Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Niding on February 23, 2016, 01:03:50 PM
-
So, there has been alot of chatter lately with regards to the way forward regarding Vampire.
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=81535
While Im currently a OS3.9 user, and enjoy it as it is (plus the improvements thru boingbags ofcourse). Some users enjoys OS 1.3, 2, 3.1 etc, while some might want a OS that is being developed within the 680x0 hiarchy.
AROS has been considered dead in the water since its not gotten the attention it needs from more than a handful of developers, but that might change in the coming months.
Reason is the issue of OS3.x and potential legal issues with regards to using/developing it futher.
Tbh I havent bothered following the xxx threads and pages regarding this issue on both this and other forums, but as I said above, there is to an increasing degree discussion wether or not to go all in AROS instead of the dormant OS 3.x.
Im sure the Vampire crew will let people intrested in sticking with OS3.x do so regardless of the choice forward, but for futher development it might be a intresting discussion to be had since it could potentially affect vendors for example.
One of the "problems" with OS3.x, is that if Vampire sticks with it, they might face issues down the road, enhancements being blocked since those holding the OS sourcecode might (?) not be intrested in developing it futher, or parts of it depends upon others copyrights.
Im just starting a thread on this topic since it was raised as "something someone should do", but noone seems intrested in doing so :)
-
One of the "problems" with OS3.x, is that if Vampire sticks with it, they might face issues down the road, enhancements being blocked since those holding the OS sourcecode might (?) not be intrested in developing it futher, or parts of it depends upon others copyrights.
Actually, that's not quite my impression. It's not so much a "they" issue either. The problem is rather that at this point, there is not (yet?) enough confidence of each of the parties involved in the overall business, so much talk has still to be done to understand the interests of each other, and to get everyone "in line" with goals and targets of a business.
I certainly understand that Vampire cannot build on 3.xx if there is no long term committment. However, neither can there be a long term committment from the Os owner(s) if vampire is an untrustful business partner and if there are no developers that want to tackle the work in long term - after all, any such commitment would require a continuous stream of income, and this continuous stream of income would be again required to finance the further development of the Os components, namely the developers. This is neither coming for free.
The third party, namely the developers, also need to have confidence that their enthusiasm is well-invested into a long-living project again, i.e. a stable platform to invest any time into, and potentially, to get an (even small) monetary compensation for this investment.
If you ask me, the vampire needs as much an updated Os as updating the Os requires the vampire. So, why the heck not try to make a business case out of this? I believe one of the important reasons why AOS development focussed on the PPC was because nobody could imagine that there would be any further hardware development on the 68K side. Now that this obstacle has been overcome, there is neither a reason to let the 68K development stall. Actually, there is *more* reason for 68K development than for PPC development. Legacy applications are a very important, if not the most important asset here.
-
Thanks for the response Thomas!
Well, depends on the amount of money being discussed vs what can realistically be recouped from Vampire sales. Kind of a chicken and the egg conundrum.
Lets say $xx xxx, thats alot of money to recouped on a hobby project.
On the flipside, I strongly belive that developers needs to get paid for their efforts.
But I can see hesitation from the hardware side if they have to pay that kind of money upfront for example. And then there is the issue of who gets access to the source to futher development.
-
I dont understand the need to bundle a KS with the Vampire.
Just let the user load whatever he/she wants.
Most people these days dont use a "clean" KS3.1 anyway.
-
I dont understand the need to bundle a KS with the Vampire.
This is about much more than bundling a kickstart with the vampire. It is providing an extensible environment within which the vampire can grow and blossom.
For example, the vamire requires in the long run a stable graphics system to offer true color output. As soon as it gets more registers, it needs a new context switch in exec. As soon as there are new hardware units, it would require new datatypes to take advantage of the new features.
Most people these days dont use a "clean" KS3.1 anyway.
And this is exactly what needs to resolved and part of the problem. If everybody is using a different operating system, there is no longer a common ground to develop applications upon. There is already an increasingly complex playground of patches and extensions, and this does not exactly facilitate the usage of new hardware as it makes its use unnecessary complex.
-
Let's ask the MorphOS team to target the vampire instead of AMD64 for the next version and the Vampire guys to bundle a copy with each board sold. ;)
-
This is about much more than bundling a kickstart with the vampire. It is providing an extensible environment within which the vampire can grow and blossom.
Yes, but bundling it together with no other options, makes me have to participate in financing the KS license.
I already bought it more than once, dont feel like doing it again.
Also, I'd like to continue using my patched/enhanced KS.
