Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: OlafS3 on July 20, 2015, 09:36:15 AM
-
The CybergraphX thread was closed so I could not answer there and decided to make a new one.
The issues with patching or not distributing abandoned binaries with or without permission of author pops up regularly here. I do not want to start a bashing thread about authors but we all know that many old projects are either completely abandoned (author not accessible anymore) or authors still active (on one of the NG platforms) and reluctant to support 68k anymore.
My conclusion and question is... we do not need the old binaries anymore because there is a replacement for it: Aros 68k together with Rom Replacements from Toni Wilen. It is opensource and sources are legally accessible and it is possible to change and improve them. The Aros project lacks developers so if people want to improve the situation why do they not help there.
In this case CybergraphX 3 is implemented in Aros, why not helping to improve it? The situation regarding the old sources will not change anymore so why not accepting it and start somewhere new. Additionally Aros 68k benefits from the Aros developments so it is very sophisiticated and gets new software. Forget the old stuff... where Aros needs improvements when running on old hardware is mainly improvements in speed. And on API level some are very good implemented, in others stuff is missing. But it offers future... What do people here think?
-
Just out of curiosity is CGX in Aros (68k) remake by Aros team or is
it the one created by original author ?
Whole thread seemed pointless to me , if Cosmos fixed some tiny bug in
some OS4 library he would be cheered form there to the moon probably.
And about what Cosmos said about kickstarts it can only be seen as wall
of silence from people and companies who know who has what rights.
Not to mention that you need Amiga to use them (or at leas you had to
spend a lot of time on one for them to be any use to you).
From what I can read Hyperion is right company to contact for licensing
Amiga Kickstart (3.1?) for hardware projects but even better way would be
just ignore whole legal "you better not 'cause you know" and let end-user
get what he needs himself.Those who are not able will be advised on how
to do it anyways.
-
Just out of curiosity is CGX in Aros (68k) remake by Aros team or is
it the one created by original author ?
Whole thread seemed pointless to me , if Cosmos fixed some tiny bug in
some OS4 library he would be cheered form there to the moon probably.
And about what Cosmos said about kickstarts it can only be seen as wall
of silence from people and companies who know who has what rights.
Not to mention that you need Amiga to use them (or at leas you had to
spend a lot of time on one for them to be any use to you).
From what I can read Hyperion is right company to contact for licensing
Amiga Kickstart (3.1?) for hardware projects but even better way would be
just ignore whole legal "you better not 'cause you know" and let end-user
get what he needs himself.Those who are not able will be advised on how
to do it anyways.
Aros is always a "rewrite" of the libraries so CybergraphX is certainly not based on original resources but original API. I think there were also contributions by orginal authors but core components are certainly not based on any orginal library source.
Regarding Cosmos... he can offer a patch without original binary and noone can do anything about it. Thomas Richter sees it from a professional software engineering point of view and is not wrong with one problem... 68k is not getting supported anymore. That is the case for most core components today, in most cases no souces are available. AHI is the only exception that comes to my mind.
Regarding Roms I would additionally think of Cloanto but I do not know that exactly. Finally (at least for me) it is irrelevant because I use Aros and replacements for the Roms. For me the more promising path is to support a platform that is in development than to patch some old binaries. But everybody how he likes it...
-
Problem with Aros68k is that it obviously won't work on regular not
heavily expanded Amiga but it might be a treasure trove of software
that can be run on modest Amiga configurations.Lot of AROS software
doesn't need that much memory / cpu power (I mean things under 2-3
Mb when compiled , Netsurf68k is good example).
I think Cloanto is the right company to contact for licensing emulation
like projects (no way to know).When new more powerful 68k hardware
FPGAs start showing up then Aros68k will shine.And who say PPC is the
more future these days than FPGAs or RPis should check their facts.
-
Problem with Aros68k is that it obviously won't work on regular not
heavily expanded Amiga but it might be a treasure trove of software
that can be run on modest Amiga configurations.Lot of AROS software
doesn't need that much memory / cpu power (I mean things under 2-3
Mb when compiled , Netsurf68k is good example).
I think Cloanto is the right company to contact for licensing emulation
like projects (no way to know).When new more powerful 68k hardware
FPGAs start showing up then Aros68k will shine.And who say PPC is the
more future these days than FPGAs or RPis should check their facts.
For me PPC has no future anyway... today you have either Intel-based hardware (or AMD) or ARM. For Amiga fans certainly FPGA based hardware offers most chances. Netsurf68k with only 2-3 MB RAM or do you mean on HD? Modern software like new OWB need much more RAM.
