[Vampire] OS3.x VS AROS

[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.

[Niding]

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

That might very well be the case, but we havent really heard anything regarding this.
Amigakit is developing thirdparty software and hardware for 68k, but they have limited manpower. Take Enhancer and Prisma Soundcard; been in the pipeline for a long time, in addition to other software AeonKit aquired the rights to.

Again, I dont hold it against them, as it require alot of manhours to complete, divided on few people.
AOS4 got customers with x1000, 5000 and Tabor in need of drivers and expanded OS in general, so id say Hyperions resources is stretched to the max.
Development of OS3.x is faaaaaaaaaaaar down on the list, id think atleast.

I would be happy to be proven wrong ofcourse

[grond]

Once again, for AmigaOs, the major problem is really the amount of legacy cruft. As an open source developer, there are many constructions I would like to get rid off. However, as a project manager, I would certainly tell my developers not to touch them because they would break applications.

Forgive my ignorance, but to what actual closed-source development are you comparing open-source development of AROS?

Are you fantasising about legitimate, legal and commercial AOS 3.1 development as an alternative? If so, please explain why you think that would be an option. Without this option your pros and cons of open-source and closed-source development are totally irrelevant.

And, given the "competition" of 3.1 as we know it for more than 20 years, I have no doubts that any AROS68k developer interested in replacing 3.1 will be interested in maintaining not only source code compatibility but also binary code compatibility even though new developers will most certainly be discouraged from using some stoneage stuff. After all, without this binary compatibility AROS68k would be as useless for the vampire as some PPC-OSs derived from AOS principles.

[OlafS3]

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?

no to the idea to finance a closed OS as foundation for the future, besides would Hyperion never agree to such a idea

I do not know what Cloanto would do or think but you would get in trouble when preinstalling without approval of Hyperion. I see only a future in a open platform not dominated by one entity, and as long people use the OS and not directly hack the hardware or compile with apollo specific commands they are on the save side. Using a closed OS as base is a risky bet and if Thomas Richter mentions Windows here again, Windows exists for decades and is steady in development, something you cannot say about Amiga. The API changes there too, that to "closed is stable", of course mostly you can still use old software. If the Vampire project would change to a closed software like 4.X as main platform I would be out personal, perhaps even out of the community at all.

[wawrzon]

thor has always been sceptical towards aros and open source in general, as many others, but i think there is genuine good will on his part. looks like from his perspective as a previous member of os4 team he count on a good will of others. we will see if this calculation succeeds but im sceptical

[Niding]

In principle I understand Thomas's reservations, but;

Given the size of the community and the holders of the OS
Given the speed og development, or the lack thereof
Given rather little communication (or slow)
.. etc

Open source starts to look quite enticing.

Again, I agree with Thomas in principle, but OS 3.x doesnt have 10 fulltime developers working on it.

[OlafS3]

Forgive my ignorance, but to what actual closed-source development are you comparing open-source development of AROS?

Are you fantasising about legitimate, legal and commercial AOS 3.1 development as an alternative? If so, please explain why you think that would be an option. Without this option your pros and cons of open-source and closed-source development are totally irrelevant.

And, given the "competition" of 3.1 as we know it for more than 20 years, I have no doubts that any AROS68k developer interested in replacing 3.1 will be interested in maintaining not only source code compatibility but also binary code compatibility even though new developers will most certainly be discouraged from using some stoneage stuff. After all, without this binary compatibility AROS68k would be as useless for the vampire as some PPC-OSs derived from AOS principles.

3.1. API compatiblity is the main goal of Aros, in fact exactly this was used against Aros in the past claiming that Aros is just 3.1 on X86. If anybody finds incompatilities and how to solve them no Aros developer will be against the commit. And even if direction changes then Aros 68k could be forked and development would be ongoing on its own. From what I have read in forums 4.X is not very compatible to 3.X. It is not meant as bashing, just stating that they made different decisions obviously. Compatible would be unpatched 3.1 but you already can get that if you proof that you own it already. With access to the sources you could of course better integrate patches but you would always be dependent of the owner and approvals and few developers and would need to spend lots of money and at the end only owning binaries. I do not see sense in that. If the community really wants to go that route then be it but it would be not my way. And then they would immediately loose any rights to moan about the situation, they would deserve it.

[OlafS3]

In principle I understand Thomas's reservations, but;

Given the size of the community and the holders of the OS
Given the speed og development, or the lack thereof
Given rather little communication (or slow)
.. etc

Open source starts to look quite enticing.

Again, I agree with Thomas in principle, but OS 3.x doesnt have 10 fulltime developers working on it.

there are only two developers (if I count it right) who have both access and interest in 3.X (including signed NDA with Hyperion) and Thomas Richter is one of them. And then he is praising it as the only way to go and opensource if no alternative. To me it sounds like a mixture of personal and economic interests. Perhaps I am wrong there but Thomas is very negative regarding Aros.

[grond]

Are there any known details about this deal? It explains the statement about open-source and closed-source development which basically comes down to the old argument that a wise dictator is better than a democracy.

[OlafS3]

Are there any known details about this deal? It explains the statement about open-source and closed-source development which basically comes down to the old argument that a wise dictator is better than a democracy.

Which deal do you mean? There is none.

As I understand it Thomas Richter proposes that 3.X is licensed from Hyperion and P96 from the owner. Then developer have to adapt both to Vampire, of course getting a "meal" or similar for it. You only get access to 3.X sourcecodes after signing a agreement with Hyperion that you will not contribute to any competing OS, ruling out any MorphOS or Aros devs here and narrowing it to few developers, in fact besides him I only remember one other that seemed to be interested in 3.X and has access. That all looks like a receipt to high costs and high risks because in fact you do not really control the situation.

[TheMagicM]

That all looks like a receipt to high costs and high risks because in fact you do not really control the situation.

yup...hit the nail on the head.

[kolla]

It would have to be ThoROS then

[Iggy]

no to the idea to finance a closed OS as foundation for the future, besides would Hyperion never agree to such a idea

I do not know what Cloanto would do or think but you would get in trouble when preinstalling without approval of Hyperion. I see only a future in a open platform not dominated by one entity, and as long people use the OS and not directly hack the hardware or compile with apollo specific commands they are on the save side. Using a closed OS as base is a risky bet and if Thomas Richter mentions Windows here again, Windows exists for decades and is steady in development, something you cannot say about Amiga. The API changes there too, that to "closed is stable", of course mostly you can still use old software. If the Vampire project would change to a closed software like 4.X as main platform I would be out personal, perhaps even out of the community at all.

OK, that is consistent with what you have stated before.
Paying for the development of a closed source product (outside of license or registration fees) seems a little weird to me as well.

[wawrzon]

To me it sounds like a mixture of personal and economic interests.

perhaps on part of others, who he refers to, but almost certainly not on his part. he doesnt make such an imperssion to me and i would refrain from such accusations. closed source is his preferred philosophy and he has repeatedly expressed that. it a general point of view, no matter what.

Perhaps I am wrong there but Thomas is very negative regarding Aros.

he is not. you are being over sensible. he simply sees things from other perspective.