new ixemul V62.1 for 68k.

[unusedunused]

>ffmpeg and ffplay aren't up-to-date on MorphOS because we already have up-to-date >mencoder and mplayer ports, that are more capable.

but mencoder or mplayer are Linux programs and when there is ffmpeg or ffplay here, i see better chances to do a amiga like program that have the spirit of amiga and is easy to use and self explain.

I still want a videoplayer that is also able to cut videos and save the cut as a new file.it should be easy and fast cut, see virtuel dub seek for scene cut, and set beginning marker, end marker and press del to delete this piece.and a undo function it should have.

but all can do with ixemul

>Anyway, i ran my compiler today (with libnix), and here's a build from a recent ffmpeg >snapshot (less than a week):

oh, i hope the MOS users are not angry about me, when you as a OS dev do that instead work on MOS to get faster support to more MAC Hardware or enhance OWB.

but i see on your filesize it seem not so much features as ffmpeg 68k.i give the link to MOS user so he can test what codecs your build now support, but when i look on filesize the PPC version is very small, so it seem not all codes are support.you also say you use altivec and normal version, this increase file size more.and we know PPC code is larger as 68k code.

your unpacked PPC ffmpeg is 5 meg and ffmpeg on 68k is  7,4 megabyte in size.MOS link libnix static

If so, then a ixemul program is too little smaller.

newest ffmpeg from ami_stuff have(not release yet but it work) have support for liboil and libschroedinger.this is more in size.I see no liboil or libschroidinger for MOS or OS4.
 
but ok, i know that the MOS devs have enhanced libnix as closedsource so its better as libnix on 68k.And the MOS devs dont want it make opensource to have a common API and make porting prgrams more easy.

But this behaviour is a big reason for me to not buy MOS because i think it not very fair to use 99.99% opensource code and then add only few stuff and do it closed source and want sell the new with a new OS that run only on slow Hardware.

Why would anyone use ffplay on 68k?

On youtube and all getvideo support you can show with netsurf 3gp files.This feature is not in SDL netsurf in, Artur have add this feature and use the getvideo script.

this are for handies with low resolution and this can show on a classic too with good speeds .also ami_stuff have add feature that ffplay can show images and videos in SW.Its faster.

and its also possible to have faster native Hardware.FPGA get cheaper and faster, and whne there is software that need that faster Hardware then nobody can say wy i need faster Hardware, there is no software

I it's an emulated 68k, the host systems have much more capable native variants.

amistuff have add nice features to ffplay.you can save a picture with key s.show me videoplayers that can do it easy.

Also in ffplay you can rewind or forward in Video files with cursor keys.Show me player that can do that so easy ?

ami_stuff have speedup the seek to a video Position a lot, so ffplay 68k is faster when forward or rewind in vídeo files.

and time will show, what amiga features ffplay/ffmpeg get more.I plan a easy to Video recording/editing Software in amiblitz too.there is also no problem to do that with ixemul.
 
BTW: I see that was MOS devs do as bad propaganda, maybe now the blue versus yellow war have begin ?

but i dont care about this, also when MOS rule the world, i not let me force to give up 68k and ixemul and buy a MOS.

there is absolute no technical reason that a program that use ixemul can not enhance as other amiga Programs that use libnix.so Unix programs need no libnix.

with ixemul you have too full access to wbstartup message(and ami_stuff use that in ffplay) and Icons and all AOS API Calls.

ok the /foobar problem was find

I get the idea now to add a command in newest libc

ix_UseAmigaPath(bool)

If somebody have a idea for a better name, let know.now its time to change

when use this command before a open file operation

ix_UseAmigaPath(true) or ix_UseAmigaPath(1) then all following file open commands do not use the Linux Path syntax.So the /foobar open can work.

[unusedunused]

>But more importantly - there is no problem doing it without ixemul.

there is a problem, its more work.and as we all know in amigaland developing and new programs are very rare and whats in PPC amigaland when do a closer look, its often incomplete and features are miss or it contain Bugs that on Linux versions not in.

maybe you should do some programming  or look at portet MOS or OS4 sources that work with libnix or newlib, if you dont believe what i write.

when a program use a function that libnix not have, a porter that use libnix go then to internet and search for code example code of atan.

