0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yeah... But strictly speaking, the OS4-Filesysbox is based on version 0.730 that was open sourced under the APL license in 2011. The Filesysbox that has been part of MorphOS since 2012 or so, is *not* open sourced. But like the OS4-MUI also suggests (which is *not* based on the real MorphOS MUI4.2 sources BTW; some third party OS4 SW developers got a hold of the sources to an early alfa of MUI 4 and set out to fill in the gaps themselves), there surely seems to be a strong desire to walk in MorphOS's footsteps, feature wise, doesn't it? This is what makes ssolie's comment in your quote above so funny, as well as his and other "OS4 peoples" comments elsewhere throughout history about MorphOS features, like MUI! On the one hand they think those features are irrelevant, unwanted or even bad things that they publicly discredit when it's on MorphOS, on the *other* hand they praise it when it's on OS4 (as third party contributions of course, since Hyperion hasn't paid their developers what they owe, resulting in not so much real development of Hyperion owned OS4 IP gets done in-house anymore). This is a common phenomenon in totalitarian regimes whose existence is perceived threatened by other/better ways; in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), George Orwell coined the word "doublethink" for this phenomenon:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoublethinkAnyway, question is, if what they want is MorphOS's features, why aren't they simply using the real thing instead? :p :lol:If that man spent half the time he spends on locking threads to do some actual development instead, then maybe some work may actually be done?:p
"Don't bother trying to manipulate priorities by pointing out some unrelated OS has this or that feature. It won't work."Haha and now they did port the thing from MorphOS sources The irony at its best
Since when MUI is a "MorphOS feature"? Or CyberGrafX?
