Wither Natami?

[Piru]

You said that basically the whole shared library method would have to be discarded due to memory sharing issues.

And my example only provided one reason for it.

Others include the problem the fact that you'd need to have different library base per caller. Something that doesn't work with many libraries.

I need a solid example why a library would need to allow multiple callers to access structures allocated by the other.

diskfont.library, dos.library, asl.library, locale.library, rexxsyslib.library, realtime.library, commodities.library, datatypes.library, card.resource, timer.device, keyboard.device, trackdisk.device, graphics.library, intuition.library, layers.library, gadtools.library, exec.library, utility.library at least.

Of 3rd party libs reqtools, xadmaster, xfdmaster, openurl, muimaster, ixemul at least.

[the_leander]

quarkx wrote:
Ok, even though I am new here, I wanted to drop a few comments from a "New" Amiga user on this subject.
Fist, I have been trying "different" emulators of vintage computers for years, and they all lack from a newbies point of view. You have to have all these tutorials open and even then you really can't do anything.With "real" hardware, you hook up and go, no problems, no "mounting" nothing. Example: The first thing I did was buy "Amiga Forever". I can boot it from the CD on my $7000 Voodoo laptop, get into workbench and then DO NOTHING!, the Amiga software on my hard drive is not recognizable. I can't access my CD Drives, absolutely nothing past the workbench screen. Now, I have to go and hunt down websites with tutorials on how to get it to see my drives, etc.- Biggest pain in the butt. I don't have time to mess around with it all.

I've run UAE under 4 different platforms, not one has ever given me issues like you're describing. Clearly, this is a pebkac issue.

quarkx wrote:
That is why "real" hardware will win out any day over emulation.

Right up to the point where your real hardware dies of old age. The A500 is 20 years old, it was designed with a service life of maybe 5.

quarkx wrote:
Second, some people HATE -and I mean DESPISE Linux or any form of it Period! If you want to impress these people, write an NEW OS that has NOTHING do do with Linux.

Some people also like Britney Spears, there is no accounting for taste.

quarkx wrote:
People who write on top of Linux for other "OS" are just plain lazy and can't create something on their own- not my thoughts but general view of the anti-Linux community. (THERE I SAID IT FLAME AWAY ).
 :crazy:

Lazy eh? Have you ever tried Amithlon? Ever tried porting an entire OS that you've first had to write from scratch to another platform? If not, you are in no position to call anyone lazy.

As for a supposed anti-linux community, there is a certain amount of irony in that without linux, you would have the internet as you do now - most servers online today, run either a Unix or Linux based solution. I wouldn't be surprised for instance, to learn that Amiga.org ran on a linux server.

Personally, I like my EeePC, with its appliance like stability and the fact it comes with everything I needed out of the box and didn't require me to spend hours farting around to get it going, plug in, turn on, insert modem setup modem via graphical wizard, go online, total time from box to net - 5 minutes. Beat that.

quarkx wrote:
I see the projects like mining and such as a step in the right direction, but until they can just "plug in and go" without having to hunt down every single little thing to make it work, it won't have the respect it deserves. The answers to why won't it read floppies, "oh , thats coming" is not acceptable. Natami looks promising, but if it is not Plug and play than it will never get the respect.It must be a full, working, system when its released.

Yes, because getting an A1200 to do anything remotely useful like go online, use a CD or dvd rom drive or RW is simplicity itself, requiring no hardware hacks, no need to crack open the case...

quarkx wrote:
Anyway's, thats just a newbies point of view. Of course I don't have the knowledge of some of you on the subject, and I apologize in advance for my naivety.

Nice try. Perhaps you should instead of commenting off the cuff should have sat down and actually read this thread and tried to take in some of the complexities involved.

[Hans_]

Piru wrote:

You said that basically the whole shared library method would have to be discarded due to memory sharing issues.

And my example only provided one reason for it.

No it didn't. I do not see any problem in your example that would kill the shared library model.

I need a solid example why a library would need to allow multiple callers to access structures allocated by the other.

diskfont.library, dos.library, asl.library, locale.library, rexxsyslib.library, realtime.library and commodities.library at least.

Of 3rd party libs reqtools, xadmaster, xfdmaster, openurl, muimaster at least.

Sigh. Naming libraries is not a solid example.

Hans

[Piru]

@Hans_

Naming libraries is not a solid example.

