New improved intuition.library version from the Kickstart 3.1

[OlafS3]

While I agree AROS 68k has made great progress and may now substitue Amiga ROM in some cases (emulation), it still needs a lot of polish, optimisations and stability fixes to really replace it. The small WB replacement app for example (I'm not talking about the MUI one but the one written by Jason) is real slow and is missing lots of functionalities for example (and hasn't been updated for what.. a full year ?).

It seems AROS lacks focus: lots of things are started but never really finished. And it hasn't changed.

What exactly do you mean by "WB replacement app"? You mean the desktop? It has not been updated for years. It is in the process of being updated as far as I know but I do not know when. But (at least on 68k) it is not really important because you can use Magellan and Scalos (Scalos only works with certain older MUI classes so I do not support it). Icaros desktop 2.0 will be using Magellan too.

I must admit that it sometimes lacks focus in development. Priority should have been (from day one) 68k integration, stable and modern desktop, MUI on at least 3.8. and others. The priorities of Aros devs were different so people did not use it. But on 68k you can integrate 68k components like on MorphOS or AmigaOS (propably even better), so I have replaced Zune with MUI38 and Wanderer with Magellan. And that is only two examples. What is missing is optimizations and more support for classic hardware.

Next Icaros desktop sounds very promising but of course 68k still works as a blackbox and that will stay the same in future.

[wawrzon]

he was referring to workbook.

what concerns thors involvemwnt with aros, alas its seems definitely better for various reasons he stays out of it. he still might be consulted in need. that should be enough.

[guest11527]

It would be great if a developer with such experience like you would contribute and help on Aros 68k because I think it is not that far away from fully replacing AmigaOS, in UAE it is already (in my view). I am not more interested in a future with the ghosts of the past who are just doing their own politics and attacking each other instead of cooperating. The old sources should rest in peace we now have a new and open OS and a open Rom. In my view the parties involved have no interest in 68k, why should they support the development and I have no interest to be dependent on the grace of others.

You are putting me in a dangerous position, that's the problem. If you want to drive AROS further and want to avoid any possible claim from Amiga, H&P and Hyperion, you should really develop that in a clean room approach. IOW, as soon as I contribute code, you (and I) are running into the danger-zone. What is always possible is that you ask technical questions and I answer them to the best of my knowledge, including internals. *That* is reasonably safe. Letting anyone look into the code, or me touching AROS code is something I would currently not dare. Not for claims from AROS, but for claims from Amiga.

[kolla]

No matter what you think, "Open Source" does not mean unpaid work. I currently participating a little bit in the linux intel driver development (only very minor), yet you find that people there *are* getting paid by the big players that have some interest in the platform.

Uhm, you really have been living under a rock! "big players" have been paying for development in open source projects for a long long time. All major software companies are involved in open source projects today, and have been for years. Even Microsoft.
 

You seem to believe that everything that needs to happen is to make the source publically available, and the problem will be solved.

The main problem would be solved, which is that anyone today can not study the sources and learn from it, today that is reserved to an exclusive club of rather narrow minded people with attitude problems.

That's not the case. It will replace one problem by another problem unless somebody "wears the hat" as we say here, i.e. has the final say what goes into the repository and what won't. No, I don't think that the average Amiga hacker is disciplined enough to accept a "no" in case it is a "no".

I do not care what you think about this, noone care about whether your so called average Amiga hacker is disiplined or not - the point is that _anyone_ can study the sources, learn from them, ask others, and compile whatever the heck they want from it, to run on whatever hardware they want.

Then, in the end, it does not matter whether the sources are released or not as long as somebody cares. Currently, they are closed, and I frankly say that nobody cares, at least not for the 68K branch.

Many would care if they were allowed to without all the legal obstruction.

Sad enough. There are enough things that could be done if there would be a way to do that without actually causing irritiation by anyone.    And how does that change with Open Source? It is just the same, as soon as the development team just considers the old software obsolete, you may have the source, cool, but you cannot really do anything about it because it's just a big pile of code you do not know how to work with.

