X2000 or sue ... your comments

[takemehomegrandma]

What, no "pancakes"?

Seriously, if you have a case, then either go ahead instead of just talking, or don't do anything and shut up then as well. In either case, don't talk about it, until afterwards perhaps. A poll like this is strange, you will never get any sympathies for something lile this, especially not against A-eon, Hyperion, etc. They simply can't do anything wrong, hence they can't be blamed for anything, and anyone even suggesting otherwise will be lynched like a child molestor.

Look, cut your losses, sell the X1000 (if possible), and get a MorphOS system...

[takemehomegrandma]

IMHO, that picture is somewhat misguiding, in more than one way.

[takemehomegrandma]

Not really because MUI4 in OS4 can't be the same what MorphOS currently has. It is always left little behind because Hyperion must wait new MorphOS SDK is released in order to implement changes to their development tree. It is not important though.

Do you know if Stefan Stuntz was actually paid for this, or gave his blessing to it anyway? I knew they had permission to ship MUI 3 with OS4, but doing something like this is different. I'm asking because other OS4 developers are left unpaid and Hyperion has historically shown to have a special view on their rights regarding other peoples IP.

[takemehomegrandma]

I don't speak for Stefan and don't know his dealings (I never ask him because it is none of my business). AFAIK he is not involved but he gets paid by Hyperion due to license agreement.

Why I ask is because back when Stefan Stuntz developed MUI4, he posted some progress reports where he said that he rewrote and improved the internals of MUI conciderably. But if I understands this OS4 thingy correct (what you and others say), it's still MUI3 but with some new third party written classes that resembles MUI4 based on info from the MorphOS SDK? Hyperion paid(?) for being allowed to bundle MUI3 (not MUI4?) with their OS, and then try to create a MUI4 API on their own, and then *call* it "MUI4"?

[takemehomegrandma]

@ utri007

I wrote this on MZ and copy/pasting it here:

guruman wrote:
Our MUI4 (I'd say, to avoid confusion, the only MUI4) is version 4.2, copyrighted 2012 by Stefan Stunz. Their is 4.0, copyrighted 2006 Stefan Stunz.

The only public stable (non-beta) version of MUI that existed back in 2006 was MUI 3. A few (2?) public betas of MUI 4 was released after that over a few years before it formally arived in MorphOS 2.0 in mid-2008.

That the info screen of the OS4 "MUI4" says:
(C) 1992-2006 Stefan Stuntz
(C) 2006-2013 Thore Böckelmann, Jens Maus

...means that this is *NOT* the MUI4 that Stefan Stuntz spent a few years developing post 2006, it's something else, developed by some others. And to confirm this, itix heard from an OS4 beta tester that this is something Hyperion built themselves on top of the MUI3.9 they bundle with OS4.

I'd also say that the internals of MUI4, which were completely and heavily rewritten, are completely different for this release.

Of course, they are simply not there, since the internals in OS4 "MUI4" is MUI3.9!

As far as I can tell, these are most of the functionalities of MUI4 needed for Odyssey and MPlayer built on top of MUI 3.9.

Indeed, that seems exactly how this is. It's MUI 3.9 with selected custom written third party classes added, and a "MUI4" sticker slapped on. A "bastard fork", that will (as itix says) always be a little left behind because Hyperion must wait new MorphOS SDK to be released in order to implement changes to their development tree.

Feel free to correct any errors, but please do it by bringing new info to the table, and not by some pointless "TakeMeHomeGrandma isn't a reliable source of info"...

[takemehomegrandma]

SSolie promised "MUI 4, like MorphOS already has" except this "MUI4" isn't actually what he claims it to be.

If he were honest and said "We will be enhancing MUI3.9 with our own reimplementations of MUI4 classes from MorphOS to facilitate easier porting of MorphOS software to OS4" then he would have more credibility.

See here for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

I fully agree.

I think it's inderstandable if they want to implement a framework to make it easier to port and maintain modern MUI apps like Odyssey and mplayer etc, but there is more to MUI4 than the those classes. AFAIK, MUI4 meant big rewrites of the MUI internals, it was developed by Stefan Stuntz from 2006 and onwards. IMHO it's a bit unfortunate to call something "MUI4" if it would indeed be "MUI3.9 with a select set of new classes". That would he confusing.

If not outright misleading.

[takemehomegrandma]

@ cgutjahr, utri007

TakeMeHomeGrandma isn't a reliable source of info

It seems that this was full of errors, what is current situation? And could you please admit that you are speculating?

Please read what I wrote once again before bringing out the tar and feathers, and pay attention to the context and points in timeline. It was all reasonable arguments based on the limited sources of info that existed, and not a statement that this would be solid facts, I asked you (or anyone else) to provide more/better info on the matter. And the fact is that the info on this is *still* very limited. And actually, it still seems it isn't *the* MUI4, it seems that *it is* an independent fork (as long as it isn't based on MorphOS sources), an "OS4-MUI4" which level of original compatibility is still unknown (although higher than first expected, and probably good enough for Odyssey porting, etc). Or do you want to bet *your* names to be "reliable sources of info" stating the opposite as *facts* (and not speculations, as you do now - speculating - but in "the other direction")?

