Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: on June 01, 2003, 12:56:39 AM
-
The OS4 is the only successor of the amigaos, because we like or not, AmigaInc is now the proprietor of amiga, and everything the rest that they take out (morphos,aros in intel etc...) it is not amiga.
That the Os4 doesn't like? That AmigaInc doesn't like? I find a good opinion (although it doesn't share it), but that this passing with morphos, aros etc.... alone it harms to amiga because divide to the community, and if we are not now many", then we will be less.
I think that the best thing for the amiga had been that they had united the forces all to take out an operating system that truly surprised in the market and not this.
I can´t cancel this postttt :-x :-x :-x :-x :-x
-
OS4 is the only "official" successor to AmigaOS. There are many solutions to using an Amiga-like environment at home, and OS4 is only one of them, whether it has the name Amiga or not.
It is not the clones and emulators and spinoffs of AmigaOS that are harming it. These are only symptoms of the main problem - chronic inaction. For 10 years the Amiga has been left to rot by various useless little companies who either had no interest in the Amiga or no resources to run it.
The only thing now that can harm the Amiga is sticking to one of those solutions that doesn't work, and having another decade of inaction by sticking to yet another useless company that simply does not have the vision or resources to make any difference.
-
:lol:
are you telling us to boycott alternatives to AOS 4??
this is the funniest thread i have read for quite a while - and im including the joke ones
-
laugh, if you want.
Alone I say that I don't find very so many systems for so little community. :-( :-( :-(
-
Redentor5 wrote:
laugh, if you want.
Alone I say that I don't find very so many systems for so little community. :-( :-( :-(
sorry :-)
welcome to amiga.org!! :-D
-
Redentor5 wrote:
The OS4 is the only successor of the amigaos, because we like or not, AmigaInc is now the proprietor of amiga, and everything the rest that they take out (morphos,aros in intel etc...) it is not amiga.
That the Os4 doesn't like? That AmigaInc doesn't like? I find a good opinion (although it doesn't share it), but that this passing with morphos, aros etc.... alone it harms to amiga because divide to the community, and if we are not now many", then we will be less.
I think that the best thing for the amiga had been that they had united the forces all to take out an operating system that truly surprised in the market and not this.
I can´t cancel this postttt :-x :-x :-x :-x :-x
I for one, like the choice that the current "market" allows. I like choice (I'll stop now, before I start to sound like the Matrix 2). ;-)
You can cancel the post... Click edit and delete the words :-D
-
Redentor5 wrote:
The OS4 is the only successor of the amigaos, because we like or not, AmigaInc is now the proprietor of amiga
From an official stand point yes. But i believe AmigaOS is the only real Amiga because, it has OS3.1 as its base code. With out that, its nothing, i would have given it all away. It is the official Amiga, because its the only Amiga.
-
But i believe AmigaOS is the only real Amiga because, it has OS3.1 as its base code.
Code wise, OS4 has as much in common with the 3.1 code as AROS or MorphOS - i.e. nothing but lip service.
-
KennyR wrote:
But i believe AmigaOS is the only real Amiga because, it has OS3.1 as its base code.
Code wise, OS4 has as much in common with the 3.1 code as AROS or MorphOS - i.e. nothing but lip service.
True, the AOS 3.1 source code is of little use to anyone...
From a technical standpoint, AROS is the closest to AmigaOS 3.1... Thus it is binary compatible on 68k hardware
-
Code wise, OS4 has as much in common with the 3.1 code as AROS or MorphOS - i.e. nothing but lip service.
Oh really. And how do you know how much source code in OS4 is based on OS3.1 code? And if they were getting rid of most of it, why would they have put so much effort into getting it to build in GCC so that they could stop having to use special Sun based systems to build it?
-
Well, you're the coder Tickle, not me - how useful is hardware dependent code (a lot of it in 68k assembler) on a PPC? Wasn't it easier just to clone the API as MOS and AROS did rather than try to recycle this old code?
-
AmigaOS4 may be the only official successor to classic AmigaOS, but however there are many AmigaOS-inspired OSes.
To be qualified as being AmigaOS-like or maybe just inspired is very much dependent on the Eye of the Beholder. Some think only MorphOS (in combination with the ABOX environment) and AROS qualify as such, others would include BeOS (and clones), AtheOS, intent and many others on the list as well.
