log in | register | forums
Show:
Go:
Forums
Username:

Password:

User accounts
Register new account
Forgot password
Forum stats
List of members
Search the forums

Advanced search
Recent discussions
- South-West Show 2024 talks (News:2)
- South-West Show 2024 in pictures (News:)
- Big NVMe news for the RISC OS at the South-West Show (News:)
- Rougol Talk February 2024 - Chris Hall (News:1)
- Saturday is South-West Show (News:3)
- Timerun from Amcog games released (News:)
- Rougol February 2024 meeting on monday with Chris Hall (News:)
- Rougol November 2023 talk is on RiscPC/Archimedes repairs (News:9)
- WROCC February 2024 meeting on wednesday - AGM (News:)
- ROOL releases updated Git Beta (News:)
Related articles
- RISC OS South West Show 2005
- Wakefield 2003 - the preview
- The state of PackMan in 2018
- RISC OS 5.20 released, free Portsmouth show in planning
- Newsround
- Newsround
- RISC OS on The Register
- Rounding Up February
- News from Wakefield [Updated]
- Wakefield Show Theatre Programme
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
 
View on Mastodon
@www.iconbar.com@rss-parrot.net
Site Search
 
Article archives
The Icon Bar: News and features: What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?
 

What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?

Posted by Jeffrey Lee on 19:00, 7/11/2009 | , , , , , , , ,
 
What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?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.
 

 
Firstly, despite the concerns of a couple of the more "distant" members of the TIB staff, it looks like ROL are still alive and are still running the Select scheme. Rather unsurprisingly, they say (at 16:25) that their cashflow isn't stable enough for them to commit to any timetable/roadmap for what's going into future releases. They also cite (at around 23:40) commercial confidentiality reasons for not being able to announce the Vpod-related graphics improvements ahead of time. All fair enough so far.
 
But then, at 38:50, when he talks about the lack of RISC OS 6 on the A9home, ROL big-wig Paul Middleton gives a rather shocking answer:
"The A9home, one of the problems there is simply, it's hit the point where things have got to be done, we just don't have the people who have got the skills to actually solve the problem."
And at 40:10:
"All we can practically do is the areas that we've got people that have got interest in. And I think you can probably guess, the areas that people have got an interest in are [...] graphics"
I.e. even though subscribing to the RISC OS Select scheme means that you'll be funding the development of RISC OS, there's no system in place to ensure that the money is being spent on areas that actually need development. If they come across a problem that's too complex for their skill set, or involves working on an area that doesn't hold any interest to the programmer in question, they'll just ignore it. Basically ROL have no direction and no commitments. They say that in the past they've always been sub-contracted to work on things (Omega, A9home, Vpod), but without an external company to give them a goal and a source of funding they're content with just sitting there free-wheeling and soaking up the cash of the Select scheme subscribers.
 
At least Castle were smart enough to realise that they didn't have enough money left to fund the development of the OS, and as a result they open(ish)-sourced it to allow the remaining desktop users to look after it themselves.
 
In fact, what is the point of ROL if they don't have any developers who are working on the code full-time?
 
They can't claim that the money from the Select scheme is putting food on the table of any of their employees (43:25 - "We don't have any programmers whose full time job is doing RISC OS"). And they can't claim that they're using the money to fix any of the real issues with the OS. They can't even claim that they're using it to improve the desktop experience, because they don't produce any roadmaps detailing what they're working on for the next version. Even after a release has been made there's no guarantee that they'll disclose any useful information as to what's changed (see the Select 5i2 changelist, for example). They're just using their subscribers money to provide an extra bit of income to fund the whims of the developers.
 
One thing is now clear to me - with Castle effectively dead and ROL lacking direction, the long-term future of the OS has been left entirely in the hands of its users. We've therefore got to ask ourselves how we want to proceed:

Continue as things are now

The ROOL supporters will continue to support ROOL, and the ROL supporters will continue to support ROL, even though neither can presently guarantee the long-term future of the OS. In the end one side will come out on top, but there's no telling how long that will take or how much the market will shrink in the meantime.

Convince ROL to work on the ROOL codebase

This would be a hard sell for ROL, as it would effectively involve them abandoning the last 10 years of their work. Their pride may also be a problem - could they bring themselves to work on "the enemy"'s code?
 
