Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: Cosmos Amiga on July 17, 2015, 03:38:10 PM
-
New version 47.8 of the cgxsystem.library (CyberGraphX 4) soon available, I need to make the patch...
Only the 020 version will be released, because the other 040 is very very close to the 020...
Two bugs were fixed, one found by the almighty Peter Keunecke and the same one by me into another function : when d2 is used, coders have to save it on the stack before, no discussion.
There is a lot of useless sections removed into the .library, so this beta 1 need some checking !
And I found an SAS/C compilator bug, but don't know how to fix. I kept like this, but a solution must be found :
L_0_18714
dc.w JL_0_18894-JL_0_1870C ; bug
dc.w JL_0_188A8-JL_0_1870C
dc.w JL_0_188BD-JL_0_1870C
dc.w JL_0_188D8-JL_0_1870C
...
...
JL_0_18892
dc.w $986D
JL_0_18894 ; bug
dc.w $000E ; sub.w $E(a5),d4
dc.w $4ED2 ; jmp (a2)
JL_0_1889A
sub.w $E(a5),d4
move.b (a0)+,(a1)+
addq.w #1,d7
So, it's "dc.w JL_0_18892-JL_0_1870C" or "dc.w JL_0_1889A-JL_0_1870C" ?
Hard to know, and can be another label, I have only my dissassembling raw source...
Anyways, I'm still looking for the CyberGraphX4 SDK !
:)
-
New version 47.8 of the cgxsystem.library (CyberGraphX 4) soon available, I need to make the patch...
Only the 020 version will be available, because the other 040 is very very close to the 020...
Two bugs were fixed, one found by the almighty Peter Keunecke and the same one by me into another function : when d2 is used, coders have to save it on the stack, no discussion.
I remember this bug. Long ago when i was coding in asm i found out one of parameters were silently altered. For a moment i was like "wtf" until i realised what was going on.
-
Cool stuff.
-
Great work! :banana:
-
Thank you for the bugfix!
-
Great work! :banana:
No, lousy work. Really, guys. There is no reason to applaud. There's a reason to be mad about it. It's another sad example how the "community" (or absence thereof) threads its developers (or ex-developers). It would have been just so easy: Simply ask the author (Frank?) about the bug, ask him kindly to fix it, or provide ideas what to do about it, or for permission to fix it. Nothing is easier than that! Consider you've created a painting or a building (as an architect) and somebody else comes along and repaints the eyes or puts another roof on top. That's simply not how you treat people that invested quite some time and had a hard job completing the building or painting in first place. You just damn ask them, that's the absolute minimum I would expect. As an architect, you are even protected by law from third-party modifications on your creation, I believe it's not asking for too much to show the same level of respect to software architects. If the answer of the architect would be "go, p*ss off!", you can still react on that, but in most cases, it was not when I tried (with exceptions, of course). And, on the plus side, it keeps such developers motivated to invest time in their work. Stuff like that - pirating other's people's work and messing with it in the way they may or may not have intended - is not going to help! Actually, it may seem to help on a short time scale, but it will motivate nobody to invest some time into their old projects. Bug reports, on the other hand, or hints for improvement, may! Yes, it takes longer, but yes, it may be worth at least giving it a try. I'm not even commenting on the correctness of the patch. I don't know. It's not my work, and not my bug. But the form of communication, and the way that some people even applaud on this is just something that makes *me* mad. Folks, if you want to be part of a serious community, act professional!
-
Great work! :banana:
No, lousy work. Really, guys. There is no reason to applaud. There's a reason to be mad about it. It's another sad example how the "community" (or absence thereof) threads its developers (or ex-developers).
It would have been just so easy: Simply ask the author (Frank?) about the bug, ask him kindly to fix it, or provide ideas what to do about it, or for permission to fix it. Nothing is easier than that!
Consider you've created a painting or a building (as an architect) and somebody else comes along and repaints the eyes or puts another roof on top. That's simply not how you treat people that invested quite some time and had a hard job completing the building or painting in first place. You just damn ask them, that's the absolute minimum I would expect.
As an architect, you are even protected by law from third-party modifications on your creation, I believe it's not asking for too much to show the same level of respect to software architects.
If the answer of the architect would be "go, p*ss off!", you can still react on that, but in most cases, it was not when I tried (with exceptions, of course). And, on the plus side, it keeps such developers motivated to invest time in their work.
Stuff like that - pirating other's people's work and messing with it in the way they may or may not have intended - is not going to help! Actually, it may seem to help on a short time scale, but it will motivate nobody to invest some time into their old projects. Bug reports, on the other hand, or hints for improvement, may! Yes, it takes longer, but yes, it may be worth at least giving it a try.
I'm not even commenting on the correctness of the patch. I don't know. It's not my work, and not my bug. But the form of communication, and the way that some people even applaud on this is just something that makes *me* mad.
Folks, if you want to be part of a serious community, act professional!
-
It would have been just so easy: Simply ask the author (Frank?) about the bug, ask him kindly to fix it, or provide ideas what to do about it, or for permission to fix it. Nothing is easier than that!
They refuse to help the 68k, really ! I guess they think the PPC is the only future ! Lol !!!
They have now zero imagination in computing, and zero idea = they think all Amiga fans are like that !! Lol again...
I sent an MP few weeks ago to OlafS3 about a C bug into another library, no answer...
A friend of mine asked a bPlan member about the reference of the BVision connector : they refuse to give it to him...
I guess they want to turn the Classics page, it's a big mistake for me...
So, the only solution is resourcing the binaries...
:)
-
They refuse to help the 68k, really ! I guess they think the PPC is the only future ! Lol !!!
I can only repeat myself: Write Frank a mail, post the answer *here*. As soon as there is an official statement(!) that they do not want to support the code anymore, that's a different business.
Just to repeat myself: Just because "they" (who is "they"?) seem not to report back to you in the past does not mean that you got the right to mess with somebodies code and supply an unauthorized version. Asking does not hurt. In fact, any type of answer and official communication can only make your position stronger, so there is nothing to loose.
