Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software

Should RISC OS be Open Sourced? 246

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the silly-rabbit-risc-is-for-kids dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Aficionados of RISC OS are in a dilemma. With RISC OS Ltd, one of the main developers of the OS, in financial trouble, should RISC OS be open sourced? Users and developers say yes, citing the current slow development of the platform in the hands of its owners. However, Paul Middleton, RISC OS Ltd MD, said, 'It is one thing to release software as open source so that people can look at the source code and help sort out the troublesome problems that "many hands can make light work of". It is completely another to simply say that the source should be freely available to anyone to do with as they like.' Paul also had reservations regarding 'the fragmentation seen in the open source world, such as the number of different Linux distributions and end user support nightmare entailed from that situation.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should RISC OS be Open Sourced? More

Should RISC OS be Open Sourced?

Comments Filter:

  • Chapter 11 is another option. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:26PM (#13799041) Journal
    You have to choose Paul...

    • Re:Chapter 11 is another option. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      and giving all of his IP away for free will fix this?!?
      • " and giving all of his IP away for free will fix this?!?"

        What does he have to lose? Plus his competitors will have to compete against free/open source. He, and others, may be able to reenter the market if the community advances the code.

    • Re:Chapter 11 is another option. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gwernol ( 167574 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @05:09PM (#13799228)
      A small side note: Chapter 11 is not an option for companies in the UK. Better to use the more generic phrase "bankruptcy" than the US-specific "Chapter 11".
      • I'm kinda intrigued by this concept of places that aren't in the USA ... do you have, like, a newsletter or something I could sign up to?
      • As far as I know there is no direct British equivalent. Chapter 11 is a way of potentially avoiding bankruptcy. I know personally of at least one medium sized company that not only emerged from Chapter 11, but then proceeded to steal the market of their (fat, bloated) competitor who hadn't learned financial discipline the hard way. Having a successful path out of Chapter 11 is a big plus on a CEO (or CFO) CV.

        The British equivalent is probably "do a runner and start up in a dodgy tax haven like the Isle of M

        • "Do a runner and start up in a dodgy tax haven"? I think not. It would be a criminal offence in the UK for the directors of a company to move its assets offshore to avoid insolvency.

          Historically you're right that there hasn't really been an equivalent of Chapter 11 in the UK - our bankruptcy procedures have been ways of managing the end of a company, and it's been rare for a company which goes into administration to emerge intact. The Enterprise Act 2000 created a more flexibile regime, but it's pretty much

      • In UK. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Martin Spamer ( 244245 ) on Sunday October 16, 2005 @06:15AM (#13802443) Homepage Journal
        In the UK, 'Chapter 11' is closer to Administration, temporary protection from creditors. The Administrator's (third party specialist Accountant) job is to seek best value for the creditors. Going concerns generally raise more value than broken up assets, so he will try to do that. If he cannot settle the debts the company is wound-up through a liquidation by an Insolvency practitioner. Brankrupty is a different process for Individuals who cannot pay their depts.

        http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/ [insolvency.gov.uk]
    • "Paul also had reservations regarding 'the fragmentation seen in the open source world, such as the number of different Linux distributions and end user support nightmare entailed from that situation.'""

      Beets having NO user support when the company goes belly up.
    • And that's where they'll go. The real reason they won't open source RISC OS is they know first thing will be porting to x/86, and for some reason (like so many oss developers) they're absolute pouting little girls about that point.

  • Joke of the day (Score:3, Funny)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:27PM (#13799044) Journal
    Isn't that what the OS stands for?

    *ta dit boom*
    • As a victim — sorry, recipient — of an eary 90s UK state education, I have "fond" memories of RISC OS. Indeed, I had never even paused to consider that as late as 1995, single-user (remember the Icon Virus?) cooperative multitasking (Turbodrivers) and non-virtualised memory (Access violation at 0x0084fe3d) still had a welcome place on the desktop. It looked nice and had really good pervasive drag-and-drop, but I'm not sure that there was much advanced stuff under the hood. The much-touted "all i

      • Re:!Boot !System !Scrap (Score:5, Informative)

        by rpozz ( 249652 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @05:26PM (#13799279)
        RISC OS's greatest weakness is its back-end. The back-end should really have been re-written a very long time ago to include pre-emptive multi-tasking and proper memory protection. Putting most of the OS in ROM made it incredibly easy to fix a broken machine within barely a few minutes, and considering it was sold as an educational machine, upgrading was usually done by a professional anyway.