And also, if the ROL developers were to suddenly start getting paid to work on the ROOL codebase, how would the people currently doing work for free react? Would ROOL possibly lose momentum rather than gain it?

Convince ROOL to work on the ROL codebase

Of course convincing ROOL themselves to work on the ROL code is probably impossible, but if all the ROOL supporters were to throw their time and money at ROL, what would happen? Would ROL gain the funding and skill they need to rescue the OS, or would they still lack the determination and direction that's preventing them from getting RISC OS 6 working on the A9home? Or is there simply not enough money left in the market to guarantee the success of a commercial branch of the OS? (The last time ROL tried asking for money, for the Select on Iyonix scheme, they fell far short of the target they believed they needed to reach for the venture to be commercially viable, and thus the project was scrapped).
 
And there's also the question of how many ROOL supporters could be convinced to support ROL in the first place, considering ROL's current lack of direction, and the fact that ROOL are so close to having the full OS source released under the shared source license.
 
To mis-quote Paul Middleton (at 33:05, when he's talking about the open/shared source threat): "If you're doing a job, and you've got the skill to do it, you should get paid for it" - which is exactly why I'm not paying ROL, because they're not doing the job!

Links


 
  What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?
  This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list.
 
Jason Togneri Message #112228, posted by filecore at 20:19, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112227

Posts: 3867
I would be more interested in (3).

(3) Where material which is open to public inspection pursuant [...] contains information about matters of [...] economic interest, copyright is not infringed by the copying or issuing to the public of copies of the material [...] for the purpose of disseminating that information.
Snipped for brevity, since the full text is above.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Daniel Nesbitt Message #112229, posted by solsburian at 20:21, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112227
Member
Posts: 23
My question is who is the authority/owner? It would probably be best to have it clarified by the Companies House.

Edit: I should have looked harder, it would appear to be the Companies House but posting them might be valid under clause 2.


Or we could just interpret it in our own way, apparently just like the RISC OS head license (joke) big grin

[Edited by solsburian at 20:42, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Eric Rucker Message #112231, posted by bhtooefr at 20:21, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112228
Member
Posts: 337
Also, here's a torrent. It needs seeds.

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5210423
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Tony Lizard Message #112232, posted by Mr Lizard at 20:26, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112226
Member
Posts: 24
Essentially, it says that copyright isn't infringed, no matter how much of it is copied - provided copies aren't made available to the public, which publishing the accounts on a website clearly is doing. (4) may be applicable, but I don't think it is.

Sadly, then, Paul does appear to be correct.
Well I never! I must admit that I had no idea about the 'for a purpose which does not involve the issuing of copies to the public' wording.

Nevertheless, I note that there has still been no response to this thread by Paul Middleton. Instead of trying to suppress valid information about his company, this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to put a positive spin on things and tell the community about RISCOS Ltd's future plans.

[Edit: Rest snipped as I decided it was a bit too purposelessly cranky.]

[Edited by Mr Lizard at 20:49, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112234, posted by VincceH at 20:55, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112227
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
If (1) applies, what about (2)?
I'd be doubtful - but I'd also, upon re-reading, be doubtful about (1) being relevant*. I think Jason has made the correct observation, which is that (3) is more applicable - although note that all three specify "by or with the authority of the appropriate person".

* These things are complicated, mmmkay?

Also, could the full T&Cs be posted?
Those from Companies House when documents are ordered? Certainly:


TERMS AND CONDITIONS
====================

Any supply to you by Companies House of the products in your order will be upon the following terms and conditions:-


Definitions
===========


In these terms and conditions:-

"Companies House" means the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Registrar of Companies Crown Way Cardiff CF14 3UZ United Kingdom.

"Download Area" means the web site where your Ordered Product is located (as stated in our [Order Confirmation][E-mail]).

"E-mail" means the e-mail [communication] (if any) which Companies House may send to you offering to supply the Ordered Products to you [such e-mail [communication] (if any) being sent to you after our Order Confirmation is displayed.].

"Your Order" means the order you submit for the products in your Shopping Basket.

["Order Confirmation" means the confirmation (if any) of Your Order displayed to you electronically on this website companieshouse.gov.uk].

"Ordered Product" means each of the products in our E-mail such products being described in the Help function on the Product Ordering Screen (being information from the databases of public records of company information managed and updated by Companies House).

