Pegasos Gothenburg Show 2002 announced

[AmiGR]

The versions the announcement talks about runned AmigaOS 68k. It needed the Amiga chipset, so yes
it does run on Amiga hardware with the Phase5
PPC *EXPANSION/ACCELERATOR* cards.
Do you read? *EXPANSION* They *EXPAND* the Amiga hardware. They do no *REPLACE* it, so NO it
does *NOT* on Phase5 hardware it runs on Amiga
hardware expanded with the Phase5 PPC cards.

[samface]

So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.

*sigh*

[metaphor]

Police officer: I hereby arrest you for the murder on John F. Kennedy. You have the right to remain silent...

Murderer: But that was back then, officer! I don't kill people anymore and I'm nowadays an ordinary obidient citizen, promise!

Police officer: Oh? Well, ok then. You're free to go. Have a nice day!

[/metaphor]

Can you see the flaw in your argument? Please tell me that you do or do I have to spell it out for you?

[samface]

So yes, it did run AmigaOS 68k on PPC in
the year 2000, up to version 0.4. It just patched parts
of the OS to make it run on the emulator without
the need to emulate the custom chipset.

The versions the announcement talks about runned AmigaOS 68k. It needed the Amiga chipset, so yes
it does run on Amiga hardware with the Phase5
PPC *EXPANSION/ACCELERATOR* cards.

Hmmm... someone is getting confused by his own arguments, I see... FYI: That is a perfect example of how a contradiction looks like.

Anyway, what hardware an OS runs is defined by the CPU. MorphOS runs on the PowerUp boards from Phase5 and makes use of the Amiga hardware like an expansion board in contrary to the AmigaOS which runs on the Amiga hardware and makes use of the PowerUp boards as an expansion board.

[Seehund]

samface:

Repeat after me: Buying a motherboard design from a hardware designing company and then modifying it for your purposes is not the same thing as bying a ready made board.

I'd gladly repeat that, since it's a true logical relation. It is however not what Eyetech has done and it has no bearing on anything that we're "discussing" here... :- P

You know, the one Eyetech made on their own but couldn't use because Escena blahblahblah

Please. That's a "severely contrafactual description of history", to put it mildly! I see that AmiGR is trying to help you get it straight in another post.

Furthermore, drop this whole "Bill McEwen said" crap, you know just as well as I that his reply wouldn't be the same today.

I thought they only changed directions every six months or so? McEwen said this 3 weeks ago. Or are you saying that he 1. didn't know what he was talking about, 2. misspoke, or 3. lied? I see no reason for alternative 3 at least, so I suppose you once again feel it's your duty to make up excuses on the fly for the blunders of a commercial company and its executive employees.

And then, stop speculating about the AmigaOS5 and the AmigaDE. Just because they haven't told *you* about the details yet, does that mean that their plans in their office in Snowqualmie has to be "vague"? No.

No, but they have had since January 3rd, 2000 (or rather, since when they discovered that Elate could not be used as a basis for a desktop computer, let alone server, OS)  to explain in a less vague way what they will be doing and selling One Of These Days. I say that what's been presented so far regarding the DE is a vague concoction of virtually meaningless buzzwords aimed at .com investors. My opinion. Unless I have misunderstood you, you personally put your full trust to this marketing and thinks of it as the future for AmigaOS? When were you told all the "details"? My "speculations" are based on what's been publicly announced and said, what are your "speculations" based on? Hope? The belief of the inherent supernatural powers of a certain trademark and the competence, capabilities and Good Intentions(TM) that this trademark automatically brings to whomever that happens to own it at a certain time?

The "AmigaOne" trademark is a property of Amiga Inc. and they have defined it as hardware that has been ensured to run AmigaOS. Your definition mentioned in your post simply isn't true.

OK then,  "'AmigaOne' is a trademark currently used by one licensed distributor for the piece of hardware it's distributing. Nothing more and nothing less." It has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications.

They've decided to only make support for the hardware manufacturers willing to cooperate ...

There you go with that damn "cooperate" again. It's not healthy to swallow marketing that uncritically. Compulsory licensing/bundling/dongling is not a prerequisite for cooperation, it's EVIDENTLY an obstacle against cooperation.

You obviously don't have the capacity to comprehend their motive for this but yet you seem to be confident enough to challange their decission.

How utterly sad and embarrassing. I can imagine the fit of blinding trademark-induced rage you were in when you wrote that.

Aren't we lucky then that you are around to parrot press releases and marketing so we know everyone's true motives.

"Microsoft innovates. Mac users think different. Read my lips: no new taxes. Compulsory hardware licensing/bundling/dongling protects us, stops piracy and is necessary for cooperation." What a simple world we live in, where we don't have to think by ourselves, never read between the lines, believe all marketing and never have to form our own opinions and come to our own conclusions.

F*ck, that trademark is truely powerful.