Now he add this code to the program.But ixemul have this function onboard, so a porter can save lots work.

how it work is like this.When somebody on 68k want port program, he report me what functions he miss.I search then from Internet and add it to ixemul so he need not always change the source, when he compile a new Version.

You can also add the same code to libnix, but libnix is a static lib and blow up program size if you increase it larger.

You can use all Amiga Funtions with ixemul too, so there is no need to add much linux funcs to libnix

Why people still use Amithlon is also beyond me, it was a nice idea and all, but in its current unsupported state it doesnt make much sense, IMO.

Amithlon run on much and fast Hardware.The Kernel is opensource, so it can port to any Hardware.

The last Kernel update was here.YOu see its from 2006 support SATA and PCIe GFX Cards.i think you know that AMithlon since 2002 was dead, but you see 2006 last update.

http://www.garycvl.f2s.com/amithlon.html

And for the OS you can use too a enhanced 68k AOS as AFA OSor port AROS to it.

[unusedunused]

>Wrong

This sentence is correct 68k libnix is a static lib.when i enhance this, then program size grow.

""""
You can also add the same code to libnix, but libnix is a static lib and blow up program size if you increase it larger.
""""

when MOS need not link static and increase the program size, how is the library name then ?

Also the ffmpeg release fab do seem a static build, because when i search for text .library in the exe file i find only bsdsocket.library opening, intuition.library opening.

>Regardless how much you keep repeating this it won't become true. There is no easy way >to use amigaos calls in ixemul safely.

and wy not ?.YOu have never test it, ixemul V62 is more enhanced as V48.
i can always tell you a reason and or a program example that it work and i can show that i not tell wrong and the example you do work with ixemul too.If not then ixemul have a bug or missing feature and can enhance.

and nobody need buy a PPC Hardware to check if i say the truth when test on UAE.

[unusedunused]

 Btw, the links on the page you link to no longer work, the linux kernel is from 2004 with just some modules from 2006.

i click now again on the link, it work, i see also in Forum there is some activity with Posts from Nov 2009.

And when i look how fast Amithlon is port to much new Hardware, i see its really a good design, only bad of course is, that it is not the offical announce future.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/amithlonopen/

and about speed of PPC and winuae and amithlon on 68k Software, you can look here there is a Amithlon system

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=29964&forum=25&viewmode=flat&order=0

[unusedunused]

If you don't even understand how link libraries work I don't think it's worth trying to explain it to you now is it?

Yes i know this, when i look in a file then i can see a xxxx.library text.

I look in some MOS filles i dont see a string as libnix.library.

Or can you show me such a programs ?

Where are the nice portet Linux libs to MOS, OS4 have sobj and with ixemul its possible with the sdk to build dynamic libs easy
http://aminet.net/package/dev/gg/a2ixlibrarysrc

its really not nice when big linux programs are used all static forever.

ffmpeg and ffplay aren't up-to-date on MorphOS because we already have up-to-date mencoder and mplayer ports, that are more capable.

>Of course it is static. Fab told you it is static libnix build. Why wouldn't it be?

thats the text from Fab here do not stand its static.i write that when link with libnix then the exe size is increase and thats also correct with that MOS ffmpeg build.Now you confirm that i am correct.

"""""
from fab
Anyway, i ran my compiler today (with libnix), and here's a build from a recent ffmpeg snapshot (less than a week):
http://fabportnawak.free.fr/misc/ffmpeg.lha

To be noted it has altivec (autodetected) and network support (means you can play or encode stream).

Of course, "implementing" these two features wasn't a straight compilation. It took at least 5 minutes.  
""""

But wy you write that my text is wrong ?

static lib and blow up program size if you increase it larger.


>- total leakage of any AmigaOS allocated resources on exit() or abort()

thats on all AOS libs same, they have no resourcetracking, when a program need that it must use atexit.

