Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 17, 2016, 07:42:45 AM
-
Saw this shared on one of the Amiga Google+ pages:
https://vimeo.com/152027985
Pretty impressive! :)
-
Is Picasso96 now a feature of Apollo too?
Im considering finding a cheap a600 now instead of waiting for
an a1200 one to surface.
-
Wow! I haven't been following development of this board, but that's incredible. Better start saving my pennies for when it's available :)
-
https://vimeo.com/152180575
Soo fast!
-
It looks faster than even a full 060, wow.
-
It looks faster than even a full 060, wow.
These cores are getting good, but personally wouldn't buy one until they can do full MMU/FPU + >68020 instructions. AFAIK none of them are fully compatible with those, yet?
-
Can I get one for my A1200, PLEASE! Take my money ;).
-
These cores are getting good, but personally wouldn't buy one until they can do full MMU/FPU + >68020 instructions. AFAIK none of them are fully compatible with those, yet?
so far it looks like rather good compatibility. as its been said over and over almost all you need is 020 instruction set, as others are mostly subsets of this. nevertheless practically everything seems to be implemented by now, even bitfields.expect a full legacy fpu drop in raplacement be enabled soon. however i fear that there wont be any compatible mmu at any time.
-
These cores are getting good, but personally wouldn't buy one until they can do full MMU/FPU + >68020 instructions. AFAIK none of them are fully compatible with those, yet?
for what purpose do you need MMU?
-
These cores are getting good, but personally wouldn't buy one until they can do full MMU/FPU + >68020 instructions. AFAIK none of them are fully compatible with those, yet?
What instructions do you need it to do? The 060 has less instructions for instance.
-
for what purpose do you need MMU?
You'll need a MMU to control caching in case you have a DMA device in the system - if the Vampire has a cache (I believe so). For the A600 and no other extensions, this is probably harmless (IDE does only PIO, and there is no Zorro bus).
But without a MMU, you'll run into trouble as soon as you would try to run this in a big-box machine with a Zorro card that can run DMA. Reasons are a bit technical and due to the rather convoluted Amiga Bus system, but it's a major headache getting this right. It's usually the 68060 or 68040.library which takes care of these pecularities.
-
Is Picasso96 now a feature of Apollo too?
At least as soon as the licensing issue has been worked out... from a technical point, a prototype driver exists.
-
You'll need a MMU to control caching in case you have a DMA device in the system - if the Vampire has a cache (I believe so). For the A600 and no other extensions, this is probably harmless (IDE does only PIO, and there is no Zorro bus).
But without a MMU, you'll run into trouble as soon as you would try to run this in a big-box machine with a Zorro card that can run DMA. Reasons are a bit technical and due to the rather convoluted Amiga Bus system, but it's a major headache getting this right. It's usually the 68060 or 68040.library which takes care of these pecularities.
the obvious solution would be to to implement mmu, another possibility, less obvious would be to include all high bandwidth periferials like sata/pata, usb, lan and rtg onboard, with or without classic dma, but either way with an adequate firmware support to make zorro extensions obsolete. a low cpu load while data transfers beyond 10mb/s would be enough not to need zorro for anything much demanding anymore.
-
At least as soon as the licensing issue has been worked out... from a technical point, a prototype driver exists.
are there any issues? i have mentioned, it would be better to relay on some open solution..
-
are there any issues? i have mentioned, it would be better to relay on some open solution..
I believe the uaegfx driver uses the standard GPL so as long as any other driver is based upon this code and is also GPL licensed there is not much legally anyone could do about it is there?
-
I believe the uaegfx driver uses the standard GPL so as long as any other driver is based upon this code and is also GPL licensed there is not much legally anyone could do about it is there?
Many issues. The trouble is that P96 was not and is not open source, and the SDK for it (required to develop drivers) is neither open source. It had (and in particular still has, as the ownership has not changed) to be licensed.
I'm not sure how the UAE component came into being and who created it and whether this was done under license from Tobias and Alex, but at least one manufacturer (Elbox) reverse engineered the P96 interface without paying for the license, very much to the dislike of Alex and Tobias. Which, in one way or another, let to the halt of development. Thank you, Elbox!
P96 was a tremendous work - it is more or less a re-implementation of a major part of the Amiga graphics.library. I believe their authors deserve a little more respect in terms of their work.
So yes, the Vampire driver is based on the proper SDK for P96, and yes, this requires licensing. And yes, they (we) want to license, and it deserves licensing.
-
the obvious solution would be to to implement mmu, another possibility, less obvious would be to include all high bandwidth periferials like sata/pata, usb, lan and rtg onboard, with or without classic dma, but either way with an adequate firmware support to make zorro extensions obsolete. a low cpu load while data transfers beyond 10mb/s would be enough not to need zorro for anything much demanding anymore.
Well, just for the sake of an argument, let's assume a similar card appears for the big box systems. I wonder what will happen if the first user of such a board plugs this into his system, with - by coincidence and by "ignoring the manual" as it usual - a DMA based board in the system. And just by coincidence, this construction trashes data on the harddisk.
In short: Bad idea. Either hardware works correctly and supports all the protocols, or it does not.
For an A600, the problem does not really exist - where should the DMA be going? For big boxes, this is an issue, and this issue is because the CPU (or FPGA) cannot "see behind the Zorro bus drivers" that separate the CPU slot from the zorro slot.
Solution #1 is to run the system without cache on Zorro. Not nice, but would "work" (for some definition of "work").
Solution #2 would be to disable caching as long as DMA is running. This "works better", but it's still no a good solution. (That's more or less the same solution you'll have to follow when installing "EC" processors).
Solution #3 would be to implement at least some minimal MMU plus a vampire-specific CPU library that controls caching on DMA'd page boundaries.
Solution #4 would be to have a full paged 68K MMU. That's a quite complex beast, but it's ideal for compatibility.
-
I believe the uaegfx driver uses the standard GPL so as long as any other driver is based upon this code and is also GPL licensed there is not much legally anyone could do about it is there?