-
No , not Netsurf but it's pretty low demanding.I was thinking of maybe
some IRC Client stuff , Telnet , more advanced drawing program that
have more functionality then old stuff.NEW SHELL ! :)
And it's irritating when thing that were adopted as standard such as MUI ,
AHI , P96 , CGX etc. are now somewhere in between of not being developed
but maybe if many people ask then original author who is now coding for
PPC will suffer to implement few things.
This kind of stuff happened all the time before.I see no problem if there is
CGX library (pathced by Cosmos) available somewhere and programs that
want use it can just put in readme that you need Cosmo's patched version
instead yet more patches upon patches upon patches.
Original library is still there and if it's hosted on Aminet nobody but the
author can change it.As market shrinks few companies that remain will
have to find every possible way to make money to survive to it's under-
standable that new player won't be welcomed with open arms but that
should not be the case when they are just offering free upgrade for
end users.
-
No , not Netsurf but it's pretty low demanding.I was thinking of maybe
some IRC Client stuff , Telnet , more advanced drawing program that
have more functionality then old stuff.NEW SHELL ! :)
And it's irritating when thing that were adopted as standard such as MUI ,
AHI , P96 , CGX etc. are now somewhere in between of not being developed
but maybe if many people ask then original author who is now coding for
PPC will suffer to implement few things.
This kind of stuff happened all the time before.I see no problem if there is
CGX library (pathced by Cosmos) available somewhere and programs that
want use it can just put in readme that you need Cosmo's patched version
instead yet more patches upon patches upon patches.
Original library is still there and if it's hosted on Aminet nobody but the
author can change it.As market shrinks few companies that remain will
have to find every possible way to make money to survive to it's under-
standable that new player won't be welcomed with open arms but that
should not be the case when they are just offering free upgrade for
end users.
I see it this way... of course many authors left and let it back abandoned and without sources. From a legal point of view you cannot distribute it patched but only the patch.
Some stuff like CybergraphX and MUI is still in development but the authors changed to PPC and different OS platforms so the chance that they will offer updates or even bug fixes is pretty small. There is theoreticall the chance to improve Aros then you can use it directly with Aros 68k or backport it to AmigaOS 3.X. Or offer patches without original binaries but we all know that stability and compatibility not rises by this.
-
Leaving a couple of possible legal aspects aside, there is more philosophical aspect to it. Certainly I would pick PC hardware as basis given that its cheaply and readily available. I believe we agree on this.
My concern is rather that AmigaOs - or rather its design principles - are not exactly fit for some recent developments. Take SMP for example. With Forbid()/Permit() locking in AmigaOs, SMP is extremely hard to implement (if possible at all). Actually, I'd rather believe it is not.
In the end, given that we had something like an AmigaOs port on PC, it would probably be a nice software to toy around with, but you'll have a hard time updating it for today's requirements. There's probably not much left what defined the Amiga.
Let's say that the "Amiga feeling" is the workbench: I could certainly write a desktop replacement for another kernel (say, Linux, for example) that mimics the look and feel of the Amiga workbench. This would still be a couple of years behind the look & feel of state-of-the art desktops. I could possibly write an API compatibility layer that, for example, offers intituition calls and addresses the corresponding X11 interfaces on the other side, but I would get user interfaces from past century.
Somehow, I have the feeling that such a project is ill-defined. I'm not really sure what it is about (in the same sense that I'm not sure what OS4 or Morphos is really about, even though I have there much stronger doubts).
IOW, does it really make sense to "update the Amiga" anymore? The hardware is as obsolote as it could be. The Os has too many constructional weaknesses to allow porting it to modern hardware.
So what's left? It's probably "electronic archaeology", to keep the memory of a historically interesting system alive. But for that, I don't need OS4 or Morphos or ... AROS. (Sorry!) The system I have is "as good as it goes", and any attempt to modernize it would give me a system that can neither compete with the PC and modern Os'es, nor could it compete with the Amiga because it deviates from it.
Don't shoot. Just thinking...
-
Leaving a couple of possible legal aspects aside, there is more philosophical aspect to it. Certainly I would pick PC hardware as basis given that its cheaply and readily available. I believe we agree on this.
My concern is rather that AmigaOs - or rather its design principles - are not exactly fit for some recent developments. Take SMP for example. With Forbid()/Permit() locking in AmigaOs, SMP is extremely hard to implement (if possible at all). Actually, I'd rather believe it is not.
In the end, given that we had something like an AmigaOs port on PC, it would probably be a nice software to toy around with, but you'll have a hard time updating it for today's requirements. There's probably not much left what defined the Amiga.
