| |
3QD Developments acquire RISC OS from RISCOS Ltd |
| |
flibble (15:19 7/3/2013)
bhtooefr (16:43 7/3/2013)
josheilken (08:18 10/3/2013)
andypoole (09:11 10/3/2013)
egel (13:11 10/3/2013)
sa_scott (11:30 11/3/2013)
CJE (12:10 12/3/2013)
sa_scott (14:08 12/3/2013)
Bucksboy (16:53 12/3/2013)
arawnsley (17:04 12/3/2013)
Bucksboy (18:09 12/3/2013)
tlsa (19:29 12/3/2013)
davidb (22:01 12/3/2013)
CJE (12:29 13/3/2013)
tlsa (12:49 13/3/2013)
hubersn (22:24 13/3/2013)
apdl (10:22 14/3/2013)
freder (10:57 14/3/2013)
swirlythingy (13:17 14/3/2013)
freder (13:15 15/3/2013)
|
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #122000, posted by flibble at 15:19, 7/3/2013 |
Posts: 892
|
"The acquisition of RISCOS Ltd's branch of RISC OS has no impact on the work of RISC OS Open Ltd's shared source version of RISC OS."
Nor any impact on RISCOS Ltd's branch.
[Edited by flibble at 15:20, 7/3/2013] |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #122001, posted by bhtooefr at 16:43, 7/3/2013, in reply to message #122000 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Aaron even pretty much stated that, as the article says.
So, it's just so he can keep (not?) selling VRPC with 6.20 until he runs out of money himself.
[Edited by bhtooefr at 21:50, 7/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Josh Eilken |
Message #122011, posted by josheilken at 08:18, 10/3/2013, in reply to message #122001 |
Member
Posts: 3
|
"Aaron went on to confirm that it is 'unlikely that RISCOS Ltd will be able to continue beyond the short term.'"
If ROL no longer owns the RISC OS license, one wonders what it would do exactly. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #122012, posted by andypoole at 09:11, 10/3/2013, in reply to message #122011 |
Posts: 5558
|
"Aaron went on to confirm that it is 'unlikely that RISCOS Ltd will be able to continue beyond the short term.'"
If ROL no longer owns the RISC OS license, one wonders what it would do exactly. Same as it's done over the last few years? Not a lot  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Wouter Rademaker |
Message #122013, posted by egel at 13:11, 10/3/2013, in reply to message #122011 |
Member
Posts: 17
|
"Aaron went on to confirm that it is 'unlikely that RISCOS Ltd will be able to continue beyond the short term.'"
If ROL no longer owns the RISC OS license, one wonders what it would do exactly. ROL doesn't own anything anymore. It seems that Paul Middleton has carefully cleared away and sold everything. In April ROL will just disappear.
[Edited by egel at 13:11, 10/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stephen Scott |
Message #122016, posted by sa_scott at 11:30, 11/3/2013, in reply to message #122013 |
Member
Posts: 73
|
End of an era?*
(to be pronounced either as intended, or as 'error' depending on your point of view) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Evans |
Message #122025, posted by CJE at 12:10, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122016 |
CJE Micros chap
Posts: 228
|
End of an era?*
(to be pronounced either as intended, or as 'error' depending on your point of view) I'm sure they made errors but 'end of an error' implies it would have been better if RISCOS Ltd hadn't existed, in which case RISC OS would almost certainly have totally died about 12 years ago at RISC OS 3.71.
A lot of people have put a lot of time and money in keeping it going, including myself.
Please give credit where credit is due.
[Edited by CJE at 12:13, 12/3/2013] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stephen Scott |
Message #122029, posted by sa_scott at 14:08, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122025 |
Member
Posts: 73
|
The point I was making was that some people appreciate the work that was done in keeping the OS alive (Justin Fletcher's RISC OS Rambles is an excellent resource into just how much was done and was left to do) while some think the whole notion of the split was a really bad thing.
Keeping RISC OS going has got us to this point - 2 different systems, one of which is in an even more uncertain point than 12 years ago. Is it not time to focus those years of investment in merging these two together? This would earn a far greater amount of credit. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
George Greenfield |
Message #122030, posted by Bucksboy at 16:53, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122029 |
Member
Posts: 91
|
Agreed. I wonder also how viable Virtual Acorn's business model will be in future, as RPCEmu (which I use daily) and the IOMD version of RO5, bringing the benefits of a 32-bit OS with them and both free, are further developed.
In retrospect, ROL's cardinal error was to fail to foresee kit like the Beagleboard and Raspberry Pi; I thought at the time that the decision to opt solely for 26-bit hardware or emulation was a form of slow suicide. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Rawnsley |
Message #122031, posted by arawnsley at 17:04, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122030 |
R-Comp chap
Posts: 600
|
For emulation purposes, 32bit doesn't bring (m)any advantages - you're far better off with a 26bit environment for compatibility with a broader range of software applications. Also, VA is very much faster, more feature laden, and more robust than RPCEmu, so I don't agree with the first half of George's comments at all.
However, not embracing newer hardware was most certainly ROL's failing. I requested that very thing from ROL about a year or more before we launched of ARMini, but I guess unless you can count on the goodwill of free developers, it's a huge investment of time/money that won't be recouped by machine sales. Catch 22, I guess.