Let me clarify one thing: The UAEgfx driver consists of two parts: The GPL'd part that sits within UAE. This you can easily look into. And then there is the P96 component that talks to the P96 core and has to be installed in the emulated Amiga. I'm not sure what the status of this component is and whether it is open source. Even if it is, it does not mean that it is sufficient to replicate the SDK. The includes necessary to built it are surely not freely available.
-
Many issues. The trouble is that P96 was not and is not open source, and the SDK for it (required to develop drivers) is neither open source. It had (and in particular still has, as the ownership has not changed) to be licensed.
I'm not sure how the UAE component came into being and who created it and whether this was done under license from Tobias and Alex, but at least one manufacturer (Elbox) reverse engineered the P96 interface without paying for the license, very much to the dislike of Alex and Tobias. Which, in one way or another, let to the halt of development. Thank you, Elbox!
P96 was a tremendous work - it is more or less a re-implementation of a major part of the Amiga graphics.library. I believe their authors deserve a little more respect in terms of their work.
So yes, the Vampire driver is based on the proper SDK for P96, and yes, this requires licensing. And yes, they (we) want to license, and it deserves licensing.
If the vampire driver is based upon the official sdk and is licensed then it's irrelevant I guess but say I took the GPL licenced uaegfx driver and modified it to create a driver for another video card (virtual or otherwise) and complied fully with the GPL licence, I am very much legally allowed to do so and the FSF/EFF etc and their teams of lawyers would back me up 100%. Isn't complying FULLY with licences something you are very keen on?
-
Let me clarify one thing: The UAEgfx driver consists of two parts: The GPL'd part that sits within UAE. This you can easily look into. And then there is the P96 component that talks to the P96 core and has to be installed in the emulated Amiga. I'm not sure what the status of this component is and whether it is open source. Even if it is, it does not mean that it is sufficient to replicate the SDK. The includes necessary to built it are surely not freely available.
Are header files copyrightable? Only in the USA as far as I'm aware and even that is only a very recent ruling because of Oracle.
-
If the vampire driver is based upon the official sdk and is licensed then it's irrelevant I guess but say I took the GPL licenced uaegfx driver and modified it to create a driver for another video card (virtual or otherwise) and complied fully with the GPL licence, I am very much legally allowed to do so and the FSF/EFF etc and their teams of lawyers would back me up 100%. Isn't complying FULLY with licences something you are very keen on?
Look, all this arguing really makes me sad. IANAL, but: If the authors ask for money for the SDK, I believe it is really fair to comply with that.
You're just stating "arguments" to go cheap. No, sorry. P96 was good work, and it deserves some monetary feedback if the authors ask for it.
Consider how you would feel like: You created a piece of art, and all you hear from your neighbours how to get hands on it without paying. Do you see what's wrong here?
-
So, running OS3.9BB2 as long as the most essential updates ROM updates are skipped? Again, it would be really nice to see OS3.9 Prefs programs running fine.
-
If the authors ask for money for the SDK, I believe it is really fair to comply with that.
I can pay them in Deutsche Marks I have left, it was relevant currency when paying for SDK/DDKs on Amiga was relevant.
-
Consider how you would feel like: You created a piece of art, and all you hear from your neighbours how to get hands on it without paying. Do you see what's wrong here?
I would just let them copy it, no big deal, I will still have my piece of art.
-
Look, all this arguing really makes me sad. IANAL, but: If the authors ask for money for the SDK, I believe it is really fair to comply with that.
You're just stating "arguments" to go cheap. No, sorry. P96 was good work, and it deserves some monetary feedback if the authors ask for it.
Consider how you would feel like: You created a piece of art, and all you hear from your neighbours how to get hands on it without paying. Do you see what's wrong here?
+1, we're a small but passionate group so lets support each other and especially our developers/ hardware manufacturers:hammer:
-
+1, we're a small but passionate group so lets support each other and especially our developers/ hardware manufacturers:hammer:
Are you paying attention? As Thomas pointed out "the problem is that P96 is not open source", even he sees that this is a problem. In this case, the P96 owners have no interest in supporting hardware manufacturers, certainly not Polish such. This has _zero_ to do with us end-users, and everything to do with arguing and bickering between those you call developers and the hardware manufacturers. This is how it has always been with Amiga, almost all the big conflicts have been between those who develop products, and not between developers and users.
-
Are you paying attention? As Thomas pointed out "the problem is that P96 is not open source", even he sees that this is a problem.
No, the "not open source" is not a problem. The problem are people like you that do not respect the choices of the authors. You're just sitting here saying "let's ignore what the authors want to say about it, let's just grab it".
Sorry, but that's ignorant, and it's not a policy that would help anyone for supporting the platform. In this case, the P96 owners have no interest in supporting hardware manufacturers, certainly not Polish such.
Excuse me. Back then, the SDK was available for money. Surely there is support if you pay for it. Elbox was just cheap. Or why do you think that software authors need to work there arse off to "support manufacturers" that then sell hardware, but get nothing in return?
Are you really that ignorant that you blame Tobias and Alex for not working for free?
How do you pay your bills, if I may be so frank to ask? And why does your employer pay you in first place? Couldn't you just work for free? This has _zero_ to do with us end-users, and everything to do with arguing and bickering between those you call developers and the hardware manufacturers.
And your conclusion is "let's just not pay the authors". Now, allow me to ask: Why is that exactly helpful? If software is worthless for you, why should anyone sit down and write it? Or, leave alone, support people like you that are ignorant about the work of others?
-
Many issues. The trouble is that P96 was not and is not open source, and the SDK for it (required to develop drivers) is neither open source.
Do "trouble" and "problem" have much different meanings for you?
-
The problem are people like you that do not respect the choices of the authors.
Indeed I do not respect choices, I reserve my respect for _people_, and how much I respect people, depends on their choices. So, when people keep doing silly choices, I respect them less. Just because someone wrote some good code, does not make them good people, there are brilliant coders who are really terrible people and who do a lot of bad choices. I have little respect for them.
You're just sitting here saying "let's ignore what the authors want to say about it, let's just grab it".
What I am saying is that authors who care about their work, better come out and show it, and do it themselves and not by proxy of people they barely have any contact with.
