Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: giZmo350 on February 01, 2016, 08:39:48 PM
-
As stated, release of BB3+4 V1.2 available for download here...
LINK REMOVED DUE TO... Well, who knows why.... :hammer:
Info here....
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=49900&page=4
:)
-
Nice! Good find! Now let's see how many of these I actually need... ;)
Changes between V1.11 and V1.2:
Updated Clock from 40.1 to 42.1.
Updated iffparse.library from 40.1 to 42.2.
Updated CrossDOSFileSystem from 40.19 to 40.24.
Updated Wait from 37.3 to 42.1.
Updated Sort from 37.3 to 42.1.
Updated BindDrivers from 38.2 to 42.1.
Updated rexxsyslib.library 44.2 to patched version.
Added led.image 42.2.
Added MacPaint datatype 42.1.
Added ICO datatype 42.1.
Added PCX datatype 42.1.
-
I am a bit confused but happy
I thought the boing bags and betterwb were over at:
http://lilliput.amiga-projects.net/start.htm
betterwb looks to have been more recently updated there 2015 Feb.
vs the boing bags 2014 Nov.
The last boingbag 3&4 was version 1.0g there
-
I am a bit confused but happy
I thought the boing bags and betterwb were over at:
http://lilliput.amiga-projects.net/start.htm
betterwb looks to have been more recently updated there 2015 Feb.
vs the boing bags 2014 Nov.
The last boingbag 3&4 was version 1.0g there
I need to update that website.
I started the project and now I still seldomly contribute. Minous is calling the shots now, and his website is the most current one.
-
I need to update that website.
I started the project and now I still seldomly contribute. Minous is calling the shots now, and his website is the most current one.
@Gulliver I greatly thank you and Minous for these packages. I use both your Boingbags and BetterWB on most of my Amigas. You have done a great service to this community!!! :)
-
These are great, I love these packages. Found a couple more for you, but they might've been excluded intentionally?
AutoUpdateWB: Included in BB3&4: 37.2. Available on Aminet: 51.1
RAM-Handler: Included in BB3&4: 44.23. Available: 44.24 (I think 44.24 was removed because it was reported buggy?)
Also in Files3/ narrator.device and netprinter.device are in Libs/ instead of Devs/
...but I assume there might be a reason for this. ;)
-
Why and how is this thread allowed on this site?
-
Why and how is this thread allowed on this site?
Why shouldn't it be? Why you always gotta be so **** negative? :(
-
@Oldmobile_Mike:
Thanks, I'll check out the issues you reported and release an improved version.
-
Included in BB3&4: 44.23. Available: 44.24
@Minuous
This v44.23 is free of bug ?
-
@Cosmos:
That's my understanding, but I need to retest all available RAM-Handler versions for the next release.
-
That's my understanding, but I need to retest all available RAM-Handler versions for the next release.
If it's any help I've been running 44.24 on my main 2000 for months, no issues (at least none caused by ram-handler) that I can discern. ;)
-
Why shouldn't it be?
Because it is a link to a file filled with unlicensed copyrighted material, such as the latest update that, from what I understand, comes from the leaked OS3.1 source archive (the v42.x items).
Why you always gotta be so **** negative? :(
Because I do not like double-standards and hypocrisy - on the a-eon sites I risk getting banned for expressing my view on copyrights, yet in other threads, people are cheered for explicitly posting links to copyright infringing files.
-
Because it is a link to a file filled with unlicensed copyrighted material, such as the latest update that, from what I understand, comes from the leaked OS3.1 source archive (the v42.x items).
Hardly. I doubt this contains any of the V42 items. Os 3.1 stopped at v40, and Os 3.5 and 3.9 are in separate repositories.
Let it be what it is: At least the question remains where this stuff comes from, who has compiled it, and from which sources. Unless there is permission to redistribute the material from the corresponding owners or authors, I would rather say "Hands Off!"
I personally gave permission (where I could and where I was asked) for my stuff, but that might not go for anything in this archive. It's at least dubious.
-
So, what are these then?
Changes between V1.11 and V1.2:
Updated Clock from 40.1 to 42.1.
Updated iffparse.library from 40.1 to 42.2.
Updated CrossDOSFileSystem from 40.19 to 40.24.
Updated Wait from 37.3 to 42.1.
Updated Sort from 37.3 to 42.1.
Updated BindDrivers from 38.2 to 42.1.
Added led.image 42.2.
Added MacPaint datatype 42.1.
Added ICO datatype 42.1.
Added PCX datatype 42.1.
-
I personally gave permission (where I could and where I was asked) for my stuff, but that might not go for anything in this archive. It's at least dubious.
Did you give permission for this?
bash-3.2$ lha v BoingBags3\&4.lha | grep shell-seg
[unknown] 16950 29092 58.3% -lh5- d480 Jan 10 02:50 boingbag3.9-3&4/files1/l/shell-seg
bash-3.2$
That is - this is not patches, these are fully patched binaries, distributed around as half-official.
If Cosmos was doing this, it would be havoc.
-
Did you give permission for this?
bash-3.2$ lha v BoingBags3\&4.lha | grep shell-seg
[unknown] 16950 29092 58.3% -lh5- d480 Jan 10 02:50 boingbag3.9-3&4/files1/l/shell-seg
bash-3.2$
That is - this is not patches, these are fully patched binaries, distributed around as half-official.
If Cosmos was doing this, it would be havoc.
I cannot give permissions for this because I'm not the owner. I only own the modifications on the Shell, but I do not own the shell.
I can probably *get* the permissions for it when I would ask, but I never did. It was simpler to provide the patch as it was also a check whether the people would already own 3.9.
Note that I gave permission for redistribution of the Shell-Seg to Cloanto a while ago. I'm fine with that, and Cloanto holds a licence on the kickstart, hence that's all fine. But I doubt Cloanto has uploaded these, right?
One way or another, this stuff should go unless the uploader clarifies where it came from and whether it was redistributed with permission.
-
Did you give permission for this?
bash-3.2$ lha v BoingBags3\&4.lha | grep shell-seg
[unknown] 16950 29092 58.3% -lh5- d480 Jan 10 02:50 boingbag3.9-3&4/files1/l/shell-seg
bash-3.2$
That is - this is not patches, these are fully patched binaries, distributed around as half-official.
If Cosmos was doing this, it would be havoc.
My thoughts exactly. One rule for some and another for everyone else.
-
One way or another, this stuff should go unless the uploader clarifies where it came from and whether it was redistributed with permission.
What do you mean by "should go"? The person who is distributing this boingbag is posting right here in this thread. Shouldn't you be all over him?
-
What do you mean by "should go"? The person who is distributing this boingbag is posting right here in this thread. Shouldn't you be all over him?
I am not a moderator here. So moderators: Please kill the download links unless further clarifications from the uploader.
Add: Reported the post. You should, too. I hope it'll be taken down.
-
No, I don't mind the links, I mind the double standards.
-
No, I don't mind the links, I mind the double standards.
I don't set double standards for certain. Illegal links should not go here. No matter who posts them.
-
Hey, I'll kill the link... no problem - if you would like. But, the only reason I posted the link (I might add that I posted a point of reference link to EAB for clarification as to where and why the download was provided) was that it seemed to me that Kolla was collaborating with the author of the V1.2-3&4 Boing Bag (EAB post #70 and #71) and that his Genesis concern was addressed. I too was concerned with the same issue among others the last time I installed BB3&4. I have since NOT installed BB3&4 on my newest OS3.9 install.
I am not in the same circles as those so closely associated with the release of such software updates and don't pretend to be. It just seemed to me that this release was legit as it was posted on EAB for ALL to see! EAB Post #72. How is this "allowed" over at EAB without the same uproar? What makes the link "illegal" here on Amiga.org and NOT illegal over on EAB? Who's running this place anyway?
Sheeeeesh, I was just trying let peeps here on A.O. know of a new version of BB3&4 - I didn't know that decisions of what software development gets posted here where reserved for only a select few. Talk about double standards! You guys (I have no idea who that is) responsible for such releases need to get your golf balls in the same bucket. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's turf!
-
Great. Great job, guys. Can we think of any more ways to squash Amiga development and progress, today? Geez Louise, buncha grumpy old men on this site... :angryfire:
-
Just keep going guys and pretty soon we won't have a hobby.
-
Great. Great job, guys. Can we think of any more ways to squash Amiga development and progress, today?
There will be certainly no development if you guys don't stop to distribute unauthorized copyrighted content and learn to play by the rules. You cannot ship what is not yours.
Again, *I personally* have nothing against distributing the shell update as complete binary. But I cannot give permission for that. It is not *my* program begin with. So please take down the link. I mean it.
If you believe that you have an update for an important system component, why don't you just ask the rights holder *first*? This worked for me at least once, so I don't really see why it shouldn't work for you either.
Talk first, shoot later. Got it?
-
The "short list" of contributors to this project is over 50 names long. Presumably each of those people has given their blessing for their software to be included in this package. Now, just going out on a limb, is it not also possible that one of the rights-holders to whatever software has people all up-in-arms today also gave their permission? Just hypothetically speaking, and all.
Instead of everyone assuming "OMG they don't have rights to distribute this stuff", how about everybody just assume that they do, until proven otherwise?
-
Instead of everyone assuming "OMG they don't have rights to distribute this stuff", how about everybody just assume that they do, until proven otherwise?
Because it is glaringly obvious that it is not the case? Who would give permission to distributr the old bits and pieces from OS 3.2 anyhow?
Anyhow, I just wanted to point out the double standards here.
-
Because it is glaringly obvious that it is not the case? Who would give permission to distributr the old bits and pieces from OS 3.2 anyhow?
Look, to be frank, you do not know that, and you do not know where the components came from. They could be home-made like Peter K's icon.library.
At least, I do not know whether the other components are distributable in this form or not. The only thing I do know is that one cannot distribute the Shell-Seg in this form. It is probably nit-picking whether the archive contains the binary or the patch, but to be 100% correct, the binary as such is not redistributable. So yes, this can be removed. Anyhow, I just wanted to point out the double standards here.
I would rather say that this has still to be seen. There's a difference between "hey, I hacked up exec and here you go" and binaries that are, possibly, self-made components by someone from scratch (or not?) that replace the CBM binaries, plus one component that has (only) been distributed in in proper shape but whose author has developed this component under contract and is otherwise fine with its distribution.