So if I explain why one of the libraries requires it will that be enough for you? (The same problem is in all of the libraries I listed. It is the very same problem I tried to demonstrate with the example library code, but apparently failed miserably)

[Hans_]

Piru wrote:
@Hans_

Naming libraries is not a solid example.

So if I explain why one of the libraries requires it will that be enough for you?

Yes. Assuming that I can't think of a method of dealing with the problem.

Hans

[quarkx]

OMG the rabid Linux Zelots show their teeth. get out the pitch forks and torches, lock up your women, someone disapproves of Linux

SamuraiCrow wrote:
@QuarkX

You've obviously never had to install Windows from scratch.  If you don't have the rescue CD from the manufacturer or are building a machine from the motherboard up, you have to hunt down drivers for everything but the install CD.

I have to do at least 5-6 Windows XP installs a day - everyday on different machines, We "Downgrade" Vista to XP here all the time, but I agree the hunting of the drivers takes time.

the_leander wrote:
Personally, I like my EeePC, with its appliance like stability and the fact it comes with everything I needed out of the box and didn't require me to spend hours farting around to get it going, plug in, turn on, insert modem setup modem via graphical wizard, go online, total time from box to net - 5 minutes. Beat that.

My EEEPC never once booted to Linux, from the first time it was powered on, straight to an XP install.If XP came pre-installed with that model, it would be less the 5 minutes also to be on the net etc. I fail to see any correlation here between what I was talking about, But it's very apparent that the Linux fans will jump on anyone who says otherwise about Linux. But that's not my point. My point, is that Linux is far too often used as a kernal for "Other" OS's. It takes some real imagination, work and thought to create something totally new. The best analogy I can think of is when a sculptor creates a new statue with clay (lets say a figure of a man) then someone else comes along and paints a new shirt on them. That is the way I see it. It may take ages to hand paint a shirt on the stature, but at the end of the day, its not really creative or imaginative.

Yes, I re-read this thread 3 times before posting my "off the cuff" remarks, I just wanted to let you guys know what a newbies sees coming into this. I don't what this to turn out a Linux fighting thread either, so I will not make any more comments on it, for it is a far too tired old debate anyway. If you like Linux, all the power to you, but don't go crapping all over the people that dislike it.

[the_leander]

Hans_ wrote:

I need a solid example why a library would need to allow multiple callers to access structures allocated by the other.

diskfont.library, dos.library, asl.library, locale.library, rexxsyslib.library, realtime.library and commodities.library at least.

Of 3rd party libs reqtools, xadmaster, xfdmaster, openurl, muimaster at least.

Sigh. Naming libraries is not a solid example.

Hans

Perhaps you might consider Bloodline's suggestion to download the AROS source? Maybe even look at the aros forums to see where all the problems are.

[Hans_]

the_leander wrote:

Hans_ wrote:

I need a solid example why a library would need to allow multiple callers to access structures allocated by the other.

diskfont.library, dos.library, asl.library, locale.library, rexxsyslib.library, realtime.library and commodities.library at least.

Of 3rd party libs reqtools, xadmaster, xfdmaster, openurl, muimaster at least.

Sigh. Naming libraries is not a solid example.

Hans

Perhaps you might consider Bloodline's suggestion to download the AROS source? Maybe even look at the aros forums to see where all the problems are.

Searching for a problem that you think doesn't exist is kind of hard.

Hans

[Piru]

@Hans_

utility.library/AddNamedObject
utility.library/RemNamedObject
utility.library/AttemptRemNamedObject

These named objects are in a global tree which can be modified by any caller. For additional headache, the objects can be removed by different task, too. Read the autodocs for details.

This stuff is clearly broken if each task has it's own memory space.

dos.library/AddDosEntry

This function adds the given dosentry to the internal global doslist. Some things (filesystems, apps) allocate the dosnodes themselves and pass them to the AddDosEntry (among other things it means you can't safely free a dosentry you remove). With MP this concept would be horribly broken.

dos.library/LoadSeg
dos.library/UnLoadSeg

LoadSeg allocates memory for the segments in the context of the caller. Yet somehow this memory should at some point change ownership. Similarily UnLoadSeg is often called by different task than that called the LoadSeg. Shell and Workbench do this, aswell as ramlib (see below).

ramlib
exec/OpenLibrary
exec/OpenDevice
exec/OpenResource
exec/AllocMem etc

ramlib calls LoadSeg to load the library/device/resource, yet expunge gets called by totally unrelated task:

If system runs out of memory or "avail flush" is performed, the system will attempt to free memory by calling the "lowmemhandlers". These handlers get called in the context of the AllocMem caller, meaning that different task will call library/device/resource Init and Expunge vectors.

