Help me understand Cloverleaf

Hi,

I would like to add info about the crowdsourcing campaign “cloverleaf” into the RiscOS Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC_OS

I don’t understand fully through what they are doing, for example, are they creating a fork or is it a way to financially target the particular part of the OS they want to bring to the fore?

Thanks for the inquiry. Please contact me by info@riscoscloverleaf.com and have a look at www.RISCOSCloverleaf.com
I will post here also an answer some later this week.

@Neil Carmichael, I think you are on the right path when it comes to a way to financially target a particular part of the OS. I looked up their website and other social media pages and it sounds like they created a chat app for RiscOS called !Chatcube. It seems like their goals are to create not only more applications but bring improvements to the OS to make it a more modern and a viable OS alternative to Mac and Windows. My hope is that they don’t fork the OS or make another RiscOS distribution because that’s the thing I hate about Linux. I feel like it wastes a lot of talent and hours when people are already doing similar work and the resources get scattered.

@Braillynn You are also on the right path. :-)
We have x missions:

• Find new users for RISC OS
• Make RISC OS know worldwide
• Offer new hardware (desktop, laptop, All-in-one PC)
• Close the gaps with missing drivers
• Add missing apps (mostly by using open source programs)
• Close handling gaps in the GUI (eg. UTF-8 or UTF-16)
• Provide a path to current and future technologies (3D support GPU drivers, Multicore, more RAM, 64 bit)
• Last but not least: Have fun with RISC OS

Our aim is to work with all other parties in RISC OS world together. And the Cloverleaf project is also linked with Andrew Rawnsley so there should be not problem. More problem I see in communications. We don’t want to waste sources also as there is not enough to do all work already. We are planning to finance the other parties in their development efforts if we get enough funding.
Well we have just started and things really will start only when our Kickstarter crowdfuding will go through that starts on 3rd September 2020. If it doesn’t go though then is game over before it really started but so far it looks positive.

My former company Evolution Computer developed the first IDE harddisk interface for the Acorn Archimedes A3000 with 20 MB size. And also the software Merlin ray tracer that was programmed by Frank Föhl who also made the game Iron Dignity demo later (which sadly was not produced for RISC OS).

Hi Stefan,
do you commit that all created code will be released under an apache 2 compatible licence? Including OS updates, missing drivers, and code for your new hardware ports?

Peter – that’s a pretty lofty standard to set, when some drivers may need to be closed source for other reasons. For example, I believe there’s a binary blob driver in the Titanium build for graphics (I may be wrong/out of date) because of NDAs etc.

That being said, it’s a good goal to strive for.

Perhaps it is, but should I be chucking money at proprietary forks of the OS being touted as a way of funding future developments? Should I be sending money elsewhere for longer term benefit?

should I be chucking money at proprietary forks

Uh oh. We ought to ban that word around here, unless it’s referring to cutlery. Look what happened last time…

Anyway, proprietary “forks”, or a build that contains a proprietary driver?

Unfortunately the ARM ecology is not as mature as x86, and a lot of manufacturers have a stick up their ass when it comes to intellectual property rights. Consider, if you will, the Pi. Now we all know there’s an actual chipset datasheet for this thing. But us little non-NDA people? We get a very tiny “datasheet” and years of nuggets of information dumped all over the RPi website. God help anybody that actually wants to look stuff up.

Because of this, closed source binary blobs are unavoidable at this current time¹. It would be great if all this stuff was open, but there’s what’s great and there’s what’s real. The two really ain’t at all similar.

Should I be sending money elsewhere for longer term benefit?

And that would be where? And for what perceived benefit? Would it not make sense to support somebody who wants to develop for the platform? God knows, actual developers are something we’re rather short on.
There’s not a lot of detail on the cloverleaf website, however something I did notice was a plan to support Bluetooth. That, if properly implemented (a full stack) could make a big difference. Bluetooth headphones? Keyboard? Easy file transfers to other devices?
RISC OS seriously needs to play catch up with the rest of the world.

Hopefully more info will come along soon.

¹ Speaking of which, remind me what converts riscosopen.org to a bunch of numbers? Oh yes. A closed source binary blob stuck in every modern build of RISC OS…

My former company Evolution Computer developed the first IDE harddisk interface for the Acorn Archimedes A3000 with 20 MB size.

How?

Just asking, because I could have sworn the HCCS one I had used a combination of logic gates and a 6522 VIA_!
http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/32bit_UpgradesH2Z/HCCS_IDEA3000.html

Hi Stefan,
do you commit that all created code will be released under an apache 2 compatible licence? Including OS updates, missing drivers, and code for your new hardware ports?

Or under the GPL2 license would be nice as well. Open source fan girl over here.

Because of this, closed source binary blobs are unavoidable at this current time1. It would be great if all this stuff was open, but there’s what’s great and there’s what’s real. The two really ain’t at all similar.

Don’t I know it :/ Is the goal of the community to get RiscOS to be a modern Linux/BSD/Windows/Mac competitor?

Or under the GPL2 license would be nice as well.

Don’t. Ever.

GPL is a walled garden that is only compatible with itself … although ironically you can’t mix GPL2 and GPL3 as they both lay claim to being “the licence” so GPL even manages to be incompatible with itself!

From where I stand, GPL is not open source. It is merely “source is available with a long list of conditions”.

Take a read of the EUPL (either version). Note the interoperability clause. That is open. Where the source, and being able to use it, is what’s paramount. Not all that political posturing that is increasingly prominent in the GPL.

PS: You’ll notice there’s no GPL in RISC OS. It’s a mix of Apache (formerly Castle’s custom), CDDL, and bsd.

Is the goal of the community to get RiscOS to be a

We’ll never be a competitor with the mainstream systems. A useful goal, however, might be too introduce functionality that people expect from a fifty euro tablet. Really, people just have expectations of what standard things are available and, well, like I said, there’s a lot of catching up to do.

Or under the GPL2 license would be nice as well. Open source fan girl over here.

Peter was talking about an Open Source licence that doesn’t disagree with everything else as well as disagreeing with itself.
The letters G P and L in combination are regarded as close to bad language around here (and various other parts of the world.)

Is the goal of the community to get RiscOS to be a modern Linux/BSD/Windows/Mac competitor?

I don’t think that this was ever the aim!

It is a useful alternative hampered by the deficiencies previously mentioned.

But it is a viable tool for many purposes!

The philosophy of having separate applications to perform tasks, rather than an incomprhensible “wizard”, is a great strength IMO!

It is unlikely to change the world as we know it, but may still usefully serve those who appreciate its “modularity”.

an incomprhensible “wizard”

The problem is you’re too smart. I think most of us around here find wizards frustrating because they are aimed at getting computer illiterate people to make decisions. You know, the sort of people who think turning on the monitor means they’ve turned the computer on (and that box under the desk must surely be a big cable tidy?).

For those of us who know how things work, the best option is to simply dismiss the wizard, shoot the paperclip on sight, and do things manually. Probably get it done in half the time and better!

Perhaps it is, but should I be chucking money at proprietary forks of the OS being touted as a way of funding future developments?

I’m led to believe that you’re not supposed to ask awkward questions like that.

Or under the GPL2 license would be nice as well. Open source fan girl over here.

The Apache 2 licence was properly Open Source the last time I checked… So was the one that I use… Neither are GPL2.

Is the goal of the community to get RiscOS to be a modern Linux/BSD/Windows/Mac competitor?

Are we not agreeing here? Your tone suggests otherwise!

Je le trouve désagréable !

Je pense que nous sommes actuellement d’accord!

Would it not make sense to support somebody who wants to develop for the platform? God knows, actual developers are something we’re rather short on

Thats it in a nutshell.

All this talk about a fork seems utter nonsense and harks back to a very destructive time so lets keep it consigned to where it belongs in history and lets look forward to how we attract new users and developers to the market before us “oldies” are like the neanderthals and the community no more.

As long as things get feed back to the main source with perhaps odd elements as a blob then that is no different to today with some key OS elements still not open sourced.

I would like to see a real step change with the OS fully in a portable language and 64bit and once it is that then lets have a real not imaginary “fork” and in essence call it RISC OS 7 :-)

“As long as things get feed back to the main source” with perhaps odd elements as a blob then that is no different to today with some key OS elements still not open sourced.

That’s what I’m asking for confirmation on, as there’s no indication so far either way as to whether that is the intent.

Oh my, I had no idea mentioning GPL2 would cause such an uproar. My background is in GNU + Linux, so GPL2 is the name of the game with what I’m familiar with. I understand that the MIT License, BSD Licence and the Apache license are permissive licenses, and that GPL2 is not, but even I commented that I knew their would need to be closed source components in agreeing to Rick’s comments on the matter.

That’s what I’m asking for confirmation on

Unless I am mistaken then was that not discussed in the ROUGOL meeting and clarified as being the proposed route but I assume if you want to be absolutely perdantic then though it was intimated that discussions with the “Cloverleaf” team were on those lines then we haven’t actual heard that from a “Cloverleaf” representative.

Given the person who said that then I have no issues with believing it to be so but I guess others need more proof after all some believe that Covid 19 is a hoax and others are willing to do what ever the authorities say with out actually seeing someone who has it. I guess I am in the latter camp :-)

As for asking for the end goals of RiscOS, I’m new to the forums, I’m new to the OS, and as someone who is largely an outsider looking in it’s interesting to see web browsers being created for the platform, hardware being made for it (titanium, mimi.m, ARMbook etc.), funding (and not small amounts mind you) being poured into bounties on ways to improve the OS. I have to wonder is this all just to get it to a more usable state for a bunch of hobbyists and enthusiasts or are there more serious goals in mind?

Cloverleaf is looking to fund ambitious projects for the OS and gain marketshare for the platform, all that growth can influence other parties to join in and grow the platform as well. If the OS already runs as well as it does on even the original Pi, increasing that potential can make it largely competitive to running Linux or BSD on some of these other SBC’s. Just seems odd to me to think it’s only goal is to be more usable and not as a serious potential competitor to the other OS’s of the world.

Unless I am mistaken then was that not discussed in the ROUGOL meeting […] Given the person who said that then I have no issues with believing it to be so but I guess others need more proof

I’m going to listen back to the video if/when it comes out to be sure that I’m not doing anyone a disservice, but I had the impression that there were two different things being stated at the ROUGOL meeting, even in response to my request for clarification on the point.

Unless I am mistaken then was that not discussed in the ROUGOL meeting

The video of the meeting should be on line tomorrow and I can check then. Whilst I remember discussion of the status of ‘Direct’ patches being fed back (yes they will be if they create any) I don’t remember anything about the status of ‘Cloverleaf’ being mentioned. Are people conflating the two projects? Alternately I could have just missed the bit mentioning it :)

You know, the sort of people who think turning on the monitor means they’ve turned the computer on (and that box under the desk must surely be a big cable tidy?

The standard user term for the box is “the hard disc” and most of the desktop support guys think life is too short to spend time disabusing said users of that idea.