I'd say that there is actually a difference - at least unless clarified.
To be on the safe side, go check where the components came from, contact the authors and see what they have to say.
-
Hey, I'll kill the link... no problem - if you would like. But, the only reason I posted the link (I might add that I posted a point of reference link to EAB for clarification as to where and why the download was provided) was that it seemed to me that Kolla was collaborating with the author of the V1.2-3&4 Boing Bag (EAB post #70 and #71) and that his Genesis concern was addressed. I too was concerned with the same issue among others the last time I installed BB3&4. I have since NOT installed BB3&4 on my newest OS3.9 install.
I am not in the same circles as those so closely associated with the release of such software updates and don't pretend to be. It just seemed to me that this release was legit as it was posted on EAB for ALL to see! EAB Post #72. How is this "allowed" over at EAB without the same uproar? What makes the link "illegal" here on Amiga.org and NOT illegal over on EAB? Who's running this place anyway?
Sheeeeesh, I was just trying let peeps here on A.O. know of a new version of BB3&4 - I didn't know that decisions of what software development gets posted here where reserved for only a select few. Talk about double standards! You guys (I have no idea who that is) responsible for such releases need to get your golf balls in the same bucket. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's turf!
I think it should be allowed and that this is a great collection of software, it's the "Won't somebody think of the rights holders?! There's pennies to be made!" mentality that some people have towards ancient software that needs to go. It's this mentality that holds back the community.
-
Great. Great job, guys. Can we think of any more ways to squash Amiga development and progress, today? Geez Louise, buncha grumpy old men on this site... :angryfire:
My thoughts exactly.
You'd thing they stole the crown jewels rather than *improved* something for no financial gain or cost to anyone.
-
Look, to be frank, you do not know that, and you do not know where the components came from. They could be home-made like Peter K's icon.library.
Are you for real?! How... dumb do you think I am?!
It doesn't strike you as odd that those new v42 binaries that suddenly show up out of nowhere, all exists in the v42 directory of the leaked sources? Even the version strings are _exact_ the same. For example the sort command "sort 42.1 (9.8.93)"
Does that look "home made" for you?
Sheesh!
-
And who in this day and time makes datatypes for ancient windows icon format, macpaint and PCX? All those are formats that belong back in the 1993, not in 2016.
-
@all
that is the reason why I am not interested in anything closed owned by one, two or more people but set on open source and open standard. That includes updating certain components as long the sources are not open after it.
Are you for real?! How... dumb do you think I am?!
It doesn't strike you as odd that those new v42 binaries that suddenly show up out of nowhere, all exists in the v42 directory of the leaked sources? Even the version strings are _exact_ the same. For example the sort command "sort 42.1 (9.8.93)"
Does that look "home made" for you?
Sheesh!
I just do not understand why you are so involved there?
-
I just do not understand why you are so involved there?
I am not, not like this takes much energy or anything. Besides, there is a certain element of entertainment.
-
I think it should be allowed and that this is a great collection of software, it's the "Won't somebody think of the rights holders?! There's pennies to be made!" mentality that some people have towards ancient software that needs to go. It's this mentality that holds back the community.
Maybe it should, maybe it should not. But it is not you who has to decide. Illegal remains illegal.
-
My thoughts exactly.
You'd thing they stole the crown jewels rather than *improved* something for no financial gain or cost to anyone.
Neither had the crown jewels been stolen, but source code. Nor was much done except recompiling illegally obtained sources. Now what?
Is it a "great contribution to community" to supply it with pirated software?
Thanks, this really helps a lot.
-
Maybe it should, maybe it should not. But it is not you who has to decide. Illegal remains illegal.
Indeed that is true, so the question remains why the double standards (not from you but from the 'community' and it's self appointed 'leaders')?
-
Now what?
Indeed, now what? The sources are now de facto open source, anyone with an interest can and will find them, learn from them, use them, take inspiration from them, change them, compile them... may even attract new developers and users. Isn't it wonderful?
Is it a "great contribution to community" to supply it with pirated software?
Thanks, this really helps a lot.
Like so many things in life, it is all about how we cope with things, that matter. Anyone can be heart broken, but it is how you deal with that matters. You may choose to remain wounded and miserable, or you may choose to accept the reality of things, and find joy and opportunities in a new reality.
I know what I would do if I was Cloanto or/and Hyperion, the Amiga "market" is not big, but it does have a lot of skillful and dedicated people, we are after all still here. Very few of us have time and resources to work full time under NDAs by these companies, but plenty have time for the occasional hacking, and todays revision control systems are all built around code reviewing. So what is there to lose. Look at the confusion surrounding the new Cloanto kickstarts, where we don't really know what they are made of, and people are reporting problems with certain pieces of hardware. I know this happens, I build my own kickstarts exactly for this reason. I have been thinking of putting up a web service where people can build their own kickstarts, cherrypicking the bits and pieces, with profile management where you can choose for which hardware you build, which OS level etc. And anyone can register their own kickstart profiles for later use.
-
Indeed, now what? The sources are now de facto open source, anyone with an interest can and will find them, learn from them, use them, take inspiration from them, change them, compile them... may even attract new developers and users. Isn't it wonderful?
No, the sources are exactly not "open source". The sources might be available on some torrents, in the same sense pirated movies might be available on some torrents, but that makes them neither "open". It remains illegal, no matter what, and certainly not "open source". In specific, this makes it impossible to sell them or base products on them, or to create services around them. I know what I would do if I was Cloanto or/and Hyperion, the Amiga "market" is not big, but it does have a lot of skillful and dedicated people, we are after all still here. Very few of us have time and resources to work full time under NDAs by these companies, but plenty have time for the occasional hacking, and todays revision control systems are all built around code reviewing. So what is there to lose. Look at the confusion surrounding the new Cloanto kickstarts, where we don't really know what they are made of, and people are reporting problems with certain pieces of hardware.
Hold on a minute. Try, just for a second, to put yourself into the feet of Cloanto or Hyperion. You have paid $$$ for the sources and the licenses, and even paid $$$ for some #?$@$!! lawyers to ensure your rights in court. And then somebody comes along and requests this stuff for free? Oh, and by the way, your investment goes down the drain because you cut yourself off from any market?
Now, I really pushing hard to get something like a new official kickstart for the classics, and I'm talking to people here and there to get things arranged so we get back some progress, and some $#$@$!! moron takes at the same time the sources and claims everything is just ok?
Activities exactly like this *kill* the Amiga and any future development and cut it off from any market. I have no problem with AROS and OpenSource - if people started cleanly from scratch and create a new and open operating system for the classics that's all fine with me. It's from hobbyists to hobbyists, all ok and a great movement. But that's *quite* something different than actively supporting piracy. Open Source means exactly that: Creating yourself *and not stealing* and publishing stolen software. That is not open source, that's just theft. I'm sorry you don't get the difference.
-
No, the sources are exactly not "open source". The sources might be available on some torrents, in the same sense pirated movies might be available on some torrents, but that makes them neither "open". It remains illegal, no matter what, and certainly not "open source". In specific, this makes it impossible to sell them or base products on them, or to create services around them.
Right. Have you traveled much? I have spent quite some time in Russia, Ukraine, all over eastern Europe, Turkey, and lately Latin America. If there is one thing that is to be said about copyrights in these vast areas of the world, it must be that they are not at all respected. Not by people in general, and certainly not by governments. So how illegal is it then.
Hold on a minute. Try, just for a second, to put yourself into the feet of Cloanto or Hyperion. You have paid $$$ for the sources and the licenses, and even paid $$$ for some #?$@$!! lawyers to ensure your rights in court.
Yeah, pretty lame wasting all that money on lawyers and dragging this nonsense through the courts, which are pretty much paid for by tax money, huh. One would think all that money could have been spent better elsewhere.
And then somebody comes along and requests this stuff for free? Oh, and by the way, your investment goes down the drain because you cut yourself off from any market?
You are really stuck on this "for free" thing. Just because something is open source does not mean it comes for free. Over the years I have invested a lot of money in open source projects, to help pay for infrastructure, server space, storage and yes - man power. I would be happy pay a subscription for AmigaOS if it meant the sources were around for anyone to contribute, and with a handfull of skillful people like yourself to do code review. I am not at all willing to waste more money on the "status quo" of things in Amiga land.
Now, I really pushing hard to get something like a new official kickstart for the classics, and I'm talking to people here and there to get things arranged so we get back some progress, and some $#$@$!! moron takes at the same time the sources and claims everything is just ok?
There already are new so called official kickstarts for the Amiga, Cloanto have released quite a few already. Doesn't help much if they don't work with your hardware though.
As for whether it is "just ok" or not that the sources are out there, is really irrelevant - the point is that the sources _are_ out there, and there is nothing you, Hyperion or Cloanto can do that will ever change that. So instead of behaving like Lemmings about to blow up, how about changing strategies and attitudes, and make the best out of the situation.
Activities exactly like this *kill* the Amiga and any future development and cut it off from any market.
Only thing killed here is your visions and ideas about what could have been. Well, boohoo, maybe time to make small adjustments to your visions and ideas, and imagine what can be done to make the situation less hostile for everybody.
I have no problem with AROS and OpenSource - if people started cleanly from scratch and create a new and open operating system for the classics that's all fine with me. It's from hobbyists to hobbyists, all ok and a great movement. But that's *quite* something different than actively supporting piracy. Open Source means exactly that: Creating yourself *and not stealing* and publishing stolen software. That is not open source, that's just theft. I'm sorry you don't get the difference.
Arguments over semantics does't change the situation. There are many types of open source, some of them goes under the umbrella of "free open source software" (AKA FOSS), others do not. It is not as if FSF etc have ownership over the concept, open source as a concept does't even relate with copyrights, and there are plenty of open source projects that are not endorses by FSF etc. Open source just means exactly that - that the sources are out in the open, how they got there is not really relevant as such, hence my use of "de facto open source". And yes, open source software can also be so called pirated software, does not mean it is less open source.
-
Now, I really pushing hard to get something like a new official kickstart for the classics, and I'm talking to people here and there to get things arranged so we get back some progress, and some $#$@$!! moron takes at the same time the sources and claims everything is just ok?
You are late: there already is a new official kickstart for Classics, which has been released by Cloanto and is included in Amiga Forever 2016 and being sold in physical form through various Amiga retailers. It is kickstart v45.061.
http://www.amigaforever.com/kb/16-125
-
Right. Have you traveled much?