        Despite these setbacks, RISC OS's main advantage is its front-end. The drag-and-drop system and anti-aliased fonts were years ahead of anything else when they first came out, and all the applications were self-contained, making it possible to treat an application like a file and allowing for very easy application installation and uninstallation. The filemanager is also one of the best I have ever used due to its reponsiveness and simplicity.

        If it could be open-sourced and have its back-end replaced with something a lot more modern, there should still be a large userbase for it considering that it has a very responsive, intuitive and simple user interface in sharp contrast to operating systems such as Windows.
      • I remember my HP 48 being more stable. Those things are rock solid, so that's a rather bad comparison. You may make them hang, but it's rather easy to track. Not seemingly random as with the average PC.
    • ta dit boom
      Your drummer sucks.

  • In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:28PM (#13799052)
    Paul Middleton, RISC OS Ltd MD, said, 'It is one thing to release software as open source so that people can look at the source code and help sort out the troublesome problems that "many hands can make light work of". It is completely another to simply say that the source should be freely available to anyone to do with as they like.'

    No Paul, it's one thing to have people work for you for free, it's another for them want some kind of compensation for it.

  • Same reservations (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:32PM (#13799065)
    Paul also had reservations regarding 'the fragmentation seen in the open source world, such as the number of different Linux distributions and end user support nightmare entailed from that situation.'"

    Same here. I don't think linux will really take off til you can count the number of distros on one hand. One point not mentioned is all of the distros dilute the talent pool too much, too.

    • Re:Same reservations (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dekket ( 786557 )
      Though one has to realized, that the vast majority of linux distributions are often small and specialized to one specific use. The distributions worthy of running on the desktop, CAN be counted on one hand - atleast if you ask me.

      Debian, Slackware, SuSe... uhm, are there any others? :)
    • Dilution is a non-issue. How many of those distros have more developers than you can count on one hand? Bet you can count them on (wait for it) one hand.
    • Killing off distros would reduce fragmentation, and maybe having more developers per distro would be helpful (though I think there are lots of contributors who wouldn't be contributing if it weren't for the existence of their particular distro). But I think that a better strategy is to simply have people use tools that allow people from different distros to collaborate on patches, bug-tracking, and so on. Ubuntu's Launchpad [launchpad.net] is intended to be that sort of tool, and I hope it's successful.
      • It seems that each distribution becomes a little more flexible when people use these tools / launchpad allowing the differences between distributions to be minimized to a certain extent.

        It's a good idea. I was thinking of a meta-distribution where you check off what you want in it and then the program makes it. If the build you are about to make happens to be close to an existing distribution it will tell you so.

        If in this meta-distribution you want it to conform to some stand (like LSB) just click that off
    • I'm pretty sure that having a diverse selection of distros is a good thing. It means that there are many strategies being tried simultaneously, and thus more room for growth of computer science as a whole. It may be bad for any individual distribution, or even bad for Linux in general, but overall I think it's worth the added complexity.

      Of course, once an area has stabilised and no new ideas are cropping up, then we can start to standardise stuff without doing damage.
      • Having lots of distros absolutely is a good thing. There's nothing wrong with having specialized distributions, or with giving everybody the chance to prove that they can do it better than the big boys.

        There's no support nightmare either: you support what you choose to support. If RISC OS was Open Source, nothing would obligate RISC OS Ltd. to support anything other than "their" variant of it.

        • The problem of support isn't with the people who make the distribution, it's with the rest of teh stuff.

          When you buy a graphics adapter, should the CD come with drivers packaged as a .deb, as a .rpm, as source (if the licence even allows it) ?

          And what if someone installs it on some weird LFS variant, how are you supposed to help him get your driver to work ?
          It does work on the 7 distributions you have in your lab, but supporting it on the hundreds out there is a potential nightmare. Especially now that supp

          • When you buy a graphics adapter, should the CD come with drivers packaged as a .deb, as a .rpm, as source (if the licence even allows it) ?

