Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)

In message <db4216$u4r$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Richard Wilson" <info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Nick Roberts" <tigger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:7176f6894d.tigger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > In message <db300t$sj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > "Richard Wilson" <info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> So you'd honestly say that RISC OS 5 is now closer to the latest
> >> versions of Windows XP or Mac OS compared to the versions that were
> >> available at the time of the original RISC OS 5 release?
> >
> > You're changing the goalposts. It was originally since Wakefield
> > last year, now it's from the first release of 5.0. Actually, the
> > new target makes it much easier to say "yes" to. The only
> > significant enhancement to WinXP over that period was SP2, which
> > fixed a few bugs and introduced some new security flaws and a
> > couple of major bugs (one of which caused Windows Explorer to crash
> > every time I opened one of several folders).
>
> You can pretty much put the goalposts wherever you want and still
> reach the same conclusions. With XP the main update is SP2, and with
> Mac OS it's Tiger -- both of which fall within both timeframes (I
> think so anyway with SP2 - it was June 2004, so around Wakefield but
> I can't remember the precise dates.) And to suggest SP2 is merely a
> few bug fixes is understating things hugely to say the least.

The point you're missing is that I'm not interested in the fact that
SP2 supports many more device drivers, has the security centre, yadda,
yadda, yadda. I'm interested in what it can do for _me_. And that meant
some bug fixes (which were very welcome), and a major new bug (which
wasn't). As I was already using 2 firewalls (one software and one
hardware), the new MS firewall was of no benefit whatsoever.

In the same time, in terms of what helped _me_, RISC OS 5 has had
several fairly significant bugs fixed, better USB, and some
incidentals.

A simple comparison would indicate that RO5 has had more done to it
that is of benefit to me than XP has. Why should I be interested in
changes to either OS that have no impact on me? A difference which
makes no difference is no difference.



> > I accept that for some people the new Security Centre is an
> > enhancement, but most people who were serious about computer
> > security were already running a commercial or freeware firewall, so
> > for those the MS offering served little purpose other than to use
> > up disc space.
>
> Unfortunately a very high percentage of users simply don't
> understand security, so having a firewall built in is a great step
> forward in my opinion.

But only for people who weren't taking security seriously. People who
took it seriously already had a firewall (or two).

> Microsoft deserve credit for SP2 as it actually brought things
> forward leaps and bounds from the previous situation.

I agree that they deserve credit. But not very much - MS is the company
that claimed that "security is not our business - that is the
responsibility of the anti-virus software vendors", after another worm
that exploited holes in MS applications running on MS OSes.

> > > > > It really wasn't all that long ago that CTL were shouting
> > > > > about how much money they intended to spend developing RISC
> > > > > OS. Given the apparent availability of such development
> > > > > funds, how come it's the UPP and GCC SDK team that have
> > > > > managed much of the notable development in recent times?
> > > >
> > > > Surely you can't be naive enough to think that a business and a
> > > > hobby can have a similar funding model? Trying to compare the
> > > > two in terms of effort invested in development is ludicrous,
> > > > and ignores the real (non-financial) payback that OSS and
> > > > freeware developers get.
> > >
> > > First of all, quite what is this non-financial payback that you
> > > talk of?
> >
> > I assumed that you would have read "Homesteading the Noosphere", by
> > Eric Raymond. It's about as succinct an analysis as to why
> > OSS/freeware software authors do what they do as any I have come
> > across.
> >
> > In case you havn't come across it, just Google for it - the key
> > hits are pretty obvious.
>
> I've no idea why you'd assume that I've read such an article

Because it is so well known, and one of the most influential analyses
of the OSS culture?


> > In case you misunderstood me - I was in no way trying to be
> > dismissive of the considerable investment in time (and often money,
> > or last opportunities to make more money, or both) that OSS and
^^^^
lost

> > closed-source-but-free software represents on the part of the
> > developers. I'm just pointing out that you can't treat expect a
> > commercial organisation to operate under the same rules, as such an
> > organisation (at least one with public shareholders) has a legal
> > duty not to.
>
> Conversely, a commercial organisation should not influence people
> with statements regarding developments for a product if they do not
> intend to follow said claims up. Remember Melin?

Yep, and I think CTL deserve a slapping for raising expectations and
then quietly forgetting the whole thing. But that shouldn't detract
from the fact that they have, in fact, done considerable work to
improve RO 5 over the last year or so.

> > I have never made any comment about how much money CTL are spending
> > on development, how much needs to be spent in the future, or
> > anything else. I have simply stated that some of the enhancement
> > that have been made to RO 5 over the last year or so have been of
> > direct benefit to me (and given specific examples as to how); and
> > comments on the Iyonix ML lead me to believe that others are in the
> > same position.
>
> All I was trying to do was put things into context (via some hugely
> approximate figures.) Without any idea of how much development is
> needed per year, how can you quantify the actual developments
> released to end users? If you're building a road over 10 years and
> have got 1m after the first year, how can you classify the level of
> achievement if you don't know the length of the road?

But you don't measure roads by the pound, you measure them by the mile.
Similarly, you don't measure by OS development by the pound, you
measure it by function and robustness. Cost is at best an analogue for
what you should really be measuring.

--
Nick Roberts
tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Service pack 2 (XP)
    ... I have a 'theory' that SP2 has a LOT to do with firewall and new browser ... besides those security features. ... The operative word is SPYWARE. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: RISC OS Updater? (Was: Re: Tinct for FF beta2)
    ... > introduced some new security flaws and a couple of major bugs (one of ... With XP the main update is SP2, ... > You aren't unique here - my Iyonix was bought so I could maintain the ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.apps)
  • Re: No Wireless Connectivity after SP2, Hardwire OK
    ... So I don't think its a security issue. ... it is not only the firewall. ... >>SP2, but with SP2 it will fall on its nose. ... If you enable DEP and a driver falls foul ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: SBS2003 and XP SP2 (again!)
    ... Install XP SP2 on clients ... The Security Centre will be on, but the firewall can't be manually switched ... Right click Small Business Server Windows Firewall and Edit ... Had to reboot the client in question, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: WinXP SP2 and ZoneAlarm
    ... >I just installed WinXP SP2 by way of the CD that I ordered for free from MS. ... From what I have read the WinXP SP2 firewall ... >The Security Center is NOT remembering this setting and ever time that I ... >a firewall solution that I'll monitor myself - is unchecked and I have to ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)