-
I can only repeat myself: Write Frank a mail, post the answer *here*. As soon as there is an official statement(!) that they do not want to support the code anymore, that's a different business.
Just to repeat myself: Just because "they" (who is "they"?) seem not to report back to you in the past does not mean that you got the right to mess with somebodies code and supply an unauthorized version. Asking does not hurt. In fact, any type of answer and official communication can only make your position stronger, so there is nothing to loose.
I understand of course. I'm on Amiga since the beginning A500, and the mentality always was "very business", money-king... I'm job less and I have no money to give, sorry...
A french professionnel Amiga Center back in the days asked Thomas Dellert for some .jed files for repair dead cards (and not for building new boards) : no answer...
I have many other examples...
So, why refusing to help 68k ?
Phase5 had a lot of success on Classics, sold many many boards, make a LOT of money and got a bit of fame... They had good imagination and good ideas like the BVision, GRex...
To reach this success, there is 2 ways : the easiest is to sold soul to the devil. It's a bad deal, you know... Very bad... Users who read this, do NOT !
So, Phase5 are slave to the devil ?
Am I right ?
The devil have only one goal, destroying everything...
So after switching to PPC (Pegasos, Efika, MorphOS...), the next Phase5 project was to destroy the Classics ?
Hope I'm wrong...
-
@Richter
You'll probably never face any evidence of this, you know?. It's kind of vigilantism without the slightest excuse.
But continue in this. I like to know if there is more than a 19 years old inquiry from hearsay. :laughing:
-
@Cosmos
When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was an official patch from the developers, who are the copyright holders of CybergraphX.
After reading the thread through I can see it is about an unofficial patch to the binary. As a fellow fan of the Classic Amiga, I fully understand your motivations and hard work with wanting to further 68K development and bug fixing. Your efforts in identifying these bugs are very commendable. However, I agree with Thomas, it is far better to contact Frank Mariak to explain the problem and the proposed bug fix.
Distributing the files through a link posted in Amiga.org without any permission from the copyright holders is certainly something I wouldn't want this website to be involved in.
On the subject of Warp3D: A-EON owns Warp3D so if you have suggestions for improvement of the 68K version, send an email documenting the bugs and improvements to A-EON.
-
@amigakit
Ok, please delete this thread...
-
Well, why not just release the patch as a separate executable that applies the patch to the original CyberGraphX V4, that would be legal no ?
-
Reading between the lines, @itix says "I remember this bug. Long ago". That sounds to me like this bug has existed for years, possibly even decades, during which the original author could have addressed it. If they cared about the Amiga, at all... :(
When is the last time an official release came out, anyway? phase5.a1k.org says 2005. The official website cybergraphx.de is offline. Aminet has an update from 2008. Does development on this application continue, outside of what hobbyists and enthusiasts like Cosmos push forward? 'cause 7+ years with no release sounds like abandonware, to me...
-
Few weeks ago? CGX v5 is part of MorphOS
-
@Topic
First of all, thanks Tobias Richter for bringing this point of view up, for I havent actually even thought about that at all, and I think you are right that it should first be asked from the original author.
I would like to point out another thing too however, mainly regarding these "no answer" comments.
For when dealing with NCB, Nordisk Copyright Bureau (the one that follows the rights of all the songs together with other similars) one of the things is that if I would like to make a cover of someone elses work, I first have to contact the author.
However, If I have reasonably tried to contact the author, and this is thought to be as little as having sent the original author a letter to snail mail address that is registered in NCB for that author, or official contact address (probably even email) of authors record company/manager, supposing that is handling this authors stuff, then if i receive no reply, NCBs rules then state that I would have gotten the approval to use that song then.
I think that is quite sensible rule, although there is of course difference to this one, since when that original author first signed to NCB, he agreed to this rule, wether he himself realised it or not, unlike in this cybergraphx case, in which the author have not agreed to anything.
Just thought to point that out for this discussions sake.
-
CGX v5 is part of MorphOS
#Facepalm. That helps classic users, how?
-
However, If I have reasonably tried to contact the author, and this is thought to be as little as having sent the original author a letter to snail mail address that is registered in NCB for that author, or official contact address (probably even email) of authors record company/manager, supposing that is handling this authors stuff, then if i receive no reply, NCBs rules then state that I would have gotten the approval to use that song then.
I think that is quite sensible rule, although there is of course difference to this one, since when that original author first signed to NCB, he agreed to this rule, wether he himself realised it or not, unlike in this cybergraphx case, in which the author have not agreed to anything.
It's a sensible rule. Whether that would withstand in court is another business, but that's probably not even my point.
All I'm saying is: Please be nice to developers. Make at least an attempt to contact them, and give them a chance to react. That's really not asking for too much. It is a minimum matter of respect that should be shown.
If contacting the author fails, well, one can still start patching. It puts the one uploading the patch into a somewhat dangerous position, though, but that's then at least not my personal risk...
If the answer is, "please do not touch my work", well, then that's also an answer, maybe not the one you'd like to hear, but even then, please respect this. In many if not most cases I've observed, this was - however - not what I received as a response from the authors, so I wouldn't take the worst possible outcome as a motivation to start an unauthorized patch.
-
Does development on this application continue, outside of what hobbyists and enthusiasts like Cosmos push forward? 'cause 7+ years with no release sounds like abandonware, to me...
There is no such legal construct.
I'm job less and I have no money to give, sorry...
This is a woefully facile argument, one I tire of reading over and over again. With the number of community-funded bounties, Kickstart and IndiGoGo projects out there, not having money for a particular project is a non-starter. In fact, repeating it every time someone criticizes your work* seems like you are fishing for sympathy.
If Developer X wants $Y for someone to take over his or her rights to a particular product, there is no reason not to run over to Amiga.org, EAB, AA, and others to put up a post saying "Hey, I want to improve Product X, and the developer wants $Y for the rights. If you want to see this great product supported by a great active developer, please donate here!"