Here your ignorance and frankly, arrogance, shows - people have again and again managed to pick up old code and do something about it. It may take time, and it may come and go in bursts, but as long as the code is available, it can be done. Look at Directory Opus, both old and Directory Opus Magellan, both are in much better shape now than they were when sources were released. Also, by releasing code, people get a chance to _LEARN_. Closed source is _LOST KNOWLEDGE_.

Projects got abandoned, and nobody picked them up. Open Source code is very volatile - whether your source still compiles with the latest version of libIdoNotcare.so you never know.

Look, I have maintained two architectures of Gentoo Linux that _noone else_ cared about, one for m68k and one for big endian ARM, I did for the fun of it, for the personal experience, for learning - I also have my own patches to kde3 and qt3 to deal with the problems you mention. Just because you don't know how to update code to deal with changes doesn't mean noone else can.

I worked in both ways, each has its advantages and its drawbacks, but just throwing the code into an OpenSource repository is not going to help much - unless somebody really cares about the result.

Noone will care when they are never given the chance. Throwing it into open source is a first step, it's about knowledge and heritage, one day someone may have an itch to scratch, a need to satisfy, and then it is much better that the sources are available.

Not really. In the end, somebody has to pay the party. Even for OpenSource if you care about quality or consistency. Again, I'm not against it. I'm against leaving it unmaintained.

Again, making sources available is a much needed first step for _any_ kind of progress for AmigaOS.

That said - AROS has much more momentum these days, in time AmigaOS becomes irrelevant. And people with your attitudes better wisen up.

[OlafS3]

You are putting me in a dangerous position, that's the problem. If you want to drive AROS further and want to avoid any possible claim from Amiga, H&P and Hyperion, you should really develop that in a clean room approach. IOW, as soon as I contribute code, you (and I) are running into the danger-zone. What is always possible is that you ask technical questions and I answer them to the best of my knowledge, including internals. *That* is reasonably safe. Letting anyone look into the code, or me touching AROS code is something I would currently not dare. Not for claims from AROS, but for claims from Amiga.

ok I understand... that is one of the things I hate, "sh..t" NDA, contracts and so on that are related to both Hyperion and/or AmigaInc., with one person always repeating unproved accusations instead of trying to work together in common interest.

Honestly, they can keep both the sources and their NDAs and contracts

H&P will certainly not doing anything, I had contact with Mr. Haage a couple of times in the last years and I think he is not interested anymore in anything amiga-related

[guest11527]

Well, it would be H&P that the bounty would be directed to, of course. AFAIK they are the only ones who actually have the OS3.9 source code. Hyperion certainly don't, and I doubt Amino has it either.

I afraid nobody at H&P today has any idea about what they did back then with Amiga software. You should also understand the type of contracts we got back then. Of course, I can only speak for myself, and I know a little bit how Olsen's contracts looked like, but essentially rights went back to the contributors. Thus, in the long run, you need to speak to Amiga (or Animo, or however they call them today), Hyperion and you need to speak to the inidivual authors. Provided you can reach them. I for my part can no longer reach Heinz, concering SetPatch, FFS, console, exec and RAM-Disk. *Sigh*.

[kolla]

So you are between a rock and a hard place, tied by legal strings, so you cannot do anything with neither AmigaOS nor AROS, not even if you really want to. Hah, the irony. I suppose there is an opening for you with MorphOS.

[OlafS3]

So you are between a rock and a hard place, tied by legal strings, so you cannot do anything with neither AmigaOS nor AROS, not even if you really want to. Hah, the irony. I suppose there is an opening for you with MorphOS.

Why should there be a opening with MorphOS?

@Thomas

It is a pity but I understand

[guest11527]

Uhm, you really have been living under a rock! "big players" have been paying for development in open source projects for a long long time. All major software companies are involved in open source projects today, and have been for years. Even Microsoft.

