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

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

[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: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".