If Developer X ignores you or is otherwise not open to your advances, then a public post about the issue could elicit others to step in and advise or assist. At the very least it could open an underground of support for your project.
* To be sure, I understand your work to be heartfelt and by many accounts very good; a true labor of love. I, for one, appreciate you are willing to tackle the problems, though I believe, as others have mentioned, a better approach exists to disseminating your work.
-
When is the last time an official release came out, anyway? phase5.a1k.org says 2005. The official website cybergraphx.de is offline. Aminet has an update from 2008. Does development on this application continue, outside of what hobbyists and enthusiasts like Cosmos push forward? 'cause 7+ years with no release sounds like abandonware, to me...
Maybe it has been abandoned. However, wouldn't it be much nicer to hear this statement from the author that (apparently) abandoned the project? And then post that answer here? At least that would help everybody else to make a decision which product to pick (P96 is not quite that abandoned, for example) or how to handle the software.
So for example, if we hear from the authors "year, do whatever you want with it", then at least this could possibly motivate another group to pick up the project and start working from it.
Just guessing... well, I don't know. It seems *likely* that you are correct, but I believe there's only one person that should decide. Hint: None of us here.
-
Well, why not just release the patch as a separate executable that applies the patch to the original CyberGraphX V4, that would be legal no ?
Look, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe. Most product licenses have a clause that forbids reverse engineering. Whether that's a valid clause I do not know either... So please don't ask for a legal advice here.
One way or another, that's really not my point here. I'm really p*ssed by the overall attitute. "Oh well, this project was not moved forward in the last X years, so just let's patch it up how I like it and publish it".
Folks, that's not how you approach authors. Yeah, it is *probably* ok, but hey, what is so damn hard just to write a short email and simply *ask* about it, right? That hurts nobody, just be nice and act professional.
If there is no reply, or a negative reply, one can *still* get angry. But that's really a bit premature at this point, isn't it? I mean, I personally also never liked P5 overly, and I was also not treated nicely by them, but that *still* does not mean that I'm simply taking their work and hack it up and post it somewhere. It's not how I would like this world to function.
-
@amigakit
Ok, please delete this thread...
How much work would it be to make an executable that patches the original binary?
-
If contacting the author fails, well, one can still start patching. It puts the one uploading the patch into a somewhat dangerous position, though, but that's then at least not my personal risk...
It would be better use SetPatch() to patch this library vector to save D2 before calling original function and restore D2 on return. However, developers knowing said function clobbers D2 can work around it without resorting to tricks (IIRC the result is D2 = D2 + width).
Anyway, CGX is not abandonded, it is part of MorphOS, and the latest update was just few weeks ago. It is copyrighted stuff and Cosmos has no right to release "new" CGX4 versions.
-
Maybe it has been abandoned. However, wouldn't it be much nicer to hear this statement from the author that (apparently) abandoned the project? And then post that answer here?
That sounds very reasonable and all, I just don't see the world working in that way. While we're at it, can we get Holger Kruse to post up publicly that he's abandoned Miami? Stefan Stuntz to stop skiing for a moment to come to Amiga.org and post that he's abandoned MUI? Etc. It seems to me, and granted this is just my experience and all, but when a person abandons something, they don't come out and make some grand statement that we can all reference later. Usually they just walk away. Sometimes they die, or whatever. And occasionally, very occasionally, they're kind enough to release all their code to Aminet for the world. But that's pretty rare. :(
I don't even use CGX. I don't care and have no dog in this fight. I found P96 works much better for my purposes. But if I was a classic user running CGX and hadn't seen an update in 7+ years, I'd be glad as he** for someone like Cosmos to come along and release a bugfix version.
-
"How much work would it be to make an executable that patches the original binary? "
Pretty easy, specially considering it's just a few asm instructions to save/restore the register.
-
I am in the process of buying a new (old) graphics card for my Amiga A2000. Guess I get to wade through all of this quite soon. So far, I only have v3, so I need to upgrade to version 4 where?
-
Cosmos.
+
bugfix
Oxymoron detected ;)
-
No, lousy work. Really, guys. There is no reason to applaud. There's a reason to be mad about it. It's another sad example how the "community" (or absence thereof) threads its developers (or ex-developers).
It would have been just so easy: Simply ask the author (Frank?) about the bug, ask him kindly to fix it, or provide ideas what to do about it, or for permission to fix it. Nothing is easier than that!
Consider you've created a painting or a building (as an architect) and somebody else comes along and repaints the eyes or puts another roof on top. That's simply not how you treat people that invested quite some time and had a hard job completing the building or painting in first place. You just damn ask them, that's the absolute minimum I would expect.
As an architect, you are even protected by law from third-party modifications on your creation, I believe it's not asking for too much to show the same level of respect to software architects.
If the answer of the architect would be "go, p*ss off!", you can still react on that, but in most cases, it was not when I tried (with exceptions, of course). And, on the plus side, it keeps such developers motivated to invest time in their work.
Stuff like that - pirating other's people's work and messing with it in the way they may or may not have intended - is not going to help! Actually, it may seem to help on a short time scale, but it will motivate nobody to invest some time into their old projects. Bug reports, on the other hand, or hints for improvement, may! Yes, it takes longer, but yes, it may be worth at least giving it a try.
I'm not even commenting on the correctness of the patch. I don't know. It's not my work, and not my bug. But the form of communication, and the way that some people even applaud on this is just something that makes *me* mad.
Folks, if you want to be part of a serious community, act professional!
I doubt Frank Mariak would have much interest in repairing something he wrote that long ago.
Besides, even if he still has an Amiga, he already has his hands full developing for MorphOS.
-
Why not just use the Aros version ?
Kamelito
-
I am in the process of buying a new (old) graphics card for my Amiga A2000. Guess I get to wade through all of this quite soon. So far, I only have v3, so I need to upgrade to version 4 where?
You can still continue using CGX 3. Version 4 is better, for example it has better async blit support, 56KHZAUDIO env var and loads of other things but updating is not necessary.