>- the ixemul signal handling aborting an OS call in the middle of execution, possibly while >holding a critical system semaphore

you mean when press CTRL+c ?

then there should be the rule that the automatic CTRL+c Handling in ixemul should not use.
nothing dramatic, libnix too not support CTRL+c automatic and there is a command in every Linux API to switch it off

if you want use CTRL+c in libnix you must add code by hand.and the same code you can use with ixemul.

also ixemul have security code, that when a sub thread call abort, this give a requester and tell resources cant free and the amiga system is still stable, but some windows are open.

but when a subthread call abort, there is an error in program and not in ixemul.when the error is fixed all work.normaly only a main thread should exit a program.

but whats important, system do not crash with new ixemul

[unusedunused]

Qed

sorry, i dont understand what you mean, i dont believe you anything if you cant post reproducable or readible Facts.

sorry that i say this, but for me your reactions look like as a little child reaction when somebody have a better toy than you.

that you spend so much time to tell some unlogic things and you bring no ceckable facts about 68k ixemul which you never test, is really unlogic.

I at least have A MOS System on my cyberstrom PPC 233 install, and test a little MOS ixemul with 68k soft and notice some problems, so i need it not.I also see that there are enough incomplete outdate Ports.

I dont understand wy you want from me that i rename ixemul.Mos devs say that ixemul should only use for geek gadget compiler and some dev tools.Wy you need a linux shell, or Linux compilers btw ?.Port it clean to amiga OS and you need no ixemul when soem say they dont want use shitty direct Ports

There are lots other ixemul soft out that run well on ixemul V48 and V62.1.
And if you dont want that it run on MOS native ixemul well and fix Bugs, then the MOS devs should rename their ixemul to mini_ixemul or maybe tiny_ixemul.

whne look at storm mesa the MOS side do it right, they do not port a stormmesa which miss man features and name it Mesa.They name it tinygl

also all the incomplete MOS Ports should better name as mini, so users see at first look that it is not a full Port, because the Linux Version support more feature.

Or is that then a real Port when it use libnix, but there are less features here ?


-----

I do updates and fix ixemul if old ixemul Soft that is well written fail on V62 and work on  older V48.2 V48.3
what to do with abuse i am not sure, it crash when i use ixemul V48.3.work only with V48.2.with V48.2 the mousepointer do not move, only when i click somewhere it is draw.also there is no sound play.

I compile abuse from new source with SDL and it work with sound/ opengl and mousepointer , but have a memleak(decrement mem every sec 20 kb).need look wy, if AROS port have same Problem.

But i do my best to make the amiga Software better.......

@Itix
>Do you know what happens to your atexit() calls at abort() ?

the same as happen with libnix atexit.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/atexit.html
atexit is a standard C method and also on libnix in.
for example SDL add here code to close amiga window and free amiga resources.thats on all systems same.

when a program do abort it do not free resources.most programs use assert this call atexit too.

abort is not good on amiga, because amiga have no resource tracking, but problem is in libnix and ixemul same

[unusedunused]

@Itix
>But what if I want to access a file named "." or even ".." ? And I want to use PROGDIR:. >This is Amiga, not some Unix clone written by some Torvalds.

Progdir work.

but as i told i add a function
ix_AmigaPaths(true)

then the unix path translation is not done.

Or do you reall think thats not possible ?

[unusedunused]

I have found better method: I am using -noixemul switch.

Btw how is auto-open libraries working with ixemul?

I and i think many other dont know how auto open in libnix work.Most do the logical Amiga OS way, that is explain in RKM.Its really not much work to open a lib.there can also do a code snippet that open often needed aos libs.you need only paste it

but its really lots more easy to use way from RKM then port a big Linux program to work with a small libnix.

struct Library *AslBase:

AslBase = OpenLibrary("asl.library");

and at end of source or in a atexit func you need do

CloseLibrary(AslBase);

>Okay, there are bug fixes in MorphOS ixemul, some maybe even important, but only >reason why 68k ixemul went out of hand was a version number.

You still have not written if the programs i post work on your MOS.Your excuse is only that this programs should not use with ixemul.

what do you say when a program use opengl functions that MOS tinygl not have.
Do you think this program should port so it work with the fewer functions of tinygl or its a shitty program ?

>I have found better method: I am using -noixemul switch.

everybody can do what he want.

enhance libnix is too possible but wy need not 2 big unix API(ixemul and libnix) i think.You yourself tell you want not use this shitty Un++ix Ports, but then i dont understand, wy MOS devs have add more functione to libnix to make porting more easy.

more functions help more easy port programs.MOS devs see that too and add this new funcs to libnix as closedsource.
 