If you release something like this, without *any kind* of formal communication on the matter, you create an information vacuum that is destined to nurture speculations. IMHO this was a deliberate move from the OS4 team lead. Either as a way to create headlines for their feature, or as a way to gloat and laugh at the resulting speculations they *knew* would follow. Just like you do now. It's like MorphOS and AROS suddenly would be released as "Amiga OS" (for the sake of discussion, registered trade marks aside), since they have OS 3.1 API compatibility and mimicked/re-implemented functionality, but still being a forked product from what was developed by the OS 3.1 authors. And with no further information communicated upon release, be sure that discussions and speculations would follow. You two would most certainly be "contributors" in that discussion.

Lack of communication has always been the Hyperion/OS4 way. I think it's deliberate. And this situation was no different.

The results is a given.

[takemehomegrandma]

A few other voices on the matter (that I happens to agree with or at least think has a point or a few) from elsewhere:

I'm almost certain that, three years from now, OS4 will make the jump onto old Macs and complete the mimicry. Well, they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

OS4 is an OS founded and developed on a series of huge mistakes, driven by fanboy ideology. The first blunder they made was cheating out Amiga Inc - whom they should never have gotten involved with in the first place. Then there was trying to base the OS on original source, meaning a double-cycle and very long winded development that lost them most of their users while they waited for the first release.

ReAction was a minor blunder - a gui toolkit that proved so tricky to put anything together with, that most people simply didn't bother. But we remember why they made it - "MUI is buggy, bloated crap". The irony.

To just survive, they've had to get around their constant blunders the hard way. MorphOS made none of these problems to maim itself, and therefore OS4 can only follow years behind, a pale shadow crippled by the same people who made it.

What's next, dropping P96 for CGX? NSD for TD64? PPC for x86?

> I find the news about Hyperion releasing

Hyperion isn't releasing anything. This is Jens and Thore, the MUI 'fanboys' amongst the OS4 developers.

It probably got released like this ('Xmas update'), because nothing else was available. Got to keep the potential X2000 customers happy.

> I won't even bother touching legality here, that is for the MorphOS team and
> Stefan Stuntz to decide.

Good thing you mentioned it then.

> On one hand I guess this is a good thing for OS4 users. This should open
> the door to easier ports of key MorphOS software such as OWB and Ambient.

Porting MUI3 was necessary because of backwards compatibility. Porting MUI4 - which is only required by one application so far - and releasing it this way is like publicly telling people your own GUI toolkit sucks. Which it doesn't, even if it still lacks a feature or two.

It's a bad move that should have never happened. But given the state of the project, they can't be too picky about what they offer as "updates":

Timberwolf dead? Gallium/SMP only existing in the heads of some wannabe leaders? The W3D drivers that Trevor had "hoped to have ready" for AmiWest 2012 still not released?

MUI4 at least gives the impression of progress.

> Considering OS4 is moving from Reaction to a newer MUI

It's not, Reaction is still 'actively' (cough) developed and still the official GUI system for OS4.

> Porting MUI3 was necessary because of backwards compatibility. Porting MUI4
> - which is only required by one application so far - and releasing it this
> way is like publicly telling people your own GUI toolkit sucks. Which it
> doesn't, even if it still lacks a feature or two.

Except it does. Every sane Amiga programmer knows ClassAct sucks compared to MUI (even compared to 3.8 MUI) and it only became the de-facto OS standard UI kit, because it was sort of available for the purpose, and Amiga Technologies and Haage und Partner couldn't make up a proper deal to include MUI as the default kit as it always should have been.

> MUI4 at least gives the impression of progress.

Releasing a random 2006 source snapshot + a random patch set of "MUI4" gives the impression of progress? If you say so... Actually, IIRC OWB up to version 1.19 was still working with MorphOS 1.4.5 and with some early 2007(?) MUI4/MorphOS beta stuntzi released back then. (Newer OWB doesn't work because it needs classes and libraries only present in MorphOS 3.0+.) Which means the "hard work to implement missing things" as they always praised it was nothing but a release of already existing functionality in the sources they got and hacked until it sort of worked on OS4. My best bet is they probably only released MUI4 because they were forced to, since they failed to backport some required stuff into their 3.9 line to make OWB 1.16 work...

[takemehomegrandma]

@vox. Why do you have TMHG's avatar? I thought you were him until nic pointed it out. I can only assume this is your attempt at trolling. If so, can you stop it?

Thanks Kesa.

I want my avatar back, vox!

Here is something for you instead: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Ultravox_ultravox.jpg

:idea:

[takemehomegrandma]

+1

There is only one TMHG :-)

Enough is enough, right?

:eek: