5 has seen little development since released whilst RO6 was released
> > > this year. The latter obviously gets the spotlight now.

> > Does it? From my casual observing of newsgroups and mailing lists,
> > there's more traffic on the Iyonix mailing list than the Select mailing
> > list. I think they're both in the spotlight quite well.

> I don't measure development by mailing list traffic. Neither does anyone
> else interested in discussion rather than argument.

I wasn't commenting on development. I was replying to your comment above,
about RISC OS Six getting the spotlight.

Were you referring to developer spotlight or user spotlight? I'd say quite
a lot of developer time gets spent on RISC OS 5, especially since ROOL is
getting probably the most spotlight at the moment.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/5/2007 4:58:13 PM
In article <472f4a13$0$13929$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:34:24 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> > In article <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> >    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > RO5 has seen little development since released whilst RO6 was
> >> > released this year. The latter obviously gets the spotlight now.
> > 
> >> Does it? From my casual observing of newsgroups and mailing lists,
> >> there's more traffic on the Iyonix mailing list than the Select mailing
> >> list. I think they're both in the spotlight quite well.
> > 
> > I don't measure development by mailing list traffic. Neither does anyone
> > else interested in discussion rather than argument.

> Tell me again why refuting somebody's metric and following with a slur is 
> not "argument" ?

It is. But I'm entering that field just far enough to reject Paul's way of
working. I'm not entering the argument of the politics that Paul seems to
want.

> (I agree incidentally - greater traffic on a support mailing list would 
> appear to indicate greater difficulties experienced by users in addition 
> to number of users, but certainly not how wonderful the users think the 
> product is.)

Possibly. There are other options - the Iyonix list is one of Castle/Iyonix's
successes - but none relate directly to active development, which is something
that Paul appears to be unwilling to discuss.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 5:26:44 PM
In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,


> Personally, I have serious concerns about this so-called 
> "shared-sourcing", I do not believe its the best way forward at this 
> time (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from 
> iyonix only users will start to get some of the features in Select, 
> etc) - But we are where we are with two camps trying to score points 
> off each other.

Forgive me but if ROOL spawns useful stuff, I am sure many RO6 users will
not be too proud to use it. Menwhile it looks unlikely that I will ever be
able to benefit from stuff that ROL have done. I have not been impressed
with some of their statements about things either.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
0
rjseago (182)
11/5/2007 7:07:45 PM
In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from iyonix
> only users will start to get some of the features in Select, etc)

You can go to the ROOL web site and get the latest version of BASIC. This
has lots of improvements and fixes over the ROL version and just needs
dropping into your boot sequence in order to use it.

And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a whole RISC
OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you so wish).

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/5/2007 7:46:01 PM
In article <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>,
   Ste (news) <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from iyonix
> > only users will start to get some of the features in Select, etc)

> You can go to the ROOL web site and get the latest version of BASIC. This
> has lots of improvements and fixes over the ROL version and just needs
> dropping into your boot sequence in order to use it.

> And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a whole
> RISC OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you so
> wish).

> Steve

But why this?

Downloaded Binaries-one/zip and extracted !Draw.
Shame it doesn't work on this machine.
SARPC RO Select 6.06

Dave S

Error is:
Unable to start application (Decompression failed).

Whatever that might mean?

SparkFS 1.41 is being used.

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/5/2007 8:22:10 PM
In message <642e0d3d4f.news@casema.nl>
          News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Much the same principle with RISC OS. The only machine I use regularly
> is the Iyonix. I keep on meaning to 're-grade' the RiscPC that gets used
> occasionally to RO4.02 to speed up boot up. I experience no advantages
> with RO4.37 and only confusion when I have to fiddle around with network
> configs (the 4.37 config application is significantly different to both
> RO4 and RO5).

Stan,

RISC OS 6 would be a massive step forward for your 3.7 Risc PC, but it would
involve you getting RO4 ROMs first and you can't any longer get 4.02, so if
you can't justify the money, given the use the Risc PC gets, you'd still get
a huge benefit from 4.39 ROMs even without 6.06.  But the costs of the ROMs
is still something you have to convince yourself of.  For some, the DHCP
feature is probably a major benefit in 4.39 and later.  Clearly there are
others. 

[snip]

> For me Paint has always been an irritating application that gets in the
> way of DplngScan, and Draw is a waste of ROM space. 

Wow!  That opinion really surprises me.  I couldn't live without Draw.  It's
one of the best drawing programs I've seen supplied with a system -
regardless of its version.

> As far as I am concerned developing them further was not a good way to
> spend my Select subs. 

Even Paint, where I can to a small extent see where you're coming from with
it having less retouching features than DPlingScan etc, is still a very
useful icon editing application and can do much more than the likes of
Windows' Paint.  You might be undervaluing both Draw and Paint because you've
never really tried to do much with them???

[snip]

I guess you and I have very different uses for our machines.  I for one
really value Paint and Draw (any version), but the newer ones have given a
greater range of features and ease of use, which I thought was worth paying
for.

Cheers
Steve

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/5/2007 9:36:27 PM
In article <ab6f2c3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
[Snippy]
> I guess you and I have very different uses for our machines.  I for one
> really value Paint and Draw (any version), but the newer ones have given
> a greater range of features and ease of use, which I thought was worth
> paying for.

> Cheers
> Steve

I use Draw in conjunction with DrawWorksXL, and that's a powerful bit of
kit I wouldn't want to be without.

Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/5/2007 9:46:28 PM
In message <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> Likewise, I'm not interested in colourful icons or curved buttons in
> Select/Adjust, so I don't see any point in adding them to RISC OS 5.

Paul, but just the other day you were complaining in this same thread that
you couldn't see a cosmetic difference between the different versions of
Draw so they must be the same.  Your discussion arguments are very
inconsistent.

[snip]
> RISC OS Six, which is limited to what ROS Ltd decide to add themselves. And
> from what I've heard, user suggestions are often ignored - so you're
> entirely at the mercy of the ROS Ltd development cycle.

From discussions I've had previously, ROL Ltd. do listen to suggestions, they
are not ignored.  Some suggestions made are not sensible or possible, but
suggestions are not ignored and are considered (at least they were a while
back).

If you have ideas for useful features / changes, I'm sure ROL would at least
be interested to hear them.

[snip]
> As I see it, only the ROOL development model is aiming for growth and
> ongoing development. The ROS Ltd path seems to be pretty stagnant.

Erm... Let me see.  Web based PRMs release, RISC OS 4.40 (A9Home first
release), 4.42 (A9Home wider release with more features, BTSDump), 6.02
(preview, new versions of applications, Toolbox and other stuff), 6.06
(Viewfinder support and many other features, new HTML user guide and HTML
PRMs), new updated pack for subscribers (keyboard shortcuts and a number of
fixes).  Yeah that's pretty stagnant.  :-p

> Sure, this is my personal view, but as I'm asked so often and by so many
> people, then it makes sense for me to publicly air my views rather than
> keep replying to the same issues via email. Perhaps I ought to add an FAQ
> to my website?

> > asked for though was for people who use both OSes to comment on the
> > actual perceived differences between RO5 and RO6 - and certainly not
> > attempt to re-start any argument about politics or personalities.
> 
> I use both, and like I said, I've not perceived many changes at all. I
> don't like coloured or rounded icons so all that is irrelevant to me and
> there's not much else obvious.

You really can't be looking very hard or are too lazy or want to skew
reality for those who don't know better.  Your posting about ROL progress is
completely negative and does not portray reality at all.  I recommend you go
back to the RISC OS 6 installation and various guides supplied as well as
change logs and have a good read.

You really need to describe things more objectively.

Steve.

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/5/2007 9:51:29 PM
In message <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>
          "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:

> In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from iyonix
> > only users will start to get some of the features in Select, etc)
> 
[snip]
> 
> And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a whole
> RISC OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you so wish).
> 
> Steve
> 

But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple of
modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which are part
of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to know what you
would do about that problem???

Cheers

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/5/2007 9:57:25 PM
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:57:25 +0000, Steve Potts wrote:

> In message <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>
>           "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> 
>> And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a whole
>> RISC OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you so
>> wish).
>
> But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple of
> modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which are
> part of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to know
> what you would do about that problem???

It should be possible to reimplement the FPE using already-existing open 
source code, although it wouldn't be anywhere near as fast.

And if anybody did, I'd suggest not using the CTL licence unless it 
actually used code from RISC OS.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/5/2007 10:17:46 PM
In message <4f3d1ed233rjseago@zetnet.co.uk>
          Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,


>> Personally, I have serious concerns about this so-called
>> "shared-sourcing", I do not believe its the best way forward at this
>> time (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from
>> iyonix only users will start to get some of the features in Select,
>> etc) - But we are where we are with two camps trying to score points
>> off each other.

> Forgive me but if ROOL spawns useful stuff, I am sure many RO6 users will
> not be too proud to use it. Menwhile it looks unlikely that I will ever be
> able to benefit from stuff that ROL have done. I have not been impressed
> with some of their statements about things either.

If something came along and was actually an enhancement on the 
version/option/facility provided by RO6 (including all existing RO6 
features plus extras, I might well install it, but otherwise cannot 
see the point or benefit.



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/5/2007 10:30:59 PM
In message <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>
          "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:

> In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from iyonix
>> only users will start to get some of the features in Select, etc)

> You can go to the ROOL web site and get the latest version of BASIC. This
> has lots of improvements and fixes over the ROL version and just needs
> dropping into your boot sequence in order to use it.

Thanks for that one Steve, at least it something that might be of 
benefit

> And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a whole RISC
> OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you so wish).

I a) can not see any benefit in this (some other people might), except 
for Iyonix users. b) what about bits of the OS you have no permission 
to shared source release?

I am not trying to be difficult here but trying to understand what if 
any benefit I as a end user will get from any of this, and how it is 
going to increase the market share.

I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared 
sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed, 
saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then 
its the end of it.


-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/5/2007 10:40:01 PM
On 5 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:57:25 +0000, Steve Potts wrote:
>> In message <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>
>>           "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>> But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple of
>> modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which are
>> part of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to know
>> what you would do about that problem???

> It should be possible to reimplement the FPE using already-existing open
> source code, although it wouldn't be anywhere near as fast.

You mean like SuperFPEm which is actually alot faster?

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/5/2007 10:43:12 PM
On 5 Nov 2007 Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> Downloaded Binaries-one/zip and extracted !Draw.
> Shame it doesn't work on this machine.
> SARPC RO Select 6.06

> Dave S

> Error is:
> Unable to start application (Decompression failed).

> Whatever that might mean?

You might want to ask your OS vendor why they don't support the binary 
compression method used by the latest RISC OS compiler suite, which 
most developers are using these days.

> SparkFS 1.41 is being used.

Its nothing to do with SparkFS, its the AIF squeeze and module 
squeeze.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/5/2007 10:46:34 PM
In article <4f3d25a29cdfs@ukgateway.net>,
   Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:

[...]

> Downloaded Binaries-one/zip and extracted !Draw.
> Shame it doesn't work on this machine.
> SARPC RO Select 6.06

> Dave S

> Error is:
> Unable to start application (Decompression failed).

> Whatever that might mean?

Probably the same problem described here:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.sys.acorn.apps/msg/615c56936d9af0eb

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/5/2007 11:16:59 PM
Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> Wow!  That opinion really surprises me.  I couldn't live without Draw.  It's
> one of the best drawing programs I've seen supplied with a system -
> regardless of its version.

Didn't Jonathan Marten offer to open source Vector... what happened about
that?  Perhaps that could be supplied as standard with a RO release (as it
was for RO4) - Vector as the 'headline' app, Draw for those old hands who
prefer it.  A bit like Notepad and Wordpad on Windows maybe.

> Even Paint, where I can to a small extent see where you're coming from with
> it having less retouching features than DPlingScan etc, is still a very
> useful icon editing application and can do much more than the likes of
> Windows' Paint.  You might be undervaluing both Draw and Paint because you've
> never really tried to do much with them???

I do think a lot of the benefits of RO apps mostly comes through
familiarity... perhaps Corel Draw can do everything Draw can, but if you
know Draw but not Corel then it's much harder to get things done in Corel. 
(Replace Corel with the illustration package of your choice).

BTW, there's no reason why ROL can't release an 'applications pack' for RO5
if they wanted.  Though many of their changes (eg inline foreign image
rendering) are based on other system components so it probably would have
negligible benefit.

Theo
0
news539 (2440)
11/5/2007 11:47:33 PM
In article <25d02d3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> > As I see it, only the ROOL development model is aiming for growth and
> > ongoing development. The ROS Ltd path seems to be pretty stagnant.

> Erm... Let me see.  Web based PRMs release, RISC OS 4.40 (A9Home first
> release), 4.42 (A9Home wider release with more features, BTSDump), 6.02
> (preview, new versions of applications, Toolbox and other stuff), 6.06
> (Viewfinder support and many other features, new HTML user guide and HTML
> PRMs), new updated pack for subscribers (keyboard shortcuts and a number of
> fixes).  Yeah that's pretty stagnant.  :-p

You forgot the user manual, tutorials, and paper-based PRM release.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/5/2007 11:56:38 PM
In a dim and distant universe <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> muttered:

> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then
> its the end of it.

Tell that to the Linux developers....

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 12:00:21 AM
In article <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
<chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then its
> the end of it.

The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence to
develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 12:02:17 AM
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:43:12 +0000, druck wrote:

>> It should be possible to reimplement the FPE using already-existing
>> open source code, although it wouldn't be anywhere near as fast.
> 
> You mean like SuperFPEm which is actually alot faster?

SuperFPEm is based on the normal FPE, and swaps accuracy for speed.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 12:08:38 AM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:00:21 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> 
>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then
>> its the end of it.
> 
> Tell that to the Linux developers....

Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 12:09:15 AM
In a dim and distant universe <25d02d3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> muttered:
> Paul, but just the other day you were complaining in this same thread
> that you couldn't see a cosmetic difference between the different
> versions of Draw so they must be the same.  Your discussion arguments are
> very inconsistent.

Huh! I don't follow what you mean?

I can' spot any immediate differences between the version of Draw on the
iyonix and that on the RPC. On the RPC I have the standard GUI display (ie.
all the curved icons and borders are turned off). In either case, curved
icons make no difference to !Draw, as that's a wimp function, and nothing
to do with Draw.

> You really can't be looking very hard or are too lazy or want to skew
> reality for those who don't know better.  Your posting about ROL progress
> is completely negative and does not portray reality at all.

Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation. I've had more updates
for the Iyonix in the past couple of years than the RPC has. ROS Ltd don't
seem to want to bring out Select for the Iyonix, even though they're trying
to blackmail Iyonix users into subscribing to Select otherwise it won't
come out for the Iyonix. I'm beginning to think it won't come out for the
Iyonix anyway, and that was just a way to screw some extra money out of
people.

> You really need to describe things more objectively.

I describe them as I find them, from having a ROS Six RPC sitting next to
an Iyonix. I use both quite extensively, yet I never switch from one
machine to the other and think, "Oh I really miss such and such a
function", so in everyday use, there's not a great deal between them.

I'm not saying there are *no* differences, just that for my day to day use,
I can't think of anything I miss from RISC OS Six, when I switch to the
Iyonix - and from a developer point of view, I make all my own applications
work with all versions of RISC OS anyway, so it's not like I can take
advantage of any of these so called new features in ROS 6.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 12:09:26 AM
In a dim and distant universe <ab6f2c3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Wow!  That opinion really surprises me.  I couldn't live without Draw. 
> It's one of the best drawing programs I've seen supplied with a system -
> regardless of its version.

I definitely agree with that, whichever version of Draw you're using.

> Even Paint, where I can to a small extent see where you're coming from
> with it having less retouching features than DPlingScan etc, is still a
> very useful icon editing application and can do much more than the likes
> of Windows' Paint.  You might be undervaluing both Draw and Paint because
> you've never really tried to do much with them???

Except that ROS Six Paint has just the spray can feature, which is very
good if you're trying to create random texture effects. That's one negative
point compared to RISC OS 5 !Paint. ;-)

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 12:12:45 AM
In article <175b2e3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple of
> modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which are
> part of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to know
> what you would do about that problem???

and your question is...? These things have a number of possible solutions
that will be visited at the point where we come to each problem:

* Speak to owner of various bits of IPR and agree terms for distribution
* Write a clean-room reimplementation of problem code
* Find alternative way to make system work without that code

There are other options depending upon what the problem is. We've already
got over various hurdles, so we don't expect plain sailing from here.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/6/2007 12:20:41 AM
In article <4f3d3a7158invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation.

'Personal view' isn't an excuse to change facts.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 12:33:05 AM
On 5 Nov 2007 as I do recall,
          Chris Hughes wrote:

[snip]

> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared 
> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,

I find it hard to understand that causing anyone to leave as a *user* --
as a developer, yes, but the user doesn't care so long as the stuff he
wants continues to be available. (Witness the people who are still using
RISC OS 3.1, or BBC micros driving lab equipment....)

> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then 
> its the end of it.
> 
For myself, I find it a far more hopeful prospect than pinning the hopes
for 'the market' on the emulated sector.

-- 
Harriet Bazley                     ==  Loyaulte me lie ==

You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.
0
bazley (1305)
11/6/2007 1:28:41 AM
On 6 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:43:12 +0000, druck wrote:

>>> It should be possible to reimplement the FPE using already-existing
>>> open source code, although it wouldn't be anywhere near as fast.
>> 
>> You mean like SuperFPEm which is actually alot faster?

> SuperFPEm is based on the normal FPE, and swaps accuracy for speed.

So? Its still passes the FP paranoia tests, and is quicker.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/6/2007 1:51:15 AM
On 6 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then its
>> the end of it.

> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence to
> develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

I can't decide if one of both of the above posters is telling a joke 
the other one doesn't understant.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/6/2007 1:53:32 AM
In article <4f3d362b42spam@softrock.co.uk>,
   VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f3d25a29cdfs@ukgateway.net>,
>    Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:

[Snip]

> > Error is:
> > Unable to start application (Decompression failed).

> > Whatever that might mean?

> Probably the same problem described here:

> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.sys.acorn.apps/msg/615c56936d9af0eb

Thanks for the link Vince, though I'm not quite sure how that helps solve
it.

I guess the OS divergence is getting bigger.
Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/6/2007 6:07:37 AM
In article <26db323d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
   druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2007 Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> > Downloaded Binaries-one/zip and extracted !Draw.
> > Shame it doesn't work on this machine.
> > SARPC RO Select 6.06

> > Dave S

> > Error is:
> > Unable to start application (Decompression failed).

> > Whatever that might mean?

> You might want to ask your OS vendor why they don't support the binary 
> compression method used by the latest RISC OS compiler suite, which 
> most developers are using these days.

> > SparkFS 1.41 is being used.

> Its nothing to do with SparkFS, its the AIF squeeze and module 
> squeeze.

> ---druck

Thanks for the note Mr D, though to be honest, I have no idea what you are
saying... Yes I have used Vince's link but don't see how that actually
solved anything.

I guess a more pointed question should be, just why third party OS
developers are using something that cannot be used by the majority of
users, using the legit RISC OS operating system. ;-)

It would also seem to be a pointless exercise, the rest of us supporting
ROOL that is. I guess a bit like Iyonix owners subscribing to the RO
Select/Adjust scheme.  :-(

Thanks anyway.
Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/6/2007 6:16:05 AM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:51:15 +0000, druck wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:43:12 +0000, druck wrote:
> 
>>>> It should be possible to reimplement the FPE using already-existing
>>>> open source code, although it wouldn't be anywhere near as fast.
>>> 
>>> You mean like SuperFPEm which is actually alot faster?
> 
>> SuperFPEm is based on the normal FPE, and swaps accuracy for speed.
> 
> So? Its still passes the FP paranoia tests, and is quicker.

The point is that it doesn't help in the situation of having a fully 
shared-source ROM image.  And the FP paranoia tests are pretty 
meaningless - they mostly check that the FP is working, not how accurate 
it is.  And given there's no recent Fortran compiler for RISC OS, it 
would be difficult to run the real IEEE 751 test suite.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 8:34:25 AM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:33:05 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <4f3d3a7158invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
>    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>> Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation.
> 
> 'Personal view' isn't an excuse to change facts.

Ho ho ho.  Thanks for a giggle this morning, John.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 8:36:33 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence
> to develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

I think you've missed a couple of O's from that statement!

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 8:57:07 AM
In a dim and distant universe <472fb0ab$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:

> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.

What is so obnoxious about the Castle licence?

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 8:58:02 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3d3c9b6bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> In article <4f3d3a7158invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
>    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation.

> 'Personal view' isn't an excuse to change facts.

I wasn't changing facts. I wish you'd pay attention.

I said that I've not noticed any differences between the two. I also said
that it was in my view meaning an entirely subjective view of things.

It's a bit like walking into a friends living room and not noticing they've
moved a chair or bought a new light bulb. You're happily oblivious to any
changes until they happen to point it out, at which point you comment, "Oh
yes, I see it now. That chair used to be over there" or the room is
slightly brighter/dimmer. I'm not denying the existence of the chair - just
failing to notice it had moved, because it's not important to *me* in the
grand scheme of things.

Saying I've not noticed any differences is *not* the same as saying there
are no differences. I know there are differences. It's just that the
differences there, don't really make any difference to my daily use. Other
people's mileage may differ. That's why I was careful to say it was in my
opinion.

Unfortunately, the only new feature I immediately noticed in !Paint was the
fact they've removed features - such as the spray can, which is a bit
irritating - but again my personal view. People who don't use the spray can
probably wouldn't notice, like my example above!

Feel free to point out all the differences which improve your daily use of
RISC OS Six, but don't start resorting to personal insults because someone
else's personal opinion doesn't match your own view.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 9:07:35 AM
In article <4f3d5b3c0bdfs@ukgateway.net>,
   Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <4f3d362b42spam@softrock.co.uk>,
>    VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:

[Unable to start application (Decompression failed)]

> > Probably the same problem described here:

> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.sys.acorn.apps/msg/615c56936d9af0eb

> Thanks for the link Vince, though I'm not quite sure how that helps
> solve it.

Maybe not, but it at least tells you what the cause of the problem is.

....

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/6/2007 9:08:12 AM
In a dim and distant universe <DgE*LR+Yr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
   Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Didn't Jonathan Marten offer to open source Vector... what happened about
> that?  Perhaps that could be supplied as standard with a RO release (as
> it was for RO4) - Vector as the 'headline' app, Draw for those old hands
> who prefer it.  A bit like Notepad and Wordpad on Windows maybe.

Yes. See http://keelhaul.me.uk/acorn/oss/

> BTW, there's no reason why ROL can't release an 'applications pack' for
> RO5 if they wanted.  Though many of their changes (eg inline foreign
> image rendering) are based on other system components so it probably
> would have negligible benefit.

RISCOS Ltd have been known to be deliberately working against RISC OS 5 in
the past, such as the debacle of the "nobbling applications which use the
Castle Clib module", so I can't really see this happening.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 9:11:03 AM
In a dim and distant universe <47302711$0$13935$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:
> it is.  And given there's no recent Fortran compiler for RISC OS, it
> would be difficult to run the real IEEE 751 test suite.

GNU Fortran v3.4.6 is available from http://fortran.orpheusweb.co.uk/gnu/

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 9:33:27 AM
In message <47302790$0$13935$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:33:05 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:
> 
> > In article <4f3d3a7158invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> >    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation.
> > 
> > 'Personal view' isn't an excuse to change facts.
> 
> Ho ho ho.  Thanks for a giggle this morning, John.

Me too. I was just about to take a sip of tea when I read it. That would
have made a mess of my monitors and desk.
Cheers
Stan

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/6/2007 9:57:45 AM
In article <4f3d6bb61einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I said that I've not noticed any differences between the two. I also said
> that it was in my view meaning an entirely subjective view of things.

Had you prefixed that by saying that you had only taken a cursory look at one
or other you might have been able to get away with simply being told that you
had missed a lot.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 10:10:40 AM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:58:02 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe
> <472fb0ab$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>    Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:
> 
>> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.
> 
> What is so obnoxious about the Castle licence?

If you've actually read it and don't see it, you're not going to agree 
with or understand any reasons I might provide.

But here's one anyway: It requires you to give up your rights to your 
contributions.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 10:12:42 AM
In article <4f3d6ac0fainvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> > The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence
> > to develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
> > anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

> I think you've missed a couple of O's from that statement!

RISC OS Open Ltd have no licence and are working solely as agents for Castle.
Your confusion explains your comments - but your ignorance is not excusable.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 10:13:12 AM
On 6 Nov 2007, Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <26db323d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
>    druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > On 5 Nov 2007 Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> > > Downloaded Binaries-one/zip and extracted !Draw.
> > > Shame it doesn't work on this machine.
> > > SARPC RO Select 6.06
>
> > > Dave S
>
> > > Error is:
> > > Unable to start application (Decompression failed).
>
> > > Whatever that might mean?
>
> > You might want to ask your OS vendor why they don't support the
> > binary compression method used by the latest RISC OS compiler suite,
> > which most developers are using these days.
>
> > > SparkFS 1.41 is being used.
>
> > Its nothing to do with SparkFS, its the AIF squeeze and module
> > squeeze.
>
> > ---druck
>
> Thanks for the note Mr D, though to be honest, I have no idea what you
> are saying... Yes I have used Vince's link but don't see how that
> actually solved anything.

To fix the decompression issue:

Download and unpack http://www.davidpilling.net/fresh.zip

Copy xpand from !Freshen.Library into your Boot:Library.Archive

Double-click Library:ScanLibs

Issue the command

   *xpand ...!Draw.!RunImage

   where the dots indicate the full address of Draw 1.14.

!RunImage will be expanded, and saved over the compressed original.

Draw 1.14 should now run on RO 6.06 (it does here).

Tony



0
old_coaster (1286)
11/6/2007 10:27:50 AM
In message <47303e1a$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:58:02 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:

>> In a dim and distant universe
>> <472fb0ab$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>>    Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:
>> 
>>> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.
>> 
>> What is so obnoxious about the Castle licence?

> If you've actually read it and don't see it, you're not going to agree
> with or understand any reasons I might provide.

> But here's one anyway: It requires you to give up your rights to your
> contributions.

Ok I'll bite.

Where does it say that your work is no longer your copyright?

clause 1.2.5 states 'You hereby grant to Castle a royalty free 
worldwide licence...' confirming that it is your code to licence.

You are perfectly at liberty to relicence your work under any licence 
to someone else if you wish (as long as it is all your work) all you 
are doing is offering your work to castle under castle's licence.

If you want to write a module or something for RO5 that is all your 
own work you are perfectly at liberty to offer it with a BSD style 
licence if you don't like castle's.

I'm no lawyer but that's how it reads to me anyway.

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 11:12:07 AM
In message <ab6f2c3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
          Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

> In message <642e0d3d4f.news@casema.nl>
>           News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > Much the same principle with RISC OS. The only machine I use regularly
> > is the Iyonix. I keep on meaning to 're-grade' the RiscPC that gets used
> > occasionally to RO4.02 to speed up boot up. I experience no advantages
> > with RO4.37 and only confusion when I have to fiddle around with network
> > configs (the 4.37 config application is significantly different to both
> > RO4 and RO5).

> RISC OS 6 would be a massive step forward for your 3.7 Risc PC, but it would
> involve you getting RO4 ROMs first and you can't any longer get 4.02,
It is running 4.37 so it has 4.02 ROMS in it. RO4.02 works fine for me,
Select gives me personally no benefit except a longer boot up time. I
can't say I ever noticed that the RiscPC was more or less stable with
either OS.

Massive step forward for me is the adding a Viewfinder to an SARPC. Or
the difference in performance between an SARPC and and Iyonix. Or and
Iyonix and Dual Core Intel Macbook.

> so if you can't justify the money, given the use the Risc PC gets,
> you'd still get a huge benefit from 4.39 ROMs even without 6.06.  But
> the costs of the ROMs is still something you have to convince yourself
> of.  For some, the DHCP feature is probably a major benefit in 4.39
> and later.  Clearly there are others.
I have had a router since I went broadband and use fixed IP addresses.
The router cost significantly less than two year's Select or two
copies of Adjust, and allowed every computer in the house (including
those running RO3) to connect to the internet seamlessly.

The router is useful for all of the/any computers on our network and
hence a justifiable upgrade. 
> [snip]
> 
> > For me Paint has always been an irritating application that gets in the
> > way of DplngScan, and Draw is a waste of ROM space. 
> 
> Wow!  That opinion really surprises me.  I couldn't live without Draw.  It's
> one of the best drawing programs I've seen supplied with a system -
> regardless of its version.
Exactly 'best drawing programs...supplied with a system'!

I am sure there are far more competent vector drawing systems out there
for RISC OS and other systems and at a price comparable to an upgrade to
RO6. A program like Artworks (or ROOL Draw) can be used on *ALL* of the
RISC OS machines we own, RO6 Draw cannot be used on any of them.

> > As far as I am concerned developing them further was not a good way to
> > spend my Select subs. 
> 
> Even Paint, where I can to a small extent see where you're coming from with
> it having less retouching features than DPlingScan etc, is still a very
> useful icon editing application
But you don't need to upgrade to RO6 to get a version of Paint that can
do this do you?

>and can do much more than the likes of
> Windows' Paint.  You might be undervaluing both Draw and Paint because you've
> never really tried to do much with them???
<heresy> IMHO I am not sure it is possible to undervalue these two
applications enough. Comparing Paint to Windows Paint is a bit like
comparing herpes to AIDS.

I admit to having never got the feel of vector drawing, but Draw has
never encouraged me to do so even when I added the DrawWorks package.

I guess when I can see the uses for vector drawing packages I'll go and
find out what they really can do. Until that point if I need a sketch I
can instantly draw what I want with pencil and paper.
</heresy> 
> [snip]
> 
> I guess you and I have very different uses for our machines.
Yes and there are plenty of RISC OS users out there for whom a whole
load of different things are important.

>I for one
> really value Paint and Draw (any version), but the newer ones have given a
> greater range of features and ease of use, which I thought was worth paying
> for.
Support for Quicktime movies would have been worth paying for. After all
RISC OS already had plenty of competent image processing packages, but a
dearth of video playing/conversion packages. This lack of video support
lead us to purchase a mac mini.

