Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga Events => Topic started by: Seehund on August 15, 2002, 02:21:39 AM
-
"This is a first announcement of the first showplace of the Pegasos-computer in Sweden and in Scandinavia.
Pegasos Gothenburg Show 2002 will be held on Sunday 22 September. On the show you will se Pegasos demonstrated and working for the first time here. Pegasos is a dual G3/G4/G5 MicroATX computer. At the moment it is possible to run either MorphOS or Linux operating system on it. Organizer of the event is GGS-Data in co-operation with Thendic-France and betatesters of Pegasos from Sweden. Thendic as well as other important persons behind the Pegasos will join the show. More information will follow soon. Welcome !
Gunne Steen for GGS-Data"
Source: ANN.lu (http://ann.lu/detail.cgi?category=news&file=1029324304.msg)
-
I'm sorry but I still don't see the relevance of the Pegasos on an Amiga website.
Perhaps we should advertise the AmigaOne on Microsoft.com? What, you don't think the Microsoft.com webmaster would agree to it? Why?
-
Because that webmaster would probably loose its job.
-
I'm sorry but I still don't see the relevance of the Pegasos on an Amiga website.
Eh, what you gonna do? Apparently it is of interest to former Amiga users. It's not like it can be ignored.
Perhaps we should advertise the AmigaOne on Microsoft.com?
That would be nice, but a silly idea obviously.
What, you don't think the Microsoft.com webmaster would agree to it? Why?
M$.com is a corporate website, this is a not for profit fan site. Actually not for profit is misleading, it is a financial black hole for a very dedicated Amigan named Mr Hunt:-) MOS, QNX, Linux whatever all have some kind of relevance to the Amiga community.
-
Anyway, great news! Pherhaps I'll be there..
-
Sure, I guss it's about the freedom of opinion.
But then, my opinion is that the Pegasos is a parasite on the Amiga market and only does damage to the *real* attempt to revive the Amiga. I know I'm not alone whith these thoughts which makes this whole thing a conflict of interests. Any idea how we solve this conflict?
My suggestion is try doing it like the professionals, like the webmaster of Microsoft.com would have done. It's simple logic, two competing products trying to reach the very same market segment is bound to cause a conflict of interest. Let's accept each other's different interests and go seperate ways, no need to fight over a few bread crumbs when the loaf of bread lies next to you.
Besides, I'm also interested in Playstation2 games, should I post the latest news from Sony here as well?
-
>G5 & Pegasos
Hi
According to Motorola: "There is NO SUCH THING AS G5!! The CPU DOES NOT EXIST!!"
According to Teron: "Teron CX and PX are compatible with MOTOROLA G3/G4 and IBM PowerPC. We NEVER heard about G5 and cann't guarantee compatibility with G5, because the product DOES NOT EXIST!"
Can Thendic and Bplan guarantee that their Pegasos will be 100% compatible with NON EXISTING / Vaporware CPU?
-
Can Thendic and Bplan guarantee that their Pegasos will be 100% compatible with NON EXISTING / Vaporware CPU?
They can be *quite certain* it will work
as they use a cpu module between the cpu and
motherboard.
-
But to answer your question:
I dont know , do you ? :)
-
Samface wrote
The name the name, it doesn't have the name :-x
In case you haven't noticed, this is NOT AmingaINC.org !!
And even if you view the Pegasos as something outside "Amiga",
it's still on-topic to inform the users about a system that is
in competition euth it. I haven't seen you whinning about that
on all the M$ and Apple-news we get here !
Or is it something like: "What I can't see, can't hurt me " ?
-
But then, my opinion is that the Pegasos is a parasite on the Amiga market and only does damage to the *real* attempt to revive the Amiga. I know I'm not alone whith these thoughts which makes this whole thing a conflict of interests.
Personally I hold a similar view to you, but my opinion is not what dictates Amiga's future. I think Wayne made a good point recently, Amiga Inc have stated Sept 1 as D-Day for all companies missusing Amiga's IP or name. It sounds like put up or shut up. If the MOS guys or others are guilty, let it be decided in court. No matter what you or I personally think, MOS will not go away just because we want it to.
Besides, I'm also interested in Playstation2 games, should I post the latest news from Sony here as well?
Actually IIRC there has been PS2 news on here from time to time, if there is any type of relevancy(like Linux). IMO considering there is so little actual Amiga news to report often, it's better something than nothing.
-
Or is it something like: "What I can't see, can't hurt me " ?
No it's probably the knee-jerk reaction considering what some anonymous posters on other sites say concerning MOS. I get sucked into these arguements from time to time. Heck, you're pretty well known for your knee-jerk reactions in another direction Kronos:-P
-
Isn't the mysterious in-development G5 everyone has been raving about suppost to have a different system bus than the G3/G4 thus requireing a new chipset?
-
I'm sorry but I still don't see the relevance of the Pegasos on an Amiga website.
Take a generic example: What if some new computer came along that could run AmigaOS applications? Would you be curious? Would that be relevant on an Amiga platform news site? OK, that new computer is Pegasos. See the relevance?Perhaps we should advertise the AmigaOne on Microsoft.com?
You're really scratching the bottom of the bin for arguments if you think this one makes sense. ;-)
--gary_c
-
Amiga Inc have stated Sept 1 as D-Day for all companies missusing Amiga's IP or name.
I wonder how long those court cases will go on. Could be a long time. So far it seems that none of those companies take those threaths serious. It's like always, waiting and see.
Coder
-
Samface, this is NOT ANN.LU! I don't know if you notived, but news stories of no relevance to Amiga get posted here sometimes. We are regularily kept up to date with the latest Microsoft blunder!
If you want to stir up this kind of argument, please take it elsewhere. The main reason I come here more than ANN, is that there are less of that kind of thing.
-
samface:
The Pegasos is delivered with an OS that runs AmigaOS applications. It's also a POP-based piece of hardware that would be able to run new versions of AmigaOS.
The demo is organised/sponsored by an Amiga dealer (and possibly an Amiga user group? Hey AmiGBG, what's the deal?)
It's Amiga news plain and simple. No, it's not Amiga Inc. news, but only allowing that would make for a damn boring web site, there's already http://www.amiga.com for that. Just posting news about software and hardware that is using an Amiga trademark would be equally boring.
This is interesting to more Amiga/AmigaOS users than news about bugs in CDE, Zaurus reviews, yet another MSIE bug and things like that which have been posted during the last couple of days without you complaining.
But then, my opinion is that the Pegasos is a parasite on the Amiga market and only does damage to the *real* attempt to revive the Amiga.
There is no attempt to revive the Amiga. Thank heavens! The Amiga is dead. The only Amiga computer market there is is the one for used machines. AmigaOS will run on whatever third party hardware that gets distributed by a vendor who is interested in a license. You can't have missed this, can you? The "AmigaOne G3SE" board is such a piece of hardware and Eyetech is such a distributor (notwithstanding that with the compulsory licensing/bundling lunacy the prospects of seeing other hardware and vendors are unfortunately bleak).
My suggestion is try doing it like the professionals, like the webmaster of Microsoft.com would have done. It's simple logic, two competing products trying to reach the very same market segment is bound to cause a conflict of interest.
If Wayne would ever decide to only allow news and discussion about one of the two competing products (which there are not two of, the number is theoretically infinite, it's just hardware, maybe you're referring to the tired old "AmigaOS versus MorphOS" thing?), then amiga.org no longer serves as a community forum and news site, then it's a marketing channel for one company. So far this is amiga.org - not amigainc.org, mai.org, eyetech.org or bplan.org.
Microsoft.com might be a "professional" web site, but it's a corporate web site, this is not.
Besides, I'm also interested in Playstation2 games, should I post the latest news from Sony here as well?
Go ahead. If the moderators think that people would be interested, so be it.
-
The Pegasos is delivered with an OS that runs AmigaOS applications. It's also a POP-based piece of hardware that would be able to run new versions of AmigaOS.
The demo is organised/sponsored by an Amiga dealer (and possibly an Amiga user group? Hey AmiGBG, what's the deal?)
Seehund: AmiGBG has nothing to do with the Pegasos event on the 22nd of September in Gothenburg.
Nothing at all.
# Sharakmir/AmiGBG
-
Seehund:
1. AmigaOS4 and the AmigaOne has *nothing* to do with the POP standard. Eyetech's AmigaOne authorized product is based on a POP design but that does NOT mean that the AmigaOne standard specified by Amiga Inc. has anything to do with the POP standard.
2. Lindows runs Windows applications but does that make it a Windows OS? No. Just because MorphOS runs classic Amiga applications through emulation, does that make it an Amiga OS? Not a chance.
3. The Amiga always was about one computer and one OS from the very same manufacturer and developer. Unless you're one of their partners, you're not allowed to refer to your product as an Amiga product, period. You want to compete? Fine, get your own trademark.
-
Tickly:
Ignoring the conflict won't make it go away...
-
Ignoring the conflict won't make it go away...
I'm not ignoring any conflict, but your kneejerk reaction to this posting is totally unnecessary! Amiga.org covers a broad range of topics, including things which are not DIRECTLY related to Amiga, like Microsofts security flaws. I think Pegasos/MOS is more amiga related than that, is it not?
If you dont like it, why not set up www.samfacesamigaincnews.com?
-
Advertising the Pegasos and announcing Pegasos shows is hardly the same thing as reporting security flaws in the "enemy's" product, now is it?