For example, the vamire requires in the long run a stable graphics system to offer true color output. As soon as it gets more registers, it needs a new context switch in exec. As soon as there are new hardware units, it would require new datatypes to take advantage of the new features.
No problem. When that time comes, the user can decide if he wants the new features, and then buy the updated KS.
And this is exactly what needs to resolved and part of the problem. If everybody is using a different operating system, there is no longer a common ground to develop applications upon. There is already an increasingly complex playground of patches and extensions, and this does not exactly facilitate the usage of new hardware as it makes its use unnecessary complex.
Well, in my opinion the users should get the option to buy the product without bundled KS and load their own, knowing that certain features will not be available to them if they do so.
-
Yes, but bundling it together with no other options, makes me have to participate in financing the KS license.
I already bought it more than once, dont feel like doing it again.
Also, I'd like to continue using my patched/enhanced KS.
No problem. When that time comes, the user can decide if he wants the new features, and then buy the updated KS.
Well, in my opinion the users should get the option to buy the product without bundled KS and load their own, knowing that certain features will not be available to them if they do so.
The laws that allow us to get a refund from Microsoft for the unwanted operating system sold with a computer we buy would also apply to the Vampire.
If there is not an option to buy it without KS3.1 then I'd ask for a refund under those laws as I already own several KS3.1 ROMs.
AFAIK even ACube issue a refund for the cost of OS4 if you buy a SAM and don't want the bundled OS.
-
As a developer, I agree, we should go all in for AROS.
For one, it is open-source. This is a really important for a developer. It helps in understanding the OS and it gives security.
Also, being able to have a powerful development machine (i.e. a fast PC) can really improve software quality.
All the effort put into AROS and applications for AROS help AOS4 and MorphOS anyway (as long as these efforts are open-sourced as well).
However, as I understand, Vampire V2 gives you 128MB of memory. This is very little for todays needs.
I would want to see a JDK 8 port for AROS, but that seems just not feasible on 68k (There is JAmiga 2 for AOS4). If we had 4GB, we could bring most modern applications to the Amiga, but I do not know if this is possible on 68k. And this is holding me back... big time :nervous:
-
Yes, but bundling it together with no other options, makes me have to participate in financing the KS license.
I already bought it more than once, dont feel like doing it again.
I don't know what you bought or did not. There never was an upgradable license for any kickstart, so if you had 3.0, you were not entitled for a free 3.1 upgrade. If you had 3.1, you were not entitled for a free 3.9 upgrade.
So I don't see why there should be an "upgrade for free".
However, currently the vampire does require a customized kickstart, so yours does not work right away. Furthermore, if more features come, you need a new exec scheduler.
-
As a developer, I agree, we should go all in for AROS.
For one, it is open-source. This is a really important for a developer. It helps in understanding the OS and it gives security.
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*?
Also, being able to have a powerful development machine (i.e. a fast PC) can really improve software quality.
The development machine does not need to be identical to the target machine, and I don't see how this relates to the open vs. closed source debate.
All the effort put into AROS and applications for AROS help AOS4 and MorphOS anyway (as long as these efforts are open-sourced as well).
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.
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.
However, if you rather want to keep users happy rather than developers, such "unpleasant" code parts have to stay, and the design has to adjust to such requirements. This is typically an unsatisfactory, unpleasant task, a task that requires a lot of insight knowledge from how the Os has been used. Not everything of this cruft is really "coded in software".
It's really hard to enforce that in an open source development. If I look again at Linux, interfaces change more or less on a daily basis, both within the kernel, and also on the application level. This is my personal nightmare, even more so as I consider running legacy applications a primary development goal. This problem simply does not exist for Linux - you can recompile the application for the new interface if you need to.
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.
If you'd say, ok, we start from scratch and write a new Os for 68K, and write new applications for it as well (as it happens for Linux), I'm all with you. But then I would surely not design the Os as AmigaOs in first place. It has too many misconceptions and design errors to begin with.
However, as I understand, Vampire V2 gives you 128MB of memory. This is very little for todays needs.
But that's really the point, isn't it? If you want to satisfy today's needs, why do you need a vampire in first place? You got your PC already, do you? Vampire is not about "today's needs". It's IMHO satisfying "the needs from 20 years ago".
You seem to dream of an AmigaOs that replaces your windows machine. However, this is not going to happen.
I would want to see a JDK 8 port for AROS, but that seems just not feasible on 68k (There is JAmiga 2 for AOS4). If we had 4GB, we could bring most modern applications to the Amiga, but I do not know if this is possible on 68k. And this is holding me back... big time :nervous:
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.
