Any REAL news from the OS4-tour ?

[falemagn]

HyperionMP wrote:
No AROS code whatsoever was used for OS 4.

Which doesn't mean that you haven't even looked at it, which would be really hard to believe (in other words, I wouldn't believe you if you told me that you never ever LOOKED at the AROS source code).

-- EDITED --

I had forgotten that in AOS3.5/3.9 some parts of AROS have been used, and if anything it would be pretty stupid to reinvent the wheel for AOS4.x.

-- /EDITED

This is hardly surprising if you consider that AROS is only meant to be compatible with 3.1 at source-code level.

Oh dear  :roll: ... one false statement and one contraddiction in the same sentence :-)

First of all, AROS is NOT meant to be compatible only at the source level, as what you can read on the AROS website states. Then, even if that were to be the case, your statement would contraddict your previous acknowledgement of MOS using AROS code because, as everyone knows, MOS IS binary compatible with AmigaOS.

-- EDITED --

Can't help but thinking that such false statements and contraddictions can't and must not go unnoticed by the rest of the people. It might seems something insignificant, but think about it more: why spreading lies? Why contraddicting oneself so blatantly?

Let me elaborate a bit more. First, HyperionMP says that MOS uses AROS code, and specifically modules which, as he himself says, are pretty large parts of AOS3.1. Now, we all know that MOS is binary compatible with AOS3.1, nonetheless in a successive post HyperionMP states that AOS4.x uses zero parts of AROS, and this is because, allegedly, AROS is not meant to be binary compatible with AOS3.1, which is 1) untrue and 2) in contraddiction with his previous statement...

Think about it people.

[falemagn]

HyperionMP wrote:
Which doesn't mean that you haven't even looked at it, >which would be really hard to believe (in other words, I >wouldn't believe you if you told me that you never ever >LOOKED at the AROS source code).

Quite frankly I could care less what you believe.

I wouldn't have expected anything different, and, quite frankly, I don't care that you don't care.

Why would we look at the AROS codebase when we have the entire OS 3.x codebase sitting in a CVS barring a few minor additions by H&P themselves?

Just because it exists, and many issues that you've certainly had to face have been faced by the AROS developers. Come on, dude, people are not stupid like you want to believe they are.

If you are Fabio Allemagna,

Nope, I'm Fabio Alemagna. Learn how to spell my name correctly, thanks :-)

the self-styled GPL Warrior who doesn't even understand the GPL himself,

LOL :-) There he goes with his personal attacks and bullshit :-) For one who doesn't understand the GPL, it's a quite big achievement to obtain the guilty modules to be removed from the guilty software. But I really want you to PROVE your claims, for once, so I'll wait for you to show me what you're talking about.

 I'm not surprised to see that contrived reasoning you come up with next.

Yeah, right... :-) Did you even think for a moment that I was waiting for other kind (which means "reasonable") answers?

Get a life Fabio.

How nice of you to suggest me that... but thanks, I already have a pretty happy one. I don't think the same can be said about yours, though. (DaveP, still defending Hyperion after such words? Shame on you, if you are).

You know as well as I do that AROS is not fully binary compatible with OS 3.1.

Dude, that's not what you said. You said that AROS is not MEANT to be binary compatible with AOS, which is an outright lie, and the AROS webpage contraddicts your very same words. There's only one place where AROS is not compatible by design and that place is 99% of the times not touched by applications, but only by the shell and by filesystems (which hasn't stopped us from porting filesystems from AmigaOS without almost changing one line of code in them). But even if it was that what you were referring to, you're still in contraddiction with your very same words, because it seems that this incompatibility hasn't stopped MOS from using AROS and be binary compatible with AOS.

Now, dude, what about you getting some clue and even a better life?

[falemagn]

Which goes straight back to what Hyperion have been saying on the previous page - whatever they say, someone will reply saying that they are lying, hell - two successive posts by two different people at Hyperion saying no code from AROS was used ... sheesh

Sorry, but given the past experience with Hyperion, I can honestly say that I am more inclined to believe what the logic says than what they say, specially when in that same post there's an outright lie and a blatant contraddiction. It just happens that they're not trustable people, given their track record.

[falemagn]

I don't know why you felt that you had to bring my name into this at all. Perhaps if I had leapt to Bens defense here then it would be justifiable. I realised you used the speculative "if you are" but really, that is a big ole line you are starting to string out with some tasty bait on the end

Well, then I'm sorry, I obviously understood that you were questioning Krono's claims that he's been treaded badly by Hyperion, but if you were only talking about the Friendens, then I'm sorry.

[falemagn]

Crying wolf are we? Why can't you simply believe that Hyperion, who are professional programmers, simply did not look at the AROS source code, etc.

How about learning how to read, before jumping to my neck? I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to his personal attack, and AROS was out of discussion in that phrase (btw, notice how Ben Hermans throws personal attacks in the discussion when he realizes he just can't continue on the right path).

Hell, given that you think that he doesn't know much about AROS at all, don't you think that pretty much shows that he hasn't paid any attention to AROS, including the source code?

When I say "YOU" I don't necessarily mean "HIM", I mean "YOU" as in "You guys who are working on AOS4". I can't believe that no one of them has ever looked at AROS, it just makes no sense. I for one know that Olaf Barthel has commented on the AROS filesystem interface (and said he likes it better over the AOS one), and Olaf works on AOS4.

AROS doesn't run on PPC machines, but various parts of AROS when compiled for PPC and run in a different operating system will run fine. That doesn't mean that anybody is wrong in this stupid, retarded argument.

What is that supposed to mean?

PS: I remember the old AROS web site used to say a lot about being source code compatible only with AmigaOS applications (once completed) - probably because they would have to be recompiled to run on x86.

That's wrong as well: look here