RISC OS Distributions, Why, Good/Bad

Carried over from this thread

Whether you like Cloverleaf or ROD Direct or don’t, there are potential benefits to what we’re seeing. They have their branding, which represents what they’re about; that’s a good thing. ;) At least we don’t need to tell people to use RISC OS; RISK OS. As some of us might know, branding is essential, as well as the product delivered. As we’ve highlighted, what’s important is the development, modernisation of the base OS; Enhanced display support, utilisation of extra CPU resources and memory, 64 bit OS, OS security, Zero Network Configuration, … The list isn’t complete or in any particular order; perhaps the bounty scheme should reflect something like this, so at least people interested in the future of RISC OS can help fund progress or be aware of how they can contribute.

The list isn’t complete or in any particular order; perhaps the bounty scheme should reflect something like this, so at least people interested in the future of RISC OS can help fund progress or be aware of how they can contribute.

To which distro, though?

As a developer, if I have a choice of supporting “ROOL OS”, Direct, Cloverleaf or Paolo OS, which should I pick? Suppose they’ve diverged in small but important ways? Things like the filer and related APIs are quite important, for example. Suppose Paolo OS goes off and adds some whizzy new APIs – should I spend time supporting them, if only 25% of an already small userbase are using the system?

And as a supporter, what’s the point of funding ROOL Bounties if the work is being funded by ROD, or by Cloverleaf, or whatever? For example, what’s the point of putting money into this or this, if ROD have bankrolled the work without ROOL’s involvement? And if that’s happened once, what’s the point of wasting money on any ROOL Bounties in the future? If the money will just sit in ROOL’s bank account and be redistributed to the remaining bounties each time one is poached by another organisation or distro, it might just as well be earning me interest instead of ROOL.

By all means have the different organisations working together: that’s a good thing. At present, however, it seems to be far from clear that this is happening from the point of view of an end user. The number of times that people talk of their being an R-Comp or ROD OS should be ringing alarm bells for those involved – especially if divide and conquer isn’t their intention.¹

¹ ETA. Just for clarity here, if you’re constantly having to pop up to deny that you’re doing something – which seems to be various parties’ default positions, whenever these questions come up – then you’re just playing whack-a-mole. It would be far better if people didn’t ask the “wrong” questions in the first place, because then they’re presumably not suspicious of motives. In the end, it’s down to optics, and that’s down to communication. I know it’s fashionable to say “but we don’t have time”, but in this case communication should be part of the basic “to-do” list, and right up there near the top.

Oh, and blocking people on Twitter because they’re asking “awkward” questions isn’t the way to win hearts and minds, either.

Ok, so, now even a distro doesn’t seems to be ok…
I guess next there is: do not share my changes and become Nemo v2 :)

Nah, I’ll share my changes and who wants to use them can use them, no worries. Yes, there will be a new Distro, and that is also for technical reasons (related to a possible adoption of an Hypervisor based kernel down the line).

As a developer, if I have a choice of supporting “ROOL OS”, Direct, Cloverleaf or Paolo OS, which should I pick?

• Pick the common denominator if you want your app to run everywhere.
• Add logic to identify the distro and make best of use of it if you are running on it
• Decide to ignore the distro you do not care about

And as a supporter, what’s the point of funding ROOL Bounties if the work is being funded by ROD, or by Cloverleaf, or whatever?

Even if I am one of these people doing changes outside of the bounty scheme, I still support ROOL bounty scheme for the changes that are there (I have donated an dI will donate again). So if it’s ok for me to do so, why is it not for you?

Also, ROOL, had like 20 years to put changes I am working on on the bounties, if they didn’t do it, they must have good reasons for it.

By all means have the different organisations working together: that’s a good thing. At present, however, it seems to be far from clear that this is happening from the point of view of an end user.

Why don’t you ask this question to the people that do not share what they are working on? I’m not complaining about ROOL, but they do not share info of their meetings with ROD, so, technically they are the one not working together. I had to understand what they are actually working on by following the commits on their gitlab etc… But, even if this approach is ridiculous, I am still “collaborating” with them.

The number of times that people talk of their being an R-Comp or ROD OS should be ringing alarm bells for those involved – especially if divide and conquer isn’t their intention.1

I agree, but it’s Open Source now, so (just by hypotheses) if RComp/ROD will try to revert that, the previous releases will still fall under open source license and I’ll have no problems to fork from there and build a fully GPL based RISC OS. In other words, the old world has ended officially in 2018, now the community and whoever else is involved has to adapt and move forward.

