[Vampire] OS3.x VS AROS

[Gulliver]

So how I see it to go Thomas Richters route:
Pay Hyperion lots of money for the license
Pay the owner of P96 for a license
Pay  one or more developers for adapting both (in case of 3.1 you certainly  need to sign NDAs what reduces the number of developers being able to do  that)

And then you are very much dependent on the owner of 3.1., you cannot fork and develop in a different direction.

Then what is what you pay for? Just a binary?

I do not see any sense in that...

As much as I would like to see a new version of AmigaOS for Amigas, Olaf seems to have it right in pointing out the huge effort required.

Fork Aros is the name of the game.

[OlafS3]

as a example I compared graphics library routine by routine between Aros, 3.5 and 4.X

http://www.aros-platform.de/html/graphics.html

I did not compare in detail if everything is implemented everywhere, just if the routine is available

if you look at it you see that aros has in some cases new routines but also some missing but most are there

I had planned to do more of such comparations but dropped it because of lack of time. Perhaps I will do just to counterproof people that claim aros is not compatible to 3.X

[Fats]

AmigaOs as an operating system carries a lot of legacy cruft along, old layers of software, weird and rough layers such as graphics or the shell. An open source developer would be very tempted to get rid of this cruft.

I don't think you can speak about this in generalized terms as everybody is different and has it's own reasons to do something. Especially for the Amiga case this is not true as you have 'strange' people there like Toni Wilen and Jason McMullan. Guys who enjoy hacking enough BCPL cruft in the AROS68K kickstart so you can boot from the OS3.0 Workbench diskette.

[guest11527]

Then what is what you pay for? Just a binary?

Yes, guess what. Do you have the sources of Windows? Or Microsoft word?

[wawrzon]

Yes, guess what. Do you have the sources of Windows? Or Microsoft word?

even though i dont use ms office (guess what, libre officer is fine for me) and as far as i remember you are rather linux than widnows user, there is still some fine but meningful difference.

ms products wont cease to exist tomorrow, its statisctically certain  that they will continue to regularly release their products and will stand to their announcements to a fair extent.

this is not the case with "companies" in question here. we have numerous times witnessed that they are struggling on the edge of sole exictence, let alone to stand up to and deliver in any volume close to what have been expected and announced. this doesnt look like dependable business partner, that would help to move something forward. rather the opposite has been proven.

[HaukeVB]

Then, I would suggest that the vampire core should also go Open Source, don't you? After all, this is then a rather unfair game. Vampire as a closed source product depending on the work of open source developers, work that is required to run it and *sell it*?

I agree, that it should be open-source. You can still make money of open-source, lot's of companies do!

The problem I have with open source is that it's mainly driven by making its developers happy. So nice software interfaces, nice code and so on. Not by making its users happy, which is something different. There is no, or only little target driven development.

I do not see the connection of open-source and usability. That all depends on the project and the kind of software. I do agree, that it is more difficult to achieve user-friendliness, but that is also true in closed-source development within a team of developers.

But what you fail to see is one very important issue: Survival of Code.

All closed source code is bound to fail with any system change. The developer looses interest, or might even die. Then, the ideas and solutions are lost to us as a comunity. Only open-source ensures the work endures and enables the platform to go on, long after all of us have gone.

Yet, I would want to go even further. I would like to see as many hardware designs open-sourced as possible. We are entering the truly golden age of retro-computing. In a few years, we will be able to order one-off printed PCBs and if the designs were open sourced, one could maybe order a DKB memory expansion to a A2630...
 
We would have somthing new: Survival of Platform

But we cannot just recompile DPaint 4 if we like. Running an open source Os development that must run and support a huge library of closed source applications is something that looks like trouble for me.

We can recompile DPaint 1 and one day maybe DPaint 4 if the source is ever released. But that is exactly my point. We should try and get as much software open-sourced as possible, only then can we move forward.
 

But why, just tell me why? Why should the vampire replace your PC? Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. The PC is more powerful, faster, has all the applications, so why do you even want to start a competition? Amiga is exactly not about running a lookalike of the Windows Explorer on a 68K or a Java Applet (isn't that deprecated anyhow) in a browser.

Yes, you are 100% correct and I do agree with you, however, all this would be better than a closed source MorphOS or AOS4 system, where a company holds us at ransom.

All I am saying is, IF you do it, there is really no alternative to AROS...

[wawrzon]

But what you fail to see is one very important issue: Survival of Code.

exactly.

[Iggy]

As I understand it Cloanto owns the whole 3.1 IP and can do whatever they want with it.
Hyperion are merely a licencee of the code and the AmigaOS trademark.

"As I understand it.." hmm...the only documentation I am aware of is the licensing agreement Hyperion got from Amiga Inc, which as I said before clearly states that Hyperion is the only entity allowed to develop future operating systems from 3.1 source code.

Then again, I have never bought into Bill's claim that he owned those rights and as Cloanto was also a licensee, their claims are equally questionable.