I'll add more examples if needed.

[kolla]

Windows is fully POSIX compliant, MacOSX is fully POSIX compliant, as are a whole range of other OSes. Surprizingly, Linux is listed as being mostly POSIX compliant (not fully).

Hans

This must be the first time I have ever seen anyone claim Windows to be fully POSIX compliant. What do you mean, through cygwin? I think you're rambling.

AFAIK the only OSes that really care/cared about POSIX compliance was the commercial UNIX systems. FreeNIX systems like Linux and *BSD, only stick with POSIX when it makes sense, no suprise there. MacOSX only became POSIX compliant in its latest release, iirc.

[the_leander]

quarkx wrote:
OMG the rabid Linux Zelots show their teeth. get out the pitch forks and torches, lock up your women, someone disapproves of Linux

Oi, trollboy, pack it in.

quarkx wrote:

the_leander wrote:
Personally, I like my EeePC, with its appliance like stability and the fact it comes with everything I needed out of the box and didn't require me to spend hours farting around to get it going, plug in, turn on, insert modem setup modem via graphical wizard, go online, total time from box to net - 5 minutes. Beat that.

My EEEPC never once booted to Linux, from the first time it was powered on, straight to an XP install.If XP came pre-installed with that model, it would be less the 5 minutes also to be on the net etc. I fail to see any correlation here between what I was talking about,

Simple, in 2-8 months time I won't be needing to reinstall the OS because it has imploded. The interface was custom built to work with a small screensize, it just works. All your applications are there, good to go.

quarkx wrote:
 But it's very apparent that the Linux fans will jump on anyone who says otherwise about Linux.

Look, your first post in this thread was borderline trolling, your second is flat out trolling. Knock it off.

If you insist on spreading FUD based on nothing but your own bias you should expect to be called on it, repeatedly, culminating in your being laughed out of any thread you visit.

quarkx wrote:
But that's not my point. My point, is that Linux is far too often used as a kernal for "Other" OS's.

When the OS in question is as behind the times as AmigaOS is, it makes sound sense to use Linux or something similar as an abstraction layer to enable it's use on modern hardware.

quarkx wrote:
It takes some real imagination, work and thought to create something totally new.

The problem here, if you had bothered to read and understand this thread, is not that there is a lack of imagination, but a lack of skills, time, money and need to create what you deem to be the way forward.

quarkx wrote:
 The best analogy I can think of is when a sculptor creates a new statue with clay (lets say a figure of a man) then someone else comes along and paints a new shirt on them. That is the way I see it. It may take ages to hand paint a shirt on the stature, but at the end of the day, its not really creative or imaginative.

You fail. Please hand in your analogy licence. Read and understand this damn thread to find out why what your saying is so much horsecrap for the love of gods!

quarkx wrote:
Yes, I re-read this thread 3 times before posting my "off the cuff" remarks,

Clearly, understanding is not your forte, perhaps you should have asked questions about the bits you didn't understand, rather then comming into this with an anti linux troll.

quarkx wrote:
I don't what this to turn out a Linux fighting thread either,

Really, so why the trolling?

quarkx wrote:
If you like Linux, all the power to you, but don't go crapping all over the people that dislike it.

When said people are trolling they will get crapped on, regardless of what the issue is, welcome to Amiga.org.

[quarkx]

Fine, Trolling it is?
No one is allowed to state their Point of View if it doesn't mash with yours, then its trolling is it?
If I dare talk out against Linux and try to make a point its trolling is it ?
No one is alowwed to poke a bit of fun when people tke things WAAY too seriously
ok.. have fun with that...

Maybe then the moderators should re-write the definition of trolling that correlates with your point of view. It sounds like your way or the high way. fine.. I am out of here..

the_leander wrote:

quarkx wrote:



When said people are trolling they will get crapped on, regardless of what the issue is, welcome to Amiga.org.

[Hans_]

Piru wrote:
@Hans_

utility.library/AddNamedObject
utility.library/RemNamedObject
utility.library/AttemptRemNamedObject

These named objects are in a global tree which can be modified by any caller. For additional headache, the objects can be removed by different task, too. Read the autodocs for details.