-
Advertising the Pegasos and announcing Pegasos shows is hardly the same thing as reporting security flaws in the "enemy's" product, now is it?
No. For starters its more relevant to Amiga users. Anyway, thats enough of this argument, its just stupid!
-
Advertising the Pegasos
A news posting is not advertising.
announcing Pegasos shows is hardly the same thing as reporting security flaws in the "enemy's" product, now is it?
Yes! If you consider M$ the 'enemy', chance are you also consider MOS the enemy. Just look at it this way, you're keeping an eye on the competetion.
Put it this way. I live in the US which generally holds a distaste to communism. Does that mean there is no news reporting about China?
-
Sharakmir:
The demo is organised/sponsored by an Amiga dealer (and possibly an Amiga user group? Hey AmiGBG, what's the deal?)
Seehund: AmiGBG has nothing to do with the Pegasos event on the 22nd of September in Gothenburg.
Nothing at all.
Thanks for the clarification. I just wondered since GGS cooperates on the A1 demo at the same place the day before.
-
samface:
1:
a) AmigaOS has nothing to do with the POP standard? No sh!t, here I was thinking that AmigaOS was hardware! I had even planned to buy a new case for my AmigaOS. Thanks for straightening that out. :)
b) The mobo Eyetech is buying has everything to do with POP.
c) There is no hardware standard defined by Amiga Inc. Zico (http://www.amiga.com/products/one/specs.php)? Hah! "Ummm, it's like... like a computer, y'know. CPUs and stuff. And a next generation Matrox card, that's mighty important."
2:
No, MorphOS is not AmigaOS. Did I say that? I said that it runs AmigaOS apps, and this is one of the reasons to why AmigaOS users could be interested in news about the Pegasos, as that happens to run MorphOS.
3:
Yes the Amiga came from one company that made both the hardware and the software, and now there will be no more Amiga computers. Get over it and be happy that AmigaOS has finally thrown away its custom-made hardware shackles that dragged it down into computer oblivion. (It's just too damn bad that the shackles are being put back again, but not for technical reasons this time.)
What, are there Evil People Out There illegally labelling their hardware "Amiga" without anyone but you knowing about it? Have you told Amiga Inc. about this?
An offensive comparison for the "trademarkists" maybe, but totally unscientifically I think there are more people in the community who are interested in news about desktop PPC hardware and associated OSs, using The Trademark or not, than there are people interested in news about a "content layer" using The Trademark for handheld devices. Just a wild guess, based on that the community consists of people running desktop computers, not handheld devices.
-
He, he... This will be almost too easy... >:-)
a) AmigaOS has nothing to do with the POP standard? No sh!t, here I was thinking that AmigaOS was hardware! I had even planned to buy a new case for my AmigaOS. Thanks for straightening that out. :)
Smartass. Of course I was referring to the fact that just because AmigaOS supports one certain piece of hardware that is *based* on a POP design, that doesn't mean AmigaOS is an OS made for running POP hardware. You do know what I'm saying but ignore it simply because it doesn't fit your agenda, you're making it very obvious by these kind of comments.
b) The mobo Eyetech is buying has everything to do with POP.
They bought a design and modified it on order to suit their purposes, the fact that it is originally a POP design is irrelevant and still doesn't turn the AmigaOS into a POP OS.
c) There is no hardware standard defined by Amiga Inc. Zico? Hah! "Ummm, it's like... like a computer, y'know. CPUs and stuff. And a next generation Matrox card, that's mighty important."
Pathetic. Of course I wasn't refering to the Zico specification. I was talking about their AmigaOne licensing scheme which you so dissapprove of so much that you don't care about the consequences of your actions.
No, MorphOS is not AmigaOS. Did I say that? I said that it runs AmigaOS apps, and this is one of the reasons to why AmigaOS users could be interested in news about the Pegasos, as that happens to run MorphOS.
Can you see the difference between AmigaOS and *an* Amiga OS? Yet another pathetic attempt to make me look stupid by implying that I'm saying something completely different... *sigh*
Yes the Amiga came from one company that made both the hardware and the software, and now there will be no more Amiga computers. Get over it and be happy that AmigaOS has finally thrown away its custom-made hardware shackles that dragged it down into computer oblivion. (It's just too damn bad that the shackles are being put back again, but not for technical reasons this time.)
No but for compatibility and hardware partnership reasons, you know those boring little details every OS developer must go through in order to be a complete platform instead of just software...
What, are there Evil People Out There illegally labelling their hardware "Amiga" without anyone but you knowing about it? Have you told Amiga Inc. about this?
Amiga Inc. already knows and September the 1st is getting closer...
An offensive comparison for the "trademarkists" maybe, but totally unscientifically I think there are more people in the community who are interested in news about desktop PPC hardware and associated OSs, using The Trademark or not, than there are people interested in news about a "content layer" using The Trademark for handheld devices. Just a wild guess, based on that the community consists of people running desktop computers, not handheld devices.
Good thing the new Amiga will be a combination of both then since that will satisfy everyone, right? :-P
-
NEWS ITEM UPDATE
If anyone is still reading this, there's now a web site set up about this show/demo:
www.pegasos.org (http://www.pegasos.org/)
-
samface:
He, he... This will be almost too easy... >
What do you mean? It sounds like you're more interested in a quarrel or some kind of competition than a discussion.
Of course I was referring to the fact that just because AmigaOS supports one certain piece of hardware that is *based* on a POP design, that doesn't mean AmigaOS is an OS made for running POP hardware.
Not necessarily, no. Evidently it'll run on as diverse hardware as a POP board, two kinds of PPC-68k hacks for Amigas and possibly a modified Mac accelerator PCI card. But it still means that it runs on a piece of POP hardware, and thus there are no particular technical difficulties to make it run on other POP based hardware. Ignoring the licensing and so on, we all know that AmigaOS is not being tied to any special piece of hardware, one of the goals with OS4 is to make the OS as abstracted from hardware as possible and instead have it targeting an easily portable HAL, how else are new licensees supposed to be attracted...
We also already know that there would be no technical problems to have AmigaOS run on a Pegasos, or at least that is what whoeveritwas from Hyperion said. Add to that T Frieden's words about expecting a porting time of the HAL to new hardware to be a week to a week and a half.
But anyway, Pegasos news belong on amiga.org.
They bought a design and modified it on order to suit their purposes, the fact that it is originally a POP design is irrelevant and still doesn't turn the AmigaOS into a POP OS.
No, they buy ready-made boards. I don't even want to think of the end-customer price if that hadn't been the case! Eyetech has nothing to do with any hardware design on a scale larger than little solderjobs like a PS/2 mouse adapter and an IDE-splitter for Amigas. And who says AmigaOS or any other OS is a "POP OS"? AmigaOS will run on whatever potentially compatible hardware there is that becomes licensed.
But anyway, Pegasos news belong on amiga.org.
Of course I wasn't refering to the Zico specification. I was talking about their AmigaOne licensing scheme
Then you should have written that, instead of "...does NOT mean that the AmigaOne standard specified by Amiga Inc. has anything to do with the POP standard.". The licensing has nothing to do with standards, why would you even think of comparing a SW-distribution/trademark licensing scheme with a hardware design standard?
Can you see the difference between AmigaOS and *an* Amiga OS? Yet another pathetic attempt to make me look stupid by implying that I'm saying something completely different...
Well, I can see the textual difference, but would you care to explain what you mean by "an Amiga OS"? An OS running on Amigas? Well, both AmigaOS, Linux and MorphOS run natively on Amigas. But what does that have to do with new hardware? I'm not implying or attempting anything regarding yourself, I'm saying that Pegasos news are interesting to many people reading amiga.org.
No but for compatibility and hardware partnership reasons, you know those boring little details every OS developer must go through in order to be a complete platform instead of just software...
There is no need for hardware "partnerships", and compatibility is up to the software developer to ensure. And yes, by all means, sell licensed hardware, but it's embarrassingly stupid to make compulsory licensing and bundling a requirement to have your software running on a piece of hardware. There is no "complete platform" anymore. There is AmigaOS and there is hardware.
But anyway, Pegasos news belong on amiga.org.
Good thing the new Amiga will be a combination of both then since that will satisfy everyone, right?
There will be no new Amiga.
AmigaOS 4 will not (http://amiga.medicinareberget.studenthem.gu.se:8080/amiga/amiwest02/index.html) have a DE-player/AA/AACE.
AmigaOS 5, which is a hypothetical paper concept (http://www.amiga.com/corporate/041201-techupdate-B.shtml) at the moment, will and can not be based on the DE or anything from Tao.
The DE (no, not the DE-player/AA/AACE) is an even more vaguely defined hypothetical concept.
But anyway, Pegasos news belong on amiga.org.
-
Sigh... I'm not even going to argue with your speculations regarding Amiga Inc.'s intentions for AmigaOS because it's nothing but pure FUD. Why would you have a petition about the new Amiga if there won't be one? Why do you claim that there won't be any AmigaDE for the AmigaOS? Why do you keep saying things that only an employee of Amiga Inc. could possibly know, such as the AmigaOS5/DE beeing just a vague concept? What you can't see doesn't exist, right? Now that would be a conclusion based on nothing but Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
But anyway, Pegasos is not AmigaOS compatible hardware, MorphOS is not an Amiga hardware compatible OS, Amiga Inc. themselves is preparing a lawsuit against them, why does it "belong" on Amiga news sites and why would I not consider them an enemy of Amiga? Because they can run Amiga applications through emulation? Because two companies fighting over a couple of thousands of users instead of cooperating is a good thing?