There is no future in a commercial/copyrighted RISC OS. Because RISC OS, even if re-written from the ground up to compete (lets say) with Linux, will still have to face that Linux is free and there are millions of developers and experts on it. So, if there is someone so silly to think that investing a lot of money on reviving a copyrighted RISC OS has a ROI, they will only end-up going bankrupt.

RISC OS should be and stay Open Source (and buildable with Open Source tools) and companies should focus on building powerful commercial applications on it, this is eventually a sustainable business model for a company like RComp.

Oh, and blocking people on Twitter because they’re asking “awkward” questions isn’t the way to win hearts and minds, either.

This is absolutely true. Especially for companies that are asking money in exchange of their effort/artifacts. So on this one I totally agree with you.

P.S. edited a bit the answer to improve the English.

@Steve Fryatt. You could like me have different computers running the various OS i.e. A Titanium and a RPi4 with the latest ROOL version. An ARMX6 running RComp’s version, another running the ROD version and one on order to run the Paolo OS :-)).

Interestingly the RPi4 running RISC OS is a ‘FOURtress’ purchased from RISCOSbits and differs slightly from the ROOL version with added goodies.I always upgrade to whatever the latest version is of whatever flavour of RISC OS, the ROOL version as soon as, the others when they are available, remembering that the ROD version is primarily designed for new users and that the RComp OS is updated when Andrew thinks that the upgrade will not cause his phone to overheat with customer problems.

As mere user I am quite excited by all the proposed enhancements and improvements to the OS and can hardly wait to see what comes next. Hypervisor, 64bit, C kernel, multi-threading, usb3 and lots more. Interesting times ;-).

Regards.

and build a fully GPL based RISC OS

Good luck with that. CDDL is incompatible with the GPL.
Note, it’s the GPL that’s the problem, not the CDDL.

That being said:

RISC OS should be and stay Open Source

I don’t recall anybody anywhere making claims to the contrary. Rather the opposite, in fact, given that the beginning of ROD was to do away with the open-except-for-this-small-thing Castle licence and replace it with an actual OSI recognised open licence.

Which means:

but it’s Open Source now, so (just by hypotheses) if RComp/ROD will try to revert that

Quit it with the FUD. That there’s stuff going on behind closed doors and work is being done around the bounty system does not imply that anybody is going to suddenly say “it’s mine, all mine, my precious!”.

In other words, the old world has ended officially in 2018

March 2020 is when the world ended.

There is no future in a commercial/copyrighted RISC OS.

Commercial? Maybe not. Copyrighted? Extremely important. It’s how open source works. ;-)

Without copyright, there is no GPL, or Apache, or whatever.

Which means:

on reviving a copyrighted RISC OS

Is gibberish.

isn’t the way to win hearts and minds, either.

Cloverleaf is… something else. Rule of cautious editing, here. ;-)

Pick the common denominator if you want your app to run everywhere.

As evidenced by the linked post, there isn’t a common denominator. Behaviour in different versions is subtly different.

what’s the point of funding ROOL Bounties if the work is being funded by ROD, or by Cloverleaf, or whatever?

Why not, you know, ask the relevant parties? Ask them if they’re willing to post here to outline how the outside funding works with the existing ROOL bounties.
Maybe those bounty payments are part of the funding? Like you, I can speculate.

However, I am currently trying out an IPv6 compatible stack (not that we have the IPv6 stuff sorted just yet) and it seems quite stable. I am also trying out a slightly crashy (but not so different to Safari on an iPad!) beta version of a browser that actually coped with making an edit to a document in the browser version of Google Docs.

Before you talk about wasting money on bounties, please just let that sink in for a moment. A browser for RISC OS that is competent and capable enough to run Google’s word processor (slowly, of course, as RISC OS only uses a single core); and a new stack that will, in the end, bring a much more up to date networking system, as well as no more closed source nonsense for Resolver and MBufManager. Oh, and IPv6 for when/if your ISP bothers to roll it out.

Just let that sink in. Whatever you may think of ROD and their intentions, they didn’t endlessly debate options and possibilities on a forum. They toddled off and made shit happen.

