Rebol for MorphOS

[gary_c]

REBOL is yet to become as pervasive as it could potentially do and in the meantime there are other favourites of each operating system.

Dave, it's great that we have you around to help us keep our enthusiasm in check. Somehow certain individuals got kind of excited about the idea that REBOL -- which has wrangled a reputation as a fairly imaginative scripting language, and which has certain roots that we tend to appreciate -- might find a home on a little platform trying to get bootstrapped.

Fortunately you've weighed in with your armchair analysis and, if anyone takes it seriously, this will properly curb any undue palpitations. Certainly, the idea of a REBOL SDK not being available for the Pegasos platform (despite the apparent harmony between REBOL's strengths and Genesi's business targets) would be much preferable, and clearly the fact that REBOL hasn't fully lived up to its potential means it's a dead end and should be dumped.

Thank you. Another effort to grow synergistically rightfully squashed.  ;-)

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

[Edited for clarity.]

Oh dear, did I say something you didn't want to hear?

No. Really, no need for melodrama. More darkly realistic things were said about the present state of Rebol on the Phoenix lists, etc., after Genesi posed the question. Nobody's expecting miracles; but it's a cool development and could add incrementally to the viability of the platform.

It's just funny how predictably you add your bit to try to dampen things; I'm sure you'd claim that you'd have exactly the same reaction if it were AOS being considered for this kind of comprehensive Rebol port (although I'm not sure how the multi-OS aspect would figure in there). But I'd kind of have to see that reaction from you to believe it, if you know what I mean. In the meantime, the predictability of your response is just tiresome. We know the circumstances around Rebol and RT right now, and we know this step won't spark any miracles, but it's still a seriously  cool development. I'm just tired of the petty, partisan negativism.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

SHADES wrote:

No person who is interested in the AMIGA's survival is going to see this as a positive sign

Well, it all comes back to what you define as "AMIGA". If you define it as "Amiga, Inc. and its official partners," then you might have something to worry about here. If you define it as "natural (but unofficial in terms of IP purchases) progressions of the classic Commodore Amiga platform," (or as those two combined) then it's definitely a positive step.

This has been argued to death, though, and so to be civil I imagine people will just have to agree to disagree about where the Amiga legacy actually is these days.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

That's a pointless statement. If you were to define AMIGA as commodore then it's already dead.

No, I'm not defining Amiga as Commodore: I said "progressions of the classic Commodore Amiga." By that I mean things that have evolved from the old platform.

 

f we are still discussing MorphOS It's not a progression of the original classic platform at all it's another opperating system.

Sure it's a progression. Have you used MorphOS on a Pegasos? The lineage is undeniable. Yes, it's also another operating system. For all intents and purposes, AOS4 is also another operating system, relative to 68xxx AmigaOS. Isn't the goal to have it all PowerPC-native? Is it *a good thing* to have the old 68xxx code in there and have to have it running in emulation? The AOS4 developers are working like mad to get away from the old code and here you are trying to hold on to it. ;-)

Sorry, but this is a classic case of valuing brand name over product qualities. That's your choice, though, so that's fine. But other people interpret things their own way. In this view *all* of these post-Commodore projects are descendants of the original in one way or another, because of the backgrounds of the people doing them (apart from the manufacturers of the AmigaOne hardware, anyway), the design goals, the "look-and-feel," the third-party developers, the end-users, etc. Trying to draw some artificial line down the middle of all of these based on an IP purchase just doesn't cut it.

To bring the developer of the AMIGA OS over to help make Morph OS is a kick in the teeth to AMIGA users.

Sorry you feel that way, but I imagine he'd also work with Amiga, Inc. or Hyperion if he was approached with a good plan. Maybe somebody should ask Fleecy.

However that doesn't make it AMIGA OS.

Nope. Nobody's saying it is. It's "Amiga-like." If you get a chance, try it out. You'll see how true that statement is. This question of is it or is it not "Amiga" will eventually fade away. It isn't even important or fun to think about anymore.

-- gary_c