Sure, you're entitled to your opinion just like everybody else. I would just appreciate if you stopped spreading your opinions and speculations as facts and I would also appreciate that if you feel the need to convince me about something, atleast give me real arguments for it instead of simply repeating the same statement over and over. You're starting to sound like some kind of propaganda minister or something...
-
No, they buy ready-made boards. I don't even want to think of the end-customer price if that hadn't been the case! Eyetech has nothing to do with any hardware design on a scale larger than little solderjobs like a PS/2 mouse adapter and an IDE-splitter for Amigas. And who says AmigaOS or any other OS is a "POP OS"? AmigaOS will run on whatever potentially compatible hardware there is that becomes licensed.
Stop making up lies about the AmigaOne, from Eyetech's AmigaOne FAQ (http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/faq.php):
Is the AmigaOneG3-SE the same as the MAI Teron Cx? No. During the period leading up to the OS4 development agreement being signed we evaluated the Articia S northbridge chip for possible use in a redesigned AmigaOne. We concluded that it was the most cost-effective chip for the design and proceeded to draw up some new specifications for an uprated, more cost-effectively engineered AmigaOne, the AmigaOneG3-SE. Clearly using the Articia S instead of Escena's custom northbridge design meant that both the schematic design and the PCB layout would be entirely new. MAI logic are a chipset manufacturer, not a PPC motherboard manufacturer, but they had commissioned a low volume, high cost evaluation board, the Teron Cx, to help sell their chipsets. The Teron Cx was never designed to, or intended to, go into volume production. We therefore asked them if they could recommend a design company who was familiar with using the Articia S in PPC motherboard design. They recommended the same (Far Eastern) company that designed their Teron Cx evaluation board.
The new Eyetech AmigaOne design obviously shares a lot of commonality with the Teron Cx board, but more than a cursory glance at the specifications (ATA speed, integrated ethernet, custom firmware, number of active PCI/AGP slots etc) - and the price - of both boards should be enough to convince most people that they really are different designs.
However if you remain unconvinced you are of course perfectly welcome to purchase the Teron Cx evaluation board. It costs $3900, misses many features of the AmigaOneG3-SE, and won't run OS4.
That's official.
There is no need for hardware "partnerships", and compatibility is up to the software developer to ensure. And yes, by all means, sell licensed hardware, but it's embarrassingly stupid to make compulsory licensing and bundling a requirement to have your software running on a piece of hardware. There is no "complete platform" anymore. There is AmigaOS and there is hardware.
Amiga Inc. wants to create a new platform they call the AmigaOne. They want to be able to provide their customers with a complete product, not just the software. They do this by cooperating with hardware manufacturers and *anyone* is free to apply for an AmigaOne distribution license, hardware manufacturers as well as dealers. They think that this will bring the customer a certain quality experience adding more value to the name "Amiga". They think that this is the best way of marketing their product. The only question is; why do you think you know better, you got a Ph.D. in the subject or something?
-
@Samface
I think it's apparent that a case can be made logically for Pegasos news on news sites read by Amiga platform fans, broadly defined. But, it seems to me, you personally don't like Pegasos/MorphOS nor do you want them to succeed, as you see them depriving Amiga, Inc. of users, developers and mindshare.
This actually may be true, but if Amiga, Inc. wants to succeed, then they have to compete in the market place. This is done by producing a superior product. Enthusiastic fans trying to repress news about competitors' products (that would be you) is rather unbecoming and suggests Amiga, Inc. and its partners are relatively weak and their product can't stand up in comparisons. I don't think you believe this is true, but it's how your actions look when you express your "no pegasos news on news sites read by Amiga computing fans". Notice that description, also; it's broader than the readership of a support site for one commercial company or product.
You are welcome to your point of view, of course, but a number of people have posted to say they do want to read Pegasos/MorphOS news at amiga.org. So I think you can expect to continue to see it here; either accept that gracefully or post derisively every time Pegasos news is posted, causing bad feelings.
Eventually, hopefully there will be some resolution of the contentious issues. In the meantime, a higher level of tolerance might be a good idea. Just my opinion, of course.
-- gary_c
-
But, it seems to me, you personally don't like Pegasos/MorphOS nor do you want them to succeed, as you see them depriving Amiga, Inc. of users, developers and mindshare.
That may be true but that's not my argument for why I don't consider them to be fair competition. Apple's PPC computers are competition, even the x86 market is competition, but the Pegasos is different. You see, they claim to be the next generation of a product line they don't own nor have the rights for. Anyone can produce cars and compete on the car market but not just anyone can make a volvo car. See the difference?
-
Samface, with regard to whether Pegasos/MOS news is relevant to amiga.org, you are not making any valid points at all, and you are contradicting yourself!
Samface said:
Advertising the Pegasos and announcing Pegasos shows is hardly the same thing as reporting security flaws in the "enemy's" product, now is it?
So non-amiga news is OK, as long as it informs us about your so-called "enemy", right?
Samface said:
But anyway, Pegasos is not AmigaOS compatible hardware, MorphOS is not an Amiga hardware compatible OS, Amiga Inc. themselves is preparing a lawsuit against them, why does it "belong" on Amiga news sites and why would I not consider them an enemy of Amiga?
So, Pegasos is "the enemy", so you want to hear about it on amiga.org, right?
Samface said:
I'm sorry but I still don't see the relevance of the Pegasos on an Amiga website.
Oh.... errr... what?
Just because YOU PERSONALLY don't want to hear anything about Pegasos/MOS, you think its irrelevant to Amiga users? thats bullshit! There are lots of Amiga users who want to use their existing Amiga applications under MorphOS on Pegasos. There are even more Amiga users who don't intend to use either, but ARE interested in what is happening with it.
I don't see how this could be irrelevant to amiga.org! I just dont! If you want to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", then just don't read the posts you consider irrelevant, because a hell of a lot of amiga.org users want this news.
-
Samface said:
Anyone can produce cars and compete on the car market but not just anyone can make a volvo car. See the difference?
Thats a completely stupid comparison! You don't need to stick to a brand of car to drive on the same roads! If you drive a Volvo now, but you want a newer car, you don't have to stick with Volvo, you can buy any car and drive it on the same roads.
So why shouldn't there be a choice of systems that runs the same software? Just because theres no room for it in this tiny marketplace? Well guess what! This is the real world, and sometimes companies compete in a small market resulting in the death of one or both. Thats life, live with it.
-
Samface said:
Advertising the Pegasos and announcing Pegasos shows is hardly the same thing as reporting security flaws in the "enemy's" product, now is it?
So non-amiga news is OK, as long as it informs us about your so-called "enemy", right?
Ehhh... That would be exactly the opposite of what I said. Let's try it again but somewhat simplified this time:
Advertising and announcing shows is hardly the same thing as reporting security flaws, now is it?
So, Pegasos is "the enemy", so you want to hear about it on amiga.org, right?
Only if it was at the same level as the news postings about Microsoft. You know, security flaws, etc.
Just because YOU PERSONALLY don't want to hear anything about Pegasos/MOS, you think its irrelevant to Amiga users?
Didn't you read my previos post? You know, the one where I say:
I know I'm not alone whith these thoughts which makes this whole thing a conflict of interests.
-
Thats a completely stupid comparison! You don't need to stick to a brand of car to drive on the same roads! If you drive a Volvo now, but you want a newer car, you don't have to stick with Volvo, you can buy any car and drive it on the same roads.
The IT market is the road, computer brands are the different kind of car brands. Of course they may ride the same roads but you as a manufacturer are still not allowed to pursue the product line of another company, period.
-
The IT market is the road, computer brands are the different kind of car brands. Of course they may ride the same roads but you're still not allowed to pursue the product line of another company, period.
Enough with the strained metaphores! I still think its a stupid comparison, but forget it, its beside the point.
The fact is that PEGASOS AND MORPHOS NEWS ARE RELATED TO THE AMIGA, AND PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE "MOS/AOS" FENCE (AND THOSE ON IT) WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!
Nothing you have said has really backed up your position that it is irrelevant to Amiga users! Really nothing! It just seems to me that you are scared of MOS and the Pegasos and what they represent, so you want to hide it under the carpet!
Remember, nobody is stopping you from starting www.samfaces-biased-onesided-amigainc-only-news.com. Just don't expect many visitors!
-
The fact is that PEGASOS AND MORPHOS NEWS ARE RELATED TO THE AMIGA, AND PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE "MOS/AOS" FENCE (AND THOSE ON IT) WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!
But, you still haven't told me why it's related to the Amiga? Or, should I just accept your opinion as is without motive simple because you say so?
-
But, you still haven't told me why it's related to the Amiga? Or, should I just accept your opinion as is without motive simple because you say so?
HELLO? I've said several times. OK, here we go, again, in big letters so you can understand:
MorphOS runs Amiga applications. Pegasos runs MorphOS. Therefore, Pegasos with MorphOS runs Amiga applications. Therefore, Pegasos and MorphOS are technologies that are relevant to Amiga users.
Now, I don't intend to buy a Pegasos, or run MorphOS, but I am interested to know what is happening with it.
MorphOS runs the same Amiga apps as Amithlon. Do you want to ban Amithlon news as well?
With regard to "stealing the product line", why shouldn't people make products that are capable of running AmigaOS programs? Just because they'd be in competition with the one YOU want to succeed? Well guess what, lifes not like that.