It's - for me at least - running DPaint 4, the shell and the workbench. Plus, not having to wait for so long anymore when starting SAS/C. Approximately.
-
I don't know what you bought or did not. There never was an upgradable license for any kickstart, so if you had 3.0, you were not entitled for a free 3.1 upgrade. If you had 3.1, you were not entitled for a free 3.9 upgrade.
So I don't see why there should be an "upgrade for free".
However, currently the vampire does require a customized kickstart, so yours does not work right away. Furthermore, if more features come, you need a new exec scheduler.
I said nothing about anything "for free", I said leave it to the user to decide.
If specific patches are required for the Vampire, release the patches so the user can apply them to his legally bought KS himself, then load it to the Vampire.
I see no problem with this.
As for me, I legally own KS3.1 and OS3.9 and would like to keep using the OS3.9 KS updates.
-
As a developer, I agree, we should go all in for AROS.
For one, it is open-source. This is a really important for a developer. It helps in understanding the OS and it gives security.
Also, being able to have a powerful development machine (i.e. a fast PC) can really improve software quality.
All the effort put into AROS and applications for AROS help AOS4 and MorphOS anyway (as long as these efforts are open-sourced as well).
However, as I understand, Vampire V2 gives you 128MB of memory. This is very little for todays needs.
I would want to see a JDK 8 port for AROS, but that seems just not feasible on 68k (There is JAmiga 2 for AOS4). If we had 4GB, we could bring most modern applications to the Amiga, but I do not know if this is possible on 68k. And this is holding me back... big time :nervous:
Gunnar has told me that they work on a standalone device that will both a lot faster and has more RAM, if I remember right 2 GB. That is enough for even modern needs. Do not ask me when it will be available and how much it costs, I cannot answer :-)
-
I said nothing about anything "for free", I said leave it to the user to decide.
If specific patches are required for the Vampire, release the patches so the user can apply them to his legally bought KS himself, then load it to the Vampire.
I see no problem with this.
As for me, I legally own KS3.1 and OS3.9 and would like to keep using the OS3.9 KS updates.
I think this is the plan. But adapted will be Aros because (as already mentioned) no license fee, open sources and guaranteed availability. And it offers RTG, in case of Aros a implementation of CybergraphX 3.
-
I said nothing about anything "for free", I said leave it to the user to decide.
If specific patches are required for the Vampire, release the patches so the user can apply them to his legally bought KS himself, then load it to the Vampire.
I see no problem with this.
As for me, I legally own KS3.1 and OS3.9 and would like to keep using the OS3.9 KS updates.
double post
-
@Thomas Richter
You are totally wrong there, you think everyone is only motivated by money. I am not against money, expecially when I invest more than spare time in a project. But that is not all... when I started with my 68k distribution I realized the potential of Aros for the 68k community. For some time I got mostly the same things told you are also saying... why Aros there is 3.X
There is 3.X but the sources are more or less useless today even for our small community sticking legally in nowhere.
For me it has the advantage of:
sources free available
no license fee
guarantee not to be destroyed by anyone out there
That are big advantages. Regarding being bad that open source being used for something commercial. Was that serious? If yes I cannot speak for every aros developer of course just for myself... I would be more than happy if it would be used. That was my vision years ago... one OS for real and future hardware and emulation, free distributable and evolving to a kind of standard.
-
I said nothing about anything "for free", I said leave it to the user to decide.
This is all fair enough...
If specific patches are required for the Vampire, release the patches so the user can apply them to his legally bought KS himself, then load it to the Vampire.
...but this is were the shady part begins. If you as a user apply a patch to your kickstart, this is probably fine enough and nobody cares, but if the product *depends* on you modifying a system component you as a user do not own, but have only licencened, then this product may breach the Os license.
It's really not quite so easy.
If the vampire runs on an unaltered, original Kickstart, then there is of course no problem to begin with. This is necessary to be able to sell it without conflicting with your kickstart license. Or at least IMHO. Again, IANAL.
As for me, I legally own KS3.1 and OS3.9 and would like to keep using the OS3.9 KS updates.
Sure, but that's really a matter of the vampire design, isn't it? You can of course keep the Os 3.9 updates as you have them and bought them, but it's not up to the Apollo team to patch Os 3.9 to keep it working. It's up to them to design the core such that it runs Os 3.9 natively.