Tell me, how come you think you know these things better than them? I've asked you this so many times without getting even as much an attempt to reply as you prefer to ramble on about your own vision on how you would have done things if you were the owner of the Amiga. Please, can't you even try giving me a reason for why I should listen to you at all?

WTF??? What the heck does it matter to you whether I'm a truck driver and a fired marketing executive or a Harvard MBA and a MIT CS PhD? Read or don't read what I say and judge BY YOURSELF damnit! There's no "impartial" force out there that will tell you whether anyone is right or wrong. If you want to listen to me is entirely up to you, although I'd appreciate if you'd do it if you're going to bother replying. I don't care who you are (unless you're affiliated with any of the discussed parties), I judge your(?) ideas after what you write and say and compare it to my own ideas.
By your odd reasoning we should ask why anyone should listen to you? Because you can repeat marketing material? I'm not asking, I don't care. I already listen to you, as I'm replying to what you say.

But anyway, Pegasos is not an Amiga computer.

Amiga computers: A1000, A500, A2000, A1500, A3000, A600, A4000, A1200... - Requiescat In Pace, damnit!

(Edit: misc. )

[AmiGR]

I didn't contradict myself... In the begining it needed
the chipset(until 0.4 I think). It did replace some
device drivers that couldn't run in their original form
but still needed the chipset for the rest. Later they
replaced more and more until it didn't need the chipset and as a matter of fact, didn't need AmigaOS
68k stuff at all. Clear now?

[AmiGR]

What you can't understand is that it's not illegal to run AmigaOS under an Amiga emulator on your
Amiga computer, using your original Kickstart ROM,
that is essentially installed on your hardware.
So if I made a new exec, patch it on AmigaOS
and run the rest of the OS normally, would I commit
a crime? If yes, go on and arrest the authors of AROS... It has been possible to do that for quite a long time. Run the AROS exec on Amiga hardware
and use the rest from the ROM.

[AmiGR]

The exec is the AmigaOS kernel, so yes you would
run AROS and AmigaOS on top of that. You just don't
need to emulate the 68k.

[samface]

Seehund, I'm not going to argue with you anymore except for about the stuff that is outright lies. Well, either that or the official information available is lying and I see no reason for why you would be a more reliable source of information than corporate websites.

1. You claim that Eyetech only buys ready made boards for redistribution as AmigaOne computers. Their official FAQ says differently and therefore I find your statement to be of little credibility.

2. You claim to know unofficial secrets about Amiga Inc.'s AmigaDE plans, supposedly told to you by Bill McEwan in person just three weeks ago. Once more you want me to believe this despite the fact that the official information says otherwise. Now here is where it gets really interesting; why would Bill McEwan tell you such a thing even if it was true when you haven't signed an NDA? Also, if you're such a "buddy" with Bill McEwan, how come you don't settle your issues with Amiga Inc. directly with him in person instead of spreading your dissatisfaction with them all over the net? Please help me straightening out these question marks and I would be really grateful...

3. You also claim that the AmigaOne license has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications. Once more that is untrue since a piece of hardware must be *ensured* to be AmigaOS4 compatible before beeing able to label itself as an AmigaOne computer.

The rest of your post I will argue about no more as we're obviously not getting anywhere. I agree to disagree with you and that's it.

[samface]

What you can't understand is that it's not illegal to run AmigaOS under an Amiga emulator on your
Amiga computer, using your original Kickstart ROM,
that is essentially installed on your hardware.

According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. Don't believe me? I'll give you a court case for reference, if you like.

[Seehund]

1. You claim that Eyetech only buys ready made boards for redistribution as AmigaOne computers. Their official FAQ says differently and therefore I find your statement to be of little credibility.

The link/quote you provided said that the A1 is not identical to the TeronCX. I AM NOT ARGUING WITH THAT. Eyetech are buying boards from the same manufacturer that supplies Mai with theirs. JUST AS ALAN REDHOUSE HIMSELF HAS SAID SEVERAL TIME IN PUBLIC BOTH ON THE A1 MAILINGLIST AND ELSEWHERE.

I just can't understand why you're so pathologically fixated with this. There's nothing "ugly" about buying ready-made boards you know. It's just hardware, a commodity, like a Pegasos or a Mac or a ASUS mobo or WHATEVER. Get over it, please!

2. You claim to know unofficial secrets about Amiga Inc.'s AmigaDE plans, supposedly told to you by Bill McEwan in person just three weeks ago.

What the F*CK are you BABBLING about? I never made any such claims! Stop reading what you THINK people say and instead read what they say.

Bill McEwen said this in the interview held at AmiWest on July 27th and the whole damn Internet had the possibility to hear it, I spent several hours typing out transcripts of what was being said partially to avoid idiocy like this, I gave you the link in a post above, and you come with crap like this?

You don't read or absorb what anyone writes but you gladly reply anyway, you don't read the news and public statements you talk about, you can't be bothered to follow provided links to those statements, regarding both technical and legal issues you repeatedly appear to be less than clued-in, you uncritically repeat marketing material instead of providing reasoning of your own as arguments, you throw around childish Slashdot-like or Amiga-vs.-Atari-in-1987 crap like "the enemy", "parasite on the Amiga market"... All THIS actually makes the question "why the hell should anyone listen to you?" quite valid.