-
That sounds very reasonable and all, I just don't see the world working in that way. While we're at it, can we get Holger Kruse to post up publicly that he's abandoned Miami? Stefan Stuntz to stop skiing for a moment to come to Amiga.org and post that he's abandoned MUI?
Do you have reasons to work with or on their files, and re-publish the binaries? I believe Stefan is alive and well, so if you want to ask him a question on MUI, I doubt he'll refuse to answer if you ask politely. I know nothing about the whereabouts of Holger, but again, just being too lazy to ask does not mean that you get rights on his programs. It seems to me, and granted this is just my experience and all, but when a person abandons something, they don't come out and make some grand statement that we can all reference later. Usually they just walk away.
Maybe they don't make statements when they go, but why does that stop you asking? I don't even use CGX. I don't care and have no dog in this fight. I found P96 works much better for my purposes. But if I was a classic user running CGX and hadn't seen an update in 7+ years, I'd be glad as he** for someone like Cosmos to come along and release a bugfix version.
If you would be an author, and would find that people just patch around in your software without asking you, what would you do? And what would you do if people approach you nicely and ask first whether they may make modifications? Just put yourself into the position of a developer for a time who left the Amiga a while ago, then think which case appeals more to you. See?
-
I doubt Frank Mariak would have much interest in repairing something he wrote that long ago.
Besides, even if he still has an Amiga, he already has his hands full developing for MorphOS.
Maybe so. But don't you think it would be Frank who should decide on what should happen with his work?
-
I am in the process of buying a new (old) graphics card for my Amiga A2000. Guess I get to wade through all of this quite soon. So far, I only have v3, so I need to upgrade to version 4 where?
Depends on the graphics card you want to buy. For many graphics cards, we have two options: P96 and CGfx. The former is still "sort of" supported, at least inofficially so, and not by its original authors - but with permission of the original authors.
-
It would be better use SetPatch() to patch this library vector to save D2 before calling original function and restore D2 on return. However, developers knowing said function clobbers D2 can work around it without resorting to tricks (IIRC the result is D2 = D2 + width).
Anyway, CGX is not abandonded, it is part of MorphOS, and the latest update was just few weeks ago. It is copyrighted stuff and Cosmos has no right to release "new" CGX4 versions.
Did you mean SetFunction()?
Kamelito
-
Do you have reasons to work with or on their files, and re-publish the binaries? I believe Stefan is alive and well, so if you want to ask him a question on MUI, I doubt he'll refuse to answer if you ask politely. I know nothing about the whereabouts of Holger, but again, just being too lazy to ask does not mean that you get rights on his programs. Maybe they don't make statements when they go, but why does that stop you asking?
Aside from a little Commodore 64 BASIC and some VB in college, I'm not a coder, so no, I'd have no reason to work on or re-publish their binaries. I was just using them as examples.
Stefan, for example, from multiple forum searches I've found many posts from people who've already tried to contact him. Laugh at me all you want, but when I found this website (http://www.sasg.com/cgi-sasg/order_info?app=mui)this past May I went ahead and sent him the Paypal registration fee. When I was a broke teenager I pirated the heck out of his software. Now it just felt right to "make up for that", in a way, by registering. I got no response at all, not even a "hey, thanks for the money". Which is kind of a shame, but I'm still glad I sent it, in a "doing the right thing" kind of way.
Around the same time I registered the WarpDT datatypes and a few other Amiga software packages that I've used over the years. Again, just trying to do the right thing. Others did write me back, which kind of warmed my heart to know they appreciated the gesture.
Holger, on the other hand, I believe he "flipped the collective bird" to the entire Amiga community some years ago, and dropped off the map. No longer accepting registrations or even willing to discuss his Miami software, assuming you could even track down his contact info. Which is a damned shame, because I would gladly put money in his hands today to see that software continued to be developed.
But I guess for some people, pride is more important than money. I don't know, just hypothesizing.
-
Just to be clear, I don't think distributing binaries as a new CGX version is right, because that is distributing it almost as if it's the official continuation of the original without the authors permission.
But I think a separate patch does no harm.
On the other hand I also think contacting the author first would be the best and more correct, although it's pretty evident what the likely outcomes are.
-
Stefan, for example, from multiple forum searches I've found many posts from people who've already tried to contact him. Laugh at me all you want, but when I found this website (http://www.sasg.com/cgi-sasg/order_info?app=mui)this past May I went ahead and sent him the Paypal registration fee. When I was a broke teenager I pirated the heck out of his software. Now it just felt right to "make up for that", in a way, by registering. I got no response at all, not even a "hey, thanks for the money". Which is kind of a shame, but I'm still glad I sent it, in a "doing the right thing" kind of way.
Around the same time I registered the WarpDT datatypes and a few other Amiga software packages that I've used over the years. Again, just trying to do the right thing. Others did write me back, which kind of warmed my heart to know they appreciated the gesture.
Holger, on the other hand, I believe he "flipped the collective bird" to the entire Amiga community some years ago, and dropped off the map. No longer accepting registrations or even willing to discuss his Miami software, assuming you could even track down his contact info. Which is a damned shame, because I would gladly put money in his hands today to see that software continued to be developed.
I am in the same boat for the most part. Although I was actually able at some point to register MUI on one computer, then I installed it on several. Many years back I registered for a few copies of MUI but never received a key, so I use the same key on multiple machines with the knowledge that I have done right.
And I unfortunately feel the same way about Holger. When I was broke I actually spent the money on Miami (as well as YAM, AmIRC, and AmFTP at the time -- saved up to do them all.) I think it was a bogus update to WildIRC (the ARexx script bundle) that stole my Miami key and replaced it with a generic "Digital Corruption" key. When I contacted Holger about it, he berated me for pirating Miami (even though I still had the email confirmation of my registration!) Then once he went over to Rebol he pretty much gave up on all of us. That said, I actually have not had to "pirate" Miami as between Genesis, a registered Miami Deluxe I purchased, and now Roadshow, I have all of my machines well covered for TCP/IP.
But I guess for some people, pride is more important than money. I don't know, just hypothesizing.
