After hearing the news that videos from the recent RISC OS London Show are now available online, I decided to take a look at what RISCOS Ltd had to say in their presentation. The results I found to be quite shocking...
 
Disclaimer: Although I've obviously been doing a lot of work for RISC OS Open recently, I am not a member of ROOL, nor am I speaking on behalf of ROOL (or The Icon Bar). The opinions expressed below are mine and mine alone, and any likeness or resemblence to any other person's opinions is entirely coincidental.
 

Another stupid argument, there. (via Drobe)
 
Is it any wonder that RISC OS is in such a mess?

In the beginning, there was Rogue. Rogue fathered many children, the Roguelikes, and together they went out into the world to harvest the souls of many a young hacker. But the arrogance of Rogue's children grew, and soon they started to form plots against each other. Lesser clones fell by the wayside as two giants rose to power - the steadfast NetHack and the Angband collective. There can only be one true heir to Rogue's throne. When the time comes, which side will you choose?
 
Angband and NetHack are two popular roguelike computer games. As they are both roguelikes, they are both turn-based dungeon crawlers, feature ASCII graphics in preference to 2D or 3D artwork, and are notoriously difficult to complete. Despite the 'oldschool' graphics the depth and difficulty of the games attract many fans, two of which are your favourite IconBar editors Jeffrey 'Phlamethrower' Lee and Phil 'Monkeyson' Mellor.
 
Unfortunately Jeffrey likes NetHack, and Phil likes Angband. This has resulted in many arguments and flame wars in the past, but now we've decided to put aside our differences and try playing the other person's game, in an attempt to settle once and for all the question of which is better - Angband or NetHack?

Like many readers of The Icon Bar, I started off computing with a BBC Micro. In 1991, I upgraded to an Acorn A3000, which was great because unlike Windows 3.0, you could print to a dot matrix printer and the printout would be just as it appeared on the screen. Then in 1994 I got a Risc PC, shortly after taking up the freelance role of Business Editor of Acorn User which I did for just over a year.

The Paul Vigay has written an article on his website detailing why he will never abandon RISC OS... ever.
 
From the article:

Most people know my views on RISC OS and also on other, lesser operating systems - so why did I feel inspired to write this short article and share my views with people? Partly in response to an article on The Icon Bar and partly because there are a number of (IMHO) rather ignorant, yet arrogant, PC users inhabiting some of the comp.sys.acorn.* newsgroups who love to complain about RISC OS and prosthetalize about how good PC applications are to their RISC OS counterparts - usually without the skill set or experience to make a valid judgement. I'm all for argument, but when people argue through ignorance or though blinkers, I feel like shouting "Oi! No!" in their faces, but instead I'll settle for writing this article.

Are you in Paul's camp? If the ship went down, would you go with it?
 
Update: Well, The Vigay received quite a slapping on OSNews, it seems. He's written a follow-up article and published it this evening. OK, that's the update. You can continue slapping now.
 
Links:
- The original article
- Follow-up article

There's an interesting article written by an ex-RISC OS user on OSNews. Michael Reed talks about what it would take for him to consider using RISC OS again. From the article:

In common with a lot of people who used to use RISC OS, I don't use it now and that is the focus of this article: Why don't I use it any more and what would it take to make me use it again? Of course, an article of this sort still has worth as there is bound to be some degree of correlation between my feelings, experiences and hopes in relation to the platform and those other people.

Link: The article

Change is good. Welcome to Icon Bar 2.0.
 
We're expanding the site's remit significantly, bringing new areas of interest to existing, lapsed and ex-RISC OS users: alternative platforms, new technologies, and various other geek-related things, whilst still keeping tabs on what's happening in the RISC OS scene. We might reminisce about the good old days of dusty computing. We might do a sex wee thinking about the next Mac OS.
 
Don't get us wrong, we're not dismissing RISC OS completely. But we have realised that many other things interest us too - perhaps as a consequence of the sensibilities that Acorn instilled in us - and we want to share them with you.
 