But ixemul have always this functions in and more and is opensource.
I think in such a small market few devs and so slow developing, closed source is not good, because every programmer can fix or enhance opensource soft he need faster and maybe more bugfree(when on the system very few betatester here and really motivate to test), because the closed source devs have so much other things to do.

------------

If i add the function atanf in libnix or ixemul because a Unix program need it, there is no diffrence.


And its also possible when a amiga program really not run with ixemul to change it so it work.When you want port it to libnix you must do the same.

http://www.unix.org/version3/apis/t_1.html

If this functions are link from a libnix or ixemul there is really no diffrence in functions.

And if something fail due to messaging can easy see when test and the program wait in endless loop

for example pthread programs do never work with amiga OS funcs and tasks and SDL, this have also nothing to do with ixemul or libnix.

amiga and pthread cant work.here always the program need change with libnix too.

but luckily many programs can compile without pthreeads.

But my plans are here too to change pthread that it work with amiga task and signalling whne there is a reason(program that really need it).
this help also get programs more easy working.

[unusedunused]

>Time to find it out then.

and where is a program that use auto libopen as an example ?
I can then try out if it work with ixemul.

as far i know there is libauto.a for this.I think its really no problem of it not work in ixemul to add the code from libnix here too, if there is code in libnix to do that.

open a library by hand is not very complicate and need not much programming knowledge, its lots more work to change the program to use libnix, and btw when create a library then it must do always by hand.libauto cant work.

>There is tinygl maintainer. When there is missing opengl call I ask what could be done >about it. Sometimes there is workaround, sometimes tinygl maintainer adds missing >functionality, sometimes I have to drop project.

http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/TinyGL/

Do you mean this maintainer or do you mean MOS maintainer ?

And what do you do if this maintainer

http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/TinyGL/

update his tiny GL Version so its not compatible to MOS new stuff and increase lib number ?

Do you then tell him too he should rename his tinygl or should not increase lib Version ?

Bit i see diffrent on MOS sdl.its called powersdl and it is based on old SDL Version 1.2.6 that was here for AOS and AROS.You add new features, choose another name and version numbering as SDL.

But here i see you have add this new features in 1.2.13 and not say that a real good SDL Port can only done with powersdl in 1.2.6 state.

its really funny what funny reasons the MOS devs write and they want force ixemul not furtherdevelop.

Wy not do that in SDL too ?.SDL1.3 is release and support multiple windows.
Do you then too say, when a SDL program need that feature it is no good Port or program ?

wy not go to the sdl devs and tell them that they should rename their sdl instead that MOS sdl must called powersdl

its fact, ixemul is born on 68k and if you accept me as furtherdeveloper or not, you cant force that MOS devs are right when they want force that ixemul should stay forever on this low linux compatible level and instead should enhance libnix with more Linux funcs.

Most portet programs to MOS or OS4 and of course 68k are identical port Linix programs.
If your port SDL game work with ixemul or not, users do not notice.

So wy there must do much work to make this identical Ports working with the less featured libnix ?

When you tell me what functions MOS libnix have, then i also can add a compiler warning in ixemul when #define MOS_LIBNIX_COMPATIBLE

this help devs to make the program working on MOS.
but thats also simple to add, and i am sure, when not more funcs use as in libnix, then there cant more problems occur as in libnix.

the lib is called on MOS powersdl.library you yourself have written here

[unusedunused]

@Fab
Here i get a output what codecs are add in ffmpeg Version from MOS.

http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/thread/AN-2009-11-00044-DE.html

I do a filecompare with 68k ffmpeg from amistuff and see the MOS Version miss lots libs.so its clear it is smaller.

this libs are add automatic from ffmpeg makefile.

DEA    libamr_nb       libamr-nb Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) Narrow-Band
 DEA    libamr_wb       libamr-wb Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) Wide-Band
  EA    libfaac         libfaac AAC (Advanced Audio Codec)
 D A    libfaad         libfaad AAC (Advanced Audio Codec)
 DEA    libgsm          libgsm GSM
  EA    libmp3lame      libmp3lame MP3 (MPEG audio layer 3)
 D V    libopenjpeg     OpenJPEG based JPEG 2000 decoder
 D A    libspeex        libspeex Speex
  EV    libtheora       libtheora Theora
  EA    libvorbis       libvorbis Vorbis
  EV    libx264         libx264 H.264 / AVC / MPEG-4 AVC / MPEG-4 part 10
  EV    libxvid         libxvidcore MPEG-4 part 2
 
but all in all great what Fab do, get so much codecs work with libnix.
But this show more that Fab is a excellent coder or spend lots time and not that programming or porting for MOS is easy.