It's true, even stubborn pride.
-
Maybe it has been abandoned. However, wouldn't it be much nicer to hear this statement from the author that (apparently) abandoned the project? And then post that answer here? At least that would help everybody else to make a decision which product to pick (P96 is not quite that abandoned, for example) or how to handle the software.
So for example, if we hear from the authors "year, do whatever you want with it", then at least this could possibly motivate another group to pick up the project and start working from it.
Just guessing... well, I don't know. It seems *likely* that you are correct, but I believe there's only one person that should decide. Hint: None of us here.
In my .readme, I give the name of two d2 bugged functions... So if the author really want to fix, he can by himself very quickly : this job need few minutes only...
As I explained, there is a conspiracy to destroy the Classics by all the possible ways. Classics are too good computers, some don't like that... It's my point of view, if you are disagree, you are a naive man for me...
About Warp3D, there is a bug in the 3dfx GPU Avenger, some internal deadlock/crash when using some registers in a certain order... So, the GPU do an hard reset, and after that, can continue... Bug fixed in the VSA-100...
I see this bug with the Prometheus driver and my optimized W3D 3dfx libraries : some clipping appear... No clipping on my two Mediator configurations, maybe Elbox bypassed this bug, I don't know exactly...
I sent two emails to Bigfoot (a member of the MorphOS team, like Frank Mariak ?) who have found and understand this bug in the MOS 3dfx drivers for having more informations : no answer...
;)
-
No, lousy work. Really, guys. There is no reason to applaud. There's a reason to be mad about it. It's another sad example how the "community" (or absence thereof) threads its developers (or ex-developers).
It would have been just so easy: Simply ask the author (Frank?) about the bug, ask him kindly to fix it, or provide ideas what to do about it, or for permission to fix it. Nothing is easier than that!
Consider you've created a painting or a building (as an architect) and somebody else comes along and repaints the eyes or puts another roof on top. That's simply not how you treat people that invested quite some time and had a hard job completing the building or painting in first place. You just damn ask them, that's the absolute minimum I would expect.
As an architect, you are even protected by law from third-party modifications on your creation, I believe it's not asking for too much to show the same level of respect to software architects.
If the answer of the architect would be "go, p*ss off!", you can still react on that, but in most cases, it was not when I tried (with exceptions, of course). And, on the plus side, it keeps such developers motivated to invest time in their work.
Stuff like that - pirating other's people's work and messing with it in the way they may or may not have intended - is not going to help! Actually, it may seem to help on a short time scale, but it will motivate nobody to invest some time into their old projects. Bug reports, on the other hand, or hints for improvement, may! Yes, it takes longer, but yes, it may be worth at least giving it a try.
I'm not even commenting on the correctness of the patch. I don't know. It's not my work, and not my bug. But the form of communication, and the way that some people even applaud on this is just something that makes *me* mad.
Folks, if you want to be part of a serious community, act professional!
Well if the architects creation resulted in a leaky roof and people living in that "creation" were getting wet, and some roof plumber fixes the leak for *free* because the architect wants nothing to do with his decades-old creation, what has the architect got to complain about?
Seriously. there is an important distinction between fixing damaged goods when the creator has no intention of doing it, and stealing the creators ideas, passing them off as your own and taking credit for the original work.
The latter is not happening, so I don't see what case the original author can make other than: "Its MY work".
And if that is all what it amounts to, then as CGX 4 was a commercial product that I for one paid for, that gives me as the paying customer the right to say "Sure since it is YOUR work, then fix YOUR bloody work, or get out of the way and let someone else do it!"
If coders want to be treated as professionals then part of the definition of a professional is that the buck stops with them for their work, and it is up to them to make good when their work is defective. If they don't want to be held to that standard, then they can't complain when someone fixes their work for nothing on the grounds that they didn't give permission.
-
I am in the same boat for the most part. Although I was actually able at some point to register MUI on one computer, then I installed it on several. Many years back I registered for a few copies of MUI but never received a key, so I use the same key on multiple machines with the knowledge that I have done right.
And I unfortunately feel the same way about Holger. When I was broke I actually spent the money on Miami (as well as YAM, AmIRC, and AmFTP at the time -- saved up to do them all.) I think it was a bogus update to WildIRC (the ARexx script bundle) that stole my Miami key and replaced it with a generic "Digital Corruption" key. When I contacted Holger about it, he berated me for pirating Miami (even though I still had the email confirmation of my registration!) Then once he went over to Rebol he pretty much gave up on all of us. That said, I actually have not had to "pirate" Miami as between Genesis, a registered Miami Deluxe I purchased, and now Roadshow, I have all of my machines well covered for TCP/IP.
It's true, even stubborn pride.
Its things like this that result in no sympathy from for developers. If they want to be treated as professional, don't release bugged software. If you do, then fix it. If the bugs are found many years later, tough for the developer, je has an obligation to fix it regardless. I don't see Takata trying to to get out of replacing faulty airbags 10 years or more after the bags were installed. If its faulty on day one, its still faulty 10 years later, how long it took to find the fault is irrelevant, its their job to fix it.
But that's not what happens- "oh, support has ended, bad luck". Well then don't cry when others reverse engineer your product to fix your defects.
-
I don't need the architect's permission to add on to my house. I don't need the hardware designer's permission to add on to my Amigas. I don't need the software designer's permission to add on to my software, particularly when the operating system was designed specifically with that capability in mind.
There are many friendly, open, and reapsonsive developers in the community. There are also those who operate as a professional cartel, stonewalling attempts to effect change. It's sad, it's counterproductive, and it's demoralizing to those who donate time and resources to the betterment of the community without any desire for compensation.
-
I appreciate Cosmos' intentions in this, but quite apart from the politeness of asking the author, there are more practical reasons for this being a bad idea.
It's simply this: If Cosmos releases a v4.8 of a library as an enhancement to v4.7, and then the original author suddenly reveals he has his own new version v4.8, then all of a sudden we have two v4.8 versions, which are different, by different people, and have different capabilities.