            "Should" is an interesting choice of words. What "should" happen is that the driver is open source and already part of the kernel.

            Since we live in a non-optimal world, non-optimal solutions are sometimes necessary. Today, hardware vendors choose to support whichever distributions or kernel variants they think they should, and the CD comes with drivers in whatever f

    • No Reservations (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Makarakalax ( 658810 )
      Companies that dare support Linux will support Redhat and SuSE and maybe one other, so it's mostly irrelevant that there are millions of other distros.

      The talent pool may get diluted, but mostly this isn't the case IMO. You could argue the talent pool for car manufacturers is diluted because there are so many different companies! There are good projects/distros and this is where the talent flock, if there isn't room left due to them being too popular, the talent will go to the next best distro/project. The

    • Re:Same reservations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jesus_666 ( 702802 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @05:42PM (#13799330)
      Fragmentation is one of Linux' strongest features. You need an easy to use desktop OS? SUSE Linux is your friend, as is Fedora Core. You need an ultra-stable OS for use in the server room? Debian Linux is your friend. You need an extremely customizable OS that can be shaped into anything? Gentoo Linux is you friend. You need somtheing that runs off a CD without requiring any kind of installation? Knoppix is your friend. You need a distro that comes with professional support? Enterprise Linuces are your friends. You need a realtime OS? Something that runs on low-powered legacy systems? Something to help you with system recovery? Whatever you need to do, whichever itch there is to scratch, Linux is your friend. Wherever you want to go today, Linux will go there with you.

      And now tell me that one distro is supposed to be both a end-user friendly mutimedia-capable desktop system, an embedded realtime OS, a bootable CD filled with both everything for day-to-day work as well as every single specialised program you might ever need, an ultra-stable server OS and a cutting-edge, extremely customizable OS.

      Most distros are there for a reason, usually because someone has specific needs. Knoppix, arguably one of the most useful and well-known distributions ever, started as a Debian mutation, as did Ubuntu. If everyone tried to keep the number of Linux distros as small as possible they probably would never have been developed - and we probably wouldn't have any kind of live CD Linux.

      While confusing to outsiders, fragmentation is one of the main reasons why Linux is as versatile as it is. I much prefer a versatile OS over one that is easy to keep track of.
      • Now if only they'd come up with "one that I can safely put on my parents' machine in place of Windows" and I'd be happy.
      • I agree that Linux being fragmented makes it versatile, which is a good thing. Windows is like that too in that there are so many different "flavors" of each release. However, the difference is that MS makes all of the different flavors of Windows, so when something needs updated or changed in a big way there is usually one universal packages which can be downloaded and installed which will fix that problem for all of the flavors. Linux doesn't have that, nor does it have any kind of standardized package sy
      • And this is why Linux will never catch on in the mainstream. Choice is bad for mainstream consumers. They don't want to have to decide. They want one option they know will work. Why do most consumers choose Windows? There is one version, it's compatible with everything else built for Windows, and they don't have to think when they choose it. A consumer is not going to want to have to research which version of Linux they want. They want to go to CompUSA, ask for a copy of "Linux", go home, install, and be
        • Choice is bad for mainstream consumers.

          What complete hogwash. How many car brands are there? How many models under each brand? Differences between years of the same model?

          Everything you cite is not about choice, it's about distribution channels, education, and marketing. But mostly, Linux has not broken into the mainstream desktop market because Microsoft already has that market locked up in exclusive contracts.
          • Please note that all the car brands have steering wheels, an accelerator, a key to turn on, and doors with door handles. Yes, lots of cars can do different things but they all operate the same way. If there was one kind of Linux and you had a server version and a client version, that's easy. The way it is now Linux doesn't even install the same way for each version. There is a difference between having one kind of Linux tweaked to do lots of different things, and lots of versions of Linux all tweaked to d
            • Distributions that do not meet a need die a natural death. Those that are still around are there because people use them.

              Look, different people have different ideas about how to achieve the same thing (eg. installing software). Some work better than others. What you are asking for is for all but one to drop the way they are currently doing things and adopt a single methodology - which goes against human nature. If it's going to happen, it will happen naturally. Otherwise, people will continue to use what wo

    • Re:Same reservations - already there (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @05:56PM (#13799392)
      if you're worried about support, the number of supported distros for business in any given part of the world *are* countable on one hand. For example, here I am in the middle of the U.S.A. and I can locally get paid support for RedHat, SuSE and Debian. There might be some other minor player out there, but I've not seen it used by business or government here. What's so complicated about that?
    • You won't be able to count the number of variants of the next release of Windows on one hand. Does that mean Windows is dead?