The way I see it, and this is only my personal opinion, is that the RISC OS bounty scheme, while a good idea, doesn’t attract as much attention as one might hope because, well, it’s a weird old OS ¹ and it’s a massive pile of assembler, and it’s twenty-odd years of neglect of some fundamental parts. So while ROOL has a bounty thing going, it seems to me that ROD is being a bit more proactive in trying to find people to do the jobs that need doing. Given the new browser and stack, I’d say they’re doing alright in that respect.

As to who is talking to whom, do you really think that ROD have gone their own way and are ignoring ROOL, or some drama like that? I’m quite sure the people behind the scenes know what’s going on. Maybe even one or two around here, that are (wisely!) staying out of the fray.

I guess it’s hard to even justify them letting us in on the master plan when a discussion regarding who is actually funding what turns into, well, “if RComp/ROD will try to revert that”. What the actual ² hell?

¹ That doesn’t resemble Windows or Linux in any conceivable way.

² There were several words here that were better omitted.

@ Rick

I don’t recall anybody anywhere making claims to the contrary.

Steve seemed to imply there were things done to rise alarms and concerns. My point was in reference to an HYPOTETICAL scenario where such alarming situations MAY BE taking place (but I do not believe they are).

I am pretty sure that no one wants to revert it to the past, hence I believe there is no reason to be alarmed for people making changes.

If all changes are Open Source, ROOL can pick them and improve the main OS. This was my point Rick, I guess I have no way to communicate with you at this point. Next you’ll try to be right anyway, which will result in me thinking it’s a waste of time even trying to communicate on here.

Copyrighted? Extremely important. It’s how open source works. ;-)

I have been saying this for along time, so yes. My point was to revert it back to pieces that are not accessible and reusable and for which one has to pay as a must for. Not copyrighted as in licensing terms only. My bad, I should have mentioned 47 times “only copyrighted”.

The way I see it, and this is only my personal opinion, is that the RISC OS bounty scheme, while a good idea, doesn’t attract as much attention as one might hope because, well, it’s a weird old OS 1 and it’s a massive pile of assembler, and it’s twenty-odd years of neglect of some fundamental parts. So while ROOL has a bounty thing going, it seems to me that ROD is being a bit more proactive in trying to find people to do the jobs that need doing. Given the new browser and stack, I’d say they’re doing alright in that respect.

I agree on that, and again I have no issues with ROD distributing Direct, I think it’s a great idea.

I guess it’s hard to even justify them letting us in on the master plan when a discussion regarding who is actually funding what turns into, well, “if RComp/ROD will try to revert that”. What the actual 2 hell?

What are you trying to do here? Trying to twist my words? Totally misunderstood them? Why did you omit: so (just by hypothesis) if RComp/ROD will try to revert that…

What I meant there was: I don’t think RComp/ROD are doing anything wrong, but if someone wants to be paranoid and, – BY HYPOTHESIS -, wants to really think there is going to be some bad behaviour then… blah blah

Anyway, whatever are the reasons not to share, it’s simply not very open source, whatever is the “master plan” as you call it. And, even if there might be justifiable reasons for this, then it simply means that the actual situation is unavoidable. Unless either you or Steve are asking the community to freeze and wait, in which case having new distros is a good thing (again).

So, again, I do not see issues with multiple distros.

If all changes are Open Source, ROOL can pick them and improve the main OS.

It’s all a case of using a compatible licence on the code I would have thought.

Since, as Rick regularly points out, GPL isn’t even compatible with itself¹ and even invokes the devils (lawyers), let’s just stick with a nice simple one like Apache. I’m sure ROD/RComp had a reason for picking Apache and encouraging that use.

¹ and definitely not CDDL.

@Paolo – perhaps some people are not welcoming a new distro because it’s been hard to see the real need for it in terms of your project. In your more recent posts, I’ve noticed you also talking about a new hypervisor-based kernel, which would give more justification to a new distro, obviously. But until then, it seemed like what you were developing could probably exist happily as a series of applications and utilities that would install onto most people’s existing systems, whatever distro they were running.

I guess the point is, it’s probably not helpful when the user base is very small to have a relatively large number of different distros, as it makes things confusing for new users (which distro is best to pick?) and arduous for developers to test things on. I’d say given that your Desktop Modernisation Project would likely appeal to new users (as it’ll give them features similar to what they’re used to having on other OSes), perhaps it’s worth trying to get it included with RO Direct, which is also aimed at a similar audience?

I really welcome your work, and I think the YouTube videos you’ve posted of how it’s shaping up are very exciting. Would it be possible to deliver the results via !PackMan so anyone on any distro can use it?