Remember how copyright laws started? It was all about what is beneficial for _society_ in general. Same with patent laws. This original agenda has long since been hijacked by people with much sinister agendas.
Sorry, but that's ignorant, and it's not a policy that would help anyone for supporting the platform.
Nonsense. Opening up the platform is what can actually help people support it. The level of hypocrisy in Amiga community is staggering, how so called "piracy" is "ok" as long as it doesn't happen in the "open". Look at Cloanto, when you buy AmigaForever 2016 it comes with loads of cracked games and even "illegal" firmware for CSPPC for OS4.1SE to work. Look at Reaction aka ClassAct, now the official OS4 "toolkit"... how pleased are Caldi et al these days about how that "deal" went through? Who is screwing over who here??
Excuse me. Back then, the SDK was available for money. Surely there is support if you pay for it. Elbox was just cheap. Or why do you think that software authors need to work there arse off to "support manufacturers" that then sell hardware, but get nothing in return?
I was never in the P96 "club", I always used CGFx whenever possible, and it is in a much healthier state than P96. For example, the CGfx3 SDK is where such SDKs should be - on aminet.
Are you really that ignorant that you blame Tobias and Alex for not working for free?
I am blaming them for picking a really bad business model for developing such software, as in doing "bad choices" (see above).
How do you pay your bills, if I may be so frank to ask?
I work for a non-profit to bring Internet to higher education institutes in Norway, I am paid to design and implement solutions that enables and allows research and education to take place in ways and locations where it has not been possible before. Like in the Arctic areas for example. We pick open source over closed source whenever possible. We pay people to write open source, we even sometimes take "dead" open source projects and revive them.
And why does your employer pay you in first place?
Because I do a good job, matching their expectations. Coding, hacking, chewing gum and glue, so that students and researches can have working internet access wherever they go, in my country and beyond.
Most importantly - I do work that actually matters to my society, and no strings attached, hence society pays me.
Couldn't you just work for free?
I do that too, I got more projects than I have time for, doing stuff for free. It happens that I volunteer for work that I find satisfying.
And your conclusion is "let's just not pay the authors".
My conclusion is that since the authors chose to not care, why should anyone else.
Now, allow me to ask: Why is that exactly helpful? If software is worthless for you, why should anyone sit down and write it? Or, leave alone, support people like you that are ignorant about the work of others?
Software that is locked away and not maintained _is_ worthless. For example, how much worth is the P96 SDK right now? How useful is it _right this moment_? Tell me, so I can pay for it in hard currency, and liberate it.
-
Indeed I do not respect choices, I reserve my respect for _people_, and how much I respect people, depends on their choices. So, when people keep doing silly choices, I respect them less. Just because someone wrote some good code, does not make them good people, there are brilliant coders who are really terrible people and who do a lot of bad choices. I have little respect for them.
What I am saying is that authors who care about their work, better come out and show it, and do it themselves and not by proxy of people they barely have any contact with.
Remember how copyright laws started? It was all about what is beneficial for _society_ in general. Same with patent laws. This original agenda has long since been hijacked by people with much sinister agendas.
Nonsense. Opening up the platform is what can actually help people support it. The level of hypocrisy in Amiga community is staggering, how so called "piracy" is "ok" as long as it doesn't happen in the "open". Look at Cloanto, when you buy AmigaForever 2016 it comes with loads of cracked games and even "illegal" firmware for CSPPC for OS4.1SE to work. Look at Reaction aka ClassAct, now the official OS4 "toolkit"... how pleased are Caldi et al these days about how that "deal" went through? Who is screwing over who here??
I was never in the P96 "club", I always used CGFx whenever possible, and it is in a much healthier state than P96. For example, the CGfx3 SDK is where such SDKs should be - on aminet.
I am blaming them for picking a really bad business model for developing such software, as in doing "bad choices" (see above).
I work for a non-profit to bring Internet to higher education institutes in Norway, I am paid to design and implement solutions that enables and allows research and education to take place in ways and locations where it has not been possible before. Like in the Arctic areas for example. We pick open source over closed source whenever possible. We pay people to write open source, we even sometimes take "dead" open source projects and revive them.
Because I do a good job, matching their expectations. Coding, hacking, chewing gum and glue, so that students and researches can have working internet access wherever they go, in my country and beyond.
Most importantly - I do work that actually matters to my society, and no strings attached, hence society pays me.
I do that too, I got more projects than I have time for, doing stuff for free. It happens that I volunteer for work that I find satisfying.
My conclusion is that since the authors chose to not care, why should anyone else.
Software that is locked away and not maintained _is_ worthless. For example, how much worth is the P96 SDK right now? How useful is it _right this moment_? Tell me, so I can pay for it in hard currency, and liberate it.
This is precisely the problem with binary only software. Once a software developer decides to cease support and development , what precisely are you paying for? By opening it up for others to continue developing you are allowing your work to grow , mature and potentially have the support of a community.
What precisely does the license grant you ?
1) Entitlement to future updates ? - No , development is stagnant
2) Support when things go wrong ? - Doubtful why would an inactive developer care?
What does this grant the developer of P96?
Given the above. possibly some pennies every now and again.
No-one benefits from this , least of all the Amiga community.
What we should be doing is supporting ACTIVE developers and projects that have some sort of long term future.
We know all this though - when the final nails were in the coffin of commodore
development stopped , there were no more machines, no new hardware. The OS development continued, but the current developer has decided its better to target high priced PPC hardware for no relevant reason. The community stepped in - we now have mature alternatives such as AROS, which has been ported to different architectures - and the OS will have a future even if AmigaOS4 development stopped altogether. Sneer all you want about Open Source but without it and alternatives AmigaOS dies when Hyperion dies.
There is no problem with closed source software however - but developers should really think hard why they shouldnt open up the code when the doors are closed for the last time.
-
You know what, lock this damn thread now. You all have turned a thread about an awesome new product into the typical argumentative hate crap this small community is known for driving people away. Just knock it off and get back on topic!
As far as P96 and payment goes, where is the payment system so those that want to send in something can? I have never seen it, and I have bought two Picasso IV cards.