-
@Thomas Richter
From your posts it is obvious that you have not done much with Aros 68k. I have no problem with that, I have the same interest left in 3.X... zero
But do not make judgements just based on opinions because you prefer 3.X
-
@Thomas Richter
You are totally wrong there, you think everyone is only motivated by money.
No, and I never claimed that. But a developer that is not motivated by money is motivated by the beauty of the design (or, at least mostly, and typically). Unfortunately, this is exactly *not* what we find in case of AmigaOs.
Again, to repeat myself, the motivation between closed source and open source are entirely different, and the source of the motivation does not necessarily correlate well to the needs of the project.
For me it has the advantage of:
sources free available
no license fee
guarantee not to be destroyed by anyone out there
Yes, but the drawbacks are that
you cannot steer the development
you cannot enforce compatibility
you cannot ensure that your users are happy (unless your users are your developers)
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.
Can you really tell open source developers: "Hey, keep this interface stable for the next years"? My experience with Linux is: No, you can't.
-
@Thomas Richter
From your posts it is obvious that you have not done much with Aros 68k. I have no problem with that, I have the same interest left in 3.X... zero
But do not make judgements just based on opinions because you prefer 3.X
Look, this is not a matter about personal preference. It is a matter of a project design goals and how to reach them. The project design goals, the utterly important goal, is to ensure that we don't break compatibility. Most of the Amiga applications are old applications, and not new ones. We cannot adapt them to new software.
The reason why I believe that a closed source development is the right choice here is not personal preference, but because I believe it is the right development method for the above goals.
-
As Hyperion is the only entity entitled to develop OS' based on 3.1 source code, an enhanced version of 3.1 from Cloanto would still have to carry an OS3.1 designation.
OS4 for the 68K does not seem that unrealistic if the processor is powerful enough.
AROS68K still is not quite 'done' yet (it has more than a few issues).
And frankly, I don't mind paying for another person's work, so NO open source is NOT a necessity.
-
IMHO, would like to see Amiga 68K continued! afaik Hague & Partner did 3.5 and 3.9 so no go on that.
Why not start at 3.1.1 or 3.2 and upgrade form there for a new path?
Cloanto has access to most new libs and patches anyway.
Chris
-
As Hyperion is the only entity entitled to develop OS' based on 3.1 source code, an enhanced version of 3.1 from Cloanto would still have to carry an OS3.1 designation.
OS4 for the 68K does not seem that unrealistic if the processor is powerful enough.
AROS68K still is not quite 'done' yet (it has more than a few issues).
And frankly, I don't mind paying for another person's work, so NO open source is NOT a necessity.
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.
-
Yes, but the drawbacks are that
you cannot steer the development
you cannot enforce compatibility
you cannot ensure that your users are happy (unless your users are your developers)
You most certainly can steer development of your own fork of ANY opensource project.
You are not required to continue down the path of the main branch. Hell for that matter the dos.library of MorphOS is a fork of the dos.library of AROS. looks to me they controlled the direction they wanted to go with it pretty well(they are now very different). I could list some other parts used by MorphOS or AOS4 but I'm lazy. ;)
-
You most certainly can steer development of your own fork of ANY opensource project.
You are not required to continue down the path of the main branch. Hell for that matter the dos.library of MorphOS is a fork of the dos.library of AROS. looks to me they controlled the direction they wanted to go with it pretty well(they are now very different). I could list some other parts used by MorphOS or AOS4 but I'm lazy. ;)
If I remember correctly, also a few gadgets were also backported from Aros to AmigaOS 3.9.
-
But a developer that is not motivated by money is motivated by the beauty of the design (or, at least mostly, and typically). Unfortunately, this is exactly *not* what we find in case of AmigaOs.
thats scary news, since that is exactly the reason of the current situation, there is apparently no money to be made nor personal satisfaction here and therefore there is no updates. what concerns aros state, progress and motivation of the developers you dont even need to rely on deadwoods reports. you can simply judge that quite objectivly based on the rete and content of commits:
https://trac.aros.org/trac/timeline
Again, to repeat myself, the motivation between closed source and open source are entirely different, and the source of the motivation does not necessarily correlate well to the needs of the project.
the question is who defines "needs of the project". in case of os4 there is a "commercial" entity whose interest is a basic support the variety of hardware their customers could be convinced to collect. this is how they earn their money, as its been openly admitted by their technical director. now, does the vaste majority of potential target audience agree with it? it doesnt look like that. so wouldnt it be better to align to what that target audience postulate? this option has been refused and openly blocked for years, while trying to impose the solutions on the audience, argumenting with loyality, necessity to support the platform and the like. in this context open source, like aros, seems like more flexible option.