Sadly what George's post does point out is that since he could do xyz for free, why spend money on (better) commercial products? This demonstrates why things aren't good in RISC OS land (from a supplier's perspective), despite the resurgence of hardware  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
George Greenfield |
Message #122032, posted by Bucksboy at 18:09, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122031 |
Member
Posts: 91
|
"Sadly what George's post does point out is that since he could do xyz for free, why spend money on (better) commercial products?"
Lest I get tagged as a platform-destroying skinflint, let me say in my own defence that I have spent several hundred pounds in the last 12 months on RISC OS commercial software, mostly upgrades, as well as donations to ROOL, which I strongly support.
Regarding Andrew's comments about VA vs. RPCEmu, I've not used the former so I have no basis for comparison. On my current PC, a 3.4GHz i7 Win7-64 Dell, RPCEmu089 runs about twice as fast as my Iyonix did; that's fast enough for me. When I want to run 26-bit software, I use the 4.02 version instead of 5.17. As they say in New York, what's not to like? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Drake |
Message #122034, posted by tlsa at 19:29, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122031 |
Posts: 1097
|
For emulation purposes, 32bit doesn't bring (m)any advantages Actually I've seen benchmarks that suggest that under emulation, 32bit versions of RISC OS run significantly faster than 26bit versions:
http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/10/topics/961
http://www.riscos.info/pipermail/rpcemu/2012-October/001740.html
Jeffrey Lee said: "From an emulators point of view, it’s a lot easier to emulate a 32bit system than a 26bit system, due to the PC and PSR being separate registers. Since the PC changes for every instruction executed, being able to reduce the amount of work needed to keep it up to date can have a significant impact on performance."
Also, VA is very much faster Interesting. Are any benchmarks available? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Boddie |
Message #122036, posted by davidb at 22:01, 12/3/2013, in reply to message #122031 |
Member
Posts: 147
|
Sadly what George's post does point out is that since he could do xyz for free, why spend money on (better) commercial products? This demonstrates why things aren't good in RISC OS land (from a supplier's perspective), despite the resurgence of hardware Both software and hardware have always been a problem for RISC OS. Nobody is going to buy software if there's no competitive hardware to run it on, and there has been little incentive to develop the hardware if people won't use the platform, or if the system software isn't developing in the direction people want.
I think the RISCOS Ltd subscription model from the last few years was fine for end-of-line maintenance of the platform. I'd like to know whether the initial terms of the deal between Acorn/Element 14 and RISCOS Ltd made that the only probable outcome for the operating system. (Re-reading some of the online discussions from around that time certainly raises a few questions in hindsight.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Evans |
Message #122037, posted by CJE at 12:29, 13/3/2013, in reply to message #122029 |
CJE Micros chap
Posts: 228
|
... while some think the whole notion of the split was a really bad thing.
I think everyone agrees with that. But you forget to mention that the split had nothing to do with RISCOS Ltd. And that they did attempt to unify things. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Drake |
Message #122038, posted by tlsa at 12:49, 13/3/2013, in reply to message #122037 |
Posts: 1097
|
the split had nothing to do with RISCOS Ltd. Surely if ROL had been a bit more forward-looking, Pace wouldn't have been the only option for the 32-bit version. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Steffen Huber |
Message #122042, posted by hubersn at 22:24, 13/3/2013, in reply to message #122037 |
Member
Posts: 91
|
... while some think the whole notion of the split was a really bad thing.
I think everyone agrees with that. But you forget to mention that the split had nothing to do with RISCOS Ltd. And that they did attempt to unify things.
If RO Ltd. had delivered according to their original mission statement (i.e. doing hardware abstraction first and then 32bitting), the split would have likely never happened.
Anyway, this is water under the bridge. The stuff RO Ltd. did now seems to be lost forever, which is a shame, but a good lesson for those who don't believe that Open Source is a good idea. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
David Holden |
Message #122043, posted by apdl at 10:22, 14/3/2013, in reply to message #122042 |
Member
Posts: 138
|
The stuff RO Ltd. did now seems to be lost forever, which is a shame. Presumably you know something I don't? Which is rather surprising. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Fred Bambrough |
Message #122044, posted by freder at 10:57, 14/3/2013, in reply to message #122043 |
Member
Posts: 11
|
The stuff RO Ltd. did now seems to be lost forever, which is a shame. Presumably you know something I don't? Which is rather surprising.
<FX:Grease/Summer Nights> Tell us more, tell us more. Oh do tell! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #122047, posted by swirlythingy at 13:17, 14/3/2013, in reply to message #122044 |
Posts: 460
|
When the lurkers of three years and four months' standing are drawn out of the woodwork, you know it's a special occasion. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Fred Bambrough |
Message #122060, posted by freder at 13:15, 15/3/2013, in reply to message #122047 |
Member
Posts: 11
|
When the lurkers of three years and four months' standing are drawn out of the woodwork, you know it's a special occasion. Not quite a lurker - forgot I was subscribed until following a link here. Still, on my RSS feed now so I can lurk professionally.
Hopefully it will turn out to be a special occasion. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
3QD Developments have confirmed the acquisition of RISC OS from RISCOS Ltd. In a statement, Aaron Timbrell of 3QD Developments stated "3QD Developments Ltd has purchased the rights to all versions of RISC OS developed and marketed by RISCOS Ltd. This purchase has been made with the assistance of a number of RISCOS Ltd shareholders, customers and developers."
