The AmigaOne is NOT "just a Teron board"!

[Seehund]

Yes, the "AmigaOne G3SE" is "just" a TeronCX board, and the "AmigaOne XE" is "just" a TeronPX board.

I put the "just" in quotation marks, because of the "so what?" factor.

Eyetech is "just" a distributor of Mai Logic's products. Eyetech, or other distributors, have nothing at all to do with design, development or upgrading of the boards. As Mai produce newer revisions, they're made available to the distributors. Is there something strange about that? So Mai made their latest "commercial" revision of the TeronCX, recently presented by its designer, penguinppc.org and Terrasoft (YDL)  at LinuxWorld earlier this year, and now this is the board that will be sold to Eyetech's end customers. So what?

Since there are no more Amigas, only whatever hardware that gets licensed, I don't understand why some people WANT the hardware to somehow be made "special,"  when all that means are lower production volumes, separate distribution lines, higher prices and less competition.
In the AmigaOS case, the hardware it'll be allowed to run on is made "special" only by means of a dongle, a licensed trademark and distribution restrictions. There's no technical reason or advantage involved.

[Seehund]

ksk wrote:

If TeronCX specs have changed to meet AmigaOneG3-SE specs ... it just shows that AmigaOne is a evolution of the original TeronCX and MAI decided to produce only the improved version in the future...

"Old" TeronCX = "Old" AmigaOne G3SE
"New" TeronCX = "New" A1 G3SE, as per the specs officially listed by Eyetech

And?
"AmigaOne" is a trademark used by one distributor for his dongled Teron boards. There's no  evolution one way or the other. Back when Redhouse said that people should check out Mai's site, then the site still listed the specs of the "evaluation" ("old") Teron CX, and naturally not the not-yet-released-at-that-time "commercial" ("new") TeronCX that Eyetech will be distributing.

Again, it seems like Eyetech somehow feels they have to be ashamed or something over distributing somebody else's stuff, and it seems like some people feel they need something "special."

"It's not the same - it's special - lalalala I can't hear you lalala"

WTF, it's GOOD that the hardware is the same. That's about the only thing that's still good in the current hardware situation, despite this compulsory licensing crap, that nothing has to be changed on third party hardware design-wise. Remove that compulsory licensing crap, and things would even start to make sense.

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

Explain to me this:

1. How come the improved revision of the MAI Teron CX design didn't show up on MAI's homepage until 2 months after the Teron CX *based* AmigaOne design?

A distributor announces that they will distribute a newer revision of a board which the designer has not yet presented on his own site. So? Why are you wondering? Why Mai waited to present it until LinuxWorld? Ask Mai's marketing people, I have only asked they guy who designed all Mai boards.

2. How come MAI accepts Eyetech giving out this as official information on their website? I mean, they even has links to Eyetech's website on their own, don't tell me they haven't noticed.

Technically, Eyetech wasn't outright lying on their site. When they wrote "this is not the TeronCX," Mai had not yet started distribution of the "commercial" TeronCX (and neither had Eyetech or anyone else, and only a few people in "the community" had even heard of Mai and the Terons, it was easy to get away with for the time being). It might also be that Eyetech thought that their dongle ROM disqualified the board from being a TeronCX any longer. It was just bending the truth a bit here and a bit there. An "Amiga" trademark apparently makes a whole lot of people swallow a whole lot of things

3. Hasn't even Bill McEwan himself declared you a liar already? I read three or four "untrue" statements from him as a reply to your FUD about them and their licensing policies in an interview on ExtremeTech recently. He also said that he will "set the record straight" and reply to that statement you made in their forums. Perhaps you should stay low for a while before you have that reply? I mean, atleast you know that they've heard you now so there's no need to keep shouting about it anymore.

Ah, yes the ET.com interview! That was a riot!

Seriously, you apparently being a proponent of the compulsory licensing/dongling/bundling restrictions should be having problems with McEwen stating that they don't exist. I also wonder what both Eyetech and Mai say about having the Teron/"AmigaOne" boards suddenly declared an AInc design and spec.
That interview was an embarrassment to the interviewer and the interviewee, nobody else, and I honestly expect you to agree with me on that point. One has to look hard to find anything in there that has any connection to reality.

