The OpenAmiga Standard

[bloodline]

I love the thoughts flowing through the forums right now!!!


One such idea is the OpenAmiga standard, a way to define what features are avaiable across the AmigaOS clones, so that developers wishing to support all AmigaOS platforms can follow.  A type of POSIX style standard for the Amiga Platform.

This should be decided by the Community not the AmigaOS clone teams :-)

-Edit- Some common factors are:

AmigaOS 3.1 API
CyberGFX
AHI
BSDSocket
MUI
SDL
OpenGL

[Dagon]

Me as an AmigaOS 4.0 supporter I like very much that idea, lets make also a poll (I wrote about it in the other thread) here in Amiga.org to see what others believe. (but first let`s discuss it here to see the advantages and the disadvantages and try to find the solutions.)

AmigaOS 4.0, MorphOS, Aros like the BSDs :-) (sort of...)

[bloodline]

Dagon wrote:
Me as an AmigaOS 4.0 supporter I like very much that idea, lets make also a poll (I wrote about it in the other thread) here in Amiga.org to see what others believe.

AmigaOS 4.0, MorphOS, Aros like the BSDs :-) (sort of...)

Well exactly that!!!

Poll arn't really necessary!! we just neeed to think about what API's are covered by all systems. (I've given a list of what I think is lowest avaiable spec, others may have thought about other stuff!!!)

Such a standard would open up the whole game to a lot more applications and hopefully Amiga users. I would be great to be able to, as tricly said, release software that is OpenAmiga compatible and know that it will include a version that will work on your system!!!  :-)

[DaveP]

Hmmm.

I like the basis behind the idea but I think you will have a problem choosing either CyberGFX or Picasso96 "standards" as neither are particularly open or within our domain to control. Plus I think you get into the Cyber vs Picasso debate. Given you have made the decision to throw away WOS and PUP may I suggest you throw away P96 and CGFX?

Also including MUI will cause similar strains. What would be more useful is if you just stuck to the AOS3.1 API as being the open standard revision #1 and then allow other bodies to submit revisions to that for sound, graphics and higher level interfaces.

This forces subcommittees to get the political and technical issues out of the way.

Sort of the way that CORBA is handled by OMG.

[Warface]

Nice initiative.

Realistic mode ON

This will die in envy and intentional wrongdoings.

Realistic mode OFF

Having such a system, kept clean and used by all participants with good will and intentions - ehh, uhh... Sorry, my imagination fails me :-)

I have some recollections that I saw some posts discussing the low level keyboard layout, where MOS developers decided to use AROS or Amithlon "standard"? (precedents)

Setting up standards is a fine idea. I'd even dare to entrust AROS developers with that.

This should be decided by the Community not the AmigaOS clone teams

Mention THE company too. ZICO specification... There are still no ZICO compilant devices... Hope this initiative will have better results, and will be better maintained.

The website is on its way!

http://openamiga.tk

[DaveP]

@Warface

Exactly. Thats why Im suggesting to throw everything out apart from what is in AOS3.1 and anything new that comes in should not be one or the other of the contencious subsystems in popular use.

This would mean to adhere to the standard might be just a matter of an API which is glue code to an underlying subsystem like CGFX or its the excuse to do a completely new implementation rectifying all those design and implementation flaws....

However I too am skeptical about the practicality of this idea.

[bloodline]

DaveP wrote:
Hmmm.

I like the basis behind the idea but I think you will have a problem choosing either CyberGFX or Picasso96 "standards" as neither are particularly open or within our domain to control. Plus I think you get into the Cyber vs Picasso debate. Given you have made the decision to throw away WOS and PUP may I suggest you throw away P96 and CGFX?

Also including MUI will cause similar strains. What would be more useful is if you just stuck to the AOS3.1 API as being the open standard revision #1 and then allow other bodies to submit revisions to that for sound, graphics and higher level interfaces.

This forces subcommittees to get the political and technical issues out of the way.

Sort of the way that CORBA is handled by OMG.

Paccasso96, is CGX compatible... THat's why I went with CGX  :-o

[DaveP]

Thats true, but imperfectly so. But the point is do you remember the fora flamewars about P96 vs CGFX?

[Warface]

Exactly. Thats why Im suggesting to throw everything out apart from what is in AOS3.1 and anything new that comes in should not be one or the other of the contencious subsystems in popular use.

I agree with CGX/P96 and MUI/Reaction independency. And I admit, I have no idea how to set standards that fit and favour both.



However, we can avoid reinventing the wheel and having different standards if we standardise the lowest level standards. (Like standardizing the raw keycodes for certain keys which are not available on the classic amiga, having the same OS functions for extra mouse keys in each alternative, etc.)

We have some precedents what we can use/integrate into the new OSes. Some need changes, some are good as they are.

Amithlon and AROS has experience with standard, PC world hardwares, while MOS and AmigaOS4 is just a follower. Having different standards for MOS and AmigaOS4 than AROS/Amithlon in low level hardware handling may lead to irrepairable "standard" issues.

As both OSes are still in a maturing phase, it's easier to set the standards now, than later.

Agreement from all sides is needed though.

Sod the low level stuff, it's the High Level things that need standardising between the platform IMHO.  Same API's across platform is a lot easier.

In fact lets sod CGX/P96, and just go SDL/MESA.  No problems then,  as long as the host OS redirects it's SDL/GL calls to whatever lowlevel GFX device driver correctly then why should we care as developers?

the higher we abstract things the easier this will become IMHO.

Same goes for AHI too.

[DaveP]

Yep, but you have to go low enough such that behavioral aspects are consistent.

Where that is, I don't know. :-)

[Step]

I dont think this will work, all Amiga-like systems are in heavy development and setting these "standards" may risk the momentum.

I also believe that at this time, we need to let the devs do their thing, implementing the things they feel is necessary for the continuation of their respective systems.

On the other hand, i do not mind standards for stuff like office documents and the like that may encourage cross platform communications, but that is something spanning over all computer systems.

[filson]

Very nice proposal. I'd have to go with mdma on the lowlevel abstraction. that way it'll also be up to the developers of the platform to optimize code paths instead of laying this as a burden on the standard.

[DaveP]

Well that is why the standards need to start with a portable subset, which may risk not being able to do certain things:

1. Music/sound.
2. Open custom screens.

This basically returns us to the OS3.1 API which is there already, in fact less than that because we are ignoring calls to screens and the like that would tie us to AGA, P96, CGX whatever - so we are basically looking at apps that open on the workbench screen.

Later revisions can tackle common apis for the bits that have to be sliced open. But as a developer you know that if you code for the portable subset, its going to work.

Problem is, how to "open" a proprietry API like AOS? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.