Also, the legality or otherwise of MorphOS is irrelevant to this point. People want to know what is happening, that is the point of news sites for christs sake!
-
Nothing you have said has really backed up your position that it is irrelevant to Amiga users! Really nothing! It just seems to me that you are scared of MOS and the Pegasos and what they represent, so you want to hide it under the carpet!
I quote myself once more:
But anyway, Pegasos is not AmigaOS compatible hardware, MorphOS is not an Amiga hardware compatible OS, Amiga Inc. themselves is preparing a lawsuit against them, why does it "belong" on Amiga news sites and why would I not consider them an enemy of Amiga? Because they can run Amiga applications through emulation? Because two companies fighting over a couple of thousands of users instead of cooperating is a good thing?
I'm not scared of MorphOS or the Pegasos because I think they will win, I'm scared of the damage they are doing to the entire Amiga market as a whole, regardless of the outcome in the war between them and Amiga Inc.
Also, please note that this is not about me evangelizing Amiga Inc., it's about me critisizing bPlan and the MorphOS team's way of acting like a parasite on the Amiga market instead of acknowledging themselves as an alternative platform to the Amiga.
-
Also, please note that this is not about me evangelizing Amiga Inc., it's about me critisizing bPlan and the MorphOS team's way of acting like a parasite on the Amiga market instead of acknowledging themselves as an alternative platform to the Amiga.
No its not! Its about you not wanting people to post news stories about MorphOS on Amiga news sites because you class it as "irrelevant" when it patently is relevant!
Anyway, no amount of you arguing will change the fact that the owners of the website can put what they damn well like on this site, coupled with the fact that you are the ONLY one expressing any problem with having Pegasos news on here!
-
MorphOS runs Amiga applications. Pegasos runs MorphOS. Therefore, Pegasos with MorphOS runs Amiga applications. Therefore, Pegasos and MorphOS are technologies that are relevant to Amiga users.
And then you say that I don't have anything for why it would be irrelevant to Amiga users? Listen and listen carefully, WinUAE has better support for Amiga applications than MorphOS since it only runs retargetable Amiga applications. Ontop of that, it doesn't run Amiga applications natively in any way, it emulates. MorphOS will also not run AmigaOS4 applications and MorphOS applications won't run on any AmigaOS. To sum things up:
MorphOS is an OS that doesn't run on Amiga hardware, MorphOS applications won't run on AmigaOS and emulation is required in order for it to run Amiga applications. Per definition that makes it a non Amiga compatible (or even related) OS.
Pegasos is hardware not capable of running AmigaOS natively which makes it easy to define as non Amiga hardware.
So, tell me; why would this be more Amiga relevant than WinUAE?
-
So, tell me; why would this be more Amiga relevant than WinUAE?
It doesn't have to be. I class WinUAE as relevant.
-
I find WinUAE to be OK though, since they are not marketing their product as a next generation Amiga. You see, that is my biggest problem with bPlan and their methods. They've created an alternative platform which they claim to be an Amiga simply because it has built in 68k emulation and reverse engineered AmigaOS API's. To me, this is simply the worst kind of IP theft you can do and all these news about them in the Amiga land is playing right into their hands. It's just so sad to see how the Amiga community has become such an easy victim for this kind of marketing scam...
-
I find WinUAE to be OK though, since they are not marketing their product as a next generation Amiga. You see, that is my biggest problem with bPlan and their methods.
This is not the point I am arguing! Whatever you think of their marketing methods, whether or not you think they are "parasites", news about this platform is relevant.
They've created an alternative platform which they claim to be an Amiga simply because it has built in 68k emulation and reverse engineered AmigaOS API's.
Where do they claim that it is an Amiga? I've never seen that claim. They are saying that they have a new OS, and have provided the ability to run Amiga applications for those that wish to migrate to it. They started doing this BEFORE there was a new official AmigaOS in the works!
But anyway, I don't wish to argue that point, all I am saying is that the news is relevant to amiga.org.
This is my final post on the subject because we're just repeating ourselves.
-
I don't think the ability to emulate Amiga applications makes it Amiga relevant because then even a Windows machine with WinUAE installed would be Amiga relevant. Anyway...
FYI, from The MorphOS Website (http://www.morphos.de/files/pressancdec2399.txt):
Today we announce the availability of a new Amiga next generation PowerPC OS project, called MorphOS, to the public.
and more from this (http://www.morphos.de/files/morphos_overview11-Apr-00a.txt) url:
...will bring you now what you`ve always wished for....
AmigaOS running on PPC in 2000
-
OK then, granted, those two URLs prove your point with regard to claiming to be a next generation AmigaOS, but thats still no reason to exclude news from Amiga.org.
This really IS the last post I'll on the subject, because we're still just repeating ourselves.
-
t's just so sad to see how the Amiga community has become such an easy victim for this kind of marketing scam...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Well, it was said that it would be able to fall back to
60x.
-
Can't you just close your mouth?
-
Shut you dirty f****** mouth. You must either shut up
or never NEVER NEVER *DARE* to say on *ANY* forum
that you're an innocent little guy between 2 sides
fighting.
*I*AM*AN*AMIGA*USER*AND*I*CARE*ABOUT*PEGASOS*AND*MORPHOS*NEWS*AND*I*DO*NOT*GIVE*A*SINGLE*PENNY ABOUT*YOUR*OPINION*.
Pegasos and MorphOS *ARE* news relevant enough
to be posted here. We don't CARE about what you say. If you wanna read Amiga*INC* news go to www.amiga.com AND STAY THERE. Do NOT BOTHER US with you STUPID campagne.
-
@SamFace
[color=0000FF]Did a butterfly stung you as a child ?[/color]
-
@AmiGR:
Great, I should shut up because *you* don't care? How about simply ignoring me instead because I *am* entitled to my own opinion, right? Besides, if you *really* didn't care then you wouldn't reply in the first place...
Regarding my "ugly mouth"; atleast I don't need to censor my sentences like some other people around here, neither am I as fond of using the caps lock key as you seem to be. Do you really think a post like yours is doing anything good for your cause at all?
-
@blubbe:
Butterflies doesn't sting, you know....
....that means my answer is "no" if you haven't figured it out by yourself yet.
-
Okey.. Did a butterfly *scare* you as a child/adult ?
Im just trying to establish some kind of reason
for you to "have it in" for MOS. Your arguments
just sux.
(Im a little bit afraid of dragonflies my self)
-
@blubbe:
Please tell me then, why would your "butterfly" theory be better than the facts I've been pointing out in this thread?
-
@Kronos:
Watch it! You might choke yourself on something.
Hmmm...
...but then, who am I to spoil the fun? ;-)
-
People like you make me sick of myself for being an
Amiga user.
-
@samface:
Why would you have a petition about the new Amiga if there won't be one?
I don't know of any such petition. There is however a petition about the distribution policies for future versions of AmigaOS.
Why do you claim that there won't be any AmigaDE for the AmigaOS?
(I said AmigaOS 4.) *I* wasn't claiming that, Bill McEwen is. I based my statement on that.
Why do you keep saying things that only an employee of Amiga Inc. could possibly know, such as the AmigaOS5/DE beeing just a vague concept?
AmigaOS 5 does not exist and is most likely not in development yet (apart from the DE components, if such indeed will be included), as that would require at least a finished AmigaOS 4, more likely 4.5. OS5 is a hypothetical concept, and until it's in development it's a hypothetical concept on paper.
The DE is a concept, and IMO it's extremely vaguely defined.
Simple as that. You didn't read any of the links?
What you can't see doesn't exist, right?
Whatever you can't see but can read announcements about its planning in marketing must be tangible reality or even feasible, right? :- P
why does it "belong" on Amiga news sites
A bunch of people have repeatedly told you their arguments for this. Scroll around.
why would I not consider them an enemy of Amiga?
I assume you mean Amiga Inc.
Well, it's up to you of course. It's just that it generally makes people queasy to see someone muster all his/her might to fight what s/he feels is an "enemy" of a commercial entity. Others usually say "competition" and "options", even if they're economically affiliated with either commercial entity.
No, they buy ready-made boards. [...] Eyetech has nothing to do with any hardware design [...]
Stop making up lies about the AmigaOne, from Eyetech's AmigaOne FAQ:
[snip: Eyetech says the A1G3SE is not 100% identical to the TeronCX]
That's official.
What are you trying to say? I never said the "AmigaOne G3SE" was identical to the TeronCX. I said the A1 is not designed by Eyetech, and that they buy a ready-made board. Where's the lie, and what's this got to do with the newsworthiness of Pegasos or any potentially AmigaOS compatible hardware for that matter?
Amiga Inc. wants to create a new platform they call the AmigaOne.
I don't know what they want other than what they have announced publicly, and that does not include any plans for an "AmigaOne platform", unless you refer to the old "AmigaOne/Zico" crap. "AmigaOne" is a trademark used by one licensed distributor for the piece of hardware it's distributing. Nothing more and nothing less.
They want to be able to provide their customers with a complete product, not just the software. They do this by cooperating with hardware manufacturers and *anyone* is free to apply for an AmigaOne distribution license, hardware manufacturers as well as dealers. They think that this will bring the customer a certain quality experience adding more value to the name "Amiga".
The only product provided (well, marketed) by Amiga Inc. is AmigaOS (ignoring the DEAAAACE stuff).