Let's say that the "Amiga feeling" is the workbench: I could certainly write a desktop replacement for another kernel (say, Linux, for example) that mimics the look and feel of the Amiga workbench. This would still be a couple of years behind the look & feel of state-of-the art desktops. I could possibly write an API compatibility layer that, for example, offers intituition calls and addresses the corresponding X11 interfaces on the other side, but I would get user interfaces from past century.
Somehow, I have the feeling that such a project is ill-defined. I'm not really sure what it is about (in the same sense that I'm not sure what OS4 or Morphos is really about, even though I have there much stronger doubts).
IOW, does it really make sense to "update the Amiga" anymore? The hardware is as obsolote as it could be. The Os has too many constructional weaknesses to allow porting it to modern hardware.
So what's left? It's probably "electronic archaeology", to keep the memory of a historically interesting system alive. But for that, I don't need OS4 or Morphos or ... AROS. (Sorry!) The system I have is "as good as it goes", and any attempt to modernize it would give me a system that can neither compete with the PC and modern Os'es, nor could it compete with the Amiga because it deviates from it.
Don't shoot. Just thinking...
Boom... :-)
As I understand it all tries regarding SMP (at the moment done on Aros port to Raspberry) is to use different cores efficiently and automatically to get as much speed for the primary core. You cannot write software that uses more than one core. It is certainly difficult to write a updated OS that does not break with everything. The MorphOS devs seem to go in that direction, they might get a nice modernized platform but finally without software. Aros is source compatible between platforms so a radical break is not best solution.
For me it is fun... in normal life I have to work and develop on Windows, on one side lots of better software on the other side a really complicated OS. So using something amiga related is relaxation against that (except when you want to develop). I do not expect a updated AmigaOS or AROS or whatever to compete with Windows or Macs so I am personal quiet happy how it is. But if people want updates and developments investing in something that is in development anyway and where sources are available makes more sense to me than patching old binaries.
-
The CybergraphX thread was closed so I could not answer there and decided to make a new one.
The issues with patching or not distributing abandoned binaries with or without permission of author pops up regularly here. I do not want to start a bashing thread about authors but we all know that many old projects are either completely abandoned (author not accessible anymore) or authors still active (on one of the NG platforms) and reluctant to support 68k anymore.
My conclusion and question is... we do not need the old binaries anymore because there is a replacement for it: Aros 68k together with Rom Replacements from Toni Wilen. It is opensource and sources are legally accessible and it is possible to change and improve them. The Aros project lacks developers so if people want to improve the situation why do they not help there.
In this case CybergraphX 3 is implemented in Aros, why not helping to improve it? The situation regarding the old sources will not change anymore so why not accepting it and start somewhere new. Additionally Aros 68k benefits from the Aros developments so it is very sophisiticated and gets new software. Forget the old stuff... where Aros needs improvements when running on old hardware is mainly improvements in speed. And on API level some are very good implemented, in others stuff is missing. But it offers future... What do people here think?
See AFA:
http://amidevcpp.amiga-world.de/afaupload.php
Kamelito
-
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I don't want to work on OS3.1 any more than I would want to work on, for example, OS2.1. Not even the official version let alone some clone of it.
We have OS3.9, it is pointless to work on something that even when perfected will not implement OS3.9 features. I would not want to throw out all 3.5/3.9/BB1-4 enhancements.
-
For me it is fun... in normal life I have to work and develop on Windows, on one side lots of better software on the other side a really complicated OS. So using something amiga related is relaxation against that (except when you want to develop). I do not expect a updated AmigaOS or AROS or whatever to compete with Windows or Macs so I am personal quiet happy how it is. But if people want updates and developments investing in something that is in development anyway and where sources are available makes more sense to me than patching old binaries.
Well, but that doesn't quite answer my question, right? I mean, where does the fun stop? Is Morphos or Os4 less fun than AmigaOs? If so, why? Would be Linux more fun than Morphos? If so, why?
I can only speak for myself. For me, Amiga is a hobby pet project I run because the hardware was (back then) a breakthrough and I have a software basis to work with. That also includes compilers, assemblers and my legacy code. You cannot recreate a breakthrough by including the same design errors in a modern re-creation, let it be Morphos, OS4 or ARos. The classics are - classic old computes in a classic old environment.
Rather, if I want to have some fun with modern machines, I'd rather go for a modern Os and play with that. Works, too.
Anyhow, it's a personal decision. I'm just trying to get a picture on what other people think.
-
Well, but that doesn't quite answer my question, right? I mean, where does the fun stop? Is Morphos or Os4 less fun than AmigaOs? If so, why? Would be Linux more fun than Morphos? If so, why?