It would not have been difficult for RISC OS to make use of command line
utilities such as ffmpegx to convert to RISC OS friendly mpeg formats
(as the image viewer seems to do for images).

I do this on the macs, in order to make it possible for me to access *my
own content* on my website from a RISC OS machine. A big shame that ROL
thought that this was unimportant or irrelevent for their activities.

So now ROL is irrelevent to my activities.

Hopefully ROOL might be able to fill the gap.

 Regards
 Stan

*

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/6/2007 11:16:35 AM
In article <1b1d773d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>,
   Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
> You are perfectly at liberty to relicence your work under any licence 
> to someone else if you wish (as long as it is all your work) all you 
> are doing is offering your work to castle under castle's licence.

If it were all your own work, how would it be relevant to this discussion?

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 11:56:59 AM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:12:07 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

> In message <47303e1a$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
>  Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:58:02 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:
> 
>>> In a dim and distant universe
>>> <472fb0ab$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>>>    Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:
>>> 
>>>> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.
>>> 
>>> What is so obnoxious about the Castle licence?
> 
>> If you've actually read it and don't see it, you're not going to agree
>> with or understand any reasons I might provide.
> 
>> But here's one anyway: It requires you to give up your rights to your
>> contributions.
> 
> Ok I'll bite.
> 
> Where does it say that your work is no longer your copyright?

It doesn't.  But fortunately, I didn't suggest that it did.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 12:04:07 PM
In message <47305837$0$8419$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:12:07 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>> In message <47303e1a$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
>>  Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:58:02 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:
>> 
>>>> In a dim and distant universe
>>>> <472fb0ab$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>>>>    Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:
>>>> 
>>>>> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.
>>>> 
>>>> What is so obnoxious about the Castle licence?
>> 
>>> If you've actually read it and don't see it, you're not going to agree
>>> with or understand any reasons I might provide.
>> 
>>> But here's one anyway: It requires you to give up your rights to your
>>> contributions.
>> 
>> Ok I'll bite.
>> 
>> Where does it say that your work is no longer your copyright?

> It doesn't.  But fortunately, I didn't suggest that it did.

Sorry I thought you said that you gave up your rights. What other 
rights do you have?

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 12:19:51 PM
In message <4f3d7b3857john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <1b1d773d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>,
>    Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
>> You are perfectly at liberty to relicence your work under any licence
>> to someone else if you wish (as long as it is all your work) all you
>> are doing is offering your work to castle under castle's licence.

> If it were all your own work, how would it be relevant to this discussion?

We were talking about loss of rights under the Castle licence and I 
was showing that you had no loss of rights - or trying to. Your own 
work is the only thing relevant when talking about licensing work you 
do.

If you replaced a module it would be all your own work and you could 
licence it to castle using castle's licence or BSD licence if you 
like. You would also be able to licence it to ROL under a different 
licence

You can only licence your own work or work that you have been given 
copyright or have a licence to relicence. Castle don't get your 
copyright. So Castle supply code under their licence and you supply 
code under your licence if both licences don't contradict each other 
the collaborative effort can go forward.

If you choose to supply code under Castle's licence then it is your 
licence not Castles.

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 12:35:23 PM
In article <5abc7e3d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>, Colin Granville
<vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
> In message <4f3d7b3857john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>  <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <1b1d773d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>, Colin Granville
> >    <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> You are perfectly at liberty to relicence your work under any licence to
> >> someone else if you wish (as long as it is all your work) all you are
> >> doing is offering your work to castle under castle's licence.

> > If it were all your own work, how would it be relevant to this discussion?

> We were talking about loss of rights under the Castle licence and I was
> showing that you had no loss of rights - or trying to. Your own work is
> the only thing relevant when talking about licensing work you do.

But if it were *all* your own work why would you be bothering with the Castle
'licence' in the first place?

> If you replaced a module it would be all your own work and you could
> licence it to castle using castle's licence or BSD licence if you like.
> You would also be able to licence it to ROL under a different licence

[Snip]

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 1:30:35 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:19:51 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

> In message <47305837$0$8419$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
>  Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:12:07 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>>> Where does it say that your work is no longer your copyright?
> 
>> It doesn't.  But fortunately, I didn't suggest that it did.
> 
> Sorry I thought you said that you gave up your rights. 

I did.

> What other rights do you have?

Very few for code that you've written based on or linked to anything from 
ROOL.

B.

0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 1:37:50 PM
In message <47306e2e$0$21100$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:19:51 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>> In message <47305837$0$8419$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
>>  Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:12:07 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>>>> Where does it say that your work is no longer your copyright?
>> 
>>> It doesn't.  But fortunately, I didn't suggest that it did.
>> 
>> Sorry I thought you said that you gave up your rights.

> I did.

>> What other rights do you have?

> Very few for code that you've written based on or linked to anything from
> ROOL.

The exact same thing can be said of GPL for example. You have no 
rights to code which isn't yours, you only have licence. It takes 2 
licences to have an incompatability, both are equally at fault for not 
being able to share code.

If you are writing for BSD Unix, for example, you can't link to GPL 
code just as you can't link to Castle code. Whichever environment you 
write for there are always licences which are incompatible.

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 2:22:17 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:22:17 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>> Very few for code that you've written based on or linked to anything
>> from ROOL.
> 
> The exact same thing can be said of GPL for example. You have no rights
> to code which isn't yours, you only have licence. 

No, this is not true.  You are entirely welcome to use any GPL code in a 
any product, commercial or otherwise, and not pay anybody any fees.  
Additionally, any contributions you make to any existing GPL code may not 
be arbitrarily relicenced or sublicenced to a third party without your 
permission.

These two points are very important.

B.

0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 2:27:33 PM
In message <4f3d71b81djohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <4f3d6ac0fainvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
>    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
>> In a dim and distant universe <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
>>> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence
>>> to develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
>>> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

>> I think you've missed a couple of O's from that statement!

> RISC OS Open Ltd have no licence [...].

That is blatantly untrue. Fortunately, in contrast to all the other 
controversial statements made regarding RISC OS licences this one is 
very easy to disprove because not only do ROOL have a licence but the 
licence is even open for everyone to read (in contrast to some other, 
mythical licence you seem to be so well informed of even though you 
cannot have seen it). Better still, it is not only ROOL's licence but 
it is offered to everyone, even to you if you want it.

In case you missed it, you can find the licence provided to ROOL and 
everyone else by the owners of RISC OS at:
http://www.castle-technology.co.uk/riscosbaselicence.htm

> Your confusion explains your comments - but your ignorance is not excusable.

I cannot see how you can be in a position to excuse or not excuse 
someone else's ignorance. I certainly reserve the right to be ignorant 
and I excuse your ignorance regarding ROOL's licence even though I 
have to say that I found it surprising.

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
   ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spamtrap@mw-software.com      [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
0
spamtrap3075 (2307)
11/6/2007 2:39:48 PM
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:00:21 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:
> 
>> In a dim and distant universe <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> muttered:
>>
>>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then
>>> its the end of it.
>> Tell that to the Linux developers....
> 
> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.

IMHO, the GPL and LGPL are mostly great licences for users, but
take away too much freedom from developers. GPL V3 makes things
even worse. I prefer Castle's shared source licence.

Steffen

-- 
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
0
spam9600 (698)
11/6/2007 2:50:38 PM
In message <473079d5$0$21100$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:22:17 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>>> Very few for code that you've written based on or linked to anything
>>> from ROOL.
>> 
>> The exact same thing can be said of GPL for example. You have no rights
>> to code which isn't yours, you only have licence.

> No, this is not true.  You are entirely welcome to use any GPL code in a
> any product, commercial or otherwise, and not pay anybody any fees.

This is not true either. The fee is you distributing the code you used 
and contributed, possibly at considerable cost,  for nominal fee under 
the same terms - a valuable commodity as anyone who uses GPL code will 
attest.

> Additionally, any contributions you make to any existing GPL code may not
> be arbitrarily relicenced or sublicenced to a third party without your
> permission.

That only applies to your contribution not to the whole of the code. I 
am perfectly at liberty to extract my code from a GPL'd file and 
relicence it as I wish.

Castle can not arbitarliy relicence your code either. You give them 
permission to change the licence by choosing their licence that's what 
licences do they tell the non copyright owner what they can do. There 
is no arbitary involved. If you submit the code under a BSD licence 
Castle can't change it but if they want to use it it will make no 
difference to them.

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 3:14:52 PM
In message <4f3d83ca16john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <5abc7e3d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>, Colin Granville
> <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
>> In message <4f3d7b3857john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>>  <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> In article <1b1d773d4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>, Colin Granville
>>>    <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> You are perfectly at liberty to relicence your work under any licence to
>>>> someone else if you wish (as long as it is all your work) all you are
>>>> doing is offering your work to castle under castle's licence.

>>> If it were all your own work, how would it be relevant to this discussion?

>> We were talking about loss of rights under the Castle licence and I was
>> showing that you had no loss of rights - or trying to. Your own work is
>> the only thing relevant when talking about licensing work you do.

> But if it were *all* your own work why would you be bothering with the Castle
> 'licence' in the first place?

My contributions are always *all* my own work whether they are 1 line 
in a source file or a complete replacement for the font manager and 
are my copyright however small, and mine to licence.

The reason for choosing Castles licence for my work in both cases is 
because I want my work to be part of RISC OS as this is the best way 
to have Extended API's available to everyone so that they can be used.

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 3:29:01 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:14:52 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>>> The exact same thing can be said of GPL for example. You have no
>>> rights to code which isn't yours, you only have licence.
> 
>> No, this is not true.  You are entirely welcome to use any GPL code in
>> a any product, commercial or otherwise, and not pay anybody any fees.
> 
> This is not true either. The fee is you distributing the code you used
> and contributed, possibly at considerable cost,  for nominal fee under
> the same terms - a valuable commodity as anyone who uses GPL code will
> attest.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean.  I'm saying that one can use GPL coded, 
regardless of if you've contributed to it or not, in a commercial product 
and not pay anybody a licence fee.  This is not the case for code under 
the CTL licence, regardless of how much of the code you wrote.

>> Additionally, any contributions you make to any existing GPL code may
>> not be arbitrarily relicenced or sublicenced to a third party without
>> your permission.
> 
> That only applies to your contribution not to the whole of the code. I
> am perfectly at liberty to extract my code from a GPL'd file and
> relicence it as I wish.

Yes, I used the word "contribution" here.

> Castle can not arbitarliy relicence your code either. You give them
> permission to change the licence by choosing their licence that's what
> licences do they tell the non copyright owner what they can do.

So, in other words, CTL can change the licence of your code to one that 
they arbitrarily select?

> There is
> no arbitary involved. If you submit the code under a BSD licence Castle
> can't change it but if they want to use it it will make no difference to
> them.

Except of course if your contributions are based on their code - when it 
has to be given to them under the CTL licence, which they can then change 
later.  To anything of their choosing.

Both these issues are why I consider the licence obnoxious, among several 
others, and why I will have no part in contributing anything to the 
project.  I would give much considering to changing that standpoint if 
they changed the licence to a less self-centred on.

While I respect CTL's need to actually make some money, and flogging the 
contents of their cupboard on eBay won't pay the mortgage, there are 
other ways of making money at the same time as having the public do your 
work for you.

B.

0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 3:30:21 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:50:38 +0100, Steffen Huber wrote:

> Rob Kendrick wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:00:21 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:
>> 
>>> In a dim and distant universe <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>>>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> muttered:
>>>
>>>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>>>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>>>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then
>>>> its the end of it.
>>> Tell that to the Linux developers....
>> 
>> Who of course have a licence that isn't obnoxious.
> 
> IMHO, the GPL and LGPL are mostly great licences for users, but take
> away too much freedom from developers. GPL V3 makes things even worse. I
> prefer Castle's shared source licence.

GPL v3 is pretty bad.  I don't especially like GPL v2, either.  However:

If the GPL contained a clause that said Richard Stallman could licence 
other people's contributions to other people under different 
circumstances, I suspect many GNU projects would not have gotten to the 
level of development they currently enjoy.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 3:32:01 PM
Steve Potts wrote:
> In message <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> As I see it, only the ROOL development model is aiming for growth and
>> ongoing development. The ROS Ltd path seems to be pretty stagnant.
> 
> Erm... Let me see.  Web based PRMs release, RISC OS 4.40 (A9Home first
> release), 4.42 (A9Home wider release with more features, BTSDump), 6.02
> (preview, new versions of applications, Toolbox and other stuff), 6.06
> (Viewfinder support and many other features, new HTML user guide and HTML
> PRMs), new updated pack for subscribers (keyboard shortcuts and a number of
> fixes).  Yeah that's pretty stagnant.  :-p

Compared to the progress seen in Select 1/2/3, I see very little
progress in Select 4/RO Six. And that's after three years. The list
you produced is very thin on user-visible features. The RO Six
website lists nearly no "End User" feature worth noting.

Did the subscribers get their money back, or did they get their
subscriptions extended?

Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

Steffen

-- 
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
0
spam9600 (698)
11/6/2007 3:33:40 PM
In article <ae208a3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
<spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <4f3d71b81djohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <4f3d6ac0fainvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul
> >    Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In a dim and distant universe <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> >>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> >>> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence
> >>> to develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared
> >>> sourced anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

> >> I think you've missed a couple of O's from that statement!

> > RISC OS Open Ltd have no licence [...].

> That is blatantly untrue.

I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference below tends
to confirm that. Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c (purchased
from E14) RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what they do with
regard to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not party to any such
licensing.

Paul (deliberately?) mixed the two - and that's the problem, someone might
believe there is some truth in what he says.

[Snip]

> In case you missed it, you can find the licence provided to ROOL and
> everyone else by the owners of RISC OS at:
> http://www.castle-technology.co.uk/riscosbaselicence.htm

[about Paul's comment]
> > Your confusion explains your comments - but your ignorance is not
> > excusable.

> I cannot see how you can be in a position to excuse or not excuse someone
> else's ignorance. I certainly reserve the right to be ignorant and I
> excuse your ignorance regarding ROOL's licence even though I have to say
> that I found it surprising.

Not knowing or not understanding is acceptable. Paul is exhibiting something
quite different.
I apologise for not being clear. I wasn't wrong though - and certainly don't
need excusing. If you still think I'm wrong please do correct me.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 3:56:43 PM
In message <4730888c$0$21085$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:14:52 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

>>>> The exact same thing can be said of GPL for example. You have no
>>>> rights to code which isn't yours, you only have licence.
>> 
>>> No, this is not true.  You are entirely welcome to use any GPL code in
>>> a any product, commercial or otherwise, and not pay anybody any fees.
>> 
>> This is not true either. The fee is you distributing the code you used
>> and contributed, possibly at considerable cost,  for nominal fee under
>> the same terms - a valuable commodity as anyone who uses GPL code will
>> attest.

> Sorry, I don't get what you mean.  I'm saying that one can use GPL coded,
> regardless of if you've contributed to it or not, in a commercial product
> and not pay anybody a licence fee.  This is not the case for code under
> the CTL licence, regardless of how much of the code you wrote.

Yes there are always people who can make money from people 
contributing free GPL code just as Castle can make money from the free 
contributions of coders. Either way I'm not going to make money from 
my code so castle or GPL makes no difference to me.

>> Castle can not arbitarliy relicence your code either. You give them
>> permission to change the licence by choosing their licence that's what
>> licences do they tell the non copyright owner what they can do.

> So, in other words, CTL can change the licence of your code to one that
> they arbitrarily select?

Yes. You told them they could. How does this affect you? You are still 
the copyright holder and can release your code as many times as you 
like with as many licences as you like. Nothing they change in the 
licence to can change that. If you've fetched all the code you'll 
always have that under the current castle licence so will always be 
able to distribute it freely.

>> There is
>> no arbitary involved. If you submit the code under a BSD licence Castle
>> can't change it but if they want to use it it will make no difference to
>> them.

> Except of course if your contributions are based on their code - when it
> has to be given to them under the CTL licence, which they can then change
> later.  To anything of their choosing.

No you can give them code with a BSD licence and if the code is what 
they want they will accept it as a BSD licence will allow them to do 
what they want to do.

> While I respect CTL's need to actually make some money, and flogging the
> contents of their cupboard on eBay won't pay the mortgage, there are
> other ways of making money at the same time as having the public do your
> work for you.

Seems to me you just don't like Castle you think that they shouldn't 
be making money from code freely given by the public. To me all public 
source coding makes money for someone other than the coders. What we 
are left with after you take castle making money out of the equation 
is a community trying to improve RISC OS.

-- 
Colin
0
11/6/2007 4:17:15 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Not knowing or not understanding is acceptable. Paul is exhibiting
> something quite different. I apologise for not being clear. I wasn't
> wrong though - and certainly don't need excusing. If you still think I'm
> wrong please do correct me.

Don't be silly. You have some kind of dislike for Castle and ROOL and now
you're trying to beat around the bush, trying to distort things. It's you
who is confusing the issues.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/6/2007 4:25:39 PM
In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>,
   Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview. I presume that was
mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact' that he knew
Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full release.

He didn't apologise for that noisy bit of misleading, either.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 4:33:28 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:17:15 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:

> In message <4730888c$0$21085$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>  Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:14:52 +0000, Colin Granville wrote:
> 
>>>>> The exact same thing can be said of GPL for example. You have no
>>>>> rights to code which isn't yours, you only have licence.
>>> 
>>>> No, this is not true.  You are entirely welcome to use any GPL code
>>>> in a any product, commercial or otherwise, and not pay anybody any
>>>> fees.
>>> 
>>> This is not true either. The fee is you distributing the code you used
>>> and contributed, possibly at considerable cost,  for nominal fee under
>>> the same terms - a valuable commodity as anyone who uses GPL code will
>>> attest.
> 
>> Sorry, I don't get what you mean.  I'm saying that one can use GPL
>> coded, regardless of if you've contributed to it or not, in a
>> commercial product and not pay anybody a licence fee.  This is not the
>> case for code under the CTL licence, regardless of how much of the code
>> you wrote.

<snip>

If it's not an issue for you, that's great, fine, and dandy.  I'm happy 
for you.  I'm sure they'll love your contributions.

However, I don't feel it's great, and I will not be making any.  I 
suspect the licence also reduces the chances of people from outside the 
community contributing.  It's arrogant to assume that there's much in 
RISC OS worth pilfering to run elsewhere, but it would make a fine hobby 
OS that plenty of people would like to play with, but many in the open 
source world, like myself, find the licence a show stopper.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 4:34:03 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:33:28 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>,
>    Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
>> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?
> 
> Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview.

The issue was that Viewfinder support wasn't in RISC OS at all until the 
full release-version of RISC OS "Six" - it was a third-party hack.  The 
RO5 Preview didn't have it because this hack hadn't been updated to cope 
with RO6's new way of abstracting hardware.

> I presume
> that was mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact'
> that he knew Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full
> release.

Actually, he didn't - you're making this up.  He was referring to the 
preview version only at the time - you just read too much into what he 
said.

> He didn't apologise for that noisy bit of misleading, either.

As you never do.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 5:02:36 PM
In article <4f3d93d149invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> [Snippety snip]

> > Not knowing or not understanding is acceptable. Paul is exhibiting
> > something quite different. I apologise for not being clear. I wasn't
> > wrong though - and certainly don't need excusing. If you still think I'm
> > wrong please do correct me.

> Don't be silly. You have some kind of dislike for Castle and ROOL and now
> you're trying to beat around the bush, trying to distort things. It's you
> who is confusing the issues.

If you want to try to find the slightest error in what I said then do so. You
won't succeed. Of course you knew that anyway - and just want to spread as
much rubbish as you can get away with.

How about asking the ROOL guys how much I have criticised them, distorted
their words - or whatever? When they honestly tell you (as they must - as it's
true) that I have represented them fairly and given them space to put things
in their own words. Go on - ring Andrew or Steve and ask - or are you afraid
of being shown up as a promoter of falsehoods?

Castle? I rightly criticised them when they unreasonably attacked all other
RISC OS companies with legal threats. If you didn't do the same then I'd
question your commitment to the RISC OS market.

Now about what you questioned:
"RISCOS Ltd have the exclusive licence to develop in our area of interest."
and
"RISC OS Open Ltd have no licence and are working solely as agents for
Castle."

Take it slowly and tell me where you think any part of the above is wrong. The
statements criticise no-one (but that shouldn't held against them) and are
based on public statements made by the principals involved in each case.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 5:11:43 PM
In article <f96d313d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4f3d1ed233rjseago@zetnet.co.uk>
>           Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,


> >> Personally, I have serious concerns about this so-called
> >> "shared-sourcing", I do not believe its the best way forward at this
> >> time (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from
> >> iyonix only users will start to get some of the features in Select,
> >> etc) - But we are where we are with two camps trying to score points
> >> off each other.

> > Forgive me but if ROOL spawns useful stuff, I am sure many RO6 users will
> > not be too proud to use it. Menwhile it looks unlikely that I will ever be
> > able to benefit from stuff that ROL have done. I have not been impressed
> > with some of their statements about things either.

> If something came along and was actually an enhancement on the 
> version/option/facility provided by RO6 (including all existing RO6 
> features plus extras, I might well install it, but otherwise cannot 
> see the point or benefit.
Exactly but people seem to be making the point here that no one seems to
be trying to produce ROS 6 features.  It is likely people will do things
they themselves wish to have. 

At least any modules and enhancements written using the ROOL sources will
be available to (nearly) all machines.  ROL look like never producing
anything from Iyonix users, despite happily encouraging them to keep up
subscriptions, and keeping some of them on board using what seem like
empty hints and suggestions.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
0
rjseago (182)
11/6/2007 6:22:50 PM
In article <060f733d4f.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>,
   Tony Moore <old_coaster@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> To fix the decompression issue:

> Download and unpack http://www.davidpilling.net/fresh.zip

> Copy xpand from !Freshen.Library into your Boot:Library.Archive

> Double-click Library:ScanLibs

> Issue the command

>    *xpand ...!Draw.!RunImage

>    where the dots indicate the full address of Draw 1.14.

> !RunImage will be expanded, and saved over the compressed original.

> Draw 1.14 should now run on RO 6.06 (it does here).

> Tony

Thanks for the note Tony, that worked.

Cheers
Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/6/2007 6:24:42 PM
In message <4f3d93d149invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> [Snippety snip]
> 
> > Not knowing or not understanding is acceptable. Paul is exhibiting
> > something quite different. I apologise for not being clear. I wasn't
> > wrong though - and certainly don't need excusing. If you still think I'm
> > wrong please do correct me.
> 
> Don't be silly. You have some kind of dislike for Castle and ROOL and now
> you're trying to beat around the bush, trying to distort things. It's you
> who is confusing the issues.
> 

Hummmmm. 

"Pot" and "Black"

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 7:25:44 PM
In article <254ea43d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> "Pot" and "Black"

I prefer pool to snooker.

-- 
 //\  // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
//  \//  "Word to the wise guy; be nice or be dog food!"

.... ----> If you cut here, you'll ruin your monitor. <----
0
miyuki1 (1402)
11/6/2007 7:31:54 PM
In message <4f3d3a7158invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <25d02d3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
>    Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> muttered:
> > Paul, but just the other day you were complaining in this same thread
> > that you couldn't see a cosmetic difference between the different
> > versions of Draw so they must be the same.  Your discussion arguments are
> > very inconsistent.

> Huh! I don't follow what you mean?
> 
> I can' spot any immediate differences between the version of Draw on the
> iyonix and that on the RPC. On the RPC I have the standard GUI display (ie.
> all the curved icons and borders are turned off). In either case, curved
> icons make no difference to !Draw, as that's a wimp function, and nothing
> to do with Draw.

Paul,

On the one hand you keep saying how a cosmetic thing (rounded icons) is of no
value to you.  And yet you're using cosmetics (visual differences or lack
thereof) as a measure of whether something is different or not.

The version of Draw in RISC OS 6.06 is different to earlier versions in ways
which are not visible window furniture.

> > You really can't be looking very hard or are too lazy or want to skew
> > reality for those who don't know better.  Your posting about ROL progress
> > is completely negative and does not portray reality at all.
> 
> Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation. I've had more updates
> for the Iyonix in the past couple of years than the RPC has. ROS Ltd don't
> seem to want to bring out Select for the Iyonix, even though they're trying
> to blackmail Iyonix users into subscribing to Select otherwise it won't
> come out for the Iyonix. I'm beginning to think it won't come out for the
> Iyonix anyway, and that was just a way to screw some extra money out of
> people.

Now you're going off at a tangent.

> > You really need to describe things more objectively.
> 
> I describe them as I find them, from having a ROS Six RPC sitting next to
> an Iyonix. I use both quite extensively, yet I never switch from one
> machine to the other and think, "Oh I really miss such and such a
> function", so in everyday use, there's not a great deal between them.

You keep saying that you've used both RO5 and RO6 extensively and yet you
claim you don't know of the differences which obvious to anyone who's
bothered to look at the documentation for RISC OS 6 - never mind used it in
anger.

> I'm not saying there are *no* differences, just that for my day to day use,
> I can't think of anything I miss from RISC OS Six, when I switch to the
> Iyonix - and from a developer point of view, I make all my own applications
> work with all versions of RISC OS anyway, so it's not like I can take
> advantage of any of these so called new features in ROS 6.

Your arguments change as soon as you're challenged.

This thread was all about differences in Draw - from a user's point of view. 
You were saying there were no differences that you could see.  Now you're
telling me that all your previous comments about Draw looking the same were
from a developer viewpoint!  I just don't buy anything you say anymore,
you're wriggling frantically.

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 7:36:20 PM
In message <4f3d6bb61einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <4f3d3c9b6bjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> > In article <4f3d3a7158invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> >    Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Like I said, it's my personal view of the situation.
> 
> > 'Personal view' isn't an excuse to change facts.
> 
> I wasn't changing facts. I wish you'd pay attention.
> 
> I said that I've not noticed any differences between the two. I also said
> that it was in my view meaning an entirely subjective view of things.
> 
> It's a bit like walking into a friends living room and not noticing they've
> moved a chair or bought a new light bulb. You're happily oblivious to any
> changes until they happen to point it out, 
[snip]

But you've used the word "extensive" to try and show that you've really
looked into use of both OS versions, which does not match your "living room"
example.


-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 7:37:51 PM
In message <4f3d3b78f2steve@revi11.plus.com>
          "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:

> In article <175b2e3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
>    Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> > But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple of
> > modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which are
> > part of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to know
> > what you would do about that problem???
> 
> and your question is...? These things have a number of possible solutions
> that will be visited at the point where we come to each problem:
> 
> * Speak to owner of various bits of IPR and agree terms for distribution

What if agreement can't be found?

> * Write a clean-room reimplementation of problem code
> * Find alternative way to make system work without that code

But is it not the case that ROOL have ceased development of RISC OS and are
too busy doing day jobs and the Admin?  So have you not promised something
which you're expecting someone else to deliver?

I'd like to understand much more about the processes involved, because at the
moment, to me, there appears to be a big gap between statements made about
the future releases and how to get there.

> There are other options depending upon what the problem is. We've already
> got over various hurdles, so we don't expect plain sailing from here.

Again, I'd like to understand some of this then, as I am sure many others
would.  Do you have some examples of released items of contention that have
been resolved?

Thanks.

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 7:45:36 PM
In article <4f3da4dea4miyuki@no.spam.here>,
   Chika <miyuki@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <254ea43d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
>    Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> > "Pot" and "Black"

> I prefer pool to snooker.

Billiards. KISS. ;-)

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 7:46:16 PM
In message <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>
          Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:

> Steve Potts wrote:
> > In message <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> >           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> >> As I see it, only the ROOL development model is aiming for growth and
> >> ongoing development. The ROS Ltd path seems to be pretty stagnant.
> > 
> > Erm... Let me see.  Web based PRMs release, RISC OS 4.40 (A9Home first
> > release), 4.42 (A9Home wider release with more features, BTSDump), 6.02
> > (preview, new versions of applications, Toolbox and other stuff), 6.06
> > (Viewfinder support and many other features, new HTML user guide and HTML
> > PRMs), new updated pack for subscribers (keyboard shortcuts and a number
> > of fixes).  Yeah that's pretty stagnant.  :-p
> 
> Compared to the progress seen in Select 1/2/3, I see very little
> progress in Select 4/RO Six. And that's after three years. The list
> you produced is very thin on user-visible features. 

Steffen,

My list was not intended to be exhaustive.  But then you knew that didn't
you.

We're not talking here about how long the list is, we're talking about how
Paul stated that RISCOS Ltd are "pretty stagnant" - something I disagree
with.

> The RO Six website lists nearly no "End User" feature worth noting.

And Castle's does of late?  RISCOS Ltd. have a need to improve their PR and I
don't pretend that they are perfect.  But in such a small market they are not
employing a team of PR people and so the programmers do their work behind the
scenes and PR and documentation have in the past been lacking.  I do think
that RISCOS Ltd. deserve some credit more recently for their efforts
releasing documentation (something programmers generally don't enjoy doing),
as well as the features in RISC OS 6.

What a lot of people slating RISCOS Ltd. conveniently forget, is that this
*is* a small market with small players.

In my opinion Castle have stagnated over the last 18 months.  I don't watch
too closely, not having an Iyonix, but I don't recall seeing press releases
announcing new features of RISC OS 5 before they opened up the source.  The
only things I remember are updated Video Card drivers.

Certainly at the Guildford show, there was no hot new feature available for
the Iyonix announced.  Yes more source was released but that is not directly
user feature improvements either.

> Did the subscribers get their money back, or did they get their
> subscriptions extended?

What are you asking me for?  Talk to RISCOS Ltd.  I can't comment on their
financial arrangements.

> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

I think it might be (EDID auto detection for one - at least I guess that
was not in the original drivers for VF), but I don't have one, so you'd have
to check facts with RISCOS Ltd.  You're missing the point here though.  The
Viewfinder support is also a further proof of concept as I see it for the
video abstraction which was first in the A9Home, but improved in RISC OS 6.

Cheers
Steve

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 8:06:23 PM
In message <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <ae208a3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
> <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
>> In message <4f3d71b81djohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> RISC OS Open Ltd have no licence [...].
>>
>> That is blatantly untrue.
>
> I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference
> below tends to confirm that.