Didn't I say exactly that? Whatever...

The main problem would be solved, which is that anyone today can not study the sources and learn from it, today that is reserved to an exclusive club of rather narrow minded people with attitude problems.

I'd rather say, "legal problems", because that fits the problem better.

I do not care what you think about this, noone care about whether your so called average Amiga hacker is disiplined or not - the point is that _anyone_ can study the sources, learn from them, ask others, and compile whatever the heck they want from it, to run on whatever hardware they want.

Thus, which type of goal do you have in mind? AmigaOs being separated into a pile of unmaintainable junk? Look at the arbitrary discipline of your average Amiga hacker, look at Cosmos. That's exactly the type of problem I do not want - people picking up the code, making changes without even asking, releasing stuff they should have coordinated. If the AmigaOs community would be somewhat more coordinated, disciplined and well-behaived, all fine. But it's in general a very unfriendly environment for stable software. No, I *do not* want five incompatible shells, ten incompable workbenches and six incompatible icon libraries because coder A doesn't like the style of coder B or is even too lazy to write a report.

Linux and the Linux kernel development are pretty resistent against such problems, at least most the time. That's because a good deal of the people that work in this environment are professionals that know how good software is written, and that it sometimes requires unfriendly decisions. Still, if I get a "no" for a patch I want to make to a well-maintained source like the kernel, I take it as a "no", and I can only say for myself that I probably do not yet understand the problem well enough to realize why my solution wasn't correct.

In Amiga-land, it is apparently already asking for too much if you request a bug report before a patch is made. So what's your expectation of how well that's going to work? Mine is "not at all" because even if I would say "No, please do not make this modification because..." people like Cosmos would do it anyhow. The features I see in his intuition patches are pretty bad ideas, but I don't even want to discuss because it's pointless to discuss with people like him - you don't reach them, so I don't even bother. So why would I want even more trouble by giving away sources? I *do* give away sources to people that are professional enough, and to whom I can talk. That worked well in the past, and it will continue to work well. Thus, if you are interested in the stuff I wrote, have an idea what you want to change, come, explain your ideas, if we agree, you get the source. Yes, really.  All provided no legal constraints involved.

Yes, it sounds arrogant, I know. But believe me, with a couple of years of software development behind me, at least I learned a bit about what works and what does not, and Open Source can work, in the right environment, with the right people, and a good project management. We don't have that here, and you see that everyday under your nose. What else does it take than this thread to prove it?  

These days, in time AmigaOS becomes irrelevant. And people with your attitudes better wisen up.

That's good for AROS, and even fine with me. Again, see my answer to Olaf.

[kolla]

Didn't I say exactly that? Whatever...

Yes you did, as if it was a novetly, something you have discovered just recently.

Thus, which type of goal do you have in mind? AmigaOs being separated into a pile of unmaintainable junk?

Is that not what it is today already? The goal I have in mind is just that people can be allowed to do with it whatever they see fit without having all kinds of threats and slander thrown at them.

Look at the arbitrary discipline of your average Amiga hacker, look at Cosmos. That's exactly the type of problem I do not want - people picking up the code, making changes without even asking, releasing stuff they should have coordinated.

I have no problem with that, over time, quality stands on its own merits, that is exactly how it works for example with Linux.

If the AmigaOs community would be somewhat more coordinated, disciplined and well-behaived, all fine. But it's in general a very unfriendly environment for stable software. No, I *do not* want five incompatible shells, ten incompable workbenches and six incompatible icon libraries because coder A doesn't like the style of coder B or is even too lazy to write a report.

What you describe, we already have in AmigaOS, 3.5 and 3.9 introduced a whole lot of incompatibility, OS4 is even worse in that regard. Features of both Workbench and shell has come, vanished, reappeared etc. And all this within "official AmigaOS".