Ok, an API of a library that needs to be changed. If the named objects were used within a single application then it wouldn't be a problem with a threading model (i.e., extend the idea of a sub-process or thread to the memory protection scheme). It shouldn't be used to communicate/transfer objects between applications.

dos.library/AddDosEntry

This function adds the given dosentry to the internal global doslist. Some things (filesystems, apps) allocate the dosnodes themselves and pass them to the AddDosEntry (among other things it means you can't safely free a dosentry you remove). With MP this concept would be horribly broken.

Again, library specific API design. We've already talked about how the DOS library would need a lot of work.

ramlib
exec/OpenLibrary
exec/OpenDevice
exec/OpenResource
exec/AllocMem etc

ramlib calls LoadSeg to load the library/device/resource, yet expunge gets called by totally unrelated task:

If system runs out of memory or "avail flush" is performed, the system will attempt to free memory by calling the "lowmemhandlers". These handlers get called in the context of the AllocMem caller, meaning that different task will call library/device/resource Init and Expunge vectors.

In an MP environment, the library/device/resource code would have to be loaded into memory that is marked as shared read-only and executable. As such the whole loading and unloading mechanism would have to be modified to make that happen. Just because everything currently happens in the caller's task doesn't mean that it has to be that way. An application programmer won't notice the difference if you change the way that libraries load.

You've identified a number of issues with existing APIs that would indeed have to be addressed, but nothing that I would say kills the shared library system. Really, if shared objects/DLLs work on MP systems then I see no reason why shared libraries would fail.

Hans

[amigadave]

cicero790 wrote:
@amigadave

Absolutely ;-)  Who could have imagined fantastic things like MINIMIG and NATAMI then they closed production of the original models. Its a miracle. And AROS is also a miracle IMHO.

Exactly my point cicero79,

There were hundreds, if not thousands who screamed that the Amiga could never be emulated on a Windows PC when WinUAE was being developed, there were dozens that screamed MiniMig was a hoax and there are dozens again that are saying that NatAmi will never be a reality.

I can't believe this thread is still going.  Hans and a few others are writing about what could be done with something new, even if it breaks compatibility with past Amiga OSes and the few that are arguing with him are writing that nothing can be done, will ever be done, no group or company will ever produce a modern Amiga-like OS beyond what we have now with AOS4 and MOS2, which will never have certain features that modern OSes have today.

It must be great to have the ability to see into the future like that.  I wonder why they have not used their future sight to win the lottery yet!  :lol:

They don't seem to know the difference between improbable and impossible.  For a definition of impossible see: WinUAE, MiniMig, ...............

Edit: Thread appears to be way off topic by now.

[the_leander]

quarkx wrote:


Fine, Trolling it is?

Yes, it is.

quarkx wrote:
No one is allowed to state their Point of View if it doesn't mash with yours, then its trolling is it?

Just because you are entitled to an opinion doesn't mean is has any factual basis. Get off your high horse.

quarkx wrote:
If I dare talk out against Linux and try to make a point its trolling is it ?

Why would you need to demean an entire OS ecosystem to make a point? And that's the point here - If your point has any validity you shouldn't need to attack something else. It should be able to stand on it's own merits.

 

quarkx wrote:
No one is alowwed to poke a bit of fun when people tke things WAAY too seriously
ok.. have fun with that...

Again, grow up.

quarkx wrote:

Maybe then the moderators should re-write the definition of trolling that correlates with your point of view. It sounds like your way or the high way. fine.. I am out of here..

And again, grow up and get over yourself. If you cannot engage in a reasonable discussion but resort to FUD then cry when called on it, then really, why are you online?

I see you haven't once addressed the points made regarding why your opinion is in error.

[Piru]

@Hans_

You've identified a number of issues with existing APIs that would indeed have to be addressed, but nothing that I would say kills the shared library system.

The MP issues I've listed are just part of the problem, more like annoyances, icky things you would need to fix all over the place. There are other similar issues that add to the workload, such as global variables being used on disk based libraries.

Each caller would need to get their own library base. Also, to allow static data (disk based libraries) you'd need to somehow clone the data hunks for each caller and handle the relocation. In all this would end up being closer to .so than the classical shared library system. Thus my claim that it would kill the shared library system (as we know it).

This all combined with other problems introduced by SMP, resource tracking etc make me wonder if this would be worth the trouble.

This is my view. If you don't agree, fine.