Should RISC OS be Open Sourced?

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.'"

Comments

Chapter 11 is another option.

[Yaa 101]

You have to choose Paul...

Re:Chapter 11 is another option.

[Anonymous Coward]

and giving all of his IP away for free will fix this?!?

Re:Chapter 11 is another option.

[gwernol]

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".

Re:Chapter 11 is another option.

[Delphiki]

For the average user, the freedom provided by OSS is like the freedom for me to speak Japanese. Sure, there's nothing legally stopping me from doing it. But I don't know how, and have no intention of learning, so I don't really care whether I'm allowed to or not. The average user will never choose an inferior product because it's open source. Maybe because it's free, but that's where pirated software comes in.

If an average user chooses an OSS product, it will be because of price or quality, because don't kid yourself, most users don't give a crap about the principles of the FSF. Hell, I've used Linux for years, have been programming for at least a decade, and I don't even give a crap.

In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Rick Zeman]

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

[An Onerous Coward]

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 is intended to be that sort of tool, and I hope it's successful.

Re:Same reservations

[Jesus_666]

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.

Re:Same reservations

[pete-classic]

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 conventional wisdom on the topic is based on a culture of single tier, binary only distribution. "Fragmentation" is much less of a problem, indeed is a boon to end users, in a culture where software is released in source form by its authors and is largely distributed as a complete system by a third party. I think a lot of the grousing we see about fragmentation comes from people who can't see past the old model of shipping binary software on a CD with the expectation that it will run on everyone's PC.

-Peter

Re:Same reservations

[ajole]

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.

Re:Same reservations

[Lesrahpem]

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 system.

Don't get me wrong, I use Linux exclusively except for the two games I own which won't run under Wine, but I do think the fragmentation is bad in that each new distro has it's own learning curve since most things a user would want to do are not done the same way with each distro. There needs to be some kind of optional standard. Like maybe when I install Slackware I get asked if I'd like to also install Emedre so I can use Portage as well. Something to that effect, and then have one tool which can deal with all those package formats so there's a universal interface everyone can familiarize themselves with.

Re:Same reservations

[goMac2500]

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 able to run Linux software. They don't want to have to decide which Linux is right for them. That's not simple. With Windows they just ask for a copy of Windows and tada, they're up and running. If Linux wants to be mainstream, they're going to have to sacrifice diversity. Mac has reached %6 of the market using one standard OS, maybe if Linux would all hop on the same boat together they'd to the same.

Re:Same reservations

[ozmanjusri]

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.

Re:Same reservations

[goMac2500]

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 do the same thing.

Obligatory Anti MS rabble...

[Mysticalfruit]

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.

Fragmentation?

[Jailbrekr]

Since when does having multiple distributions constitue "fragmentation"? Its still the same core OS, just with different packages and installations.

Re:Fragmentation?

[codermotor]

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 of Windows. In fact, there are probably more important differences in kernel versions than in distributions.

Most of the other flavors of Linux fall into niche areas where they have certain specializations which fit the needs of their respective markets. This includes embedded, live CD, recovery and wireless tool needs.

Fragmentation suggests that the Linux community is moving toward having a history similar to the days when early PC/DOS vendors tried to differentiate their product by making it practically incompatible with every other vendor's offering to the point that any given "DOS" software OS or application would not run on any but a single "PC/DOS" platform.

This is obviously not the case. There are very few, if any, such problems today with the vast majority of properly written Linux applications. While there is some lack of universal standardization on some file system layout and usage details, and with system configuration nits, these are minor and as expected of a dynamic, living OS and its software development process, as are dialects of a living language. In any case, it's really about the ability to run applications across distributions not about how a particular distro is installed. By others' definition of "franmentation", we seem to have a larger problem in the fragmentation in the application space.

From my observation, the day Linux becomes completely standardized, unified, and monotheistic in its nature will be day after it becomes effectively dead. Just like Latin. If we want a monoculture, then there are other options to Linux.

Re:Fragmentation?

[Bastian]

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 multiple distros or maintain binary releases for multiple distros.

the failure that is Linux

[vistic]

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...

Open source != with source

[Bogtha]

'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

[inode_buddha]

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.

[putko]

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.

ARM based PDAs?

[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

No Reservations

[Makarakalax]

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 really talented people start there own projects/distros/companies.

The OS that deserves a chance!

[TheBlackzone]

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. can do this on its own.

So, to answer the question: Yes, it definitely should be made open source!

Re:Same reservations - already there

[rubycodez]

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?

What could happen? Three words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Williams Coherent OS.

Sitting somewhere locked up in file cabinet marked "Because It Can Be".

Re:Where has this guy been?

[Blakey Rat]

Hasn't this guy seen what open source has done to revive dead/dying systems?

Like...?

Do you have any examples? I guess you could cite Firefox/Mozilla project for it, maybe.