Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga Software News => Topic started by: eliyahu on August 29, 2016, 04:23:29 PM
-
The MUI for AmigaOS development team is proud to announce the immediate release of version 5.0-2016R1 of the Magic User Interface for AmigaOS4/PPC and AmigaOS3/m68k. Please find the release archives in our download section (http://download.muidev.de/).
Like all former releases a keyfile is required to enable all available settings. Old keyfiles from MUI 3.8 can be used without any restriction.
Please note that MUI5 for AmigaOS3/m68k is definitely targeted at powerful systems with a fast CPU and a fast graphic board. Although it is still possible to run this release on a real 68k machine an emulation like WinUAE is very highly recommended. Also colormapped screens with 256 colors at most are still supported, but MUI5 makes heavy use of fancy truecolor images and effects which cannot be provided on colormapped screens with the full range of possibilities.
These are the most important new features of MUI5:
- inline editing in List objects
- built-in hooks for multicolumn lists
- built-in handling of sortable list columns
- support for fixed (initial) width list columns
- new Textdata class to support UTF8 encoded text (via codesets.library)
- new reordering methods for Group and Family class
-
What's with all these crazy renaming antics?
The original MUI 5.x has been an integrated part of MorphOS for years now and this "MUI5" is barely compatible with a subset of the older MUI 4.x.
Are the authors of this fork actively trying to confuse users and dilute the existing MUI standard by the original author?
-
Imho they should be doing something more useful with their time, like selling keyfiles for all the people who would like to buy one but can't. :(
-
While I appreciate any development my first thought here was, "heh, MOS moves on to MUI5, and suddenly the next release of MUI for AmigaOS is called MUI5. I guess they wanted to give the impression that MUI for Amiga OS is on par with MUI for MOS".
Is this "MUI5" even the equal of the MOS version of MUI4?
The naming conventions being used here seem all wrong.
And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist and dubs me a troll I use AmigaOS still and have no MOS system anymore. These recent upgrades to AmigaOS MUI however dont sit comfortably with me.
Bit of a sidebar, but I was surprised to find the full MUI3.8, including keyfile on some Amiga Format cover CDs.
-
Another thing with this fork that leaves a bad aftertaste is the overwriting of class version numbers, sometimes with higher revisions than existing MUI components with more advanced functions.
This breaks version checking in existing MUI software, and it also makes writing compatible software very hard for developers who want to support all platforms. Not a good thing to do if you want more available OS4 software.
Considering that this project started to get some MorphOS software ported to OS4, it seems quite counter-productive to do stuff like that.
-
So the MorphOS developers renamed their Mui from 4 to 5 in order to avoid confusion and now the guys want to purpusely reintroduce that confusion? Really, what's up with that?
-
Really, what's up with that?
Penis envy? :)
-
as others said, probably a rehetoric question, is this version jump justified with morphos mui compatibility? beacuse if its not, what i suspect, then its a deliberate and again very shortsighted, if not failed, try to confuse or even mislead the audience.
the correct way to get around this would be to rename the whole implementation, while keeping compatibility as its been done won aros or with warp/wazp3d. i recall similar debacle about the ixemul library, where morphos and os4 delivered an incompatible updates, while becoming shamlesly overridden by a os3 versin claiming a higher verion number. it was a very questionable case already, however, at that time none of the parties could claim clean track of record, i guess.
-
Of course this would be a non-issue if the official MUI was built for OS3 and OS4 too, not to mention a massive save of time for the developers who could be working on something more interesting/useful.
-
I suppose that they look at latest Morphos SDK and then once the new MUI functions are implemented they call it 5 as it is 5 for Morphos, non documented features cannot be implemented so I guess there is difference between the two.
The interfaces should be the same but not the implementation.
Kamelito
-
Maybe the question to ask?
Does it make any difference to the general user as long as it works?
BTW, I paid for my key years ago, it took months to get me by snail mail.
-
Of course this would be a non-issue if the official MUI was built for OS3 and OS4 too, not to mention a massive save of time for the developers who could be working on something more interesting/useful.
same as with everything else, but since the prprietors are not in accordance with that, its the same as if someone houtside hyperion has released amigaos5. shall i remind all bashing arti has received for calling his amiga-68k sdl netsurf compile "netsurf"?
-
I suppose that they look at latest Morphos SDK and then once the new MUI functions are implemented they call it 5 as it is 5 for Morphos, non documented features cannot be implemented so I guess there is difference between the two.
The interfaces should be the same but not the implementation.