However most modern operating systems which nowadays support advanced multimedia and multitasking features could be considered Amiga-inspired in various ways. And if Amiga application compatibility would make an OS count as a qualified Amiga successor solution then every OS supplied with an UAE solution could fit this decription. Including for example Linux, Windows and MacOS.
-
To be qualified as being AmigaOS-like or maybe just inspired is very much dependent on the Eye of the Beholder. Some think only MorphOS (in combination with the ABOX environment) and AROS qualify as such, others would include BeOS (and clones), AtheOS, intent and many others on the list as well.
Well, AROS is AmigaOS like, becuae it is a clone, right down to the smallest sub system... It works just like AmigaOS 3.1 works. Thus if you run it on a real Amiga, Amiga software won't know that it's not running on AmigaOS 3.1...
BeOS, AtheOS.. etc... are Amiga inspired, but they don't work like AmigaOS 3.1 works.
MOS is clever... and is different to all of the above... it's a bit like two OS's running together... hmmm, that's a bad description... nevermind, you get the idea.
-
For me it's most important to use the OS I enjoy most. I mark today (1.6.2003) as the day when I officially have no other use for my "main PC" but burning cd's. VNC seems to work very nice with my server, so starting today I am 99% MOS user, at least until next year when I probably have replaced that same PC with AmigaOne and OS4.
You may congratulate me :-)
-
I have to agree that the source code to OS3.1 really doesn't play much
of a role in these new systems. The changes involved in rewriting the
entire "exec" and all of the libs/devices, changing APIs, adding new
driver systems, putting emulation functions in and just a general
rewrite of the whole system means changing almost everything in my
opinion. MorphOS seems to have taken a better approach regarding this
matter by building the "ABox" concept to abstract the classic OS from
interfering with the new modern kernal/OS. This means concepts like
real memory protection, virtual memory and multiple processor systems
are implemented in a clean and efficient manner as opposed to trying
to slide it into the old framework. It is easier to build upon the
classic OS and at the same time bring modern functionality into the
system.
Recreating OS3.1 or 3.9 is great but doesn't really add anything new
or open any possibilities for the platform to evolve further. This was
one of the problems with Amithlon, it's a fantastic OS3.9 Amiga system
but doesn't add any underlying layer for the future of the platform
and OS. Meaning, a lot of extra work and time would have to be spent
to bring it up to what's considered modern standards in the industry.
You and I may not care if our OS supports the so called "modern"
standards (it's great anyway, right?), but if we want the platform to
grow and attract new users it is a very important point to
consider...
-
@KennyR:
While I havent seen the sources myself (i wish :-) ), it is supposedly mostly C code with some BCPL and Assembler. The BCPL code is supposed to be finally laid to rest in OS4.
I would imagine there is a lot of useful C code from the 3.1 sources.
-
@ bloodline
MOS is clever... and is different to all of the above... it's a bit like two OS's running together... hmmm, that's a bad description... nevermind, you get the idea.
It's a bit like a closed sourced AROS running hosted on top of Linux or i.e. QNX Neutrino and hiding the underlying technology a la Bernie's Amithlon.
IMO cooperation between MOS and AmigaOS developers could have been very interesting. Instead of hosting re-implemented AmigaOS-like modules on top of the Quark kernel / re-implemented OS3.1 Exec kernel combination (i.e. pieces including AROS code), AmigaOS4 modules could have been used and could IMO have provided an interesting stepping stone towards a non-hosted AmigaOS4 environment.
But maybe the current situation will eventually be better in the long run, resulting into more diversity for potential OS components to be replaced in the future, this depending on different desires of potential users and companies.
-
choice and competition helps the market and can only make each os better . :-)
-
amigamad wrote:
choice and competition helps the market and can only make each os better . :-)
It's really not that simple. The fact is the Amiga market is a micro-market in the much bigger computer market (aka PC market). For the Amiga market to survive the Amiga market itself must continue to grow. So to say that it's good for the Amiga market to have choice is true from someone within the market, however, overall the lack of a solid standard and a united front against the main PC market makes it hard (or impossible) for the general Amiga market to grow.
It is well known that the best way to defeat your enemy is to first divide and then conquor. The Amiga market has voluntarily divided itself up into sperate, smaller, less influential camps that often war against each other. Over all I think the Amiga market is experiencing what I call "destruction". Putting a positive spin on this "choice" is missleading, the net effect is a smaller user base with less software support which equals a dead platform.