Funny choice of words there, "cooperating". There's a marketing director position open in Snoqualmie... ;)
AmigaOS is dependent on hardware. If you sell a piece of software like AmigaOS you cannot under any present circumstance impose any restrictions on its possible hardware base. As I said before, go ahead with licensing, but it simply MUST NOT be a requirement for seeing absolutely essential ports of AmigaOS to more hardware. There is no need for any compulsory licensing/bundling/dongling requirements to get the little "cooperation" (a hardware sample and documentation) you need to make your software running on a piece of hardware. The compulsory licensing et c. is an obstacle against such "cooperation".
"Free to apply for a license"? Well, anyone is free to put their hands into a meatgrinder too, that doesn't mean anyone is going to do it without a sufficiently large incentive.
Even if someone came along and licensed some new hardware, it would still mean that only the licensed version of this hardware would be available only via this licensed channel for AmigaOS users. All this is in effect a very serious flaw in AmigaOS - not for technical reasons, but because of short-sighted greed and politics.
If they want to add "value" from hardware to the Amiga brand, they'd better start making their own hardware, and then it must be cheaper, better and faster than other desktop consumer hardware. This is not happening. The Amiga brand isn't gaining anything, AmigaOS is instead once again becoming known as "that dinky little OS that only runs on special hardware from special vendors", even though there is no technical reason for this. Sure, sell licensed hardware using the "AmigaOne" trademark, only the licensed hardware would be connected to the precious "Amiga" name, but it's insanity to NOT have the OS ported to as much hardware as possible and sell separate copies as well.
But anyway, Pegasos stories have their place on amiga.org.
-
samface wrote:
It's just so sad to see how the Amiga community has become such an easy victim for this kind of marketing scam...
(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/biggrininvasion.gif)(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/biggrininvasion.gif)(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/biggrininvasion.gif)(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/biggrininvasion.gif)
(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/jump.gif)(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/jump.gif)(http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/jump.gif)
-
@Seehund
Repeat after me: Buying a motherboard design from a hardware designing company and then modifying it for your purposes is not the same thing as bying a ready made board.
Also, do you remember the blue prints on Eyetech's webpage in the AmigaOne's early stages? You know, the one Eyetech made on their own but couldn't use because Escena didn't deliver the necessary chipsets as promised? What I can't believe is your ignorant statement about Eyetech not having anything to do with hardware design. If you don't believe me, browse to: http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/pics/a1board.gif
Furthermore, drop this whole "Bill McEwen said" crap, you know just as well as I that his reply wouldn't be the same today. For how long are you going to have this grudge against them simply because they made changes in their plans?
And then, stop speculating about the AmigaOS5 and the AmigaDE. Just because they haven't told *you* about the details yet, does that mean that their plans in their office in Snowqualmie has to be "vague"? No.
The "AmigaOne" trademark is a property of Amiga Inc. and they have defined it as hardware that has been ensured to run AmigaOS. Your definition mentioned in your post simply isn't true.
Finally, stop your "must not be" about their license requirements. It's their OS and they decide which hardware they want to support, not you or anyone else. They've decided to only make support for the hardware manufacturers willing to cooperate because they think that will be the best thing to do. You obviously don't have the capacity to comprehend their motive for this but yet you seem to be confident enough to challange their decission. Tell me, how come you think you know these things better than them? I've asked you this so many times without getting even as much an attempt to reply as you prefer to ramble on about your own vision on how you would have done things if you were the owner of the Amiga. Please, can't you even try giving me a reason for why I should listen to you at all?
But anyway, Pegasos is not an Amiga computer.
-
Also, do you remember the blue prints on Eyetech's webpage in the AmigaOne's early stages? You know, the one Eyetech made on their own but couldn't use because Escena didn't deliver the necessary chipsets as promised? What I can't believe is your ignorant statement about Eyetech not having anything to do with hardware design. If you don't believe me, browse to: http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/pics/a1board.gif
--
This design was made by *ESCENA* and the protos were produced in the *DCE* laboratory under eyetech'ssfunding. The blueprints were made by
Martin Schuller.
Finally, stop your "must not be" about their license requirements. It's their OS and they decide which hardware they want to support, not you or anyone else. They've decided to only make support for the hardware manufacturers willing to cooperate because they think that will be the best thing to do. You obviously don't have the capacity to comprehend their motive for this but yet you seem to be confident enough to challange their decission. Tell me, how come you think you know these things better than them? I've asked you this so many times without getting even as much an attempt to reply as you prefer to ramble on about your own vision on how you would have done things if you were the owner of the Amiga. Please, can't you even try giving me a reason for why I should listen to you at all?
--
Of course, it wasn't their sweat that was spent to make it, so they can kill it off by limiting it to whatever
they want. And don't tell me anything about funding
for the development cause Hyperion develop OS4 with their own financial resources.
-
@AmiGR:
Oh well, who cares. Eyetech is still the ones providing us with the hardware, they are the ones making it possible. Saying that they don't have anything to do with hardware is still false.
What you said about the AmigaOS not beeing any sweat and therefore no loss to kill is still not a reason for why they would do such a thing. It simply doesn't make sense. Besides, they can't. Their contract with Hyperion forbids them and gives Hyperion the right to continue development and release it to the end users even if Amiga Inc. themselves would go bancrupt or whatever.
-
Please tell me then, why would your "butterfly" theory be better than the facts I've been pointing out in this thread?
Oh, why bother.. you have such disrespect for facts
that it would be no point anyway. So please stop
and try to use arguments (that are full of crap)
as they arent arguments anyway. You just make
things up along to try proove that MOS is evil and must die. We know that you think this. Good for you.
Now go make some use instead.
:-)
-
@blubbe:
To sum things up of the "oh-so" important "facts" and arguments stated in this thread by blubbe:
1. I have been stung or scared by a Butterfly as a kid.
2. There is no point in giving me real arguments or facts.
3. The things I've repeated so many times, over and over for the last 2 yrs is something I've just made up as I go along.
4. My arguments are crap. No need to tell me why, they just are and I should accept that and go away.
5. My arguments are not even arguments.
Is that correct, blubbe?
-
The death of Amiga Inc or even Hyperion wouldn't
be the death of OS4 after it's release. Limiting it to
a VERY small market will be it's death. Hyperion
originally planned to target every possible hardware
combination they have the resources to develop for
(I've seen several interviews saying that), while with
the distribution policies they can't do that.
-
Which arguements? Most of the time you just flame
MOS with no point AT ALL.
-
By your defenition of facts then yeah.
Otherwise.. well, I didnt say 1, I didnt say 2,
actually I didnt say any of those, but its pretty close :)
Lets take this piece of comment for example
to show how you without any respect of facts
try to throw dirt on MOS:
And then you say that I don't have anything for why it would be irrelevant to Amiga users? Listen and listen carefully, WinUAE has better support for Amiga applications than MorphOS since it only runs retargetable Amiga applications.
So what, put UAE on MOS and run non-rtg apps.
Ontop of that, it doesn't run Amiga applications natively in any way, it emulates.
What do you think MOS does ??
Edit: What do you think WinUAE does ?
MorphOS will also not run AmigaOS4 applications and MorphOS applications won't run on any AmigaOS.
Neither will UAE, what your point ?
To sum things up:
MorphOS is an OS that doesn't run on Amiga hardware,
Yes it does, on classic PPC.
MorphOS applications won't run on AmigaOS and emulation is required in order for it to run Amiga applications. Per definition that makes it a non Amiga compatible (or even related) OS.
Yeah, same can be said of UAE. Again Whats your point ?
Pegasos is hardware not capable of running AmigaOS natively which makes it easy to define as non Amiga hardware.
But Amithlon/UAE is better then ?? What ?
So, tell me; why would this be more Amiga relevant than WinUAE?
Because unlike UAE, its not JUST an emulator..
-- well, not a single line that provides any real arguments against MOS.
-
> MorphOS is an OS that doesn't run on Amiga
> hardware, MorphOS applications won't run on
Excuse me? I beg your pardon? So, the AmigaOne is more of an Amiga than my 1200, right?
> AmigaOS and emulation is required in order for it
> to run Amiga applications. Per definition that
> makes it a non Amiga compatible (or even related) > OS.
So? it works EXACTLY the same way OS4 does.
Native PPC libraries and devices on which 68k
apps run under 68k emulation. Do you read?
*68k* emulation. It does *NOT* emulate the APIs
in any way, it reimplements them in the A/Box which
is the only part of MorphOS you see right now.
You keep posting crap about stuff you know nothing about.
-
Well, like Tickly and I already agreed to earlier in this thread, it's a matter of wether you find WinUAE to be Amiga related or not. You and him obviously does while I don't. I mean, would an Amiga with PCTask installed be a PC related computer? IMHO, alternative platform software compatibility through emulation simply isn't magicaly turning that underlying hardware or OS into beeing classified as a part of that platform. People are beeing intentionally fooled into thinking otherwise giving them a ride on someone else's trademark for free. Remember when you could even search for "AmigaOne" in google and Pegasos advertising would show? But then, it's ok since they will "save" the Amiga with their alternative platform, right?
-
Excuse me? I beg your pardon? So, the AmigaOne is more of an Amiga than my 1200, right?
Here we get to another point of mine. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that Amiga Inc. owns the Amiga brand and is therefore allowed to define whatever they want to be "Amiga" as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's IP? The AmigaOne has been defined to be the new Amiga by Amiga Inc. so therefore yes, it is more Amiga than the classic Amiga hardware as it was labeled to be Amiga by previous owners of the name. I even dare saying that your Amiga 1200 isn't an Amiga at all, it's previous Amiga hardware. It's "used to be", "no more" and "dead", can you hear the violins?
