Amiga, Inc: Close That Open Hardware!

[samface]

Seehund wrote:
The licensing/dongling/bundling requirement does however not have anything to do with TECHNICAL reasons. It's an additional restriction on top of the valid technical reasons, and it helps preventing the OS to be ported to more hardware in the first place.

Despite that I have disputed this argument of yours at several occasions, you keep repeating it like a mantra as if it would somehow make it happen. Once more, dispute this if you can:

1. Anyone can make any PPC hardware officially supported AmigaOS4 hardware by simply applying for a license and sharing a developer board and/or as extensive as possible hardware documentation. Hyperion will then create the neccessary hardware drivers, HAL and AmigaOS4 ROM. Compare that with Apple's approach if you like.

2. The ONLY thing preventing AmigaOS4 from running on basicly any PPC hardware is if Hyperion has for some reason no access to the hardware nor proper hardware documentation and therefore cannot make it happen even if they wanted to. An example of this is the Pegasos, they even applied for a developer board themselves but has still not as of today recieved one, AFAIK. You see, even though some of the chipsets are the same as the AmigaOne, the Pegasos obviously has a different design. For this reason Hyperion cannot and will not guarantee interoperability with their OS which is fully understandable, don't you think?

3. Hyperion are very much willing to support as much hardware as possible and is actually using this licensing scheme for preventing the OS to be restricted at a technical level. An example of this approach is the old PPC accelerator boards from Phase5; despite having no contact with the original manufacturers, very poor documentation, probable reduction of AmigaOne sales, very custom and different hardware design from the one of the AmigaOne, they will be supported by the AmigaOS4. How could this be if it was about restricting the AmigaOS4 to run on the AmigaOne from Eyetech only? Wouldn't this be impossible if the AmigaOS4 was made POP + ArticiaS chipset only?

4. The Microsoft approach of supporting the most common hardware standard and let the hardware manufacturers worry about the rest simply isn't feasible on the PPC market. There is no common PPC hardware standard. No, POP doesn't count as it will still require a common chipset standard. So, I'm sure MAI would be delighted if we made the AmigaOS4 dependant on their ArticiaS chipset but we would still have a very restricted OS. In fact, it would be even more restricted and give the us even less hardware options.

Now stop this blatant trolling of yours, Seehund. It's opposing your own cause regardless if you were to be right or not since this kind of trolling all over the web will only make users turn away from the platform rather than supporting you. I understand that it might be hard for you to admitt that you are wrong now since you've raised this witch hunt/poll against Amiga Inc. and all. But please, atleast tone down a bit rather than making such a fool out of yourself.

[samface]

BTW, please not that this article at OSopinion.com is written by Emanuel Mair, A.K.A Seehund. There is similar articles on Slashdot and OSNews, all by the very same author.

This kind of publicity will surely boost the Amiga comeback, now won't it? Well, that was irony on my behalf, I really do think that if something will kill the Amiga, then it is this kind of FUD mongering by people that don't even know what's best for themselves.  :roll:

[samface]

Even at the height of Apple's undocumented-hardware days, people had not only Linux but also QNX (verified) and probably BeOS (in-house, unofficially) running on its g3s.

Well, that's probably because they atleast had access to the hardware. When it comes to the AmigaOS4 on the Pegasos situation, Hyperion never recieved a developer board despite applying for one. So, in this case it's quite impossible for them to make anything run on it, don't you agree?

Also, I'm not sure wether I agree with the "for protecting Eyetech's position" thing, but the rest of your post was surely words of wisdom, gary_c. :-)

[samface]

@amigahal

You're right, I'm sorry. It's just so easy to forget about that option since there has been little progress shown on their behalf lately. But you're right, it should definitly be taken into consideration since this would also be impossible if we made the AmigaOS4 ArticiaS chipset based only.

[samface]

Not a bad scam if you look at the whole picture.

I didn't think I would have to go into this as well but since you couldn't restrain yourself from cooking up this lame conspiracy theory, I simply have to.

The only reason for a price difference (if any) is the OS. Yes, you won't get the AmigaOS4 for free, if that's what you expected. There are more issues involved such as preparing the hardware ROM, distribution to Amiga hardware dealers, product demand, providing Hyperion and other important AmigaOne software developers with developer boards, providing hardware support for AmigaOS4 and LinuxPPC users and developers, etc. All of these things costs and affect the price.

Also, you're scam theory doesn't even make sense. I mean, how much do you really think they will be making on the AmigaOne sales? You see, I don't even think this whole thing will be profitable for Eyetech even if they were adding to the price. It will cover their costs, tops. Besides, do you really think another distributor would give you the same hardware support for AmigaOS4 and/or LinuxPPC + UAE users?