I do not think there is any scope for a misunderstanding. You claimed 
that ROOL have no licence. That is nonsense. A company cannot 
distribute source code belonging to a third party on a web site and on 
CD without a licence, and not surprisingly, ROOL do have a licence and 
I posted the URL to it.

> Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c (purchased from E14)
> RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what they do with regard
> to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not party to any such
> licensing.

Maybe not to "any such" licensing (which would depend on the exact 
definition of "any such" - e.g., meaning a bilateral licence giving 
the rights to exploit derived works commerically without having to 
disclose any modified source code, such as the one ROL purchased from 
E14) but they are still party to *some* licensing and in default of 
any additional licensing agreement between them and Castle they are 
party to the open source licence as published on the Castle web site 
and included on the ROOL source CD. Whether or not ROOL have any 
additional licence agreement with Castle on top of that is immaterial 
simply because they can work on the basis of the open source licence, 
but they could not do what they do without a licence.

Even my grandmother has a licence to use, develop and publish the 
source code of the open source RISC OS components (though not 
surprisingly, she chooses not to make any use of it), so in the light 
of that any claim that ROOL do not have one seems rather silly.

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
   ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spamtrap@mw-software.com      [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
0
spamtrap3075 (2307)
11/6/2007 8:52:02 PM
On 6 Nov, John Cartmell wrote in message
  <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:

> I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference below
> tends to confirm that. Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c
> (purchased from E14) RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what
> they do with regard to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not
> party to any such licensing.

Eh?  Aren't ROOL operating under the general shared-source licence from
Castle: that is, the one that Martin gave you a link to here:

> > In case you missed it, you can find the licence provided to ROOL and
> > everyone else by the owners of RISC OS at:
> > http://www.castle-technology.co.uk/riscosbaselicence.htm

Unlike ROL's license to develop RISC OS, we can *all* see what it
contains.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/6/2007 9:39:03 PM
On 6 Nov 2007 Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:

> In article <26db323d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
>    druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> You might want to ask your OS vendor why they don't support the binary
>> compression method used by the latest RISC OS compiler suite, which
>> most developers are using these days.

> I guess a more pointed question should be, just why third party OS
> developers are using something that cannot be used by the majority of
> users, using the legit RISC OS operating system. ;-)

Dave, the smilie is not some sort of licence to type rubbish.

The code squeezing component of the official RISC OS development suite 
produces code which works on the full range of RISC OS machines from
3.1, through to 4.39 and 5. However, being kind, due to some oversight 
the AIF compressor in RISC OS 6 does not. This currently only affects 
the tiny number of people running Select 4i2 or the standalone RISC OS 
6 purchase, and I'm sure ROL will be addressing it very shortly, as 
they will not want to disadvantage their customers.

> It would also seem to be a pointless exercise, the rest of us supporting
> ROOL that is. I guess a bit like Iyonix owners subscribing to the RO
> Select/Adjust scheme.  :-(

The situations are not equivelent, unless you are alluding that ROL 
are deliberately preventing people from using the latest version of
most developers applications. I certainly would not want to subscribe
to that view.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/6/2007 10:08:08 PM
On 6 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> If you want to try to find the slightest error in what I said then do so.

John, there is not the slightest grain of trueth in anything you write 
on this subject. Yet again your only agenda is to sow division and 
acrimony amongst the ever decreasing number of developers and users of 
this platform. Directly contributing to, and accelerating its demise.

As someone supposedly both relying on this market for income and 
notionally providing an information service, your actions are a 
manifestation of abject stupidity and supreme selfishness. My
disgust for your behaviour is without bounds.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/6/2007 10:27:01 PM
In message <c382b03d4f.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>
          Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

> On 6 Nov, John Cartmell wrote in message
>   <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
> 
> > I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference below
> > tends to confirm that. Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c
> > (purchased from E14) RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what
> > they do with regard to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not
> > party to any such licensing.
> 
> Eh?  Aren't ROOL operating under the general shared-source licence from
> Castle: that is, the one that Martin gave you a link to here:

All of these arguments about licenses accept the assumption that Castle can
do as they please, despite the exclusive license that RISCOS Ltd have and
despite any other interested parties to the IP within RISC OS sources.

> > > In case you missed it, you can find the licence provided to ROOL and
> > > everyone else by the owners of RISC OS at:
> > > http://www.castle-technology.co.uk/riscosbaselicence.htm
> 
> Unlike ROL's license to develop RISC OS, we can *all* see what it
> contains.

RISCOS Ltd. are not the sole reason for their license remaining secret as I
understand it.  You seem to be implying that it is only RISCOS Ltd don't want
you to see their license.

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 10:32:52 PM
In message <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then its
>> the end of it.

> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence to
> develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

They will never come back precisely because of the TWO strands of the 
OS, now becoming three strands as far I can see.

They got Mac's instead.

-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/6/2007 10:38:43 PM
In message <35f9433d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
          druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
>> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then its
>>> the end of it.

>> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence to
>> develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
>> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

> I can't decide if one of both of the above posters is telling a joke
> the other one doesn't understant.

No idea what your on about Druck. Put simply people *are* leaving 
because of the OS split and also now it appears as a result of the 
"Shared sourcing".



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/6/2007 10:41:07 PM
In message <9ab2413d4f.harriet@freeuk.com>
          Harriet Bazley <bazley@feathermail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 5 Nov 2007 as I do recall,
>           Chris Hughes wrote:

> [snip]

>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,

> I find it hard to understand that causing anyone to leave as a *user* --
> as a developer, yes, but the user doesn't care so long as the stuff he
> wants continues to be available. (Witness the people who are still using
> RISC OS 3.1, or BBC micros driving lab equipment....)

Sorry you find it hard to understand but sadly that is what has 
happened - one of them felt it would make it more Linux in 'style' 
(development I think he meant). and was simply no longer interested, 
not helped by the my toy is better then your toy arguments.

>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then
>> its the end of it.
>> 
> For myself, I find it a far more hopeful prospect than pinning the hopes
> for 'the market' on the emulated sector.

When my RiscPC goes (its extremely unlikely I'll buy any more RISC OS 
hardware - I have no use for an Iyonix for instance - it gives me no 
more benefit then now, as for the A9home - I like it. But would neeed 
to justify the cost now) Instead if I were to remain in the RISC OS 
world I would go emulated (already have on some other computers here



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/6/2007 11:01:08 PM
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:43 +0000, Chris Hughes wrote:

> They will never come back precisely because of the TWO strands of the
> OS, now becoming three strands as far I can see.

Well, if CTL don't roll back in the changes people submit and have 
accepted to ROOL and any other projects based on the source, the whole 
exercise is a bit of a waste of their time.

The whole point of this shared source enterprise is for the public to 
develop RISC OS 5 for CTL, while providing a little bit of advertisement 
for potential licensees.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/6/2007 11:02:41 PM
In message <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>
          Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:

> Steve Potts wrote:
>> In message <4f3d0dbaf4invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
>>           Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> As I see it, only the ROOL development model is aiming for growth and
>>> ongoing development. The ROS Ltd path seems to be pretty stagnant.
>> 
>> Erm... Let me see.  Web based PRMs release, RISC OS 4.40 (A9Home first
>> release), 4.42 (A9Home wider release with more features, BTSDump), 6.02
>> (preview, new versions of applications, Toolbox and other stuff), 6.06
>> (Viewfinder support and many other features, new HTML user guide and HTML
>> PRMs), new updated pack for subscribers (keyboard shortcuts and a number of
>> fixes).  Yeah that's pretty stagnant.  :-p

> Compared to the progress seen in Select 1/2/3, I see very little
> progress in Select 4/RO Six. And that's after three years. The list
> you produced is very thin on user-visible features. The RO Six
> website lists nearly no "End User" feature worth noting.

I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison 
between RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John 
Cartmell, etc.. But it won't happen.

> Did the subscribers get their money back, or did they get their
> subscriptions extended?

> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

Yes it is actually.

> Steffen



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/6/2007 11:06:49 PM
In message <4f3d948865john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>,
>    Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
>> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

> Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview. I presume that was
> mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact' that he knew
> Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full release.

I think you are infering something that was not said John. Please 
don't assume to mind read. You can't.

> He didn't apologise for that noisy bit of misleading, either.

Drop this rubbish now.

Have you private hate campaigns via email please John.

-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/6/2007 11:09:06 PM
In message <4f3d9e8b31rjseago@zetnet.co.uk>
          Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <f96d313d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <4f3d1ed233rjseago@zetnet.co.uk>
>>           Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

>>> In article <0ab2003d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,


>>>> Personally, I have serious concerns about this so-called
>>>> "shared-sourcing", I do not believe its the best way forward at this
>>>> time (no one has convinced me yet of any *real* benefits apart from
>>>> iyonix only users will start to get some of the features in Select,
>>>> etc) - But we are where we are with two camps trying to score points
>>>> off each other.

>>> Forgive me but if ROOL spawns useful stuff, I am sure many RO6 users will
>>> not be too proud to use it. Menwhile it looks unlikely that I will ever be
>>> able to benefit from stuff that ROL have done. I have not been impressed
>>> with some of their statements about things either.

>> If something came along and was actually an enhancement on the
>> version/option/facility provided by RO6 (including all existing RO6
>> features plus extras, I might well install it, but otherwise cannot
>> see the point or benefit.
> Exactly but people seem to be making the point here that no one seems to
> be trying to produce ROS 6 features.  It is likely people will do things
> they themselves wish to have.

Which is aprt of my problem as it stands with the "Shared Sources", it 
will be pot luck what we get it appears on the surface. I hope I am 
wrong but that the way it feels.

> At least any modules and enhancements written using the ROOL sources will
> be available to (nearly) all machines.  ROL look like never producing
> anything from Iyonix users, despite happily encouraging them to keep up
> subscriptions, and keeping some of them on board using what seem like
> empty hints and suggestions.

The Shared source might make some modules etc available but the *big* 
problem is version number controls - it caused problem before with the 
toolbox, and Clib. Its still happening. It puts people off. Real end 
users don't give two monkeys about who done the work they just want to 
be able to install a piece of software and it work without worry about 
have I got the correct version of this and that for my version of 
either the Castle, ROOL or ROL strand of the OS.



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/6/2007 11:16:50 PM
In article <7131b63d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> No idea what your on about Druck. Put simply people *are* leaving 
> because of the OS split and also now it appears as a result of the 
> "Shared sourcing".

People also appear to be coming back due to their new found ability to
access the sources and contribute something. Other people are still here who
might also have left.

Let's give this tedious doom and gloom mongering a rest shall we? At least
we should try to support the few who are actually putting their time and
effort into _something_ constructive rather than huffing and puffing endless
hot air about how put out we are and how unwilling we are to get off our own
behind to help.

We're already starting to reap the benefits of getting the RISC OS sources
out to the public. If you're unable to see those benefits, then ask the
questions and I'm sure others will be more than willing to supply the
answers.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/6/2007 11:17:38 PM
In article <c382b03d4f.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>,
   Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 6 Nov, John Cartmell wrote in message
>   <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:

> > I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference below
> > tends to confirm that. Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c
> > (purchased from E14) RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what
> > they do with regard to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not
> > party to any such licensing.

> Eh?  Aren't ROOL operating under the general shared-source licence from
> Castle: that is, the one that Martin gave you a link to here:

That's an irrelevancy in respect of the licence under discussion.

> > > In case you missed it, you can find the licence provided to ROOL and
> > > everyone else by the owners of RISC OS at:
> > > http://www.castle-technology.co.uk/riscosbaselicence.htm

> Unlike ROL's license to develop RISC OS, we can *all* see what it
> contains.

Which is why I limited my description to the minimum of what is agreed by all
parties and has been confirmed publicly over the years.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 11:21:54 PM
In article <9f34ac3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
<spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <ae208a3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
> > <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> >> In message <4f3d71b81djohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> >>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> RISC OS Open Ltd have no licence [...].
> >>
> >> That is blatantly untrue.
> >
> > I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference below
> > tends to confirm that.

> I do not think there is any scope for a misunderstanding. You claimed that
> ROOL have no licence. That is nonsense.

Only when you strip it out of the context of an answer to Paul's rather silly
claim.

> A company cannot distribute source
> code belonging to a third party on a web site and on CD without a licence,
> and not surprisingly, ROOL do have a licence and I posted the URL to it.

ROOL (according to Steve Revill) have issued the sources to RISC OS solely as
agents of Castle.

> > Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c (purchased from E14)
> > RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what they do with regard to
> > RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not party to any such
> > licensing.

> Maybe not to "any such" licensing (which would depend on the exact
> definition of "any such" - e.g., meaning a bilateral licence giving the
> rights to exploit derived works commerically without having to disclose
> any modified source code, such as the one ROL purchased from E14) but they
> are still party to *some* licensing and in default of any additional
> licensing agreement between them and Castle they are party to the open
> source licence as published on the Castle web site and included on the
> ROOL source CD. Whether or not ROOL have any additional licence agreement
> with Castle on top of that is immaterial simply because they can work on
> the basis of the open source licence, but they could not do what they do
> without a licence.

Paul was intentionally trying to conflate the licence that RISCOS Ltd have
with what ROOL might have. He was wrong. In those terms ROOL neither have
(nor, in law, *can* have) a licence.

> Even my grandmother has a licence to use, develop and publish the source
> code of the open source RISC OS components (though not surprisingly, she
> chooses not to make any use of it), so in the light of that any claim that
> ROOL do not have one seems rather silly.

And very silly not to accept that I must have been meaning something
significantly different. I referred back to what Paul said - and he clearly
was not referring to that licence.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/6/2007 11:31:54 PM
In message <1670b53d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
          Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

> In message <c382b03d4f.steve@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>
>           Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:

>> On 6 Nov, John Cartmell wrote in message
>>   <4f3d912b27john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
>> 
>>> I feel sure you have misunderstood what I said: and your reference below
>>> tends to confirm that. Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c
>>> (purchased from E14) RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what
>>> they do with regard to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not
>>> party to any such licensing.
>> 
>> Eh?  Aren't ROOL operating under the general shared-source licence from
>> Castle: that is, the one that Martin gave you a link to here:
>
> All of these arguments about licenses accept the assumption that Castle can
> do as they please

Not really. There is no need to assume that Castle can do as they 
please, it is enough to assume that they could do what they did, i.e., 
that the IPR they bought combined with any liabilities they may have 
inherited when buying that IPR gives them the right to use and license 
the code in the way they did. I have no reason to doubt that. You may 
have different views, in which case you would probably choose to not 
make use of Castle's open source licence.

> despite the exclusive license that RISCOS Ltd have

Unfortunately, neither you nor me are in a position to verify this 
claim, so the use of the word "alleged" might be appropriate in this 
context. Besides, even if ROL have a licence that is "exclusive" in 
some way or other, it is far from clear of what nature that 
exclusiveness is. It has been claimed that they have an exclusive 
licence for the desktop computer market and you may have heard that 
interpretation from persons who claim to have access to the wording of 
ROL's licence, but I have heard a different interpretation from other 
persons who claim to have access to the wording of the licence as 
well, so I can only conclude that the case is not clear and that we 
should refrain from rash conclusions. Therefore I simply give both 
parties the benefit of the doubt and assume that ROL have a licence 
that allows them to do what they do (develop new versions of RISC OS 
and sell them as ROMs and softload images for use in existing and new 
hardware) and that Castle have the rights to do what they currently do 
(develop new versions of RISC OS and sell them as part of their new 
hardware and license the RISC OS source code to others under a licence 
of their own choosing). There is no reason why that should be a 
contradiction.

> and despite any other interested parties to the IP within RISC OS sources.

....who will without doubt step forward and fight for themselves if 
such parties exist and feel that their rights have been infringed 
upon. Until then, I cannot see any benefit in speculating.

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
   ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spamtrap@mw-software.com      [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
0
spamtrap3075 (2307)
11/6/2007 11:34:17 PM
On 6 Nov 2007 Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <35f9433d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
>           druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
>>> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>>>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>>>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then its
>>>> the end of it.

>>> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence to
>>> develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
>>> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

>> I can't decide if one of both of the above posters is telling a joke
>> the other one doesn't understant.

> No idea what your on about Druck. Put simply people *are* leaving
> because of the OS split and also now it appears as a result of the
> "Shared sourcing".

If you need it spelled out, you are talking rubbish (although not 
quite as much as the other contributor). If people leave RISC OS, it 
is because it no longer meets their needs, which is a perfectly 
legitimate reason.

Claiming you are leaving because you don't like the fact that there 
are two active strands of OS development, is just plain silly. If 
there was some massive schism between APIs which meant that 
applications will only ever work on one or the other, there might be 
some merit to that arguement. But that is not the case, and will it 
never become so.

At worst its a small amount of extra work for developers, but no more 
than supporting multiple versions of the OS has been in the past, 
which has always been necessary as not since RISC OS 2.0 was succeeded 
has there been one single OS in use by the entire target market.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/6/2007 11:34:18 PM
In message <990fbb3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
          Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:

> In message <1670b53d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
>           Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> 
[snip]
> >
> > All of these arguments about licenses accept the assumption that Castle
> > can do as they please
> 
> Not really. There is no need to assume that Castle can do as they 
> please, it is enough to assume that they could do what they did, i.e., 
> that the IPR they bought combined with any liabilities they may have 
> inherited when buying that IPR gives them the right to use and license 
> the code in the way they did. I have no reason to doubt that. You may 
> have different views, in which case you would probably choose to not 
> make use of Castle's open source licence.
> 
> > despite the exclusive license that RISCOS Ltd have
> 
> Unfortunately, neither you nor me are in a position to verify this 
> claim, so the use of the word "alleged" might be appropriate in this 
> context. 

But neither are you and I in a position to verify exactly what IPR Castle
actually got as part of the agreement with PACE.  That is exactly my point. 
As I understand it, things already got fragmented and less well defined when
Acorn broke up but we can't find out much detail on that either, probably.

[snip]
> 
> > and despite any other interested parties to the IP within RISC OS
> > sources.
> 
> ...who will without doubt step forward and fight for themselves if 
> such parties exist and feel that their rights have been infringed 
> upon. Until then, I cannot see any benefit in speculating.

I agree speculation isn't generally a good thing but when did that stop
anyone around here.

Maybe those who've potentially got a claim haven't noticed or can't afford to
pay legal fees to test things, or have decided it is more trouble than it's
worth.


-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/6/2007 11:55:03 PM
In message <df06a83d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
          Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

> In message <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>
>           Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:

>> The RO Six website lists nearly no "End User" feature worth noting.

> And Castle's does of late?

No, not really, but since Castle neither promised any improvements nor 
asked users to pay for them in advance, I cannot see why that should 
be a problem.

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
   ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spamtrap@mw-software.com      [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
0
spamtrap3075 (2307)
11/7/2007 12:00:53 AM
In article <4f3dbad6f8john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Paul was intentionally trying to conflate the licence that RISCOS
> Ltd have with what ROOL might have. He was wrong.

If you're referring to this:


On Message <4f3d6ac0fainvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
] In a dim and distant universe <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
]    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:

] > The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive
] > licence to develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open
] > or shared sourced anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them
] > to come back.

] I think you've missed a couple of O's from that statement!

Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it
reads here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/7/2007 12:23:50 AM
In message <f67ebd3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
          Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:

> In message <df06a83d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
>           Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> 
> > In message <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>
> >           Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
> 
> >> The RO Six website lists nearly no "End User" feature worth noting.
> 
> > And Castle's does of late?
> 
> No, not really, but since Castle neither promised any improvements nor 
> asked users to pay for them in advance, I cannot see why that should 
> be a problem.
> 
> Martin

It's not for me but you have forgotten where this all came from - PV's
comment that RISCOS Ltd. have become stagnant - implying that Castle had not.

TTFN

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/7/2007 12:24:40 AM
In article <3ec1b83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
<chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4f3d948865john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>, Steffen Huber
> >    <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
> >> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
> >> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

> > Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview. I presume that
> > was mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact' that he
> > knew Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full release.

> I think you are infering something that was not said John.

No I'm not.

> Please don't assume to mind read. You can't.

One quote from David Ruck:

"Unfortunately due to the internal reorganisation of RISC OS 6, ViewFinder is
no longer supported, and wont be unless John Kortink comes out of retirement
and re-writes his code, or ROL write a driver for ATi cards from scratch,
neither of which I would hold my breath for."

It doesn't take much mind reading to see what FUD he was spreading.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 1:39:32 AM
In article <998bb83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison 
> between RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John 
> Cartmell, etc.. But it won't happen.

You write it. I'll publish it.

I do *strongly* object to your presupposition that any comparison from me
wouldn't be fair. If you think any reviews that I've published lack balance
then point that out at the time: I'll publish that too.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 1:42:10 AM
In article <831fa63d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> [...] is it not the case that ROOL have ceased development of RISC OS and
> are too busy doing day jobs and the Admin?  So have you not promised
> something which you're expecting someone else to deliver?

I've tried to emphasise at recent talks that we at ROOL aren't a
one-stop-shop for your RISC OS bug fixes and feature requests; we're
more than happy to host that stuff on our site and even contribute our time
into implementing stuff when and where we can. It's just a bit overwhelming
to have so many people requesting stuff of us at shows and talks.

Remember: we're not a company selling commercial some RISC OS product(s) so
we can't go around supporting them. However, our site is something that such
companies can look at so it's a good central location to raise your issues.

We aren't the new RISC OS development team - we're just a very small part of
it. It has fallen to the whole of the RISC OS community to take up that
mantle now. I'm sure the guys at ROOL will find more time to contribute code
changes once the source opening process is closer to completion.

I'll think some more about how I phrase this in future to avoid any
confusion.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/7/2007 1:45:49 AM
In article <4f3dbad6f8john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ROOL (according to Steve Revill) have issued the sources to RISC OS solely
> as agents of Castle.
>
> [and]
>
> Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c (purchased from E14) RISC
> OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what they do with regard to RISC
> OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not party to any such licensing.

ROOL are acting as agents of Castle insofar as we are performing the shared
source process and administration on their behalf. However, ROOL are also
contributing changes to the source code under the same licence terms as
everyone else is able to do.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/7/2007 1:45:59 AM
In article <14f6bc3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> Maybe those who've potentially got a claim haven't noticed or can't afford
> to pay legal fees to test things, or have decided it is more trouble than
> it's worth.

Their first port of call would simply be to get in touch with us. We'd be
more than happy to consider their claim and try to address their problem in
a mutually satisfactory way. We're not trying to do this process by force. 

ROL are already getting benefits from it: unicode font manager, the whole
RISC OS 5 printer stack, new BASIC module, etc, etc. IYONIX Ltd have the
obvious benefit that they can use contributed code in future releases for
the IYONIX. Anyone else could use the code in their commercial product for a
small royalty to Castle or free of charge for a non-commercial product.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/7/2007 1:54:03 AM
In article <4730f291$0$21092$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> The whole point of this shared source enterprise is for the public to 
> develop RISC OS 5 for CTL, while providing a little bit of advertisement 
> for potential licensees.

No, the whole point is to allow non-commercial developers to have full, free
of charge access to the sources and binaries of RISC OS for use in their
products _and_ to make it substantially simpler for commercial developers to
licence code and/or binaries from Castle for their products.

_And_ to help stimulate development in a market where it's becoming
increasingly difficult (impossible?) to sustain an acceptable pace of
development under a proprietary, closed source, commercial enterprise.

There is the fringe benefit to IYONIX ltd that it can (for a small royalty
back to Castle, the same as for any other developer) incorporate the fruits
of that stimulated development into its products.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/7/2007 2:00:08 AM
In article <d1e6b43d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>, druck <news@druck.freeuk.com>
wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > If you want to try to find the slightest error in what I said then do so.

> John, there is not the slightest grain of trueth in anything you write on
> this subject.

As you are unable to find any error in what I wrote I can only assume that
this is yet more bluster on your part.

> Yet again your only agenda is to sow division and acrimony amongst the
> ever decreasing number of developers and users of this platform. Directly
> contributing to, and accelerating its demise.

I made no criticism of anyone in what I wrote - other than of Paul Vigay's
rather silly comment. On the other hand you frequently make false criticisms
that are designed to adversely affect sales of RISC OS products that you have
taken against for petty reasons. On the other hand the most honest criticism
that has been made of me in that respect is that I'm not as critical as I
should be.

> As someone supposedly both relying on this market for income and
> notionally providing an information service, your actions are a
> manifestation of abject stupidity and supreme selfishness. My disgust for
> your behaviour is without bounds.

That is close to how I would describe your actions. My concern is to promote
RISC OS. On a number of occasions over the years I have had to scrap expensive
preparations to publicise RISC OS outside the present market because your
(false) critical comments on the newsgroups would do worse than nullify any
positive marketing. The measure is not in how much I think you're a stupid
fool (or vice versa) but how much anyone makes a deliberate attempt to damage
the reputation of products or people. You do it constantly - and without
justification; I respond only when personally attacked (like now).

You might want to go back to what appears to have started this. I suggested
that, without argument, the differences between the RO5 and RO6 applications
be compared. No one has bothered to do that. For some reason certain people
think that it is more important to sabotage sensible discussion than support
the co-operation that I've constantly called for in this thread - and
elsewhere.

If you wish to take the personal insults and the argument any further then do
it by e-mail [note to anyone else: David has always refused to do that in the
past and has absolutely insisted on making any disagreement as public as
possible].

I stand by every word that I have written. I have done nothing to deserve the
tirade that I reply to here - and I have publicly supported all the RISC OS
developers (including David Ruck) and will continue to do so.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 2:10:22 AM
In article <4f3dc01dfcspam@softrock.co.uk>,
   VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it
> reads here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

And there was no reason to take my response as any more - except that I took
care to make my comment true - and without being critical of anyone other than
Paul.

It's a pity Martin misunderstood it and David decided to throw a strop. ;-(

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 2:22:02 AM
In article <202cb33d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
   druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2007 Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:

[Snip]

> Dave, the smilie is not some sort of licence to type rubbish.

 Oh yes it is!

> The code squeezing component of the official RISC OS development suite 
> produces code which works on the full range of RISC OS machines from
> 3.1, through to 4.39 and 5. However, being kind, due to some oversight 
> the AIF compressor in RISC OS 6 does not. This currently only affects 
> the tiny number of people running Select 4i2 or the standalone RISC OS 
> 6 purchase, and I'm sure ROL will be addressing it very shortly, as 
> they will not want to disadvantage their customers.

> > It would also seem to be a pointless exercise, the rest of us
> > supporting ROOL that is. I guess a bit like Iyonix owners subscribing
> > to the RO Select/Adjust scheme.  :-(

> The situations are not equivelent, unless you are alluding that ROL 
> are deliberately preventing people from using the latest version of
> most developers applications. I certainly would not want to subscribe
> to that view.

> ---druck

Thanks for the illumination Mr D.
I now understand, and have been shown the means to circumvent the
difficulty, so my annoyance is assuaged.

Cheers
Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/7/2007 6:13:40 AM
In article <4f3dc686cdjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
  
 [Snippy]
   
> One quote from David Ruck:

> "Unfortunately due to the internal reorganisation of RISC OS 6,
> ViewFinder is no longer supported, and wont be unless John Kortink comes
> out of retirement and re-writes his code, or ROL write a driver for ATi
> cards from scratch, neither of which I would hold my breath for."

> It doesn't take much mind reading to see what FUD he was spreading.

Not quite John.
RO 6 only supports the VF with the advanced graphic card, the original
smaller card is not supported.

So he was half right.
Dave S

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/7/2007 6:16:54 AM
On  6-Nov-2007, Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

> Maybe those who've potentially got a claim haven't noticed or can't afford
> to pay legal fees to test things, or have decided it is more trouble than
> it's worth.

Or perhaps those who have such a claim simply decided that it would be
extremely damaging to what remains of the RISC OS market to pursue them (no
matter how just) and it would, in any case, be a fruitless exercise because
even if damages/compensation was awarded there was little money to pay them
so a few lawyers would get fat and the money thus wasted could well result
in the end of *ALL* further work on RISC OS.

As has been said before, this matter was voted on by the RISCOS Ltd.
shareholders at an AGM many years ago and that was the decision taken. The
only thing that has changed since is that there's now no money left (rather
than 'little') to pay damages.

-- 
David Holden  -  APDL  -  <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
0
SpamBin5339 (850)
11/7/2007 7:08:26 AM
In message <4f3dc71a49steve@revi11.plus.com>
          "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:

> In article <831fa63d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
>    Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> > [...] is it not the case that ROOL have ceased development of RISC OS and
> > are too busy doing day jobs and the Admin?  So have you not promised
> > something which you're expecting someone else to deliver?
> 
> I've tried to emphasise at recent talks that we at ROOL aren't a
> one-stop-shop for your RISC OS bug fixes and feature requests; we're
> more than happy to host that stuff on our site and even contribute our time
> into implementing stuff when and where we can. It's just a bit overwhelming
> to have so many people requesting stuff of us at shows and talks.

You surely must have expected that though.

[snip]
> 
> I'll think some more about how I phrase this in future to avoid any
> confusion.
> 
> Steve
> 
Thanks.

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/7/2007 8:07:13 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3dc01dfcspam@softrock.co.uk>,
   VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it reads
> here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

Perhaps I should have added a ;-) for the benefit of John, but I think most
people spotted the tongue in cheek-ness. :-)

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 8:19:28 AM
In message <38acbf3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
  Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

>In message <f67ebd3d4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
>          Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <df06a83d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
>>           Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
>> 
>> > In message <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>
>> >           Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> 
>> >> The RO Six website lists nearly no "End User" feature worth noting.
>> 
>> > And Castle's does of late?
>> 
>> No, not really, but since Castle neither promised any improvements nor 
>> asked users to pay for them in advance, I cannot see why that should 
>> be a problem.

>It's not for me but you have forgotten where this all came from - PV's
>comment that RISCOS Ltd. have become stagnant - implying that Castle had not.

This thread comes from the fact that OS5, after a period of stagnation,
has been moved on by ROOL as a consequence of Castle's open sourcing.
This is a good thing but it does open up that split and less good it
does invite partisan comments.

