Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware

[DaveP]

I think Seehund should be applauded for this because its a constructive way of getting opinion
across. The petition is articulate and is a good way of allowing people to say what they thing /on the petition/ and not waste any more time saying it to each other.

I am not signing it because I think the branding scheme is the right thing and AmigaOS should not yet be a run anywhere OS like Linux ( not strong enough ).

Eventually Amiga Inc will HAVE to losen the reigns if AmigaOS becomes a MacOS like success.

Dave.

[DaveP]

Zico WAS AmigaDE compliance no more no less. I got caught out with that one too.

As we have found out, even with Linux you cant just up and run the OS on any hardware even if the CPU is the same architecture so some level of spec would be needed.

[DaveP]

Well what will reduce the credibility of the petition is some of the language on it. :-(

As usual Cheesegrate loses it. Is there any way of editing out those comments? It would make Amiga Inc take one look at it and say so we lose 15 trolls and 15 sensible people. Hmmmm......

Rather than 31 sensible people.

[DaveP]

Wise words.

Note that at time of following up only 37 people had signed the petition. This might grow next week but look at it this way.

(rumour stats)
200 developers managed to get an A1 board on order with tenfold that *requesting* a board. Therefore we have nearly 10-1 willing to vote with their wallet FOR A1 and therefore the branding scheme.
(/rumour)

If you take out some of the clueless signatures on the petition which I seriously hopes that Seehund has the ability to clean up....

(opinion)
The petition itself seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding - or miscommunication on AIncs part.
(/opinion)

This is discussed on a thread on ANN if anyones interested.

I appear to have an amusing namesake on ANN. Well close enough.

wise monkeys

[DaveP]

It has been stated elsewhere that it is not a *fee*
based branding scheme.

If you dont agree with 100% of what the petition sayes then dont sign.

If you have different views to the petition create a different one and sign that.

If you want to sell a board that is capable of running AmigaOS it has to have hardware modifications made ( not a generic PPC board ) and then it has to be branded.

I dont agree with your points though. :-)

Dave

[DaveP]

Seehund

Those that have posted the exec update and compared it with the petition are basically pointing out that they cannot see where the petition relates to the executive update.

I realise you are probably feeling annoyed at the moment because you have done something good and some are trying to ruin it for you.

Oh and as has been pointed out before there are people that have not tried to understand it who have made decisions both ways. There are some that seem to think its an anti-Amiga Inc petition and it is those that have damaged the credibility of what you have achieved.

I still dont really see what you are petitioning against, ergo I dont think the petition is something I can sign.

I would happily sign against something that was say bundling hardware and OS together and you could not buy hardware without the OS. However that is not what AInc is doing as far as I can make out.

It *is* apparently what BPlan are thinkin of doing with Pegasos so I am thinking about putting a petition together against that bundling practise because it is typical of the Microsoft Windows and IE bundling.

(fact)
I can buy PPC hardware without AmigaOS 4.
I can buy PPC hardware with AmigaOS 4 IF it has been through the OEM scheme.
I can buy PPC hardware without MorphOS.
(/fact)
(rumour)
I cannot buy a Pegasos without MorphOS and YDL and nor can any reseller. Anyone who OEMs Pegasos is not allowed to modify the "bundle" on resale.
(/rumour)

However I want to see what BPlan have to say about the rumour before setting up a petition. I want to make sure I truly understand what it is they are trying to achieve with this.

No I dont see this as A1 vs Pegasos but I do see the rumoured BPlan move as being far more restrictive than the AInc move.

Dave.

[DaveP]

I doubt they would need to relax their "rules" for server or desktop
code if it was x86 as well as PPC based.

This is interesting

We could very well see ExecSG from AOS 4.x rewritten in VP and become a processor agnostic kernel for delivering intent.

What a very interesting idea.

My main beef with intent is the package delivery and filesystem
 its very PDA oriented and not at all nice to me. This obviously
would not be changed by an ExecSG kernel in the intent sandbox
but its a ( to me ) revolutionary thought of yours.

Good one!


 :-D

[DaveP]

Notice that someone has spoofed Wayne on the petition:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?amigaos&1

comment 264.

Seehund you have said that you are going to clean up the comments
are you going to check that these people are genuine?

Shame the idiots have to spoil it for you!

Dave