3. You also claim that the AmigaOne license has nothing to do with hardware design, standards or specifications. Once more that is untrue since a piece of hardware must be *ensured* to be AmigaOS4 compatible before beeing able to label itself as an AmigaOne computer.

BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE DESIGN, STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS! I don't claim that, it's just the way it is. "AmigaOne" is a trademark. If someone licenses a PowerMac G4 and gets to use the "AmigaOne" trademark, this changes nothing about the hardware. You want that in bold and pretty colours too? One person says one thing and you start arguing about something completely different, it never fails, and it's getting damn tiresome.
AmigaOS 4 or even Exec for PPC did not exist in any executable shape or form when the "AmigaOne G3SE" was announced as being licensed hardware, neither did it exist during the "AmigaOne-1200/4000" fiasco, and neither did it exist when the "forthcoming" "AmigaOne XE" was announced, and now it also appears like the Open Firmware in the TeronCX/A1 "has" to be replaced by a version of PPCBoot.

The trademark has sweet f*ck all to do with anything relevant regarding hardware functionality.

OK, go ahead and waffle about lies or whatever. I don't care anymore and this thread is finished as far as I'm concerned. At least don't hold your personal credibility and integrity in lower regard than your imagined duty to provide excuses for and defense of some marketing. It's sickening and humiliating.

[Seehund]

According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP. Don't believe me? I'll give you a court case for reference, if you like.

Please do! Please do! PLEEEASE! You won't find anything like that even in an atrocity like the DMCA, let alone in US Code, let alone in any EU legislation.

It could be stated in a contract like an EULA, but it isn't.

Oh well, maybe it'll keep you busy for a while.

[samface]

Eyetech are buying boards from the same manufacturer that supplies Mai with theirs.

No, they are buying *designs* from the same hardware *designer*. Sure, they might have bought a few ready made boards for testing etc. but those ready made ones will not be sold as end user products. It's a small but very important difference.

BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HARDWARE DESIGN, STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS!

Yes because the hardware design, standards and specifications of the specific hardware in question has to be ensured to be compatible with AmigaOS4 in order to be able to label itself as an "AmigaOne".

Bill McEwen said this in the interview held at AmiWest on July 27th ...

Ok, now I see how this got really way off track. I said that the new Amiga will be a combination of the AmigaDE and the AmigaOS (version unspecified) and then you jumped on me saying that there won't be anyone for AmigaOS4. Do you see it? A misunderstanding, that's all.

[samface]

From http://www.worldofspectrum.org/EmuFAQ2000/AppendixB.htm:

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Readysoft, Inc.  (aka the A-Max precedent, 1989)

While this court case never happened to the best of my knowledge, the potential threat of it and the subseqent inaction on Apple's part to bring it about set a imprtant precedent for emulation technology.  A-Max was the brainchild of Simon Douglas and the first Macintosh emulator for any platform.  It allowed any Amiga computer to emulate a Mac via a combination of software and special hardware.  Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market.  Therefore, by default, Readysoft was allowed to continue marketing and improving A-Max at will.

The A-Max precedent is important to anyone who may be required to defend the development and subsequent release of an emulator.  It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights.

Let me point out the highlights:

"Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market."

"It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights."

This very much proves what I stated previously which was:

According to the U.S. law, that would be true if it wasn't for the fact that it's use is infringing on Amiga Inc.'s IP.

[samface]

Please do! Please do! PLEEEASE!

I hope you are as good at saying "thank you" as you are saying "please". :-P ;-)

[AmiGR]

"Apple was unable to mount a case against A-Max due to the fact that it had been designed so as to not interfere with Apple's rights with regards to Mac technology and the Mac market."
--

Do you know anything about AMax? It was designed
to use the actual Macintosh ROM chips. The court
decided that such use of ROMs for emulation is legal.

"It established the legality of an unauthorized emulator for a proprietary system so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights."
--

Exactly. The EULA of 3.1 doesn't mention anything
against emulation, only about illegal copying.
MorphOS uses the ROM chip intact. When you installed the chips you accepted the EULA terms.
Amiga Inc., or ANY Amiga Inc., can't change the
EULA terms after you accepted them, unless stated
otherwise in the EULA.

So: 1) MorphOS doesn't infringe Amiga Inc.'s IP rights.
2) It's use does not infringe the EULA the user accepted.

[samface]

The court
decided that such use of ROMs for emulation is legal.

...so long as it does not infringe upon the original vendor's intellectual property rights.

Exactly. The EULA of 3.1 doesn't mention anything
against emulation, only about illegal copying.

Please, AmiGR. I've already done my homework on this one so don't even try. There are specific laws regarding the use of ROM's that applies *regardless* what the EULA says. The EULA is *not* what decides wether something is infringing on the IP or not.