The OpenAmiga Standard

[filson]

Maybe it would be better to create a seperate section for ppl to look at if they were in doubt of the meaning of the specification.
It can easily become very messy if all things have to be explained all together with the specification.  :-)

and it would make my life easier  :-D  :-D

filson wrote:
Maybe it would be better to create a seperate section for ppl to look at if they were in doubt of the meaning of the specification.
It can easily become very messy if all things have to be explained all together with the specification.  :-)

and it would make my life easier  :-D  :-D

Definately.

I'll knock up some draft text tommorow at lunch, and whenever the boss ain't looking!

greenboy wrote:
i haven't looked yet but based on past performance I can sure guess who it is.

:lol:

[GadgetMaster]

filson wrote:
Maybe it would be better to create a seperate section for ppl to look at if they were in doubt of the meaning of the specification.
It can easily become very messy if all things have to be explained all together with the specification.  :-)

and it would make my life easier  :-D  :-D

I smell a FAQ coming up

This sure is a strange community, one minute we're all fighting and the next we're all trying to work together. ;-)

I hope something positive comes out of all this.

[gnarly]

mdma wrote:
Mon HTML est tres merde, monsieur.  I can add the common API's to the current site, but I need someone with HTML skills to make something pretty! :-D

Its for programmers - it doesnt need to be pretty. Just write structurally sound xHTML - ie doctype, headings (h1 h2 h3 etc), paras, lists (ul ol etc), that sort of thing.

When Amizilla is complete we can then think about prettifying it with CSS :-)

GadgetMaster wrote:

filson wrote:
Maybe it would be better to create a seperate section for ppl to look at if they were in doubt of the meaning of the specification.
It can easily become very messy if all things have to be explained all together with the specification.  :-)

and it would make my life easier  :-D  :-D

I smell a FAQ coming up

This sure is a strange community, one minute we're all fighting and the next we're all trying to work together. ;-)

I hope something positive comes out of all this.

This is our own COMMUNITY project, not some company's product so we define it and we can all have our say.  I think we have needed something like this for a long while.

The website will need lots more, but it's a start.

[greenboy]

Yeah, many of the best development-oriented sites skip the fancy layout entirely and get right to the core material. Simple text, good organization with extensive hyperlinks, pdf white papers when required.

The rest of that stuff is for the whack jobs ; } ...Unfortunately one often has to cater to them ; }

[gnarly]

greenboy wrote:
The rest of that stuff is for the whack jobs ; } ...Unfortunately one often has to cater to them ; }

And that, Greenboy, is what I'm employed to do ;-)

[bloodline]

GadgetMaster wrote:

filson wrote:
Maybe it would be better to create a seperate section for ppl to look at if they were in doubt of the meaning of the specification.
It can easily become very messy if all things have to be explained all together with the specification.  :-)

and it would make my life easier  :-D  :-D

I smell a FAQ coming up

This sure is a strange community, one minute we're all fighting and the next we're all trying to work together. ;-)

I hope something positive comes out of all this.

It's been a log time coming!!!

But it is great to see so many people who generally moan and fight, come together and agree on something.
It seems we all want something that is so simple, but will ultimately benefit everyone.  :-)

What we really need is some heavy weight behind the idea, to show just how important this is.

[greenboy]

Oddly enough it's easy talking with people who generally rather agreeable anyway, and who don't feel like total nuclear destruction is the only way to make headway ; }

[Karlos]

Wow, this thread sure exploded in size since I was looking here last :-o

I think OpenAmiga is a great idea. Very constructive for the community too :-)

Such an anodyne to all the tedious MOS v OS4 stuff!

[Targhan]

@uncharted:
 Great Avatar.  Very humorous.  It's nice to see folks can still carry a sense of humor around.

@The Topic:
 I don't have any inside knowledge of this topic, but I think having some level of cross-ppc compatability would be nice for the end user.  Whether or not it would be good for either or both platforms, I do not know.  Heck, I wouldn't even venture a guess at this point!

[Dagon]

BTW what category would this go under in OSNews? Amiga or MorphOS wouldn't really be right.

It's gone up under Amiga news.

So when we will see it in the Amiga related news sites?

Amiga.org
ANN
Czech AN
AmigArt
AmigaWorld
MorphOS-News
VGR News
GFX-Base
Amiga University (I know it isn`t a news site :-) )




It will be useful if someone wrote a readme file that says some info about OpenAmiga standards etc to be included in all programs that stick to them.

YAM, Amizila, AWeb are potential programs for the openAmiga standard (I know Aweb doesn`t use MUI, but they could make a version with MUI also, and Amizilla hasn`t start yet if I`m not mistaken)

[Rodney]

DaveP wrote:
Hmmm.

I like the basis behind the idea but I think you will have a problem choosing either CyberGFX or Picasso96 "standards" as neither are particularly open or within our domain to control. Plus I think you get into the Cyber vs Picasso debate. Given you have made the decision to throw away WOS and PUP may I suggest you throw away P96 and CGFX?

Also including MUI will cause similar strains. What would be more useful is if you just stuck to the AOS3.1 API as being the open standard revision #1 and then allow other bodies to submit revisions to that for sound, graphics and higher level interfaces.

This forces subcommittees to get the political and technical issues out of the way.

Sort of the way that CORBA is handled by OMG.

I like that idea. Having more then one library to do the same thing is a bit silly.  I'd think the OS3.1 APIs should be the path to stick to... Adding more libraries just adds fractures to the OS/community.

I think we should keep it simple. Both OSs will prolly support the base install of OS3.1  (through emulation or whatever) so i think OS3.1 is the place to start.

[Terminills]

Just a question wouldn't it be better to port gtk+ over instead of using mui?   As I see it this would shorten porting times of linux apps over in the future.  

[mdwh2]

Rodney wrote:
I like that idea. Having more then one library to do the same thing is a bit silly.  I'd think the OS3.1 APIs should be the path to stick to... Adding more libraries just adds fractures to the OS/community.

I think we should keep it simple. Both OSs will prolly support the base install of OS3.1  (through emulation or whatever) so i think OS3.1 is the place to start.

AIUI, the point about this is that it's a set of libraries/features which are available across the various AmigaOS clones. So MUI is included because it's available on AmigaOS and Morphos, and has a clone on AROS - not because they're trying to say it's "better" than Reaction, or are trying to split the community.

The problem with only supporting the basic OS3.1 API is that it's getting rather dated. Trying to program gadtools used to drive me insane.. later toolkits such as MUI are much more powerful.