I can only speak for myself. For me, Amiga is a hobby pet project I run because the hardware was (back then) a breakthrough and I have a software basis to work with. That also includes compilers, assemblers and my legacy code. You cannot recreate a breakthrough by including the same design errors in a modern re-creation, let it be Morphos, OS4 or ARos. The classics are - classic old computes in a classic old environment.
Rather, if I want to have some fun with modern machines, I'd rather go for a modern Os and play with that. Works, too.
Anyhow, it's a personal decision. I'm just trying to get a picture on what other people think.
When I started with my distribution it was the pure interest how far I can get it. More or less I am happy how it is, it more or less satisfies my nostalgic needs already and I want to do a little with Hollywood and Free Pascal on it. I do not expect it (any of the NG platforms) realistic to take over the world, the maximum would be to have a niche market that is bigger than now. But if you invest time in improving something than it makes more sense to invest time in a open platform with free access to sources than in a closed platform, expecially if you have to sign strict NDAs and are no longer able to do what you want.
the fun is nostalgy and reach goals with limited means (easier to do the same on Windows or Mac of course but that can do everyone then :) ). A little weird I must admit.
-
The problem with AROS is that it's (unfortunately) not a practical replacement for 68K AmigaOS. Unless AROS can run at a "Usable" speed on a 68020 Amiga with 512KB ROM and 4 MB Fast RAM with a high degree of compatibility to 68K AmigaOS it never will be practical.
That's why I still code (and patch) for my classic 68K Amiga's from time to time. But I'm not sure if will release any more patches for AmigaOS or any third party stuff either. It's just not worth the hassle of defending your patches against people acting as "Self-appointed" lawyers of the copyright owners (who have long since abandoned the Amiga scene or just really don't care what happens).
Sorry folks, my A3000 scsi.device patch (now supporting RDBF_SYNC and some other improvements) and
My A2091/A590 scsi.device patch (14MHz scsi timings, obsolete xt.device removed and now supporting RDBF_SYNC) and
My 7/14MHz jumper select GURU ROM* patch may NEVER be released! :(
*The author has the patched ROM binary and could release it any time he wants.
-
patch may NEVER be released! :(
Is a standalone binary patcher not possible?
-
The problem with AROS is that it's (unfortunately) not a practical replacement for 68K AmigaOS. Unless AROS can run at a "Usable" speed on a 68020 Amiga with 512KB ROM and 4 MB Fast RAM with a high degree of compatibility to 68K AmigaOS it never will be practical.
That's why I still code (and patch) for my classic 68K Amiga's from time to time. But I'm not sure if will release any more patches for AmigaOS or any third party stuff either. It's just not worth the hassle of defending your patches against people acting as "Self-appointed" lawyers of the copyright owners (who have long since abandoned the Amiga scene or just really don't care what happens).
Sorry folks, my A3000 scsi.device patch (now supporting RDBF_SYNC and some other improvements) and
My A2091/A590 scsi.device patch (14MHz scsi timings, obsolete xt.device removed and now supporting RDBF_SYNC) and
My 7/14MHz jumper select GURU ROM* patch may NEVER be released! :(
*The author has the patched ROM binary and could release it any time he wants.
If we get LLVM/CLANG working one day, maybe the generated code will be fast enough for that.
Kamelito
-
@SpeedGeek
to be clear the issue on amiga.org isn't so much binary patches, with distributing complete binaries with the patch already applied. for example if one releases a small patch for cybergraphics.library, it can only be used with people who have the original. whereas if someone releases a full copy of cybergraphics.library with the 'new' patch applied, they are distributing someone else's (commercial) software and would need permission to do so. see the difference?
-- eliyahu
-
Aros 68k together with Rom Replacements from Toni Wilen.
I run four of Cosmos's patched libraries on my A2000. And three on my A500. Along with several of Thomas Richter's libraries, and Peter K.'s fabulous icon.library... I doubt many of my libraries at all are "original", anymore. For me this works great, gives me a very "modern" and fast environment, I can't speak for others. Honestly sometimes I'm surprised my systems don't just burst into flames, running both Cosmos's libraries and THoR's. ;)
Question though: I've always heard that AROS 68k libraries are huge "resource hogs", and "run like a dog" on native 68K systems. Not to bash all the hard work I know the authors have put into them, I just don't think (based on what I've heard) that they're right *for me*. Can anyone confirm performance of the AROS 68K files on actual classic Amiga hardware? Maybe that would motivate people to switch?
Heck, if Cosmos put his excellent optimization skills into AROS 68K, maybe they wouldn't be so slow? :lol:
-
you cannot recreate a breakthrough by including the same design errors in a modern re-creation, let it be morphos, os4 or aros. The classics are - classic old computes in a classic old environment.
Rather, if i want to have some fun with modern machines, i'd rather go for a modern os and play with that. Works, too.