Kamelito
thats my question, if they really reimplement mui5 functionality, then even if i dont particlularly like mimicking it as a real thing (in contrary to arturs netsurf "fork" its not based on actually common open source called by that name) i could understand the motivation to catch up with the original.
-
MUI "5" is a non-issue, as MUI 4/5 is completely useless outside of MorphOS. It was used to compile Odyssey for OS4, but that project seems dead now. Other than that, no software outside of MorphOS (and very little MorphOS software) actually requires it.
If Jens and Thore want to continue working on it (and urinate all over other peoples' copyright with every release) - fine, it's their spare time. The rest of us only need to worry about it once YAM - Jens' and Thore's other project - starts requiring it. But since YAM's open source, that could be easily fixed (provided there's still somebody left who cares, once that happens).
-
thats my question, if they really reimplement mui5 functionality, then even if i dont particlularly like mimicking it as a real thing (in contrary to arturs netsurf "fork" its not based on actually common open source called by that name) i could understand the motivation to catch up with the original.
Actually it's a fork of MUI 3.8, so it's exactly the same situation.
-
How so?
One is based on official sources and uses a loooong standing, albeit unpopular (sdl) backend, the other is an offshoot which is different to the original, but tries to deceive with naming conventions.
-
Actually it's a fork of MUI 3.8, so it's exactly the same situation.
i beg to differ. if artur based his "fork" on some netsurf code revision from, lets say, the last century and tried to add the same (or maybe different, who knows) features, as some later intermediate version while bumping his version/revision number to catch up with the version of the genuine current netsurf release, then it would probably be the same situation. and i wonder if this would be tolerated without complaints by the netsurf development team.
-
@thread
please keep discussions related to netsurf to the appropriate threads. thanks.
-- eliyahu
-
How about removing Chris' post then too?
Its about as relevant as anything I wrote, possibly even less.
-
How about removing Chris' post then too?
Mine was contesting the parallel he draws. Exact same thing, yet his stays.
Whats up with that?
-
Actually its not the same at all. MUI has been forked, netsurf is based on official sources.
-
Actually its not the same at all. MUI has been forked, netsurf is based on official sources.
"Actually, if this type of discussion keeps going and going and going...we're all forked!"
Sorry (grin) couldn't resist (lol)
-
Thanks Thore and Jens, I'm looking forward to MUI6 ;)
-
Actually it's a fork of MUI 3.8, so it's exactly the same situation.
Actually, it's based on an unauthorised 2006 4.0 beta version.
-
Thanks Thore and Jens, I'm looking forward to MUI6 ;)
You'll just need to wait until an effort is made to clarify the fact that MOS MUI is infact a different thing which is more advanced than AmigaOS MUI and autodocs are available. As things stand they cant piss all over other peoples work to the degree they seem to like.
Seriously what a joke. Absolutely no shred of ethics.
Time to completely abandon AmigaOS and join in trolling it (deservedly so too).
I actually feel for Hyperion when people from their own camp start working to undo any sense of interest people have in their hard work.
edit: sorry everyone, Im pretty grumpy at the moment. Shame to see a hobby Ive had since the mid 80's become such a farce.
Im done with it.
-
If MorphOS developers felt they were being "peed on", they would react, I'm sure - I suspect they just find it hilarious how MorphOS can screw things up for OS4, by proxy of this MUI project.
Btw, if I remember correctly, though this project was a bout OWB in the start, it was also about AmiKit sponsoring it to use in their distribution.
-
Imho they should be doing something more useful with their time, like selling keyfiles for all the people who would like to buy one but can't. :(
Selling keyfiles is up to Stefan Stuntz. I thought you could still get them but might have to wait a while for him to send one and you don't get personalised keyfiles anymore.
-
Selling keyfiles is up to Stefan Stuntz. I thought you could still get them but might have to wait a while for him to send one and you don't get personalised keyfiles anymore.
Not possible anymore. He's off mountain biking the Himalayas now, or something like that. There's a blog of his somewhere that comes up every time this is mentioned, I can't be bothered to dig it up again. :(
-
If MorphOS developers felt they were being "peed on", they would react, I'm sure
They did, repeatedly. In public.
-
Y'all need to just chill out with this. If you haven't used it on a classic then go ahead and try it. I have my 060 set to run at 66Mhz and it's still slow and nearly unusable with a Radeon 9200 with 256mb and another 256 on my big ram plus and the 128 on my CSPPC. Its no threat.
-
Its no threat.