I have some filters set in NewsHound to get rid of one source of idiotic
posts. These bin both the original and all follow ups. I was prompted,
by a comment about an argument going on, to look at Google to see what I
was missing and verify the filtering was working as intended, and
discovered the thread was ten times bigger than what I had in MPro5. The
difference is down to "you know who" and the follow ups trying to set
the record straight again.

There is very little substance in that rejected 90%, just pointless
gibbering.

It is hard to resist the thought that RISC OS users are just a bunch of
bloody fools.

Who cares what PV implies.

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/7/2007 8:31:13 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:10:22 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> If you wish to take the personal insults and the argument any further
> then do it by e-mail [note to anyone else: David has always refused to
> do that in the past and has absolutely insisted on making any
> disagreement as public as possible].

Much like myself.  It's not because I want the disagreements in public, 
but more that I want your foolishness to be public.  I'm not going to 
waste time playing word games and trying to educate you in the workings 
of the real world privately, as they'd be no point as you wouldn't 
listen.  At least when these things happen in public, your nonsense is 
available for all to laugh at.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 8:36:36 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:45:59 +0000, Ste (news) wrote:

> In article <4f3dbad6f8john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> ROOL (according to Steve Revill) have issued the sources to RISC OS
>> solely as agents of Castle.
>>
>> [and]
>>
>> Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c (purchased from E14)
>> RISC OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what they do with regard
>> to RISC OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not party to any such
>> licensing.
> 
> ROOL are acting as agents of Castle insofar as we are performing the
> shared source process and administration on their behalf. However, ROOL
> are also contributing changes to the source code under the same licence
> terms as everyone else is able to do.

I had assumed that CTL had given the (unsanitised) sources to ROOL, as 
ROOL acting as an agent, and then distributing the source and pre-built 
binaries under the same licence everybody else can, as a separate 
"virtual" entity.

Is this an accurate appraisal?

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 8:39:16 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:54:03 +0000, Ste (news) wrote:

> ROL are already getting benefits from it: unicode font manager, the
> whole RISC OS 5 printer stack, new BASIC module, etc, etc. IYONIX Ltd
> have the obvious benefit that they can use contributed code in future
> releases for the IYONIX. 

Not quite: ROL's users are benefiting, but ROL is not.  Unless they've 
agreed to licence the components you list for inclusion in the next 
version of their fork of the OS?  If they are, how is this any different 
from if they licenced these components before they were shared sourced?

B.

0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 8:41:04 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:39:32 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <3ec1b83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <4f3d948865john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> > In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>, Steffen Huber
>> >    <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
>> >> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new"
>> >> Viewfinder support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02
>> >> got?
> 
>> > Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview. I presume
>> > that was mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact'
>> > that he knew Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full
>> > release.
> 
>> I think you are infering something that was not said John.
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
>> Please don't assume to mind read. You can't.
> 
> One quote from David Ruck:
> 
> "Unfortunately due to the internal reorganisation of RISC OS 6,
> ViewFinder is no longer supported, and wont be unless John Kortink comes
> out of retirement and re-writes his code, or ROL write a driver for ATi
> cards from scratch, neither of which I would hold my breath for."

Everything druck says here is true.  Due to the reorganisation in RISC OS 
6, the ViewFinder stopped working until somebody (either John or ROL) 
rewrote the driver.

The only thing druck was wrong about was if he should have held his 
breath or not: and that's simply an opinion of his on the likely hood of 
it happening.  I think we've all made wrong predictions in the past, but 
druck's comment that you have quoted was entirely accurate and correct in 
the facts he lays out, even when you quote him out of context as you do.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 8:45:37 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:42:10 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <998bb83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison
>> between RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John
>> Cartmell, etc.. But it won't happen.
> 
> You write it. I'll publish it.

After significant editing or sending back to Chris for reworking to your 
"standards", no doubt.

For a truly independent review, it would have to be published by somebody 
without vested interests, which excludes pretty much all the RISC OS 
press and most of the websites.

Perhaps Chris could write it and host it on his own website, and you 
could publish a link to it?

B>

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 8:47:57 AM
In article <4f3dca6b1ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f3dc01dfcspam@softrock.co.uk>,
>    VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:

> > Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it
> > reads here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

> And there was no reason to take my response as any more

Your reply was anything but tongue in cheek. It resembles in a very
strong way the response of someone who took a tongue in cheek remark
more than a little bit too seriously. To claim otherwise is to
backpedal.

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/7/2007 9:18:56 AM
In message <4f3d035c2ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <540eff3c4f.news@casema.nl>,
>    News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
>> In message <b4d3f83c4f.colin@colin.granville.gmx.co.uk>
>>           Colin Granville <vcgbox-news@btyahoo.com> wrote:

>> > I would like to see an effort not to bring RO6 features to the Iyonix
>> > RO6 but to bring RO5 to other machines. I may even consider getting
>> > VRPC if it ran RO5.
>> I thought I was the only one who though that.
> 
>> Even better would be a version of RO5 for one of those natty ARM powered
>> tablet 'PCs'.
> 
> What does RO5 have that RO6 users might want? NB please treat this as a simple
> (neutral) question. What does RO6 not have that RO5 users would miss?
> 
> There is much in Richard Hallas' RO5 design but using RO5 applications gives
> the impression of going back in time after getting used to RO6 - and RO6 is
> much more versatile in use (for graphics import/export options alone). Any
> regular users of both OSs care to comment?

I think that their point isn't that RO 5 is better than RO 6, just 
that it's not available for their main machines, and they wouldn't 
want a secondary machine to have a different OS.

Hopefully if ROL can't make their new APIs available on Iyonix 
machines, then someone else will.

All the image stuff in Adjust is brilliant and I really miss it on my 
Iyonix.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 9:50:52 AM
In message <f96d313d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>
          Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> If something came along and was actually an enhancement on the
> version/option/facility provided by RO6 (including all existing RO6
> features plus extras, I might well install it, but otherwise cannot
> see the point or benefit.

Suppose the RO Select graphics api was available for other systems. 
This means other systems could use it and software could support it.

That would then make your investment in RO 6 more useful to you.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 9:55:00 AM
In article <4f3dc71e0fsteve@revi11.plus.com>,
   Ste (news) <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> In article <4f3dbad6f8john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > ROOL (according to Steve Revill) have issued the sources to RISC OS solely
> > as agents of Castle.
> >
> > [and]
> >
> > Whilst RISCOS Ltd have the licence to develop &c (purchased from E14) RISC
> > OS Open Ltd act as agents for Castle in what they do with regard to RISC
> > OS (according to Steve Revill) and are not party to any such licensing.

> ROOL are acting as agents of Castle insofar as we are performing the shared
> source process and administration on their behalf. However, ROOL are also
> contributing changes to the source code under the same licence terms as
> everyone else is able to do.

Of course. My comment was directed *only* at the silly comment from Paul Vigay
that suggested that your licence was of the same form as ROl's licence.
Although he appears to be oblivious of it, that would have been a slur on
Castle and yourselves. I'm sorry ROOL's name was dragged into this in the
first place and that the false suggestion was implied that I might have reason
to be critical of the programmers at ROOL - which, of course, I haven't.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 9:57:30 AM
In article <4f3c984348dfs@ukgateway.net>,
   Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <a964753c4f.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
>    Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:
> [Snippy]

> There are/were probably a number if folks like me, who, as I've mentioned
> a number of times would purchase an Iyonix tomorrow, if it came with the
> Select/Adjust OS.

> Dave S

We run a network of 4 RPCs, running select. We also have an Iyonix.

So many select features are missing from the Iyo that there's simply no
way we could upgrade to Iyos.

Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream - which is
far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. N.B. email address nospam@4qd.org is valid.
All email addresses are copyright. Resale or use on any lists is expressly forbidden.
4QD manufacture speed controllers for battery electric motors.
www sites http://www.4QD.org and http://www.4QD.co.uk
---------- We use a RISC PC 32 bit RISC computer  ----------------
0
Richard
11/7/2007 10:02:12 AM
In message <175b2e3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
          Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> In message <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>
>           "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:

>> And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a whole
>> RISC OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you so wish).

> But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple of
> modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which are part
> of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to know what you
> would do about that problem???

Wouldn't superfpem be a suitable substitute?

Alternatively could part of the softload do an inventry of required 
modules and extract missing ones from the fitted ROM and save them for 
the softload to use? (Assuming there's no way it could use them direct 
from ROM).

Also is it likely to be possible for older versions of RISC OS to 
softload the new filesystem? (Either in a dual disk drive scenario, or 
from something like a unipod's flash.)

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 10:08:47 AM
In article <4f3ddf9fd1dfs@ukgateway.net>, Dave Symes
<dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> In article <202cb33d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>, druck
>    <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

[Snip]

> > The code squeezing component of the official RISC OS
> > development suite produces code which works on the full
> > range of RISC OS machines from 3.1, through to 4.39 and 5.
> > However, being kind, due to some oversight the AIF
> > compressor in RISC OS 6 does not. This currently only
> > affects the tiny number of people running Select 4i2 or the
> > standalone RISC OS 6 purchase, and I'm sure ROL will be
> > addressing it very shortly, as they will not want to
> > disadvantage their customers.

[Snip]

> Thanks for the illumination Mr D. I now understand, and have
> been shown the means to circumvent the difficulty, so my
> annoyance is assuaged.

Seconded.  I'm amazed that it has taken over 6 months for someone
to publish the material in Tony Moore's 'recipe'; why not RISCOS
Ltd?  I might now have a go at patching one or two applications
the lack of which has so far dissuaded me from using RO 6.

Brian.

-- 
______________________________________________________________

Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK  bric at f2s dot com
______________________________________________________________
0
bric-nospam (871)
11/7/2007 10:15:34 AM
In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
<nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream - which
> is far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

I used to use Pipedream all the time but have now transfered everything
over to Fireworkz. It needed a few work arounds but the extra speed of
the Iyonix more than compensated. I used to say that I would use
Pipedream again if it was 32 bitted but I don't think that I would now.

The thing that I most miss about Pipdream was its ability to increase
the size of a file when a custom function writes to it. I have to make
sure that all files are now a good bit larger so that the end of file
is not reached.

-- 
Barry A.
To reply by email:- barry d o t allen a t talktalk d o t net
Replace the d o t and a t by the usual.
0
evanallen1 (351)
11/7/2007 10:32:07 AM
In message <47317a20$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:54:03 +0000, Ste (news) wrote:
> 
>> ROL are already getting benefits from it: unicode font manager, the
>> whole RISC OS 5 printer stack, new BASIC module, etc, etc. IYONIX Ltd
>> have the obvious benefit that they can use contributed code in future
>> releases for the IYONIX.
> 
> Not quite: ROL's users are benefiting, but ROL is not.  Unless they've

It means they don't have to do the work.

> agreed to licence the components you list for inclusion in the next
> version of their fork of the OS?  If they are, how is this any different

I would hope that would be cheaper than paying for the work 
themselves.

> from if they licenced these components before they were shared sourced?

Because they can test it for free, and not have to include it with 
select, because the users can get it for free.

They only have to pay if it goes in to a product. They can choose to 
do that if it becomes financially beneficial to do it. (eg a new 
product).


-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 10:44:05 AM
In message <4f3d08ff83invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> 
wrote:

> I've already expressed my views, and I prefer RISC OS 5. It's more reliable
> for a start, but as it's pointless arguing with you, I shall stop here.

I have found the opposite.

My Iyonix is pretty stable, better than my RPC under RO 4, but I do 
not find it as stable as my RPC under adjust. (We are talking problems 
in the region of monthly, as opposed to almost never).

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 10:47:54 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:08:47 +0000, Jess wrote:

> In message <175b2e3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
>           Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
>> In message <4f3d2253a4steve@revi11.plus.com>
>>           "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> 
>>> And that's just one module. We're aiming to get the sources for a
>>> whole RISC OS ROM out there (that can be softloaded on a RiscPC if you
>>> so wish).
> 
>> But Steve, you said at the show in Guildford that there were a couple
>> of modules you couldn't release (one you named as being the FPE) which
>> are part of the Iyonix build and you'd not thought it through enough to
>> know what you would do about that problem???
> 
> Wouldn't superfpem be a suitable substitute?

I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping them from releasing binary 
copies of the FPE - it's the source that's a problem.  And it's a problem 
that, as I've already mentioned, SuperFPE shares.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 10:50:03 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:44:05 +0000, Jess wrote:

> In message <47317a20$0$21093$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>           Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:54:03 +0000, Ste (news) wrote:
>> 
>>> ROL are already getting benefits from it: unicode font manager, the
>>> whole RISC OS 5 printer stack, new BASIC module, etc, etc. IYONIX Ltd
>>> have the obvious benefit that they can use contributed code in future
>>> releases for the IYONIX.
>> 
>> Not quite: ROL's users are benefiting, but ROL is not.  Unless they've
> 
> It means they don't have to do the work.

I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of paying for a product 
for which to get new features in the core functionality, one has to go to 
a website of a third party to download them.  If they don't do the work 
themselves, what's the point in paying them for development?  You might 
as well just use RO5 on a RiscPC, should such a thing become available.

Obviously, they couldn't include them in their product without paying CTL.

>> agreed to licence the components you list for inclusion in the next
>> version of their fork of the OS?  If they are, how is this any
>> different
> 
> I would hope that would be cheaper than paying for the work themselves.

Depends what the cost is - it's a subject that CTL have been silent on, 
AFAICT.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 10:53:22 AM
In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens
(news) <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> We run a network of 4 RPCs, 

Me too.

> running select.

RO4.02 here

> We also have an Iyonix.

Have wondered whether or not I should get some more modern
hardware

> So many select features are missing from the Iyo that
> there's simply no way we could upgrade to Iyos.

No idea about select features...

> Part of this is that the business relies heavily on
> Pipedream - which is far slower on the Iyo under
> emulation tham on the RPC.

.... but as all holiday booking confirmation documents are
produced in Pipedream, it sounds as though an Iyonix would
not really be suitable here either.

I do not need a fancy spreadsheet at all, just the ability
to add, subtract multiply and divide, and do a few simple IF
statements each November.

Otherwise I need a word processor that can add up, and this
Pipedream does.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic
0
see.sig7767 (1966)
11/7/2007 11:10:38 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3df74999evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>,
   Barry Allen (news) <evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid> muttered:
> I used to use Pipedream all the time but have now transfered everything
> over to Fireworkz. It needed a few work arounds but the extra speed of
> the Iyonix more than compensated. I used to say that I would use
> Pipedream again if it was 32 bitted but I don't think that I would now.

Hmm. I'm still sitting on the fence a bit. I like the presentation features
of Fireworkz, as I've been forced to use it ever since I first got an
Iyonix (due to non 32-bit Pipedream), but after all these years I still
prefer Pipedream overall.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 11:14:17 AM
In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:

> Otherwise I need a word processor that can add up, and this
> Pipedream does.

So does Fireworkz which is, or was when I bought mine, bundled with the
Iyonix.

-- 
Barry A.
To reply by email:- barry d o t allen a t talktalk d o t net
Replace the d o t and a t by the usual.
0
evanallen1 (351)
11/7/2007 11:16:06 AM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3df41e0ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Of course. My comment was directed *only* at the silly comment from Paul
> Vigay that suggested that your licence was of the same form as ROl's
> licence.

I did nothing of the sort. As usual, you've managed to completely
misunderstand the topic of discussion and go off on a tangent in order to
try to justify your misunderstanding.

I think I need to give myself a detention and 100 lines....

"I will learn to ignore JWs argumentative rubbish, and not rise to the bait"

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 11:17:54 AM
In a dim and distant universe <5cbbf83d4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>,
   Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> muttered:

> My Iyonix is pretty stable, better than my RPC under RO 4, but I do not
> find it as stable as my RPC under adjust. (We are talking problems in
> the region of monthly, as opposed to almost never).

I admit I was being entirely subjective in my original comment, as it's
based entirely on my personal findings.

Of course, it's impossible to do a fair test anyway, because the Iyonix is
much more powerful than the RPC anyway, with more memory and better
graphics.

Therefore things that the Iyonix finds easy (processing large documents or
having multiple applications running at once) is much less effort for the
Iyonix than the RPC which might struggle when performing similar tasks.

And as I use both machines a fair bit of the time, I naturally assume I can
do anything I want on any machine, which is a bit unfair on the poor RPC
when I throw large documents at it, or try running too many applications at
once - so it's not really surprising the RPC has become more unreliable
than the iyonix.

That said, I find both machines very reliable on the whole, more so than
Mac OS X Leopard (which I only installed on a fresh hard disc a couple of
days ago and has locked the machine solid requiring a manual power-off
twice in one day!)

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 11:24:00 AM
In message <47319922$0$13934$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:44:05 +0000, Jess wrote:

>> It means they don't have to do the work.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of paying for a product
> for which to get new features in the core functionality, one has to go to
> a website of a third party to download them.  If they don't do the work
> themselves, what's the point in paying them for development?  You might
> as well just use RO5 on a RiscPC, should such a thing become available.

I see your point, but if the choice is between an in house component X 
and downloading X from elsewhere but having an enhanced component Y in 
house, then I'd choose the latter.

It would be sensible for select, since it is for development not to 
include any RO5 components. (Be nice if they were available by riscpkg 
though).


> Obviously, they couldn't include them in their product without paying CTL.

Any proper release version (Like adjust or the A9 OS) should have it 
included and therefore pay a royalty.

>> I would hope that would be cheaper than paying for the work themselves.
> 
> Depends what the cost is - it's a subject that CTL have been silent on,
> AFAICT.

There have been comments about it being cheap, but no figures I know 
of.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 11:29:45 AM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:29:45 +0000, Jess wrote:

> In message <47319922$0$13934$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
>           Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:44:05 +0000, Jess wrote:
> 
>> Obviously, they couldn't include them in their product without paying
>> CTL.
> 
> Any proper release version (Like adjust or the A9 OS) should have it
> included and therefore pay a royalty.

So you're advocating making an already hideously-expensive product more 
so?

>> Depends what the cost is - it's a subject that CTL have been silent on,
>> AFAICT.
> 
> There have been comments about it being cheap, but no figures I know of.

Well, when I spoke to Jack last year about it, he said "in the pennies" 
but wouldn't be drawn on any precise figure.  So if that's 2p per 
licence, or 10000p, who knows?

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 11:37:39 AM
In message <4731a383$0$8426$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:29:45 +0000, Jess wrote:
> 
>> In message <47319922$0$13934$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
>>           Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:44:05 +0000, Jess wrote:
>> 
>>> Obviously, they couldn't include them in their product without paying
>>> CTL.
>> 
>> Any proper release version (Like adjust or the A9 OS) should have it
>> included and therefore pay a royalty.
> 
> So you're advocating making an already hideously-expensive product more
> so?

Depends on the cost really doesn't it? Is it cheaper to license than 
to write?

>>> Depends what the cost is - it's a subject that CTL have been silent on,
>>> AFAICT.
>> 
>> There have been comments about it being cheap, but no figures I know of.
> 
> Well, when I spoke to Jack last year about it, he said "in the pennies"
> but wouldn't be drawn on any precise figure.  So if that's 2p per
> licence, or 10000p, who knows?

If it's too much, then there's always the option to include the 
existing in house version and let the user upgrade.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 11:44:32 AM
In article <4f3dfc094einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> That said, I find both machines very reliable on the whole, more so than
> Mac OS X Leopard (which I only installed on a fresh hard disc a couple of
> days ago and has locked the machine solid requiring a manual power-off
> twice in one day!)

Most Mac users seem to have little problem* but when I suggested that you
might be going spotty (rather than properly supporting the RISC OS platform) I
wasn't being serious and hadn't appreciated that you might actually be
dabbling in the translucent** arts of the Mac world.

*Have you ever thought that your bias might be caused by how you treat your
machines? At least my capability to stop any machine from working properly
works equally well on them all. ;-)

**As opposed to the dark arts of Microsoft [You need to see the Leopard dock
area to appreciate that: it is rumoured that the next big cat version of Mac
OS X after Tiger & Leopard might be Cheshire ...]

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 12:34:44 PM
In article <4f3dfb5025evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>,
   Barry Allen (news) <evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
>    Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
>    wrote:

> > Otherwise I need a word processor that can add up, and
> > this Pipedream does.

> So does Fireworkz which is, or was when I bought mine,
> bundled with the Iyonix.

I recall picking up a Fireworkz (or one of its components)
at a show in Harrogate many years ago.

Just looking at it on screen for 30s was ample to make me
hate it, before even trying anything.

Pipedream hardly looks elegant, but a lot lass bad than that
Fireworkz trial.

Does Fireworkz work using the system font and dot matrix
printers? I print out on 3-part NCR paper.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic
0
see.sig7767 (1966)
11/7/2007 12:38:00 PM
In article <4f3dfb7aa0invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f3df41e0ajohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> [Snippety snip]

> > Of course. My comment was directed *only* at the silly comment from Paul
> > Vigay that suggested that your licence was of the same form as ROl's
> > licence.

> I did nothing of the sort.
I'll accept that as a statement that you intended no such thing - after
appreciating that you effectively ended up also attacking the people you
wanted to support. Best would be to simply support all those developers rather
than single some out to attack.

[Snip]

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 12:39:09 PM
In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter
News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

[Snip]

> > So many select features are missing from the Iyo that there's simply
> > no way we could upgrade to Iyos.

> No idea about select features...

[Snip]

Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to enumerate
those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix (or even a
RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought I'd given up
asking but again, what are the Select features users of Iyonix are
missing which are 'must haves'?

Don't bother to enumerate things that make the GUI pretty; let's discount
those immediately. I want to know about features which provide concrete
benefits.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Be just and fear not" Henry VIII, Act iii, Sc.2
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 1:04:54 PM
In article <9176b93d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> The Shared source might make some modules etc available but the *big* 
> problem is version number controls - it caused problem before with the 
> toolbox, and Clib. Its still happening.

There should, of course, be control over version numbers of common
modules by independent means. Getting everyone to agree to that, of
course may be difficult, based on past behaviour.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Truth loves open dealing" Henry VIII, Act iii, Sc.1
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 1:07:49 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3e02cfa1see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> Does Fireworkz work using the system font and dot matrix printers? I
> print out on 3-part NCR paper.

No it doesn't! That's one of the major things I miss in Pipedream - in that
there's no direct (vdu2 type) printing. Everything has to go via !Printers
with Fireworkz.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 1:14:58 PM
In message <4730f291$0$21092$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:43 +0000, Chris Hughes wrote:

>> They will never come back precisely because of the TWO strands of the
>> OS, now becoming three strands as far I can see.
<guess>
The third being the OS for the A9Home????
</guess>

> Well, if CTL don't roll back in the changes people submit and have
> accepted to ROOL and any other projects based on the source,
Um.
Speaking as a non-tekkie, that sentence doesn't make the least bit of 
sense to me. Care to elucidate?

> the whole exercise is a bit of a waste of their time.

> The whole point of this shared source enterprise is for the public to
> develop RISC OS 5 for CTL,
OTOH that makes pefect sense.
All power to their elbow(s).

It might even stop my having to learn about LINUX ;-)

> while providing a little bit of advertisement for potential licensees.

> B.
T.
-- 
   __o    Terry Mills               Norwich - Up The Canaries!!
 _`\<,_   terry@norridge.me.uk      Clan 3444; Foundation 0037
(_)/*(_)  Who needs Bill Gates?     Iyonix 512                          
  Phone: 01603-427900       http://www.norridge.me.uk
0
telpubs (61)
11/7/2007 1:22:00 PM
In article <4f3df07fdespam@softrock.co.uk>, VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <4f3dca6b1ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
>    <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4f3dc01dfcspam@softrock.co.uk>, VinceH
> >    <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it
> > > reads here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

> > And there was no reason to take my response as any more

> Your reply was anything but tongue in cheek. It resembles in a very
> strong way the response of someone who took a tongue in cheek remark
> more than a little bit too seriously. To claim otherwise is to
> backpedal.

Shall we charitable and just point out that text ALWAYS requires a ;-) in
such circumstances. To leave one off when it's necessary carries a
penalty that Paul is paying. Been there. Got the T-shirt.

Ignoramuses who live in email, usenet and sms have forgotten (never been
taught) the use of exclamation and smilies are taking over and are
mandatory. Yes! They are!!

They are also essential (but don't always cover up rudeness) when you
poke fun at tubby baldies.  ;-)))

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power" Jul. Caesar, Act ii, Sc.1
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 1:32:15 PM
In article <4f3dfb7aa0invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul
Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> "I will learn to ignore JWs argumentative rubbish, and not rise to the
> bait"


Pluto has filters.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Joy, gentle friends ! joy, and fresh days of love accompany your hearts !" Mid N Dr, Act v, Sc.1
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 1:34:07 PM
In article <4f3dfc094einvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>, Paul
Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <5cbbf83d4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>,
>    Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> muttered:

> > My Iyonix is pretty stable, better than my RPC under RO 4, but I do
> > not find it as stable as my RPC under adjust. (We are talking
> > problems in the region of monthly, as opposed to almost never).

> I admit I was being entirely subjective in my original comment, as it's
> based entirely on my personal findings.

Subjectively, this Iyonix (5.12) is far more stable than the
VideoDesk-equipped RiscPC (3.7) alongside but no less stable than the
redmond-powered XP thingy to my left. I know the software that tends to
make them all flaky so can avoid most crashes. (Tommy Cooper: "I went to
the doctor and I said, it hurts when I do that. The doctor said, don't do
that.")

> Of course, it's impossible to do a fair test anyway, because the Iyonix
> is much more powerful than the RPC anyway, with more memory and better
> graphics.

Indeed. Methinks some users of slower machines - even apparently with a
more up-to-date OS - forget how important speed is to the user experience.

> Therefore things that the Iyonix finds easy (processing large documents
> or having multiple applications running at once) is much less effort
> for the Iyonix than the RPC which might struggle when performing
> similar tasks.

I consider the stuff I used to do on the RiscPC tiny now in comparison to
some of the files cobbled together in this 512Mb of RAM.

> And as I use both machines a fair bit of the time, I naturally assume I
> can do anything I want on any machine, which is a bit unfair on the
> poor RPC when I throw large documents at it, or try running too many
> applications at once - so it's not really surprising the RPC has become
> more unreliable than the iyonix.

True. My RiscPC is virtually retired (though always on showing the
telly). However,  it's my fax machine and is used for just the few things
that work only there. Damn. The OS or hardware has obviously changed from
3.7 to 5.2 which must mean the end of this platform as we know it.   ;-)

> That said, I find both machines very reliable on the whole, more so
> than Mac OS X Leopard (which I only installed on a fresh hard disc a
> couple of days ago and has locked the machine solid requiring a manual
> power-off twice in one day!)

"Leopard". Give me strength. Makes your Mac look like an iPhone. Great.

Someone mentioned that they couldn't possibly upgrade to Iyonix from
RiscPC because there's no Select for Iyonix. Well, I couldn't downgrade
to a slow RiscPC with a tiny brain, even if it had RISC OS 10 and "Menu".

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again" Hamlet, Act i, Sc.2
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 2:11:52 PM
In article <a682f33d4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:

> All the image stuff in Adjust is brilliant and I really miss it on my
> Iyonix.

What image stuff?

Please be more specific.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I summon up remembrance of things past, I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought" Sonnet 30
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 2:13:19 PM
In article <4f3e05461dtim@invalid.org.uk>,
   Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter
> News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> > <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> [Snip]

> > > So many select features are missing from the Iyo that there's simply
> > > no way we could upgrade to Iyos.

> > No idea about select features...

> [Snip]

> Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to enumerate
> those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix (or even a
> RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought I'd given up
> asking but again, what are the Select features users of Iyonix are
> missing which are 'must haves'?

Make up your mind on essentials - but there is a new series starting in Qercus
that describes what is included in RO6. The first article is about Paint.
Later articles will look at other applications (and where these are
sufficiently similar to applications in RO5 the two will be compared), the OS
itself, and using the applications and other aspects of the system (eg
Configuration, Pinboard, &c). It will be an overview of the OS as it is at the
time of writing and will not attempt to show 'just the upgrades' and so will
pick up developments that may have gone unnoticed over the years - and be
useful to users of RO4 and RO5 as well as RO6.

> Don't bother to enumerate things that make the GUI pretty; let's discount
> those immediately. I want to know about features which provide concrete
> benefits.

Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 2:33:31 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3e07f309tim@invalid.org.uk>,
   Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> muttered:

> Pluto has filters.

Yeah. I had kill-filed him, but I believe Pluto automatically expires kill
filed entries after 30 days. I don't often use kill files, so I'll
experiment...

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 2:49:37 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3e028351john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
   John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:
> Most Mac users seem to have little problem* but when I suggested that you
> might be going spotty (rather than properly supporting the RISC OS
> platform) I wasn't being serious and hadn't appreciated that you might
> actually be dabbling in the translucent** arts of the Mac world.

hehe. Shock horror, but I've actually been working with Apple machines
longer than I've been working with RISC OS machines. ;-)

> *Have you ever thought that your bias might be caused by how you treat
> your machines? At least my capability to stop any machine from working
> properly works equally well on them all. ;-)

Actually, I treat all my machines very well. In fact I was only thinking
the other day that all my machines are still in their original 'mint'
condition. It saddens me when I get computers for repair that the cases
sometimes look like they've been in the garden for several weeks and the
keyboards and mice are brown and grimy!

Even my 15 year old Apple machines still have a clean, spotless keyboard
and mice!

I've actually been trying to copy some old Hi-8 video camera tapes onto the
hard disc prior to making a DVD of them. iMovie seems to grab the footage
from the camera and then, when you've organised/edited all your clips, you
export the whole sequence into iDVD which then allows you to create the
final DVD (after several hours of processing!!!).

Anyway, iMovie has locked the machine solid (even ctrl-apple-escape doesn't
work, resulting in power off being required) twice since last night! Most
irritating, especially with a process which takes hours each time.

> **As opposed to the dark arts of Microsoft [You need to see the Leopard
> dock area to appreciate that: it is rumoured that the next big cat
> version of Mac OS X after Tiger & Leopard might be Cheshire ...]