Although it would appear to have been some recent activity between Bill and Cloanto (that none of us are party to) that formally or informally solidifies Cloanto's claims.

And why not, Bill is specifically forbidden from releasing Amiga like OS' (ain't that hilarious as he 'owns' the right to the Amiga trademark).

So, lets have a quick review.
We have Cloanto (a former licensee), Amiga Inc (that at best bought trademarks and little else - and then may not have properly transferred those rights between the corporations Bill and his associates were operating under), and finally Hyperion (run by a lawyer who rather cleverly tricked Bill out of the rights to OS4).

Do you people trust ANY of these guys?
I don't, but I do trust Mark Olsen, Frank Mariak, and the rest of the MorphOS team.
And I trust that the AROS developers have no malign intention (as there is no profit motive for them to do anything dirty).

And I am also quite fond of Trevor Dickinson (@ Aeon) and Paul Gentle (@ Varisys).
They do their best and they are working to help a lot of ungrateful people who don't seem to realize that there is not much money in this stuff anymore (too small a market).

Paul seems to be the only one I have mentioned in this whole diatribe who has actually made some money.
AS HE DAMNED WELL SHOULD HAVE.

After all, he isn't from our community and the people in the markets he usually services don't expect work to be done for them FREE.

So, again, AROS guys.
It makes more sense than anything other than a port of OS4 to 68K.

And I'm not paying Cloanto for an OS I have owned for two decades.
No..freaking..way.

[OlafS3]

Yes, guess what. Do you have the sources of Windows? Or Microsoft word?

You miss the point... you just compare Amiga OS 3.X or 4.X with Windows and Hyperion with Microsoft. I buy Windows as binary but I can trust Microsoft that they invest in their product. In case of 3.X it is obvious that Hyperion has no interest to invest in it, if they can make some cheap money they do but nothing else. So the platform becomes dependent of a very very small company that controls the sourcecode and few developers with NDAs. To me that sounds not very reliable. What happens if company changes direction, looses interest or goes bankrupt or is sold? Your whole business and planning is based on the software, finally software decides what people can do with a platform. So you say API stays stable on closed source platforms... as far as I know this is not the case neither for 4.X nor MorphOS and both are closed. Closed only means one or a small group of people controls the software. You say 3.X would be stable at API in opposite to Aros. That might be because only few people have both access and interest in 3.X. To me that sounds more like stagnation. You say people are using amiga solely for retro to play old games. That is certainly true to a certain degree but I think few people will buy Vampire just to run the old games with 68060 (what makes some even unplayable). My view is people of course still want use old software but also expect new software using new hardware features implemented in the FPGA. People should have the choice, a old patched 3.1. for pure retro but also something new. And I do not think that in the current legal situation 3.X could offer that.

[OlafS3]

@Iggy

A crazy idea and from my side a simple no

But you know that already...

[Iggy]

Olaf, no to which part?

Personally I'm just not ready to queue up and get bonked over the head again by what is left of the Amiga community.
So no to Cloanto, AInc., Hyperion.

Why not an open solution?

[wawrzon]

You say 3.X would be stable at API in opposite to Aros.

having a stable practical reference such as the pool of existing amiga software is even more that having just a stable api.

[QuikSanz]

having a stable practical reference such as the pool of existing amiga software is even more that having just a stable api.

On this I fully agree, and not too hard to make more either!

Chris

[TheMagicM]

IMO... AROS 68k would be the way to go.  Eliminate the problem companies (Hype, Cloanto, anyone else trying to throw some sort of copyright out there to slow progress).

The window is open.  Lets see who jumps out there and takes opportunity by the reins.

[QuikSanz]

Amigakit is supposedly open to new development for 68k.
Cloanto has rights..
Amikit probably has a plan...

[IanP]

I don't see why Apollo needs to be made open source if it is to make use of AROS. Some discussion about supporting AROS (68K) development has taken place (I also believe some actions have already been taken). If the Apollo team do decide to switch to AROS ROMs and AROS distributions I would expect to pay a small premium on the hardware with funds going into AROS bounties. The Apollo team don't selfishly want something for nothing from an operating system, they would have been happy for Hyperion or Cloanto to make a commercial AmigaOS upgrade for 68k/Apollo Amigas but there appears to be no interest from the IP owners.

If like me you think PPC has turned out to be a wrong move by the various parties that have gone down that route then this is a very exciting time. What began with Minimig is finally paying off as FPGA technology has allowed the development of real hardware that enhances the capabilities of the Amiga greatly whilst maintaining good compatibility and all at a very affordable cost.

The Apollo core has been in development for a long time and is still improving but there hasn't been direct parallel development of an Amiga 68K OS. AmigaOS 3.x has continued to be patched up and benefited from some AROS work to give a rag bag of configurations. The back port of AROS to 68K was a big step forward but more work needs to be done and in my opinion it's the correct place to focus on. As soon as a suitable AROS build is available and the 68K parts of the Apollo ISA are considered complete (well tested/no known bugs), AROS is the way to go.