Why should I use Amiga?

[SamuraiCrow]

@Hans
The Pegasos 3 has/will have dual PowerPC 970MP processors (two cores each).  And I don't know when it will ship.

@Anon123

The bootstrap code would require that the Pegasos 2 have a licence to run AmigaOS 4.  AmigaOS 4 is not published in its final form yet.  And, as I mentioned earlier, AmigaOS 4 is a closed-source, commercial operating system.

[Matt_H]

@ anon123

The only thing preventing OS4 from running on generic PPC platforms like Macs and the Pegasos is some sort of legal stupidity. The code changes needed to be able to boot it on something other than AmigaONE hardware could probably be accomplished within a week (and some claim to have done it privately), but Amiga, Inc., the trademark owners, are being jerks about allowing such a thing. Right now, the only way to get an OS4 system is to buy one secondhand. Very few were made to begin with and those who have them are likely to hold onto them.

The SAM440 board may change this, but don't hold your breath. It'll be months at the minimum, based on past timelines.

Multiuser support is not built into AmigaOS. It can be added to OS3.x systems through a third-party add-on. this is the latest version for 3.9 systems, and this is the base package for older 3.x systems.

Your best bet is to set up an OS3.x emulation environment and start experimenting!

[Piru]

AmigaOS does not have multiuser support of any usable kind. Anyone trying to suggest multiuser.library and muFS are just kidding themselves.

IMO muFS is kind of pointless exercise, as there is no memory protection anyway.

[anon123]

You say some "claim" to have done it privately, have any of these people released their code? Is their a doc somewhere explaining in depth how the Amiga boot sequence works? Could someone point me in that direction, I would like to attempt this (running Amiga on a pegasos or a mac).

What hardware can I run 3.9 on?

[Piru]

@anon123

What hardware can I run 3.9 on?

You linux boxen for example. See the E-UAE link I posted earlier.

[Hans_]

@Piru

Piru wrote:
AmigaOS does not have multiuser support of any usable kind. Anyone trying to suggest multiuser.library and muFS are just kidding themselves.

IMO muFS is kind of pointless exercise, as there is no memory protection anyway.

What does multi-user support have to do with memory protection? Multi-user functionality is just supposed to be a method of making sure that user's have their own environment and don't get at each others files. MuFS does that.

MuFS is not secure in any way; to access a whole partition you only need to change the partition back to FFS and you have unrestricted access to the whole drive. However, I see that as a security issue, not multi-user functionality. If you're really serious about protecting your data you should  use encryption and back up your files regularly.

Having said all that, it'd be nice if someone integrated secure multi-user support to the OS. Like you said, a few prerequisites are required first.

Hans

[Piru]

What does multi-user support have to do with memory protection? Multi-user functionality is just supposed to be a method of making sure that user's have their own environment and don't get at each others files. MuFS does that.

Without memory protection any user can poke some magic location in the filesystem and make all files accessable.

From the multiuser README:

Code: [Select]

Introduction
------------

MultiUser allows you to create a *IX-like environment where several users live
together  in harmony, unable to delete each others files, unable to read those
private  love-letters  of  other  users.   And  this even if several users are
working on the machine at the same time (on a terminal hooked up to the serial
port)

People without a valid login ID and password won't be able to access files you
have made private with MultiUser.  If you make all files private (not readable
for others), the only useful thing they could do, is boot from a floppy.
MuFS doesn't give any of the other true multiuser benefits, such as user specific preferences, or separated user home directories.

So what is left? Supposedly separate file owner info and access permissions, which are trivially hacked.

muFS is even more pointless as muFS user/group info isn't synced with the user/group stuff in the TCP/IP stack. So you have two sets of users and groups to maintain, and you can easily get them out of sync.

MuFS is pointless.

[Matt_H]

anon123 wrote:
You say some "claim" to have done it privately, have any of these people released their code?

No, they can't because Amiga, Inc. will try to sue the pants off them.

Is their a doc somewhere explaining in depth how the Amiga boot sequence works? Could someone point me in that direction,

This is the boot sequence for classic machines. The AmigaONE and Pegasos have additional steps at the beginning that I'm not entirely familiar with, as they have additonal firmware layers that the classic machines don't.

I would like to attempt this (running Amiga on a pegasos or a mac).

Not worth trying, especially since you can't get either the source or binaries of OS4. Either get UAE or a Pegasos with MorphOS.

What hardware can I run 3.9 on?

Any classic Amiga with a 68020 or higher processor and 8MB of RAM, or UAE.

Get UAE.

UAE will answer most of your questions.

It's easy to use.

Amiga Forever is a commercial distribution of UAE that comes with everything you need to set up a system.

Try it. You'll like it.

[Hans_]

Piru wrote:

What does multi-user support have to do with memory protection? Multi-user functionality is just supposed to be a method of making sure that user's have their own environment and don't get at each others files. MuFS does that.

Without memory protection any user can poke some magic location in the filesystem and make all files accessable.

That's a security issue, not a multi-user filesystem issue. The file-system does provide multi-user file access restrictions, even if it's not that hard to circumvent them.  It's not secure enough for critical systems by any means, but it's good enough to prevent non-hackers from accessing/deleting the wrong files.