I code for amiga because it is not so much work as on windows/Linux to find bugs or program.and a AOS that need more work i dont want.

maybe you can release the source so can see what you change.
also dont forget to add in the next release of ffmpeg to add this 12 libs too in actual version

[unusedunused]

>Ixemul is not safe.

thats no good argument, but i can easy say libnix is not so safe as ixemul .and i am fair and i show you a reason everybody can check.

try this example code  

string = malloc(;

strcpy(string,"123456789");

now with libnix you get memtrash and your program overwrite memory and crash sooner or later randomly.ixemul report this and upto 4 byte memtrash cant give system crashes.so a programmer notice this.so ixemul is more safe and bring no speedloss.
you can also get report when you use on libnix wipeout.But i see in your membenchmarks with running wipeout that your system slow down extrem.much more than winuae.

Try out a Program that use xml 2 or a C++ program.
Try out on your netsurf with running MOS wipeout memtracker.

http://www.aminet.net

and tell me the time how long your system need to show the page.i think it need more than 5 minutes.SO i guess when you develop netsurf or a C++ program you need not the recommended dev tools from Commodore to detect memtrash.

But now what test we should use to show that ixemul is not safe ?

maybe you can show me a Unix program that you think cant enhance with Amiga OS functions ?
the test is easy, i add then in a loop code that it frequently open and close a MUI gui win dow(more than 20* sec)

then we can run it on UAE and when it also run without deadlock or memory trash more than 2 hours can say ixemul is safe.

>We cant force you to do anything but we would appreciate if there was more experienced >developer maintaining 68k port

YOu should really try out ixemul V62 with more programs,then you see it run stable.Then use your MOS ixemul.I think you see this run not so stable.

but your only excuse is, that programs should not use ixemul and thats wrong.ixemul can do more than libnix and need not static link, so programs can be smaller.

if there was more experienced devloper that do that is nice, but when they only say we need no newer version the program should not use it help nothing.

Or when there are experienced devloper that do a better libnix only for a AOS that run on slow PPC Systems and this must buy.

A AOS that run not on fast and cheap hardware is not usefull for me.Wy i should use a slow system ?.Time is short and the fastest get for the money is the best.

And when my Hardware damage, i will in short time buy a new system.

>Remember this was a 5 minutes job,

where is the source so can see what you have change ?

when this is not much work, wy are the most important Ports done by OS developers on MOS ?

wy there come not so much from non OS developers ?

[unusedunused]

>Not everything requires the very last version to be usable, far from it. And it's way >preferrable to have a fast OpenGL subset than a complete but amazingly slow MESA >implementation.

there is not much speed differ, look at old benchmarks that show glide speed and opengl speed in some benchmarks with quake.

when the X86 CPU get more speed as 200 MHZ then the calling overhead of a full Mesa does not slowdown more than 5-10% and faster CPU glide and full opengl get more and more equal and thats the reason because tinygl or minigl is now not need and all modern systems have full Mesa

[unusedunused]

>(most people use mencoder, anyway).

really, i see this early GUI for MOS mencoder.

http://aminet.net/package/gfx/edit/mengui

for 68k there is a GUI that use argue and support many encoders, also ffmpeg

http://aminet.net/package/util/misc/ArgueGUIColl

[unusedunused]

@Itix
>Bleh. That is not safe. It is placebo. It can crash your system at any time. Ixemul can not >magically trap malicious code.

No such often happen programming bugs (that 1-4 bytes more written)cant crash system, because on ixemul is a cookie here.was also on old V48 Versions

Of course this cost a little more mem, but it make all more safe and help finding programming bugs easy.this more mem doesnt matter because also AFA is small and 68k executable save too some mem.

>I can not use your ixemul because it does not support PPC native callbacks (i.e. atexit(), >obviously).

but you can use UAE and here its possible that you can run 68k Software everywhere.

