Amigazeux is proud to present an update to OS4Emu: nothing changed!

[itix]

Amigazeux is proud to present an update to OS4Emu: nothing changed!

On schedule and not rocking like usual, OS4Emu 2.0 is released only two years late and is more annoying than ever. While slacking and playing Halo on X-Box, we developed a few new features and fixed some old!

The most important changes are:

 - Enhanced newlib.library
 - Implements OS 4.1 64bit DOS functionality
 - Implements OS 4.1 Exec functionality
 - Implements OS 4.1 Picasso96 functionality
 - Improved general compatibility
 - Fixed ELF loader

Step into the future of computing NOW!

[xeron]

How the hell can they claim to have 4.1 features when 4.1 isn't even out? What a load of {bleep}.

[hooligan]

@Xeron

Well that comedybit went past like a stealthfighter =)

[xeron]

Yeah, well, even if its comedy its lies and its misleading. "ho ho ho".

[Piru]

@xeron

How the hell can they claim to have 4.1 features when 4.1 isn't even out? What a load of {bleep}.

itix tells you how.

its lies

Lies? Isn't that a bit strong statement?

Which bit is a lie?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised by this hostility. Isn't it a good thing to have interoperability between the systems? It might even mean more sales for OS4 software. And isn't there MOSEmu for OS4, too?

[Vulture]

@Piru

Can't understand the hostility either, of course O4Emu can only be a good thing.
The other thing you said, MOSEmu? Where's that???

[Piru]

@Vulture

The other thing you said, MOSEmu? Where's that?

http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2004-12-00113-EN.html

I have no clue what came of it but clearly such thing existed at some point at least.

[xeron]

@piru

Its either lies, or he's illegally got his hands on files that are not released for the public.

There isn't one single application out in the wild using OS4.1 specific features, so how could he reverse engineer them?

[xeron]

MOSEmu was a proof of concept to disprove some FUD people were spreading at the time of the release of OS4Emu that OS4Emu's existance somehow proved the superiority of MorphOS. It was never actually released.

[Britelite]

@Xeron

Its either lies, or he's illegally got his hands on files that are not released for the public.

Dude, chill out. No reason to get so worked up over a wrapper that quite frankly doesn't work that well

[Piru]

@xeron

Its either lies, or he's illegally got his hands on files that are not released for the public.

You have a weird definition of illegal.

I see amigaworld.net has removed the thread where itix posted more details about the methods used. So I guess the moderators there aren't interested about the truth after all?

[EDIT]Ah excuse me jumping the gun, they're just "checking the facts".[/EDIT]

[MissYo]

Yes, Piru, we ARE checking facts. You remember ''facts'', don't you? Need a dictionary.com link?

I *am* interested in the truth, we all are, but I don't see how The Truth will arise with a bunch of nonsense being posted by people who know nothing whatsoever about it.

If it IS illegal, and I will not surmise at this point, who would want to touch it. If it is above-board, and I will not surmise about that either, it is a service to the community.

Oh, by the way... for most of us... piracy is illegal. And, from reading your postings here, I definitely think you need to look THAT word up.

[Piru]

@MissYo

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excuse

You remember ''facts'', don't you? Need a dictionary.com link?

...

Oh, by the way... for most of us... piracy is illegal. And, from reading your postings here, I definitely think you need to look THAT word up.

I find your tone quite offensive, but yes, I know piracy is illegal.

Which postings have you been reading exactly? The ones where I've tried to educate people about copyright, immaterial rights and the fact that there really is no such things as "abandonware"? Or the numerous postings I've made over the years about removing piracy links? I assume you're mixing me with someone else.

The thread that now is under the truth commission review actually saw a posting made by itix that explained how the OS 4.1 API details were derived. Is that what is now under review?

[tomazkid]

@Piru

Yes.
The thread will come back if everything is fine.

[Floid]

Piru observed,

I see amigaworld.net has removed the thread where itix posted more details about the methods used. So I guess the moderators there aren't interested about the truth after all?

I'm actually with you on this -- score one for zealous moderation, now I have no idea who or what there might be to be pissed off about. :-)

I might as well say this -- I expressed some vocal dislike for the original MOS plans, where it was going to require a copy of Workbench... but even that was less 'illegal' than 'completely awkward.'

ABI wrappers are everywhere these days (WINE, PEACE, other BSD 'Linuxulation,' etc) and I'd certainly hope that the investigation required to write one falls under fair use as long as the documentation and software needed was acquired through legal means.  If someone bragged about torrenting an OS4 CD and basing it on that, it'd be another thing, but with the curtain down, :-?