There is really only one chance for the Amga to make a comback and that is re-unite. The name "Amiga" is far more powerful then any technical merits and thus makes it a wise choice to become the back-bone of the market. Currently Eyetech make the Amga hardware and Hyperion make the OS and Amiga Inc liscences out it's name. Sounds like a winning combination to me. Support for MorphOS is a waste of time in my opinion and only serves to guarantee the complete failure of both platforms.
- Mike
-
basically - you cant just tell a company not to produce a product. waste of time
and you cant tell people what products to buy, and which to not buy. I will buy whatever I want
if either aos or mos gets the most support, will mainly be upto the users
as i wish to write software for both, i will buy both
-
Glaucus wrote:
amigamad wrote:
choice and competition helps the market and can only make each os better . :-)
It's really not that simple. The fact is the Amiga market is a micro-market in the much bigger computer market (aka PC market). For the Amiga market to survive the Amiga market itself must continue to grow. So to say that it's good for the Amiga market to have choice is true from someone within the market, however, overall the lack of a solid standard and a united front against the main PC market makes it hard (or impossible) for the general Amiga market to grow.
It is well known that the best way to defeat your enemy is to first divide and then conquor. The Amiga market has voluntarily divided itself up into sperate, smaller, less influential camps that often war against each other. Over all I think the Amiga market is experiencing what I call "destruction". Putting a positive spin on this "choice" is missleading, the net effect is a smaller user base with less software support which equals a dead platform.
There is really only one chance for the Amga to make a comback and that is re-unite. The name "Amiga" is far more powerful then any technical merits and thus makes it a wise choice to become the back-bone of the market. Currently Eyetech make the Amga hardware and Hyperion make the OS and Amiga Inc liscences out it's name. Sounds like a winning combination to me. Support for MorphOS is a waste of time in my opinion and only serves to guarantee the complete failure of both platforms.
- Mike
You make a vaild point, but I would hate to be back in the commodore situation again... the parent company goes bankrupt... the end.
At least with MOS and to a greater extent AROS, we have a chance to continue...
-
Redentor5 wrote:
The OS4 is the only successor of the amigaos, because we like or not, AmigaInc is now the proprietor of amiga, and everything the rest that they take out (morphos,aros in intel etc...) it is not amiga.
That the Os4 doesn't like? That AmigaInc doesn't like? I find a good opinion (although it doesn't share it), but that this passing with morphos, aros etc.... alone it harms to amiga because divide to the community, and if we are not now many", then we will be less.
I think that the best thing for the amiga had been that they had united the forces all to take out an operating system that truly surprised in the market and not this.
I can´t cancel this postttt :-x :-x :-x :-x :-x
Amiga Forever** is an official licenced package btw… I do recall Bernie**** having an official licence for the “Amiga X86” project.
** For the virtual machine market, just like MacOS's SoftWindows 95 product (which actually uses the real MS Windows 95 source code).
-
@Glaucus & bloodline
You`re both right, a note from me:
MOS & Aros were born as a solution for further development of our OS, a time that there was no hope (years stuck on 3.1 and hudrends of patches).
Then there was 3.5 and a few time later 3.9 with its BoingBags. That was shaking the waters. Now a major development on PPC with writting the OS quasi from scratch, and a new platform with a new CPU.
The situation is not the same now and then, want it or not. But there are some differences as for the market:
-AmigaOS4 has the name and it`s officialy the next thing to 3.9 ( with portability to the old CSPPC )
-The AROS is for free, you get the amiga feeling with high performance on cheap PC-hardware, and possible portability on other architectures
-MOS is for the moment pegasus-dependant, which means its success is heavyly based on the success of its hardware platform.
AmigaOS is the first, the other 2 are amiga-like OSs. The impact on the market is, as Glaucus said, split which means loss for both parts (AOS & MOS).
For AROS you don`t have to invest on new hardware (as most of the people has a PC) to get running apps or develop on it. So its future seems bright to me, because even if the Amiga or Amiga-like OS fail, AROS may continue as the solution (as was conceived on the beggining). If they succeed, then no harm it`s always independent and free to use even by the non-community members.