-
I see no hate -
I see some good discussion about the drawbacks and benefits of different development models.
Theres no mudslinging or hate that i can see.
Either way perhaps you are right about going a bit off topic!
-
I am paid to design and implement solutions that enables and allows research and education to take place in ways and locations where it has not been possible before.
So if you did a design and your company decided to not pay you but use it anyway, you'd still have the design so you wouldn't mind not being paid?
-
As far as P96 and payment goes, where is the payment system so those that want to send in something can? I have never seen it, and I have bought two Picasso IV cards.
P96 wasn't licensed like that. You - as the end user - got a license from the vendor, in your case VillageTronic (the maker of the Picasso IV). VillageTronic licensed the product from Tobias and Alex, and for that you already paid for P96. Thanks for that!
The problem with Elbox was is that they shipped P96 drivers without licensing the product from the developers.
For the vampire, I hope it can be arranged similar to VillageTronic, namely selling the product (the vampire) along with the license to P96. The fee for the later goes to the developers and maintainers.
Sounds like a fair deal to me...
-
Look, all this arguing really makes me sad. IANAL, but: If the authors ask for money for the SDK, I believe it is really fair to comply with that.
You're just stating "arguments" to go cheap. No, sorry. P96 was good work, and it deserves some monetary feedback if the authors ask for it.
Consider how you would feel like: You created a piece of art, and all you hear from your neighbours how to get hands on it without paying. Do you see what's wrong here?
Don't release something as GPL if you don't want people to use it according to that licence, it's simple really.
PS I paid for P96 when I bought my PIV.
-
This is precisely the problem with binary only software. Once a software developer decides to cease support and development , what precisely are you paying for? By opening it up for others to continue developing you are allowing your work to grow , mature and potentially have the support of a community.
The question, at this point, is not what you like or dislike. The point is that Tobias and Alex, at their time, made a particular choice for licensing their product. I believe it is fair to respect this.
Apparently, this already seems to be too much for some people. What precisely does the license grant you ?
P96 was licensed to hardware developers. Not to end users. It grants access to the SDK of P96 and hence the ability to develop rtg graphics hardware.
If the hardware vendor goes out of business, this grants *you* as end user nothing. But this goes for every hardware, not only computers, does it? No-one benefits from this , least of all the Amiga community.
What we should be doing is supporting ACTIVE developers and projects that have some sort of long term future.
We know all this though - when the final nails were in the coffin of commodore.
What exactly do you expect? That idiots like me write software for free? I have no problem with "work for money". There were not enough users for a sustainable development, so CBM went bankrupt. To a good degree on their own fault because they simply lost contact to the market and failed to modernize their product. The OS development continued, but the current developer has decided its better to target high priced PPC hardware for no relevant reason.
Probably for the reason of hoping to make some money? That's a fair deal. Luckily, I never jumped on this particular bandwagon as I did not believe in this market in first place... The community stepped in - we now have mature alternatives such as AROS, which has been ported to different architectures - and the OS will have a future even if AmigaOS4 development stopped altogether.
This is precisely were we differ. AmigaOs does not have a future. The Os is to a major degree a mis-design not ready for the requirements of at least a half-way decent computer. AmigaOs is a retro-Os for outdated machines - which you use for the joy of it. I would be glad to fix up a couple of loop-holes and bugs, fix the worst problems that are show-stoppers for many users, but that's not "a future".
If you want a "fixed AmigaOs", go get Linux. It does everything AmigaOs did, just better, faster, on modern hardware, and it is Open Source. There is no problem with closed source software however - but developers should really think hard why they shouldnt open up the code when the doors are closed for the last time.
I've certainly nothing against that and it would be a kind move. It's however not always so easy as the rights are rarely directly at the developers. So for example, if you develop software for a company, and the company goes bankrupt, the software is then owned by the liquidator. The priority is then to pay the debts of the company by selling the software to interested parties, and not to open it up. Or to put it like this: If you invested money in the company, you would also be irritated if the properties of the company would be given away for free instead of returning your investment to you...
However, as it seems, this is not the case for P96. The software is, as far as I read it, solely owned by Tobias and Alex, so my hope is not lost.
-
To a good degree on their own fault because they simply lost contact to the market and failed to modernize their product.
Sounds like you agree with me here.
... Probably for the reason of hoping to make some money? That's a fair deal. Luckily, I never jumped on this particular bandwagon as I did not believe in this market in first place...
Money for old rope springs to mind here.
If you want a "fixed AmigaOs", go get Linux. It does everything AmigaOs did, just better, faster, on modern hardware, and it is Open Source.
Dont need to tell me that - been feeling the benents for some years now.
-
I'm not sure how the UAE component came into being and who created it and whether this was done under license from Tobias and Alex, but at least one manufacturer (Elbox) reverse engineered the P96 interface without paying for the license, very much to the dislike of Alex and Tobias. Which, in one way or another, let to the halt of development. Thank you, Elbox!
Brian King created it...
http://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2001-10-00276-EN.html
/*
* UAE - The U*nix Amiga Emulator
*
* Picasso96 Support Module Header
*
* Copyright 1997 Brian King
*/
-
Re:P96 vs. CGX3
If P96 has significant barriers to entry, the AROS implementation of CyberGraphics 3 could be used via a hybrid entity like AfaOS.
Re:MMU
The most likely option for big-box Amigas will be an MMU that is designed around Amiga's usage of an MMU rather than the complex beast of an MMU required for Unix or Linux.
-
This thread was initially really great, but turned into crap.
What is the big deal with paying for stuff you use? I honestly have no issue paying for things I use.
Stealing is why we can't have nice things.
-
This thread was initially really great, but turned into crap.
What is the big deal with paying for stuff you use? I honestly have no issue paying for things I use.
Stealing is why we can't have nice things.
Who said this is about money? People can be paid to work on open-source code just like they are for closed-source. The difference is the business model. The former is paid for as labor covered by programming bounties and the like while closed source is paid for by selling a product. Either way people get paid.