From the multiuser README:

Code: [Select]

Introduction
------------

MultiUser allows you to create a *IX-like environment where several users live
together  in harmony, unable to delete each others files, unable to read those
private  love-letters  of  other  users.   And  this even if several users are
working on the machine at the same time (on a terminal hooked up to the serial
port)

People without a valid login ID and password won't be able to access files you
have made private with MultiUser.  If you make all files private (not readable
for others), the only useful thing they could do, is boot from a floppy.
MuFS doesn't give any of the other true multiuser benefits, such as user specific preferences, or separated user home directories.

User specific preferences or separated home directories is not the job of a file-system, that's something that the desktop part of the OS should provide. Some people have been doing that with scripts.

So what is left? Supposedly separate file owner info and access permissions, which are trivially hacked.

Yep. That's about it.

muFS is even more pointless as muFS user/group info isn't synced with the user/group stuff in the TCP/IP stack. So you have two sets of users and groups to maintain, and you can easily get them out of sync.

I didn't know about this (never actually needed MuFS). That is definitely a problem. The Roadshow networking stack for OS4 doesn't have users/groups (at least, not in the preferences). I'd say that users/groups handling should be part of AmigaDOS, not the TCP/IP stack.

MuFS is pointless.

I'd say, ALMOST pointless. ;-)

Way back in 2000 some people were going to work on MuFS 2 which was supposed to address the security issues and AmiTCP integration. Sadly, there's been no news from them in 6 years. The current Amiga OS4 release has a certain amount of memory protection that could be used (e.g., you can allocate private memory), so that could be used (for OS4 only). It should really be built in to Amiga DOS though.

Hans

[itix]

@Hans

Sadly, there's been no news from them in 6 years.

To put it in other words, they are no longer using/coding for/sold/your-preference-here Amiga.

It is pointless to attempt to pretend there are developers working on muFS or that Amiga will go multiuser. Amiga is single user system and hacks added on top of it do not change it.

[Piru]

The current Amiga OS4 release has a certain amount of memory protection that could be used (e.g., you can allocate private memory), so that could be used (for OS4 only).

That wouldn't work (as protection) anyway, as user is always running with "root" privileges. So any malware could just use whatever is needed make the memory writable, poke in the patch, and then write protect the memory again.

For multiuser to be really secure, the underlying system must be built from ground to have proper access control. Basically this would require total OS rewrite, basing it on some BSD (unix) like kernel.

[Hans_]

@Piru

Piru wrote:

The current Amiga OS4 release has a certain amount of memory protection that could be used (e.g., you can allocate private memory), so that could be used (for OS4 only).

That wouldn't work (as protection) anyway, as user is always running with "root" privileges. So any malware could just use whatever is needed make the memory writable, poke in the patch, and then write protect the memory again.

For multiuser to be really secure, the underlying system must be built from ground to have proper access control. Basically this would require total OS rewrite, basing it on some BSD (unix) like kernel.

I said private memory, not read-only memory. Private memory should, in theory, only be accessable by the task that created it. Therefore, only the task that created it should be able to change it's protection status. I have no idea if this is actually the case in the current implementation.

Point taken though.

Hans

[Piru]

@Hans-

Private memory should, in theory, only be accessable by the task that created it. Therefore, only the task that created it should be able to change it's protection status.

Even if it was, it's trivial to patch some OS function and make it do some dirty work. This way the malware can "force" the correct task to do it's evil bidding.

Similar patches were used against current multiuser already.

[Amigamia]

The correct question now should be: Why you shouldn't use amiga anymore?

 :lol:  :-P

[Tomas]

anon123 wrote:
I am a hobby programmer with experience in Linux. I'm interested in alternative O/S's and Amiga caught my eye. I figure if the user-base is so dedicated, there must be something to it. From both a user and developer point of view, what makes Amiga (modern, MorphOS, AROS, OS4 etc.) so good?

It was very ahead of it's times, but it sadly is now starting to lag behind modern systems due to the fact that it has not really been developed since commodore vanished in 94.
So you have to remember that it lacks some essential features like full memory protection, multiuser capability and similar. It does however still have some advantages, like the rad disk, small footprint, pre emptive multitasking, dataypes and so on.
I also like how the libs go into the libs drawer, the executables go into c, drivers going into devs, monitor conf going into monitors, filesystem goes into dosdrivers and so on.. If you need to add a driver or filesystem, you just simply drag and drop it into the appropriate drawer.
Also you can simply install games/software just by dragging the folder over to your hd and then just delete it once you dont want it anymore, which means no need for painful install and uninstall process that often leaves traces.

But remember that it right now is more of a hobby system, and thus cannot really be compared to even linux since it lacks things like a decent browser and features like memory protection. It is however very pleasant to use as long as you keep in mind the current limitations.

[Tomas]

I was considering AROS, what would you recommend I use? How does the Amiga forever thing compare (I perfer Free (as in freedom))?

Aros has absolutely nothing now in terms of software base compared to AmigaOS 3.x, 4.0 and MorphOS. I only recommend Aros if you yourself want to spend time improving it by developing software or improving upon Aros itself. It is just not ready for end users yet.

Amiga Forever is basically just a emulator package which includes the classic AmigaOS, so it wont be the same as running it native.