And then "hilarity" ensues. And by "hilarity" I mean a complete mess.
Do the update via a patch, not a replacement. Then if the author takes it upon himself to fix it, the patch can just be removed.... but having two different libraries - or even the possibility of two different libraries - with the same name and version number, but with different APIs... that's just asking for trouble.
-
In my .readme, I give the name of two d2 bugged functions... So if the author really want to fix, he can by himself very quickly : this job need few minutes only...
As I explained, there is a conspiracy to destroy the Classics by all the possible ways. Classics are too good computers, some don't like that... It's my point of view, if you are disagree, you are a naive man for me...
Cosmos, you're one of the people that destroy the classics, don't you see this? You're destroying the motivation of investing any time into software simply by taking other's people's code and ripping it apart. That's not how development works. It creates trash, unmanageable versions, unmanageable software, it defeats any sane development process.
A readme is nice, but what on earth is so hard and use the very same readme and send it to the author fist *before* you proceed with publication. That's done in five minutes. Who stops you doing that? It is just a matter of politeness and respect, leave alone we would then know what the author thinks about it and not what you *believe* he thinks about it.
No, I'm pretty sure that there is no "conspiracy" except in your head. People leave because they lost interest, probably because there was no longer a motivating factor. Probably motivation was gone exactly by activities like this.
-
If the classic version is abandoned by the authors, the authors doesn't even bother to reply when given all information in order to fix the issue then I very well understand why Cosmos does this... it's because he can. He could just as well sit on the fixes and enjoy them himself but he choose to share them and if a users decide to use his work then apart from enjoying it they should understand that there might be compability issues now or down the road. No more no less.
I would like to see this distributed as a patch for the original file though.
-
Did you mean SetFunction()?
Kamelito
*slaps his head*
Yes of course SetFunction.
-
Cosmos, you're one of the people that destroy the classics, don't you see this? You're destroying the motivation of investing any time into software simply by taking other's people's code and ripping it apart. That's not how development works. It creates trash, unmanageable versions, unmanageable software, it defeats any sane development process
My reworked libraries are abandonned by their authors since a very very long time !
So, why they don't put in the domain public ? Now, no money to earn from Classics, or very few money... Some motivated guy like me (or PeterK, or Matthey...) are ok to spend many time for free to get better libraries...
Amiga Classics software (Kickstart) AND hardware (AGA, copper...) are genius, certainly the best computer ever made. Not perfect, but near perfection. Classics cannot die, Legend cannot die...
Amiga is hard (chipset ECS/OCS/AGA) & soft (OS) working together, true Amiga fans don't want PCI, Radeon, Agp, PCIe and PowerPC...
PowerPC is PC in disguise, we don't want that crap... Open a PPC datasheet : all is wrong and non-sense into this CPU...
-
Cosmo, I admire your work, but I do understand other opinions. Would be good IF original authos would fix these bug, not just because "he is original author", but also because it would increase support for classics. So everyone could write Frank and ask, some point he would answer.
But do not say what true Amiga fans does or doesn't not. Please.
-
"Cosmos, you're one of the people that destroy the classics, don't you see this? You're destroying the motivation of investing any time into software simply by taking other's people's code and ripping it apart."
NO! I was taking you serious until now. Trolling at it's best...
@Cosmos
Most of the community really appreciates your work, ignore the rest and do what you like ;)
Just don't release it as a new version but as a patch, I think Spirantho put it quite well.
-
@Cosmos
I can assure you categorically that A-EON has not abandoned Warp3D for Classic.
Frank Mariak has not abandoned CybergraphX.
-
Cosmos, you're one of the people that destroy the classics, don't you see this? You're destroying the motivation of investing any time into software simply by taking other's people's code and ripping it apart. That's not how development works. It creates trash, unmanageable versions, unmanageable software, it defeats any sane development process.
I think you made your point earlier about the due dilligence - and now you are just being harsh. This is more along the lines of releasing an ECS/AGA fixed game binary when you should probably make something like a whdload installer.
Anyway, the smaller problem I see is if developers start using this library and stop coding around this preexisting bug (like they have done for years). Now nobody can run this software without using the modified CGX binary.
-
@Jose
Allways funny when some people claim to know what the majority of the community thinks....
Cos, all I read whenever Cosmos releases a patch is stories of rather shoddy quality.
@Cosmos
So you found a bug that trashes a register on a function call.... care to elobarate which applications will actually benefit from your "fix" ? Read those where the authours hadn't included a workaround for it long ago ?
-
@Kronos
Too much fuss about it I guess.. I think most of us would be happy with a free bugfix, if it actually fixes something...
-
My reworked libraries are abandonned by their authors since a very very long time !
We are talking in circles. Once again, if you believe this is true, why don't you go ahead and simply *ask* the author whether he did or did not abandon the project? And ask for permission. It's really the only question I have. And yet, you're giving excuses and excuses forever, avoiding to give any answer to this simple question.
So once again, what is so hard writing Frank an email about this problem and see what happens?
-
NO! I was taking you serious until now. Trolling at it's best...
Do you think so? Do you actually know what brought me back investing some work into my old stuff? It was simply because Matthew made a bug report for my 68060.library. I checked it and fixed it, got some positive feedback on the support. This was the right way of getting things done. If Cosmos would have gone ahead, taken it and published an unauthorized patch... Well, see that this makes a difference indeed? Getting a tiny thing right at the right time made a difference. Most of the community really appreciates your work, ignore the rest and do what you like
I don't have any statistics, and I don't know who "most" is. I can only talk for myself. I believe this would be a better place without people like him, or people acting like him. Or rather, if at least he would take the critique serious and change his attitude.
-
Back in the day, the two communities--professional and hack--would have been comfortably segregated. It's at least refreshing to see everyone playing together, nicely or otherwise.