That is part of my job, Kolla. I have spent quite some time in Russia, Ukraine, all over eastern Europe, Turkey, and lately Latin America. If there is one thing that is to be said about copyrights in these vast areas of the world, it must be that they are not at all respected. Not by people in general, and certainly not by governments. So how illegal is it then.
Still illegal. That doesn't make any difference. Why should it? Yeah, pretty lame wasting all that money on lawyers and dragging this nonsense through the courts, which are pretty much paid for by tax money, huh. One would think all that money could have been spent better elsewhere.
Tax money? Oh come on. You are really stuck on this "for free" thing. Just because something is open source does not mean it comes for free.
To make money with open source, you need to be able to offer some service around your product. Now what would this service possibly be, and would you pay for it? I give you a hint: Open source service contracts are made between industrial parties that use open source software in large scale, and for whom it pays to offload the work to somebody else. Our computing center runs its servers on Linux, and we pay money for that. The private user does not.
Now, where exactly is the market for an OpenSource AmigaOs? And who would pay for it? Come on, be a little creative! Over the years I have invested a lot of money in open source projects, to help pay for infrastructure, server space, storage and yes - man power.
No, not *YOU* Kolla. Your university. That's a difference. How much have *you* *personally* paid from *your* *private* pocket? I personally paid for Crossover Office because I need it for my work, but except that, the linux distributions I use come for free and offer what I need. If I paid, I paid by contributing to Linux. I would be happy pay a subscription for AmigaOS if it meant the sources were around for anyone to contribute, and with a handfull of skillful people like yourself to do code review. I am not at all willing to waste more money on the "status quo" of things in Amiga land.
Ok, can we setup a poll here in this forum how much people would realistically pay for it? In the end, it is not me who has to be convinced. I personally do not care about open or closed source. I care about "it works or it does not". Given the current development, and all the theft of software, I have clear doubts of this would work in any way. It would end up in a mess...
The problem is that I have my doubts in the amount of people that would pay, and in the discipline users would show in supporting such a project. Threads like this show exactly that. There already are new so called official kickstarts for the Amiga, Cloanto have released quite a few already. Doesn't help much if they don't work with your hardware though.
Lack of testing, lack of code review, lack of professionalism, probably due to lack of resources.
Given the available amount of development power, the consequence should be not to release kickstarts as hardware anyhow, but I'm saying this for years. A ROM needs to be a very stable, robust, well-reviewed and well-tested software. You do not get this with the couple of folks left. As for whether it is "just ok" or not that the sources are out there, is really irrelevant - the point is that the sources _are_ out there, and there is nothing you, Hyperion or Cloanto can do that will ever change that. So instead of behaving like Lemmings about to blow up, how about changing strategies and attitudes, and make the best out of the situation.
The situation is that some money needs to be invested to make this happen, and it does not exactly rain from the sky. I have my doubts that OpenSource works as a pay-able product for a user community that consist exclusively of private users. It does work if you have industrial or large scale applications where service contracts are needed. The business case is quite a different one. You cannot just compare Linux and AmigaOs. Only thing killed here is your visions and ideas about what could have been. Well, boohoo, maybe time to make small adjustments to your visions and ideas, and imagine what can be done to make the situation less hostile for everybody.
The situation is that there is some need for investment, and this investment needs to come from somewhere. Visions? Do I have one? "If you have a vision, see a doctor". I can only tell you that this project needs honest users (which is not exactly given) that are willing to pay (which I have my doubts on).
And once again, I'm probably stupid enough not to ask for money for it. But it still requires some money to organize the whole show and keep things together, to compile distributions and so on. Open source just means exactly that - that the sources are out in the open, how they got there is not really relevant as such, hence my use of "de facto open source". And yes, open source software can also be so called pirated software, does not mean it is less open source.
No, kolla. Sorry. This is outright nonsense. Open source software means that it is released and licensed under some kind of open source software to the user. Depending on your flavour of free, FREE, Phre, Frei,or whatever license you pick or which freedom you prefer. Pirated software is exactly not licensed to the user, and you cannot obtain ownership on a stolen thing.
-
I have said it before and I'll be happy to repeat it:
If there is a fundraiser for 68K OS source and rights buyout I'll chip in $1000.
-
Probably to add to the above: How exactly should I convince someone to invest money into the Amiga community if the community rather prefers to use stolen software? As this thread demonstrates?
As I said, threads like this, with download links like this, are *not exactly helpful*.
How can one expect that the people that applaud to uploaded stolen software will, in the end, pay for an open source software?
This somehow does not fit together. Anyhow, try to convince me that you're willing to pay for Open Source. As said, I do not mind *how* AmigaOs is distributed. If it works, it works.
-
I have said it before and I'll be happy to repeat it:
If there is a fundraiser for 68K OS source and rights buyout I'll chip in $1000.
Thanks, but a "buyout" solves a one-time problem only. If you want an open source distribution that is maintained, it requires an (albeit small) continuous stream of income. This is for servers, maintenance of the hardware, shipment of products, probably cover designers, web designers...
Not everyone is willing to contribute for free, you know...
So, in the end, you need a convincing self-sustainable business model. Somehow, somebody has to pay for the party. Even if it is only a little bit. No matter what the license will be in the end.
-
And who in this day and time makes datatypes for ancient windows icon format, macpaint and PCX? All those are formats that belong back in the 1993, not in 2016.
The ICO format is the standard for a web site's "favicon," so it is at least still relevant in 2016.
Yeah, pretty lame wasting all that money on lawyers and dragging this nonsense through the courts, which are pretty much paid for by tax money, huh. One would think all that money could have been spent better elsewhere.
I guess that depends. 'round here you pay a lot of court fees and costs as part of your filings and proceedings.
-
That is part of my job, Kolla. Still illegal. That doesn't make any difference. Why should it?
As someone else pointed out earlier, anything you can get away with, can be considered legal. Companies steal from each other on a regular basis, Chinese companies are notoriously known for stealing ideas, code and production methods from the west. In China that is "business as usual". In the US they have no/few issues with stealing from Europe, and patent it there. What is "legal" is _very_ gray.
Tax money? Oh come on.
Yes. The courts are still not private enterprises are they?
To make money with open source, you need to be able to offer some service around your product. Now what would this service possibly be, and would you pay for it?
AmigaForever - why are people buying it? They can just download WinUAE and download stuff, right?
I give you a hint: Open source service contracts are made between industrial parties that use open source software in large scale, and for whom it pays to offload the work to somebody else. Our computing center runs its servers on Linux, and we pay money for that. The private user does not.
Really. So why is there a VPS market? Amazon, Linode, Digital Ocean, Serve The World, Dreamiest etc... all offering cheap server to private users.
Now, where exactly is the market for an OpenSource AmigaOs? And who would pay for it? Come on, be a little creative!
Yes, that is the AmigaOS I would pay for - the closed source model we have now? Nope, I am not paying anything more for that, I already have paid it up and down umpteen times and has not really moved _anywhere_.
Well, just to pick some random company... what is Cloanto selling again?
No, not *YOU* Kolla. Your university. That's a difference.
What? You have misunderstood, I do not work for a university. I work for a "GmbH" company, which currently is owned by the state. That may change. The main function of the company is to be the "ISP" if you like, for the universities, research and educational institutions, competing with the "private" to provide the best, most advanced and cheapest solution for the sector. The universities are customers. NASA and ESA are also customers.
And a bug NO - in the context here, I was talking about what I _personally_ have paid, and still are paying.
How much have *you* *personally* paid from *your* *private* pocket?
A lot, unsure if I can manage to sum it up. I have bought Suse, I donated to Fedora and even Ubuntu. I bought LinuxPPC back in the days, I even bought Debian 2.0 for m68k. I supported the Directory Opus Magellan liberation with USD150 and was ready to pay more. I have donated to various other Power2People projects, some have made it, some have not. I should definitely donte more to AROS. I buy "merch" from various projects and sites - including this one, just a few months ago - to support them. I%&$#?@!hosted "Back2Roots" for a long time together with a buddy, and also some other Amiga related boards. I have a large handfull of personal servers located around the world, using DO and Linode, that I pay for every month. Likewise I use storage providers that use, offer and promote open source products. I donate to Wikipedia. I am EFF member. I am an ISOC member. I am a USENIX member. I support Linux Academy. And I just realized I should donate to FS-UAE development too. So who knows how much I really pay every year out of my pockets for all this, and more. On the other hand, I do not have a car, my apartment is only 34 square meters, and do know how to live cheaply when I have to.
I personally paid for Crossover Office because I need it for my work, but except that, the linux distributions I use come for free and offer what I need.
So, you are in it for the "gratis" of it while some of us contribute with our own hard earned money. That is your choice. You are welcome.
If I paid, I paid by contributing to Linux.
Which you were paid to do, from what I understand, right?
Ok, can we setup a poll here in this forum how much people would realistically pay for it? In the end, it is not me who has to be convinced. I personally do not care about open or closed source.
You have made it explicitly clear many times, typically in a very patronizing way, that you do not condone any "open source" model for AmigaOS, that it would not work, because... you think it would be a mess.
I care about "it works or it does not". Given the current development, and all the theft of software, I have clear doubts of this would work in any way. It would end up in a mess...
Right. So you prefer the status quo, which already is a mess, how could it possible become more messy than it already is.
The problem is that I have my doubts in the amount of people that would pay, and in the discipline users would show in supporting such a project. Threads like this show exactly that. Lack of testing, lack of code review, lack of professionalism, probably due to lack of resources.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with it all being "illegal", right?
How many times have you seen people suggest that there should be a kickstarter to pay out the Amiga OS sources and end the current circus?
Remember the A1200 case kickstarter? That was people who together was willing to more than 150 thousand euros for plastic cases and merch.
Given the available amount of development power, the consequence should be not to release kickstarts as hardware anyhow, but I'm saying this for years. A ROM needs to be a very stable, robust, well-reviewed and well-tested software. You do not get this with the couple of folks left.
And with the current "model of business", we are guaranteed that there never, or very rarely, will be _new_ people who can learn and take part. The Amiga community is nowadays literally dying. Of old age.
The situation is that some money needs to be invested to make this happen, and it does not exactly rain from the sky.
How much revenue does AmigaOS generate today? Enough? Or is it mostly "a hobby", a side project, for the companies involved too?
I have my doubts that OpenSource works as a pay-able product for a user community that consist exclusively of private users.