-
Who said this is about money? People can be paid to work on open-source code just like they are for closed-source. The difference is the business model. The former is paid for as labor covered by programming bounties and the like while closed source is paid for by selling a product. Either way people get paid.
No problem with that either - it is a choice you can make as an author. However, this choice hasn't been made by Tobias and Alex. Like it or dislike it, but that's where we are.
Now look at Kolla's approach. He's suggesting just to take the source and ignore the choice the authors made. I'll call this asocial.
-
This thread was initially really great, but turned into crap.
What is the big deal with paying for stuff you use? I honestly have no issue paying for things I use.
Stealing is why we can't have nice things.
How is using the GPL licenced uaegfx driver in full accordance with the terms it is licenced under "stealing"?
-
How is using the GPL licenced uaegfx driver in full accordance with the terms it is licenced under "stealing"?
I do not know. I haven't licenced it. Ask Tobias and Alex whether this is a legimitate driver or not. And, as I said before, the uae part of the uaegfx component (written in C) is only the end-point of the 68K P96 endpoint of the driver. Whether *that* has been licensed and by whom I do not know.
As a side note, no, you cannot built a graphics card driver from the UAE C component. That doesn't depend on the SDK. It only depends on the 68K interface part that, more or less, just traps into UAE. The SDK comes with a full definition of stuctures and components, and those are not part of the GPL'd source - mostly because they are not needed by UAE in first place.
Just for your information: If I'm the author, I can of course decide to change the license of some components under GPL if I like to. Or sub-license them.
So please, could you please stop to try to construct a case that P96 is under GPL, or its SDK is under GPL? It isn't. Or if you don't believe me, go get a lawyer to clarify.
Until then, could you just please be so kind and respect that Tobias and Alex did not want to put P96 under GPL or OpenSource? That was clearly their intention. Even if you do not like that.
-
I do not know. I haven't licenced it. Ask Tobias and Alex whether this is a legimitate driver or not. And, as I said before, the uae part of the uaegfx component (written in C) is only the end-point of the 68K P96 endpoint of the driver. Whether *that* has been licensed and by whom I do not know.
Just for your information: If I'm the author, I can of course decide to change the license of some components under GPL if I like to. Or sub-license them.
So please, could you please stop to try to construct a case that P96 is under GPL, or its SDK is under GPL? It isn't. Or if you don't believe me, go get a lawyer to clarify.
Until then, could you just please be so kind and respect that Tobias and Alex did not want to put P96 under GPL or OpenSource? That was clearly their intention. Even if you do not like that.
The P96 uaegfx driver *is* licenced under the GPL whether you like it or not. This is a fact and as long as it is used in full accordance with the terms it is licensed under there is nothing you nor anyone else can do to stop someone using it whether you like it or not. I have not made the claim that P96 itself nor its SDK are licenced under the GPL, nor has anyone else. Please stop making false claims to win an argument, stick to facts and you can't go wrong. The uaegfx driver was licenced from Tobias and Alex by Cloanto and written by Brian King. It is as "official" as any of the other p96 drivers (with the exception of the Elbox driver).
-
P96 was a tremendous work - it is more or less a re-implementation of a major part of the Amiga graphics.library.
Work with no kind of reverse engineering needed by P96 coders? That would be surprising. They got all the info/docs/license for being able to do it from the Amiga owner of that time?
-
The P96 uaegfx driver *is* licenced under the GPL whether you like it or not. This is a fact and as long as it is used in full accordance with the terms it is licensed under there is nothing you nor anyone else can do to stop someone using it whether you like it or not.
I do not want to stop anyone from using anything. Just to make sure that you read me correctly: I am saying "I do not know". Please check again.
I'm just sick about this argument that "because the UAEgfx driver is GPL, we can just rip it, create a driver for vampire and by that avoid any payment to the authors".
No, sorry, won't happen with me. The UAEGfx driver was meant to be a driver for UAE. Not for vampire. And no, it is not the SDK and not a suitable replacement, and not a basis I would work from. In fact, I would probably avoid to work from any GPL code if I can.
-
Work with no kind of reverse engineering needed by P96 coders? That would be surprising. They got all the info/docs/license for being able to do it from the Amiga owner of that time?
Again, "I do not know". I'm neither Alex nor Tobias. All I can tell is that their code looks quite different than the graphics code in the kickstart. Actually, it looks quite a bit better (which, however, doesn't mean much. The graphics code does not exactly set high standards).
-
I do not want to stop anyone from using anything. Just to make sure that you read me correctly: I am saying "I do not know". Please check again.
I'm just sick about this argument that "because the UAEgfx driver is GPL, we can just rip it, create a driver for vampire and by that avoid any payment to the authors".
No, sorry, won't happen with me. The UAEGfx driver was meant to be a driver for UAE. Not for vampire. And no, it is not the SDK and not a suitable replacement, and not a basis I would work from. In fact, I would probably avoid to work from any GPL code if I can.
It's not "ripping" anything, it's using a work of code in full accordance with the licence it is published under. Very much legal and as I'm sure you will agree complying with licence terms is very much a good thing. It is very disrespectful of an authors wishes to use his work without complying with the licence he granted you to use it under. Here's the announcement regarding the uaegfx driver being licenced from Tobias and Alex by Cloanto. http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2001-10-00276-DE.html
-
It's not "ripping" anything, it's using a work of code in full accordance with the licence it is published under.
Very well. I've no problem with code under GPL, that's a choice every author can do. I'm neither saying that the UAEGfx driver is invalid. It is, however, a possibility that sounds not too unrealistic for me. But that's really not my concern, I've no interest in this component, and I'm neither the owner of any of the components involved. So why do you care so much about it? Very much legal and as I'm sure you will agree complying with licence terms is very much a good thing. It is very disrespectful of an authors wishes to use his work without complying with the licence he granted you to use it under.
Very well, but then you should also understand that this driver is not a replacement for the SDK. I believe I already said this. And I believe I already said that I wouldn't want to work from GPL code in first place, so in particular not from this source. So I certainly do not breach any license. Here's the announcement regarding the uaegfx driver being licenced from Tobias and Alex by Cloanto. http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2001-10-00276-DE.html
So Cloanto did their homework. Good to know, and I did not expect anything else. But what exactly does that prove concerning the matter whether the UAEGfx driver is legit and based on the SDK?