-
"Do you think so? Do you actually know what brought me back investing some work into my old stuff? It was simply because Matthew made a bug report for my 68060.library. I checked it and fixed it, got some positive feedback on the support. This was the right way of getting things done. If Cosmos would have gone ahead, taken it and published an unauthorized patch... Well, see that this makes a difference indeed? Getting a tiny thing right at the right time made a difference. "
Fair enough, but I don't think any of us said he shouldn't contact the author first, we actually said otherwise. If the author doesn't care THEN a patch would be harmless. Although come to think about it, in this case Kronos is probably right since most people using the CGX API already know that bug and take it into account.
-
@Cosmos
I can assure you categorically that A-EON has not abandoned Warp3D for Classic.
Hum... Karlos wrote on this forum he have the source of Warp3D : I sent an MP because I found a possible bug in the W3D_Picasso96MU.library in the function W3D_P96MU_AllocVMem. I fixed by myself, but absolutly not sure of my fix...
When I launched GLBlitzQuake just after a boot, I had planned fps. By cons, when I booted up another Warp3D program just before as Cow3D for example, then I was getting about 0.5 fps less with the same GLBlitzQuake...
I GOT AN ANSWER !! YES !!!
He said to me, he need an authorization to help me... And I'm still waiting since more than 1 year now...
If it's not a conspiracy, what is it ?
@Thomas Richter
Another example : the coders now don't care about reporting bug...
So I fix by myself...
:)
-
@Cosmos
From what I remember from Karlos he was enthusiastic about the Classic and would do anything but conspire... I also don't see how PPC is directly competing with the Classic, at least for now. Most of us (again speaking of everyone :)) probably enjoy both. It's just that there is no market.
Now if you were talking about certain hardware manufacturers that would be a different story. The FPGA accelerators if they ever come to be produced in more numbers will p*ss off some people, again just my opinion.
-
@Cosmos
I can assure you categorically that A-EON has not abandoned Warp3D for Classic.
Frank Mariak has not abandoned CybergraphX.
Maybe you should not presume speak for Frank.
You have a much closer relationship with A-eon, so I suppose you might be familiar with their plans.
My friend Kronos, on the other hand, might have a better idea of what one of the best MorphOS developers might or might not do as he works within that group.
-
QUOTE=Cosmos;792663]... true Amiga fans don't want PCI, Radeon, Agp, PCIe and PowerPC...
PowerPC is PC in disguise, we don't want that crap... Open a PPC datasheet : all is wrong and non-sense into this CPU...[/QUOTE]
I AM a true Amiga fan.
Don't presume to talk for ME.
I WANT PPC (and maybe even X86, X86-64), PCI (and PCI-e), and I have Radeon and AGP.
I used to admire your hardware projects, but YOU and your opinions have seriously offended me.
And you come off sounding like a fool who is living in the past.
Also the library you want fixed was created in part by Frank Mariak, a advocate of the move to PPCs , a great MorphOS developer, and one of the best 3rd party developers for the Amiga during its twilight days.
Apparently you think you know better tha Frank AND a large part of the remaining community that wants to move forward.
-
Hum... Karlos wrote on this forum he have the source of Warp3D : I sent an MP because I found a possible bug in the W3D_Picasso96MU.library in the function W3D_P96MU_AllocVMem. I fixed by myself, but absolutly not sure of my fix...
When I launched GLBlitzQuake just after a boot, I had planned fps. By cons, when I booted up another Warp3D program just before as Cow3D for example, then I was getting about 0.5 fps less with the same GLBlitzQuake...
I GOT AN ANSWER !! YES !!!
He said to me, he need an authorization to help me... And I'm still waiting since more than 1 year now...
If it's not a conspiracy, what is it ?
Have you ever worked in an enterprise? People are busy there, communications got lost. It's not because somebody wanted to act bad on you, it is just because the issue was lost. The answer is simple: Try again, be more persistent, try other means of communication. If, after two weeks, you do not get an answer, it does not mean that they don't want to fix the problem. It only means that the issue got lost because people are busy. This happened more than once to me.
I can tell you another story: I found a bug in the proprietary NVIDIA driver for the Linux kernel. As soon as I enabled panning, the screen was showing trash in the extended window area. I reported the bug to NVIDIA. I got a silly reply saying "I cannot reproduce the problem". I could reproduce it on four machines, with four different generations of NVIDIA cards.
Hence, I checked carefully where the bug was coming from, going though the code and observing return codes, until I found a function returning wrong values, or seemingly wrong values. I communicated with mailing lists of the kernel and X11 folks, trying to understand whether I guessed correctly. And finally got contact with the developers, more by accident, because apparently the NVIDIA folks also read the intel-core developer mailing lists: Problem is that NVIDIA only implements xrandr 1.2, not xrandr 2.0, and their panning function is a hack on top of xrandr 1.2 which does not implement the xrandr 2.0 interface correctly.
Now, does that mean that NVIDIA has started a conspiracy to prevent people from using Linux? Not the least! It just means that this is a typical enterprise, with many many levels of responsibility between the "customer care" (people that are usually just technical expert enough to tell you how to install a graphics driver) and the actual developers. It also means that I used - apparently - a feature that is seldom required, and they simply didn't think of all the consequences clearly of instead implementing xrandr 2.0 cleanly rather use a proprietary xrandr 1.2 extension. No conspiracy here. Just the usual lazyness. Most folks have better things to do than to serve you and solve your personal problems...
Now in this case here, the story is much simpler: You *do* have the developer at your hands, you do not need to get through a "customer (we do not) care" "service simulation", but you can ask directly.
So now, once again: Why didn't you just make your life easier and wrote an email?
There is *still* enough time to get mad at people later, but certain things should be done in the right order. First ask. Then shoot.
Got it?
-
Have you ever worked in an enterprise?
You seem to just be trying to drag a ton of extra crap into your narrative to try to make it make sense in someway.
Most of the software the maybe a few hundred active 68k amiga users are using is basically abandon-ware. You keep going on about email authors blah blah blah. A lot of this stuff hasn't been touched in decades. Your example of a bug in a current piece of software that's under active development and in use by thousands and thousands of users adds nothing to your argument and just makes you look seriously out of touch with reality.
