Cloverleaf Campaign is Live

It will happen sooner or later.

Perhaps if the current, unfinished, source was in the repository and others could have a go with parts it would be sooner?

The Pine64 Pinebook Pro and RockPro64 is supported

I’d second the request to add the source to the Git repository as several of us would like to test RISCOS on Pinebook laptops.

I’d second the request to add the source to the Git repository as several of us would like to test RISCOS on Pinebook laptops.

You can’t and too many things are undecided. Sorry.
I somewhat feels like the sheep hunted by a wolfpack, please show some patience!

I somewhat feels like the sheep hunted by a wolfpack

You’re the shepherd and the concerned community would like to see the flock moved to a safe place where everyone can watch over it.

Please!

I have been public with tweets and forum posts during the last year. Nothing has changed, I just wanted to be honest (in relation to the thread).
I don’t have control on what goes where and when. You have to live with that.

Teasing you :)

Second attempt is live: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/riscos-cloverleaf/risc-os-built-the-future-os-for-your-powersaving-computer

Well, that’s confusing. Isn’t that ‘Kitten’ just an even more expensive black and white 4te machine? And is Clovertools just 4te Tools (looking at the headings that are mentioned)? And there’s a lot of the usual software. I’m not sure this will appeal to anyone who already uses RiscOS. And I can’t see how those prices to take a punt on something that may or may not come off will tempt anyone new to join in.

The Desktop project looks worth it, but it seems even that is someone else’s work. Add that to the Filer Enhancements and I’d consider a donation.

It all looks a bit like an RComp project under a different name to me.

Seems so much of it is down to other peoples efforts? Really appears to be about getting credit for other’s work and renaming RISC OS to CLOVERLEAF RISC OS.

At least there’s no mention of ripping off retro software this time round. I’d asked about that earlier in this thread on December 10th (https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/1/topics/15883?page=6#posts-112105) before things kicked off between Cloverleaf and Andrew Poole on Facebook.

John Jeffords – the reason for the R-Comp-ish stuff is due to my assistance for Stefan to try and ensure deliverables are just that – deliverable. There was a real concern last time around about the feasibility of what was on offer. I wanted to ensure that the things offered as rewards were practical and deliverable within the timeframes. Whilst I can’t speak for Stefan’s programmers, I can say that the elements I’ve offered him exist and can be delivered in a (hopefully) timely manner, subject to payment.

Basically it is me doing what I can to help Stefan, whilst trying to avoid another Omega-esque “over promise, under deliver” situation, which is a real risk with any KickStarter. That would definitely be bad for the RISC OS scene, and I’m keen to ensure it doesn’t happen.

The Cloverleaf project was always supposed to be as much about new users as existing ones, so hopefully there’s something for everyone.

Beyond that, I’m not about to tell people whether to back or not – that’s a personal decision. Just that I’ve tried to help Stefan in the interest of the scene as a whole, as he was forced to scale back somewhat for the second Kickstarter.

@ Jon Jeffords

Thanks for considering the Desktop Modernisation effort worth it :)

I don’t think Steffan is trying to use or claim it or anything, he has offered his help on this project and I guess his developers have to be paid for that.

Right now the desktop project is fully RISC OS community driven and fuelled, and quite a lot of people have offered their previous works to be included (and they will) and gave written permissions, so I can modify and adapt their original works into one solution. But that still takes time and quite a lot of coding (or re-coding/fixing and making old ASM 32bit safe etc).

On top of finding the pieces, reaching the original authors and get permissions and change licenses to be compatible with RISC OS licensing, I also have to document everything and divide each task in subtasks so more developers and other people can join to actively work on this project.

And finally everything is being done so that if ROD/ROOL want to get the thing in the future they can, so all repositories are being created following ROOL requirements.

So, every help I can get is welcome and I believe Cloverleaf like many of us really want to see RISC OS desktop getting better.