How do you consider the Haiku community?
http://www.haiku-inc.org/donations-analysis.php
It does work if you have industrial or large scale applications where service contracts are needed. The business case is quite a different one. You cannot just compare Linux and AmigaOs.
I would never dream of doing such a thing. A much more relevant comparison would be that of the MiNT and other Atari systems. Or Haiku, Reactos etc. The biggest issue with Amiga is the fractioning, if at least AROS and OS3.x could be brought together without a huge legal circus, it would be a huge gain IMO.
But as you mention it - is it not true that _most_ Linux distributions, are aimed at the private user, and _not_ enterprise users? For example ElementaryOS. For example Mint. Both receiving donations from their private users. Typically, the "enterprise" focus that shows up late in a distribution's life span, like it did with Ubuntu. Like it did with SuSe.
The situation is that there is some need for investment, and this investment needs to come from somewhere. Visions? Do I have one? "If you have a vision, see a doctor". I can only tell you that this project needs honest users (which is not exactly given) that are willing to pay (which I have my doubts on).
There will always be free riders (like you, obviously), and there will always be people willing to pay. The main benefit though, is that it would make it so much easier to actually make some progress - any progress. Today the situation is that only a small group is willing to for the status quo. And they are getting old and gray.
And once again, I'm probably stupid enough not to ask for money for it. But it still requires some money to organize the whole show and keep things together, to compile distributions and so on.
Correct, it does. And look, AROS already does this, nightly builds and all. How rich AROS must be. Again, I must remember to contribute.
No, kolla. Sorry. This is outright nonsense. Open source software means that it is released and licensed under some kind of open source software to the user. Depending on your flavour of free, FREE, Phre, Frei,or whatever license you pick or which freedom you prefer. Pirated software is exactly not licensed to the user, and you cannot obtain ownership on a stolen thing.
Again arguing over semantics rather than implications. Do you see the difference between pirated software that is compiled binaries, and pirated source code? Any... practical implications that make those two different? What is your term for source code that anyone can get hold of, but that is not under a license that permits it? Just "illegal source code" I suppose.
-
Probably to add to the above: How exactly should I convince someone to invest money into the Amiga community if the community rather prefers to use stolen software? As this thread demonstrates?
The community prefers to use legal software, but circumstances makes it pretty damn hard, if not impossible to have any kind of progress "legally". THAT is the situation, and has been for more than 15 years. Why do you say that you are the one who must convince someone to invest in the community? I rather you don't, as your views are clearly skewed and biased towards towards a model that... I suppose... would give you more control, or something. I don't know.
As I said, threads like this, with download links like this, are *not exactly helpful*.
They are a consequence of the everlasting status quo. Again, people are dying. People hope to experience _something_ before they hit the grave, when you get old, respect for silly stuff like copyright infringements of ancient software becomes something you do care much about... what could possibly happen, at worst some besserwisser German on some random web-board will yell at you. No big deal.
How can one expect that the people that applaud to uploaded stolen software will, in the end, pay for an open source software?
For so many of us, it would rectify the big mistake it was that it did not happen already way back right after CBM folded. And today, people much more understand that even open source software needs funding, but at least, as long as a community exists, open source software does not just straight out die. Closed source software on the other hand, comes with death warranty.
This somehow does not fit together. Anyhow, try to convince me that you're willing to pay for Open Source. As said, I do not mind *how* AmigaOs is distributed. If it works, it works.
Again, look at Haiku, look at ElementaryOS, look at ReactOS etc... even AROS. How much revenue can you generate by using the community in a positive way, rather than treating the community as potential criminals? Which is exactly what you are illustrating so magnificently on this thread, and other threads.
-
The ICO format is the standard for a web site's "favicon," so it is at least still relevant in 2016.
Fair point, though you can specify different format using MIME types, very often it would be PNG that is actually used.
I guess that depends. 'round here you pay a lot of court fees and costs as part of your filings and proceedings.
Of course, but the courts are not private enterprises with expected profits.
-
As someone else pointed out earlier, anything you can get away with, can be considered legal. Companies steal from each other on a regular basis, Chinese companies are notoriously known for stealing ideas, code and production methods from the west. In China that is "business as usual". In the US they have no/few issues with stealing from Europe, and patent it there. What is "legal" is _very_ gray.
Are you serious? Are you seriously telling me "because the chinese steal engineering technology, I can steal your software?".
Yes. The courts are still not private enterprises are they?
At least in my country people pay for going to court. It's not a 100% funding, but you have contribute. Really. So why is there a VPS market? Amazon, Linode, Digital Ocean, Serve The World, Dreamiest etc... all offering cheap server to private users.
And what is the kind of "service" AmigaOs provides? The above provide some kind of IT service to the users. AmigaOs does...? Yes, that is the AmigaOS I would pay for - the closed source model we have now? Nope, I am not paying anything more for that, I already have paid it up and down umpteen times and has not really moved _anywhere_.
Paid for what? AmigaOs 4.x? Did you pay?
No, I haven't paid for it, but simply because I didn't care for the product. But I haven't stolen their product either and I'm neither trying to argue that I'm allowed to because some chinese steal, too.
Now, apparently, download links like in this thread demonstrate that there is, apparently, still some desire to get updates to Os 3.x. Luckely. Hence, there is some demand. This demand has not been addressed. Are you saying you're not willing to contribute to the classic system because the PPC branch showed to be a dead end (something I said already ten years ago, actually?). In how far can you create an argument from this?
The problem with AmigaOs 4.x is that you cannot create a self-sustaining model - you need to create a completely new platform for a completely new hardware for which no tool chain and no applications exist.
It's quite obvious that this cannot work. You cannot create demand for a non-existing platform for non-existing applications. AmigaOs 4.x and Morphos were not exactly bright ideas. Well, just to pick some random company... what is Cloanto selling again?
An apparently untested collection of software? Untested because there is probably not enough manpower to get it tested, probably due to lack of funding? Which you were paid to do, from what I understand, right?
Wrong. My job is to support and create learning environments for students. We work on Linux systems, but we do not mangle with the Linux kernel for any reason. Instead, we pay for distributions that run on certified server hardware. In our case, it's SLES on certified virtual machines.
The only reason why I contributed to Linux is to get a couple of old laptops supported for my own entertainment. Which is fine.
One way or another, you're paid for by the state, so you don't have to run a self-sustaining business. As I already said before, you and me, we're in a luxury position. You have made it explicitly clear many times, typically in a very patronizing way, that you do not condone any "open source" model for AmigaOS, that it would not work, because... you think it would be a mess.
Look at the mess Linux is right now. Linux is to a major extend driven by the desire of its authors to create "something cool", and not driven by creating a working environment for its customers. Let's have a aook at typical Linux systems:
Grub2: Overly complicated boot manager. Grub legacy worked perfectly. One single file, you could update it with an editor, reboot, you're done. Grub2 solved probably a couple of extra problems only 20% of the users have. Instead, I now need to run a script once I change the configuration. Something which is *less* useful than before, and something I already had to do with lilo. So new useless "cool" functionality for solving problems I do not have at the price of creating an overly complicated and hard to configure system.
cups: Overly complicated, impossible to handle print system. Just trying to setup a printer is a complete headache. There is no single configuration file for a printer you have to put in some directly and then it works - no, there are multiple, and there is a web interface ("how cool!") that allows you to configure printers. Yet, even the most elementary features do not exist. AmigaOs had a requester that popped up if the printer run out of paper, or was offline. With cups, you get nothing. Just a non-working print, with the cause of the problem left to be researched by studing some cryptic log files. Not exactly user friendly. But a "cool programming job".
systemd: Overly complicated startup system that probably makes the system to boot in 10 seconds less, sometimes - but not always - compatible with the init system that worked otherwise perfectly fine, and was trivial to setup and control.
There are many similar problems Linux have, lack of consistency of a "user interface" (wow, graphical interfaces in Linux!), lack of consistent style, multiple parallel solutions for the same simple problem.
Yes, Linux is a mess. This is due to its development model. It is driven by developers, not by users or customers. Wrong approach if you want to create something that is usable for end users. Right approach for computer experts like you and me that run servers as a business. Right. So you prefer the status quo, which already is a mess, how could it possible become more messy than it already is.
Hold on, I'm actually trying to fix this. And no, I do not prefer the status quo. I prefer a user-centric development. That is, a system with some sort of consistency in its overall design. This is really not the case right now. Yeah, it has nothing to do with it all being "illegal", right?
How many times have you seen people suggest that there should be a kickstarter to pay out the Amiga OS sources and end the current circus?
I haven't checked and I did not count. But either way: A buyout does not solve the problem. It solves a one-time problem and does not create a continuous stream of income. Neither does it create a business model, or an AmigaOs system that "works". It will probably end in the same situation Linux is in, namely a system that is impossible to setup, impossible to handle, and with no consistency in its interfaces and design.
Anyhow, that's just my thinking. I don't have to decide in first place. Remember the A1200 case kickstarter? That was people who together was willing to more than 150 thousand euros for plastic cases and merch.
Sure, because you cannot steal hardware. Yet, you're announcing that it's ok to steal software. Now, how exactly is this helpful?
I believe parts of the wishful thinking of Hyperion and friends was to lock the system to the hardware, and create enough income by selling hardware to fund the software. Now, that worked just brilliant... by creating just another "Amiga"-Os. And with the current "model of business", we are guaranteed that there never, or very rarely, will be _new_ people who can learn and take part. The Amiga community is nowadays literally dying. Of old age.
Why do you believe so? I don't see a problem inviting people to participate, and probably even pay them - even though it's likely only a small symbolic amount.
The problem is really that I believe that in the end, somebody "has to wear the hat" and give the project a direction. Not even me. I had no problem with Os 3.9 and H&P taking this position. I was not always happy with their decisions (for example, Heinz' NSD was an outright stupid thing, and the ROM-Updates wasn't brilliant either, but who am I to decide?). But at least, there was some kind of a plan.
Something Linux lacks, and which creates exactly the sort of problems I noted above.
How much revenue does AmigaOS generate today? Enough? Or is it mostly "a hobby", a side project, for the companies involved too?