________
Herbal vaporizers (http://vaporshop.com)
-
All right, a lot of people are saying the OS4 must win because it's the only successor to AmigaOS 3.x. But lets look at this more closely.
So for everyone out there who has this opinion, what does OS4 actually have in common with OS3?
Was it done by the same team of coders and software engineers?
No.
Was it licenced by the same companies, the original Amiga and Commodore?
No.
Will OS4 have any connection to OS3 more solid and palpable other than the ability to run Amiga software, such as AROS or MOS do?
No.
Is it hosted on new ingenious hardware? Or even minorly customised hardware?
No.
Does it have an empty brand name bought by a company with absolutely nothing in common with the original Amiga?
Yes.
Make of that what you will, call it flamebait if you like, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact that Fleecy and Co. own the brandname DOES NOT make OS4 and the A1 anything special in itself, and DOES NOT make OS4 more 'Amigalike' than MOS or AROS or Amithlon or UAE or whatever else is out there.
If you want OS4 because you think it is better, fine. If you want it because it keeps well away from unusable linux ports and keeps Amiga-like, fine. If you want it because you have set your heart on it, fine.
But if you want it just because it has a brand name, ask yourself very seriously whether that is a good enough reason or not to reject the other solutions out there without even considering them. This is IMO a disappointingly short-sighted view - almost blindly trusting, in fact. The only person you'll be conning is yourself.
Think about it.
-
I agree with KennyR on this.... OS4 is in my opinon just as offical as MOS ... if you take the name 'amiga' out of the mix anyway...
-
But if you want it just because it has a brand name, ask yourself very seriously whether that is a good enough reason or not to reject the other solutions out there without even considering them.
I'm a big fun of Aros and I'll buy a cheap PC for it.
I'm also fond of MorphOS but if the two systems will provide the same things more or less then I'll definetly choose the one that has the Name.
I'm an Amigan just like I'm Greek :P would I ever change the name of my country? no, so why should I let the name of my beloved computer die?
Yes, the name is important, only if the result of the AmigaOS 4.0 is pityful I'll consider the other AmigaOS-like option. I'm not in the search of other operating systems, I don't care to have a new powerful or whatever OS, I just like to have my AmigaOS upgraded and a new Amiga (AmigaOne or Pegasos if the 4.0 runs on it and it is a cheaper hardware solution)
if you take the name 'amiga' out of the mix anyway...
Yeah but you don't, the name is there.
As I said only if 4.0 is worse than my current AmigaOS 3.9 I'll start to consider MorphOS.
-
@Cass
MorphOS is also coming to the Cyberstorm and Blizzard PPC cards, and a beta (aged one, admittedly) already exists for these cards.
-
So to say that it's good for the Amiga market to have choice is true from someone within the market, however, overall the lack of a solid standard and a united front against the main PC market makes it hard (or impossible) for the general Amiga market to grow.
I'll go you one further: the Amiga market is, in fact, so small relative to the mainstream market that subdividing it and trying to market either AmigaOS or MorphOS doesn't make the challenge any more difficult. In other words, whether we were "united" with a .05% share of the whole computer market, or divided into Amiga and Pegasos platforms, each with .025% shares, the challenge is still immense. So I'd say, forget about trying for unity. The effort spent would be better put into product development and marketing targetting outside users from the get-go.
There is really only one chance for the Amga to make a comback and that is re-unite.
IMHO the only chance is to have a product that has some convincing selling points relative to the mainstream alternatives. That is, after all, why people buy things. "Unity" amongst a bunch of apparent retro-computing fans means zilch in the bigger picture. What if the Pegasos/MorphOS really were the better product package (for sake of argument)? Would it be better to drop them and rally behind Amiga simply because of the name? This doesn't make sense when in the end it's product features, etc., that people buy, not some dusty brand name. It's all a matter of product features and corporate viability. Of course, if it were possible to have the advantages, such as they are, of both the Amiga name (and fan loyalty in its positive forms) and things like the Pegasos motherboard and Genesi's apparently strong funding, that'd be great. But as long as there are two product paths here, the marketplace should determine the winner (and will, inevitably). The name "Amiga" is far more powerful then any technical merits and thus makes it a wise choice to become the back-bone of the market.