As Andrew pointed out well, I’m not here to tell people whether to back or not, that is your personal choice. Also, worth mentioning that I am not affiliated in any way with Cloverleaf and others. I just wanted to make it clear that Cloverleaf has offered their help to complete the Desktop project.

I’m glad to see that RiscOS is getting some well desevered exposure with the second Kickstarter campaign. I’m concerned that the gramatical errors in the Kickstarter page will lead to it being interpreted as a Chineze scam as these types of errors are a flag to the skeptical buyer. Some are just humorous like the three centuries old RiscOS.

Frankly, I get confused reading about the rewards. It’s my opinion that RiscOS and it’s support has become fragmented over the centuries. The rewards too, now seem fragmented or, am I misinterpreting them?
Fund a fragment and, if you pick a popular one, it may be included in some future RiscOS version but, only available to those that pitched in? I’ll have to read it again, I don’t mean to sound cynical but I am curious how a newcomer would make sense of so many pieces.

Buy the hardware with software or, buy just the software. I realize these options exist as rewards but it’s not clear to me what I would get and, I can only assume that others unfamiliar with RiscOS will also be unconvinced of the value of thier pledge$.

Cloverleaf has been deleting tweets from the last day or two where he again attacked Andrew Poole. Is this really the actions we want to see from someone who is asking for our money and support; instead just ignoring valid questions about the project and attacking anyone who dares ask for clarity?

Original tweet thread: https://twitter.com/RISCOSproject/status/1388808327547654144

Andrew’s tweet with the screenshots of CL calling him a troll. https://twitter.com/acp/status/1390043478109917189

Andrew Rawnsley – I’m sure you appreciate that you’re held in the highest regards and I’ve certainly no doubt at your ability to deliver your elements (as you say, if paid!) but are the actions of Cloverleaf in both the original and this new Kickstarter something you wish to be associated with?

I think Cloverleaf’s intentions are laudable and their efforts display a degree of determination and imagination the world of RISC OS could benefit from. It’s just a shame the Kickstarter projects have been framed so poorly. Cloverleaf have motivated some developers to get on board, no easy task for RISC OS; oh for a marketeer…

All the same I wish them luck and have pledged a few quid to match.

I guess I better back up the points I made on twitter – there is a complete lack of transparency about what any money is going towards on this. There’s a €6k target with a bunch of “rewards” priced in the 10s of €, but with price tags for some of those being delivered being over €6k. This is confusing, clearly people will pledge for things and then not get those delivered, and if things are being done anyway or available through other routes, you can’t offer them as rewards on kickstarter. Whether this is deliberate or not, there is still a sense running through this all that “Cloverleaf” is something different to RISC OS. Unfortunately it seems ill-thought out, tangential to lots which is going on through community efforts, and if the idea is to “bring people to the platform” it has singularly failed by being utterly confusing.

Hello guys! First just a general reply to Andrew Poole’s critism of the second Kickstarter campaign. After that I will add some individual replies to comments.

View Kickstarter Cloverleaf RISC OS campaign

Question1: Do we violate Kickstarter rules which don‘t allow resale by including Raspberry Pi hardware in our Kickstarter rewards?
Answer: No! First, we clearly state that the Kitten Pi is based on the Raspberry Pi 4B. Kickstarter wants to support creativity and startups and the subject of our Kickstarter is not hardware but the software development for RISC OS. Our Kickstarter is about getting funds to improve RISC OS. The reason why we offer RISC OS desktop PCs is that the funder then can also enjoy RISC OS without being a computer hacker or a handyman without the need to assemble their own computers which 99.99 % of the population will not like to do. What is the use of supporting a campaign without being able to use the funded product? In this case, it is enough creativity to have our own designed and produced computer cases.

Kickstarter has refused to include the 14“-laptop PineBook Pro as a reward due to the „resale prohibited“ rule. So we just include now the RISC OS image that will enable PineBookPro owners to run RISC OS on it.

Question 2: Is the campaign underfunded?
Answer: Yes. But this RISC OS initiative is driven by enthusiasts and not purely capitalism. We do this as we believe in RISC OS and we will continue until we will succeed or fail.