-
So Cloanto did their homework. Good to know, and I did not expect anything else. But what exactly does that prove concerning the matter whether the UAEGfx driver is legit and based on the SDK?
I am not sure about original version (I think it was by Brian King) but new version since 1.5 is by me. There is non-public device driver "document" (that lists all functions and parameters + header files) that explain how to develop drivers.
Unfortunately it have absolutely no information about RTG.
Do not ask me, I am not allowed to distribute it. (anyway, you can "reverse-engineer" that information from winuae sources..)
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?p=629121&styleid=4&styleid=1
-
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=80349&highlight=picasso96
;)
-
So if you did a design and your company decided to not pay you but use it anyway, you'd still have the design so you wouldn't mind not being paid?
Correct. In fact this happens all the time already, as what we design here in Norway is also used elsewhere in Europe and the world. Sometimes parties join to cover development of software, the end result is still available free of charge as open source software. We develop software and solutions because we need them, not to earn money.
-
Nobody stole anything P96, and still they were pissed off and withdrew from "the market" - why people are still desperately messing around with P96 is beyond what I can understand. It was always very awkward software, witb the least intuitive and Amiga like prefs software ever, so of course it was bound to become "the standard", because, you know... obnoxious German besserwissers :)
-
And Thomas, no, I don't expect "everything for free", that is solely your narrowminded stuck-in-the-past understanding. I pay for stuff I believe in, I contribute to software development using my own money. I know it must sound wild whack crazy for you that people pay money for source code only to have it opened up, so anyone can download it. That says more about your view, than mine really.
-
And as for Vampire2 and hdmi output - I *much* rather want to see improved AGA than RTG.
-
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?p=629121&styleid=4&styleid=1
Yes, this "document not allowed to spread" is part of the SDK. Along with the headers and includes. This shows that the author had access to the SDK (one way or another).
-
Nobody stole anything P96, and still they were pissed off and withdrew from "the market" - why people are still desperately messing around with P96 is beyond what I can understand.
Excuse me, but you'll better leave this to people with a bit more insight into the matter. I know you ignore copyright and disrespect the choices of the authors, but that does not necessarily go to all the rest of mankind...
It was always very awkward software, witb the least intuitive and Amiga like prefs software ever, so of course it was bound to become "the standard", because, you know...
Actually, the software itself has to care about the rather ill-defined graphics interface (graphics is really a mess) so it's astonishing that something like P96 is actually possible in first place. It's really a patch-bomb thrown on the system. For this constraint, it is a very good work, and as I said, it really looks better than graphics.
obnoxious German besserwissers :)
Look, I've really no interest to play on this level.
-
We develop software and solutions because we need them, not to earn money.
It is a rather convenient position to have the taxpayer keeping care of your bill, but not everyone is in this pleasant position. Norway has enough oil (yet) to fund you at this time, but you should try - at least for a while - to work in the industry, just a bit, to see the other side of the medal.
I've done both, actually. Currently, I'm pretty much in the same position as you right now (so I'm happy), but I'm not as arrogant as you to state that closed source development has to be damned. I believe a good software engineer should be able to make a living (which you cannot, in Amiga land, let's face it, even less with users like you), and not a living from the taxpayer but from his customers.
Both development models have their drawbacks and merrits. Pick the one that suits your case best. As far as public positions are concerned, we're here clearly stating that the tax payer paid for it, so should have access to it. That's fair, too.
But that does not mean that I ignore the need for people to create closed source software; its development is often quicker and driven by the market, not by some abstract funding goals you'll get from the latest university project. It's a much harder life in private industry, and I would wish you could appreciate that at some point when you grow older and wiser. You should have done that to appreciate how hard work has to go into products compared to the cozy job you have.
This being said, I'm really set up by how arrogantly you deny the choices of the original authors. *This* makes me mad. Not the usual sales talk on Open Source - that's just a choice of your business model and I'm fine with whatever fits your needs. There are markets where open source works, and others where it does not.
-
As a side note, no, you cannot built a graphics card driver from the UAE C component. That doesn't depend on the SDK. It only depends on the 68K interface part that, more or less, just traps into UAE.
It would be easy to make the traps not go into UAE but whereever you like. You could patch LoadSeg("uaegfx.card") to replace the 0xF0FF60 jumps. So you probably could write a gfx card driver without needing to know ".card" internals, but only things from UAE.
-
So if i can make a p96 driver without the sdk, i am doing something illegal ?
-
So if i can make a p96 driver without the sdk, i am doing something illegal ?
AFAIK possibly in the EU, but not in the US.
-
@kolla and Thomas
The whole payment for software discussion seems a bit malplaced. Its easy to say we could/should develop for free when you live in a country like Norway, where the social security is so strong. Even if you loose your job, the state takes care of you. And loosing a job has been "hard" until the oil price crash. And the pay has generally been quite high versus large parts of Europa. I lived/worked a couple of years in USA (California). One day one of my collegues got called into our boss's office. Got fired on the spot for a minor issue. This could never have happened in Norway.
For the record; I live in Norway.
Take Toni in his "OS4 compatible UAE expansion development status" thread. He repeatedly encourage people to donate to motivate him to continue the development.
Ofcourse I appriciate people that release free and/or opensource software. Likewise I appriciate it when people want a dime back for their efforts.
Sorry for the offtopic, but the whole "Im entitled to a free lunch" attitude rubs me the wrong way.
-
Im not sure i wholly understand what you are saying here , or at least we have two definitions of "Free".
For me , "Free Software" is not about price, its about liberty.
-
I really don't understand why so much hassles, If you want to use P96 then pay for it, it is not going to be an expensive purchase. The authors deserve payment for something that you want the benefits from.
as an afterthought, if the P96 can be licensed then maybe the cost should be included in the Vampire board cost to make sure the authors do get something.
-
I really don't understand why so much hassles, If you want to use P96 then pay for it, it is not going to be an expensive purchase. The authors deserve payment for something that you want the benefits from.
Thanks for that - I agree. There will probably be some small add-on on the sales price (if that fits your goals), and everyone will benefit from that.
-
I really don't understand why so much hassles, If you want to use P96 then pay for it, it is not going to be an expensive purchase. The authors deserve payment for something that you want the benefits from.
as an afterthought, if the P96 can be licensed then maybe the cost should be included in the Vampire board cost to make sure the authors do get something.
+1:hammer:
-
Thanks for that - I agree. There will probably be some small add-on on the sales price (if that fits your goals), and everyone will benefit from that.
Is there a roadmap for the continued development of P96 ?
If so , what is planned for the future?
-
Is there a roadmap for the continued development of P96 ?
If so , what is planned for the future?
Believe me, I'm interested in this as well. Working on it - we'll see what comes out of this.
-
It is a rather convenient position to have the taxpayer keeping care of your bill, but not everyone is in this pleasant position. Norway has enough oil (yet) to fund you at this time, but you should try - at least for a while - to work in the industry, just a bit, to see the other side of the medal.
I have worked in projects with commercial companies, it also part of the job when developing standards and reference implementations. Luckily, today, most relevant companies base their activities on open sources technologies, and many companies have it as policy to participate in developing open standards and use open source. Closed source of course exists, but as building block for making solid products and platforms, it is dwindling, and dwindling faster every year. Open source conferences are growing larger and larger every year, and these days almost every major industry player participate, to show off their open source products and look for customers, cooperations and potential new hires. Also in non-open source conferences (for example SNIA events), open source solutions are becoming more and more the norm. It doesn't matter what you think or say, the trends are clear, the industry is moving, albeit slowly at times.
I've done both, actually. Currently, I'm pretty much in the same position as you right now (so I'm happy), but I'm not as arrogant as you to state that closed source development has to be damned.
I am not saying it has to be damned, I am saying it _will_ be damned, and there is nothing you can do about it. To pretend this is not the case is rather ignorant.
I believe a good software engineer should be able to make a living (which you cannot, in Amiga land, let's face it, even less with users like you), and not a living from the taxpayer but from his customers.
If you want to survive as a good software engineer these days, you make sure that your creations are open source so that your customers - both those who paid, and those who just picked it up - can participate and improve the product, or you can pretty much wave your chances bye-bye. Your customers will more and more pick other options. I know, because I am a customer.
Both development models have their drawbacks and merrits. Pick the one that suits your case best. As far as public positions are concerned, we're here clearly stating that the tax payer paid for it, so should have access to it. That's fair, too.
It is really more a matter of economy than it is about development models - working with closed source within a company and working with open source with a community is not _that_ different as far as development models are concerned.
But that does not mean that I ignore the need for people to create closed source software; its development is often quicker and driven by the market, not by some abstract funding goals you'll get from the latest university project.
Your views on how things work around here are a bit skewed, but then again, I never met anyone happily working for DFN :laughing:
It's a much harder life in private industry, and I would wish you could appreciate that at some point when you grow older and wiser. You should have done that to appreciate how hard work has to go into products compared to the cozy job you have.
I appreciate hard work when I see it. I appreciate hood products when I use them. So far though, "the industry" you speak of is way too busy creating crapware with tons of insane limitations, lacking interoperability, crazy licensing schemes etc. There is really very little to appreciate.
This being said, I'm really set up by how arrogantly you deny the choices of the original authors. *This* makes me mad. Not the usual sales talk on Open Source - that's just a choice of your business model and I'm fine with whatever fits your needs. There are markets where open source works, and others where it does not.
I do not deny anyone to make dumbass choices, but I am to old to just let such nonsense pass as "the right thing to do".
And please - name one market where open source does not work.
-
Maybe there will be a Vampire for the A500? :-)
-
@kolla and Thomas
The whole payment for software discussion seems a bit malplaced. Its easy to say we could/should develop for free when you live in a country like Norway, where the social security is so strong. Even if you loose your job, the state takes care of you. And loosing a job has been "hard" until the oil price crash. And the pay has generally been quite high versus large parts of Europa. I lived/worked a couple of years in USA (California). One day one of my collegues got called into our boss's office. Got fired on the spot for a minor issue. This could never have happened in Norway.
For the record; I live in Norway.
Take Toni in his "OS4 compatible UAE expansion development status" thread. He repeatedly encourage people to donate to motivate him to continue the development.
Ofcourse I appriciate people that release free and/or opensource software. Likewise I appriciate it when people want a dime back for their efforts.
Sorry for the offtopic, but the whole "Im entitled to a free lunch" attitude rubs me the wrong way.
Another one who totally miss the point - closed source software in time becomes _irrelevant_ - it _dies_. Open source at least stands a chance. All these repeating threads about P96 shows exactly that, and every effin time Thomas has to jump in with his repeated ranting about how closed source is just fine, and that we must respect the authors etc - well, the P96 situation shows exactly how it is _not_ fine. And like always it was not users who did anything wrong, but other participants in the "industry". Still, he insists that P96 is the way to go, somehow, because maybe he can get a much reluctant deal, to develop a driver, something many have tried before without much luck. As a user, all this nonsense is just frustrating. I am saying that I am willing to pay with my "communist money" to have sources of P96 liberated. I have contributed thousands of euros in open source projects up through the years, this would be no different. Yet over and over Thomas tells me I just want "free beer", which is not at all true - I want stuff that works and is future proof (read open source), and I am willing to pay for it.
As for jobs - make sure you have multiple skills, do not put all your eggs into one basket, and don't be afraid to change trade.
-
Instead of creating a software solution, create a compatible hardware solution with one of the P96 drivers.
As far as I remember, this was done for the Amiga 500.
End of the discussion.
-
And please - name one market where open source does not work.
Classical desktops, obviously, with all the applications behind it. Games, Office... It is dominated by closed source, name it - windows.
People care about working applications that solve their day problems, not about the latest open source discussion.
No, I personally do not use windows, but I can certainly note its market dominance.