>It just isnt. Do not mix ixemul with native Amiga API calls.

Every software can change so it can work, so its impossible that ixemul cant work with Amiga OS funcs when we know the reason wy it cant work to fix that.

You have no practice argument wy can not amiga OS function use in netsurf or ffplay or ffmpeg, or all the other SDL Ports or other programs that for ixemul are here

I still dont believe that without a example Program in which it is usefull to use amiga Functions, because you are a MOS developer and its possible that you not like that 68k make it more easy to port programs as MOS, because you fear that not so much buy MOS.

But really i dont understand wy so fight for users, users/devs are not stupid, and when you have no reason that explain in a real world example wy ixemul not work with amiga OS api, then you are unbelievable.

I can say you, that i planed buy a Mac mini and maybe MOS.But now i am sure, i not buy or need it, because guys that do that, the feature we not have we need not, i dont want suppport with money.

BTW:I remember MOS devs say long time ago when there are devs that ask for a newer GCC as 2.95 that there is no newer GCC need.or should i post links ?

[unusedunused]

>Lets see... if I recall correctly ixemul uses tc_UserData for its own purposes. Right/wrong?

Yes, and its tell, when you not use SDL task creation Function and you want create a own amiga sub task you must create before you use a ixemul file or network function with ix_CreateChildData();
the valid data for this task.thats all

if you not do that then your program stop at first try and bring a error message.but when a program not stop at first try, then there is all right and it work forever and stable.

Edit: or do you mean, this is a big problem if this entry is not usable for amiga ?

I think not, does OWB or netsurf or any other with AOS Code enhanced Linux Port use that ?
If yes, see at ixemul source, its possible to change ixemul to use the tc_trap Data field for this.

#ifdef NOTRAP
  printf ("#define USERPTR_OFFSET %ld\n", offsetof (TASK, tc_UserData));
#else  
  printf ("#define USERPTR_OFFSET %ld\n", offsetof (TASK, tc_TrapData));
#endif

there are other unused fields in the process structure, just tell me a place which is better.
i get a better idea.

i see in process structure a field pr_shellprivate.
Is this not for all that create with CreateProc unsused and only for amiga shell used ?

[unusedunused]

>Yeah. Problem is that newer GCC versions are quite buggy. There are still newer GCC >versions for MorphOS, I have got all three GCC2, GCC3 and GCC4. GCC2 works for me so I >am using it most of time. No need to use latest stuff always.

But when you want sell a commerciall OS, its not enough that it working by you, the buyer of this OS must be happy with whats here.

The reason to test newest stuff always is for me and other to help make rock solid software.

We test always newest stuff and report Bugs because GCC and ffmpeg support 68k AOS we get help in ML.It can build with configure and make.

ami_stuff do not only port ffmpeg, he report bugs and he help so to make ffmpeg better.same he do on newest GCC too.

I really dont like when people say new Version have Bugs i use older without reporting the Bugs so devs have a chance to fix.when all users do that, then software get never be more features.best is test newer version and when it have bugs, then report it and use old software until fixed

But i think on MOS/OS4 its more a excuse because of the missing man power to do that additional work, but its a real bad excuse.I see the GCC 4.3 and above produce no wrong code.Have you try out 4.3/ 4.4/ or 4.5 on MOS and this are buggy ?

Because the GCC Team make not GGC as opensource so that commercial OS developers port it to their OS to have a compiler but dont want to help to make it better.

thats only a one way thing, only MOS/OS4 side profit from gcc, but gcc do not get any enhance with MOS/OS4.I think a modern OS should also in GGC source support as 68k amigaos.

>>I can say you, that i planed buy a Mac mini and maybe MOS.But now i am sure, i not >>buy or need it, because guys that do that, the feature we not have we need not, i dont >>want suppport with money.
>And I was going to buy Amiga Forever package but I decided to not buy it.

everybody is free what he do, but the compare is too much diffrent.

1. i dont sell amiga forever or get money from it.
2. amiga forever is that system we all learn in the past and know, but its now not market as a future system.so i understand more that you dont want install amigaforever.

but when users change to new system, there must be more advantages to learn a new system.at least it should have more speed than a emulate amiga forever on X86.

and BTW:

when the MOS 68k emul is fix, then ixemul should be run wirthout amiga forever