In the Kickstarter story is stated in „Project goals“:
„We cannot take care of all that with just this Kickstarter project but there are other RISC OS support groups and also single programmers that do a great job to support RISC OS. We managed to motivate some of them to work with us. Jeffrey Lee is going to finish his work on multi-threading (Multi-core support). Jason Tribbeck will modernize the whole audio system of RISC OS and make it easier adaptable for new hardware. His AudioSystem will include 32-bit audio data, multiple output devices, multi-channel audio devices and Non-LPCM encoding. Currently, all these RISC OS programmers work for free and a big thanks for their commitment to RISC OS. We have already introduced the new instant messenger !ChatCube to the RISC OS world which will be the gateway to many open source messengers like Telegram, IRC and Signal. Also, we upgraded the Sinclair ZX Spectrum emulator !Fuse to the latest version 1.5.7.

In the Kickstarter story is stated in „Funding software“:
„We also don‘t expect to receive a full funding for the packages we offer. So the plan is to finance the missing funding with the sales of software, hardware and the Cloverleaf RISC OS distribution. The packages that get the most funding will be taken care of first. If a third party (organization or individual) solves one of the tasks we will forward the funds to them.

With each pledge in this crowdfunding for software or hardware, you support the development of RISC OS regarding new drivers, handling improvements or more applications. If the pledges for one reward are too low we will refund your pledge or ask you to contribute it to another part of the project. Improvements to the OS will be open source.“

Question 3: Will we get rich by the Cloverleaf Kickstarter campaign?
Answer: No! To get back any of the investments it will take years to come.
To prepare this project I have invested about 50.000 Euro (= £43.375) during 2 years. This consists of hiring a crowdfunding specialist (about 8000 Euro = £6940), advertising in Facebook (7000 Euro = £6072), video production (1000 Euro = £867), travelling to Computer shows in UK ( London show 2019 & Southwest show 2020) (1500 Euro = £1301), hardware purchases of 1 x Titanium, 2 x Raspberry 3B, 2 x Raspberry 4B, 2 x PineRro64, 2 x PineBook Pro, 1 x PinePhone, 1 x Radxa RockPi 4B, 1 x Khadas VIM3), 1 × 3D printer (3570 Euro = £3096). Programming cost and training of two programmers for RISC OS to create !ChatCube, !ArtCube and investigation into Panfrost Mali graphics driver which amounts to 31500 Euro = £27326)

This does not yet include one hour of my work during 2 years.
This does not yet include the investments done by Andrew Rawnsley for the RK3399 adoption.
You can do the math!

I am doing this because I want to be able to contribute to RISC OS and get others involved (especially outside the traditional supporters). I hope we can take RISC OS forward together through this and all the other exciting projects people are doing at the moment. If anyone wants to ask any more questions about our project, I am always happy to answer on any forum and also welcome your suggestions.

It looks like Stefan’s post above was cross-posted here and on TIB. Since it’s at least in part directed at me, I have replied to the main points on the version on TIB but I’m not going to cross-post the full reply here (mainly because I can’t be bothered converting the formatting, but also because having the same conversation in two places is silly). :)

I am doing this because I want to be able to contribute to RISC OS and get others involved

At the risk of involving myself in an argument between two groups, might I make a suggestion?

I believe Andrew has the interests of RO and RO users at heart in criticising elements of the Kickstarter project.

As the proposer of the project you are upset by the criticism and believe you are working for the betterment of RISC OS.

I think you can both agree with those statements.

Since one of the criticisms from a number of people is that the text of the Kickstarter is not as a native English speaker would phrase things and as a result probably does not convey the intended meaning. The logical route is to use a native English speaker to rephrase the text.
Andrew – perhaps you could assist? Perhaps Daniel J too?

As an example “RISC OS – Built the future OS for your powersaving computer” is wrong, in English it makes no sense.

