What does Select have that we lack?

Talking about various versions of RISC OS in another thread, it has led me to wonder – what does Select have that we lack?

I am wondering why people would prefer to stay with an older ancient, slower, more power hungry RiscPC class machine with Select than migrate to a little Pi board (or Beagle/Panda/etc) running RISC OS 5. Part of it will, of course, be the 26→32 transition. This isn’t insurmountable, there is Aemulor, though using 32 bit friendly software – if possible – is ultimately the better option.

However, I have heard it said that Select does <this> and <that>.

What are these must-have features?
What does Select have that we lack?

OK Rick, I’ll bite.

What I miss on RO5 OF is, when changing file type is the option to choose type as against having to enter the type.

That’s one!

G.

OK Rick, I’ll bite.

What I miss on RO5 OF is, when changing file type is the option to choose type as against having to enter the type.

That’s one!

G.

I had select and later adjust (roms) on my Risc PC (unfortunately it died) and a 32bit 4.42 at my a9home . Is not easy for me to answer. The language barrier.
The clipboard I like more, the multiuser support, ShareFS handling, images support in the OS, !Paint is better (I use it so with the newer hardware), network handling (I can plug after boot and it works) and more… My wish/hope was that the forks can go together at the future…

Functionally the differences between Select and OS5 are not all that great, OS5 has bigger WimpSlots, Select’s Paint handles more formats. The much larger point is that I use Select because that is what comes with VRPC and I use OS5 because that is what works on the Raspberry Pi. VRPC on my iMac outperforms the Raspberry Pi by a considerable margin, so that would be my first choice but that decision is not based on the relative merits of the OS’s, but it is to do with the performance of the platforms.

Functionally the differences between Select and OS5 are not all that great

Has anyone actually sat and tabulated the feature sets and highlighted differences? Everything I’ve seen tends to be a loose very limited subset accompanied by opinion that seems to descend into yah, boo, sucks.¹
With a decent table people could score the popularity of each feature.

¹ Which was part of the reason many people left the scene and some have stayed away.

What I miss on RO5 OF is, when changing file type is the option to choose type as against having to enter the type.

Oh YES.
I used to use Filer+ on my A5000, and then FilerPro on the RiscPC. It did cool things like thumbnails and, yes, a much nicer “list of filetypes” for the change type. I believe the menu was two level – it would list some of the common filetypes along with the “enter it yourself” option, and there was an “Other” menu that would go to list every type known by the system at that time.
Yup. I really miss that.

the multiuser support,

Isn’t this just user profiles?
It might be possible to do this by hacking !Boot to pieces. Just need to set up user home directories and move all the boot stuff into user specific directories, plus some other tweaks.
[ hehe, I make it sound simple ;-) ]

ShareFS handling,

How does this differ from ShareFS on RO5?

images support in the OS,

I think we may suffer from a lack of PNG support. It’s a shame, !Paint is ready made for designing little icons.

!Paint is better

Does the !Paint bounty address this?

Thank you all for your responses so far.

It might be possible to do this by hacking !Boot to pieces. Just need to set up user home directories and move all the boot stuff into user specific directories, plus some other tweaks.

You’d need to start right at the bottom of the pile and make it log stuff as it built upward¹, selectively loading items from the boot depending on what OS ROM was present to support features and the logged on user (early sequence logon or default)

¹ Handy both while developing and later for boot errors

The biggest thing, for me as a developer, that Select has over RO5 are the much better Toolbox modules. Even the one 32-bit release that ROL did (in 2003!) was better than what RO5 has now.

It’s saddening (maddening?) that all the great work that Justin and Chris have put in seems to be going waste. Just because someone wants to hold on to their toys.

The clipboard I like more

The clipboard is exactly the same, it’s just a protocol after all. What I think you’re missing is out-of-the-box support for copy and paste in writable icons. Easily fixed by using IcnClpBrd.

The clipboard is exactly the same, it’s just a protocol after all. What I think you’re missing is out-of-the-box support for copy and paste in writable icons. Easily fixed by using IcnClpBrd.

Though I prefer the ROL method using a time delay avoiding need for a key press.