Something between not enough and non at all. I don't know. The problem is that "AmigaOs" currently solves problems nobody has, and creates problems instead for everybody else. As I already noted above, it was and is all the wrong direction in first place if you ask me. How do you consider the Haiku community?
http://www.haiku-inc.org/donations-analysis.php
No, I haven't looked into this, sorry. But as you mention it - is it not true that _most_ Linux distributions, are aimed at the private user, and _not_ enterprise users? For example ElementaryOS. For example Mint. Both receiving donations from their private users.
And, typically, overburden the average user... Yes. No, thanks, I don't need such a system. A computer should be easy to use.
I've lots of things to say about Apple, and I really don't like them as a company, but *one* thing they got right: A usable system.
Probably not for me, I'm a computer freak. But I'm talking about the average end user.
-
Typically, the "enterprise" focus that shows up late in a distribution's life span, like it did with Ubuntu. Like it did with SuSe.
Of course. Enterprises need stable systems. Unlike the typical experimental software that is created by the Linux hackers. Like me. Linux developers have, typically, not the funding to run testing, or user studies, or... Distributions have, to some degree. So they necessarily have a more conservative approach. There will always be free riders (like you, obviously), and there will always be people willing to pay. The main benefit though, is that it would make it so much easier to actually make some progress - any progress. Today the situation is that only a small group is willing to for the status quo. And they are getting old and gray.
Progress needs a direction to progress to. No, I do not want to keep the status quo, where AmigaOs 3.x is only seen as an annoying old-time competition that blocks the income stream to "more modern" variants that were supposed to be sponsored by "designed to be outdated" PPC hardware.
Correct, it does. And look, AROS already does this, nightly builds and all. How rich AROS must be. Again, I must remember to contribute.
And AROS will fail for exactly the same reason Linux has not managed to become a main-stream Os for end users... Again arguing over semantics rather than implications. Do you see the difference between pirated software that is compiled binaries, and pirated source code?
Illegal stays illegal, no matter what. Any... practical implications that make those two different? What is your term for source code that anyone can get hold of, but that is not under a license that permits it? Just "illegal source code" I suppose.
Just illegal source code, indeed, which leads to illegal software, once compiled. What else could it be? Do you seriously believe it becomes magically legal by somebody touching it or compiling it?
-
Sad to say, but all off-topic messages could have been usefully exploited differently, for example, to write lines of code.
-
As someone else pointed out earlier, anything you can get away with, can be considered legal.
Good luck trying that excuse in court when you are one of the few eventually caught.
Again arguing over semantics rather than implications. Do you see the difference between pirated software that is compiled binaries, and pirated source code? Any... practical implications that make those two different? What is your term for source code that anyone can get hold of, but that is not under a license that permits it? Just "illegal source code" I suppose.
Is there any practical difference between walking into a bank and giving your details and withdrawing money and going in there with a shotgun and demanding the contents of the safe? Are you saying that if enough people get away with the latter then it should be legal?
Maybe someone should open source your bank account so we can legally acquire all your money.
-
Can we please close this thread? It has nothing to do with the original topic any longer. If not rename the topic by adding Kolla ranting about: at the front of the current one.
-
People from the "Land of free speech" calling for censorship always makes me chuckle. ;)
-
People from the "Land of free speech" calling for censorship always makes me chuckle. ;)
In fact it was kolla who originally asked for censorship, see post #7.
-
In fact it was kolla who originally asked for censorship, see post #7.
Yeah but he's one of those Scandinavian no good pinkos! ;) Seriously though, Kolla was just pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people in the community rather than calling for this to be removed.
-
Kolla was just pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people in the community
Hypocrisy is sometimes justifiable, he just doesn't like it because he wants everything free legally and will make any argument (not that this will ever work).
-
Nice to see everyone agree.. uhm.. about what I want.
-
Thanks for the post! Downloaded it from EAB! :)
-
Of course. Enterprises need stable systems. Unlike the typical experimental software that is created by the Linux hackers.
Oh yes, those "hackers", not really developers are they.
Like me. Linux developers have, typically, not the funding to run testing, or user studies, or...
You are not a Linux developer just because you were hacking around on some ancient graphics drivers that no-one really gives a damn about. Your code was not important. You code broke. Your code is not maintained. Your code will be removed. This is part of the process.
Distributions have, to some degree. So they necessarily have a more conservative approach.
They have whatever approach the distro aims for.
Progress needs a direction to progress to. No, I do not want to keep the status quo, where AmigaOs 3.x is only seen as an annoying old-time competition that blocks the income stream to "more modern" variants that were supposed to be sponsored by "designed to be outdated" PPC hardware.
Very few see OS 3.x that way, I think it must only be Hyperion. The rest of us sees Amiga OS 3.x for what it is, that weird and messy, yet awesome little OS that we can run on ancient hardware, in emulators, on FPGA systems, and pretty much anywhere these days. Too bad it is crippled not only be legacy, but also by being hostage in a legal catch 22 that very few seem to have the nerve to break it free from. At least not in our lifetime.
And AROS will fail
This should be a breaking news item in itself :D
Famous Amiga Developer announces that AROS will fail!! Because... open source is bad! M'key?!
for exactly the same reason Linux has not managed to become a main-stream Os for end users...
Really now. Please take a look around, how many linux systems can you count in immediate proximity? Do you have a "smart TV" running Android? Do you have an Android phone or tablet? What does your home wifi spot and home router run? Do you have a NAS, what OS did it come preinstalled with? What OS does this very website run on? What OS is used to host the vast percentage of cloud services we use every day? What OS does Facebook run on? How about ChromeOS devices? How about CoreOS? Why are Microsoft implementing Linux compatibility layers in Windows?
So maybe this will not be the "year of the Linux desktop", again, but why is it at all relevant - Linux is pretty much everywhere, providing experiences to end users.
AROS is most often hosted on Linux.
FriendUP runs mostly on top of Linux.
AEON supports development of Linux for AmigaOne systems.
Linux/m68k is still developed and evolving.
Amithlon was running on Linux.
ARIX is/will be running on Lunux.
These are just projects in our own "amiga realm".
Illegal stays illegal, no matter what.
Not at all. Laws change over time. You are German, you should know, sigh.
Just illegal source code, indeed, which leads to illegal software, once compiled. What else could it be? Do you seriously believe it becomes magically legal by somebody touching it or compiling it?
Again, not at all. As anyone in this industry should know by now, this is a gray zone legally. You seriously should read yourself up on how copyright infringements are dealt with when they land in courts. Some hints for you, it is not regarded as "theft", nor is it regarded as "criminal offense".
Anyhow - whether you say "illegal", it does't really matter, you, Cloanto, Hyperion etc can scream as high as you can - it is too late.
Which brings us back to - Now what?!
-
Hypocrisy is sometimes justifiable
Interesting. You obviously mean in cases like this thread, since that is the topic right here and now. I disagree with you. I think Thomas disagrees with you too ;) But he is more interested in bashing me with rhetorics about how much open source sucks and how OS 3.x is not and never will be open source, even though the sources now are out in the ... open.
he just doesn't like it because he wants everything free legally and will make any argument (not that this will ever work).
What I want is not relevant. Neither is it relevant what Thomas wants. Or what you want. What matters is the general consensus of the greater society. So, today it is illegal, here and there. Kinda like drinking beer in the streets is illegal here and there. No, actually, less bad, since drinking beer in public is more likely considered a criminal offense, while copyright infringement is considered more like a breach of contract and hence a civil case where someone has to be sued and convicted. Something that happens all too often. Especially in the international software industry. Of which Amiga is part of. Not. :laughing:
-
Oh yes, those "hackers", not really developers are they.
It depends on how they work, Kolla. There is some well-driven development in Linux, too. But the system as a whole does not work well together - for end user applications. It is the lack of a common goal that causes all the problems with Linux on desktops. You are not a Linux developer just because you were hacking around on some ancient graphics drivers that no-one really gives a damn about. Your code was not important. You code broke. Your code is not maintained. Your code will be removed. This is part of the process.
I don't claim anything was of importance, really. I don't mind. It helped me, and I contributed hoping that it might help others, too. That's it. Very few see OS 3.x that way, I think it must only be Hyperion. The rest of us sees Amiga OS 3.x for what it is, that weird and messy, yet awesome little OS that we can run on ancient hardware, in emulators, on FPGA systems, and pretty much anywhere these days.
Where "anywhere"? Actually, AmigaOs is pretty much nowhere, really. Too bad it is crippled not only be legacy, but also by being hostage in a legal catch 22 that very few seem to have the nerve to break it free from. At least not in our lifetime.
"Free" or falling victim to a crowd of hackers? Famous Amiga Developer announces that AROS will fail!! Because... open source is bad! M'key?!
Kolla, I didn't make statements like "OpenSource is bad". I'm saying that AROS will fall victim to the same problems Linux has. Lack of direction, lack of a clear goal, lack of organization. The end result, if we should ever see a complete one, will be the same disorganized mess AmigaOs is these days, for exactly the same reason, actually: Nobody defining where the journey is supposed to go. Really now. Please take a look around, how many linux systems can you count in immediate proximity? Do you have a "smart TV" running Android? Do you have an Android phone or tablet?
No, I don't. But never mind. "Android" is not Linux, Kolla. Android is a system that is based on Linux components, but that is driven by a big player in the IT world with a clear goal and a clear direction, which is exactly why Android works so well. (At least for Google...) In the end, *Google* has a say what goes into Android and what does not, they define the rules how *their* system is supposed to work, look like, and what the future directions will be.
This is *exactly* the difference between Linux and Android, and exactly the reason why the former is still not main stream, whereas the latter is. What does your home wifi spot and home router run? Do you have a NAS, what OS did it come preinstalled with? What OS does this very website run on? What OS is used to host the vast percentage of cloud services we use every day? What OS does Facebook run on? How about ChromeOS devices? How about CoreOS?
Again, these are areas where the Linux kernel (not the typical Linux Desktop) has industrial sponsors that define a direction. Kolla, again, we *pay* for Linux distributions here in our department. SLES, if you want to know. It is the part where Linux works. Yet, go into an average home, see what runs on Laptops and Desktops there. It's not Linux. Can you guess why that's the case? The average user gives a sh*t about open source or not.
The average user wants his daily tasks solved by the system. Linux does not. No serious money goes into "Linux on PCs for end users".
Look at successful IT systems today: Servers: Yes, that's Linux, driven by players like SLES or Ubuntu that collect money for the service. Driven by such distributions, paid by such distributions that are paid by users. Android: Driven by google. Collect money from the users, commercial interest, big players.