"Price" means the price for each Ordered Product as set out in your Shopping Basket as confirmed in our E-mail.


1. Payment
==========

Payment of the Price is to be made after you agree to these terms and conditions.

Payment is made by using the Netbanx site as described in the Help function on the Payment Details Screen.


2. Supply of the Ordered Product
================================

If Companies House sends you an E-mail then at any time when an Ordered Product referred to in that E-mail is in the Download Area you may proceed to purchase that Ordered Product by accessing that Ordered Product in the Download Area.

By accessing the Ordered Product in the Download Area you agree to purchase that Ordered Product on these terms and conditions at the Price stated in our E-mail.

Each purchase of an Ordered Product will be a separate transaction even if there is more than one Ordered Product in the Download Area and at any time prior to the contract coming into existence Companies House may withdraw its offer by removing the Ordered Product from the Download Area.

There will be no contract for the supply of an Ordered Product unless and until you access that Ordered Product in the Download Area.

You can not cancel any contract for the supply of an Ordered Product.

You will be responsible for the provision of the necessary software and equipment to enable you to access your Ordered Product(s) in the Download Area.

If you access your Ordered Product in the Download Area it is only available to you in the Download Area until the earlier of the following:-

4 days after you first access that Ordered Product in the Download Area or

10 days after the issue of our E-mail.


3. Availability and refunds
===========================

Companies House does not guarantee that your Ordered Product will be available.

Companies House will refund you the Price paid by you to Companies House for any Ordered Product which you do not access in the Download Area. To claim that refund you should contact Companies House on +44 (0)303 1234 500 (see the Help function on the Payment Details Screen for usual opening hours) or e-mail enquiries@companieshouse.gov.uk. quoting the order reference number given in our [Order Confirmation]. Any refund due will be made via Netbanx by crediting your credit/debit card in pounds sterling with the amount of the refund. Your claim for that refund should be made to Companies House within 30 days of the date of our [Order Confirmation]


4. Use of the Products
======================

You can copy the Ordered Product only as permitted by Section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended from time to time.

Companies House shall not be responsible for your use of the Ordered Product. You shall be responsible for complying with any applicable data protection, copyright and other legislation and regulations.


5. Liability
============

Nothing shall exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from the negligence of Companies House or its employees while acting in course of their employment.

Companies House gives no assurances that the Ordered Products will be supplied virus free.

Companies House shall not be held to be in breach of its obligations in relation to supplying the Ordered Products nor liable for any loss or damage which may be suffered by you due to any cause beyond Companies House's reasonable control.

Companies House's liability in contract, tort or otherwise arising out of or in connection with the performance or observance of Companies House's obligations under these Conditions shall be limited to the amount of the Price paid by you to Companies House in respect of the Ordered Product in question.

In any event Companies House shall not be liable in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss of business, contracts, profits or anticipated savings or for any indirect incidental or special loss whatsoever.

Companies House hereby expressly excludes all liabilities in respect of inaccurate or incomplete information in the Ordered Products howsoever arising including (without limitation) those arising as a result of inaccuracies in the information provided to Companies House.

Each of above paragraphs limiting or excluding liability operate separately and shall survive independently of the other paragraphs.


6. Other Conditions
===================

In an effort to ensure that service levels are constantly improved Companies House may record or monitor telephone conversations for training and research purposes.

In the event that any provision or any part of any provision shall be held unlawful or invalid for whatever reason it shall be deleted or such modification made as may be necessary to make it valid and enforceable and so that the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

These terms and conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of England and you agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the English Courts.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112235, posted by flibble at 21:09, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112226
flibble

Posts: 891
Quote 1:

b) Material on the public register
With the exception of a small category of material which is exempt from statutory disclosure requirements, the Registrar is required by law to make the information comprised in documents sent to him available for public inspection. Information on the public register is made available by virtue of approvals issued by the Registrar in accordance with section 47 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and Schedule 1 of the Database Regulations (SI 1997/3032). Companies House imposes no rules or requirements on how the information on the public register is used.

Quote: 2

Companies House and Re-use

Companies House, as a public information provider, makes all information relating to limited companies available for public inspection. It places no restriction on how the information is used after purchase other than the following:

* Customers must take their own legal advice regarding possible breach of third party copyright.
* Products sold in a bulk format or on CD/DVD-ROM may not be reproduced by the customer in the exact format in which it is presented.
* Customers cannot reproduce the Crown insignia or use the Companies House logo.
* If information is used from guidance notes, the website, publications or statistical tables the customer is required to credit Companies House as the source of the information.