Not quite sure I understand what you mean - but then I've configured all
the animated dock effects to be off, and moved it to the right hand side,
so that it behaves a bit like my NeXTBar on RISC OS. :-)
The Tiger one was also translucent, but I'm not a great fan of translucent
effects, so most of those are turned off too.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 2:57:58 PM
In message <4f3dc01dfcspam@softrock.co.uk>
          VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> On Message <4f3d6ac0fainvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
> Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> ] In a dim and distant universe <4f3d39c9b9john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> ]    John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> muttered:

> ] > The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive
> ] > licence to develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open
> ] > or shared sourced anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them
> ] > to come back.

> ] I think you've missed a couple of O's from that statement!

> Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it
> reads here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

And, of course, it has been completely misunderstood by everyone who 
referred to it so far. What Paul really meant when he pointed out that 
a couple of O's were missing was that John should have written:

  "The development of the OS is through O! O! O! ROL who have the
   O! O! O! exclusive licence to develop in our area of interest
   and O! O! O! ROL haven't open or shared sourced anything (ignore
   Printers front end). Tell them to come back. O! O! O!"

Some scholars suggest an alternative reading with 3 more O!'s before 
"Printers front end", but others point out that the use of the 
devotional triple O! before a component of such small significance 
could be read as mockery and is therefore likely to be a later 
insertion.

Oh, and I nearly forgot to add: :-)
(just for you Tim ;-))

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
   ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spamtrap@mw-software.com      [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
0
spamtrap3075 (2307)
11/7/2007 3:03:45 PM
In article <4f3e0edc6cinvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f3e07f309tim@invalid.org.uk>,
>    Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> muttered:

> > Pluto has filters.

> Yeah. I had kill-filed him, but I believe Pluto automatically
> expires kill filed entries after 30 days. I don't often use kill
> files, so I'll experiment...

When you set a new filter up it suggests an expiry date of one month
later. You can set this to something much further into the future or,
if you don't want the filter to expire, simply clear the field.

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/7/2007 4:26:58 PM
In article <f327103e4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>,
   Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <4f3dc01dfcspam@softrock.co.uk>
>           VinceH <spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:

> > Then I think you're taking Paul's comment far too seriously - it
> > reads here as being more than a little tongue in cheek.

> And, of course, it has been completely misunderstood by everyone
> who referred to it so far. What Paul really meant when he pointed
> out that a couple of O's were missing was that John should have
> written:

>   "The development of the OS is through O! O! O! ROL who have the
>    O! O! O! exclusive licence to develop in our area of interest
>    and O! O! O! ROL haven't open or shared sourced anything (ignore
>    Printers front end). Tell them to come back. O! O! O!"

But that's 12 O's, and Paul clearly said "a couple" - which is 2. He
was quite clearly referring to someone I used to know who had a
particular nickname:

"The development of the OS is through Rolo who has the exclusive
licence to develop in our area of interest and Rolo hasn't open or
shared sourced anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to
come back."

Of course, he forgot to point out that the "have" and "haven't"
needed changing to "has" and "hasn't", as well as the case of "ROL"
in both instances, but that would just be needless pedantry.

That said, I didn't think good old Rolo even knew how to switch a
computer on, so for him to hold an exclusive licence to develop RISC
OS is quite a surprise to me!

-- 
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
0
spam5752 (1717)
11/7/2007 4:26:58 PM
In article <4f3e02cfa1see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter
News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> Does Fireworkz work using the system font and dot matrix printers? I
> print out on 3-part NCR paper.

I'm afraid not. I'd forgotten about this aspect of Pipedream.

-- 
Barry A.
To reply by email:- barry d o t allen a t talktalk d o t net
Replace the d o t and a t by the usual.
0
evanallen1 (351)
11/7/2007 4:27:27 PM
In message <4f3e0d6321john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <4f3e05461dtim@invalid.org.uk>,
>    Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > Don't bother to enumerate things that make the GUI pretty; let's discount
> > those immediately. I want to know about features which provide concrete
> > benefits.
> 
> Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).
But WHY is this such a great improvement? I seriously cannot understand
why I should want this.

What is wrong with the way DplngScan or Photodesk implement foreign file
import and export?

 Regards
 Stan
 [snip]

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/7/2007 4:35:06 PM
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:35:06 +0100, News poster wrote:

>> Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).
> But WHY is this such a great improvement? I seriously cannot understand
> why I should want this.
> 
> What is wrong with the way DplngScan or Photodesk implement foreign file
> import and export?

.... you have to have them?  Being able to drop a PNG from NetSurf onto 
Paint is occasionally very useful, especially if you just want to tweak 
it very slightly, where Photodesk might be over-kill.

B
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/7/2007 4:52:13 PM
In article <f327103e4f.martin@bach.planiverse.com>,
   Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> Some scholars suggest an alternative reading with 3 more O!'s

Far more 0s surely if it's to be a 32-bit word ...

... 0r w0uld that be a c0nfusi0n t00 far?

[ ;-) ]

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 4:57:54 PM
In article <4f3e0fa055invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> Even my 15 year old Apple machines still have a clean, spotless keyboard
> and mice!

You're spraying too much polish into your machines...

> I've actually been trying to copy some old Hi-8 video camera tapes onto the
> hard disc prior to making a DVD of them. iMovie seems to grab the footage
> from the camera and then, when you've organised/edited all your clips, you
> export the whole sequence into iDVD which then allows you to create the
> final DVD (after several hours of processing!!!).

> Anyway, iMovie has locked the machine solid (even ctrl-apple-escape doesn't
> work, resulting in power off being required) twice since last night! Most
> irritating, especially with a process which takes hours each time.

...are you using iMovie 06 or iMovie 08? In any case that's an application
problem rather than a big cat problem.

BTW Does anyone know why Macs have their plings upside down? ...

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 5:01:07 PM
In message <4731ed3d$0$8414$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:35:06 +0100, News poster wrote:
> 
> >> Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).
> > But WHY is this such a great improvement? I seriously cannot understand
> > why I should want this.
> > 
> > What is wrong with the way DplngScan or Photodesk implement foreign file
> > import and export?
> 
> ... you have to have them?
Well at least they both work on RO3.xx 4.0X and 5.XX which is more than
can be said for 'enhanced' Paint.

> Being able to drop a PNG from NetSurf onto Paint is occasionally very
> useful,
Occasionally? That sounds like must have functionality worth upgrading
for.

> especially if you just want to tweak it very slightly, where Photodesk
> might be over-kill.
But the startup time for both apps is insignificant on an Iyonix. Plus I
am more likely to have Photodesk running anyway.

I still don't get it.

 Regards
 Stan
-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/7/2007 5:02:48 PM
In article <4f3e0edc6cinvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f3e07f309tim@invalid.org.uk>,
>    Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> muttered:

> > Pluto has filters.

> Yeah. I had kill-filed him, but I believe Pluto automatically expires kill
> filed entries after 30 days. I don't often use kill files, so I'll
> experiment...

You can set Pluto kill-file expiries for as long as you want.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 5:03:43 PM
In article <4f3e1706e6spam@softrock.co.uk>, VinceH
<spam@softrock.co.uk> wrote:

> In article
>    <4f3e0edc6cinvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
>    Paul Vigay
>    <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> > In a dim and distant universe
> >    <4f3e07f309tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> >    <tim@invalid.org.uk> muttered:

> > > Pluto has filters.

> > Yeah. I had kill-filed him, but I believe Pluto
> > automatically expires kill filed entries after 30 days.
> > I don't often use kill files, so I'll experiment...

> When you set a new filter up it suggests an expiry date
> of one month later. You can set this to something much
> further into the future or, if you don't want the filter
> to expire, simply clear the field.

There is a Preferences-->Filters... option, where you can
set the default expiry to 0, which means that it does not
expire.

Why would you want a filer to expeire automatically?

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic
0
see.sig7767 (1966)
11/7/2007 5:39:34 PM
On 7 Nov 2007  John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> BTW Does anyone know why Macs have their plings upside down? ...

And does anyone know the origin of the term "pling"? I've often 
wondered.

With best wishes,

Peter.

-- 
Peter  \  /      zfc Er       \     Prestbury, Cheltenham,  Glos. GL52
Anne    \/ __            __    \                              England.
and     / /  \ | | |\ | /  _    \      http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family /  \__/ \_/ | \| \__/     \______________ pnyoung@ormail.co.uk.
0
pnyoung1 (1656)
11/7/2007 5:39:35 PM
In article <4f3df74999evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>,
   Barry Allen (news) <evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> > Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream - which
> > is far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

> I used to use Pipedream all the time but have now transfered everything
> over to Fireworkz.

But we have a complete manufacturing / ordering / sales databasing
system based on PD. 

AFAIK we are pushing PipeDream way,  way beyond Fireworkz abilities.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. N.B. email address nospam@4qd.org is valid.
All email addresses are copyright. Resale or use on any lists is expressly forbidden.
4QD manufacture speed controllers for battery electric motors.
www sites http://www.4QD.org and http://www.4QD.co.uk
---------- We use a RISC PC 32 bit RISC computer  ----------------
0
Richard
11/7/2007 5:44:36 PM
In article <4731ed3d$0$8414$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Rob Kendrick
<nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:35:06 +0100, News poster wrote:

> >> Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).
> > But WHY is this such a great improvement? I seriously cannot
> > understand why I should want this.
> > 
> > What is wrong with the way DplngScan or Photodesk implement foreign
> > file import and export?

> ... you have to have them?  Being able to drop a PNG from NetSurf onto
> Paint is occasionally very useful, especially if you just want to tweak
> it very slightly, where Photodesk might be over-kill.

Is it possible to save from paint as PNG?

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Kindness in women, not their beauteous looks, shall win my love" T of the S, Act iv, Sc.7
0
tim155 (1564)
11/7/2007 5:45:29 PM
In article <4f3e1e6bf2see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> There is a Preferences-->Filters... option, where you can
> set the default expiry to 0, which means that it does not
> expire.

> Why would you want a filer to expeire automatically?

Very occasionally, I will set a filter to bin a thread, and am happy to let
it expire after a month - as most threads don't last that long.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband
www.davidhwild.me.uk
0
dhwild1 (209)
11/7/2007 5:51:04 PM
In message <4f3e05461dtim@invalid.org.uk>
          Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to enumerate
> those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix (or even a
> RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought I'd given up
> asking but again, what are the Select features users of Iyonix are
> missing which are 'must haves'?

Tim, that is probably far too subjective to answer.

[snip]


-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/7/2007 5:59:31 PM
In article <4f3e1ee1a1nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
<nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
> In article <4f3df74999evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>, Barry Allen
>    (news) <evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> > <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> > > Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream -
> > > which is far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

> > I used to use Pipedream all the time but have now transfered
> > everything over to Fireworkz.

> But we have a complete manufacturing / ordering / sales databasing
> system based on PD. 

> AFAIK we are pushing PipeDream way,  way beyond Fireworkz abilities.

AFAIK Fireworkz has all the functionality of Pipedream except to have
files automatically extending when written to beyond their length and
print using the inbuilt printer fonts. I can't think of anything else
Fireworkz can't do that Pipedream can.

-- 
Barry A.
To reply by email:- barry d o t allen a t talktalk d o t net
Replace the d o t and a t by the usual.
0
evanallen1 (351)
11/7/2007 6:39:08 PM
In article <4b6c1e3e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
   Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2007  John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> [snip]

> > BTW Does anyone know why Macs have their plings upside down? ...

> And does anyone know the origin of the term "pling"? I've often 
> wondered.

It is computer slang. I presume from the noise that must have been made for
making it worth putting a ! after it. ;-)

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 7:13:05 PM
In article <e60d1b3e4f.news@casema.nl>,
   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> Well at least they both work on RO3.xx 4.0X and 5.XX which is more than
> can be said for 'enhanced' Paint.

Paint also runs on 4.42 - but part of its working is an integral part of the
OS. In fact it's the upgraded OS showing through in Paint.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/7/2007 7:15:35 PM
On 7 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> One quote from David Ruck:

> "Unfortunately due to the internal reorganisation of RISC OS 6, ViewFinder is
> no longer supported, and wont be unless John Kortink comes out of retirement
> and re-writes his code, or ROL write a driver for ATi cards from scratch,
> neither of which I would hold my breath for."

> It doesn't take much mind reading to see what FUD he was spreading.

Thanks for posting that in full. Your constant muck racking was even 
making me doubt that what I wrote wasn't an entirely accurate 
assessment of the situation when the preview was launched. Which 
(going by the date of the release notes) was a further 6 months before 
the full 6.06/4i2 release which featured VF support.

Now perhaps you'd like to apologise for all the times you incorrectly 
claimed that I said VF would never be supported by RISC OS 6, which 
even Paul Middleton repeated recently. Which just goes to show that 
the source of damaging FUD you complain about, is none other than 
yourself.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/7/2007 8:01:06 PM
Hi,

Tim Hill wrote:
> In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter
> News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> > <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
>
> > > So many select features are missing from the Iyo that there's simply
> > > no way we could upgrade to Iyos.
>
> > No idea about select features...
>
> Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to enumerate
> those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix (or even a
> RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought I'd given up
> asking but again, what are the Select features users of Iyonix are
> missing which are 'must haves'?

Well, there's a list going up to RISC OS 4.39 (Select 3/Adjust)
explained below, and it also lists the features beside those in RISC
OS 5.09. Because every user has different requirements, it's probably
best to go through the lists and decide for yourself, personally, what
features you like the look of or not.

http://www.drobe.co.uk/features/artifact1522.html

A follow up covering ROS 5.12 and 6.09 should probably be done in the
near future.

HTH. C.

0
diodesign (172)
11/7/2007 8:06:37 PM
On 7 Nov 2007 Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <a682f33d4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
> <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> All the image stuff in Adjust is brilliant and I really miss it on my
>> Iyonix.

> What image stuff?

> Please be more specific.

The Image File Render API is a very worthwhile addition to RISC OS, 
enabling many types of bitmapped image files and draw files to be 
loaded, displayed and saved by applications as easily as they 
currently handle native sprites.

The only drawback is that while its only available to a subset of 
users running Select or Adjust, it can't be universally adopted by 
applications. If a developers wishes to support various image formats, 
they have to include their own code, which defeats the object of using 
Imager File Render on those OS's which support it.

It really is a criminal waste to see such valuable work sidelined, and 
no doubt further precious resources dedicated to cloning this API  for 
the machines which ROL have decided not to support.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/7/2007 8:12:57 PM
On 7 Nov 2007 "Richard Torrens (news)" <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
> Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream - which is
> far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

Would you like it ported?

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/7/2007 8:17:05 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3e1e6bf2see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> muttered:

> There is a Preferences-->Filters... option, where you can set the default
> expiry to 0, which means that it does not expire.

Aha. Never noticed that before! Thanks for the tip. :-)

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/7/2007 8:48:52 PM
In article <4f3e0edc6cinvalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
   Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> In a dim and distant universe <4f3e07f309tim@invalid.org.uk>,
>    Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> muttered:

> > Pluto has filters.

> Yeah. I had kill-filed him, but I believe Pluto automatically expires
> kill filed entries after 30 days. I don't often use kill files, so I'll
> experiment...

Just set the "Until (date)" field for whatever time period you would like.
If you clear it and leave it blank it remains "for ever"

-- 
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
0
SW_NOSPAM (1409)
11/7/2007 9:48:50 PM
In message <d0762c3e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
          druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> The Image File Render API is a very worthwhile addition to RISC OS,
> enabling many types of bitmapped image files and draw files to be
> loaded, displayed and saved by applications as easily as they
> currently handle native sprites.
> 
> The only drawback is that while its only available to a subset of
> users running Select or Adjust, it can't be universally adopted by
> applications. If a developers wishes to support various image formats,
> they have to include their own code, which defeats the object of using
> Imager File Render on those OS's which support it.
> 
> It really is a criminal waste to see such valuable work sidelined, and
> no doubt further precious resources dedicated to cloning this API  for
> the machines which ROL have decided not to support.

However, it would probably be better to clone it once to add to non 
select OSes, rather than have each graphic application have to 
reproduce the functionality.

(Could a module be written that uses changefsi to give the same 
functionality? Presumably far more slowly)

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 10:26:36 PM
In message <4f3dc6c4cfjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <998bb83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison
>> between RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John
>> Cartmell, etc.. But it won't happen.

> You write it. I'll publish it.

> I do *strongly* object to your presupposition that any comparison from me
> wouldn't be fair. If you think any reviews that I've published lack balance
> then point that out at the time: I'll publish that too.

You missed the point. You are perceived as biased towards one party 
regardless of if that is true or not anything you produced personally 
would be seen in that light. Rightly or wrongly.

-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/7/2007 10:31:47 PM
In message <4f3e0d6321john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <4f3e05461dtim@invalid.org.uk>,
>    Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

>> Don't bother to enumerate things that make the GUI pretty; let's discount

I miss them too.

>> those immediately. I want to know about features which provide concrete
>> benefits.
> 
> Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).

Better internet stack.

More protection for the system from apps trying to do things they 
shouldn't.

On the down side, it doesn't support the huge wimp slots that RO 5 
does.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/7/2007 10:32:37 PM
In message <4f3dc686cdjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <3ec1b83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <4f3d948865john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>, Steffen Huber
>>>    <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
>>>> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
>>>> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

>>> Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview. I presume that
>>> was mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact' that he
>>> knew Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full release.

>> I think you are infering something that was not said John.

> No I'm not.

>> Please don't assume to mind read. You can't.

> One quote from David Ruck:

> "Unfortunately due to the internal reorganisation of RISC OS 6, ViewFinder is
> no longer supported, and wont be unless John Kortink comes out of retirement
> and re-writes his code, or ROL write a driver for ATi cards from scratch,
> neither of which I would hold my breath for."

That is very old news. You keep telling us to look forward not back. 
Practice what you preach.

You were responding to Steffen not Druck.



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/7/2007 10:35:25 PM
In message <c20fbb3d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
          druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2007 Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <35f9433d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
>>           druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <9f41323d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
>>>> <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I already know of a couple of people who have left due to the "shared
>>>>> sourcing" because they believe the market has effectively collapsed,
>>>>> saying that if they need to open/shared source the OS to survive then its
>>>>> the end of it.

>>>> The development of the OS is through ROL who have the exclusive licence to
>>>> develop in our area of interest and ROL haven't open or shared sourced
>>>> anything (ignore Printers front end). Tell them to come back.

>>> I can't decide if one of both of the above posters is telling a joke
>>> the other one doesn't understant.

>> No idea what your on about Druck. Put simply people *are* leaving
>> because of the OS split and also now it appears as a result of the
>> "Shared sourcing".

> If you need it spelled out, you are talking rubbish (although not
> quite as much as the other contributor). If people leave RISC OS, it
> is because it no longer meets their needs, which is a perfectly
> legitimate reason.

Ah another mid reader! People leave the market for there own reasons 
and you don't dictate them! It might as you say be becuase it no 
longer meets there needs (so what will the Shared source do to help 
reduce that for instance?). They might leave for other reasons, Like 
the split in the market, hassles with various aspects of the OS's its 
the perception an end user has.

> Claiming you are leaving because you don't like the fact that there
> are two active strands of OS development, is just plain silly. If
> there was some massive schism between APIs which meant that
> applications will only ever work on one or the other, there might be
> some merit to that arguement. But that is not the case, and will it
> never become so.

I will let them know you consider them silly for leaving. End users 
(not developers) don't give a monkeys about API etc, they just want 
things to work whatever kit they have and its the same on them all.

> At worst its a small amount of extra work for developers, but no more
> than supporting multiple versions of the OS has been in the past,
> which has always been necessary as not since RISC OS 2.0 was succeeded
> has there been one single OS in use by the entire target market.




-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/7/2007 10:50:31 PM
In message <434efc3d4f.ri48000100@ntlworld.com>
          Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <4730f291$0$21092$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>           Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:43 +0000, Chris Hughes wrote:

>>> They will never come back precisely because of the TWO strands of the
>>> OS, now becoming three strands as far I can see.
> <guess>
> The third being the OS for the A9Home????
> </guess>

Nope! :-)


[snip]



-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/7/2007 11:11:48 PM
In message <1194465997.599241.142300@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
          diodesign <diodesign@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> A follow up covering ROS 5.12 and 6.09 should probably be done in the
> near future.
> 
> HTH. C.

I assume you meant 6.06 above.

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/7/2007 11:22:54 PM
On 7 Nov, Chris Hughes wrote in message
  <c6e33a3e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>:

> In message <c20fbb3d4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
>           druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
> > Claiming you are leaving because you don't like the fact that there
> > are two active strands of OS development, is just plain silly. If
> > there was some massive schism between APIs which meant that
> > applications will only ever work on one or the other, there might be
> > some merit to that arguement. But that is not the case, and will it
> > never become so.
> 
> I will let them know you consider them silly for leaving. End users 
> (not developers) don't give a monkeys about API etc, they just want 
> things to work whatever kit they have and its the same on them all.

Indeed.  And the point that Druck is making is that currently things *do*
just work.  That is, the APIs are irrelevant to the end user precisely
because they do not cause a problem.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/7/2007 11:38:09 PM
On 7 Nov, Russell Hafter News wrote in message
  <4f3e1e6bf2see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>:

> There is a Preferences-->Filters... option, where you can set the
> default expiry to 0, which means that it does not expire.
> 
> Why would you want a filer to expeire automatically?

If the filter is on a thread title, you may not want it to remain
indefinitely after the thread has run its course.  Messenger offers an
"expire if unused for ... days/weeks/months" option, which is more obvious
in this context.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/7/2007 11:41:35 PM
In article <4731ed3d$0$8414$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> > What is wrong with the way DplngScan or Photodesk implement foreign
> > file import and export?

> ... you have to have them?  Being able to drop a PNG from NetSurf onto 
> Paint is occasionally very useful, especially if you just want to tweak 
> it very slightly, where Photodesk might be over-kill.

Surely you need DplngScan for scanning things?

-- 
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.
0
dave137 (3026)
11/8/2007 12:11:05 AM
In article <4f3e1ef663tim@invalid.org.uk>,
   Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
[snippy]
> Is it possible to save from paint as PNG?

From RO Select, recent versions Yes.
File> Export sprite>

ICO
GIF
BMP
Targa
PNG
JPEG

Dave S

PS. Something else you can do with Select Paint, you can drop a Drawfile
on the Paint icon bar icon where it converts to a sprite.
D.

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/8/2007 6:02:37 AM
On 08 Nov, dfs@ukgateway.net wrote:
> In article <4f3e1ef663tim@invalid.org.uk>,
>    Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> [snippy]
> > Is it possible to save from paint as PNG?

> From RO Select, recent versions Yes.
> File> Export sprite>

> ICO
> GIF
> BMP
> Targa
> PNG
> JPEG

> Dave S

> PS. Something else you can do with Select Paint, you can drop a Drawfile
> on the Paint icon bar icon where it converts to a sprite.
> D.

It might be worth noting the ROOL version of Paint 1.99 does not save in
multi formats, nor does it convert a Drawfile dropped on the icon bar icon.
D.

-- 

0
dfs (2099)
11/8/2007 6:13:19 AM
In message <4f3e273651john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <e60d1b3e4f.news@casema.nl>,
>    News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> > Well at least they both work on RO3.xx 4.0X and 5.XX which is more than
> > can be said for 'enhanced' Paint.
> 
> Paint also runs on 4.42 - but part of its working is an integral part of the
> OS. In fact it's the upgraded OS showing through in Paint.
You mean the altered OS.

We have no way of knowing if the internal re-organisation of the ROL
RISC OS kernal is an upgrade or downgrade. It is merely a change that
ensures that the ROL applications (which I have in part paid for) will
not work on earlier and later versions of RISC OS (that are on my other
machines).

My theory is that ROL have been changing everything (for better or
worse) so they have a version of RISC OS that is theirs rather than
restricted by a head licence.

 Regards
  Stan

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/8/2007 6:18:15 AM
In message <1194465997.599241.142300@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
          diodesign <diodesign@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Tim Hill wrote:
> > In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter
> > News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> > > <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > So many select features are missing from the Iyo that there's simply
> > > > no way we could upgrade to Iyos.
> >
> > > No idea about select features...
> >
> > Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to enumerate
> > those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix (or even a
> > RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought I'd given up
> > asking but again, what are the Select features users of Iyonix are
> > missing which are 'must haves'?
> 
> Well, there's a list going up to RISC OS 4.39 (Select 3/Adjust)
> explained below, and it also lists the features beside those in RISC
> OS 5.09. Because every user has different requirements, it's probably
> best to go through the lists and decide for yourself, personally, what
> features you like the look of or not.
> 
> http://www.drobe.co.uk/features/artifact1522.html
> 
> A follow up covering ROS 5.12 and 6.09 should probably be done in the
> near future.
> 
> HTH. C.
No not really. Tim's question is one I would have liked to have had
answered years ago. What are the 'must haves' is inevitably going to be
different per person, but all we have had so far is 'Paint supports
other image formats' and 'a better internet stack' and 'Select supports
DHCP'.

Those lists are unable to tell me why I would want Paint to have
foreign format image import and export when I already have DplngScan.

Those lists cannot tell me what I would notice on my Iyonix *if* the ROL
internet stack was to be implemented on the Iyonix. I can't say I have
had problems with networking on my Iyonix so would the ROL stack make my
Iyonix faster when browsing web pages? If so by how much? 

Those lists cannot tell me the advantage of having DHCP when all my
computers sit behind routers.

It is impossible to understand the 'advantages' of ROL's RISC OS from
feature lists. 

So here is a short list of my 'must have's' for RISC OS on a native ARM
machine that should get me opening my wallet;

a) more processing power (than my Iyonix)
b) the ability to convert Quicktime movies to a RISC OS friendly format
for viewing under RISC OS.
c) faster disc access
d) an implementation of MacOSX Expose
e) a competent web browser with modern plug ins for Java and Flash
f) the ability to sleep my desktop machine
g) more processing power.

I have been unable to see anything in any of these lists that will help
me with any of the above (except perhaps the RO5 HAL and the ROL
'hardware abstraction' in terms of new hardware). In other words the OS
(ROL or ROOL) is not the limiting factor for RISC OS users.

It is still (as it always has been) the lack of application support
in crucial areas that limits the platform the most. Plus we need more
oomph in our RISC OS machines.
 Regards
  Stan


-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/8/2007 6:50:34 AM
In article <4f3e636da0dfs@ukgateway.net>, Dave Symes <dfs@ukgateway.net>
wrote:
> On 08 Nov, dfs@ukgateway.net wrote:
> > In article <4f3e1ef663tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: [snippy]
> > > Is it possible to save from paint as PNG?

> > From RO Select, recent versions Yes. File> Export sprite>

> > ICO GIF BMP Targa PNG JPEG

> > Dave S

> > PS. Something else you can do with Select Paint, you can drop a
> > Drawfile on the Paint icon bar icon where it converts to a sprite. D.

> It might be worth noting the ROOL version of Paint 1.99 does not save
> in multi formats, nor does it convert a Drawfile dropped on the icon
> bar icon. D.

Multi-file-format-handling is useful, I am sure, for newbies who lack
other software. On the rare occasion I need to do such conversions I have
plenty of utilities to hand so to do. So, not a show-stopper but perhaps
more convenient out-of-the-box.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "In nature there's no blemish but the mind; none can be called deform'd but the unkind" Twelfth N, Act iii, Sc.4
0
tim155 (1564)
11/8/2007 7:30:38 AM
> > I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison
> > between RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John
> > Cartmell, etc.. But it won't happen.

> You write it. I'll publish it.

> I do *strongly* object to your presupposition that any comparison from
> me wouldn't be fair. If you think any reviews that I've published lack
> balance then point that out at the time: I'll publish that too.

Ho Ho

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
0
rjseago (182)
11/8/2007 7:39:40 AM
In article <fad6663e4f.news@casema.nl>, News poster
<mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> In message <1194465997.599241.142300@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
>           diodesign <diodesign@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi,
> > 
> > Tim Hill wrote:
> > > In article <4f3dfad041see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell
> > > Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article <4f3df48c67nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> > > > <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So many select features are missing from the Iyo that there's
> > > > > simply no way we could upgrade to Iyos.
> > >
> > > > No idea about select features...
> > >
> > > Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to
> > > enumerate those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix
> > > (or even a RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought
> > > I'd given up asking but again, what are the Select features users
> > > of Iyonix are missing which are 'must haves'?
> > 
> > Well, there's a list going up to RISC OS 4.39 (Select 3/Adjust)
> > explained below, and it also lists the features beside those in RISC
> > OS 5.09. Because every user has different requirements, it's probably
> > best to go through the lists and decide for yourself, personally,
> > what features you like the look of or not.
> > 
> > http://www.drobe.co.uk/features/artifact1522.html

[Snip]

No, that is not what is needed by users. Telling customers to eff off and
read lists will not encourage them to buy!

Basic sales training should alert developers and others not simply to
make a list of techie features. What a potential buyer (of anything) is
interested in is BENEFITS. i.e. what is it the features DO which make the
user experience BETTER. How will my RISC OS experience be improved?

Interestingly, the ability of Paint to export (and import) in multiple
formats is a feature, rather than a benefit, because (thanks to third
party utilities) I can make those conversions already.

But all advocates, please have a go at telling me what BENEFITS I would
reap from 'Select'. Your sentence structure should go like this:

RISC OS X.XX has [A FEATURE] which means that it will provide users with
this [BENEFIT].

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Incapable of more, replete with you" Sonnet 113
0
tim155 (1564)
11/8/2007 7:43:06 AM
In article <4b6c1e3e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
<pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2007  John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> [snip]

> > BTW Does anyone know why Macs have their plings upside down? ...

> And does anyone know the origin of the term "pling"? I've often
> wondered.

BBC BASIC according to Wikipedia and we all know how accurate that is. 
;-)

Happy searching.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "They do not love that do not show their love" Two G of V, Act i, Sc.2
0
tim155 (1564)
11/8/2007 7:54:05 AM
In article <fe3f393e4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <4f3e0d6321john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <4f3e05461dtim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> >    <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> >> Don't bother to enumerate things that make the GUI pretty; let's
> >> discount

> I miss them too.

> >> those immediately. I want to know about features which provide
> >> concrete benefits.
> > 
> > Foreign file import / export in Paint (for starters).

> Better internet stack.

How is this a benefit to the user? What does 'better' mean?