      The whole "fragmentation" situation is a balancing act. Clearly, one OS does not fit all. On the other hand excessive proliferation of variants causes trouble for vendors and users.

      I think the rub with systems based on Linux and GNU is that the optimal number of variants for users is higher than the optimal number for vendors. Users are gaining the upper hand.

      I also think a lot of

    • Re:Same reservations (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ajole ( 132756 )
      bigger is not better, more is not more. A free domain exists when there is lots of competition, chanllenge, and ideas. We are not dealing with a company in which there are a limited number of employees to place on the "open source project", we are dealing with the world. We are not afraid of losing the help.
    • anyone can make their own Linux distro, we have alot of distros because enough people WANT each and every one of them. We have exactly as many distros as the people want. And still GNU/Linux use grows. How is there dilution of talent when anyone can use a good idea from anyone else's software? Most open source software developers don't work on distro-specific projects anyway. For business, you're really down to about 2 or 3 distros, so what is this leader of a failing company whining about? Maybe he sh
    • Linux has already taken off, a long time ago. If you mean the desktop sector, perhaps that is due more to monopolies twisting the arms of vendors than anything else, hint, hint, hint. I'm sure, without this, that Linux would have skyrocketed in the low-end market for people who just want to surf, word process, etcetera (and the system has too crappy of a video card anyway to play games).

      However, without Linux's "fragmentation," there would not have been the killer distros like Ubuntu. which was only relea
    • I don't think linux will really take off til you can count the number of distros on one hand.

      The number of distros available is a consequence of freedom. Everbody is free to make their own distribution to serve their own purposes.

      Linux will take off when people like you start to realise freedom is better than servitude.

  • Alternative (Score:5, Informative)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:32PM (#13799066) Homepage Journal
    For those of you looking for a RISC-like experience under linux, be sure to look at the ROX Desktop [sourceforge.net]. I've personally never used RISC, but I have fallen in love with ROX, using it, along with Xfce, on all of my machines. Together, the make a fast, modern desktop that knocks the socks off the other, traditional desktops
  • Whoever owns it can do what they please with it (modulo any contractual constraints).
    • and how does one own knowledge and information, moreso when it is public knowledge?

      the owner in this case, clearly isn't who you think it is.

  • Obligatory Anti MS rabble... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mysticalfruit ( 533341 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:33PM (#13799072) Homepage Journal
    end user support nightmare

    Obviously, you've never had to give Microsoft's support line a call...

    Just because an OS is being supported in different variations from different companies isn't going to deminish the support options, it's going to expand them.

    • When I was still working at the non-profit while I was in college, there were several occasions when I had to call MS support (server migration issues). I never had a problem with them. In fact, I tended to have great results, but then we had the professional/corporate support package and weren't messing around with the home users support people.
      • I dealt with M$ as a hosting support rep. I also dealt with them as a computer store tech. Both situations were horrible. A member of our hosting team had to teach a M$ rep how to use Frontpage in order to identify a problem with it.

        I also had to wait on hold for 20 mins, dealt with 6 different people -and- had to tell someone how to use Word so I could get an answer as to wether the Canadian OEM version of the Word software would allow switching spellcheck languages.

        I know people who work at a M$ call c

  • Fragmentation? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 ) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:34PM (#13799078) Homepage
    Since when does having multiple distributions constitue "fragmentation"? Its still the same core OS, just with different packages and installations.
    • " Since when does having multiple distributions constitue "fragmentation"?"

      Whenever you want to spread FUD. Apparently linux won't be suitable for general use until there is only one distribution left. When that happens MS then has only one enemy to go after and destroy.
      • I love how the linux community seems to have decided that the only proper way to handle Fear, Uncertanity, and Doubt is to respond to it with Rashness, Overconfidence, and Credulity.