-
Ah so the ~3 million units sold by C= and Escom are NOT Amigas,
but the ~20 units sold by Eytech sofar are, even so they can't
even run any Amiga-SW atm. (outside UAE that is).
Man your funny !
IF AInc can proove that MorphOS includes their
IP than they have the right to go against it.
But sofar they have delieverd zero evidence, and I doubt they ever will.
In this case MorphOS is legal, and just a competition product,
and competition is GOOD, because without it AInc/Hypeion would have gone
on a much simpler concept for OS4, like it was planned in early 01
(OS3.9 running in a non-JIT emu).
If AInc fails to stand up to the competiton, than they will die
regardless if you can read Pegasos-news here or not.
-
So? it works EXACTLY the same way OS4 does.
Are you saying that Hyperion has reverse engineered the MorphOS A/Box? Or, perhaps they don't work as *exactly* the same way as you said... (Hey, you're the one that wrote "exactly" in capitol letters.)
It does *NOT* emulate the APIs
Now where did say that? Guess what? I didn't. On the contrary, I've said that they have reverse engineered the AmigaOS API's in previous posts in this thread. That's hardly the same thing as emulating, now is it?
-
But sofar they have delieverd zero evidence, and I doubt they ever will.
But then, you're hardly involved in this case at all, now are you? How could *you* possibly know anything about their evidence at all?
-
If AInc fails to stand up to the competiton, than they will die
But then, we don't even know if we can classify them as competition or "IP thieves" yet, now do we?
You know, the simple fact that their legal status is questionable is enough for most people to not be willing to invest their money in it. Ontop of that, if the owners of the brand has slim chances of making it regardless of how impressive product they sell, what does that tell you about the chances for a clone to that brand? Just something to think about, a point of view if you like.
-
Well now I'm 100% sure. You're TOTALLY insane:)
-
Gosh! The foundementals are the same. This is the
most common way to run legacy applications after
hardware emulation.
-
Yeap, while you know every single piece of evidence and are sure that they will win :-)
-
Yeap, while you know every single piece of evidence and are sure that they will win
I never claimed that the facts I have been pointing at would be any kind of evidence that will be used in this case. All I'm saying is that certain things are so obvious for anyone to see that denying it is pointless.
-
Well, it seems that your propaganda worked so far.
You managed to make enough peeople worry about MorphOS' legality and even more hate it.
Anyway, people believing you should visit a doctor :-)
-
[sarcasm]
I believe the MorphOS website states that their product is an Amiga next-genearation PPC OS. Tell me doctor, what should I do? Is it a disease that can be cured?
[/sarcasm]
-
I believe you should be enclosed in a sanitarium cause:
1) It never was in the MorphOS website, it was in a
newsnet posting by Ralph Schmidt.
2) Anyone is entitled to make a Next Generation PPC
OS for Amiga computers, cause that's how any sane
man would interprete that.
Amiga (for Amiga computers, so it's true) Next Generation (marketing sttuff, most companies announce their OSes as "next generation" OSes
anyway) PPC (it runs on the PPC processor)
OS (it is an operating system, isn't it?).
There is nothing from these you can interprete differently. And *YES* it *DOES* run on *AMIGA* computers. The *ONLY* Amiga computers currently
available to the users are the "dead' Amigas.
It doesn't matter how much you jump up and down
crying, it runs on *COMMODORE AMIGA HARDWARE*.
-
*COMMODORE AMIGA HARDWARE*.
Plus:
*ESCOM AMIGA HARDWARE*
And probraly:
*EYETECH AMIGA HARDWARE*
-
It never was in the MorphOS website, it was in a newsnet posting by Ralph Schmidt.
That's odd, this URL works for me:
http://www.morphos.de/files/pressancdec2399.txt
Perhaps you should check your network settings?
Anyone is entitled to make a Next Generation PPC OS for Amiga computers, cause that's how any sane man would interprete that.
The phrase "next-generation" refers to something beeing the successor of a previous version. What's the previous version of MorphOS? Well, let's stop arguing about it and read it stated even more clear at this URL:
http://www.morphos.de/files/morphos_overview11-Apr-00a.txt
I quote the highlight:
> ...will bring you now what you`ve always wished
> for....
> AmigaOS running on PPC in 2000
it runs on *COMMODORE AMIGA HARDWARE*
Nope, it runs on Phase5 PowerUp boards.
-
Ehm, do the Phase5 PPC accelerator boards work
without the Amiga hardware? Yes, it runs on the
Amiga hardware, like OS4 does/will. Except if you
say the same about OS4 too:)(that it doesn't run on
Amiga hardware minus AmigaONE, it only runs on
P5 PPCs). Sorry, you're nuts. You're totally nuts.
-
Ehm, do you know anything about Operating System
generations? Bah, I don't think you do... If you did you
wouldn't even mention that...
As for the AmigaOS running on PPC part, MorphOS
was just an emulator back then.... It just emulated
the 68k. So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.
-
Ehm, do the Phase5 PPC accelerator boards work
without the Amiga hardware? Yes, it runs on the
Amiga hardware, like OS4 does/will. Except if you
say the same about OS4 too:)(that it doesn't run on
Amiga hardware minus AmigaONE, it only runs on
P5 PPCs). Sorry, you're nuts. You're totally nuts.
Ehhh... What are you on about? We're talking about what the MorphOS runs on, not the requirements for the Phase5 PowerUP boards. MorphOS runs on the Phase5 PowerUP boards PowerPC CPU, not the Amiga hardware's 68k CPU. You cannot simply skip a part of the chain and claim that MorphOS runs on the Amiga hardware because MorphOS cannot run on the Amiga hardware as it has no PowerPC CPU.
-
Ehm, do you know anything about Operating System
generations? Bah, I don't think you do... If you did you
wouldn't even mention that...
But I do know that you must have the legal issues set straight before claiming to be the successor of someone else's product line, regardless of how compatible it is.
-
The versions the announcement talks about runned AmigaOS 68k. It needed the Amiga chipset, so yes
it does run on Amiga hardware with the Phase5
PPC *EXPANSION/ACCELERATOR* cards.
Do you read? *EXPANSION* They *EXPAND* the Amiga hardware. They do no *REPLACE* it, so NO it
does *NOT* on Phase5 hardware it runs on Amiga
hardware expanded with the Phase5 PPC cards.
-
So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.
*sigh*
[metaphor]
Police officer: I hereby arrest you for the murder on John F. Kennedy. You have the right to remain silent...
Murderer: But that was back then, officer! I don't kill people anymore and I'm nowadays an ordinary obidient citizen, promise!
Police officer: Oh? Well, ok then. You're free to go. Have a nice day!
[/metaphor]
Can you see the flaw in your argument? Please tell me that you do or do I have to spell it out for you?
-
So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.
The versions the announcement talks about runned AmigaOS 68k. It needed the Amiga chipset, so yes
it does run on Amiga hardware with the Phase5
PPC *EXPANSION/ACCELERATOR* cards.
Hmmm... someone is getting confused by his own arguments, I see... FYI: That is a perfect example of how a contradiction looks like.
Anyway, what hardware an OS runs is defined by the CPU. MorphOS runs on the PowerUp boards from Phase5 and makes use of the Amiga hardware like an expansion board in contrary to the AmigaOS which runs on the Amiga hardware and makes use of the PowerUp boards as an expansion board.
-
samface:
Repeat after me: Buying a motherboard design from a hardware designing company and then modifying it for your purposes is not the same thing as bying a ready made board.
I'd gladly repeat that, since it's a true logical relation. It is however not what Eyetech has done and it has no bearing on anything that we're "discussing" here... :- P
You know, the one Eyetech made on their own but couldn't use because Escena blahblahblah
Please. That's a "severely contrafactual description of history", to put it mildly! I see that AmiGR is trying to help you get it straight in another post.
Furthermore, drop this whole "Bill McEwen said" crap, you know just as well as I that his reply wouldn't be the same today.
I thought they only changed directions every six months or so? ;) McEwen said this 3 weeks ago. Or are you saying that he 1. didn't know what he was talking about, 2. misspoke, or 3. lied? I see no reason for alternative 3 at least, so I suppose you once again feel it's your duty to make up excuses on the fly for the blunders of a commercial company and its executive employees.
And then, stop speculating about the AmigaOS5 and the AmigaDE. Just because they haven't told *you* about the details yet, does that mean that their plans in their office in Snowqualmie has to be "vague"? No.
No, but they have had since January 3rd, 2000 (or rather, since when they discovered that Elate could not be used as a basis for a desktop computer, let alone server, OS) to explain in a less vague way what they will be doing and selling One Of These Days. I say that what's been presented so far regarding the DE is a vague concoction of virtually meaningless buzzwords aimed at .com investors. My opinion. Unless I have misunderstood you, you personally put your full trust to this marketing and thinks of it as the future for AmigaOS? When were you told all the "details"? My "speculations" are based on what's been publicly announced and said, what are your "speculations" based on? Hope? The belief of the inherent supernatural powers of a certain trademark and the competence, capabilities and Good Intentions(TM) that this trademark automatically brings to whomever that happens to own it at a certain time?