Anyway, whatever are the reasons not to share, it’s simply not very open source, whatever is the ‘master plan’ as you call it. And, even if there might be justifiable reasons for this, then it simply means that the actual situation is unavoidable. Unless either you or Steve are asking the community to freeze and wait, in which case having new distros is a good thing (again).

I think there seems to be some misunderstandings around this.

ROOL explained their future plans (so called Master plan) in their virtual talk at the last Wakefield Show in April 2021, its also in the YouTube of the talk.

Andrew Rawnsley with his ROD hat on has explained both in his virtual talk at the show last April and in these forums, how they are working with ROOL on a number of projects to develop the OS as a whole, and have contributed to some of the bounties to help them be progressed. ROOL and ROD as Andrew has explained have monthly meetings to discuss issues/progress and they have been helping developers interested in doing a bounty. In other words they are helping co-ordinate the various projects for the OS.

I do not see anything underhand in this or any conspiracy against ROOL etc. The fact they do not publish these
meeting details is to be honest none of our business, they are private meetings.

So, again, I do not see issues with multiple distros.

To be honest there are not multiple distros, the ‘Direct’ one and the so called R-Comp ones are still the ROOL one with either extra software to help new users in the case of ‘RISCOS Direct’, and the R-Comp one is simply the ROOL one they are happy to support with certain extras things for those models of computer. The same can be said of the ‘distro’ as supplied with the ‘Fortress’ its just the basic ROOL one with extra for softwares. They might in the case of the ‘RISCOS Direct’ and the one suppied with the Fourtress just have a branding, but are just the ROOL version at heart, given marketing names.

It may be ‘just extra software’ but it’s important for the end user to be able to easily update it. I think that system builders and integrators should endeavour to add software on top of the basic ROOL disc image by using PackMan wherever possible and not just pulling stuff in with scripts. Otherwise a user might find that they have an application that they don’t use, delete it, but have left its configuration tool behind to cause confusion later.

I agree Stuart, or, at the other extreme, removing the software leaves a broken system.

To be honest there are not multiple distros, the ‘Direct’ one and the so called R-Comp ones are still the ROOL one with either extra software to help new users in the case of ‘RISCOS Direct’, and the R-Comp one is simply the ROOL one they are happy to support with certain extras things for those models of computer. The same can be said of the ‘distro’ as supplied with the ‘Fortress’ its just the basic ROOL one with extra for softwares. They might in the case of the ‘RISCOS Direct’ and the one suppied with the Fourtress just have a branding, but are just the ROOL version at heart, given marketing names.

Just to avoid confusion, as Chris says, the “distro” supplied with our machines is not a “distro”. It is the basic HD4, with a lot of curated software added for extra value (and some links to software that can’t be distributed, to save users wading through the internet for them!), plus a Theme and a Pinboard background – I’m sure these things are allowed for end users! The only “custom” thing is a purely aesthetic change to the BootFX screen on start up, plus a few tweaks to config.txt and cmdline.txt that others probably do anyway. Users can change the ROM (and firmware) supplied for a standard ROOL one, either stable or nightly, as they wish. I don’t want people to be hampered by the supplied ROM not being the one they want – use whatever you like, you don’t have to wait for one to be released specifically. Indeed, one of the new projects that we hope to show at London has been created on that basis – it MUST run a standard ROM, not a custom-built one, even though that may have been an easier way of getting it out there.

If users choose to delete any of the software supplied, that’s up to them. It may leave a file in Choices that is redundant (who doesn’t have those every now and again) but they’ll just lose the functionality of the thing they delete. There’s nothing on there that bungs in a Configure plugin. I’d love for everything to be installed by PackMan, for easy updating, but some of this stuff, although still useful, is very old stuff, abandoned by the authors, so it’s unlikely to ever make it onto PackMan.

All this talk of distros has me muddying the waters in my mind by thinking more of Linux distros. And there is no way that Ubuntu is like Puppy is like Endless is like Raspberry Pi OS to the end user. If we start making things THAT different, we’re in a mess. All three hundred of us, or whatever low number it is.

It is the basic HD4, with a lot of curated software added for extra value

Isn’t that, uh, sort of the definition of a distro? :-p

hope to show at London has been created on that basis – it MUST run a standard ROM, not a custom-built one

I’d be interested to know why, or more specifically what the difference is between a standard and custom ROM, given that the end result of passing the source through the toolchain ought to be more or less the same thing.