        No, having multiple distros isn't a crippling problem, but there are downsides to counterpoint its advantages. And many of those downsides could be considered fragmentation. Let's face it, if my Gentoo install can't easily install binary packages designed for Red Hat, that's a huge division between the two distros - fragmentat

    • Re:Fragmentation? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by codermotor ( 4585 )

      How do the idiot moderators consider the parent to be "+4 Funny"? In fact, it's right on the mark.

      That there are multiple packages (bundles, if you will) of Linux does not constitute fragmentation of the OS. Every one of the mainstream full distributions (RH, SuSE, Mandriva, etc.) have much more in common than they have differences, with most of those differences being no more onerous to the typical user than the differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. I don't see anyone decrying the fragmentation

    • Re:Fragmentation? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bastian ( 66383 )
      Along with different package management systems, different sets of installed libraries, libraries being installed in different locations, drastically different init scripts, different print spoolers, different sound daemons, different widget toolkits.

      If by "same core OS" you mean "same basic kernel, and usually the same libc" then you'd be right. If you're referring to all of the other things that make a modern operating system, well, the differences start to matter. Especially if you're trying to support

  • the failure that is Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vistic ( 556838 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:39PM (#13799100)
    Paul also had reservations regarding 'the fragmentation seen in the open source world, such as the number of different Linux distributions and end user support nightmare entailed from that situation.


    Yes... because... RISC OS is a huge financial success that has launched many big name companies and is all the rage in the computer world... whereas Linux was just a big disaster... errrm...
    • Well, RISC OS did launch a mom and pop chip designer, run by people with no experience of processor design, called Acorn Risc Machines, or ARM (the A changed in meaning along the way), and whose chip design now appears in more devices worldwide than Intel processors. Has linux turned the hardware world upside down yet?

      The really ironic thing is that RISC OS was supposed to be Un*x, but whichever American university Acorn subcontracted to write it (California?) dropped the ball. It's a pity, as the original

  • Open source != with source (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:42PM (#13799117)

    'It is one thing to release software as open source so that people can look at the source code and help sort out the troublesome problems that "many hands can make light work of". It is completely another to simply say that the source should be freely available to anyone to do with as they like.'

    Open source isn't about letting people see the source so they can work for you for free. It only works because they are getting something out of it too. Who wants to hack on something when you know it's just going to get locked up and you have to pay for the privilege of getting the new version with your changes in?

  • I would say (Score:2, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 )
    I would say to the RISC OS folks that maybe you could do a Creative Commons license thing with it. That way you could open it and still retain some semblance of attribution and control. Possibly even make a buck off the "officially endorsed" version that rolls in all the user mods, etc. under the same licensing.

  • BSD won't die, Neither will Linux. RISCOS might. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:52PM (#13799148) Homepage Journal
    One neat thing about making it open source is that it will continue to live on forever, even if there is some big hiatus where nobody works on it.

    That's the case with BSD -- although the market share is small, it simply can't be killed off (unless all the BSD guys die off). Even RMS admits as much -- as much as it would be nice if the developers all worked on one thing for the common good, there's just no way to kil off BSD and force people to bow down to the Penguin.

    Same thing with Dragonfly -- I'd be happy if they could somehow work with the NetBSD folks -- but instead, there is the Dragonfly version of BSD, and there's nothing that I, RMS or Billy Gates can do about it.

  • RISC OS? Hey, I remember that! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KillQuentin ( 777853 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:53PM (#13799153)
    This is so freaky - I worked on RISC OS many, many years ago. We managed to write a pretty damn good desktop OS and fit it into a MB or two. Modern PCs have 1000 times as much memory, 100 times as many CPU cycles, 10000 times as much disc space. I have to admit that modern PCs are better now, buy only if you force me to.

    If I keep going I'll spill my beer down my long white beard.

  • Well let me think... I'm in the Yes camp :) (Score:4, Informative)

    by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @04:59PM (#13799183)
    I love RISC OS, got a machine under my desk which runs version 4.03, yes I couln't justify the cost of Select while unemployed, and now... well it's not really worth upgrading it.

    I'd love to have the opertunity to tinker with what makes RISC OS tick, and to see things like ADFS supported on linux properly, which can only come though a open specification or open code.