Who the hell is going to take time out of their day to chase user reported bugs in software they haven't worked on or even used in decades?
I see no problem with Cosmos doing what he does as long as he doesn't distribute copyrighted material. (@Cosmos; Release patches against official binaries instead of modified binaries...)
I think it says a lot about what remains of the "Amiga community" that instead of going over the technical aspects of what Cosmos has done you guys spend your time worrying about the moral implications of changing a few bytes in a file the original author has long since given up giving a about.
-
@Thomas Richter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ
;)
-
@thread
whether or not it's ethical to modify commercial software for oneself is one thing. and documenting and/or distributing a binary patch may or may not be OK. but distributing (patched or otherwise) commercial software to which you do not have distribution rights is illegal in many jurisdictions, and linking to or posting such material on amiga.org is expressly against our terms of service. that's not a conspiracy -- that's the contract between the site and its members.
therefore anyone who attempts to distribute commercial software without permission from the software owner(s) -- whether in binary or in source or disassembled code forms -- will receive a vacation from the site.
@Cosmos
this isn't the first time you've done this. this is your final warning on the subject. don't do it here again.
-- eliyahu
-
I have had an official statement from the copyright holders/developers of CybergraphX:
Even though some comments in this thread seem to imply it, the classic 68k
version of CyberGraphX4 has not been abandoned. Even though there has not
been any official update for quite some years, the software is still
maintained by it's original author and he can be contacted via
mail@cybergraphx.de.
Anyone else patching the software or releasing so called "new versions" does
so without permission of the original author and clearly disrespects the
respective copyright.
-
I have had an official statement from the copyright holders/developers of CybergraphX:
in what definition is the software being "maintained"?
-
I think it says a lot about what remains of the "Amiga community" that instead of going over the technical aspects of what Cosmos has done you guys spend your time worrying about the moral implications
Yes, you are so right! Moral implications, pfft. Its not the Amiga way..
in what definition is the software being "maintained"?
In the definition that the creators of the software have said they still own it and they don't want unauthorised derivative works out there. Their software, their rules. Don't like it, write your own graphics drivers.
-
in what definition is the software being "maintained"?
If he "maintains" the software as well as he "maintains" his website:
-
Did Piru ever get permission to patch Exec, or do we conveniently ignore the transgressions of our more popular and prolific community members? ;-) (Does he still post here? I haven't been on much in the last four years....)
EDIT: But yeah, @Cosmos should have contacted the original author. I for one stopped fiddling with Amiga software because it stopped being fun. When I reported issues with e.g. the OS 4 SDK ages ago, they were ignored. :-( I suppose I should unload my kit. What does a Blizzard 1260 with SCSI adapter go for these days?
-
Did Piru ever get permission to patch Exec, or do we conveniently ignore the transgressions of our more popular and prolific community members? ;-) (Does he still post here? I haven't been on much in the last four years....)
EDIT: But yeah, @Cosmos should have contacted the original author. I for one stopped fiddling with Amiga software because it stopped being fun. When I reported issues with e.g. the OS 4 SDK ages ago, they were ignored. :-( I suppose I should unload my kit. What does a Blizzard 1260 with SCSI adapter go for these days?
I think he ragequit a few years ago, too. Like most folks do when they get fed up with the bickering and trolling, lol. ;)
Here you go: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=702149&postcount=8
As for the Bliz 1260 + SCSI? *a lot*. ;)
-
I think it says a lot about what remains of the "Amiga community" that instead of going over the technical aspects of what Cosmos has done you guys spend your time worrying about the moral implications of changing a few bytes in a file the original author has long since given up giving a about.
Indeed it does. Every community, irrespective of size, is built upon the foundation of a civil society which requires a set of morals. Without a stable set of morals the community cannot survive.
You are also making an unwarranted assumption as to the disposition of the author.
-
I think he ragequit a few years ago, too. Like most folks do when they get fed up with the bickering and trolling, lol. ;)
Here you go: http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=702149&postcount=8
As for the Bliz 1260 + SCSI? *a lot*. ;)
Oh Man, I remember those days! :lol:
Me Piru, You Not!
(http://www.therpf.com/uploads/avatars/avatar2655_9.gif)
-
this isn't the first time you've done this. this is your final warning on the subject. don't do it here again.
Done what, exactly? I don't see him distributing anything here...And there's nothing wrong with distributing a patch to fix bugs in software, it's common practice, Aminet and other such repositories are full of such patches. CGX is obviously not being maintained, by definition, as the original coder is not performing any maintenance on it (ie. fixing known bugs) and the website has gone.
-
I think the point everyone is trying to make is if an Amiga developer--they're special, you see--opts not to support their software, there's f**k all anyone can do about it. ;-) This is true in enterprise environments as well, but it's understood and accepted that enterprises modify software in various ways to facilitate compatibility and interoperability. Behavior similar to SetPatch and SetFunction has existed in DOS and Windows for decades, for example.
-
@thread
whether or not it's ethical to modify commercial software for oneself is one thing. and documenting and/or distributing a binary patch may or may not be OK. but distributing (patched or otherwise) commercial software to which you do not have distribution rights is illegal in many jurisdictions, and linking to or posting such material on amiga.org is expressly against our terms of service. that's not a conspiracy -- that's the contract between the site and its members.
therefore anyone who attempts to distribute commercial software without permission from the software owner(s) -- whether in binary or in source or disassembled code forms -- will receive a vacation from the site.
@Cosmos
this isn't the first time you've done this. this is your final warning on the subject. don't do it here again.
-- eliyahu
I asked to close this thread...
I proved here with many examples : it's impossible to talk with the actual "Amiga Elite", it's always no answer and nothing change... The Classics 68k slowly dying, and they are happy with that...
No new fixed CyberGraphX version will appear, Karlos will never have the autorization, Bigfoot never reveal the 3dfx GPU bug he found for MOS drivers, Phase5/bPlan will never help to repair faulty cards...
I know very well my future, and I'll remember because I have a very good memory...
PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD !
;(