> More protection for the system from apps trying to do things they
> shouldn't.

How is this a benefit to the user?

> On the down side, it doesn't support the huge wimp slots that RO 5
> does.

Eek. A downgrade, then.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "To thee I do commend my watchful soul, ere I let fall the windows of mine eyes; sleeping and waking, O, defend me still" Richd III, Act v, Sc.3
0
tim155 (1564)
11/8/2007 7:54:20 AM
In article <37b3383e4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <d0762c3e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net> druck
>           <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> > The Image File Render API is a very worthwhile addition to RISC OS,
> > enabling many types of bitmapped image files and draw files to be
> > loaded, displayed and saved by applications as easily as they
> > currently handle native sprites.
> > 
> > The only drawback is that while its only available to a subset of
> > users running Select or Adjust, it can't be universally adopted by
> > applications. If a developers wishes to support various image
> > formats, they have to include their own code, which defeats the
> > object of using Imager File Render on those OS's which support it.
> > 
> > It really is a criminal waste to see such valuable work sidelined,
> > and no doubt further precious resources dedicated to cloning this API
> >  for the machines which ROL have decided not to support.

> However, it would probably be better to clone it once to add to non
> select OSes, rather than have each graphic application have to
> reproduce the functionality.

> (Could a module be written that uses changefsi to give the same
> functionality? Presumably far more slowly)

Hang on a mo.

Isn't this what ImageFS 2 does?  Indeed this appears to be what was in
ROL's code and was developed by Alternative Publishing and is 32-bit
available.

http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/micros/individual/prodpages/ALT-FS2.shtml

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "We, ignorant of ourselves, beg often our own harms, which the wise powers deny us for our good" Ant & Cleo, Act ii, Sc.1
0
tim155 (1564)
11/8/2007 8:02:18 AM
"Dave Symes" <dfs@ukgateway.net> wrote in message 
news:4f3e6272e2dfs@ukgateway.net...
> In article <4f3e1ef663tim@invalid.org.uk>,
>   Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> [snippy]
>> Is it possible to save from paint as PNG?
>
> From RO Select, recent versions Yes.
> File> Export sprite>
>
> ICO
> GIF
> BMP
> Targa
> PNG
> JPEG

Note that list is not a fixed one.

The RO Select Paint uses the Image Rendering API
for its import/export capabilities which means that the list will
depend on the list of image conversion modules registred to the API.

The GIF conversion module is for example only available for RO 6
(the Unisys patent on the compression method only expired after
the release of RO 4.39 and so the module was not released at the time).

Also, if I were to write a module for converting to JPEG2000
and register it to the Image Rendering API Paint would
gain instant support for it.

Andr� 

0
toto712 (73)
11/8/2007 8:05:01 AM
In message <fad6663e4f.news@casema.nl>
          News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:


[snip]

> 
> Those lists cannot tell me what I would notice on my Iyonix *if* the ROL
> internet stack was to be implemented on the Iyonix. I can't say I have
> had problems with networking on my Iyonix so would the ROL stack make my
> Iyonix faster when browsing web pages? If so by how much?
> 
> Those lists cannot tell me the advantage of having DHCP when all my
> computers sit behind routers.
> 
I'm sure you probably know, but RISC OS 5.xx has always had dhcp and 
can access other computers by name (lanmanager) without host file 
entries via my router set as primary nameserver.
[snip]

> 
>  Regards
>   Stan
> 
> 
John

-- 
John Sandford   West Herts   UK

Hemel Hempstead RISC OS User Group email info @ hhrug.org
0
11/8/2007 8:15:25 AM
In article <4f3e05461dtim@invalid.org.uk>,
   Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:


> Me neither. Despite asking here and elsewhere for someone to enumerate
> those items in Select that a user 'must have' on Iyonix (or even a
> RiscPC) the silence has always been deafening. I thought I'd given up
> asking but again, what are the Select features users of Iyonix are
> missing which are 'must haves'?

> Don't bother to enumerate things that make the GUI pretty; let's discount
> those immediately. I want to know about features which provide concrete
> benefits.

You have probably gleaned the same as me.  

The only things that sounded interesting to me over the years were the
thumbnailing of images by the filer and inproved Draw.  I can't remember
when I last needed Paint.

I have not been stuck, on the odd occasion that I have needed to convert
odd graphic file types, having changefsi, intergif etc. and Artworks.  The
latter is why I now seldom need Draw as well.

I have Thump which does thumbnailing quite efficiently.

The only other thing which people talk about is the improvements under the
bonnet, but I haven't a clue about them. 

I don't know why I pledged �100 really.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
0
rjseago (182)
11/8/2007 8:15:43 AM
In message <4f3e6a81cctim@invalid.org.uk>
          Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> Multi-file-format-handling is useful, I am sure, for newbies who lack
> other software. On the rare occasion I need to do such conversions I have
> plenty of utilities to hand so to do. So, not a show-stopper but perhaps
> more convenient out-of-the-box.

What is useful is that any software that uses the api has the same 
facilities.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/8/2007 8:52:33 AM
In message <4f3e6cad5ftim@invalid.org.uk>
          Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <fe3f393e4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
> <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Better internet stack.
> 
> How is this a benefit to the user? What does 'better' mean?

Faster basically. I noticed a decrease in performance when I moved 
from adjust on an RPC to an Iyonix on Internet radio players. I can't 
see any other explaination.

>> More protection for the system from apps trying to do things they
>> shouldn't.
> 
> How is this a benefit to the user?

Less crashes. In my experience RO 5 is more stable than RO 4, but less 
so than adjust. (They are all pretty good though.)

>> On the down side, it doesn't support the huge wimp slots that RO 5
>> does.
> 
> Eek. A downgrade, then.

Yes, even the 32 bit version doesn't. (I don't think you'd expect a 26 
bit version to)


-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/8/2007 8:57:50 AM
In message <4f3e6ea1edrjseago@zetnet.co.uk>
          Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> You have probably gleaned the same as me.
> 
> The only things that sounded interesting to me over the years were the
> thumbnailing of images by the filer and inproved Draw.  I can't remember
> when I last needed Paint.
> 
> I have not been stuck, on the odd occasion that I have needed to convert
> odd graphic file types, having changefsi, intergif etc. and Artworks.  The
> latter is why I now seldom need Draw as well.
> 
> I have Thump which does thumbnailing quite efficiently.
> 
> The only other thing which people talk about is the improvements under the
> bonnet, but I haven't a clue about them.

It makes a Risc PC faster and more stable, so should do the same on an 
Iyonix

> I don't know why I pledged �100 really.

It would have been worth the money if it appeared.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/8/2007 9:00:37 AM
In message <4f3e6ba629tim@invalid.org.uk>
  Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>But all advocates, please have a go at telling me what BENEFITS I would
>reap from 'Select'. Your sentence structure should go like this:

I would not "advocate" one way or the other.

>RISC OS X.XX has [A FEATURE] which means that it will provide users
>with this [BENEFIT].

I find the question hard to answer, I have OS4.04, OS4.39, OS4.42,
OS5.13 and OS6.06 here and I can work perfectly well with any of them.
There are lots of differences of details and third party add ons may be
required.

There are obvious benefits to be had in the choice of platform and
having chosen a platform the OS chooses itself.

Select has had lots of bug fixes for bugs I never saw on the Iyonix,
there are new features which I would need reminding about and the rest
is cosmetic.

The difficulty we actually have is that developers have to work down to
the Iyonix, they cannot use Select features as they are not present in
OS5. Any real benefits that Select may have are not seen as the are not
used for that reason.

The only show stopper I have found is with the 28MB maximum wimpslot, a
large JPEG cannot be rotated with jpegtran.

Having just moved from OS5.13 to OS4.39 I can say OS4.39 is every bit as
good as OS5.13 with just that one exception.

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/8/2007 9:18:49 AM
In message <4f3e0b67batim@invalid.org.uk>
          Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> Indeed. Methinks some users of slower machines - even apparently with
> a more up-to-date OS - forget how important speed is to the user
> experience.
Yep which is why my SA RiscPC rarely gets used these days despite having
RO4.37 and a Viewfinder. It is simply no competition for the Iyonix in
terms of performance (and it cannot support three screens either).
[snip]
> Someone mentioned that they couldn't possibly upgrade to Iyonix from
> RiscPC because there's no Select for Iyonix. Well, I couldn't downgrade
> to a slow RiscPC with a tiny brain, even if it had RISC OS 10 and "Menu".
Indeed.

I could however upgrade to an Iyonix 2 if it were to give at least a two
fold increase in speed over the Iyonix.

Regards
Stan
-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/8/2007 9:43:07 AM
In a dim and distant universe <fad6663e4f.news@casema.nl>,
   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> muttered:
[Snippety snip]

> No not really. Tim's question is one I would have liked to have had
> answered years ago. What are the 'must haves' is inevitably going to be
> different per person, but all we have had so far is 'Paint supports other
> image formats' and 'a better internet stack' and 'Select supports DHCP'.

That's not a difference. RISC OS 5 supports DHCP and AFAIR always has done.

Can't say I agree with the comment about the internet stack either, but as
the original comment was pretty vague, there's nothing much to go on.

> Those lists cannot tell me what I would notice on my Iyonix *if* the ROL
> internet stack was to be implemented on the Iyonix. I can't say I have
> had problems with networking on my Iyonix so would the ROL stack make my
> Iyonix faster when browsing web pages? If so by how much? 

Difficult to tell really, as web browsing and email etc is so much faster
on the Iyonix than the SA RPC anyway, I can't think of a definitive test
with which to test this claim.

> Those lists cannot tell me the advantage of having DHCP when all my
> computers sit behind routers.

The Iyonix supports DHCP anyway.

> d) an implementation of MacOSX Expose

Uggh! No thanks. :-)

> It is still (as it always has been) the lack of application support in
> crucial areas that limits the platform the most. Plus we need more oomph
> in our RISC OS machines.

Can't disagree with that.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/8/2007 9:45:37 AM
In message <4f3e76dd85invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> The Iyonix supports DHCP anyway.
And I don't use it anyway as I have a router.
> 
> > d) an implementation of MacOSX Expose
> 
> Uggh! No thanks. :-)
SO how do you deal with loads of screens on a RISC OS desktop? I have
been playing with various utilities for RISC OS since I last asked, but
none of them are anywhere near as intuitive as hitting say F9 and then
clicking with the mouse on the thumbnail of the window you want.

Or do I mean one thing with Expose and you are thinking about another?
The only part of the feature set I use are:
a) to clear all windows off screen to get to the pinboard. I
access this via a mouse button and/or a function key)

b) the functionality that displays all open windows as thumbnails
allowing you to click on the one you want (rather like alt-tabbing but
with clear visual representation of all open windows) again accessed
via a mouse button and/or a function key.

I have found a workaround for a) by using Workspace and keeping the
second screen empty so it only shows the pinboard. Was there not a patch
that brought the pinboard to the front with the icon bar? 

I have found no useful workaround under RISC OS for b). Now I am doing
much more website work again, it would be very useful to have.

Cheers
Stan

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/8/2007 10:04:22 AM
On 8 Nov 2007  Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <4b6c1e3e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
> <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 2007  John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> [snip]

>>> BTW Does anyone know why Macs have their plings upside down? ...

>> And does anyone know the origin of the term "pling"? I've often
>> wondered.

> BBC BASIC according to Wikipedia and we all know how accurate that is.
> ;-)

> Happy searching.

Thanks; new subject line as it's OT for the thread, but just on topic 
for the group.

I knew it was from BBC BASIC; I still have the User Guide that came 
with my BBC B, and I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but I can't find 
where. What I wondered was why how this particular word came about. 
I've done some happy searching, and still don't know, but there's some 
interesting stuff at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pling

(It's in BCPL as well as BBC BASIC)

and:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Commonwealth+Hackish

(I never knew about Commonwealth Hacklish!)

With best wishes,

Peter.

-- 
Peter  \  /      zfc Er       \     Prestbury, Cheltenham,  Glos. GL52
Anne    \/ __            __    \                              England.
and     / /  \ | | |\ | /  _    \      http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family /  \__/ \_/ | \| \__/     \______________ pnyoung@ormail.co.uk.
0
pnyoung1 (1656)
11/8/2007 10:17:22 AM
In article <7c2c393e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
<chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4f3dc6c4cfjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
>           <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <998bb83d4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> >    <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison between
> >> RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John Cartmell,
> >> etc.. But it won't happen.

> > You write it. I'll publish it.

> > I do *strongly* object to your presupposition that any comparison from me
> > wouldn't be fair. If you think any reviews that I've published lack
> > balance then point that out at the time: I'll publish that too.

> You missed the point. You are perceived as biased towards one party
> regardless of if that is true or not anything you produced personally
> would be seen in that light. Rightly or wrongly.

Wrongly. And I'd like a touch of recognition of that - just occasionally. Just
because certain people have re-defined 'balanced argument' to mean "everyone
agree with David Ruck and Paul Vigay" doesn't mean that we all have to accept
that re-definition. ;-)
But I'll continue to offer fair reviews and comparisons - even of products
from DR and PV!

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 10:38:13 AM
In article <4f3e6b5543rjseago@zetnet.co.uk>,
   Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> > > I would like to see a real true (totally independent) comparison
> > > between RO5.13 and RO6.06 - i.e. not involving Druck, Paul Vigay, John
> > > Cartmell, etc.. But it won't happen.

> > You write it. I'll publish it.

> > I do *strongly* object to your presupposition that any comparison from
> > me wouldn't be fair. If you think any reviews that I've published lack
> > balance then point that out at the time: I'll publish that too.

> Ho Ho

? That offer applies to you, too. Please do test it.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 10:39:23 AM
In article <be81393e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That is very old news. You keep telling us to look forward not back. 
> Practice what you preach.

> You were responding to Steffen not Druck.

Steffen was questioning why Viewfinder support was specifically picked out as
an RO6 attribute. I explained that it could be because of the unwarranted
suggestion by David Ruck that RO6 wouldn't support Viewfinder. You doubted
that DR ever made any such suggestion so I offered a quotation of his to
confirm that your doubt was wrong. At which point both you and DR call foul
because your claims have been shown to be wrong! ;-(

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 10:44:38 AM
In article <d2c5793e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
<pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> What I wondered was why how this particular word came about.

I guess someone must have thought of it. Once everyone realised
LEN"exclamation mark" > LEN"pling"
I am sure it caught on pretty quickly.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "Men at some time are masters of their fate" Jul Caesar, Act i, Sc.2
0
tim155 (1564)
11/8/2007 10:45:44 AM
In article <c6e33a3e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
   Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I will let them know you consider them silly for leaving. End users 
> (not developers) don't give a monkeys about API etc, they just want 
> things to work whatever kit they have and its the same on them all.

Some of the developers that I have spoken to are *very* concerned to ensure
that software just works whatever the kit. They've encountered a lot of flak
because of that though. ;-(

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 10:47:07 AM
In article <97e1633e4f.news@casema.nl>,
   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> My theory is that ROL have been changing everything (for better or
> worse) so they have a version of RISC OS that is theirs rather than
> restricted by a head licence.

That theory makes no sense. The intention from the start was to make changes
to d-bug and help enable future development with a long-term aim of 32-bitting
the OS. That's what they have done (including that long-term aim. Nothing like
that would alter that licence.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 10:53:07 AM
In article <7fda3d3e4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>,
   Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:
> In message <1194465997.599241.142300@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
>           diodesign <diodesign@gmail.com> wrote:

> [snip]
> > 
> > A follow up covering ROS 5.12 and 6.09 should probably be done in the
> > near future.

> I assume you meant 6.06 above.

Perhaps he's a developer/beta tester? Have you checked his headers? ;-)

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 10:54:32 AM
In a dim and distant universe <e794783e4f.news@casema.nl>,
   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> muttered:
> SO how do you deal with loads of screens on a RISC OS desktop? I have
> been playing with various utilities for RISC OS since I last asked, but
> none of them are anywhere near as intuitive as hitting say F9 and then
> clicking with the mouse on the thumbnail of the window you want.

I use 7th Software's !MoreDesk, which is brilliant, and much better than
Expose (IMHO), and you can simply click CTRL-TAB (that might be
configurable but I've never needed to change it) and it brings up an Expose
style panel with all the desktops and windows on it. You can then drag
around the mini windows in order to move them between desktops.

You can download a demo from http://www.7thsoftware.com/software.htm

> The only part of the feature set I use are: a) to clear all windows off
> screen to get to the pinboard. I access this via a mouse button and/or a
> function key)

With MoreDesk you can simply press something like Alt-Cursor down and it
will take you to a blank desktop, immediately clearing all windows and
giving you a nice clean desktop. I keep the bottom desktop clean for just
this purpose.

> b) the functionality that displays all open windows as thumbnails
> allowing you to click on the one you want (rather like alt-tabbing but
> with clear visual representation of all open windows) again accessed via
> a mouse button and/or a function key.

!MoreDesk doesn't actually give you a thumbnail of the actual window
contents, but each thumbnnail window is labelled with the application icon
which owns it, so I've never had a problem when identifying multiple
windows. I use nine desktops of 1600x1200 and often have upwards of 150
windows open at any one time.

> I have found a workaround for a) by using Workspace and keeping the
> second screen empty so it only shows the pinboard. Was there not a patch
> that brought the pinboard to the front with the icon bar? 

I used WorkSpace for years, before I discovered !MoreDesk and it was a
wonderfull little application - still installed on the RPC, but !MoreDesk
is much more flexible and gives easier control for moving windows around
and managing multiple desktops.

Paul

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/8/2007 10:57:20 AM
In message <4f3e7d6e51invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk>
          Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <e794783e4f.news@casema.nl>,
>    News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> muttered:
> > SO how do you deal with loads of screens on a RISC OS desktop? I have
> > been playing with various utilities for RISC OS since I last asked, but
> > none of them are anywhere near as intuitive as hitting say F9 and then
> > clicking with the mouse on the thumbnail of the window you want.
> 
> I use 7th Software's !MoreDesk, which is brilliant, and much better than
> Expose (IMHO), and you can simply click CTRL-TAB (that might be
> configurable but I've never needed to change it) and it brings up an Expose
> style panel with all the desktops and windows on it. You can then drag
> around the mini windows in order to move them between desktops.
But no visual representation of the contents of the windows themselves.
I did look at MoreDesk and had a play with it. 
> 
> You can download a demo from http://www.7thsoftware.com/software.htm
> 
> > The only part of the feature set I use are: a) to clear all windows off
> > screen to get to the pinboard. I access this via a mouse button and/or a
> > function key)
> 
> With MoreDesk you can simply press something like Alt-Cursor down and it
> will take you to a blank desktop, immediately clearing all windows and
> giving you a nice clean desktop. I keep the bottom desktop clean for just
> this purpose.
Ah, I missed that. RTFM I guess the next time I try the demo.
> 
> > b) the functionality that displays all open windows as thumbnails
> > allowing you to click on the one you want (rather like alt-tabbing but
> > with clear visual representation of all open windows) again accessed via
> > a mouse button and/or a function key.
> 
> !MoreDesk doesn't actually give you a thumbnail of the actual window
> contents, but each thumbnnail window is labelled with the application icon
> which owns it, so I've never had a problem when identifying multiple
> windows. I use nine desktops of 1600x1200 and often have upwards of 150
> windows open at any one time.
I do have problems under Windows and MacOSX identifying the correct
window with the Alt-Tab functionality. I find using Alt-Tab frustrating.
I do realise that if you have a lot of text windows open (say editing
HTML) then a thumbnail might not help so much but having the option
would be nice. Netsurf seems to provide a thumbnail when you minimise a
window.

I've just added a third graphics card and monitor to my Iyonix, so I am
currently running 3840x1024. Plus Workspace and finding windows is the
big problem.
> 
> > I have found a workaround for a) by using Workspace and keeping the
> > second screen empty so it only shows the pinboard. Was there not a patch
> > that brought the pinboard to the front with the icon bar? 
> 
> I used WorkSpace for years, before I discovered !MoreDesk and it was a
> wonderfull little application - still installed on the RPC, but !MoreDesk
> is much more flexible and gives easier control for moving windows around
> and managing multiple desktops.
I will have another play. I can't get to grips with the way you get
screens from one Workspace window to another. Plus Firefox does not
seem to like being switched in and out of view. Workspace is useful for
providing access to the pinboard though.
Cheers
Stan
-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/8/2007 11:21:01 AM
In article <77997f3e4f.news@casema.nl>,
   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:

> Workspace is useful for providing access to the pinboard though.

I have a /very/ simple pinboard-changing system at my software pages
accessible from http://www.picindex.info/

It is extremely simple, but provides a way of setting up easily accessible
pre-set pinboards and screen modes for different purposes.

It looks as though I've messed up the images on that page - can't FTP to it
from UK, so it'll have to go on the � faire list.

John

-- 
John Williams, Brittany, Northern France - no attachments to these addresses!
Non-RISC OS posters change user to johnrwilliams or put 'risc' in subject
for reliable contact! Who is John Williams? http://www.picindex.info/author/ 
Somewhere nice to stay in Brittany? http://petit.four.free.fr/visitors/locate
0
UCEbin (2771)
11/8/2007 11:31:10 AM
On 8 Nov 2007  Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <d2c5793e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
> <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> [snip]

>> What I wondered was why how this particular word came about.

> I guess someone must have thought of it. Once everyone realised
> LEN"exclamation mark" > LEN"pling"
> I am sure it caught on pretty quickly.

Point taken, but it's also known as "shriek" or "bang" (LEN = 4 or 6), 
so I don't think that can be a complete explanation for adopting 
"pling".

With best wishes,

Peter.

-- 
Peter  \  /      zfc Er       \     Prestbury, Cheltenham,  Glos. GL52
Anne    \/ __            __    \                              England.
and     / /  \ | | |\ | /  _    \      http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family /  \__/ \_/ | \| \__/     \______________ pnyoung@ormail.co.uk.
0
pnyoung1 (1656)
11/8/2007 12:05:17 PM
In message <4f3e6d67c5tim@invalid.org.uk>
          Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <37b3383e4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
> <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In message <d0762c3e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net> druck
> >           <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
[snip]
> > (Could a module be written that uses changefsi to give the same
> > functionality? Presumably far more slowly)
> 
> Hang on a mo.
> 
> Isn't this what ImageFS 2 does?  Indeed this appears to be what was in
> ROL's code and was developed by Alternative Publishing and is 32-bit
> available.
> 
> http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/micros/individual/prodpages/ALT-FS2.shtml
> 

ImageFS is (as far I know) a completely separate program from 'ROL'
offering.

There is always the 'Trans' series developed - I think, by 'CC' for
Imp/Artworks & also work with 'Ovation'.

These can be added to - !TransSVG !TransTIFF !TransPNG  !TransGIF

Perhaps not as nice/integrated  as 'ROL' offering - but seem to work.

Perhaps RO5 Paint/Draw could be made to work with them.

A nice feature of 'Easywriter' is that it can read 'PNG' pictures and
seems to store them as 'PNG' files in 'Easywriter' doc files.

So making a large saving in file size - as opposed to saving as a
'RISC OS' sprite.

Perhaps something like this could be added to 'Draw' and also
'OvationPro'.

-- 
Colin Ferris Cornwall UK
0
cferris (978)
11/8/2007 12:12:40 PM
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Paul Vigay wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <4f3e1e6bf2see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
>   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> muttered:
>
>> There is a Preferences-->Filters... option, where you can set the default
>> expiry to 0, which means that it does not expire.
>
> Aha. Never noticed that before! Thanks for the tip. :-)

Shouldn't this be in the FAQ? 'How to kill-fill John Cartmell.'

-- 

0
11/8/2007 12:37:53 PM
David Pitt wrote:
[snip]
> The difficulty we actually have is that developers have to work down to
> the Iyonix, they cannot use Select features as they are not present in
> OS5. Any real benefits that Select may have are not seen as the are not
> used for that reason.

Actually, developers usually work down to at least RISC OS 3.7 because
otherwise you are significantly restricting your target market.

This was always one of the problems Select faced - a balance
needs to be struck between "developer features" and "user features".
"Developer features" pay off much later if ever.

The only way around it would have been something like the
"Nested WIMP upgrade" Acorn did - do a special "Select for
developers" deal which includes redistribution rights for
certain extension modules. However, this makes implementing
the features much harder since it restricts the kind of
changes you can do - with the big restructurings going on
in Select, it is very hard to do.

Steffen

-- 
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
0
spam9600 (698)
11/8/2007 12:46:01 PM
John Cartmell  <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
>> My theory is that ROL have been changing everything (for better or
>> worse) so they have a version of RISC OS that is theirs rather than
>> restricted by a head licence.
>
>That theory makes no sense. The intention from the start was to make changes
>to d-bug

What is 'd-bug' and why do ROL want to make changes to it?

Or do you mean that they wanted to debug the system?

Chris.
0
chrisj1 (269)
11/8/2007 1:02:57 PM
On 8 Nov 2007, Tim Hill wrote:

> But all advocates, please have a go at telling me what BENEFITS I would
> reap from 'Select'. Your sentence structure should go like this:

<snip>

It should be ROL who answer this question - part of any company's 
workload is marketing.

RO 6 may be very good, and might have 'must have' features for all I 
know, but unless ROL do some good PR and marketing, aimed at 
non-techie *users*, then their talents will remain undiscovered by 
many. Similarly, unless the features are made available across the 
whole range of RO machines, then it will always be a subset, and never 
the 'definitive' OS. I really don't care who is to blame for the 
Iyonix not having RO 6 (or select, or adjust, or whatever other fancy 
name they now call it by) - Castle or ROL - but ROL are the ones with 
the commercial interest in getting it sorted, yet they don't seem 
interested in doing so.

I've heard the excuses - not enough users; not enough money; too busy 
with the A9 version; Castle won't release information ... yawn, yawn. 
Pledges exceeded ROL's requirement for numbers, but were ignored; the 
A9 version is (should be) completed now; some printer manufacturers 
won't release information either, but that hasn't stopped determined 
companies from producing software. If ROL have a will to do so, they 
could do it. They don't seem to have that will.

Jeremy.

-- 
Jeremy Brayshaw
0
jeremy3118 (124)
11/8/2007 1:10:10 PM
In article <zPd*ajmZr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Chris Joseph
<chrisj@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> John Cartmell  <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >   News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> >> My theory is that ROL have been changing everything (for better or
> >> worse) so they have a version of RISC OS that is theirs rather than
> >> restricted by a head licence.
> >
> >That theory makes no sense. The intention from the start was to make
> >changes to d-bug

> What is 'd-bug' and why do ROL want to make changes to it?

> Or do you mean that they wanted to debug the system?

Considering the disatnace between the e and the - (it's not even same finger,
different hand), I haven't the slightest clue as to how that happened! ;-)

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 2:41:20 PM
In article <4f3e23e000evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>,
   Barry Allen (news) <evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4f3e1ee1a1nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

[Snip]

> > AFAIK we are pushing PipeDream way,  way beyond Fireworkz abilities.

> AFAIK Fireworkz has all the functionality of Pipedream except to have
> files automatically extending when written to beyond their length and
> print using the inbuilt printer fonts. I can't think of anything else
> Fireworkz can't do that Pipedream can.

Then how much re-writing of PD is necessary to run things on FW, I wonder.

In the early days, Gerald said that PD had more functionality that FW.

Certainly I wouod need a complete new set of every file that outputs to
paper!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. N.B. email address nospam@4qd.org is valid.
All email addresses are copyright. Resale or use on any lists is expressly forbidden.
4QD manufacture speed controllers for battery electric motors.
www sites http://www.4QD.org and http://www.4QD.co.uk
---------- We use a RISC PC 32 bit RISC computer  ----------------
0
Richard
11/8/2007 3:07:50 PM
In article <b3d72c3e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
   druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2007 "Richard Torrens (news)" <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
> > Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream - which
> > is far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

> Would you like it ported?

Yes!

What's it worth?

If anyone is seriously into getting under the skin of PD, there are a
number of enhancements that I would like. In fact I fell out with Gerald F
simply by suggesting them! Most of them I thought would not be major in
programming terms, but would significanty enhance usefulness.

Anyway, I doubt that Gerald F would release the source.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. N.B. email address nospam@4qd.org is valid.
All email addresses are copyright. Resale or use on any lists is expressly forbidden.
4QD manufacture speed controllers for battery electric motors.
www sites http://www.4QD.org and http://www.4QD.co.uk
---------- We use a RISC PC 32 bit RISC computer  ----------------
0
Richard
11/8/2007 3:11:23 PM
In message <69d63c3e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>
          Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <434efc3d4f.ri48000100@ntlworld.com>
>           Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:43 +0000, Chris Hughes wrote:

>>>> They will never come back precisely because of the TWO strands of the
>>>> OS, now becoming three strands as far I can see.
>> <guess>
>> The third being the OS for the A9Home????
>> </guess>

> Nope! :-)
Right.
So that is "as far as you can see".
Which means that I can't see anything.....
TVM ;-/

I'll keep guessing.
-- 
   __o    Terry Mills               Norwich - Up The Canaries!!
 _`\<,_   terry@norridge.me.uk      Clan 3444; Foundation 0037
(_)/*(_)  Who needs Bill Gates?     Iyonix 512                          
  Phone: 01603-427900       http://www.norridge.me.uk
0
telpubs (61)
11/8/2007 4:08:10 PM
In article <4f3e945d8enospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
<nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
> In article <4f3e23e000evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid>, Barry Allen
>    (news) <evanallen@onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4f3e1ee1a1nospam@4qd.org>, Richard Torrens (news)
> > <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> [Snip]

> > > AFAIK we are pushing PipeDream way,  way beyond Fireworkz
> > > abilities.

> > AFAIK Fireworkz has all the functionality of Pipedream except to
> > have files automatically extending when written to beyond their
> > length and print using the inbuilt printer fonts. I can't think of
> > anything else Fireworkz can't do that Pipedream can.

> Then how much re-writing of PD is necessary to run things on FW, I
> wonder.

Its a few years since I converted all my files so I can't really
remember all the details. All the custom functions worked OK with just
minor modifications for a few. I've got 38 custom functions but it
didn't take me an inordinate amount of time to get them up and running.