Is this meant to be RISC OS – Build the future OS for your power-saving computer" ??

and “Make additional hardware available for RISC OS in the form of the Rockchip RK3399. This SoC will be first part of a desktop PC (Cloverleaf Puma) and later the laptop.”

Surely the goal is to “Make RISC OS available on more hardware platforms, starting with Rockchip RK3399. This will appear first as an installation on a small desktop PC, later as a laptop build” since you are making a build that will run on the hardware rather than making the hardware.

Perhaps the perception of relative worth of the offering might be better if what was considered part of the package was given a cynical once over?
Again, to some extent Andrew and Daniel have proffered opinions on this and might usefully state how the package should be done in their opinion.

In this reframing of the text describing the offering I would suggest that your main item needs to be reward 1 – i.e. Cloverleaf Distro for RockChip RK3399 boards. Pure Cloverleaf distros belong early in the reward list.

Other, mixed packages are best offered as discount bundles.

The Kitten and Puma are items you can package with that offering in such a way that, for example “Cloverleaf Distro for RockChip RK3399 boards” plus “Puma” is less than the cost of the two items bought separately.
You’re then, most assuredly, not reselling but are giving a discounted method of hardware purchase.

Finally, and this is probably going to upset someone:
On the first Kickstarter project offering a similar disagreement occurred and as I recall an employee/associate was identified as being instrumental in disabling/blocking anyone who disagreed.
If it is the same person again then I would recommend that they be given something else to do as they don’t have the temperament for dealing with possibly¹ disagreeable folk who may be potential customers.

Anyway, there you go – my 2d worth²

¹ Note that I say possibly disagreeable because the act of disagreeing with someone on a viewpoint which may or may not be fact does not itself make the person disagreeable.
I frequently disagree with colleagues at work, we end up with the consensus. I don’t think we have ever come close to bad words

as I recall an employee/associate was identified as being instrumental in disabling/blocking anyone who disagreed.

Wow. That’s tactful.

I would say, listen to your bloody crowdfunding specialist, because having a temper and blocking people asking questions that they feel are legitimate is….really not a good look.

I would say, listen to your bloody crowdfunding specialist,

Actually I think I might ask first what their advice was and how near it came to the presentation I’ve identified.
Because if they didn’t advise anything remotely like what I’ve written then I don’t think their advice is worth much more than my notional 2d (which in 1970 was a bit less than 1 new penny)

blocking people asking questions that they feel are legitimate is….really not a good look.

As a one off it’s a minor error, but Andrew referred to a feeling of déjà vu in the Iconbar discussion and I felt a certain sense of that when I read the recent items here.

TBH I hadn’t looked at the latest Kickstarter page, mainly because the overreach on the first felt like something heading for Omega territory. Then today I felt like repeating something from work and pointing two groups of people toward a common goal.
Call me an interfering git or whatever, I won’t be offended (for a variety of reasons)

Marketing is largely about catching the interest of the potential customer, describing what you have in attractive terms without being blatantly misleading and leaving the customer feeling that they got value for money or better.
If I offer my home baked bread and jam, which should I do:

1. Tell you that with my home baked bread you can have some decent jam from M&S at a combined price less than a commercial “artisan baked” loaf and a jar of jam from M&S
2. Or tell you that you can have my bread and jam at a price which you discover is pretty much the same, but you thought it was home-made jam, and it’s actually factory made.
3. Sell you relabelled M&S bread & jam at a price I negotiated with M&S plus a small markup.

Now honesty kicks in again – I’m pretty good in the bread making, (without those machines) but you’d be disappointed with my jam making efforts, so I would always recommend option 1

Again, to some extent Andrew and Daniel have proffered opinions on this and might usefully state how the package should be done in their opinion.

Not run a kickstarter for it? Contribute to the ROOL effort? Stop trying to monetise things that are nearly un-monetisable and work to encourage hobbyists? :) – I genuinely don’t think this is kickstarter territory. The aims are confused (are we attracting new users, or updating software?), the offer is confused (what exactly am I getting for my pledge?). It’s not about language, it’s about substance unfortunately.

