only Amigaos

[MikeB]

AmigaOS4 may be the only official successor to classic AmigaOS, but however there are many AmigaOS-inspired OSes.

To be qualified as being AmigaOS-like or maybe just inspired is very much dependent on the Eye of the Beholder. Some think only MorphOS (in combination with the ABOX environment) and AROS qualify as such, others would include BeOS (and clones), AtheOS, intent and many others on the list as well.

However most modern operating systems which nowadays support advanced multimedia and multitasking features could be considered Amiga-inspired in various ways. And if Amiga application compatibility would make an OS count as a qualified Amiga successor solution then every OS supplied with an UAE solution could fit this decription. Including for example Linux, Windows and MacOS.

[MikeB]

@ bloodline

MOS is clever... and is different to all of the above... it's a bit like two OS's running together... hmmm, that's a bad description... nevermind, you get the idea.

It's a bit like a closed sourced AROS running hosted on top of Linux or i.e. QNX Neutrino and hiding the underlying technology a la Bernie's Amithlon.

IMO cooperation between MOS and AmigaOS developers could have been very interesting. Instead of hosting re-implemented AmigaOS-like modules on top of the Quark kernel / re-implemented OS3.1 Exec kernel combination (i.e. pieces including AROS code), AmigaOS4 modules could have been used and could IMO have provided an interesting stepping stone towards a non-hosted AmigaOS4 environment.

But maybe the current situation will eventually be better in the long run, resulting into more diversity for potential OS components to be replaced in the future, this depending on different desires of potential users and companies.

[MikeB]

@ Downix

A re-implemented Exec kernel is hosted on top of the Quark kernel. Currently if you remove the re-implemented Exec, everything including the GUI, DOS, driver system, etc will all fail and you would end up with a very bare Quark kernel based environment. (You might refer to this bare environment as "MorphOS", but when I speak of "MorphOS", I mean the complete current environement and so in combination with the ABOX).

This has been one of my greatest concerns in the past: What will MorphOS be like in combination with its QBOX environment (directly using Quark instead of indirectly through a secondary Exec-like kernel, a la ABOX). If it would be entirely different from the ABOX environment, then what would make MorphOS stand out in comparison to other microkernel based OSes including QNX? I have had quite a bit of discussions with certain Genesi employees with regard to this. Currently MorphOS' Amiga application compatibily is its main selling point.

Some of the userbase seem to think that the ABOX will continue to be transparently available within the QBOX. But I believe this cannot be correct as Amiga applications need a complete Exec-like based Workbench-like or at the very least AmigaDOS-like environment to be run, which I believe would at best result into a solution similar of usage as for example UAE on QNX (Amiga XL) currently provides.

[MikeB]

@ Downix

While, yes, in theory someone could turn the ABox into a 100% native OS with some work, then you'd loose 90% of it's potency.

IMO compared to the currently provided solution, this would be preferable (Similar like PPCLinux is prefered by almost all Linux users over MkLinux usage). With hosting something like AROS or AmigaOS on top Linux or QNX the advantage of having many hardware drivers available to the host OS is obvious. However Quark does not offer these advantages.

It's an additional layer which negatively effects performance, this despite the good performance provided by solutions like MorphOS and Amithlon on modern hardware.

The only disadvantage I see is that Quark kernel features like memory protection, (features the ABOX environment itself does not really benefit from) could not be advertised anymore (marketing). But from the user point of view there wouldn't be any difference compared to the current solution. (usage)

My view regarding the benefits of a two kernel approach provided by various solutions:

- Amithlon => Many available Linux hardware drivers
- intent => Platform independence
- MorphOS => Marketing? (Could IMO backfire, if users discover that they cannot take advantage of the advertised features)

[MikeB]

@ gary_c

This is an unknown since the details aren't worked out, but it seems like an opportunity more than a problem.

Quark functions very differently as compared to the Amiga Exec kernel (else a re-implemented Exec kernel hosted on top would not be needed).

Of course this offers oppertunities, just like Zeta, BSD, Linux, QNX, AtheOS, etc, etc. do. However as an Amigan I am mostly interested in being offered an AmigaOS-like environment, for example also in terms of structure.

Both MorphOS and AmigaOS have to become more than simply environments to run old Amiga apps.

As you can read in the feature list, interviews and roadmaps you see that AmigaOS will be far more than just an Amiga compatible environment. The new ExecSG kernel has been designed to be able to *extend* AmigaOS' features, including for example memory protection.