Sorry, only the German messages…

How does this differ from ShareFS on RO5?

Share via Menu… (device or folder)

Isn’t this just user profiles?

Not perfect but a “attempt”… I use it as I share my Risc PC with my wife.

Does the !Paint bounty address this?

Not sure. I miss any small things like clipboard and copy&paste selected parts, better snapshot…
Maybe it is inside but I not look at since a long time ;-) I use the a9home paint with all my new hardware e.g. ARMX6.

…IcnClpBrd…

I use IcnClpBrd and it is working fine but is not the same ;-)

Any other small things are also not the same e.g. rename a file by slow doubleclick…

Too bad that the forks do not come together. Would spare double work.

Too bad that the forks do not come together. Would spare double work.

As you say it is a shame, but it is what it is.

Speaking of sparing double work (or “duplication of effort” as the phrase goes) it strikes me that tabulating a comparison of RO 5 and RO6 features would assist in the User Guide work by creating the section headers if nothing else.

Isn’t this just user profiles?

Not perfect but a “attempt”… I use it as I share my Risc PC with my wife.

From the image it would appear that the answer to Rick’s question is “yes, just profiles”. I suspect the work that Justin did was the first stage in a more comprehensive multi-boot that never made it to implementation.

the much better Toolbox modules. Even the one 32-bit release that ROL did (in 2003!) was better than what RO5 has now.

You have beaten me to that, Fred. The bug fixing and extensions done by JF would be extremely useful, and I would expect them to run without modification on RO 5.

Even so, the 2003 set is released to the public domain – so why isn’t it promoted by, or even included with¹, RO 5?

At one point I wrote a rider to Basalt that it would only be guaranteed to work with that set, but I realised that was not going to work, so developers are forced back to the last century for the lowest common denominator.

¹ Ok, there are probably difficulties with the licence, but that should not stop a simple link to download and install the 2003 set.

Even so, the 2003 set is released to the public domain – so why isn’t it promoted by, or even included with1, RO 5?

Freely downloadable from the site¹ if you comply with the license as opposed to public domain (which doesn’t have a proper definition anyway.

Ok, there are probably difficulties with the licence, but that should not stop a simple link to download and install the 2003 set.

The first part of the sentence.

Edit: the link that works…

¹ If you find the link that works. Most of them don’t. Would the link change if ROOL linked to the page?

If you find the link that works. Most of them don’t. Would the link change if ROOL linked to the page?

And I get told off for even mentioning the war!

Love and peace!

The bug fixing and extensions done by JF would be extremely useful, and I would expect them to run without modification on RO 5.

Yes, that wouldn’t surprise me at all. Perhaps ROOL should gently approach 3QD and see if the ROL modules can be brought over to RO 5, even if only in binary form. Currently they serve no-one as developers won’t use them because they are not available on RO 5.

It must sting Justin and Chris that ‘their’ Toolbox isn’t publicly available as I’m sure they did the work so that other developers could benefit.

Even so, the 2003 set is released to the public domain – so why isn’t it promoted by, or even included with1, RO 5?

One reason I guess is that the ARMv7 compatibility is unknown. It’s certainly one of the reasons I was given when people started moving to newer machines and some of my software (which relied on the ROL Toolbox) didn’t work.

so developers are forced back to the last century for the lowest common denominator.

Indeed. I’ve had to rewrite software so that it would work with the RO 5 Toolbox. In particular, aligning columns in a scroll list gadget. It works but is now restricted to monospaced fonts, slower and exposed to the memory leak.

The clipboard is exactly the same, it’s just a protocol after all. What I think you’re missing is out-of-the-box support for copy and paste in writable icons. Easily fixed by using IcnClpBrd.

Though I prefer the ROL method using a time delay avoiding need for a key press.

What time delay? Are you saying that text is automatically copied to the clipboard after a certain time?

I use IcnClpBrd and it is working fine but is not the same ;-)

Smiley noted, but we’re talking about the clipboard here not text selection in writable icons nor drag and drop so I’d say it’s exactly the same.