End Quotes

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/ifts.shtml

Emphasis in above quotes is mine.

The Companies Registrar is the appropriate person mentioned in the T&Cs "by or with the authority of the appropriate person"

I believe I'm within my rights to to republish all of those accounts provided via the Web Check service.

Paul has reported me to Companies House's Legal Department, I look forward to talking with them.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112236, posted by VincceH at 21:15, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112229
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
My question is who is the authority/owner? It would probably be best to have it clarified by the Companies House.
I'll ring them and ask the question I suggested on Monday - if I don't forget. There will be alcohol between now and then. wink

Or we could just interpret it in our own way, apparently just like the RISC OS head license (joke) big grin
Actually, that's not as much of a joke as you think. There are and always have been grey areas with our legislation, including copyright, and it's only when fully tested that we (a) really know how to interpret them and (b) realise the mistakes that have been made drawing it up. I think this is probably just such a grey area.

With that in mind if, as I now feel, that Paul is actually in the right by objecting on copyright grounds, then I also think that this is an area where the whole thing is arse about face: this information is public, it's readily available to and accessible by members of the public, and IMO we should be free to make it available from other locations (the only caveat being that nothing should be altered - publishing should be in full; otherwise it would be easy to paint a false picture by excluding important parts.)

However, that's just my opinion on how things should be - not how they are. At the moment I personally would err on the side of caution - that's why, having now got the missing sets of accounts, I haven't passed them on for inclusion on riscos.info.

My opinion might change Monday, though, if I remember to ring Companies House. smile
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112238, posted by flibble at 21:40, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112236
flibble

Posts: 891
My question is who is the authority/owner? It would probably be best to have it clarified by the Companies House.
I'll ring them and ask the question I suggested on Monday - if I don't forget. There will be alcohol between now and then. wink
"Information on the public register is made available by virtue of approvals issued by the Registrar in accordance with section 47 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988" [1]

The Companies House Registrar is also the CEO of Companies House [2]

[1] http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/ifts.shtml
[2] http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/functionsHistory.shtml
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112240, posted by VincceH at 21:52, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112235
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
I believe I'm within my rights to to republish all of those accounts provided via the Web Check service.
I suppose, judging by the parts you've quoted (and emphasised), it's a matter of how you define "use" - and whether your definition is within the spirit of what that page is trying to say - personally, I'd take note of the fact that the page does still make reference to CD&P1988(47) and suggests that you take your own legal advice regarding copyrights.

I remain unconvinced until I speak to them myself - or until you've been contacted by their legal dept and posted the outcome here, whichever happens first!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Daniel Nesbitt Message #112243, posted by solsburian at 22:12, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112236
Member
Posts: 23

Actually, that's not as much of a joke as you think. There are and always have been grey areas with our legislation, including copyright, and it's only when fully tested that we (a) really know how to interpret them and (b) realise the mistakes that have been made drawing it up. I think this is probably just such a grey area.
Your spot on. I went over IPR and Copyright for my last year at University. We were told that misinterpretation was common for terms in contracts, there are often loopholes etc. and a key part is the agreement on how to deal with disputes (such as using solicitors).

[Edited by solsburian at 22:13, 11/12/2009]
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112245, posted by VincceH at 22:33, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112236
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
There will be alcohol between now and then. wink
This has clearly distracted me too much. NO ALCOHOL HAS PASSED MY LIPS YET! unhappy
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112247, posted by flibble at 22:54, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112245
flibble

Posts: 891
There will be alcohol between now and then. wink
This has clearly distracted me too much. NO ALCOHOL HAS PASSED MY LIPS YET! unhappy
Stop slacking! Imbibation must occur!
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112249, posted by VincceH at 23:40, 11/12/2009, in reply to message #112247
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
There will be alcohol between now and then. wink
This has clearly distracted me too much. NO ALCOHOL HAS PASSED MY LIPS YET! unhappy
Stop slacking! Imbibation must occur!
It's occurring now, I can assure you. smile
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Blind Moose Message #112250, posted by Acornut at 02:22, 12/12/2009, in reply to message #112226
Acornut No-eye-deer (No Idea)