I've got one of the early Iyonix's so it must be about 5 years ago
since I converted everything. I did start to use Aemulor but it was
painfully slow, so I decided not to use it at all and make do with
software which would run on the Iyonix.

-- 
Barry A.
To reply by email:- barry d o t allen a t talktalk d o t net
Replace the d o t and a t by the usual.
0
evanallen1 (351)
11/8/2007 4:26:11 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4f3e94b08fnospam@4qd.org>,
   Richard Torrens (news) <nospam@4qd.org> muttered:

> Yes!

> What's it worth?

I too would be willing to pay for a 32-bit Pipedream upgrade.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/8/2007 4:54:24 PM
On Nov 8, 1:10?pm, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2007, Tim Hill wrote:
>
> > But all advocates, please have a go at telling me what BENEFITS I would
> > reap from 'Select'. Your sentence structure should go like this:
>
> <snip>

There are some quite interesting points raised here - so I think it's
worth me responding.

> It should be ROL who answer this question - part of any company's
> workload is marketing.

Indeed - marketing is one of the activities that a company needs to
undertake. Examples of the sorts of things a company can do include:

Attending shows
Giving talks at user groups
Mailshotting past and present customers
Advertising in magazines
Setting up websites for particular products

These are all things that RISCOS Ltd does.

> RO 6 may be very good, and might have 'must have' features for all I
> know, but unless ROL do some good PR and marketing, aimed at
> non-techie *users*, then their talents will remain undiscovered by
> many. Similarly, unless the features are made available across the
> whole range of RO machines, then it will always be a subset, and never
> the 'definitive' OS. I really don't care who is to blame for the
> Iyonix not having RO 6 (or select, or adjust, or whatever other fancy
> name they now call it by) - Castle or ROL - but ROL are the ones with
> the commercial interest in getting it sorted, yet they don't seem
> interested in doing so.

I need to make a correction here. It's not that ROL "don't seem
interested" - quite the reverse. Hundreds of (mainly unpaid) man
hours have been spent trying to get it sorted. Indeed after one
13 hour meeting it did look as though we did have it all sorted :-(


> I've heard the excuses - not enough users; not enough money; too busy
> with the A9 version; Castle won't release information ... yawn, yawn.

Indeed it is yawn, yawn. There is a simple problem. ROL do not yet
have
the techical information on the Iyonix that's needed. Without that
information the project is on hold.

> Pledges exceeded ROL's requirement for numbers, but were ignored;

No pledge was ignored. RISCOS Ltd said quite clearly that it needed
100 people to express an interest before porting Select to the Iyonix
would be looked at. That number was reached and work was therefore
started. RISCOS Ltd did show early prototypes of Select running on
Iyonix hardware at a number of shows.

> the
> A9 version is (should be) completed now; some printer manufacturers
> won't release information either, but that hasn't stopped determined
> companies from producing software. If ROL have a will to do so, they
> could do it. They don't seem to have that will.

It's nothing to do with will, it's to do with resources. The
information
needed is sitting there, but RISCOS Ltd doesn't have it. Given this
and given the other demands on the resources available it was felt
(and rightly to) that time/money/resources were better spent at that
stage on releases that could be developed.

It's worth rememebring that RISCOS Ltd doesn't have infinate
resources, but in the last 12 months it's released:

RISC OS 6 preview
RISC OS 6 Select 4i2
RISC OS 6 User Guide
RISC OS 6 PRM free on-line edition
Updates to Select 4i2 (last month)

Coming shortly are:

Printed PRM
Video driver supporting 8Mb of VRAM under VirtualAcorn.

At the same time work has been progressing on the A9.

I think RISCOS Ltd has done very well this year and has delivered
some top class products. It's a great shame that at the moment
Select for the Iyonix can't be completed.

Aaron



0
atimbrell (584)
11/8/2007 5:27:23 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:27:23 -0800, Aaron wrote:

> Indeed - marketing is one of the activities that a company needs to
> undertake. Examples of the sorts of things a company can do include:
> 
> Attending shows
> Giving talks at user groups
> Mailshotting past and present customers Advertising in magazines
> Setting up websites for particular products

Replacing the whole website would be one of the most valuable acts of 
marketing you could do: the current RISC OS website looks like a throw-
away from the 90s.  I can't take it seriously, and I'm a current user.  I 
can't imagine any prospective future users could.

Also: sending press releases out about what you're doing might be good 
too: for a long long time, ROL was pretty much silent, other than the odd 
show and user group talk that said nothing new at all.  ("Hey, look at 
the thumbnail filer!")

>> I've heard the excuses - not enough users; not enough money; too busy
>> with the A9 version; Castle won't release information ... yawn, yawn.
> 
> Indeed it is yawn, yawn. There is a simple problem. ROL do not yet have
> the techical information on the Iyonix that's needed. Without that
> information the project is on hold.

This is an excuse that many people don't seem to believe, and I don't 
understand why: the only reason RISC OS could be ported to the A9 was 
because the designers of the hardware gave all the information about it.  
Not having the technical information about the hardware is a complete and 
utter show-stopper, and yet loads of people seem to ignore this.  And CTL 
are the only people who can give ROL this information.

>> Pledges exceeded ROL's requirement for numbers, but were ignored;
> 
> No pledge was ignored. RISCOS Ltd said quite clearly that it needed 100
> people to express an interest before porting Select to the Iyonix would
> be looked at. That number was reached and work was therefore started.
> RISCOS Ltd did show early prototypes of Select running on Iyonix
> hardware at a number of shows.

IIRC, it was Select *features and components*, rather than Select itself, 
but I concede this is splitting hairs.
 
> It's worth rememebring that RISCOS Ltd doesn't have infinate resources,
> but in the last 12 months it's released:
> 
> RISC OS 6 preview
> RISC OS 6 Select 4i2

I'm not sure I approve of listing both of these - the number of releases 
of software isn't a good measure of how productive you've been: the 
preview version felt like a work in progress release to keep people quite 
until a full release could be made.  I would have thought making this 
preview release wasn't a huge amount of effort, as it's basically just a 
pre-release of something you were going to do anyway (4i2).

B.

0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 5:40:17 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> I will have another play. I can't get to grips with the way you get
> screens from one Workspace window to another.

Menu over the window's back icon, and select which ones you want.

If it doesn't have a back icon, there is hot key (ctrl+alt+tab by 
default).

You can either go to the workspace a window is on, or fetch a window 
to the current workspace via the iconbar menus, ordered on task name
and window title.

Finally to move a selecion of windows, use the icon bar menu of the 
same name, then drag out a rectangle around the desired windows.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 6:02:26 PM
In article <b8be723e4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
<phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In message <4f3e6ea1edrjseago@zetnet.co.uk> Robert Seago
>           <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> > You have probably gleaned the same as me.
> > 
> > The only things that sounded interesting to me over the years were the
> > thumbnailing of images by the filer and inproved Draw.  I can't
> > remember when I last needed Paint.
> > 
> > I have not been stuck, on the odd occasion that I have needed to
> > convert odd graphic file types, having changefsi, intergif etc. and
> > Artworks.  The latter is why I now seldom need Draw as well.
> > 
> > I have Thump which does thumbnailing quite efficiently.
> > 
> > The only other thing which people talk about is the improvements under
> > the bonnet, but I haven't a clue about them.

> It makes a Risc PC faster and more stable, so should do the same on an
> Iyonix

> > I don't know why I pledged �100 really.

> It would have been worth the money if it appeared.
I probably would get it if it appeared, but more because of the (forlorn)
hope that the platform could start to settle down again, than anything
else.  I would however wait to see how it performed before I risked it.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
0
rjseago (182)
11/8/2007 6:33:41 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> Those lists cannot tell me what I would notice on my Iyonix *if* the ROL
> internet stack was to be implemented on the Iyonix. I can't say I have
> had problems with networking on my Iyonix so would the ROL stack make my
> Iyonix faster when browsing web pages? If so by how much?

I would be very wary of the ROL stack unless it can be demonstrated 
its serious weakness when communicating with a faster machines via 
UDP/ShareFS, is not present when running on faster hardware itself.

Can any A9 owners with either an Iyonix or VRPC to test against, 
comment?

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 6:34:26 PM
In article <4f3e7d0b74john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
<john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <97e1633e4f.news@casema.nl>, News poster
>    <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> > My theory is that ROL have been changing everything (for better or
> > worse) so they have a version of RISC OS that is theirs rather than
> > restricted by a head licence.

> That theory makes no sense. The intention from the start was to make
> changes to d-bug and help enable future development with a long-term aim
> of 32-bitting the OS. That's what they have done (including that
> long-term aim. Nothing like that would alter that licence.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an unwillingness by ROL to
consider 32 bit, for a long time?

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
0
rjseago (182)
11/8/2007 6:37:58 PM
> This is an excuse that many people don't seem to believe, and I don't
> understand why: the only reason RISC OS could be ported to the A9 was
> because the designers of the hardware gave all the information about it.
> Not having the technical information about the hardware is a complete and
> utter show-stopper, and yet loads of people seem to ignore this.  And CTL
> are the only people who can give ROL this information.

Of course they are, because as we all know, the XScale IOP321, the 
Acer M1535 southbridge, Intel network controller, and all the other 
comonment parts are all highly secret proprietary Castle designs, of 
which there are absolutely no datasheets available. Also RISC OS 5 is 
so secret and securely locked down, it is impossible to run any test 
programs to determine memory mapped I/O locations or processor 
configuration code.

By the way, in case anyone doesn't know, the above is completely and 
utterly untrue. The Iyonix consists of 100% off the shelf commodity
components, and all datasheets are freely available for download from 
the internet. Also any number of skilled people could discover all the 
information required from the Iyonix within a few hours, and write a a 
detailed spec for ROL to follow without any copyright issues.

But then sound technical arguments have no place in the world of
political back biting.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 6:41:58 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <be81393e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> That is very old news. You keep telling us to look forward not back.
>> Practice what you preach.

>> You were responding to Steffen not Druck.

> Steffen was questioning why Viewfinder support was specifically picked out as
> an RO6 attribute. I explained that it could be because of the unwarranted
> suggestion by David Ruck that RO6 wouldn't support Viewfinder. You doubted
> that DR ever made any such suggestion so I offered a quotation of his to
> confirm that your doubt was wrong. At which point both you and DR call foul
> because your claims have been shown to be wrong! ;-(

As you helpfully posted my original message, it is plain for everyone 
to see that the only person making these unwarranted suggestions is 
you.

Are you now going to stop spreading the very FUD that you claim is
so damaging?

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 6:46:18 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 "Richard Torrens (news)" <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:

> In article <b3d72c3e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
>    druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Nov 2007 "Richard Torrens (news)" <nospam@4qd.org> wrote:
>>> Part of this is that the business relies heavily on Pipedream - which
>>> is far slower on the Iyo under emulation tham on the RPC.

>> Would you like it ported?

> Yes!

> What's it worth?

I'm happy to do it f.o.c.

> If anyone is seriously into getting under the skin of PD, there are a
> number of enhancements that I would like. In fact I fell out with Gerald F
> simply by suggesting them! Most of them I thought would not be major in
> programming terms, but would significanty enhance usefulness.

> Anyway, I doubt that Gerald F would release the source.

Well if someone can convince him to release the source to me under any 
conditions he wants, I'll produce a port. This would not include 
adding any new features, as that is a separate issue.

The alternative is convert the existing binaries, and make a patch 
file available (containing no copyright code) to upgrade the 26bit 
copy.

While waiting to gain access to the sources of Photodesk, I actually 
binary converted the entire package, and had it working. Obviously 
having the source made it a lot easier to fix some serious bugs which
came to light. I was then able to pass it on to Nik Weiss who is now
continuing to develop the application.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 6:53:34 PM
On 8 Nov 2007, Aaron wrote:

> On Nov 8, 1:10?pm, Jeremy Brayshaw wrote:

>> It should be ROL who answer this question - part of any company's
>> workload is marketing.
> 
> Indeed - marketing is one of the activities that a company needs to
> undertake. Examples of the sorts of things a company can do include:
> 
> Attending shows
> Giving talks at user groups
> Mailshotting past and present customers
> Advertising in magazines
> Setting up websites for particular products
> 
> These are all things that RISCOS Ltd does.

When Apple produced Leopard, their web site bristled with excitement 
and enticing explanations of the new features it would contain. They 
delayed release for many months, but it didn't dent the enthusiasm for 
it because their web site made it sound really "must have".

I know Apple have millions to spend on it, but it doesn't take much 
money, or really very much effort, to produce a similarly enticing web 
site bristling with superlatives for the wonderful things RO6 can do.

Because ROL refuse to produce such a web site, the message portrayed 
is that there are *no* wonderful, or even useful, things RO6 can do. 
That message may be right or wrong, but that's the result of their 
abysmal PR work. I don't have RO6, so I don't know if there really are 
fascinating features, but I won't get it unless ROL make it clear it 
would be worth my (anyone's) while.

I wouldn't have bought Leopard (MacOS) if I couldn't put it on *all* 
my Macs. I won't buy RO6 unless I can put it on *all* my RISC OS 
machines, but I can't.

>> RO 6 may be very good, and might have 'must have' features for all I
>> know, but unless ROL do some good PR and marketing, aimed at
>> non-techie *users*, then their talents will remain undiscovered by
>> many. Similarly, unless the features are made available across the
>> whole range of RO machines, then it will always be a subset, and never
>> the 'definitive' OS. I really don't care who is to blame for the
>> Iyonix not having RO 6 (or select, or adjust, or whatever other fancy
>> name they now call it by) - Castle or ROL - but ROL are the ones with
>> the commercial interest in getting it sorted, yet they don't seem
>> interested in doing so.
> 
> I need to make a correction here. It's not that ROL "don't seem
> interested" - quite the reverse.

But with such abysmal communication and PR, that's the perception. You 
haven't changed my opinion on that just by saying so. If ROL really 
mean it, then they must be seen, obviously and publicly, to be doing 
all they can to co-operate with Castle, and produce *something* for 
Iyonix, to show their commitment.

>> I've heard the excuses - not enough users; not enough money; too busy
>> with the A9 version; Castle won't release information ... yawn, yawn.
> 
> Indeed it is yawn, yawn. There is a simple problem. ROL do not yet
> have
> the techical information on the Iyonix that's needed. Without that
> information the project is on hold.

But given the obvious bickering between Castle and ROL, and ROL's 
seemingly very childish behaviour throughout, I find it impossible to 
believe there is no progress at all that can be made with an Iyo 
version. I don't know if that's true, but that is my belief given the 
attitude of ROL towards it.

>> Pledges exceeded ROL's requirement for numbers, but were ignored;
> 
> No pledge was ignored. RISCOS Ltd said quite clearly that it needed
> 100 people to express an interest before porting Select to the Iyonix
> would be looked at. That number was reached and work was therefore
> started. RISCOS Ltd did show early prototypes of Select running on
> Iyonix hardware at a number of shows.

But not enough work. There doesn't *appear* to be any commitment by 
ROL to the Iyo version. Maybe that's wrong and it's just bad PR, or 
maybe they *are not* committed to it. Either way, everything ROL have 
done so far is useless to me (and other Iyo owners).

>> the
>> A9 version is (should be) completed now; some printer manufacturers
>> won't release information either, but that hasn't stopped determined
>> companies from producing software. If ROL have a will to do so, they
>> could do it. They don't seem to have that will.
> 
> It's nothing to do with will, it's to do with resources. The
> information
> needed is sitting there, but RISCOS Ltd doesn't have it. Given this
> and given the other demands on the resources available it was felt
> (and rightly to) that time/money/resources were better spent at that
> stage on releases that could be developed.
> 
> It's worth rememebring that RISCOS Ltd doesn't have infinate
> resources, but in the last 12 months it's released:
> 
> RISC OS 6 preview
> RISC OS 6 Select 4i2
> RISC OS 6 User Guide
> RISC OS 6 PRM free on-line edition
> Updates to Select 4i2 (last month)
> 
> Coming shortly are:
> 
> Printed PRM
> Video driver supporting 8Mb of VRAM under VirtualAcorn.
> 
> At the same time work has been progressing on the A9.

All of which are completely useless if there's no Iyonix version (for 
Iyo users, anyway).

If work has only "been progressing" on the A9, does that mean the OS 
is *still* only Beta? If so, that is inexcusable, and shows that even 
if they had the info you say they need from Castle, they would be 
years and years producing a product for it.

> I think RISCOS Ltd has done very well this year and has delivered
> some top class products.

That may be so, but as far as I am concerned, and other Iyonix users, 
they are producing things for a completely different computer - one 
that is very outdated, and impossible to buy. Even the more modern A9 
work has taken years and is still only Beta quality.

> It's a great shame that at the moment
> Select for the Iyonix can't be completed.

And thereby hangs all of ROL's problems. They just don't *appear* to 
be interested. (It may be that the word 'appear' is correct, or it may 
be that they are 'actually' not interested. They need to make a major 
effort, if the former is true, to dispel the latter.)

Jeremy.

-- 
Jeremy Brayshaw 
0
jeremy3118 (124)
11/8/2007 6:54:16 PM
On 7 Nov 2007 John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On a number of occasions over the years I have had to scrap expensive
> preparations to publicise RISC OS outside the present market because your
> (false) critical comments on the newsgroups would do worse than nullify any
> positive marketing. The measure is not in how much I think you're a stupid
> fool (or vice versa) but how much anyone makes a deliberate attempt to damage
> the reputation of products or people. You do it constantly - and without
> justification; I respond only when personally attacked (like now).

I haven't read anything this funny in ages, you really do live in a 
complete fantasy world.

[Rest snipped - its really not fair to mock the aflicted.]

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 7:00:47 PM
In a dim and distant universe <e647a73e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
   druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> muttered:

> Can any A9 owners with either an Iyonix or VRPC to test against, comment?

I've just copied 100MB of MP3 files from the Iyonix to the A9 via a
gigabyte switch, followed by a single 115MB file, using a 9MB wimpslot and
everything copied across fine via ShareFS.

Definitely seems more reliable than copying to the RPC.

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/8/2007 7:09:08 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:41:58 +0000, druck wrote:

>> This is an excuse that many people don't seem to believe, and I don't
>> understand why: the only reason RISC OS could be ported to the A9 was
>> because the designers of the hardware gave all the information about
>> it. Not having the technical information about the hardware is a
>> complete and utter show-stopper, and yet loads of people seem to ignore
>> this.  And CTL are the only people who can give ROL this information.

<snip sarcasm>

> By the way, in case anyone doesn't know, the above is completely and
> utterly untrue. The Iyonix consists of 100% off the shelf commodity
> components, and all datasheets are freely available for download from
> the internet. 

You're simplifying the problem to the extent that what you are asserting 
is untrue.  There's a very important component of the Iyonix for which 
the data sheets are not publicly available: the PCB.

You can't just treat any PCB with a certain set of chips on it the same 
as any other with the same chips.  It's a world more complicated than you 
seem to realise.  I speak from experience, having ported OSes to boards, 
as well as been involved in the design of boards. There are dozens of 
essential things you need to know that are entirely at the whim of the 
designer of the PCB.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 7:14:09 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:09:08 +0000, Paul Vigay wrote:

> In a dim and distant universe <e647a73e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>,
>    druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> muttered:
> 
>> Can any A9 owners with either an Iyonix or VRPC to test against,
>> comment?
> 
> I've just copied 100MB of MP3 files from the Iyonix to the A9 via a
> gigabyte switch

Is this a Gigabit Ethernet switch, or some other speed switch 
manufactured by Gigabyte?

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 7:14:50 PM
In message <a659a43e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
          druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 8 Nov 2007 News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
> > I will have another play. I can't get to grips with the way you get
> > screens from one Workspace window to another.
> 
> Menu over the window's back icon, and select which ones you want.
That is really cool just what I was looking for! 
> 
> If it doesn't have a back icon, there is hot key (ctrl+alt+tab by 
> default).
> 
> You can either go to the workspace a window is on, or fetch a window 
> to the current workspace via the iconbar menus, ordered on task name
> and window title.
I'd found that.
> 
> Finally to move a selecion of windows, use the icon bar menu of the 
> same name, then drag out a rectangle around the desired windows.
Oh yes. It just gets better! A classic case of RTFM :)

I think my prayers are now answered, it seems there is a god after
all.....
 Cheers
  Stan

-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/8/2007 7:20:35 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:41:58 +0000, druck wrote:

> <snip sarcasm>

>> By the way, in case anyone doesn't know, the above is completely and
>> utterly untrue. The Iyonix consists of 100% off the shelf commodity
>> components, and all datasheets are freely available for download from
>> the internet.

> You're simplifying the problem to the extent that what you are asserting
> is untrue.  There's a very important component of the Iyonix for which
> the data sheets are not publicly available: the PCB.

> You can't just treat any PCB with a certain set of chips on it the same
> as any other with the same chips.  It's a world more complicated than you
> seem to realise.  I speak from experience, having ported OSes to boards,
> as well as been involved in the design of boards. There are dozens of
> essential things you need to know that are entirely at the whim of the
> designer of the PCB.

Then Rob, with that experience you should more than anyone, as there 
is a Linux port available for the Iyonix, all the information is 
available and the hard work has already been done.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 7:26:37 PM
In message <4f3ea79a09rjseago@zetnet.co.uk>
          Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <4f3e7d0b74john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <97e1633e4f.news@casema.nl>, News poster
>>    <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
>>> My theory is that ROL have been changing everything (for better or
>>> worse) so they have a version of RISC OS that is theirs rather than
>>> restricted by a head licence.

>> That theory makes no sense. The intention from the start was to make
>> changes to d-bug and help enable future development with a long-term aim
>> of 32-bitting the OS. That's what they have done (including that
>> long-term aim. Nothing like that would alter that licence.

> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an unwillingness by ROL to
> consider 32 bit, for a long time?
As in the vexed matter of placing the OS in EPROM, this was one of the 
things that ROL maintained was either impossible or highly improbable.

I guessed that both statements were wrong, and the arrival of the 
Iyonix proved it.
But, by then, I had already ceased my subs. to ROL.
That's despite my Foundation number being as low as 37 ;-(

In theory, I would still pay for the latest OS features from ROL, if 
they could be married to OS5.xx on the same chip.

Fat chance.
-- 
   __o    Terry Mills               Norwich - Up The Canaries!!
 _`\<,_   terry@norridge.me.uk      Clan 3444; Foundation 0037
(_)/*(_)  Who needs Bill Gates?     Iyonix 512                          
  Phone: 01603-427900       http://www.norridge.me.uk
0
telpubs (61)
11/8/2007 8:37:56 PM
On 8 Nov, 18:34, druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2007 News poster <mistymorni...@casema.nl> wrote:
>
> > Those lists cannot tell me what I would notice on my Iyonix *if* the ROL
> > internet stack was to be implemented on the Iyonix. I can't say I have
> > had problems with networking on my Iyonix so would the ROL stack make my
> > Iyonix faster when browsing web pages? If so by how much?
>
> I would be very wary of the ROL stack unless it can be demonstrated
> its serious weakness when communicating with a faster machines via
> UDP/ShareFS, is not present when running on faster hardware itself.
>
> Can any A9 owners with either an Iyonix or VRPC to test against,
> comment?

Well I don't have an Iyonix myself - but quite a few VRPC users do
and I haven't had any reported problems. A such I suspect that your
use of the words "serious weakness" might be some part of this
"FUD" that keeps John Cartmell awake at night :-)

Aaron


0
atimbrell (584)
11/8/2007 8:52:00 PM
On 8 Nov, 18:37, Robert Seago <rjse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an unwillingness by ROL to
> consider 32 bit, for a long time?

A long time ago (year 2000 from memory) it was decided that the
future 32bit version of RISC OS would be called RISC OS 5. The
issue was that there was no point starting work on it until a hardware
manufacturer was commited to producing a 32bit hardware platform.

Aaron

0
atimbrell (584)
11/8/2007 8:54:15 PM
On 8 Nov, 18:41, druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

> But then sound technical arguments have no place in the world of
> political back biting.

Well, not in your world of political back biting :-)

Aaron

0
atimbrell (584)
11/8/2007 8:55:41 PM
On 8 Nov, 18:54, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2007, Aaron wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 1:10?pm, Jeremy Brayshaw wrote:
> >> It should be ROL who answer this question - part of any company's
> >> workload is marketing.

Sorry but I am going to have to go through your posting pointing out
the huge inconsistencies in what you've said...

> When Apple produced Leopard, their web site bristled with excitement
> and enticing explanations of the new features it would contain. They
> delayed release for many months, but it didn't dent the enthusiasm for
> it because their web site made it sound really "must have".
>
> I know Apple have millions to spend on it, but it doesn't take much
> money, or really very much effort, to produce a similarly enticing web
> site bristling with superlatives for the wonderful things RO6 can do.

So Apple have millions and ROL don't - but ROL can do the
same things. Sorry no.

>
> Because ROL refuse to produce such a web site, the message portrayed
> is that there are *no* wonderful, or even useful, things RO6 can do.
> That message may be right or wrong, but that's the result of their
> abysmal PR work. I don't have RO6, so I don't know if there really are
> fascinating features, but I won't get it unless ROL make it clear it
> would be worth my (anyone's) while.

RISCOS Ltd have set up a site for RISC OS 6. It's:

www.riscos6.com

> I wouldn't have bought Leopard (MacOS) if I couldn't put it on *all*
> my Macs. I won't buy RO6 unless I can put it on *all* my RISC OS
> machines, but I can't.

You can't currently install RISC OS 6 on A9 or Iyonix - so assuming
you have either of these then you are correct.

> >> RO 6 may be very good, and might have 'must have' features for all I
> >> know, but unless ROL do some good PR and marketing, aimed at
> >> non-techie *users*, then their talents will remain undiscovered by
> >> many. Similarly, unless the features are made available across the
> >> whole range of RO machines, then it will always be a subset, and never
> >> the 'definitive' OS. I really don't care who is to blame for the
> >> Iyonix not having RO 6 (or select, or adjust, or whatever other fancy
> >> name they now call it by) - Castle or ROL - but ROL are the ones with
> >> the commercial interest in getting it sorted, yet they don't seem
> >> interested in doing so.
>
> > I need to make a correction here. It's not that ROL "don't seem
> > interested" - quite the reverse.
>
> But with such abysmal communication and PR, that's the perception. You
> haven't changed my opinion on that just by saying so.

Right. So what you are saying is that even if I explain the problem
you won't believe me. Now I am sorry about that - but I can't
say anything different. RISCOS Ltd want to do it. The 100 people
needed pledged an interest. Work started. Early versions were
publically shown. Then the project got stuck because some
information needed wasn't available.

You complain about abysmal communication, so I communicate
and explain the problem. But that doesn't change your opinion.
I would have to say that in your case any amount of PR and
communication wouldn't make a jot of difference.

Aaron

0
atimbrell (584)
11/8/2007 9:10:04 PM
In message <4f3e7c44d0john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
          John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <be81393e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
>    Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> That is very old news. You keep telling us to look forward not back.
>> Practice what you preach.

>> You were responding to Steffen not Druck.

> Steffen was questioning why Viewfinder support was specifically picked out as
> an RO6 attribute. I explained that it could be because of the unwarranted
> suggestion by David Ruck that RO6 wouldn't support Viewfinder. You doubted
> that DR ever made any such suggestion so I offered a quotation of his to
> confirm that your doubt was wrong. At which point both you and DR call foul
> because your claims have been shown to be wrong! ;-(

I strongly suggest you go back and re-read what was really written and 
stop trying to read things that don't exist (except in your mind).

Quote:
>>> In article <5pbfqlFqad1vU1@mid.individual.net>, Steffen Huber
>>>    <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
>>>> Especially amusing is the "Viewfinder support". Is the "new" Viewfinder
>>>> support somehow better than what users of RISC OS 4.02 got?

>>> Viewfinder support was temporarily removed in RO6 Preview. I presume that
>>> was mentioned because David Ruck made quite a lot of the 'fact' that he
>>> knew Viewfinder support wouldn't be available in the full release.

>> I think you are infering something that was not said John.
End Quote:

I was referring to your comment above in response to Steffen, the only 
mention of Dave Ruck was by you. I said "I think you are inferring 
something that was not said John." regarding you inferring Steffen his 
comments were as a result of post months ago from Druck. You don't 
know, you assumed.

-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/8/2007 9:18:24 PM
On 8 Nov, David Pitt wrote in message
  <a069743e4f.pittdj+@pittdj.plus.net>:

> The difficulty we actually have is that developers have to work down to
> the Iyonix, they cannot use Select features as they are not present in
> OS5. Any real benefits that Select may have are not seen as the are not
> used for that reason.

Rubbish.  Developers have to work down to RISC OS 4.02, 3.7, or 3.5, or
even 3.1 in some cases.  This has always been an issue.

Things such as the improvements made in the Nested Wimp are only just
starting to become viable to use for essential tasks, and that is
available in ROM with RISC OS 4, 5 and 6.  The Select-only features are
not going to become useful until many more users have them available,
Iyonix or not.

> Having just moved from OS5.13 to OS4.39 I can say OS4.39 is every bit as
> good as OS5.13 with just that one exception.

As someone who uses 4.37 and 5.13, I'm afraid I'd beg to differ -- at
least on the stability front.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/8/2007 9:26:08 PM
In message <5pgeoaFr9o8cU1@mid.individual.net>
          Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Actually, developers usually work down to at least RISC OS 3.7 because
> otherwise you are significantly restricting your target market.

This is really a problem.  For a long time there was a large proportion of
users refusing to upgrade from 3.7, seeing no major benefit (that's a fair
individual choice).  No doubt there still are a large number, but I believe
percentages have had more chance to change over the years - possibly to some
extent by loosing people from the market as well as the fact that RISCOS Ltd.
ran out of 4.02 ROMs and now only have 4.39, so they've obviously still been
selling as time passed.

However, we can never move forward unless people think they're missing out by
not having newer OS versions - or even newer hardware.

It is a catch 22 situation in such a small market, but I believe that
probably the time has come (a while ago), where it is safe to assume at the
very least, 4.02 (and in fact RISCOS Ltd. have had to always assume that
anyway).

It is possible to degrade functionality gracefully where features are
unavailable, whilst still coding in benefits of new features.  It does take
more effort, but is possible.  I've done this in a really small way in a bit
of software I've written, which is RISC OS 6 aware.