2 Americans might 2cents, but I’m not American (thank deity of choice) and I’m old enough to be very familiar with pre-decimal UK currency

Nice bit of casual racism there. American me appreciates it. 🙄

I genuinely don’t think this is kickstarter territory.

I think the early access to RK3399 working RO5.xx probably is; and offering it for use on your own board (price = x) or on a packaged board (price = x plus packaged board cost from a.n.other less a discount) would be the deal.

You’re then marketing a clear software product and offering to also arrange a discounted cost of the hardware package to run it on.

The aims are confused (are we attracting new users, or updating software?),

I think your confusion may come from this:

the offer is confused (what exactly am I getting for my pledge?).

Which is about language. What was written didn’t clearly express what you could expect to get if you put money in over and above what you get in tangible product terms.

Nor does it clearly express what is in house product and what is not.

Nice bit of casual racism there. American me appreciates it.

One view, then again you could take the view that I’m thankful that I have a complete ocean between me and Trump.

I wonder who wrote the following:

“IMO, in a market as small as RISC OS’, fragmentation into different OS distributions is as silly now as it was back when we had the ROL/Castle stuff.”

Perhaps, the statement above suggests the motive behind attempts to publicly trash the Cloverleaf Kickstarter.

I wonder who wrote the following:

“IMO, in a market as small as RISC OS’, fragmentation into different OS distributions is as silly now as it was back when we had the ROL/Castle stuff.”

That would be me.

Perhaps, the statement above suggests the motive behind attempts to publicly trash the Cloverleaf Kickstarter.

Not at all. I have no ulterior motives here, I simply asked questions about the project. Every time I’ve done that, though, Stefan’s gone on the offensive because apparently you’re not allowed to question anything about the project.

@ Andrew Poole

I am with you on the fact that people should be allowed to ask questions without having extreme reactions on the other side.

However:

“IMO, in a market as small as RISC OS’, fragmentation into different OS distributions is as silly now as it was back when we had the ROL/Castle stuff.”

This was true when ROL/Castle were producing two different OSes that caused us all issues. RISC OS Direct, Vanilla RISC OS and Cloverleaf are just repackaging out of pretty much the exact same Kernel and ROM sets. So not even close to the ROL/Castle situation.

So can you please answer me on which part of these OS you have proof they are different in the source/API/coding style? I am not aware of any substantial difference, so I’d like to learn what makes you concerned in their code bases differences (if any of course).

@ the general discussion:

On the confusing message:
IMHO Steve Pampling on his last post is correct. If the Kickstarter would have been just about porting RISC OS to RK3399 it would have been way more easy to be understood by everyone (and still Uber-exciting!) :)

Cloverleaf should probably create multiple kickstarters and have them specific (not at the same time, even one every 6 months or something like that, they are anyway!). AFAIK Creating a project on Kickstarter is free and they collect 5% when you reach your goals, so why not using multiple kickstarters? Oh and there is no need for big video with consultants and such, cut it to the truth and make it real, be transparent, no need to please everyone with a single kickstarter.

On attracting new users:
This is something that right now can potentially bite RISC OS back, because RISC OS doesn’t reach the MVP (Minimum Viable Product) features that the majority of people out there perceive as “generally good modern OS”.

So if for new users we are talking of targeted audience that could enjoy RISC OS as it is now then sure “I am all ears”, but if we are talking of targeting the masses for Desktop use, then it will probably end up in a waste of time and money, but obviously good luck with that.

On improving RISC OS:
I would leave the RISC OS improvements to ROD/ROOL and eventually claim a bounty if someone has time to work on them. I don’t think we need a 3rd entity to push for RISC OS improvements. The reason I think this is because the code really needs to be first converted to C in order to be reorganised and maintained with less effort as well as re-architected in a way to allow faster improvements/patching/porting and what not.

Just my 0.5c (and sorry Steve lol I do work in a mostly American team every single day!)