HenryCase wrote:
bloodline wrote:
That was a legitimate question
Maybe, but what did you intend to achieve by asking it?
Your reaction to the question is far more interesting than either my question or Hans's answer could ever be!
I was interested in what experience Hans had, so that I could answer his questions better, perhaps he has experince in VxWorks... I don't know, but his questions were not those of someone who has spent many a bored evening messing around with an Assembler trying to get stuff to work...
You rection though, immediately makes me think there is far more to this than you are letting on, and not a good way. Someone is bullsh1ting us here!
bloodline wrote:
What "OpenGL stuff"?
Adding functions/features to TinyGL.
Bug fixing a library that is not native to the Amiga is hardly a way to learn about the internals of AmigaOS.
bloodline wrote:
CAOS was totally different from AmigaOS. And guess what it didn't work and it couldn't be made to work in budget or in time.
Those reasons were financial rather than technical, as far as I can tell.
During the development of a new Operating system, is there any difference... Any problem can be solved eventually if you throw enough money at it.
Technology is all about bringing in the features you want, on a budget and in timescale.
See this quote from Carl Sassenrath: "CAOS was contracted out, for the most part, to a company that felt Unix was a better choice and didn't buy into my design. They became history when they started using their Sun development systems for other projects, not the Amiga higher level OS functions."
See above.
bloodline wrote:
CAOS was a fundamentally different system built around our beloved exec. Oh and it didn't work...
...because the coding wasn't finished. That doesn't mean we can't apply some of the ideas from CAOS to our newest AmigaOSs.
It couldn't be finished. It wasn't possible to get it done in the time frame/budget that Commodore had, to get the Amiga out in time. If they had stuck with it and the project had rolled on for 2 more years... too much money would have been spent, and every other computer company would have had a chance to make something better. The Amiga would have failed before it even left the stable.
bloodline wrote:
if you read what is left of the specs, you can see it was an odd system... probably even less compatible with the all pervasive POSIX than what we have now...
Not everyone sees POSIX as a good thing. Seems to me the more you strive for total POSIX compatibility the more you turn your OS into a UNIX variant. As long as apps aren't super difficult to port why care about POSIX?
You have a choice... be POSIX compatible and have software or be some strange little curiosity OS... with no software.
All you really have now is Win32 or POSIX (ok, the MacOS X NeXTStep frameworks are gain ground, but Mac software really stays on the Mac). 99% of all free software is POSIX, and a new operating system needs free software to be in any way useful.
If you don't like POSIX, really what else is there?
bloodline wrote:
rather than these silly pipe dreams, which serve to do little more than make our favourite OS look really stupid.
This goes back to the can it be done/should it be done split I outlined in our last MP discussion. Should it be done? Probably not. Can it be done? That's the interesting part. Forget about logistics, discuss the technical details.
I'm happy to disscuss the technical issues, but I would prefer it if we were not just going around in circles... and as soon as an issue is almost put to bed as unsolveable... someone pipes up that I must be an Amiga hater, or that there must be a way for the amiga to make a massive come back, we just need tothink about it properly... both of which are untrue.
We are at the end of the developement, cycle here. The Amiga scene had some of the greatest minds available... Any problem that can be solved has been solved. AmigaOS is what it is. If you want to make a new OS go right ahead. But I like our little dinosaur.