+1000
-
Is a standalone binary patcher not possible?
Yes, possible but not likely.
@SpeedGeek
to be clear the issue on amiga.org isn't so much binary patches, with distributing complete binaries with the patch already applied. for example if one releases a small patch for cybergraphics.library, it can only be used with people who have the original. whereas if someone releases a full copy of cybergraphics.library with the 'new' patch applied, they are distributing someone else's (commercial) software and would need permission to do so. see the difference?
-- eliyahu
I see the difference but not everyone else does (e.g. ThoR). Also, once a binary patch has been released it can be used by anyone to distribute the full version of copyrighted software (it's makes no difference if it's commercial or non-commercial it's the copyright and the license to use that copyrighted software which makes all the difference).
-
I see the difference but not everyone else does (e.g. ThoR).
He does see the difference between distributing patches and full copies, you don't appear to understand what his objection is.
Think of it like two religions arguing over which is right. Some people want to release binary patches rather than rewriting stuff and using a modern compiler, others want to rewrite stuff and use a modern compiler but see the binary patches as a reason not to bother (because it essentially is).
Using aros would be the most logical, but like when religion is involved logic goes straight out of the window once someone is convinced they are doing the right thing and others support them. The best way of derailing a good system is to make a bad one popular, like how Windows has become the no 1 OS.
-
You cannot recreate a breakthrough by including the same design errors in a modern re-creation, let it be Morphos, OS4 or ARos. The classics are - classic old computes in a classic old environment.
Rather, if I want to have some fun with modern machines, I'd rather go for a modern Os and play with that. Works, too.
So-called modern OSes have their roots in even older designs than AmigaOS, with their own design flaws. For instance, Linux, as you know, has its roots in 1970s Unix, and I was reading today how compatibility with the Unix behaviour of recording file access times is viewed as a major performance bottleneck when strictly adhered too. AmigaOS thankfully never used the concept of last access time. And AmigaOS has always had asynchronous I/O support, unlike Unix and its descendants.
IMHO AmigaOS has a lot of good design features as well as its drawbacks, which is why I don't want to leave them in the past. It has its own heritage, like the mainstream OSes, but hasn't had the same investment.
-
So-called modern OSes have their roots in even older designs than AmigaOS, with their own design flaws. For instance, Linux, as you know, has its roots in 1970s Unix, and I was reading today how compatibility with the Unix behaviour of recording file access times is viewed as a major performance bottleneck when strictly adhered too. AmigaOS thankfully never used the concept of last access time. And AmigaOS has always had asynchronous I/O support, unlike Unix and its descendants.
IMHO AmigaOS has a lot of good design features as well as its drawbacks, which is why I don't want to leave them in the past. It has its own heritage, like the mainstream OSes, but hasn't had the same investment.
+1
-
So-called modern OSes have their roots in even older designs than AmigaOS, with their own design flaws. For instance, Linux, as you know, has its roots in 1970s Unix, and I was reading today how compatibility with the Unix behaviour of recording file access times is viewed as a major performance bottleneck when strictly adhered too.
But you are aware of the "noatime" mount option, are you? Besides, that's really *not* one of the problems of Linux. There are quite a couple of points I could think of that are not ideally solved, but this is none of them.
AmigaOS thankfully never used the concept of last access time. And AmigaOS has always had asynchronous I/O support, unlike Unix and its descendants.
Since when does Unix *not* have async I/O? O_NONBLOCK exists since ages, and select() exists since ages to wait on such I/O. There is no 1 to 1 correspondance between SendIO() and read() or write() or select(), but there are certainly means to achieve the same.
IMHO AmigaOS has a lot of good design features as well as its drawbacks, which is why I don't want to leave them in the past. It has its own heritage, like the mainstream OSes, but hasn't had the same investment.
There are certainly a couple of good features, such as the virtual file system of Tripos or the automatic backing store of windows (aka SMART_REFRESH), but the problem is that some of the design decisions are real roadblocks. So for example, as long as Forbid() exists, and as long as that refers to a freely accessible memory location in exec, there will be no SMP. As long as Supervisor() exists, there will be no secure system. As long as resources can be handed over between tasks, there will be no resource tracking and no stable system that can recover from program faults.
So the problem is actually a different one: Unix was designed as a main-frame system, and designed as a "safe multi-user system with access control and resource management" because that was actually a requirement from its users (AT&T, namely). So all essential features you consider as of today as relevant are there, by design. Other features such as "handling of removable devices" were not relevant, and a lot of energy is used to provide a good user experience (think of layers over layers on dbus, hal, udev...).
