Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: First Aros 68k Kickstart boot screen!  (Read 14509 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vidarh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 409
    • Show all replies
Re: First Aros 68k Kickstart boot screen!
« on: November 03, 2010, 09:44:12 AM »
Quote from: fishy_fiz;588945
Also having AROS run on a real 68k Amiga will help greatly in improving api compatibility for other architectures as well as helping with bug fixing. There's also things like minimig, natami, and variations on UAE that benefit.


This is so important it's worth repeating.

Being able to run real Amiga programs as test cases, even when we don't have the source, will give us pretty much all of Aminet and a bunch of old commercial apps as a resource to draw on to track down bugs.
 

Offline vidarh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 409
    • Show all replies
Re: First Aros 68k Kickstart boot screen!
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2010, 09:55:11 AM »
Quote from: kolla;588943

 I do not see why you think this - CBM developers were magicians? You think gcc cannot compile efficient m68k binaries?


To be fair, there *are* parts of AROS that are definitively not optimized for speed and low memory usage, so we will need to work on that once it's up and running.

As an example, the console.device in real AmigaOS has optimizations that only scrolls a single bit plane if the visible text uses only pen 1. AROS doesn't do any bitplane masking yet because it doesn't make any sense on the chunky modes used on PC hardware.

Though many optimizations like that are easy to make once AROS runs on Amiga hardware (in this case, just needs to do a SetWrMask() when we know its safe).
 

Offline vidarh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 409
    • Show all replies
Re: First Aros 68k Kickstart boot screen!
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2010, 02:11:53 PM »
Quote from: TheGoose;589279

Yeah, that sounds very open source to me.

You can still make money with a GPL license. And it would really look more professional and legitimate to allow an object third party to say what the conditions are.

Selling:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html


You do realize the term "open source" was coined by people that were tired of the GNU zealots and that wanted a more pragmatic approach, don't you?

I'm more concerned about what *I* can do with the code than what other people might do with the code, so to me at least it doesn't matter if someone else releases close source versions that includes some of the source.