It is, however, a source of confusion. No classic apps require it and it runs like cr** on classic systems, but people think they're doing themselves a favor by installing "the latest version" and then having all kind of problems. :(
-
I don't care what number the revision is as long as they keep coming and improving so thanks:hammer::pint:
-
It is, however, a source of confusion. No classic apps require it and it runs like cr** on classic systems, but people think they're doing themselves a favor by installing "the latest version" and then having all kind of problems. :(
It does say it needs a fast CPU and emulation is recommended over a real 68k Amiga.
-
Updated Amiga software? Nice.
-
It does say it needs a fast CPU and emulation is recommended over a real 68k Amiga.
Let's see how a vampire V2 handles this puppy, really fast 68K CPU :)
-
This should be good news, but it's the usual complaining....
And what does it boil down to? It boils down to whom ever bumped the version number up first.
Some times I do wonder why MOS users are even here, maybe it's the constant need to infest every AmigaOS4 thread. Please move along, nothing to see here.
-
It does say it needs a fast CPU and emulation is recommended over a real 68k Amiga.
IMHO it's pointless to write Amiga software that doesn't run on a real Amiga. Just my .02 cents. :angry:
Maybe with a Vampire, though! ;)
-
Maybe it'll make more sense on the Vampire hardware. I remember when World Construction Set 2 was reviewed in CU Amiga and the reviewer complained that MUI was a resource hog because of the memory requirements. That was when it was still uncommon to have more than 2MB due to the high price of RAM.
The point is that they're not pretending it isn't slow on lower end hardware.
-
Some times I do wonder why MOS users are even here, maybe it's the constant need to infest every AmigaOS4 thread. Please move along, nothing to see here.
Well, you could try to see it from the other sides perspective and read what they are actually saying and maybe then you will see that there is reasons to be just a little bit annoyed.
-
I don't read MOS forums, I don't have a need to be there, but I am still, somehow almost spoonfed, with MOS "butthurt" feelings..
-
@thread
the conflict between the MUI for AOS developers and certain MOS enthusiasts is well-known and unfortunate, but it does not need to be stirred up every single time there is a thread about MUI. the situation is what it is, and the constant rehashing is annoying at best. if you feel the need to complain about MUI for AOS, please head over to morph.zone and do it there.
going forward these threads on MUI for AOS will be more strictly moderated. i've been deluged with complaints on both sides, and it just isn't worth it. this is 2016, not 2004. enough already. further comments along these lines will be removed.
-- eliyahu
-
the conflict between the MUI for AOS developers and certain MOS enthusiasts is well-known and unfortunate, but it does not need to be stirred up every single time there is a thread about MUI.
Yes it does. As long as they violate other people's copyrights, it needs be brought up. At least in the world I live in.
Jens just confirmed in a German forum that he and Thore copied the Autodocs from the MorphOS releases and that they did not have a license to do so. He said lots of other things aswell, of course, which could be summarised as "you're all stupid" and "I had good reason to do what I did" - but the important part is that he's distributing stuff he shouldn't be distributing.
-
I don't read MOS forums, I don't have a need to be there, but I am still, somehow almost spoonfed, with MOS "butthurt" feelings..
I'm not sure if this will be deleted.. however this does beg the question of legality. There was once a legal contract for an older version of MUI. However afaik there is no such contract for MUI5. If there is no such contract one could say the MorphOS team is well within their rights to simply sue and have the distribution of MUI for AmigaOS stopped.
-
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
LOVE IT!
Alice in Amigaland INDEED! :lol:
-
its the same as if someone houtside hyperion has released amigaos5.
...expect that wasn't that exactly the original plan?
That Hyperion does AmigaOS 4.x, while Amiga inc. develops AmigaOS5+ inhouse?
I know, that's "highly unlikely", but doesn't change the fact, that was the original plan :)
As for MUI, I also question, why this is called 5.x, does it indeed have all the new functionality?
-
Some times I do wonder why MOS users are even here, maybe it's the constant need to infest every AmigaOS4 thread.
I've always assumed that this is an "Amiga" forum, not an "AmigaOS4" forum (like amigans.net, amigaos4 support forum etc.)
If you don't like how comments from certain parts of Amiga community are allowed, might be easier to move somewhere, where they aren't.
-
Some times I do wonder why MOS users are even here, maybe it's the constant need to infest every AmigaOS4 thread.
This is not an AmigaOS4 thread, and many of us use both MorphOS and AmigaOS.
-
They did, repeatedly. In public.
Where? All I see is rants from zealot MorphOS fanboys about how terrible this is, nothing negative from actual MUI/MorphOS developers.
-
thread closed.
-- eliyahu