Now look at AROS: Driven by? A bunch of crowds. No direction, no funding. Linux on Desktops? Which flawor do you like? Gnome? KDE? XFCE? Not driven by any big player, really. Not successful at all.
You do not get a succesful product without some serious investment taking place, and you do not get a succesful product without someone "wearing the hat" and defining a direction. It is not "Open Source" or not that is the problem. It is the availability of resources, and the ability to drive a project towards a specific goal to make it succesful and a "complete working system" instead of a "bunch of hacks".
Now, once again: Where should all the investment, the money and the goals come from for AROS? Or for AmigaOs (if ever)? Even more so if you're telling the community here that "everything should be for free for everyone?".
Where is your business model for an Open Source development of AmigaOs, Kolla? I already asked this question before. Frankly, I got no answer.
The problem is not Open Source as such. The problem is "lack of direction" due to lack of a clear structure, and lack of structure due to lack of funding. You don't get one by throwing sources at a bunch of hackers. You only get an unstructured mess.
I wouldn't have much less of a problem with OpenSource-ing AmigaOs if I would know how to give such an attempt a clear structure and a development direction, and if I would know how to finance such an attempt (and yes, it needs funding). I don't have an answer.
Seems you don't have one, either.
Until then, I believe a better model is to accquire funding by selling something to users. Which is, surprisingly, exactly what the big "Linux" players do, too. SLES, Google, you name it.
-
Thomas / Kolla : Please stop, if you want to argue about this, do it through a email or something.
-
In the end, *Google* has a say what goes into Android and what does not,
Google has a say on what goes into AOSP and the builds for Nexus devices. What actually gets shipped on devices is a different matter. The AOSP source is fairly modular so you can actually replace almost anything you want.
they define the rules how *their* system is supposed to work, look like, and what the future directions will be.
The test kits that builds have to pass to be allowed to ship with the play market don't test all that much. Basically they just test that apps in the market will run.. they don't sanity test any of the UI changes, hacks to the frameworks etc that the vendor has done. If you don't need/want Play you can ship whatever you want.
All of that aside...
You seem to be complaining that Linux being flexible to be used in projects ranging from tightly embedded, IoT etc applications to mobile phones all the way up to HPC machines with hundreds of cores is a bad thing.. I would argue that it's not. Linux being generic enough (not tied to any one person or companies goals) that it can be used in all of these things is one of the most important things it has going for it.
Not everyone wants a fully featured desktop environment. The Linux kernel doesn't impose that on people that want to work on it and that's why there are thousands of people that contribute to Linux.
The grand OS you want would never have stuff like fully working ports for multiple abandoned architectures (m68k, H8, SuperH etc) because the people that are keeping that stuff working have no interest in keeping all the other crap you want working. It wouldn't have support for different security models, strong crypto etc because the people that need that stuff and pay for it to happen aren't interested in your "everything looks the same" desktop either.
-
You seem to be complaining that Linux being flexible to be used in projects ranging from tightly embedded, IoT etc applications to mobile phones all the way up to HPC machines with hundreds of cores is a bad thing..
No. I complain that this complexity overburdens the user by creating a system that is not managable by the average IT user, and that this is exactly the reason why we fail to see Linux on desktops.
-
Google has a say on what goes into AOSP and the builds for Nexus devices. What actually gets shipped on devices is a different matter. The AOSP source is fairly modular so you can actually replace almost anything you want.
Manufacturers try to differentiate and end up filling your device with battery draining crud that makes your phone behave differently to every other Android phone out there.
They then offer updates for a limited time, because porting new builds is difficult as they only got binary blobs from the vendors.
Getting stuck on an old Android build is very bad news because it inherits all the security issues from Linux.
So you either risk running an ancient official build, or put your trust in one of the teenagers pulling together builds from a dozen different githubs with hundreds of updates cherry picked. If cyanogenmod is the only modern build available then sit back and wait for your mobile banking apps to start complaining that your phone is rooted, even though you didn't enable root on it yet.
My next phone will be running windows 10 mobile, if they support their phones as well as they do the desktop.
-
Manufacturers try to differentiate and end up filling your device with battery draining crud
I only buy Nexus devices.
that makes your phone behave differently to every other Android phone out there.
See above. And that's sort of what I said.. Google only has control what goes into AOSP and the test suite that needs to be passed for vendors to get the play market on their phones.
They then offer updates for a limited time, because porting new builds is difficult as they only got binary blobs from the vendors.
Again, I only buy Nexus devices because of this. The source and the binary blobs are available from Google.
Getting stuck on an old Android build is very bad news because it inherits all the security issues from Linux.
Got CVEs for all of them there security issues?
So you either risk running an ancient official build,
Buy Nexus devices. You'll get security updates long enough that the internal resistance on the cell in the device is through the roof and you'll have to bin it before you get stranded in the land of no updates with Samsung users.
or put your trust in one of the teenagers pulling together builds from a dozen different githubs with hundreds of updates cherry picked.
Not sure why their age matters to be honest. I'm pretty sure people in the 20's, 30's etc can write buggy software. If you have the modified source you can compare it with AOSP just in case those naughty kids put in some anti-OAP backdoors.
If cyanogenmod is the only modern build available then sit back and wait for your mobile banking apps to start complaining that your phone is rooted, even though you didn't enable root on it yet.
https://www.google.com/nexus/
My next phone will be running windows 10 mobile, if they support their phones as well as they do the desktop.
I just laughed so much I puked a little. You're paranoid about security so you're painting a massive bulls eye on your forehead?
-
No. I complain that this complexity overburdens the user by creating a system that is not managable by the average IT user
There are plenty of people out there that can barely use Windows and OSX that have moved to Ubuntu without too much trouble.
OSes are complex things, Windows, OSX etc are no different. If anything the only reason those OSes are any easier than a distro like Ubuntu is because they usually come preinstalled on the machine so essentially the hard parts have already been done by someone else.
AmigaOS was simple, elegant, whatever but it's a joke by today's standards. The fact that people are still fighting over the crumbs that remain of it like it's worth anything cracks me up.
and that this is exactly the reason why we fail to see Linux on desktops.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that Linux on the desktop is the one sign that Linux has won. I don't think the majority of kernel developers think that's the only thing that'll validate their work. I'm pretty sure the one guy that got the H8 support reintroduced recently wasn't constantly thinking "If I can't get KDE running on the tiny amount of DRAM this thing can address I might as well give up!". Linux has won like Skynet won in Terminator; Whether you like it or not it is now everywhere and controls your life.
-
There are plenty of people out there that can barely use Windows and OSX that have moved to Ubuntu without too much trouble.
Go make an experiment. Take an average new laptop, try to install Ubuntu. You'll experience all types of problems. Wifi networks not connecting, or instable connections, graphics slow or unsupported or only a subset of modes supported, devices running hot or running low on battery fast...
Try to install your average printer. The typical result is that it will not work (GDI printers).
Yes, of course, all that is not the fault of Ubuntu or Linux. It's the problem of proprietary hardware, proprietary protocols and so on.
Maybe I, personally, can get the kernel tweaked to allow the device to run quite stable, and exactly the way I want it to run. Please don't get me wrong, I *use* Linux. There is no windows on this machine and there never was.
However, in the end, it doesn't change a thing. Linux doesn't work well for the end user for such reasons. The reason is simply that Linux has no market power in the end user market. OSes are complex things, Windows, OSX etc are no different. If anything the only reason those OSes are any easier than a distro like Ubuntu is because they usually come preinstalled on the machine so essentially the hard parts have already been done by someone else.
Not only. But also because the vendors deliver drivers mostly for Windows. Potentially for OsX. Hardly ever for Linux. Guess why that is?
The Linux problem is the "kernel of the day problem". Lack of stable interfaces within the kernel. Impossible to write a kernel module that survives a kernel release without requiring recompilation, restructuring or fixup of its interfaces towards the ever-changing kernel-internal interface layer.
That's a lack of a high-level statement "these are the interfaces, don't touch them for the next two years". It does not happen.
Linux helps to keep its developers happy. Vendors, or - huh - users are completely irrelevant here. AmigaOS was simple, elegant, whatever but it's a joke by today's standards. The fact that people are still fighting over the crumbs that remain of it like it's worth anything cracks me up.
It is certainly a joke, and not even by today's standards. I see nothing elegant in the BCPL/C intertwining, and I see even less elegance in multiple system components. graphics is a pure mess, for example. There are a couple of components that were "nice enough" for its day (exec, intuition), but that doesn't make an operating system without elementary Os services. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that Linux on the desktop is the one sign that Linux has won.
Make a pure count of noses. If I check which operating systems students bring to the campus, then there is a very clear signal: Windows. Maybe MacOs. Linux is completely irrelevant here on end user devices.
Again, don't get me wrong. I'm none of those Windowers, or Apple-fans. But it doesn't change a thing. Face reality, please.
That doesn't make Linux irrelevant, of course. There is the server market, the high-performance market and so on. All markets where Linux could collect some serious money. Linux is successful where it could accquire enough resources to create a controlled environment - where distributions could sell service contracts and manufacturers can be sure to have a stable distribution that is supported by five years or so.
IOW, Linux works where "someone wears the hat" and avoids the "kernel of the day" problem simply by freezing the kernel release for a long time and offering custom patches (paid by the customer) to ensure that things keep working.
If we start the same thing with AmigaOs, we again end up with the "Kickstart of the day" problem - pretty much the problem we have today already. This 68060.library does not work with that card, this scsi.device not with that hardware, this exec.library requires patching, this shell does not work with that script... you name it. This is the whole tragedy. The solution cannot be to create even more rumble by everyone programming into some direction.
There need to be *some* agreement where the journey should go, and someone who makes this decision. And no, before you ask, that should not be me. I simply want to stop all this compatibility mess we see today, and it doesn't get any better by making everything for free and inviting the hacker of the day to create even more noise by creating another patch of a system component.
-
i only buy nexus devices.
+1 :cool:
-
I've cut out some parts because I have stuff to do. I haven't edited out things I wanted to ignore...
Go make an experiment. Take an average new laptop, try to install Ubuntu.
Have been running Debian on all of my machine including laptops for the past 15 years or so.. The last 5 years or so worth of laptops just worked after debian-installer had finished and I installed the non-free wifi firmware.
I don't think I've ever seen a Windows machine installed from the vanilla install media and not a restore disc that didn't need a lot of work to make all of the hardware work.
