Anubis, Icaros, and XAmiga...

[aperez]

Who do the Anubis people (hmm sounds like a '50s sci fi film) hate Amiga users so much?  Clearly there's a lot of bad blood.  Anubis/Arix is an odd man out, if it's built it will not be an Amiga and it will be a Linux, but a Linux that is incompatible with all other Linuxes.  Great.  Maybe it should be called PlatypOS...

Persia,

Vitriol from either side is far from helpful, but let me clarify that Anubis will retain a usable level of compatibility with the standard Linux filesystem hierarchy. Especially in the beginning, our focus needs to be on usability. I invite you, and anyone else who is interested, to participate in the project.

For those of you who feel the need to argue over the semantics of whether or not Anubis does or does not constitute a Linux distribution, go at it all you want. It's ultimately a waste of your time as well as the other participants on this forum who have to scroll past/ignore your drivel. As the old adage goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all.

In they end I suppose they're all charity OSs, AmigaDOs, AROS, MOS, Anubis, but as they say on Sesame Street, one of these thing is not like the other...  Anubis belongs in the "Alternative Operating Systems" discussion.  They need a charity OS over there too!

Once again, arguing over semantics is not getting anyone anywhere. I see no reason why Anubis shouldn't include a minimal version of hosted-AROS, along with E-UAE, "out of the box" as it were. The perception that there's somehow bad blood between these projects is entirely of your own creation.

Additionally, my hat is off to Piru and the entire MorphOS team. They have built a stable, quality product and deserve my respect. Their passion and steadfastness over the years is to be lauded, if you ask me.

[kickstart]

@Dammy

Sincerely, i want morphos because is amiga compatible its fast and a reality, what can i make with anubis? open office, gimp...?

[AJCopland]

@Kickstart
Are you just going around every thread that mentions Anubis and venting your dislike deliberately? That kind of thing isn't particularly nice and when dev's read these responses it can be a bit hurtful. They're members/readers of sites like this too and they're making Anubis simply because they've been involved with other efforts and those experiences have shown them that it's time to try another way.

Please don't condemn or put down peoples efforts right from the start. At least give them some time to prove themselves even if you don't feel that they're efforts on AROS (for example) mean anything.

Andy

[kickstart]

No, dont worry, i dont wrote my "opinion" anymore on anubis threads, but dont compare anubis with aros for example, aros exists... bye.

[paolone]

Funny. I can read today, about Anubis, the same rants I could read many years ago about AROS...

[Argo]

and where would we be without AROS?

[persia]

Yeah, they said the same thing about Amiga OS 5 too!!!!

Funny. I can read today, about Anubis, the same rants I could read many years ago about AROS...

[novaburst]

Just for the record, as Aperez has already mentioned, there is no bad blood between Anubis and AROS. Actually, it is just the opposite. The Anubis people still work on and totally support AROS.

I love AROS!

[dammy]

Just for the record, as Aperez has already mentioned, there is no bad blood between Anubis and AROS. Actually, it is just the opposite. The Anubis people still work on and totally support AROS.

I love AROS!

Good example is Dr. Schulz's work on AROS-ARM.

[persia]

I fail to see the problem with Linux file structure, everything is in it's place.

/boot -> kernel and any other bootable files
/root -> The user, "root", home directory
/bin -> System binary executables runnable by root and normal users
/sbin -> System binary executables runnable only by root
/lib -> System shared library files
/var -> Logs, runtime process locks
/etc -> System configuration
/tmp -> Temporary files
/usr -> Userland files (non-system)
/usr/home -> Users' homes
/usr/lib /usr/bin /usr/sbin -> Same as previous except non-system
/usr/local -> Userland files specific to the local installation
/usr/local/lib /usr/local/bin /usr/local/ec -> Same as previous except for locally installed applications

[aperez]

Persia, you're a little late to the party, as usual, but the so-called "Linux" filesystem to which you refer is really nothing more than an inherited directory structure from much older unices which predate BSD and Linux by a good 15-20 years. I use and administer hundreds of Linux servers each day, and in that context, the directory structure is acceptable, if not ideal. However, it is very un-user-friendly and unnecessarily complex for your average home user.  The other issue that many have with it is that manual removal of applications requires one to delete files from upwards of a half-dozen to potentially a dozen different directories. Bundling related units more closely makes a greater amount of sense. This is what Application Bundles did in the OpenStep specification, and before that, in NeXTSTEP (OpenStep was a codified version of most of the APIs which were originally developed in NeXTSTEP. The resources for a given application should be contained within an application bundle itself (which is, in the case of OpenStep and OS X, simply a directory which is handled in a special manner by default by the file manager). The codified Linux FHS requires that application resources be in /usr/share, etc. This makes no sense to a casual user, and is actually extremely unintuitive.