The "AmigaOne" trademark is a property of Amiga Inc. and they have defined it as hardware that has been ensured to run AmigaOS. Your definition mentioned in your post simply isn't true.
OK then, "'AmigaOne' is a trademark currently used by one licensed distributor for the piece of hardware it's distributing. Nothing more and nothing less." It has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications.
They've decided to only make support for the hardware manufacturers willing to cooperate ...
There you go with that damn "cooperate" again. It's not healthy to swallow marketing that uncritically. Compulsory licensing/bundling/dongling is not a prerequisite for cooperation, it's EVIDENTLY an obstacle against cooperation.
You obviously don't have the capacity to comprehend their motive for this but yet you seem to be confident enough to challange their decission.
How utterly sad and embarrassing. :( I can imagine the fit of blinding trademark-induced rage you were in when you wrote that.
Aren't we lucky then that you are around to parrot press releases and marketing so we know everyone's true motives.
"Microsoft innovates. Mac users think different. Read my lips: no new taxes. Compulsory hardware licensing/bundling/dongling protects us, stops piracy and is necessary for cooperation." What a simple world we live in, where we don't have to think by ourselves, never read between the lines, believe all marketing and never have to form our own opinions and come to our own conclusions.
F*ck, that trademark is truely powerful.
Tell me, how come you think you know these things better than them? I've asked you this so many times without getting even as much an attempt to reply as you prefer to ramble on about your own vision on how you would have done things if you were the owner of the Amiga. Please, can't you even try giving me a reason for why I should listen to you at all?
WTF??? What the heck does it matter to you whether I'm a truck driver and a fired marketing executive or a Harvard MBA and a MIT CS PhD? Read or don't read what I say and judge BY YOURSELF damnit! There's no "impartial" force out there that will tell you whether anyone is right or wrong. If you want to listen to me is entirely up to you, although I'd appreciate if you'd do it if you're going to bother replying. I don't care who you are (unless you're affiliated with any of the discussed parties), I judge your(?) ideas after what you write and say and compare it to my own ideas.
By your odd reasoning we should ask why anyone should listen to you? Because you can repeat marketing material? I'm not asking, I don't care. I already listen to you, as I'm replying to what you say.
But anyway, Pegasos is not an Amiga computer.
Amiga computers: A1000, A500, A2000, A1500, A3000, A600, A4000, A1200... - Requiescat In Pace, damnit!
(Edit: misc. ;) )
-
I didn't contradict myself... In the begining it needed
the chipset(until 0.4 I think). It did replace some
device drivers that couldn't run in their original form
but still needed the chipset for the rest. Later they
replaced more and more until it didn't need the chipset and as a matter of fact, didn't need AmigaOS
68k stuff at all. Clear now?
-
What you can't understand is that it's not illegal to run AmigaOS under an Amiga emulator on your
Amiga computer, using your original Kickstart ROM,
that is essentially installed on your hardware.
So if I made a new exec, patch it on AmigaOS
and run the rest of the OS normally, would I commit
a crime? If yes, go on and arrest the authors of AROS... It has been possible to do that for quite a long time. Run the AROS exec on Amiga hardware
and use the rest from the ROM.
-
The exec is the AmigaOS kernel, so yes you would
run AROS and AmigaOS on top of that. You just don't
need to emulate the 68k.
-
Seehund, I'm not going to argue with you anymore except for about the stuff that is outright lies. Well, either that or the official information available is lying and I see no reason for why you would be a more reliable source of information than corporate websites.
1. You claim that Eyetech only buys ready made boards for redistribution as AmigaOne computers. Their official FAQ says differently and therefore I find your statement to be of little credibility.
2. You claim to know unofficial secrets about Amiga Inc.'s AmigaDE plans, supposedly told to you by Bill McEwan in person just three weeks ago. Once more you want me to believe this despite the fact that the official information says otherwise. Now here is where it gets really interesting; why would Bill McEwan tell you such a thing even if it was true when you haven't signed an NDA? Also, if you're such a "buddy" with Bill McEwan, how come you don't settle your issues with Amiga Inc. directly with him in person instead of spreading your dissatisfaction with them all over the net? Please help me straightening out these question marks and I would be really grateful...
3. You also claim that the AmigaOne license has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications. Once more that is untrue since a piece of hardware must be *ensured* to be AmigaOS4 compatible before beeing able to label itself as an AmigaOne computer.
The rest of your post I will argue about no more as we're obviously not getting anywhere. I agree to disagree with you and that's it.
-
What you can't understand is that it's not illegal to run AmigaOS under an Amiga emulator on your
Amiga computer, using your original Kickstart ROM,
that is essentially installed on your hardware.
According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. Don't believe me? I'll give you a court case for reference, if you like.
-
1. You claim that Eyetech only buys ready made boards for redistribution as AmigaOne computers. Their official FAQ says differently and therefore I find your statement to be of little credibility.
The link/quote you provided said that the A1 is not identical to the TeronCX. I AM NOT ARGUING WITH THAT. Eyetech are buying boards from the same manufacturer that supplies Mai with theirs. JUST AS ALAN REDHOUSE HIMSELF HAS SAID SEVERAL TIME IN PUBLIC BOTH ON THE A1 MAILINGLIST AND ELSEWHERE.
I just can't understand why you're so pathologically fixated with this. There's nothing "ugly" about buying ready-made boards you know. It's just hardware, a commodity, like a Pegasos or a Mac or a ASUS mobo or WHATEVER. Get over it, please!
2. You claim to know unofficial secrets about Amiga Inc.'s AmigaDE plans, supposedly told to you by Bill McEwan in person just three weeks ago.
What the F*CK are you BABBLING about? I never made any such claims! Stop reading what you THINK people say and instead read what they say.
Bill McEwen said this in the interview held at AmiWest on July 27th and the whole damn Internet had the possibility to hear it, I spent several hours typing out transcripts of what was being said partially to avoid idiocy like this, I gave you the link in a post above, and you come with crap like this?
You don't read or absorb what anyone writes but you gladly reply anyway, you don't read the news and public statements you talk about, you can't be bothered to follow provided links to those statements, regarding both technical and legal issues you repeatedly appear to be less than clued-in, you uncritically repeat marketing material instead of providing reasoning of your own as arguments, you throw around childish Slashdot-like or Amiga-vs.-Atari-in-1987 crap like "the enemy", "parasite on the Amiga market"... All THIS actually makes the question "why the hell should anyone listen to you?" quite valid.
3. You also claim that the AmigaOne license has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications. Once more that is untrue since a piece of hardware must be *ensured* to be AmigaOS4 compatible before beeing able to label itself as an AmigaOne computer.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE DESIGN, STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS! I don't claim that, it's just the way it is. "AmigaOne" is a trademark. If someone licenses a PowerMac G4 and gets to use the "AmigaOne" trademark, this changes nothing about the hardware. You want that in bold and pretty colours too? One person says one thing and you start arguing about something completely different, it never fails, and it's getting damn tiresome.
AmigaOS 4 or even Exec for PPC did not exist in any executable shape or form when the "AmigaOne G3SE" was announced as being licensed hardware, neither did it exist during the "AmigaOne-1200/4000" fiasco, and neither did it exist when the "forthcoming" "AmigaOne XE" was announced, and now it also appears like the Open Firmware in the TeronCX/A1 "has" to be replaced by a version of PPCBoot.
The trademark has sweet f*ck all to do with anything relevant regarding hardware functionality.
OK, go ahead and waffle about lies or whatever. I don't care anymore and this thread is finished as far as I'm concerned. At least don't hold your personal credibility and integrity in lower regard than your imagined duty to provide excuses for and defense of some marketing. It's sickening and humiliating.
-
According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. Don't believe me? I'll give you a court case for reference, if you like.
Please do! Please do! :D PLEEEASE! :D :D :D You won't find anything like that even in an atrocity like the DMCA, let alone in US Code, let alone in any EU legislation.
It could be stated in a contract like an EULA, but it isn't.
Oh well, maybe it'll keep you busy for a while. :)
-
Eyetech are buying boards from the same manufacturer that supplies Mai with theirs.
No, they are buying *designs* from the same hardware *designer*. Sure, they might have bought a few ready made boards for testing etc. but those ready made ones will not be sold as end user products. It's a small but very important difference.
BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE DESIGN, STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS!
Yes because the hardware design, standards and specifications of the specific hardware in question has to be ensured to be compatible with AmigaOS4 in order to be able to label itself as an "AmigaOne".
Bill McEwen said this in the interview held at AmiWest on July 27th ...
Ok, now I see how this got really way off track. I said that the new Amiga will be a combination of the AmigaDE and the AmigaOS (version unspecified) and then you jumped on me saying that there won't be anyone for AmigaOS4. Do you see it? A misunderstanding, that's all.
-
From http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/AppendixB.htm:
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Readysoft, Inc. (aka the A-Max precedent, 1989)
While this court case never happened to the best of my knowledge, the potential threat of it and the subseqent inaction on Apple's part to bring it about set a imprtant precedent for emulation technology. A-Max was the brainchild of Simon Douglas and the first Macintosh emulator for any platform. It allowed any Amiga computer to emulate a Mac via a combination of software and special hardware. Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market. Therefore, by default, Readysoft was allowed to continue marketing and improving A-Max at will.
The A-Max precedent is important to anyone who may be required to defend the development and subsequent release of an emulator. It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights.
Let me point out the highlights:
"Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market."
"It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights."
This very much proves what I stated previously which was:
According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP.