And there is no way that Ubuntu is like Puppy is like Endless is like Raspberry Pi OS to the end user.

I suppose it depends upon how you define “distro”. Underpinning all of those is the same Linux kernel, filesystem, and arguments over systemd.

It’s the stuff on top that changes and gives each distribution it’s flavour. We won’t have it quite like that as we only have one window manager…

The question is, however, can I assume the presence of anything that isn’t built into the ROM? Is AMPlayer present? RDSP? Ffmpeg? USBJoystick? SerialUSB? MIDI?

It may be that the answer is “it depends”, and there lies the problem.

how they are working with ROOL on a number of projects to develop the OS as a whole

Yup. Pretty much what I was getting at. There’s no great conspiracy, hypothetical or otherwise, and nobody is going to run off with the source code … which would be pretty pointless as anybody with the current source can carry on using that regardless of what anybody might think they could do to the contrary. Yes, even forking and keeping the OS open. So to even raise this as a potential hypothesis is pure and simple fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

with certain extras things for those models of computer.

That makes sense, if there’s a requirement for specific software to support a machine.

Otherwise, I can’t help but think that it would be better to rally around Direct so we have a minimal version (the standard ROOL one) and a with-the-cherry-on-top version (Direct).

@ WPB

Would it be possible to deliver the results via !PackMan so anyone on any distro can use it?

Yes, this was the initial plan, I am still pursuing it because I believe it’s important which is also why I am making sure RiscPkg can support all my requirements. I believe everythign in RISC OS should be easy to upgrade, so I totally agree with Stuart’s point here:

It may be ‘just extra software’ but it’s important for the end user to be able to easily update it.

However,
some people started the usual song of “Hey you, do not pollute my RISC OS with your stuff”, this has probably been triggered by other users being excited at the idea of having my changes also on Vanilla RISC OS, so both me and quite few others had to point out (multiple times) that my work is completely optional, aka if one doesn’t like it, just doesn’t use it ;)

Anyway, in the hope to avoid any further discussions on the matter I thought: You know what? If I make a new distro and bound the updates only tot hat distro, then the “grumpy Jo” will be reassured that his “noble” RISC OS blood would remain pure :)

This, in the end, would potentially have to be done anyway, if the experimentation with the Hypervisor based approach works, so not really extra work (I have to build a custom image anyway to test the hypervisor experiments).

But, no, even this is under criticism. I guess there is only one way to solve this and that way is: no longer care about this forum. I guess the meaning of “open” has been lost at this point.

@ Chris Huges

I think there seems to be some misunderstandings around this.

ROOL explained their future plans (so called Master plan) in their virtual talk at the last Wakefield Show in April 2021, its also in the YouTube of the talk.

I agree there is a PROFOUND misunderstanding around my point, not ROOL.

I was answering to Steve Fryatt comment, let me repost it again:

By all means have the different organisations working together: that’s a good thing. At present, however, it seems to be far from clear that this is happening from the point of view of an end user.

I agree on working together, so my comment wasn’t against Steve’s point btw. However, working together seems to be a synonymous of collaboration and collaboration requires dual-way communication.

I may not grasp the “urban” reinterpretation of the term collaboration, but, in my limited English it means:
“the act of working with another person or group of people to create or produce something”

If someone announce their plans, that is not an act of collaboration, that is an act of declaring their own intents, which is TOTALLY OK, so I am not judging ROOL or ROD. I am simply stating that, if there is a lack of collaboration, is mostly because of lack of “methods” to intercommunicate and collaborate. Not that I refuse to collaborate or that I am not interested in collaborating.

With that said, if there is a top-down model of whatever form or sort (even when there are justifiable reasons for that), indeed that model is not “Open Source”, it is as simple as that.

Let me mention that Linus Torvald is very unhappy with the secrecy that has been forced on the Linux developers community at the time of Spectre and Metldown vulnerabilities. That clearly gives you an example of Open Source culture I am talking about. Again, ROD/ROOL are totally free to decide what is their approach, but they also accept the consequences of such choices as we all have to do in life.

@ Chris Huges

To be honest there are not multiple distros, the ‘Direct’ one and the so called R-Comp ones are still the ROOL one with either extra software to help new users in the case of ‘RISCOS Direct’, and the R-Comp one is simply the ROOL one they are happy to support with certain extras things for those models of computer.

I totally agree on this.