We might even begin to enjoy computing again.

Castle have released the following statement:
 
"On 11th May 2004 Castle, as owner of the underlying intellectual property of RISC OS, terminated RISCOS Ltd's ("ROL") licence to sell RISC OS. This was due to the wilful and persistent failure of ROL to correct breaches in the terms of its licence.
 
For nearly 12 months Castle has been trying to resolve these issues, but has met with nothing but delaying tactics, intransigence and belligerence from the management of ROL. Castle has regrettably taken this action having had no other option after following due legal process, during which ROL's management were given every possible opportunity to negotiate a solution with Castle. They declined to do so and are entirely responsible for the current situation.
 
Other companies who are sub-licensees of ROL, have been notified of the licence termination. As an extremely unfortunate consequence of the termination of ROL'S licence these companies' products are now unlicensed. Castle has no desire or intention to harm these businesses, or act against the interests of the RISC OS community as a whole, and has been working very hard over the last few weeks to find a solution for them. However, ROL has refused to comply with the legal obligations placed on them by the licence termination and until it does so, Castle is unable to grant new licences to these sub-licensees.
 
Over the last year Castle has invested very significant amounts of money both in the purchase of RISC OS and in its ongoing development. This will become apparent to all users in the coming months as new solutions are brought to market. Moreover, Castle's recent announcement of the Merlin project shows a strong and continued dedication to bring to the desktop market the features it deserves and move the OS forward into the future with the many exciting new 32-bit ARM processors becoming available from various silicon manufacturers.
 
Castle has attempted to involve ROL in its plans, but has been thwarted by the lack of vision shown by ROL's management. Clearly, ROL cannot now continue its current business without a licence; Castle is in discussions with the shareholders of ROL to find a way to offer RISC OS 4 and Select to users. It is expected this will lead to a satisfactory conclusion in the very near future and offer a clear way forward for the whole RISC OS community.
 
Undesirable as the current situation maybe, Castle believes it will end with a clear definition of the future which is inclusive for all RISC OS users and software companies. Contrary to some commentators, Castle is committed to supporting 3rd party licensees of RISC OS, even when they are competitors. Anyone wishing to license RISC OS is most welcome to contact Castle to discuss terms."
 
Update by Kinetic. 06:54, 16/6/2004:
 
We have asked RISCOS Ltd for a response to the Castle statement, but all we have at the moment is this from the drobe.co.uk forums:
In March 1999 RISCOS Ltd entered into a licensing agreement with Element14 Ltd which gave it exclusive rights to develop and market RISC OS for the desktop market.
 
Over the past five years it has licensed RISC OS 4 to many AMSes including Castle Technology Ltd, RiscStation, Microdigital, A6 and Virtual Acorn without any concerns from Element14 or Pace PLC that it was breaching the agreement in any way.
 
RISCOS Ltd has always adhered to all the conditions of the Head Licence and totally refutes all allegations now made by Castle Technology Ltd to the contrary. It is greatly saddened by the attitude that Castle has taken which has forced A6 and VirtualAcorn to reluctantly announce that they are ceasing shipments of their fully licensed and paid for RISC OS products.
 
A considerable amount of discussion and negotiation has actually taken place between Castle, Pace and RISCOS Ltd over the past two years, concerning both Castle's ongoing disputed use of RISC OS in the Iyonix PC as well as the more recent demands made by Castle against RISCOS Ltd and the AMSes.
 
RISCOS Ltd has worked for the benefit of all the companies in the RISC OS community (not just one) and will continue to do so. It trusts that Castle will constuctively discuss the situation to enable an equitable and amicable resolution to be reached for the good of all parties.
 
Paul Middleton
Managing Director
RISCOS Ltd
 
Update by Rich. 13:34, 17/6/2004:
Even The Register has something on the story. Not particularly accurate, mind, but at least it's a start. OSNews pretty much just linked to sites that knew what they were talking about - and Drobe ;)
 
Links:
Official statement from Castle
Story on The Register