Amiga was designed as a consumer device, a toy (actually, the hardware was designed for a flight simulator). So features such as stability and scalability were considered irrelevant for this target audience and did not make it into the system. However, while it is certainly possible to add "removable device support" to a main-frame system (see Linux), making AmigaOs a safe stable system is a much harder, if not impossible attempt. The whole concept was never designed to be secure, and never designed to be a scaleable multi-user system. There are essential design flaws which are real road-blocks for any further development.
-
He does see the difference between distributing patches and full copies, you don't appear to understand what his objection is.
Think of it like two religions arguing over which is right. Some people want to release binary patches rather than rewriting stuff and using a modern compiler, others want to rewrite stuff and use a modern compiler but see the binary patches as a reason not to bother (because it essentially is).
Using aros would be the most logical, but like when religion is involved logic goes straight out of the window once someone is convinced they are doing the right thing and others support them. The best way of derailing a good system is to make a bad one popular, like how Windows has become the no 1 OS.
Really? It appears you don't understand what his objection is. He simply objects to any patching or updating of anybody's code (unless it's public domain or open source) without the owner's express consent. It makes no difference to him whether you release a binary patch or the complete software.
He doesn't care if your patching abandon-ware or just releasing a bug fix, if you don't have the author (or copyright owners permission) then you have no business messing with their code PERIOD.
The real problem is that copyright laws (originally written to protect published writers and artists works) aren't really suited for computer software which becomes outdated, obsolete and finally abandoned in very short time periods as compared to what the laws were originally written for.
-
Congratulations. With two evidences:
the first which is a software solution, "Unix was designed as a main-frame system, and designed as a "safe multi-user system with access control and resource management""
and the second which is a hardware solution, "the hardware was designed for a flight simulator"
you conclude a real fake truth, "There are essential design flaws which are real road-blocks for any further development."
The fact that a car does not make the job of a tractor and vice versa does not induce stopping their respective development.
-
The fact that a car does not make the job of a tractor and vice versa does not induce stopping their respective development.
Look, you may want to work with a machine that crashes every five minutes and that has no security against virii in the internet age. Maybe. I don't. It's nice to have an old machine to play with, out of historic interest, but that still doesn't make this a *good* machine by today's standards, leave alone a racing car.
What you might have forgotten: The world kept rotating, the racing car is from 1950 and forgotten in a barn, and tractor engines got so much more powerful that any tractor it can overtake your racing car without a problem. Actually, in every possible aspect.
Sure, it's nice to have the old stuff in the barn and take it out for a Sunday ride. But that still doesn't make it sensible to consider this as a future direction for computing. It isn't. Too many constructional weaknesses.
-
Really? It appears you don't understand what his objection is. He simply objects to any patching or updating of anybody's code (unless it's public domain or open source) without the owner's express consent. It makes no difference to him whether you release a binary patch or the complete software.
Thanks for telling me what my objection is. Allow me to correct you - BTW, you got it wrong.
Point one is that I'm not (primarely) concerned about copyright, at least not right now. Copyright is a much more serious matter for commercial use than it is for hobby use. Point is simply:
If you patch a program, make a good attempt reaching the author. If that fails, try again, or ask somebody else with contacts to him. See what the author has to say, listen carefully and try to understand the point, whatever the point might be. For or against, no matter. Be respectful.
If all this fails, there are *still* options to probably organize improvements on old software. Probably even without patching. The danger of this binary patching stuff is: You never know what the intentions of the author might have been, you cannot read the source, and you cannot read the comments in the source. It might be just your problem that you did not understand the interface, or that there is a bug in *your* program instead of the author's code. The second danger is that this causes a chaotic "anti-development" of the software in question because somebody else might *also* have an idea what would need fixing. And probably such "fixes" do not even work with each other, or mess up the software completely. In worst case, we end up with N totally incompatible versions of the software, and program A working with version 1 but not with version 2, and program B just the other way around...
So for example, if you want to update such old software, probably try to find a group of people that are interested in the same old code, get organized, and - after some good testing - release a patch and make this group of people responsible for the code. Or try to reach the author as a group, organize a petition.... There are many ways. These ways are more complicated, but they will probably yield better software, or - gosh! - even legal software. (There is the copyright argument).
Problem is: Nothing of that happened. In fact, this was a wild-west style shoot-first-ask-later attempt at fixing a potentially, though likely bug, without any coordination and without any attempt of giving the author a chance to even react.
In this particular case, the author is even still around, can be contacted, and should at least be given a *chance* to say something about the problem. Probably not even fixing it, but probably give hints or provide direction. Whatever the answer is: Respect it. It's not your software.
If there is no answer, there is still time to do something. But only then.