However, in the case of my “distro” things could be seen in a different way. The components I am developing indeed change the way a user interact with RISC OS desktop, here are some examples:

• Apps filer will be replaced by my own Apps Filer that does the same job, but in a different way for the user (to each user to decide if it’s better or not)
• Filer will be replaced with a different Filer that does the same job, but in a different way for the user
• New global short-cuts which do not exists in Vanilla RISC OS
• Notification framework that does NOT exists in Vanilla RISC OS and, as Steve Fryatt pointed out well, it does ADD new APIs to RISC OS (although if just in the form of WIMP messages)
• New Theme Manager that does more and uses a different protocol than the Theme Manager in Vanilla RISC OS
• New components as the releases progress over time
• Other gadgets and tools that indeed exists already, so this is the repackaging of existing tools

Also, in the future, it may add a new boot process and indeed other components below RISC OS as well as new Modules with new APIs.

So, indeed in my case the changes could have a huge impact compared to Vanilla RISC OS. So, I guess Steve’s points are valid in my case.

Am I making sense?

I suppose it depends upon how you define “distro”

I kind of think that “therein lies the rub”…

very old stuff, abandoned by the authors, so it’s unlikely to ever make it onto PackMan.

Unless we Make It So.

If it’s not in PackMan, how would anyone else find it? Creating packages for old stuff is quite easy, and enables users to just look at the PackMan interface, decide that they don’t want x, y, z, and click Uninstall.

@ Rick

Yup. Pretty much what I was getting at. There’s no great conspiracy, hypothetical or otherwise, and nobody is going to run off with the source code … which would be pretty pointless as anybody with the current source can carry on using that regardless of what anybody might think they could do to the contrary. Yes, even forking and keeping the OS open. So to even raise this as a potential hypothesis is pure and simple fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

And that was exactly my point. Just expressed in the form of “Ok, let’s assume for a moment that all the conspiracy theories are true, then… nothing will happen anyway, so stop being afraid”

very old stuff, abandoned by the authors, so it’s unlikely to ever make it onto PackMan.

Unless we Make It So.

That is exactly the point of my RISC OS community on GitHub. Collect and preserve the old sources and move them to PackMan together with having created an org so, if I decide I want to go to live in a tropical island far away from any form of computers, I have an accident, or I decide to become some guru meditating on top of some mountain: THE RISC OS COMMUNITY STILL HAS ALL THE SOURCES AND REPOSITORIES and also already other maintainers, so will not have any problem out of it.

And meanwhile I decide between tropical island or guru meditations, the community also has all the sources to learn from and create new and better software.

Did I mention I am also porting code from other operating systems and also creating new libraries and tools for RISC OS?

Oh and putting some serious effort on securing my RiscPkg repository, I have PCI-DSS compliance status and highest ranking from different test tools, this for the safety of this very community. And all provided for free.

So, you’re welcome guys ;)

If it’s not in PackMan, how would anyone else find it? Creating packages for old stuff is quite easy, and enables users to just look at the PackMan interface, decide that they don’t want x, y, z, and click Uninstall.

Even if this involves setting up Direct, Fortress, 4té, etc. etc. repos where packages that may be found in those bundles live, just setting up PackMan on those systems to have that extra system-specific repo (for the cases where licensing might prohibit just stuffing it out on the web somewhere or in the standard RISC OS package sets).

@Paolo – Don’t be put off your great efforts. And a hearty thank you from me for all that you’re doing!

+1 to that. I’m sure there are lots of other quiet admirers of your efforts but also try not to take criticism too personally. :)

@ WPB and Mikko

Thanks a lot! Your support means a lot :)

To the comments, it’s not that I am taking criticism too personally, it’s just that the feedback is extremely confusing (at least to someone that is not British I guess).

I appreciate Rick mentioned that there is a cultural thing here, where people tend to be more negative than positive in their feedback, but try to understand the situation from my point of view (in Italy we would say: try to be at my place), it sounds like:

1) We need to go north
2) No, we need to go south
3) No, we need to go east
4) No, we need to go west

Paolo: WTH?? Where do they want to go???? XD

And, on the long term, it becomes frustrating, because it sounds like nothing is good – constantly -. I wouldn’t be surprised that, part of the slow progresses that RISC OS had over the last 30 years, are caused by this situation.

Hope I am making sense.

Paolo: WTH?? Where do they want to go???? XD

And Paolo inadvertently susses out the English and diagnoses how Brexit came to be the mess that it is… 😂