However, in the end, it doesn't change a thing. Linux doesn't work well for the end user for such reasons.
Can we get some empirical evidence of that and not just your feels on the matter?
Hardly ever for Linux. Guess why that is?
In the x86 world Intel, NVidia etc actively support Linux.. In the ARM world western vendors like TI, Atmel etc all have guys trying to get their drivers into the mainline kernel. You're a lot more likely to plug some random junk into a Linux machine and have it work than any other system IMHO.
The Linux problem is the "kernel of the day problem". Lack of stable interfaces within the kernel. Impossible to write a kernel module that survives a kernel release without requiring recompilation,
The "kernel of the day" that is probably the most widely used kernel out there if you ignore some deeply embedded RTOS like FreeRTOS and uTRON.
Kernel modules from one kernel version aren't meant to loaded into a different version?! Oh noes what a massive problem!
restructuring or fixup of its interfaces towards the ever-changing kernel-internal interface layer.
Which layer are you talking about? It's easy to make some vague statements but they are pretty useless here if you consider how many wildly different subsystems Linux is comprised off. One of the things I hear all the time is that the people that maintain stuff like the networking stack are too strict about changes i.e. refusing to allow hardware NAT support in. I'd really like to know which subsystem you think is constantly changing under developers feet.. maybe you mean something fairly recent like device tree for ARM?
That's a lack of a high-level statement "these are the interfaces, don't touch them for the next two years". It does not happen.
Linus has a high level statement "Don't break userland". As a user you don't care if the way the business logic in the kernel works changes as long as the exposed interface is the same or has glue to present the legacy interface to userland.
I hope you realise there are -stable branches of the kernel that you can use if you don't like actually seeing progress.. Considering you're fighting over an OS that's been dead for decades maybe those aren't old enough.
That doesn't make Linux irrelevant, of course. There is the server market
If you think Linux is just about servers you're either short sighted or being willfully ignorant.
If we start the same thing with AmigaOs, we again end up with the "Kickstart of the day" problem
AmigaOS is A: totally dead B: totally worthless C: Not interesting to anyone except for nostalgia. There is never going to be an agreement on what to do with it because there isn't really anything to do with it except tinkering.
The best thing that could be done is let the source code go and let people that want to mess around with it do so. I suspect the reason that didn't happen already is a little bit of "We need to squeeze every last drop out of this" and "We're not actually sure what we own, we'll make a big noise about things like the source leak but in reality if it did go to court we'd have a hard time proving what we actually own". If I was one of the groups that think they own AmigaOS I would be happy that someone leaked the 3.1 code as the torrents for it will probably out last all of the commercial entities that are trying to make a buck off of it and is less likely to be lost forever.
There need to be *some* agreement where the journey should go, and someone who makes this decision. I simply want to stop all this compatibility mess
Trying to make AmigaOS and Amiga hardware not a massive kludge of 80's and 90's crap barely hanging on for life in the present is never going to happen. If anything it goes against the spirit of Amiga. It was always a kludge and that made it lovable and interesting.
making everything for free and inviting the hacker of the day to create even more noise by creating another patch of a system component.
I would argue that if the source for AmigaOS and commonly used stuff like P96 was all up on github there would be less of a problem with people random hacking binaries and sticking them in unofficial patch sets. People are lazy and although there might be forks they would most likely be pretty close to each other. What you seem to want is someone to dictate who gets to release stuff, who gets to pick version numbers etc. That could happen if there was an official AmigaOS opensource release with an official maintainer, an official P96 opensource release with an official maintainer. I doubt there are enough people with the knowledge and time to manage that stuff left but it would certainly be a better situation than the only options being to disassemble existing binaries and release unofficial patches/beg the Amiga gods of long long ago for the right to fix their precious.
-
Have been running Debian on all of my machine including laptops for the past 15 years or so.. The last 5 years or so worth of laptops just worked after debian-installer had finished and I installed the non-free wifi firmware.
I don't think I've ever seen a Windows machine installed from the vanilla install media and not a restore disc that didn't need a lot of work to make all of the hardware work.
Lenovo T530: Instable wifi connection, or no wifi connection. I've also a couple of old Dell laptops here where the network connection breaks down.
Can we get some empirical evidence of that and not just your feels on the matter?
Find it attached. This is the access statistics of our home page (university, top-level). Linux is utterly irrelevant, 1.2% of the devices that connect to our page are Linux-driven. Forget it...
This is approximately on par for what I found in other sources.
The "kernel of the day" that is probably the most widely used kernel out there if you ignore some deeply embedded RTOS like FreeRTOS and uTRON.
Kernel modules from one kernel version aren't meant to loaded into a different version?! Oh noes what a massive problem!
The "massive problem" is exactly that vendors cannot provide a driver and expect that it "works". NVIDIA doesn't ship kernel modules. They ship a source code kludge that compiles (hopefully, but not always) against the kernel, and a binary X11 module that often (but not always) works with the current X11 server. Depending on what the kernel is or how its "interfaces" changed, the version may or may not work.
VMWare: Same problem. Requires manual patching to make it run on the latest kernel.
Which layer are you talking about?
Exactly. There are none. That's one of the typical Linux problems. There is no clear-cut interface between kernel modules and the kernel. They are more or less in daly flux. If you have a binary module that works today, chances are less than even that it'll break tomorrow.
Linus has a high level statement "Don't break userland".
Which is nice, but doesn't help vendors to create hardware for it. "userland" != "kernel land". As I already said, there are no interfaces in kernel land. You take whatever your kernel of the day defines as functions, and hope you'll get away with it tomorrow.
As a user you don't care if the way the business logic in the kernel works changes as long as the exposed interface is the same or has glue to present the legacy interface to userland.
As a user, I care whether I can use a hardware of my choice, connect it to my system and get it supported tomorrow as well. A vendor cannot ensure that. The best a vendor can do is throw some source-code blob into the open source community and hope somebody will pick it up and support it for free for its lifetime. Many private enterprises do not have the man-power to run the daily cleanup behind the modifications of the kernel interfaces. It's not a self-sustaining model.
If you think Linux is just about servers you're either short sighted or being willfully ignorant.
It is utterly irrelevant on the desktop. And no, I don't buy "Android = Linux".
The best thing that could be done is let the source code go and let people that want to mess around with it do so. I suspect the reason that didn't happen already is a little bit of "We need to squeeze every last drop out of this" and "We're not actually sure what we own, we'll make a big noise about things like the source leak but in reality if it did go to court we'd have a hard time proving what we actually own".
Of course AmigaO is completely outdated and irrelevant, and not worth being called an operating system (given that it doesn't "operate" as it should most of the day, Guru be welcome!). Still, there are some people that run interesting products on it - and you cannot support users anymore on AmigaOs nowadays, not for any "new" hardware at least. There is just too much arbitrary junk on the internet, without proper integration and compatibility.
That's the kind of mess AmigaOs is today, and it's not going to get better by throwing its sources at a bunch of hackers.
I would argue that if the source for AmigaOS and commonly used stuff like P96 was all up on github there would be less of a problem with people random hacking binaries and sticking them in unofficial patch sets. People are lazy and although there might be forks they would most likely be pretty close to each other.
I doubt that. Given the amount of worthless patches we have today, the same amount of worthless patches would be in the source, without a quality control, without interoperability testing. Even as of today, you cannot just "install AmigaOs" anymore due to various hacks, workarounds and kludges vendors came up with due to lack of intergration, knowledge or testing.
What you seem to want is someone to dictate who gets to release stuff, who gets to pick version numbers etc. That could happen if there was an official AmigaOS opensource release with an official maintainer, an official P96 opensource release with an official maintainer.
As you say, it would probably not matter *how* you would release AmigaOs if there would be maintainer, a test procedure, nightly builds and so on. This might be all just fine, and it might also work with OpenSource. Problem is: Servers cost money, electricity costs money, support costs time.
For Linux, there is (already) an (albeit small) stream of income that allows such procedures. Big users (like computing centers, like us) pay distributions, distributions pay for servers, for developers keeping care of "their" kernel, keeping bugs fixed and so on. It is a (small) ecosystem that works.
Now, and I'm not asking this for the first time, what is your suggestion for a business model for AmigaOs to make this workable? IOWs, who would pay for the servers, for the electricity, for some (minor, small) man-power?
I'm personally happy to agree with Open Source if you can answer me this question and provide me with an idea where a minimal continuous stream of income should come from. Especially with users around that want everything for free (as in money, not as in speach).
I doubt there are enough people with the knowledge and time to manage that stuff left but it would certainly be a better situation than the only options being to disassemble existing binaries and release unofficial patches/beg the Amiga gods of long long ago for the right to fix their precious.
There are still *some* people around. Some idiots like me would probably even invest some part of their small spare time. Regardless of open source or not. Provided there is an infrastructure, testers, vendors, a qualified distribution channel and regular releases. All of which, unfortunately, costs some (minimal) amount of money.
Tell me where this money should come from, and I'll be happy.
-
My next phone will be running windows 10 mobile, if they support their phones as well as they do the desktop.
Wow, you really have no idea what is going on do you. You might want to do some reading:
https://www.google.com/#q=Windows+10+spying
http://bgr.com/2016/02/10/windows-10-spying-investigation/
And you are aware Windows 10 mobile is just about dead right?
"Windows 10 for phones has had a catastrophic Holiday quarter as sales slumped to an all-time low to just 4.5 million Lumia phones. That's a decline of the whopping 57% over the same quarter in 2014, and 49% drop in revenue."
Oh, and you should probably read this too:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Windows-10-for-phones-has-a-huge-problem-its-app-store-is-infested-with-fake-apps_id78106
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10864034/windows-phone-is-dead
Sorry to rain on your parade,
-P
-
How much money has OS4 made so far?
How do MorphOS, AROS and OS4 compare in terms of development practice and development speed?
-
Hi all!
It is not as if FSF etc have ownership over the concept, open source as a concept does't even relate with copyrights [...]
I maybe misunderstand here but "open source" (whichever flavour) is all about copyrights.
Take care,
-
I maybe misunderstand here but "open source" (whichever flavour) is all about copyrights.
The various licenses (which ever flavour) are all about copyrights. There is open source software and there is free software, some open source software is free software, some is not. And then there is "free" as in gratis vs "free" as in libre. Some institutions claim definition on the various terms, for example OSI (The Open Source Initiative) and FSF (Free Software Foundation), but the concepts are older than these organizations.