-
a machine that crashes every five minutes
If your Amiga crashes that often then there's something VERY wrong with it :p
but that still doesn't make this a *good* machine by today's standards
Who cares? They're awesome retro machines for the Retro Computerer :D
-
Who cares? They're awesome retro machines for the Retro Computerer :D
I didn't say anything different. But one should really understand the difference between a retro machine and a state-of-the-art architecture.
-
I didn't say anything different. But one should really understand the difference between a retro machine and a state-of-the-art architecture.
Don't look at me, I know peecees have been a lot more powerful for quite a while now. As nice as they are, my Amiga is still on almost everyday (and it's not nostalgia, I'm getting sick of reading about nostalgia :p).
-
Thanks for telling me what my objection is. Allow me to correct you - BTW, you got it wrong.
Point one is that I'm not (primarely) concerned about copyright, at least not right now. Copyright is a much more serious matter for commercial use than it is for hobby use. Point is simply:
If you patch a program, make a good attempt reaching the author. If that fails, try again, or ask somebody else with contacts to him. See what the author has to say, listen carefully and try to understand the point, whatever the point might be. For or against, no matter. Be respectful.
If all this fails, there are *still* options to probably organize improvements on old software. Probably even without patching. The danger of this binary patching stuff is: You never know what the intentions of the author might have been, you cannot read the source, and you cannot read the comments in the source. It might be just your problem that you did not understand the interface, or that there is a bug in *your* program instead of the author's code. The second danger is that this causes a chaotic "anti-development" of the software in question because somebody else might *also* have an idea what would need fixing. And probably such "fixes" do not even work with each other, or mess up the software completely. In worst case, we end up with N totally incompatible versions of the software, and program A working with version 1 but not with version 2, and program B just the other way around...
So for example, if you want to update such old software, probably try to find a group of people that are interested in the same old code, get organized, and - after some good testing - release a patch and make this group of people responsible for the code. Or try to reach the author as a group, organize a petition.... There are many ways. These ways are more complicated, but they will probably yield better software, or - gosh! - even legal software. (There is the copyright argument).
Problem is: Nothing of that happened. In fact, this was a wild-west style shoot-first-ask-later attempt at fixing a potentially, though likely bug, without any coordination and without any attempt of giving the author a chance to even react.
In this particular case, the author is even still around, can be contacted, and should at least be given a *chance* to say something about the problem. Probably not even fixing it, but probably give hints or provide direction. Whatever the answer is: Respect it. It's not your software.
If there is no answer, there is still time to do something. But only then.
Patches are as old as amiga. As long the original binary is not distributed nobody can say anything about it. It is up to the user if he uses a patch or not. You have yourself admitted that Hyperion gives a sh*t about 68k except perhaps as resource of potential customers. The same is true for other devs. To me the discussion is a little dogmatic, there are some devs who patch a binary to make it faster or remove a bug and offer it to others with similar problems who either use it or not. Nobody expects today the original authors to make support or bugixes to the old 68k versions, what would be for me the only reason not to offer a patch but work together with the devs. If 68k is abandoned I really see no reason why anybody would be affected. In a perfect world 68k would be supported and we would need not to discuss but it is not.
-
Really? It appears you don't understand what his objection is. He simply objects to any patching or updating of anybody's code (unless it's public domain or open source) without the owner's express consent.
That is only one of his objections. The compatibility issue is another. In situations here the person who wrote the code is contactable it makes perfect sense.
It makes no difference to him whether you release a binary patch or the complete software.
That wasn't your original argument. You said he didn't understand the difference. I said he understood but that wasn't what his objection was. You're now saying it makes no difference to him, which is essentially what I told you. So you're agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong. Is English not your first language?
-
Look [...] weaknesses.
A computer does what you ask him to do.
If a computer crashes every 5 minutes, it is because you asked it to crashe every 5 minutes.
If you want it does not crash every 5 minutes, ask it to not crashe every 5 minutes.
It is easy to say that a dog is rabid when we no longer want him.
So all that is old is obsolete?
The wheel, which is more old than UNIX or Amiga, would be an outdated idea ?
Should we use a boat instead of a car? what do you recommend ?
Bug fix, which is part of evolution, does not prevent the world keep turning.
Oppose the how (standard) to the why (design) is a suicidal argument.
-
That is only one of his objections. The compatibility issue is another. In situations here the person who wrote the code is contactable it makes perfect sense.
He has just given a much more detailed explanation of his objections on this thread and it's appears that neither one of us completely understood them. That wasn't your original argument. You said he didn't understand the difference. I said he understood but that wasn't what his objection was. You're now saying it makes no difference to him, which is essentially what I told you. So you're agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong. Is English not your first language?