I know it's not really fair to compare, but Microsoft have for years forced
people to upgrade with incompatibility (rather than feature benefits).

[snip]

Cheers
Steve

-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/8/2007 9:43:46 PM
In message <61358f3e4f.ri48000100@ntlworld.com>
          Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <69d63c3e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>
>           Chris Hughes <chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> In message <434efc3d4f.ri48000100@ntlworld.com>
>>           Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:38:43 +0000, Chris Hughes wrote:

>>>>> They will never come back precisely because of the TWO strands of the
>>>>> OS, now becoming three strands as far I can see.
>>> <guess>
>>> The third being the OS for the A9Home????
>>> </guess>

>> Nope! :-)
> Right.
> So that is "as far as you can see".
> Which means that I can't see anything.....
> TVM ;-/

> I'll keep guessing.

I'll put it simply

ROL strand 4.39/6.06
Iyonix strand 5.12
ROOL strand (which may or may not be added to the Iyonix strand, and 
might only be selected bits that Iyonix Ltd as owners/makers of the 
Iyonix want to add from the various shared source items donated to the 
project) - this is per Steve Revill at the meeting the other night - I 
hope I understood the answer to the question asked at the meeting 
correctly.

-- 
Chris Hughes
0
chris3296 (682)
11/8/2007 9:52:58 PM
In message <47334a01$0$13938$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:27:23 -0800, Aaron wrote:
> 
[snip]
>  
> > It's worth rememebring that RISCOS Ltd doesn't have infinate resources,
> > but in the last 12 months it's released:
> > 
> > RISC OS 6 preview
> > RISC OS 6 Select 4i2
> 
> I'm not sure I approve of listing both of these - the number of releases 
> of software isn't a good measure of how productive you've been: the 
> preview version felt like a work in progress release to keep people quite 
> until a full release could be made.  I would have thought making this 
> preview release wasn't a huge amount of effort, as it's basically just a 
> pre-release of something you were going to do anyway (4i2).
> 

Rob, I think you probably underestimate the amount of effort releasing a ROM
image requires.  I'm not sure exactly what's involved, but I imagine there
is:

The need to decide what "in development" stuff can be included and what
can't based on testing performed to date and confidence in stability etc.

Then, ensuring all version information is correct and updated from previous
releases.

Then compiling the stuff and actually building the ROM (however that is
done).

Next is documentation, Gold Discs, checking / testing installations,
Duplication.  Etc.
 
The above is not an informed knowledge of what's involved, just a few
guesses and a non-exhustive list.

Cheers
Steve


-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/8/2007 9:55:44 PM
In a dim and distant universe <4733602a$0$8427$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> muttered:

> Is this a Gigabit Ethernet switch

Yes. :-)

-- 
Usenet replies: To contact me, visit www.vigay.com/feedback/

Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - www.vigay.com/
Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/
Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
0
11/8/2007 10:18:59 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:26:37 +0000, druck wrote:

>> You can't just treat any PCB with a certain set of chips on it the same
>> as any other with the same chips.  It's a world more complicated than
>> you seem to realise.  I speak from experience, having ported OSes to
>> boards, as well as been involved in the design of boards. There are
>> dozens of essential things you need to know that are entirely at the
>> whim of the designer of the PCB.
> 
> Then Rob, with that experience you should more than anyone, as there is
> a Linux port available for the Iyonix, all the information is available
> and the hard work has already been done.

Again you are simplifying, and you're wrong: the Linux port depends on 
CTL's RISC OS to have already correctly initialised and set up the 
hardware.  You can't replace the ROMs in an Iyonix with Linux, for 
example: it doesn't know how to boot on it.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 10:40:27 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:05:17 GMT
Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 8 Nov 2007  Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > In article <d2c5793e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
> > <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > [snip]
> 
> >> What I wondered was why how this particular word came about.
> 
> > I guess someone must have thought of it. Once everyone realised
> > LEN"exclamation mark" > LEN"pling"
> > I am sure it caught on pretty quickly.
> 
> Point taken, but it's also known as "shriek" or "bang" (LEN = 4 or 6), 
> so I don't think that can be a complete explanation for adopting 
> "pling".
> 
> With best wishes,
> 
> Peter.

Yes, but 'Pling' sounds better :) 

-- 
Will J G
0
folderol (127)
11/8/2007 10:42:32 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:55:44 +0000, Steve Potts wrote:

> Rob, I think you probably underestimate the amount of effort releasing a
> ROM image requires.  I'm not sure exactly what's involved, but I imagine
> there is:
> 
> The need to decide what "in development" stuff can be included and what
> can't based on testing performed to date and confidence in stability
> etc.

Well, given the stability of the preview, I'm not sure this was a 
priority.  RISCOS Ltd. standard procedure appears to be build a ROM 
image, and if nothing goes seriously wrong after a month of using it 
internally, ship it.

> Then, ensuring all version information is correct and updated from
> previous releases.

You mean the change log?  If so, most of this will be (or should be) 
automatically generated from the version controll system.

> Then compiling the stuff and actually building the ROM (however that is
> done).

I suspect something along the lines of typing "make" at a prompt and then 
going to make a cup of tea.

> Next is documentation, Gold Discs, checking / testing installations,
> Duplication.  Etc.

None of which happened for the preview.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 10:42:39 PM
On 8 Nov, Chris Hughes wrote in message
  <f474b93e4f.chris@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>:
 
> ROL strand 4.39/6.06
> Iyonix strand 5.12
> ROOL strand (which may or may not be added to the Iyonix strand, and 
> might only be selected bits that Iyonix Ltd as owners/makers of the 
> Iyonix want to add from the various shared source items donated to the 
> project) - this is per Steve Revill at the meeting the other night - I 
> hope I understood the answer to the question asked at the meeting 
> correctly.

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

As I understood what Steve said, the ROOL 'strand' will be the 'latest'
version, with the Iyonix Ltd 'strand' following behind as (or if) they
cherry-pick the useful bits and QA them for a formal Flash ROM-based
release.

I don't really want to make the comparison, but in effect it's similar to
Select being the cutting-edge softloaded ROMs, with Adjust following
behind containing the fixed features that go into periodic physical ROM
releases.  In both cases, some users will be early adopters while others
will follow on later.

But, unless you're also going to claim that Select and Adjust are
different strands, I think you've only got two strands: ROL's and ROOL's.

-- 
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England

http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/

0
news1571 (3486)
11/8/2007 10:44:04 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:10:04 -0800, Aaron wrote:

> RISCOS Ltd have set up a site for RISC OS 6. It's:
> 
> www.riscos6.com

This is the first I've heard of this.  It also appears to be a cheap 
frame redirection to the same 90s-era poor website.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 10:44:26 PM
In message <473390df$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:55:44 +0000, Steve Potts wrote:
> 
> > Rob, I think you probably underestimate the amount of effort releasing a
> > ROM image requires.  I'm not sure exactly what's involved, but I imagine
> > there is:
> > 
> > The need to decide what "in development" stuff can be included and what
> > can't based on testing performed to date and confidence in stability
> > etc.
> 
> Well, given the stability of the preview, I'm not sure this was a 
> priority.  RISCOS Ltd. standard procedure appears to be build a ROM 
> image, and if nothing goes seriously wrong after a month of using it 
> internally, ship it.

I didn't have any real stability issues with PreView.  There were things
which didn't work, but I didn't get crashes all over the place.

> > Then, ensuring all version information is correct and updated from
> > previous releases.
> 
> You mean the change log?  If so, most of this will be (or should be) 
> automatically generated from the version controll system.

No.  I mean version string tags for things like the OS version and module
versions which you can see from help and info boxes etc.

> > Then compiling the stuff and actually building the ROM (however that is
> > done).
> 
> I suspect something along the lines of typing "make" at a prompt and then 
> going to make a cup of tea.

I would hope it is reasonably automatic, but I suspect there would be
slightly more to it.

> > Next is documentation, Gold Discs, checking / testing installations,
> > Duplication.  Etc.
> 
> None of which happened for the preview.

Don't know about you, but I have a CD here which was definiately duplicated
from something, definiately had some documentation / instructions on it for
installation and definately installed.

I don't therefore understand your last sentence.

Cheers
Steve


-- 
StevePotts at blastzone DOT demon STOP co DOT uk (www.blastzone.demon.co.uk/)
Written on RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
nospam66 (818)
11/8/2007 11:07:26 PM
In article <1194542843.887646.314190@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
   Aaron <atimbrell@aol.com> wrote:
> Indeed - marketing is one of the activities that a company needs to
> undertake. Examples of the sorts of things a company can do include:

> Attending shows
> Giving talks at user groups
> Mailshotting past and present customers
> Advertising in magazines
> Setting up websites for particular products

+ Producing manuals, tutorials, and support for developers
+ Supporting the market through enabling additional shows

> These are all things that RISCOS Ltd does.

There are also aspects of marketing that should/could be improved - and the
criticism is right in that respect - but that criticism might be better taken
if the many good things that are done were also acknowledged.

-- 
	John Cartmell	john@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
                                                      
0
john233 (5650)
11/8/2007 11:15:59 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 Aaron <atimbrell@aol.com> wrote:
> On 8 Nov, 18:34, druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2007 News poster <mistymorni...@casema.nl> wrote:
>> I would be very wary of the ROL stack unless it can be demonstrated
>> its serious weakness when communicating with a faster machines via
>> UDP/ShareFS, is not present when running on faster hardware itself.
>>
>> Can any A9 owners with either an Iyonix or VRPC to test against,
>> comment?

> Well I don't have an Iyonix myself - but quite a few VRPC users do
> and I haven't had any reported problems. A such I suspect that your
> use of the words "serious weakness" might be some part of this
> "FUD" that keeps John Cartmell awake at night :-)

Oh come off it. The hangs and lost connections are well documented on 
csa.n and have been reported to the Select list by people other than 
me. I have raised it several times, and been met with complete 
disinterest because the other end of the connection was an Iyonix.

This is one of the things that infuriate me about ROL. People are 
willing to give you every assistance to solve such issues, but you'd 
rather deny any problems exists and accuse others of spreading FUD.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 11:23:28 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:26:37 +0000, druck wrote:
>> Then Rob, with that experience you should more than anyone, as there is
>> a Linux port available for the Iyonix, all the information is available
>> and the hard work has already been done.

> Again you are simplifying, and you're wrong: the Linux port depends on
> CTL's RISC OS to have already correctly initialised and set up the
> hardware.  You can't replace the ROMs in an Iyonix with Linux, for
> example: it doesn't know how to boot on it.

The (flash) ROM wont be replaced with Select either, it will be 
softloaded as on other systems. Its well within the capability of the 
developers ROL have on hand to get a processor and chipset over a soft 
reset, after all they are in the OS writing business.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 11:34:20 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:07:26 +0000, Steve Potts wrote:

>> > Then, ensuring all version information is correct and updated from
>> > previous releases.
>> 
>> You mean the change log?  If so, most of this will be (or should be)
>> automatically generated from the version controll system.
> 
> No.  I mean version string tags for things like the OS version and
> module versions which you can see from help and info boxes etc.

This is certainly automatically handled by version control, at least in 
RISCOS Ltd.'s fork.

>> > Then compiling the stuff and actually building the ROM (however that
>> > is done).
>> 
>> I suspect something along the lines of typing "make" at a prompt and
>> then going to make a cup of tea.
> 
> I would hope it is reasonably automatic, but I suspect there would be
> slightly more to it.

Why?  One can build NetBSD, a somewhat more complex OS, by simply typing 
"make" in the right place.  You can build Debian and all its packages, 
including CD images, for all the various architectures it supports, with 
but a few commands.  I don't believe RISC OS should be any different.  
The task is ideal for complete automation.

>> > Next is documentation, Gold Discs, checking / testing installations,
>> > Duplication.  Etc.
>> 
>> None of which happened for the preview.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I have a CD here which was definiately
> duplicated from something, definiately had some documentation /
> instructions on it for installation and definately installed.
> 
> I don't therefore understand your last sentence.

My RO6P CD was a CD-R with a buggy installer and a short README, and not 
a lot else.  Assuming the installer took an hour or two to throw 
together, the rest of the mastering would have taken about five minutes.  
Duplication is certainly not a time-consuming chore if you've got other 
stuff to be getting on with at the same time, even less if you invest a 
couple of hundred quid in a duplicator.  I don't believe all that many 
RO6P CDs got burnt anyway - didn't most people download it?

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 11:38:52 PM
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:34:20 +0000, druck wrote:

> The (flash) ROM wont be replaced with Select either, it will be
> softloaded as on other systems. Its well within the capability of the
> developers ROL have on hand to get a processor and chipset over a soft
> reset, after all they are in the OS writing business.

So you're suggesting that ROL should only provide a bleeding-edge, 
development, not-completely tested OS for the Iyonix, rather than 
something like Adjust?

Also: This still doesn't help, and leaves several difficult questions.  
Linux is comparatively simple next to RISC OS in terms of what the OS 
wants to do to hardware.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done (and have never done so) but that it 
would be a huge amount of work in any respect.  The Linux port you talk 
about doesn't even fully support all the hardware.

Castle, if they want their customers to have Select functionality, are 
more than welcome, I suspect, to commission ROL to provide a port, much 
like Advantage Six did.  It would appear, however, Castle would prefer 
the public implemented these features for them.

B.
0
nntp550 (4244)
11/8/2007 11:45:57 PM
On 8 Nov 2007 Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:55:44 +0000, Steve Potts wrote:
>> Rob, I think you probably underestimate the amount of effort releasing a
>> ROM image requires.  I'm not sure exactly what's involved, but I imagine
>> there is:
>> 
>> The need to decide what "in development" stuff can be included and what
>> can't based on testing performed to date and confidence in stability
>> etc.

> Well, given the stability of the preview, I'm not sure this was a
> priority.  RISCOS Ltd. standard procedure appears to be build a ROM
> image, and if nothing goes seriously wrong after a month of using it
> internally, ship it.

Since the start of Select scsheme the releases have been very stable 
and have significant feature increments. The preview was not up to the 
usual high standard, lacking existing functionality, and was a 
particular disappointment being the only sign of activity after a 3 
year break. My view at the time was that it was a collection of alpha 
quality code hastily compiled to just get something out of the door, 
and did not do RO6 justice.

But I'm pleased to say that the RISC OS 6 / Seleit 4i2 full release 
was vastly better and back up to what (given suitably long memories) 
we came to expect from the Select scheme. There is still an issue with 
ViewFinder support which I'm trying to get sorted, but it seems to 
only be affecting those using the maximum resolution of the VF (so 
probably only me). Apart from that its working well, and has a useful 
set of new features.

I sincerely hope this is an indication that ROL are back on the right 
path of providing value to Select subscribers. Last months update pack 
was an encouraging sign that development is still continuing apace. 
The only fly in the ointment is the attitude of management in certain 
crucial areas remains unchanged.

---druck

-- 
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
0
news5843 (7461)
11/8/2007 11:50:03 PM
In article <47339e0c$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>,
   Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:
> One can build NetBSD, a somewhat more complex OS, by simply typing "make"
> in the right place.  You can build Debian and all its packages, including
> CD images, for all the various architectures it supports, with but a few
> commands.  I don't believe RISC OS should be any different. The task is
> ideal for complete automation.

Agreed. To build a RISC OS 5 ROM for IYONIX, you can checkout the
appropriate list of components from source control by saying:

  # checkout Tungsten

Then, you run copy the checked-out sources into your build machine, run
!Builder from amongst the things you checked out, select a build directory
(where the sources and tools are) from a menu, select a build from a menu
(Tungsten) and select some phases that you want to run, then you click
"Build" and sit back. After a while, out pops the ROM image.

That's pretty much where you'll be at when we've got the rest of the sources
out on the ROOL site. Except we'll probably do some pre-built stuff to save
effort, too.

I admit that it can sound a bit complicated to the uninitiated dabbler
because I've tried to spell it out there but it's certainly very easy once
you've seen it done or tried it yourself. Lots of other things (already
available) such as the Printer stack are built in exactly the same way.

You could also do it in a few magic commands from the command line but it's
hardly worth the typing, to be honest.

Steve

-- 
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
0
steve417 (852)
11/9/2007 12:12:34 AM
In message <7f85773d4f.news@casema.nl>
          News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:

> In message <ab6f2c3d4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
>           Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

>> In message <642e0d3d4f.news@casema.nl>
>>           News poster <mistymornings@casema.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]

>> Wow!  That opinion really surprises me.  I couldn't live without Draw.  It's
>> one of the best drawing programs I've seen supplied with a system -
>> regardless of its version.
> Exactly 'best drawing programs...supplied with a system'!

> I am sure there are far more competent vector drawing systems out there
> for RISC OS and other systems and at a price comparable to an upgrade to
> RO6. A program like Artworks (or ROOL Draw) can be used on *ALL* of the
> RISC OS machines we own, RO6 Draw cannot be used on any of them.
Surely the main point is that the Draw *module* is the important point 
here. The !Draw application can be seen simply as a front end to the 
Draw module offering (very) adequate functionality to create !Draw 
files.
Having a well documented vector graphic file format suplied with the 
system is a major advantage over Windows.

-- 
Chris Hall <chris@svrsig.org>
0
chris4681 (177)
11/9/2007 12:31:41 AM
In message <609db83e4f.nospam@spotts.btconnect.com>
          Steve Potts <nospam@all.invaliid> wrote:

> In message <5pgeoaFr9o8cU1@mid.individual.net>
>           Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > Actually, developers usually work down to at least RISC OS 3.7 because
> > otherwise you are significantly restricting your target market.
> 
> This is really a problem.  For a long time there was a large proportion of
> users refusing to upgrade from 3.7, seeing no major benefit (that's a fair
> individual choice).
[snip]
This is not surprising, as looking back RO4 was an underwhelming
advance. For me it was an expensive way to get a very nominal speed
increase and long filenames (at a time when I was earning little above
minimum wage).

Therefore it is hard to believe, when enthusiasts rave over Adjust or
RO6 that the same is not true for those products (ignoring for the
moment the fact that there is no Iyonix version).

These are some of the many reasons why I have been unwilling to pay in
advance for any theoretical Iyonix OS from ROL.

If a new RISC OS for the Iyonix was to appear, which made the Iyonix
noticeably and usefully faster, without compromising the excellent
stability of RO5, that would get my interest. 
 Regards
  Stan
-- 
http://mistymornings.net 
0
11/9/2007 6:32:58 AM
In message <47339fb5$0$13930$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
          Rob Kendrick <nntp@rjek.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:34:20 +0000, druck wrote:
> 
>> The (flash) ROM wont be replaced with Select either, it will be
>> softloaded as on other systems. Its well within the capability of the
>> developers ROL have on hand to get a processor and chipset over a soft
>> reset, after all they are in the OS writing business.
> 
> So you're suggesting that ROL should only provide a bleeding-edge,
> development, not-completely tested OS for the Iyonix, rather than
> something like Adjust?

But wouldn't that also describe the first few versions of select?

> Also: This still doesn't help, and leaves several difficult questions.
> Linux is comparatively simple next to RISC OS in terms of what the OS
> wants to do to hardware.
> 
> I'm not saying it couldn't be done (and have never done so) but that it
> would be a huge amount of work in any respect.  The Linux port you talk
> about doesn't even fully support all the hardware.
> 
> Castle, if they want their customers to have Select functionality, are
> more than welcome, I suspect, to commission ROL to provide a port, much
> like Advantage Six did.  It would appear, however, Castle would prefer
> the public implemented these features for them.

It does make me wonder if the number of Iyonixes sold is too low, or 
more to point the number of new Iyonixes that could be expected to be 
sold because of it.

-- 
Jess                   Iyonix
 Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
  mailto:nospam@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net   or
  http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
0
phantasm_39 (2515)
11/9/2007 8:25:10 AM
In message <fcbdc13e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net>
  druck <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:

>On 8 Nov 2007 Aaron <atimbrell@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Nov, 18:34, druck <n...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2007 News poster <mistymorni...@casema.nl> wrote:
>>> I would be very wary of the ROL stack unless it can be demonstrated
>>> its serious weakness when communicating with a faster machines via
>>> UDP/ShareFS, is not present when running on faster hardware itself.
>>>
>>> Can any A9 owners with either an Iyonix or VRPC to test against,
>>> comment?
>
>> Well I don't have an Iyonix myself - but quite a few VRPC users do
>> and I haven't had any reported problems. A such I suspect that your
>> use of the words "serious weakness" might be some part of this
>> "FUD" that keeps John Cartmell awake at night :-)
>
>Oh come off it. The hangs and lost connections are well documented on 
>csa.n and have been reported to the Select list by people other than 
>me. I have raised it several times, and been met with complete 
>disinterest because the other end of the connection was an Iyonix.
>
>This is one of the things that infuriate me about ROL. People are 
>willing to give you every assistance to solve such issues, but you'd 
>rather deny any problems exists and accuse others of spreading FUD.

It is well known that ShareFS can be problematic between the Iyonix and
a RiscPC. From all I have seen on csa.* I am convinced there is more
than one issue.

There are further issues here, not yet fully defined, using ShareFS
between VRPC and real RISC OS machines. This did not come as too much of
a surprise given that ShareFS is known to be poor and was only ever
meant as a simple system to connect similar machines. I have stiffed
VRPC many times with ShareFS. Sunfish/Moonfish is much better without
being quite perfect.

Communication between RISC OS and Windows Vista is a right pest, it is
one reason why VRPC is such a good idea, the two bits talk together like
old friends once they are in the same box.    

-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/9/2007 8:30:44 AM
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711081237090.17904@cube.home.local>, Tascam
Holiday <tascam.holiday@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Paul Vigay wrote:

> > In a dim and distant universe
> >   <4f3e1e6bf2see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter News
> >   <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> muttered:
> >
> >> There is a Preferences-->Filters... option, where you can set the
> >> default expiry to 0, which means that it does not expire.
> >
> > Aha. Never noticed that before! Thanks for the tip. :-)

> Shouldn't this be in the FAQ? 'How to kill-fill John Cartmell.'

It was that discovery which prompted the line "something wonderful" in
2001:a space odyssey. Though ICBW.  ;-)

-- 
* 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
* (tim@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
0
tim155 (1564)
11/9/2007 8:31:26 AM
In article <21a7833e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
<pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2007  Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> > In article <d2c5793e4f.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young
> > <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> > [snip]

> >> What I wondered was why how this particular word came about.

> > I guess someone must have thought of it. Once everyone realised
> > LEN"exclamation mark" > LEN"pling" I am sure it caught on pretty
> > quickly.

> Point taken, but it's also known as "shriek" or "bang" (LEN = 4 or 6),

USA

> so I don't think that can be a complete explanation for adopting
> "pling".

UK

Reason enough?

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "All that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity" Hamlet, Act i, Sc.2
0
tim155 (1564)
11/9/2007 8:34:21 AM
In message <1194555255.334162.42190@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
  Aaron <atimbrell@aol.com> wrote:

>On 8 Nov, 18:37, Robert Seago <rjse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an unwillingness by ROL to
>> consider 32 bit, for a long time?
>
>A long time ago (year 2000 from memory) it was decided that the
>future 32bit version of RISC OS would be called RISC OS 5. The
>issue was that there was no point starting work on it until a hardware
>manufacturer was commited to producing a 32bit hardware platform.

As I understand it the bit ROL were not keen on was producing a 32bit OS
to run on RiscPCs with their processors in 32bit mode. That in itself
would not get us very far but might have turned out to have been useful
preparatory work when 32bit only processors became available, with
hindsight that is. 
-- 
David Pitt.

Computing with Virtual RISC OS and Windows Vista.
0
news7066 (1533)
11/9/2007 8:39:50 AM
In article <0d54843e4f.cferris@cferris.freeuk.com>,
   <cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid> wrote:
> In message <4f3e6d67c5tim@invalid.org.uk> Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk>
>           wrote:

> > In article <37b3383e4f.jess@itworkshop.invalid>, Jess
> > <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In message <d0762c3e4f.druck@druck.freeuk.net> druck
> > >           <news@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > 
> [snip]
> > > (Could a module be written that uses changefsi to give the same
> > > functionality? Presumably far more slowly)
> > 
> > Hang on a mo.
> > 
> > Isn't this what ImageFS 2 does?  Indeed this appears to be what was
                                                                    ^^^
> > in ROL's code and was developed by Alternative Publishing and is
> > 32-bit available.
> > 
> > http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/micros/individual/prodpages/ALT-FS2.shtml
> > 

> ImageFS is (as far I know) a completely separate program from 'ROL'
> offering.

[Snip]

Please note the 'was'.

IIRC ImageFS 2 was included in one of the earlier versions of ROL's
offering.

http://www.riscos.com/risc_os_4/Features.htm

[my god, that page is out of date]

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy spirits all of comfort: fare thee well !" Ant & Cleo, Act iii, Sc.2
0
tim155 (1564)
11/9/2007 8:39:54 AM
On 8 Nov 2007, Aaron wrote:

> On 8 Nov, 18:54, Jeremy Brayshaw <jer...@brayshaw.org.uk> wrote:
>> I know Apple have millions to spend on it, but it doesn't take much
>> money, or really very much effort, to produce a similarly enticing web
>> site bristling with superlatives for the wonderful things RO6 can do.
> 
> So Apple have millions and ROL don't - but ROL can do the
> same things. Sorry no.

It is obvious ROL can't match the millions Apple spend on advertising. 
I said that ROL *can*, if they have the will, produce a good, 
informative, helpful, non-techie, exciting web site at almost no cost 
at all. Instead, they produce technical, boring text-only web pages 
which grab the interest of no-one but the most determined.

> RISCOS Ltd have set up a site for RISC OS 6. It's:
> www.riscos6.com

Well, the advertising of this site hasn't worked for me. Maybe others 
know of it, but as a potential purchaser, I never knew it existed.

Now that I've visited it, I'm still of the same opinion. Where are the 
screen shots? I didn't look at the whole page - getting as far as a 
list of 200 odd module names put me to sleep. Where are the banner 
headlines of new features? Where is the 'in-your-face' attempt at 
convincing me I can't do without it? It doesn't take millions of quid 
to do that - a screen shot showing a 'must have' feature, with a 
simple, non-techie large headline, doesn't cost anything at all.

The site needs an instant headline of something that says 'look at 
what RO 6 gives you - how have you lived without these features all 
this time?'. It should be trying to sell a product to users who aren't 
sure if they want it. Instead, it is a tedious, technical guide of 
almost no interest to Joe Public.

>> But with such abysmal communication and PR, that's the perception. You
>> haven't changed my opinion on that just by saying so.
> 
> Right. So what you are saying is that even if I explain the problem
> you won't believe me.

I am saying that what I read by chance on the newsgroups is not the 
official word of the company concerned. I have no idea as to your 
connection with ROL, if any. Your reply shows no signs of being 
endorsed by ROL the company, and there has been no statement made that 
you are the official spokesperson of the company. In any case, I don't 
trust or automatically believe what ROL say, official or otherwise - 
their track record does not inspire trust. I feel let down, lied to 
and cheated because of their broken promises about Iyonix Select, 
their years of failing to produce anything but still taking 
subscribers' money, and their lack of eye-catching details of their 
products. Whether those impressions are right or not is not the issue 
- that is the *perception* that they need to assuage, and they are 
making no attempt at doing so. You have said they only promised to 
*look at* Iyo Select after the '100 pledges' but that is not how I 
read it when I made my pledge. Therefore I feel very let down, despite 
any twisting of words to hide the fact that ROL are letting their 
petty bickering with Castle stop them doing as *I thought* they had 
promised.

Despite all that, I *want* to buy RO6. But can't because they don't 
produce it for my machine and appear to treat that almost as a relief. 
My desire to buy is very much *despite* ROL, and not *because of* 
them. The whole impression I get is that, after the 'legal' debacle a 
while ago, ROL despise Castle and won't lift a finger to do anything 
for them - to the point of 'cutting off their nose to spite their 
face'. An opinion re-inforced by some (well, one) avid ROL 
supporter(s) on these newsgroups. If ROL cared at all, they would make 
every effort to assuage this impression. (Not with words, but with 
actions and products). They don't, so the impression is upheld.

Jeremy.

-- 
Jeremy Brayshaw
0
jeremy3118 (124)
11/9/2007 8:50:26 AM
In article <1194556204.377438.33370@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Aaron
<atimbrell@aol.com> wrote:
>  Then the project got stuck because some information needed wasn't
> available.

> You complain about abysmal communication, so I communicate and explain
> the problem.

Communicating a problem clearly doesn't involve telling anyone 'there is
a problem'. That one exists is self-evident. 

> But that doesn't change your opinion. I would have to say
> that in your case any amount of PR and communication wouldn't make a
> jot of difference.

You don't appear to understand what PR is; ROL quite obviously have no
idea of the basic principles of selling to users or the need to publish
regular press releases. In this, in the RISC OS world, they are not
alone. ROL may be good at communication with techies (no offence
intended) but _Public_ Relations? 

Please write a list of the information needed to complete Iyonix RISC OS
6 (or whatever), then perhaps disgruntled Iyonix users who want RISC OS 6
can help prod CTL into providing the missing info, or point out how the
information can be gleaned from elsewhere. There is no shame in asking
for help, especially when you are 'stuck'.

In order for us Iyonix users to be even more interested, please write out
a list of User Benefits. i.e. what a feature does, and how this will make
the RISC OS 6 experience better for a user than RISC OS 5.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "A friendly eye could never see such faults" Jul Caesar, Act iv, Sc.3
0
tim155 (1564)
11/9/2007 8:54:32 AM
In article <1194556204.377438.33370@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
   Aaron <atimbrell@aol.com> wrote:
> RISCOS Ltd have set up a site for RISC OS 6. It's:

> www.riscos6.com

Have you seen what it looks like in all RISC OS browsers?

RISC OS 6 Copyright 1999-2006. It's been around since 1999, has it?

Still no list of benefits to users......

My simple question has descended into the usual blame game. Again.

-- 
* 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
* (tim@invalid.org.uk is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

.... "No more be grieved at that which thou hast done" Sonnet 35
0
tim155 (1564)
11/9/2007 8:54:48 AM
In message <cfffb63e4f.stev