Posts: 487
Call me Mr Thicky, but, surely copyright is there to protect an 'orginal' from being copied, and remuneration gained from the copy.
Therfore since the 'abridged accounts' are originals, supplied to 'Companies House', they ('Companies House'), are already infringing copyright by publishing the accounts for remuneration.
OK, its late, I've just got in from a Christmas party, but in my inebriated state , this seems logical to me.grin
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #112252, posted by filecore at 06:36, 12/12/2009, in reply to message #112250

Posts: 3867
No, Mr Thicky, Companies House holding onto copies is a statuatory requirement and therefore not subject to the copyright requirements - indeed, some bodies don't count as organisations capable of violating copyright, from a legal standpoint. This is why legal material ("the small print") always has so many pages of text and so many points and subpoints - if you give a single, generalised rule, you'll find that it doesn't apply to 90% of situations. If your twisty turny logic was correct, a copyrighted item would never be able to leave its author's hands, as everyone and their dog would somehow be violating copyright on it. That's just Not How It Works.

Small print: IANAL. Heh, that's an appropriate-sounding homophone when it comes to lawyers.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
David J. Ruck Message #112253, posted by druck at 09:41, 12/12/2009, in reply to message #111836
Member
Posts: 9
Replying to "Herbert zur Nedden" on Page 1
I dare to have a bit different view... "ROL has lost their way" is not what I'd say.

Initially ROL hat good missions and plans and offereings.

But then they started to simply drop mission goals, reduced what offered and finally even didn't even mange to tell their customers what they got and what they will get next...

but at the same time they never reduced the select fee desipte drastic reduction of what you got for your money (yes, I wrote "fee" on purpose). It always amazed me how many subscribers they had...
I remember how I was shouted down by ROL fans when I started complaining for ROL to actually make a release during their 3 year hiatus throughout which they still took people's subscriptions. I made most of these points then.

Eventually they did start making releases again, and promised to support the Iyonix, so I gave them a second chance. However Aaron got involved with company and all promises about the Iyonix were broken, and Select became old Risc PC and Virtual Acorn only. What a coincidence.

But the main issue with ROL is with their ridiculous licensing claims they completely destroyed any chance of RISC OS being used in commercial product. Neither Castle or anyone could offer an OS for any purpose that had such unsubstantiated claims and threats hanging over it.

Since then they've become an irrelevance only serving to offer dribbles of updates, of various degrees of usefulness, but with increasing compatibility issues. It only serves to soak up money which could fund far more needed application development.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112311, posted by VincceH at 11:53, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112240
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
I remain unconvinced until I speak to them myself - or until you've been contacted by their legal dept and posted the outcome here, whichever happens first!
And the answer I've just been given by Companies House is that there should be no problem.

Peter: To what email address would you like the remaining sets sent so you can upload them to the same place as the others?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112317, posted by VincceH at 12:20, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112311
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
Peter: To what email address would you like the remaining sets sent so you can upload them to the same place as the others?
Okay, having seen the change in the way they are hosted, let me rephrase that:

Eric: To what email address would you like the remaining sets sent so you can upload them to the same place as the others?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Peter Howkins Message #112321, posted by flibble at 13:55, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112311
flibble

Posts: 891
And the answer I've just been given by Companies House is that there should be no problem.
Glad to here you've been convinced smile

I hope this is enough to stop me receiving nastygrams, as it's been plain throughout this that Paul M is reading this thread.

Maybe Paul would like to answer some of the other questions and criticisms that the article and discussion has asked whilst he's here?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Rob Kendrick Message #112323, posted by nunfetishist at 14:10, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112321
nunfetishist
Today's phish is trout a la creme.

Posts: 522
And the answer I've just been given by Companies House is that there should be no problem.
Glad to here you've been convinced smile

I hope this is enough to stop me receiving nastygrams, as it's been plain throughout this that Paul M is reading this thread.

Maybe Paul would like to answer some of the other questions and criticisms that the article and discussion has asked whilst he's here?
I am quite literally moist with delight. I've not laughed so hard in weeks.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112324, posted by VincceH at 14:24, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112321
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
And the answer I've just been given by Companies House is that there should be no problem.
Glad to here you've been convinced smile
Note the word 'should' - it's not an absolutely definite answer. More completey, though, the answer I was given more or less matches the essence of the first couple of paragraphs I wrote in http://www.iconbar.co.uk/forums/viewthread.php?threadid=11262&page=5#112218

In retrospect, I should perhaps have made the enquiry by email so that I have a proper record of what was said*, but I'm now satisfied enough that it's almost certainly a non-issue that I'm happy with publishing the accounts.