Yes, but the drawbacks are that
you cannot steer the development
as we see the current politics have led to nothing. in a democracy the leaders would be voted away in such case. in a serious enterprise management would have to take consequences and would most likely be replaced. even a tyrant in a totalitarian state might face a threat of revolution. this is how society dynamics handles such issues, and it happened in case of what is left of amiga: people realized there is no fun here anymore and left.
is there any possibility for wider audience to reconsider and return? i dont know. but certainly not by the means that are currently proposed. and its not solely os4 i am speaking of.
you cannot enforce compatibility
you can, in fact everybody can, depending only on dedication and skills, the sources are at your hands. this is the question of personal initiative and cooperation. the opposite is the case: in closed source development environment you cant enforce anything except you are the leader of the project. you can only pretty please. and this has been proven not to work in this particular case.
you cannot ensure that your users are happy (unless your users are your developers)
we wouldn be talking about this subject if the majority of users/developers were happy with the situation as is. amiga community today only has sense and chance as a pool of initiatives (which it is, look at the amount of projects going on). treated sipmly as a dumb customership and solely as a source of income, that needs some half done products thrown at it it wont fluorish but decay.
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.
therefore it isnt wrong to start from the scratch in certain cases. as a user/tester/contributor to aros68k i see the compatibility improving nevertheless.
Can you really tell open source developers: "Hey, keep this interface stable for the next years"? My experience with Linux is: No, you can't.
you dont need to tell that to the developers, they now that themselves. this is the whole point in aros abi v1, where one of the main references is binary compatibility to the esicting amiga software.
certainly there are corner compatibilty cases where the agreement is difficult, some software poking with the internal structures, which are not exactly aligned as customary, like in case of hd-rec. but even in this particular case the source of the application is open and allows adjustments. see the gain?
-
As Hyperion is the only entity entitled to develop OS' based on 3.1 source code, an enhanced version of 3.1 from Cloanto would still have to carry an OS3.1 designation.
OS4 for the 68K does not seem that unrealistic if the processor is powerful enough.
AROS68K still is not quite 'done' yet (it has more than a few issues).
And frankly, I don't mind paying for another person's work, so NO open source is NOT a necessity.
Yes... please enlighten me about Aros 68k
And there is no option to get 4.X for 68k, it is about licensing a small modified 3.1 version
-
double post
-
If I remember correctly, also a few gadgets were also backported from Aros to AmigaOS 3.9.
and tons of components can be added or parts replaced. Aros includes AHI, CybergraphX 3, Themeing, enhanced menu, Poseidon, PCI/Support, MESA/Gallium (still slow), Windows can moved out of the screen, impoved memory management and many patches you needed to add on 3.1. You can use both Magellan and Scalos now (my personal favorite is Magellan).
You can add MUI 3.8 easily by basically replace 2 files. WHDLoad works, you can add Wazp3D/Stormmesa and so on. When we talk about aros here we talk about the typical base libraries like dos, graphics, intuition, gadtools and so on. I could bore everyone by continuing... :)
I am always fascinated how people that certainly never use aros in general and aros 68k in special have such firm fact based views. I could not and would never do that about MorphOS f.e. because I do not own and use it.
As Terminills wrote you can fork aros if you think it is going in the wrong direction and 3.1. compatiblity is main goal of aros (already used against aros in discussions) so Aros devs certainly will not break compatibility just for fun.
Where Aros is slower certainly when doing operations in ECS/AGA, that is visible in benchmarks. Aros was developed for and on X86 with graphic cards so the original hardware never was a goal. Additionally CybergraphX in Aros 68k is a wrapper on P96 so I could very much guess that Aros 68k directly addressing the framebuffer on Vampire is at least not slower than a similar configuration based on 3.X and P96. As I wrote on ECS/AGA that might be different but I think most new software will be written for RTG and to run old software certainly Aros is fast enough (most old games do not use the OS anyway).
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Then what is what you pay for? Just a binary?
Yes, guess what. Do you have the sources of Windows? Or Microsoft word?
-
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.
-
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...
-
But what you fail to see is one very important issue: Survival of Code.
exactly.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@Iggy
A crazy idea and from my side a simple no
But you know that already...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Amigakit is supposedly open to new development for 68k.
Cloanto has rights..
Amikit probably has a plan...
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It would have to be ThoROS then :)
-
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.
-
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.