    My worry wouln't be fragmentation, usually one fragment dies off, and effort moves to another when it's proved to be better, or not... and if the community splits and works on two diferent things, then obviously the community was split originally and now at least theve both got the OS they prefer. My worry would be no one picking it up and doing anything with it.

  • ARM based PDAs? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that RISC OS would be an amazing fit for an ARM based PDA. Add one of those cool laser keyboards and you'd have pretty much a "real" computer with a full gui in only a couple of megs of code. None of the Linux based PDAs are as "lite" and I know for sure WinCe/Pocket Pee Cee isn't as tiny.

    Open Source it, I say! I imagine there would be some very interesting projects spun off from the code base.

    -Anonymous Coward
    • OpenBSD (and probably Net) already work on ARM PDAs. Why would I put RISC OS on my Zaurus when i can have full copy of Unix? What does RISC OS do that is so special? It seems like YAOS (yet another OS) to me.
  • They can publish the source under copyright, without any licensing that transfers the copyright to people who read the copies. The GPL is a unique license that transfers the copyright - the right to copy and distribute the received copy - on the condition that the next recipient applies the same restrictions (along with several others that distinguish the GPL from others like BSD, MIT etc). And they can always GPL such a "one hop" copyright license later, if they want the benefits of further distribution o
  • I've been a veteran user of RISC OS since its early days and I've seen it entering the downward spiral due to a lot of wrong decisions, marketing mistakes and false business politics. I hope this time the right decision will be made.

    Though I do not use the OS regular anymore, I'm still an active (and paying) supporter of it just because I don't want to see it vanish. RISC OS is a great OS and has a lot of potential. But it needs so much renovation; I hardly believe that a small company like RISC OS Ltd. c

    • Open source RISCOS (or what's left of it)

      A couple of years ago - when Acorn was still Acorn (well, actually Olivetti) - a representative hinted to open sourcing the OS in case they'd go bust. At that time the downward spiral was pretty evident, and he didn't seem to think the monetary value of the OS' IP was worth much anyway due to their small market share.

      That's not the way things went, unfortunately. Far from it. In my opinion the IP has been the hostage victim of a number of quarreling dinosaurs - RISC

  • confusion (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The OP seems to have confused RISC OS Ltd with Castle Technology Ltd, they aren't the same company. It is Castle that are having cash flow problems - there engineering dept. walked out not being paid for some time See http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact1461.html [drobe.co.uk]

  • Where has this guy been? (Score:3, Funny)

    by glengineer ( 697939 ) on Saturday October 15, 2005 @06:11PM (#13799458)
    (Voice of Jennifer Anniston) OH MY GAWD!(/voice) Hasn't this guy seen what open source has done to revive dead/dying systems? Of course, they have to write the GPL correctly, but fer cryin' out loud, hasn't Open Source proved itself as a viable revenue generation model? RISC operating systems would be great for those appliance applications where a full-up OS doesn't fit, like toasters and automobiles, for example. And Oh, by the way, protect the "rights' of those who developed it.
  • However, Paul Middleton, RISC OS Ltd MD, said,

    As his company is going down the chute, perhaps he should listen to the community. Seems like his decisions haven't always been brilliant.
    Not flaming, just saying....

  • But isnt the hardware development too?

    Sure i could be wrong in this case, but i didnt think the hardware was flying out of the R&D labs either and seemed 'behind the times' somewhat.

  • AmigaOS shall rise again! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Saturday October 15, 2005 @09:58PM (#13800521) Homepage Journal
    Don't give up hope, RiscOS! You're this close to following AmigaOS's meteoric rise to desktop dominance. Don't loosen your death grip on that code base! Amiga didn't, and now they're poised to overtake Windows any month now. Remember, sharing your code is admitting defeat. Why go the way of the dodo when you can shine in the spotlight like Amiga!

    Side note: I actually have a copy of Amiga Forever, which is a licensed set of AmigaOS packages and various applications bundled with UAE (an Amiga emulator). I burned a copy of the new release CD a few weeks ago but had forgotten to eject it from the burner in my server. I rebooted said server a couple days ago to upgrade my FreeBSD kernel and left the room for a few minutes. When I came back, I was staring at an Amiga screen. Seems the CD is actually built on Knoppix, and it auto-configures X and then fires up UAE. Freaked me out to find a ghost of my past staring at me at 2:00 AM.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close