Semantics or language (English) that is the question. Maybe he doe's understand the difference but considers them to be irrelevant to his objections. The end result is the same (he still objects) but apparently you expect both me (and him also) to be sticklers and perfectionists of trivial details in causal discussion (e.g. he should explain in great detail that he has no legal objections to releasing binary patches even if it's completely irrelevant to his primary objections).
-
Should we use a boat instead of a car? what do you recommend ?
Boats have been around a lot longer than cars. Just FYI. :lol:
-
Boats have been around a lot longer than cars. Just FYI. :lol:
Why not. If you consider that a floating trunks is a boat.
-
The end result is the same (he still objects) but apparently you expect both me (and him also) to be sticklers and perfectionists of trivial details in causal discussion
Your statement was completely and utterly the opposite of what you meant. That isn't trivial, I'm not picking you up for grammar/punctuality/spelling.
When I commented on it you didn't understand what I said either & carried on arguing. Your objection seems a little one sided, you can say anything and we have to agree and you can't be held responsible if you say something wrong. I'd expect that from talking to a woman, not on an amiga forum.
-
I'd expect that from talking to a woman
:laughing:
-
Well, I look at what’s being said and came to my own conclusion.
Patches work, but if someone has the talent and time to re-engineer the software to work on a classic Amiga without performance issues, AFA or AROS68k or other, that would be great. Better than a bug fix. But its having the coders to do it . . . :(
Author’s wrights for “abandoned software” matter not, least not to me! Because its abandoned. Holding software technology hostage is why “Open Source” is so popular IMO. Re-engineer it and the author no longer matters from a copy wright POV. No offense intended. :)
Oh, and on the note of NG Amiga’s, there isn’t any real world next generation ultra modern Amiga’s. A shot at a new beginning while emulating the old is whats available. :(
-
The CybergraphX thread was closed so I could not answer there and decided to make a new one.
The issues with patching or not distributing abandoned binaries with or without permission of author pops up regularly here. I do not want to start a bashing thread about authors but we all know that many old projects are either completely abandoned (author not accessible anymore) or authors still active (on one of the NG platforms) and reluctant to support 68k anymore.
My conclusion and question is... we do not need the old binaries anymore because there is a replacement for it: Aros 68k together with Rom Replacements from Toni Wilen. It is opensource and sources are legally accessible and it is possible to change and improve them. The Aros project lacks developers so if people want to improve the situation why do they not help there.
In this case CybergraphX 3 is implemented in Aros, why not helping to improve it? The situation regarding the old sources will not change anymore so why not accepting it and start somewhere new. Additionally Aros 68k benefits from the Aros developments so it is very sophisiticated and gets new software. Forget the old stuff... where Aros needs improvements when running on old hardware is mainly improvements in speed. And on API level some are very good implemented, in others stuff is missing. But it offers future... What do people here think?
I don't know... maybe because we want to use AmigaOS and not a replacement OS?
I fully understand the potential problems that an unofficial patch can create but I can only see it as a problam for the creater and user of such a patch, as long as we make sure things work with official files I let other worry about what problem they cause for them selves.
-
Your statement was completely and utterly the opposite of what you meant. That isn't trivial, I'm not picking you up for grammar/punctuality/spelling.
When I commented on it you didn't understand what I said either & carried on arguing. Your objection seems a little one sided, you can say anything and we have to agree and you can't be held responsible if you say something wrong. I'd expect that from talking to a woman, not on an amiga forum.
How could anyone be 100% certain based on his earlier posts he really did understand the difference? He was certainly no less aggressive in his objections to releasing a binary patch then to a full release of the software in question.
I already explained that I could have been wrong about his not understanding the difference but in the end it's still a TRIVIAL issue because the end result is exactly the same (he still objects).
Now, that's exactly what I would expect from a woman, continued bickering about a completely moot point! :lol:
-
I don't know... maybe because we want to use AmigaOS and not a replacement OS?
I fully understand the potential problems that an unofficial patch can create but I can only see it as a problam for the creater and user of such a patch, as long as we make sure things work with official files I let other worry about what problem they cause for them selves.
People have to decide what they want :)
Regarding Patches... Patches are for sure legal, there are propably hundreds on aminet. If the 68k version is still supported then contacting author would make more sense but for abandoned software (even if there are still PPC versions in development) I see no real problem or harm in it. Finally it is up to the users then if they use a modified binary then and as long only the patch but neither the original binary or a modified one is distributed without permission.
-
If we get LLVM/CLANG working one day, maybe the generated code will be fast enough for that.
Kamelito
That and decent chipset drivers...
Fortunately, FBlit source is available under the open source MIT license. Both sources are on my GitHub account.