-
Instead of creating a software solution, create a hardware solution compatible with one of the P96 drivers.
As far as I remember, this was done for the Amiga 500.
End of the discussion.
Not really. The video chips of the day that P96 supports "out of the box" are - from today's perspective - severely limited in bandwidth. Thus, I doubt that any of them would be able to support full HD in truecolor. Besides, it also requires you to emulate all the VGA legacy from the PC (which is, basically, where these chips came from). That's quite some overhead, and I understand that this should better be avoided.
-
AStill, he insists that P96 is the way to go, somehow, because maybe he can get a much reluctant deal, to develop a driver, something many have tried before without much luck.
I want a practical solution that *works*. If you sit down, write a completely open source implementation of a RTG stack on classical AmigaOs that works and is successfully tested, debugged and stable, I'll take it.
Unfortunately, the vampire has a market right now, and not in four/five years, so the window of opportunity closes. Until then... please stop the political discussion.
-
Not really. The video chips of the day that P96 supports "out of the box" are - from today's perspective - severely limited in bandwidth. Thus, I doubt that any of them would be able to support full HD in truecolor. Besides, it also requires you to emulate all the VGA legacy from the PC (which is, basically, where these chips came from). That's quite some overhead, and I understand that this should better be avoided.
That is regrettable. This had the merit to eliminate what can not be emulated, the Judicial party.
-
Maybe there will be a Vampire for the A500? :-)
There will be yes! :)
Back on topic! Let's discuss this awesome products and stop the arguments!
-
There will be yes! :)
Back on topic! Let's discuss this awesome products and stop the arguments!
I personally would be more interested in products for big-box amigas. Unfortunately, these machines are much harder to support due to their bus infrastructure, and the vampire would need to be tested with existing Zorro boards. Not an easy task, and potentially frustrating for their developers.
-
All:
I don't care to read about p96 in this thread. Create a separate thread and cry about it in there. I'd love, I mean, I'd hate to delete posts after this one if it doesn't stay on topic.
-
If you want to survive as a good software engineer these days, you make sure that your creations are open source so that your customers - both those who paid, and those who just picked it up - can participate and improve the product,
Absolute FUD. Most software engineers can't survive by giving their work away for free. It works well for hobby projects and there are some people who get paid to do their hobby & some people are able to sell themselves as consultants.
Open source is a religion and like all good religions it is based on faith and not facts. If the commercial sector embraces open source more then expect to see a lot of good software engineers moving into other careers.
-
After I eat breakfast I'll lock the thread and make a copy in CH that way you guys can go off topic there, then this thread will be cleaned out of office topic nonsense.
-
I personally would be more interested in products for big-box amigas. Unfortunately, these machines are much harder to support due to their bus infrastructure, and the vampire would need to be tested with existing Zorro boards. Not an easy task, and potentially frustrating for their developers.
Majsta said that would not be a problem at all and these cards are planed, but i think a500 comes second, a1200 third, then big box amigas....
-
Ok guys, to discuss your rants about p96 and whatever not related to the topic, go have at it here:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70379
Anything after this post not related to the topic will be deleted with joy.
-
Thankyou so much for cleaning all the bu^{+*it out of the thread. If I gave any less of a f%#k about what was being discussed I would be dead ;)
I have ordered one of these. I think it's capabilities are awesome. One feature I especially would like to have is AGA compatibility, even better with SuperAGA. I'm not greatly interested in RTG.
I look forward to the 500 / 1200 versions and all the other things that may be released because of foundations built with this product.
-
Ok guys, to discuss your rants about p96 and whatever not related to the topic, go have at it here:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70379
Anything after this post not related to the topic will be deleted with joy.
Is it realy off topic to post about something you see in a video when the thread start with just a videolink and comment about the video being impressive, especially when said video is running in 720p... something that didn't go unnotised as the very first reply on this thread was about Picasso96 (and that post have not been moved).
Just wondering because else I don't realy know what I'm alowed to post about here in this thread.
-
Are preorders still being taken on these? I think I might have missed out :-(
Still wonderful seeing the classics get a massive speed boost!
-
Are preorders still being taken on these? I think I might have missed out :-(
Still wonderful seeing the classics get a massive speed boost!
This is the thread to do it; http://www.amibay.com/showthread.php?71144-Vampire-600-V2-Amiga-600-FPGA-accelerator-Pre-order/page72&
-
Just wondering because else I don't realy know what I'm alowed to post about here in this thread.
You can talk about p96. Head to the other thread to see where it went south. It's self explanatory.
-
Some more videos of the vampire 2 were posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBFk89yljU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBFk89yljU4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc2oVPMWu6Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc2oVPMWu6Q)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM0W3AdgkRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM0W3AdgkRA)
https://vimeo.com/152866918 (https://vimeo.com/152866918)
https://vimeo.com/152867182 (https://vimeo.com/152867182)
-
@IanP
Those captures are nothing short of inspiring!
I really love the WB 3.9 with mp3 playing.
As people have said countless of times; I cant wait for the A1200 version ;)
-
@IanP
Those captures are nothing short of inspiring!
I really love the WB 3.9 with mp3 playing.
As people have said countless of times; I cant wait for the A1200 version ;)
Totally agree. :) Amazing!
-
Will be interesting to see how the core will run on the Vampire 1 boards. got the first board, will wait for a A1200 board before buying a new one :)
-
The new core will not run on the vampire 1, that FPGA is far too small to hold the Apollo core.
-
Will be interesting to see how the core will run on the Vampire 1 boards.
Will not happen, the Vampire 1 is abandoned.
-
The new core will not run on the vampire 1, that FPGA is far too small to hold the Apollo core.
I know that, but was under the impression there would be a smaller/slimmed version of the Apollo/Phoenix core for the Vampire 1 running faster then the current latest one or is the V1.0 the final core for it?
Will not happen, the Vampire 1 is abandoned.
Seems like it, might have been me that missed that, was under the impression a slimmed down core would run on the Vampire 1 board also.
Neverless i'm happy with the 6.25 mips on A600 since my primary Amiga is the 1200 anyways. Looking forward to A1200 boards in the future :)