As others have rightly pointed out, the Amiga brand is at this point in time a rather questionable commodity. Most ordinary mainstream computer users will probably never have heard of it. People who do follow technology will probably be evenly divided into positive and negative reactions to the name, depending on which chapters of the history they are aware of. In the best-case scenario, the name recognition will only give a fleeting moment of warmth. Then come things like feature list, price/performance, software and hardware compatibilities, file format capabilities, etc. At this point the brand name means nothing and any other alt OS is weighed on the same basis.
Sounds like a winning combination to me.
That's fine, but you're already a supportive fan. Ask an objective analyst about the prospects of three tiny, underfunded companies trying to build and market a proprietary alternative to Windows/Intel/AMD and see what reaction you get.Support for MorphOS is a waste of time in my opinion and only serves to guarantee the complete failure of both platforms.
The same thing could be said about AmigaOne/AOS4. Of course from my perspective the Amiga name brand has little current value, so this is why I think so. It remains to be seen which of the packages is actually stronger on technical merits.
You could also consider the fact that Genesi is in control of its own hardware development, which enables it to leverage technology into different markets. At the same time, while MorphOS is presently tied to the Pegasos, plans are to get MOS onto other hardware. And, as you know, Genesi is actively aiding ports of other OSs to the Pegasos. This is just to illustrate that there are distinct advantages to Genesi's position, something that should be considered before calling support for their products a waste of time.
And Genesi appears to be well-funded and well-run. This is another important factor to consider. It'd start another flame war to try to discuss Amiga, Inc.'s financial and legal troubles here, but the main point is that Amiga, Inc. has bought its IP with borrowed money and has contracted out and licensed development. In contrast, Genesi is self-funded and does its R&D, product development and marketing and promotion. These are significant advantages.
-- gary_c
-
@MikeB
Ok, where do you get your information? MorphOS is not hosted on anything. The Quark microkernel is as essential to it's operation as ExecSG is to AOS4. You seem to be implying that the ABox is an OS on it's own. This is a mistake and shows a failure to understand how MorphOS works. But it is understandable how one could think that. While, yes, in theory someone could turn the ABox into a 100% native OS with some work, then you'd loose 90% of it's potency.
Properly, the ABox is not akin to AROS running on Linux, nor Amithlon, but another beast altogether. The closest in this field is Bernie's stillborn Umilator, but even then that comparison is tenuous at best. The closest comparisons would be to OS/2 or Mac OS X and how they handled legacy applications (Win16/DOS for OS/2 and MacOS for Mac OS X) but that's also not completely accurate due to the nature of the AmigaOS itself.
-
allthough i have never tried morph os and never likely too (call me narrow minded) the Amiga brand name has more clout and its still beyond me why i have stuck with the Amiga as iam getting tired of
fighting lost causes iam really tempted by a nice
Apple Mac but my order is in for A1XE ???
-
The closest comparisons would be to OS/2 or Mac OS X and how they handled legacy applications (Win16/DOS for OS/2 and MacOS for Mac OS X) but that's also not completely accurate due to the nature of the AmigaOS itself.
What about Java VM sandbox model?
Does Gensisi provide press diagrams of their architecture like Microsoft’s NT Executive lectures?
(Sorry about the mentioning Windows NT since I'm only trained in Windows NT system programming.)
Ok, where do you get your information? MorphOS is not hosted on anything. The Quark microkernel is as essential to it's operation as ExecSG is to AOS4. You seem to be implying that the ABox is an OS on it's own.
I recall there was a “A-Box kernel 68k” and “PPC Quark micro kernel”.
-
Does Gensisi provide press diagrams of their architecture like Microsoft?s NT Executive lectures?
This is probably the most complete description around: MorphOS in Detail (http://64.246.37.205/files/morphos_in_detail.pdf).
-- gary_c
-
>There is really only one chance for the Amga to make a comback and that is re-unite.
Sad to inform but that will never happen. Amiga will not make it big, Pegasos will not make it big, AROS will not make it big.
People today are used to Windows. And people from Linux or whatever-platforms will not jump the wagon in masses, some may do, most do not.
If AROS rises some eyebrows, AmigaOne and Pegasos2 start making profit for their producing companies, THEN it's a small achievement. Even that is behind hard work and sadly takes time.
-
@ Downix
A re-implemented Exec kernel is hosted on top of the Quark kernel. Currently if you remove the re-implemented Exec, everything including the GUI, DOS, driver system, etc will all fail and you would end up with a very bare Quark kernel based environment. (You might refer to this bare environment as "MorphOS", but when I speak of "MorphOS", I mean the complete current environement and so in combination with the ABOX).