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

"Old" AmigaOne G3SE??? Please share whatever you're smokin'...

I roll my own and I smoke a pipe, but there's nothing besides tobacco in it...

Yes, the old A1 G3SE. The one bandied about on various shows/occations, with a "don't worry, it's the 'developer' version" disclaimer. The one photographed over and over again. The VT82C686A SB one. The TeronCX "evaluation board."

Again, there was no revision 2 of the Teron CX when the A1 G3SE was announced and the specifications for the two boards did not match back then.

Samface, "announced" does not equal "for sale" or even "in production."

The "commercial" revision of the TeronCX is the "new" A1 G3SE. I don't see why that is so controversial, or why you consider it's "trolling" to say it.

[Seehund]

Graak wrote:
Even if the AmigaOneSE/XE boards are identical to the Teron CX/PX boards, does it really matter? I mean, what difference does it make?

Exactly. What's the fuss about? Where's the controversy that some people see? Why is it taboo in some groups to say it? Why were Eyetech trying to deny it initially?

I don't want any "special" hardware, there are no more Amigas. I want to buy AmigaOS and install it on hardware of my choice from the vendor I choose. People who want to buy AmigaOS shouldn't have to give a crap about hardware trademarks and licenses, only valid things like price, performance, availability and compatibility.

[Seehund]

GadgetMaster wrote:


@ Seehund and company

Companies need to make money
[megasnip]

I'll try to keep this short... To me it seems like you have totally misinterpreted everything that I have said so far (dunno what the "& co." people have said). IMO, the compulsory dongling/licensing/bundling/yadayada restrictions applied to AmigaOS is CONTRADICTORY to actually SELLING your product, AmigaOS. It's an obstacle in the way of seeing even a moderate commercial success and future for AmigaOS. Some try to excuse it with that the obstacle is easy to overcome, but there's no valid reason to have that obstacle there at all.

I don't care about any hardware distributor in particular, Eyetech or any other. It's just hardware. There's no reason to why consumers are supposed to play charity to one vendor over another just because of licensed trademarks. That, if anything, is looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses. It's simply incompatible with commercially sound practices in what IMO fortunately is a largely capitalistic world.

Yes, people can and will vote for products with their wallets, like things should be on a free market. There is however a big fat reason right there to make people "vote" for something else than AmigaOS, and that reason needs to be removed before "the election."

[Seehund]

samface wrote:
Hmmm... How do you know that? I mean, perhaps the tobacco company is only the trademark owner of what you think is a tobacco company? Perhaps they have outsourced the tobacco cultivation using certain licensing policies which restricts the cultivators from growing "real" tobacco. Ever thought of that?

By this little sarcasm, I just wanted to point out that by your reasoning, how do we know if any brand or product is "real"?

To retort, I know it's tobacco, I know I like the taste of it, and I know the price is agreeable to my wallet. That's all I need to know. Maybe it's "Drum" that has sold some stock of tobacco to "Samson," and I'm actually smoking "Drum" instead of "Samson."

So what? The trademark doesn't matter to me there, I still know that it's tobacco, I like the taste of it, and I like the price of it.

It's hardware, it can run my OS, I like it's features and price, I don't give a sh|t about what trademark somebody has slapped on it as long as those criteria are fulfilled. I shouldn't have to, there's no technical reason. Hardware is a commodity much like tobacco.

The "commercial" revision of the TeronCX is the "new" A1 G3SE. I don't see why that is so controversial, or why you consider it's "trolling" to say it.

Because there are no changes in the A1 G3SE specifications since Escena got out of the picture. Eyetech got a hold of a MAI evaluation board and modified it to suit their needs. Like Eyetech said, the original Teron CX wasn't even made for mass production in the first place.

"Because" what??  Why is it controversial to state the fact that Eyetech is distributing the Teron CX and PX, and why is it considered trolling to say it? Also, Eyetech neither designs nor modifies any designs of any motherboards.