-
Please do! Please do! :D PLEEEASE! :D :D :D
I hope you are as good at saying "thank you" as you are saying "please". :-P ;-)
-
"Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market."
--
Do you know anything about AMax? It was designed
to use the actual Macintosh ROM chips. The court
decided that such use of ROMs for emulation is legal.
"It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights."
--
Exactly. The EULA of 3.1 doesn't mention anything
against emulation, only about illegal copying.
MorphOS uses the ROM chip intact. When you installed the chips you accepted the EULA terms.
Amiga Inc., or ANY Amiga Inc., can't change the
EULA terms after you accepted them, unless stated
otherwise in the EULA.
So: 1) MorphOS doesn't infringe Amiga Inc.'s IP rights.
2) It's use does not infringe the EULA the user accepted.
-
The court
decided that such use of ROMs for emulation is legal.
...so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights.
Exactly. The EULA of 3.1 doesn't mention anything
against emulation, only about illegal copying.
Please, AmiGR. I've already done my homework on this one so don't even try. There are specific laws regarding the use of ROM's that applies *regardless* what the EULA says. The EULA is *not* what decides wether something is infringing on the IP or not.
-
A court case proved that the law DOES NOT APPLY
TO THIS USE OF THE ROMS. So why do you keep
repeating the same thing while it's DEAD obvious?
The "specific laws" were proved not to apply in that
case, so it does not infringe the IP rights of the
original vendor.
So neither the IP is infringed nor the EULA is broken.
That was my point. What is YOUR point?
Oh, and about the specific case (the MOS one) don't
even try... I know MUCH more that you think about
this one...
-
A court case proved that the law DOES NOT APPLY
TO THIS USE OF THE ROMS.
MorphOS may technically use it the same way as the A-Max but as they are using this for their competing product to the AmigaOS (which the ROM is a part of) then it is per definition infringing on their IP. It's actually simple logic. I mean, it's just like if you would take the exterior of a brand new sportscar, put it on your old Ford and then sell it as a next-generation Ford called "morphord". You don't think that would be infringing on Ford's IP?
The "specific laws" were proved not to apply in that
case, so it does not infringe the IP rights of the
original vendor.
I can't believe you actually managed to miss my point despite all of my bold wordings and all... *sigh*
Anyway, here we go again; MorphOS infringes on Amiga Inc.'s IP by using their ROM for their *competing* product. The AmigaROM is Amiga Inc.'s intellectual property and may not be used by a product that is a competing alternative to the original. An emulator is not a competing alternative or even a stand alone product but rather a complement to the original product. MorphOS is an OS (or claims to be atleast, sometime I doubt) and as it makes use of both the ROM and even more parts from the rest of the AmigaOS, it is per definition infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. How could you possibly question this when it's obvious enough dazzle your eyes?
-
All right:
MorphOS 0.1-4 was an emulator using the ROMs LEGALLY. It only patched Exec and expansion
but even UAE patches some parts of the OS.
So as you said:
" An emulator is not a competing alternative or even a stand alone product but rather a complement to the original product."
MorphOS 0.5+ Do not use nor need the Amiga Kickstart ROM and replace AmigaOS completely.
It falls in the "competiting alternative" category
you mentioned. It does not use the ROM, so it does
not infringe Amiga Inc's IP. That simple :-)
You actually made my life A LOT easier with those
statements:-)
Now what? Gonna reverse your own statements?
The problem with you is that you apply some stuff you know on some stuff you know nothing about.
-
Perhaps this will clear things out for you:
intellectual property
n.
A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
intellectual property
(IP) The ownership of ideas and control over the tangible or virtual representation of those ideas. Use of another person's intellectual property may or may not involve royalty payments or permission, but should always include proper credit to the source.
(1997-03-27)
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe
The law has made it legal for an emulator to make use of the original system's BIOS/ROM if it's running unchanged on the original hardware as that isn't infringing on the intellectual property. But an OS on the other hand, may not as it would be infringing on the intellectual property of the owners to the original OS.
-
MorphOS 0.1-4 was an emulator using the ROMs LEGALLY.
MorphOS never was just an emulator. Regardless of the technical details they market their product as an OS and therefore you cannot refer to it as something else.
-
Again MorphOS 0.1-4 was an OS running an Amiga
emulator. MorphOS itself (quark+hal) does not need
anything else to work. They are standalone.
In it's first versions, the A/Box was an Amiga emulator. So no, MorphOS 0.1-4 wasn't an OS using the Amiga ROM. MorphOS was and is a standalone
OS. It was running an Amiga Emulator and is now
running a full AmigaOS replacement.
-
When I referred to MorphOS earlier, I referred to the
A/Box. MorphOS itself is an OS on it's own right.
A/Box was an emulator and it was the part requiring
the ROM.
It was my mistake, sorry.
-
Again MorphOS 0.1-4 was an OS running an Amiga emulator.
The emulator was integrated and a part of the OS, was it not? How do you run the public beta from the MorphOS team without it? How do I remove it in order to not run it? Please, it's a part of the OS and you cannot refer to it as a seperate application. Also, if you run the emulator ontop of another OS than the original, then it's not running on the original system anymore and then it is infringing on their IP. I'm sorry but there is no way around it regardless of how much you try to twist and turn things around, give it up already.
-
How can you remove it? Easilly. Delete abox.rom
(it was amiga.rom in the emulator days) and
module.rom. The startup utility provided with
MorphOS won't run without them but you can use
another boot tool to load the kernel+hal in the RAM
and boot morphos. It won't do anything as it won't
have anything to run, abox is the only current application running in Quark.
-
When I referred to MorphOS earlier, I referred to the
A/Box. MorphOS itself is an OS on it's own right.
A/Box was an emulator and it was the part requiring
the ROM.
There was no A/Box until these later versions which hasn't been released to the public. You can read about that on the MorphOS website, it goes something along the lines "...is from now on called A/Box".
-
Also, if you run the emulator ontop of another OS than the original, then it's not running on the original system anymore and then it is infringing on their IP.
--
Aha! Why wasn't AMax prosecuted then?
It wasn't running MacOS under MacOS!
It was running MacOS under AmigaOS using
the MacOS ROM on a card (+ a floppy interface).
-
How can you remove it? Easilly. Delete abox.rom
(it was amiga.rom in the emulator days) and
module.rom.
That is simply not true if we're talking v.0.4 and below, it requires it's use in order to function.
-
There was no A/Box until these later versions which hasn't been released to the public. You can read about that on the MorphOS website, it goes something along the lines "...is from now on called A/Box".
--
AHAHH! Of course... It was called "Amiga Emulation".
They changed the name to A/Box after it became
what it is right now.
-
If you mean the Amiga Emulation (A/Box)(amiga.rom,
module.rom) it doesn't:) The startup tool just asks
for them to boot the OS and run the emulator directly.
The startup utility isn't a part of the OS though, it's
a standard AmigaOS application and you're free to make another startup tool, or modify a ready one.
-
Aha! Why wasn't AMax prosecuted then?
It wasn't running MacOS under MacOS!
It was running MacOS under AmigaOS using
the MacOS ROM on a card (+ a floppy interface).
That emulator still not claimed to be an OS on it's own.
-
Why don't you refer to the announcement you posted
earlier?
What does it mention? *Under* MorphOS a Mixed Mode AmigaOS *RUNS* as a multithreaded application/driver. Only infriging thing I find in MorphOS right now is the use of the AmigaOS name
in the first announcements.
So, NO the emulator did NOT claim to be an OS by it's own.
It runned UNDER an OS, MorphOS.
-
I don't have time for this anymore... The emulator was required in order for the MorphOS to function, it was running as an integrated part of the OS and most importantly, it was also marketed as a function of the OS. Face it, it's a dead end, you've painted yourself into a corner and can't get out without admitting your mistake. I'm too tired for this and I'm going to bed now, goodnight.
-
If you ever bothered to run MorphOS with maximum
debug and take a look at the boot logs, you would know that this is wrong... :) I also have a test version
that doesn't need it all, it just boots quark, for debug
without any extra help by the user.
-
If you don't want to continue this debate, shut up,
do not say a SINGLE word about it until AFTER the court... If there's going to be one.
If you do not want to shut up, don't give up now:)
-
Hmm.. hehe, this thread is till going ??! :)
@samface
MorphOS may technically use it the same way as the A-Max but as they are using this for their competing product to the AmigaOS (which the ROM is a part of) then it is per definition infringing on their IP. It's actually simple logic. I mean, it's just like if you would take the exterior of a brand new sportscar, put it on your old Ford and then sell it as a next-generation Ford called "morphord". You don't think that would be infringing on Ford's IP?
Now youre beeing stupid.. making up fictive scenarios to back up your oppinion..
Anyway, here we go again; MorphOS infringes on Amiga Inc.'s IP by using their ROM for their *competing* product. The AmigaROM is Amiga Inc.'s intellectual property and may not be used by a product that is a competing alternative to the original. An emulator is not a competing alternative or even a stand alone product but rather a complement to the original product. MorphOS is an OS (or claims to be atleast, sometime I doubt) and
Ok, now tell me, WHY do you doubt MOS is a real OS ?? Beacuse a man in a dream told you ?
as it makes use of both the ROM and even more parts from the rest of the AmigaOS, it is per definition infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. How could you possibly question this when it's obvious enough dazzle your eyes?
Sure, v0.4 uses parts of Amiga, if thats what youre talking about.