Adding support for copy and paste in writable icons to RO 5 should be fairly straight forward, whereas text selection would be a lot more work. Why – because the copy and paste part of the Clipboard module is finished but the text selection part is still to be started.

What time delay? Are you saying that text is automatically copied to the clipboard after a certain time?

I believe it was a reference to the delay introduced when you have to let go of the mouse to do a keyboard combination to do the rename selection action.
Which is probably fallacious as the actual naming portion of a rename requires you to let go of the mouse and type on the keyboard.
Select a file (mouse action) Ctrl-R (then Ctrl-U if you want to wipe the existing text or backspace delete unwanted portions) and type the new text.
I don’t see how a pausing double mouse-click then shifting to the keyboard and doing the name edit is any faster.

Again the keyboard shortcuts and actions are available on RO5 if you load QuickFiler. If the functionality could be included in the default RO5 image it would deal with a lot of feature requests.

On the Toolbox: is that something people could do bit by bit?

Even so, the 2003 set is released to the public domain – so why isn’t it promoted by, or even included with1, RO 5?

What is the point, without the sources we would be stuck with the 2003 version. The ROOL version is the only version that we can change and it doesn’t follow that changes will match the ROL branch.

Indeed. I’ve had to rewrite software so that it would work with the RO 5 Toolbox. In particular, aligning columns in a scroll list gadget.

Why not change the toolbox? We are never going to move the version we have the sources for forward if everybody avoids changing them.

@Fred

The clipboard is exactly the same, it’s just a protocol after all. What I think you’re missing is out-of-the-box support for copy and paste in writable icons. Easily fixed by using IcnClpBrd.

Though I prefer the ROL method using a time delay avoiding need for a key press.

What time delay? Are you saying that text is automatically copied to the clipboard after a certain time?

Ignore me. That was written by a resident of the ‘Home For The Mildly Bewildered’.

Any other small things are also not the same e.g. rename a file by slow double-click…

Wot Raik said is what I was actually thinking of.

Any other small things are also not the same e.g. rename a file by slow double-click…

Wot Raik said is what I was actually thinking of.

But to my way of thinking it doesn’t speed up anything as the main delay is when you move your hands to use the keyboard and that is unchanged.

[Toolbox] Freely downloadable from the site if you comply with the license

1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
   
 This license grants you the following rights: 
 
 - Installation and Use. You may install and use an unlimited
   number of copies of the software. 
 
 - Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and
   distribute an unlimited number of copies of the software;
   provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy,
   including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be
   accompanied by a copy of this agreement. Copies of the
   software may be distributed together with other products,
   whether they be commercial or otherwise.

That is pretty broad, and the stated intention was for this version to be available to all users of RISC OS.

I cannot see any reason in this licence to prevent distribution by ROOL, although there may be restrictions from their side.

as opposed to public domain (which doesn’t have a proper definition anyway).

Which is why I used the term; I didn’t want to prejudice anything about licences. ;-)

@ Colin

I do not think there are significant feature differences between the very old ROOL version and the slightly younger 2003 ROL version, but the latter is more stable and is free of some important bugs – the ScrollList memory leak being the biggest.

The shortage of active developers probably means that there is faint chance that the effort will be put into bringing the TB up to even that standard in the near future, despite David F’s promotontion of a bounty.

In that case, developments that depend on the TB are hampered. I cannot see a good practical reason not to make the 2003 TB the baseline for all applications and then hope that the future may bring an interested developer or a rapprochement.

I cannot see any reason in this licence to prevent distribution by ROOL, although there may be restrictions from their side.

I didn’t want to prejudice anything about licences. ;-)

You may well go for a different emoticon if you read this which is the version linked to from the page that has the working links to the toolbox download etc.

So with two different versions which one applies? The one in the zip file distributed with the software or the one on the web page that tells you “It is a condition of downloading software from this server that you comply with the Software licence conditions. By the act of downloading any item of software you are deemed to have read and accepted both the licence conditions and disclaimer.”

So which set have we agreed to by downloading? The set that are in the archive we don’t see until later, or the set one the web site?
My money is on the web site copy – which is a bugger because it leaves out distribution by specifying “a personal non-transferable non-exclusive limited license” :(