* In fact, I should have noted the names of the people I spoke to. Oh well.

I hope this is enough to stop me receiving nastygrams, as it's been plain throughout this that Paul M is reading this thread.
Indeed. Alternatively, if he wants to continue sending them, he should CC me in on them since I have already obtained the remaining sets of accounts from Companies House and have offered them to Peter/Eric.

When I have a little more spare time - perhaps one day over Christmas - I might look at all the sets of accounts in some detail, form some opinions and write up a few notes. To be fair, with the small amount of information presented in the accounts, there's very little that really can be done along these lines - so in all likelihood there won't be a great deal to say, but I'm sure something interesting could be gleaned from a good read/analysis of them.

If I do, I'll probably post the results on http://www.riscository.com, and put a link to it on the relevant page on riscos.info (if I can remember my login for that!)

(Riscository.com is now set up with WordPress - ie as a blog - so if I do put anything there, Paul will have every chance to respond to any comments I make - be that to correct my possibly erroneous assumptions, justify his/RISCOS Ltd's position, or anything else.)

Maybe Paul would like to answer some of the other questions and criticisms that the article and discussion has asked whilst he's here?
That too.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Togneri Message #112328, posted by filecore at 15:08, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112323

Posts: 3867
I am quite literally moist with delight. I've not laughed so hard in weeks.
Here, have a tampon.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Rob Kendrick Message #112332, posted by nunfetishist at 15:36, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112328
nunfetishist
Today's phish is trout a la creme.

Posts: 522
I am quite literally moist with delight. I've not laughed so hard in weeks.
Here, have a tampon.
Is it strawberry flavour?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
David Boddie Message #112335, posted by davidb at 15:53, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112324
Member
Posts: 147
When I have a little more spare time - perhaps one day over Christmas - I might look at all the sets of accounts in some detail, form some opinions and write up a few notes. To be fair, with the small amount of information presented in the accounts, there's very little that really can be done along these lines - so in all likelihood there won't be a great deal to say, but I'm sure something interesting could be gleaned from a good read/analysis of them.
Be sure to make a note of all the time you spend working on the accounts and send the bill to RISCOS Ltd. After all, "If you're doing a job, and you've got the skill to do it, you should get paid for it." tongue
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Eric Rucker Message #112337, posted by bhtooefr at 16:16, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112317
Member
Posts: 337
bhtooefr dot gmail at com
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Edward Rogers Message #112340, posted by Monty at 17:11, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112323
Member
Posts: 154
I am quite literally moist with delight.
& from the nominations thread;

Can it have cute young boys?
Of late, you seem determined to bounce the Icon Bar's Google search results up.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Rob Kendrick Message #112341, posted by nunfetishist at 17:33, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112340
nunfetishist
Today's phish is trout a la creme.

Posts: 522
Of late, you seem determined to bounce the Icon Bar's Google search results up.
What's wrong with that?
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Edward Rogers Message #112344, posted by Monty at 17:46, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112341
Member
Posts: 154
Nothing. Very inventive.

cheap viagra lolcat windows 7 torrent warez
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112353, posted by VincceH at 19:16, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112337
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
bhtooefr dot gmail at com
They're on their way.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
VinceH Message #112354, posted by VincceH at 19:20, 14/12/2009, in reply to message #112335
VincceH
Lowering the tone since the dawn of time

Posts: 1600
When I have a little more spare time - perhaps one day over Christmas - I might look at all the sets of accounts in some detail, form some opinions and write up a few notes.
Be sure to make a note of all the time you spend working on the accounts and send the bill to RISCOS Ltd. After all, "If you're doing a job, and you've got the skill to do it, you should get paid for it." tongue
Heh! If there was some way we could actually see Paul's immediate reaction to receiving the invoice, it would be worthwhile. A delayed reaction that we might (but probably won't) see on teh interwebz would be no fun.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Pages (7): |< < 6 > >|

The Icon Bar: News and features: What is the point of RISCOS Ltd?