Here is a confusing example, just randomly picked... ;)
http://aminet.net/package/util/wb/BenchTrash
"it's 100% free". I wonder if FSF and Thomas use the same definition of "free" :)
-
Here is a confusing example, just randomly picked...
So what exactly is confusing about it? I wonder if FSF and Thomas use the same definition of "free" :)
Just because the FSF is on a political mission, it does not mean that everybody has to agree with them. If you get something for free, it means that you do not have to pay for it. Pretty regular use of the English word "free".
-
How much money has OS4 made so far?
I doubt any numbers have been published on that. How do MorphOS, AROS and OS4 compare in terms of development practice and development speed?
I don't know either. All four do not run on classic hardware (or, rather poorly, as AROS is concerned). I personally consider it quite obvious that they haven't found their customers, lacking both affordable hardware and a sufficiently large software library. Development pace is at glacial speed for all of them.
I doubt you can really compare AOS/Morphos with AROS, and all of the three with the classical AmigaOs. AOS/Morphos address approximately the same market (PPC Amiga "wannabees"), or the lack of a market, so to say. Morphos made at least not the error of depending on custom-made overpriced hardware, which is an advantage. But none of them supply a sufficient library of interesting applications, so both are a rather pointless exercises, if you ask me.
AROS I do not quite understand either. Development is slow, it is neither an alternative to AmigaOs, does not run well on the existing systems, so there is no usable software library either. Otherwise, if I already have a PC, then there is Linux and many applications for them, so why would one pick AROS?
It's really not a miracle that none of them has found a wide user basis.
The reason why I believe that one can probably/hopefully come up with a self-sustainable AmigaOs for 68K is that there is now both: a) an interesting hardware alternative (the FPGA implementations) and b) a large legacy software library.
If you come up with an alternative business model that helps to make this possible, go ahead. Up to now, I received nothing, and until then, I believe I'd rather stick with the original idea: Sell it for (gosh!) money.
-
@Thomas Richter
Can you please explain to me what market you keep talking about?
There is no such thing in terms of AmigaOS3.9, I mean at all. I guess there will nobody ever fix or improve OS3.9 due copyright issues and other problems.
Basically nobody cares about development of OS3.x, not even Cloanto, even though they are offering updated Kickstart and slightly modified original AmigaOS3.1. Which is great as replacement disks or for emulators, but nothing more.
-
Can you please explain to me what market you keep talking about?
There is no such thing in terms of AmigaOS3.9, I mean at all. I guess there will nobody ever fix or improve OS3.9 due copyright issues and other problems.
The point is that it becomes more and more clear that this is no longer the case. I wouldn't say so if it wouldn't be possible, and this is exactly why there are currently some talks on the way to make exactly that possible, not everything of which can be made public at this time.
Basically nobody cares about development of OS3.x, not even Cloanto, even though they are offering updated Kickstart and slightly modified original AmigaOS3.1. Which is great as replacement disks or for emulators, but nothing more.
Again, that no longer the case, at least according to the folks I talked to. There is currently a window of opportunity for exactly that. The reason that Cloanto has problems with Os 3.9 is not because they are not interested. It is more that Cloanto has unfortunately only rights on 3.1, but not on 3.9.
But no, the copyrights are not lost, the sources are not lost, and I really *do* have some hope that it should be possible to renovate 3.9 a bit. What triggered all this was of course the arrival of new hardware.
Whether this will work or not I cannot promise, of course, but it doesn't really look that bad anymore.
-
People who really want this software can download it. Its not like its hard to find.
-
People who really want this software can download it. Its not like its hard to find.
Software that is still to be written? How do you do that? An infinite improbability device and a really hot cup of tea?
-
Software that is still to be written? How do you do that? An infinite improbability device and a really hot cup of tea?
So witty. So impressive. I'm talking about software thats written.
-
So witty. So impressive. I'm talking about software thats written.
But I don't. It would make little sense to re-sell Os 3.9 indeed.
-
But I don't. It would make little sense to re-sell Os 3.9 indeed.
I'll admit..I maybe read the 1st page..jumped to the last..glanced over your post and figured you were arguing about something. LOL
-
The point is that it becomes more and more clear that this is no longer the case. I wouldn't say so if it wouldn't be possible, and this is exactly why there are currently some talks on the way to make exactly that possible, not everything of which can be made public at this time.
Again, that no longer the case, at least according to the folks I talked to. There is currently a window of opportunity for exactly that. The reason that Cloanto has problems with Os 3.9 is not because they are not interested. It is more that Cloanto has unfortunately only rights on 3.1, but not on 3.9.
But no, the copyrights are not lost, the sources are not lost, and I really *do* have some hope that it should be possible to renovate 3.9 a bit. What triggered all this was of course the arrival of new hardware.
Whether this will work or not I cannot promise, of course, but it doesn't really look that bad anymore.
That's good to hear. I asked Mike a couple of months ago about the chances of Cloanto releasing "Workbench 3.10" but he said that even though he'd love to it won't happen due to a total lack of resources available to make it happen.
Trevor? Matthew? Pretty please! ;-)
-
So what exactly is confusing about it?
Just because the FSF is on a political mission, it does not mean that everybody has to agree with them. If you get something for free, it means that you do not have to pay for it.
I am glad to see you agree that just because some organization is on a political mission, it does not mean that everybody has to agree with them. This is just as valid with "open source software" as it is for "free software" :)
Pretty regular use of the English word "free".
There is a slight distinction in meaning between "it's 100% free" and "it's 100% _for_ free".
-
But no, the copyrights are not lost, the sources are not lost, and I really *do* have some hope that it should be possible to renovate 3.9 a bit. What triggered all this was of course the arrival of new hardware.
What hardware would that be? I guess your plan is to somehow "lock" newer AmigaOS 3.x to the Apollo core?
-
I'm sick and tired of people like Hyperion who bought some shady rights and now on their website saying how boo is to use 3.1 without paying them.
Everyone who meant to buy 3.1 or 3.9 already did. There is no more money in that software to milk. I'm a Commodore fanboy, Commodore went bankrupt and I will not pay any Cloanto or Hyperion for Commodore stuff. You make 4.1 that's cool but don't be a greedy ......
Sorry for ranting but that's my point of view.
-
Everyone who meant to buy 3.1 or 3.9 already did.
I think there's still a market for 3.9, as there's several vendors still selling it (and as the demand for updated Boing Bags continues to exist).
Which reminds me that I've been meaning to buy another copy, just in case my original CD ever wears out. It's relatively cheap, and I support it because I enjoy it. Just my .02 cents. :)
-
mate nice A2000 you got :) If you own original than you can make iso and keep it safe on your HD. It's perfectly legal. I also got original 3.1 and 3.9 but that not my point.
-
What hardware would that be? I guess your plan is to somehow "lock" newer AmigaOS 3.x to the Apollo core?
No. What actually is wrong with you? Just because I don't agree with your political mission, do you believe that I'm an "evil capitalist" that exploits poor harmless Amiga users?
Kolla, you're just naive. I'm trying to find workable ways to drive a new development, and you have nothing better to do than to organize a political uproar instead of finding a pragmatic solution for the problem at hand.
-
I'm sick and tired of people like Hyperion who bought some shady rights and now on their website saying how boo is to use 3.1 without paying them.
If you already own 3.1, that's perfectly fine. If not, its illegal. Do you agree with this?
Everyone who meant to buy 3.1 or 3.9 already did. There is no more money in that software to milk.
Have you actually read what I've said above? I agree that it makes no sense to sell 3.9 again and I doubt anyone will attempt to do so. That is certainly not *my* plan, and it makes little sense indeed.
But all that aside, it does not put this community into a good light if forums like this advocate the usage of illegal software, and it does not exactly help to improve the confidence into investing some work an money into such a project.
So, no, this is not helping. If you ever want to see new software for classic systems, stop spreading illegal software, or for god's sake, at least stop advocating this activity as "O.K.". It is not "O.K.". I'm a Commodore fanboy, Commodore went bankrupt and I will not pay any Cloanto or Hyperion for Commodore stuff. You make 4.1 that's cool but don't be a greedy ......
Sorry for ranting but that's my point of view.
I have no sympathy for PPC or 4.1 either, and neither do I talk about 4.1. Again, I don't understand this product as it is an isolated system without access to legacy applications. And if I would want an emulator, I already have a better, faster one. I don't need overpriced outdated hardware either.
Thus, could you please be so kind and go through again what I've written above?
-
No. What actually is wrong with you? Just because I don't agree with your political mission, do you believe that I'm an "evil capitalist" that exploits poor harmless Amiga users?
Those are your words. What new hardware?
Kolla, you're just naive. I'm trying to find workable ways to drive a new development, and you have nothing better to do than to organize a political uproar instead of finding a pragmatic solution for the problem at hand.
Political uproar? You give me way too much credit :laughing:
-
Again, that no longer the case, at least according to the folks I talked to. There is currently a window of opportunity for exactly that. The reason that Cloanto has problems with Os 3.9 is not because they are not interested. It is more that Cloanto has unfortunately only rights on 3.1, but not on 3.9.
But no, the copyrights are not lost, the sources are not lost, and I really *do* have some hope that it should be possible to renovate 3.9 a bit. What triggered all this was of course the arrival of new hardware.
Whether this will work or not I cannot promise, of course, but it doesn't really look that bad anymore.
I do believe there is indeed a market for something like a renovated 3.9. It certainly shows a lot through interest in both new hardware and AmigaOS custom modifications/hacks that many of Amiga fans and retro hobbyst will be willing to pay for such upgrade.
-
Just to make view clear:
* I believe people are willing for OS3.x upgrades
* I belive _even more_ people are willing to pay for having OS3.x open sourced, and by having a donation button. I would personally happily donate monthly, like I support many other projects. I would definitely not do this with a closed source OS3.x continued development. That is the difference between _supporting development_ and _buying a product_.
* I believe it will be difficult to find enough people willing to develop OS3.x much further as a closed source project.
-
So, no, this is not helping. If you ever want to see new software for classic systems, stop spreading illegal software, or for god's sake, at least stop advocating this activity as "O.K.". It is not "O.K.".
Show some credibility by shutting down "the Zone" on EAB. :laughing:
-
Show some credibility by shutting down "the Zone" on EAB. :laughing:
No dont. Lmao. I use it.