[samface]

Who cares about if it was based on the POP reference design or not? You still need a firmware and chipset standard in order to have a complete hardware platform standard with only one HAL for all motherboards complying to that standard.

[samface]

Madgun lets get real...there are basically 3 boards OS4 "COULD" run on... the barbie the pegasos and the A1... all of them very similer.... minimal differances.... this rom license isnt about support...its about eyetech getting your money and not someone else...

No, there is not just those three ArticiaS based designs out there, there is also the PPC cards from Phase5, Elbox and DCE. Should we exclude 50% of the available options through making the AmigaOS ArticiaS chipset based or should we have a licensing scheme which makes it possible to cooperate with basicly any PPC hardware manufacturer and therefore not exclude any option at all? Yes, that is what this licensing scheme is about, cooperating with hardware manufacturers that doesn't comply to this MAI dominated chipset standard. Why do you want them to create a software market dependant on MAI Technologies? Wouldn't you prefer if they remain open for alternative hardware creations?

You see, setting up a standard like the ArticiaS chipset would leave all other hardware out in the cold, it simply wouldn't be worth the extra effort. All kinds of hardware innovation would be discouraged and controlled by MAI technologies. How do I know this? Well, look at the so-called IBM compatibles, a standard embraced by Microsoft and therefore the only standard. There has been close to none hardware innovations since Win95 and VIA + Intel are basicly the ones running the show. Despite high clock speeds, it's the very same crappy architecture behind it. Is this what you want, Seehund and all? Well, I don't. That's the Microsoft approach and far from the Amiga ideals, don't you think?

This licensing scheme on the other hand, will put any licensee at the same level as the other regardless of the hardware architecture. It will remove this kind of worries from their customers as both will have the officially supported Amiga hardware label. This will encourage hardware innovation, stimulate competition and improve the quality of the hardware support in general. It's a win-win situation and it's just too bad so many of you seem to have problems with seeing this.

The argments that the licensing scheme would be restricting our hardware options is just so short sighted and utterly wrong. The only hardware options the license is prohibiting is:

a) Those who for some reason don't want to support the AmigaOS and probably would even restrict their hardware from running on it if the AmigaOS could.

b) Those who don't care about the AmigaOS and would not even if they could give any support to it's users.

For me, that's not such a big loss. The gain from it is so much bigger in the long run.

[samface]

How little you know, perhaps I should add the planned G3/G4 cards from Matay?

Nevertheless, my point remains; why limit ourselves to the mainstream hardware?

[samface]

Phase5: Yes those cards exist and will be supported WITHOUT a licence.

No, it doesn't require a hardware manufacturer represant in order to license the hardware. If Hyperion or Amiga Inc. says it's hardware supprted by the AmigaOS4, then it has been granted a license. You see, the license is not a one way street, it works both ways. A license can either be applied for or be granted as an initiative from them directly.

ELBOX: 100% vapor and according to Elbox Articia-based.

Vapor? Unless it's official information from Elbox, that is FUD.

ArticiaS based? I don't know but I'm pretty sure they will have to make a specific SharkPPC HAL in order for the AmigaOS to run on it anyway.

[samface]

Kronos wrote:
>How little you know,

Says the one who tried to tell me that the A1-Xe would be based on the
A1-SE and not the TeronPX.......

Huh? I don't even recall discussing that matter with you, Kronos. You don't happen to have an URL for this accusation of yours?

>perhaps I should add the planned G3/G4 cards from Matay?

Why not Merlancia ? Just about as much realistic ....

The issue isn't wether it's realistic or not (I actually agree on this, you know), it's about the *possibilities* we exclude if we turn the AmigaOS into some kind of hardware standard based OS.

>Nevertheless, my point remains; why limit ourselves to the mainstream hardware?

Mainstream ? Wow you got a weird view of that. If ther is any "mainstream"
PPC-HW than it is made by Apple, so much is for sure.

No, Apple's hardware is not mainstream, it's propriety. Since the ArticiaS chipset is what's commonly used among the non-propriety PPC hardware options out there, I'd say it is as close to mainstream you can get without actually beeing it. The whole PPC industry is as far from mainstream as you can get but the ArticiaS chipset based solutions are mainstream if you disregard everything propriety and non-ppc.

And who said something about limiting ?

That is the result of not having this kind of licensing scheme. That is the result of not having all PPC architectures on the same level and practising the "supporting the most common hardware standard" approach.