This has been one of my greatest concerns in the past: What will MorphOS be like in combination with its QBOX environment (directly using Quark instead of indirectly through a secondary Exec-like kernel, a la ABOX). If it would be entirely different from the ABOX environment, then what would make MorphOS stand out in comparison to other microkernel based OSes including QNX? I have had quite a bit of discussions with certain Genesi employees with regard to this. Currently MorphOS' Amiga application compatibily is its main selling point.
Some of the userbase seem to think that the ABOX will continue to be transparently available within the QBOX. But I believe this cannot be correct as Amiga applications need a complete Exec-like based Workbench-like or at the very least AmigaDOS-like environment to be run, which I believe would at best result into a solution similar of usage as for example UAE on QNX (Amiga XL) currently provides.
-
This has been one of my greatest concerns in the past: What will MorphOS be like in combination with its QBOX environment (directly using Quark instead of indirectly through a secondary kernel a la ABOX).
This is an unknown since the details aren't worked out, but it seems like an opportunity more than a problem.
If it would be entirely different from the ABOX environment, then what would make MorphOS stand out in comparison to other microkernel based OSes including QNX?
Both MorphOS and AmigaOS have to become more than simply environments to run old Amiga apps. If they don't, they don't deserve to live. For the sake of their platform, I hope Amiga, Inc. and Hyperion are thinking beyond providing a PPC OS for running classic Amiga apps. How do they envision AOS vis-a-vis competing OSs, disregarding old app archives?
... Currently MorphOS' Amiga application compatibily is its main selling point.
Yes, that's currently. But it's just to get a foothold in the market. The current Amiga market alone is too small to support any new alternative OS project. The OS has to have modern features to stand out and to attract new users. Inevitably AOS and MOS will be compared to all other OSs currently available.Some of the userbase seem to think that the ABOX will continue to be transparently available within the QBOX. But I believe this cannot be correct....
I don't see why the A-box would be any different from the runtime environment that MacOS provides for classic Mac programs, etc. It seems to me the MorphOS engineers are not attempting the impossible, or even doing something that hasn't been done before, for that matter.
-- gary_c
-
@ Downix
While, yes, in theory someone could turn the ABox into a 100% native OS with some work, then you'd loose 90% of it's potency.
IMO compared to the currently provided solution, this would be preferable (Similar like PPCLinux is prefered by almost all Linux users over MkLinux usage). With hosting something like AROS or AmigaOS on top Linux or QNX the advantage of having many hardware drivers available to the host OS is obvious. However Quark does not offer these advantages.
It's an additional layer which negatively effects performance, this despite the good performance provided by solutions like MorphOS and Amithlon on modern hardware.
The only disadvantage I see is that Quark kernel features like memory protection, (features the ABOX environment itself does not really benefit from) could not be advertised anymore (marketing). But from the user point of view there wouldn't be any difference compared to the current solution. (usage)
My view regarding the benefits of a two kernel approach provided by various solutions:
- Amithlon => Many available Linux hardware drivers
- intent => Platform independence
- MorphOS => Marketing? (Could IMO backfire, if users discover that they cannot take advantage of the advertised features)
-
@ gary_c
This is an unknown since the details aren't worked out, but it seems like an opportunity more than a problem.
Quark functions very differently as compared to the Amiga Exec kernel (else a re-implemented Exec kernel hosted on top would not be needed).
Of course this offers oppertunities, just like Zeta, BSD, Linux, QNX, AtheOS, etc, etc. do. However as an Amigan I am mostly interested in being offered an AmigaOS-like environment, for example also in terms of structure.
Both MorphOS and AmigaOS have to become more than simply environments to run old Amiga apps.
As you can read in the feature list, interviews and roadmaps you see that AmigaOS will be far more than just an Amiga compatible environment. The new ExecSG kernel has been designed to be able to *extend* AmigaOS' features, including for example memory protection.
-
This is probably the most complete description around: MorphOS in Detail (http://64.246.37.205/files/morphos_in_detail.pdf).
Thanks for the link, but I’m already aware of this particular document.
PS It has a questionable MS Windows NT kernel modelling btw (another issue)...