Also, the newer Teron CX design is not the first "commercial" version, the so called "evaluation" board was even possible to buy in as large quantity as you wanted with prices in proportion to the quantity (more boards ---> lower price per board).

Sorry, I meant "consumer release," that's the term the guy who designed the CX used to describe it. And you have always been able to buy the "evaluation" version in single units for $300 directly from Mai, or from a VAR/distributor like Inguard.

That reminds me, I would like your reply to that thread which we never finished off properly on slashdot. You can reply here as I can simply cross post from there:

Oh, look at that, an old thread on Slashdot. Quaint. Hate to disappoint you, you "finish it off properly" instead, please. I don't know the proper procedure.

[Seehund]

Glaucus wrote:

Apple does it and they get away with it.  MacOS only runs (or is supposed to run) on hardware built by Apple.

You can't compare this with Apple. Apple makes, sells and makes a living on their Macs. They don't depend on anyone else to supply hardware for their OS.

In some aspects, you could compare it to how Apple killed off the clone market. Only in the AmigaOS case, there's no hardware to clone, and the OS isn't commercially attractive enough to have hardware vendors dedicate time, money or resources to adapting to the whims of an OS vendor, like Apple actually could get away with during the clone-times.

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

Amiga is a platform. [...] Their product is still a complete computer, not just an OS.

Read less marketing. It's harmful for you.

You see, joe avarage don't even want to nor know how to install the OS onto the hardware himself.

So if Joe Average actually would be interested in a little niche OS, he'd have the option to buy a bundled and licensed "AmigaOne(TM)" system if some vendor voluntarily would feel that Joe Average would be a suitable target market. Imagine that, options.

 For this reason, why sell the products seperately at all? I mean, when you bundle the OS with the hardware as one, won't that basicly kill piracy completely?

Of course not. AmigaOS will run on hardware from third parties, and no matter how much some may wish, nobody can control what happens with normal, "unlicensed" hardware. When OS4 has been out for two days, the dongle code will be cracked and it'll run on "unlicensed" hardware like Terons, and someone will hack it onto a Pegasos. Illegal copies will be the only copies running on normal hardware, even though people WANT TO BUY it. If someone gets a license for distribution with "dongled" Macs, normal Macs will run the OS within days too, and so on.

At the same time, the OS will actually be sold separately to the Amiga market for use with CS/Blizzard PPCs - without any protection.

Then we have people using the excuse "but vendors will be 'allowed' [how generous!] to use USB dongles or whatnot, ROMs are only Eyetech's solution". This is the same as trying to say that a dongle is more efficient when it's distributed by a licensed hardware vendor, than when it's sold in a shrinkwrapped OS package.

The "anti piracy" excuse is so transparent. It's only function is as a hardware-license verification mechanism, it cannot hinder software piracy.

Also, if we should learn something from the x86 market, then it is the power of the preinstalled bootstrap code.

WTF does licensing/dongling/bundling requirements have to do with bootloaders in this case? You're not trying to suggest that an AmigaOS installation should prevent dual booting are you? Or that people already using other OSes on PPC boxen cannot install AmigaOS due to bootloader issues?

[Seehund]

samface wrote:

Now would be a good time to serve the proof, the accusations are starting to become stronger than our stomachs can digest.

What accusations? And why the pluralis maiestatis? I think you're pretty alone in regarding a statement like "company X does not design motherboards, they're a distributor" as an accusation! It's a damn business description.

That's not what their website used to say.

I know, I found the "$3,900" or whatever it is listed so odd that I actually e-mailed them a question about it and got a clarifying reply... A revolutionary concept, this e-mail thing.

[Seehund]

ShadesOfGrey wrote:

BUT this does not preclude licensing terms for a 'retail' or 'consumer' version not bundle with hardware (well, beyond a USB/serial/parallel dongle).

Do you concede this?

No, I don't, neither does AInc in their marketing announcements nor in their (and others'...)  subsequent "clarifications"; "we aren't going to sell a shrink wrap" and so on and so on.

Unless otherwise explicitly stated, this message is not meant to affirm nor deny, defend nor offend any faction within the 'Amiga' Community.

LOL! Excellent disclaimer! Sucks that it's apparently needed though.