It is just a fact that porting the A1-version to another Articia-based board
would be much easier as getting OS4 to run on something non-Articia.

Yes, I'm sure MAI technologies would love this kind of reasoning. Now, get back to the "not favoring a specific hardware manufacturer" kind of thinking. You want competition and the freedom of choice, right?

So whre are the options for OS4 ?

What are the options the license has restricted the AmigaOS4 from supporting? Yes, I deliberately didn't answer your question because I think I think this question needs to be answered first.

And no I don't think addons for addons to ten year old home-comuters are a valid future plan.

Neither do I.

Running on legacy free HW, is the main point of OS and MOS, and sofar
OS4 has limited itself to the most inferior option out there.

So, how many more options than the AmigaOS4 users will the MorphOS users have?

[samface]

Kronos wrote:
Do you understand the meaning of the word "licence" ?

In this case:

tr.v. li·censed, li·cens·ing, li·cens·es

1. To give or yield permission to or for.
2. To grant a license to or for; authorize.

If Amiga Inc. says that they are giving the AmigaOS4 users permission to use their product with Phase5 hardware, then that hardware is AmigaOS4 licensed. That does not mean Amiga Inc. decides what Phase5 hardware may be used with, just that their product may be used with it.

Noone from P5 signed a contract with AInc.

That's not required because Amiga Inc. and Hyperion are the ONLY ones deciding what their product may be used with.

There is and will be no dongle on those cards.

Amiga Inc. makes the terms of the licensing scheme and if they want to make an exception, they are free to do so. This does not work as an argument for that it wouldn't be licensed.

Copies of OS4 for this will be sold WITHOUT being bundled to the HW.

Same thing as above.

So yes it will be supported without a licence.

Beeep! Wrong. Thank you for playing. Amiga Inc. are the license holders and may license anything in any way they want. If I for example write an essay and copyright the material, that makes me the copyright owner. If I want it published on the net and have no way of publishing it on my own, I will have to license someone else to do it. By simply giving the essay to someone else and telling him to publish it, I have given that person a license to publish it. No contract, no nothing is required. It may be wise if I don't trust the person but nevertheless, he was licensed the minute I gave that person permission to publish, with or without a contract. That's how licensing works and by this reasoning, I'm telling you that the Phase5 hardware cannot be officially supported and unlicensed at the same time. By officially supporting the hardware, it is licensed. The only way of running the AmigaOS unlicensed is without permission from the license holder.

Vapor? Unless it's official information from Elbox, that is FUD.

No until Elbox shows a running (maybe linux) of that card it is VAPOR !!
(just look it up in a dictionary).

Vapor means nothing. We do NOT know if it doesn't exist, for that we would have to have confirmation from Elbox themselves or we would have to enter their labs and look for ourselves. All YOU know is that you don't know, that is not enough for claiming that it is vapor.

Elbox were in Aachen, but all they showed was bunch of mediators.

Like I said, just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it is non-existant. The same goes for UFO's, God, the Easterbunny, etc. You are per definition spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) because proclaiming doom on something unknown is, period.

Oh and do you remember that they claimed that it would be able to
run an A1 version of OS4 unchanged ? Well that is only possible if it is
Articia-based.

Neither you or I know enough about this issue and really should try focusing on those things we do know.

[samface]

as is their excludeing more then 50% of the 'new' options IE:Pegasos/Barbie..

No, that is incorrect. No option has been excluded what so ever. Name any hardware solution that has been excluded.

[samface]

so samface since you now admit the license is arbitrary what motivation do you think A.inc/etc have in not letting OS4 run on pegasos/barbie ?

1. The Pegasos? But surely you know that the very same company has created their own AmigaOS clone and therefore has very little interest in having AmigaOS run on their hardware? Like Hans-Jörg said, it's about support from the hardware manufacturer. Imagine beeing an AmigaOS user or developer and calling them for hardware support. Besides, I doubt the AmigaOS will ever run on their hardware regardless of the licensing scheme, believing differently is beeing nothing but naive.

2. The Barbie? I'm sorry but that Linux dude is the kind of guy that expects others to create software specificly for his hardware on their own initiative. That's not how it works. If he gets a userbase for his hardware then maybe, but that on the other hand requires software for it. What has Hyperion to gain from making support for his hardware with basicly a non-existent userbase? Nothing. What does he has to gain from having AmigaOS4 support? I'd say a whole lot. Wake up and smell the coffee...

[samface]

Besides, just because there are exceptions to the terms of the licensing scheme, like the Phase5 hardware for example, that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. It's a matter of beeing practical. It's the exception that confirms the rule, you know.