The problem is that quality is not allowed to win, again and again the "official developers" have messed things up and created lots of trouble. Trouble that could have been avoided if development could have happened in the open so that _all_ developers and users could have a saying in what what solution we want, in what direction we want to see the OS advance.

Linux and the Linux kernel development are pretty resistent against such problems, at least most the time. That's because a good deal of the people that work in this environment are professionals that know how good software is written, and that it sometimes requires unfriendly decisions. Still, if I get a "no" for a patch I want to make to a well-maintained source like the kernel, I take it as a "no", and I can only say for myself that I probably do not yet understand the problem well enough to realize why my solution wasn't correct.

Noone stops anyone from forking the Linux kernel and it happens all the time, distributions typically has a whole lot of their own kernel patches that they maintain, the different architectures developers have sets of patches they maintain as they slowly get them merged into main. Those professionals you write about used to be a bunch of happy amateurs too at some point, they were allowed to learn and advance and Linux evolved into what it is today. Just like you are now learning by submitting kernel patches. I have maintained a whole bunch of linux kernel patches for myself (and for the company I work for) up through the times, to deal with things I care about in the kernel (ipv6 autoconf, alsa, drivers for various arcaic hardware etc). Same with software on Linux and BSD.

In Amiga-land, it is apparently already asking for too much if you request a bug report before a patch is made.

Yes, when most developers ignore such requests, have bouncing email addresses etc. In real world it is quite common to create patches and distribute them, because sometimes getting proper solutions upstream takes time. Why should this be different on Amiga?

So what's your expectation of how well that's going to work? Mine is "not at all" because even if I would say "No, please do not make this modification because..." people like Cosmos would do it anyhow.

Yes, and why is that a problem? The freedom to tweak and mess around as much as you like is _exactly_ what should happen.

The features I see in his intuition patches are pretty bad ideas, but I don't even want to discuss because it's pointless to discuss with people like him - you don't reach them, so I don't even bother.

And noone would be forced to use his code, anyone can chose what to use themselves. With code out in the open, you don't even have to discuss with him, anyone can look at the code and there will be concensus about what makes sense and what doesn't. Also people have different needs, for some uses one solution makes a heck lot more sense than "the official" - this is why there in "Linux land" exists so much diversity.

So why would I want even more trouble by giving away sources? I *do* give away sources to people that are professional enough, and to whom I can talk. That worked well in the past, and it will continue to work well. Thus, if you are interested in the stuff I wrote, have an idea what you want to change, come, explain your ideas, if we agree, you get the source. Yes, really.  All provided no legal constraints involved.

What do you mean "no legal constraints"?

Yes, it sounds arrogant, I know. But believe me, with a couple of years of software development behind me, at least I learned a bit about what works and what does not, and Open Source can work, in the right environment, with the right people, and a good project management. We don't have that here, and you see that everyday under your nose. What else does it take than this thread to prove it?

There is no difference to open source and closed source when it comes to "the right environment, with the right people, and a good project management" - that goes for any project. Do you have any idea how many Cosmoses there are around in the FOSS world? A LOT! And some of them are backed by Companies with agendas. Just watch the current systemd turmoil. Still it works, because people have options.

Because of legal nonsense and the hostile attitude among certain developers, the Amiga community was never even given the chance. Luckily at least some people realized this so AROS was born.

[wawrzon]

@olaf

thats exactly the sort of legal constraints that are most likely intentionally put on people, probably without them noticing till its too late. probably thats the reason too so many contributors must have left completely afraid to switch to the alternatives.

@thor

cosmos is not exactly the representative for everyone who is interested in improving on amiga systems. on the contrary his position is rather known as orthodox and must not be used as example of what would happen if amiga software was open sourced, especially that exactly his approach would then not be necessary anymore.

also i think after some consideration there must be a place for everyone, one just needs to find an appropriate task for the given skills and character. it just takes some effort to align with others..

[warpdesign]

Thus, which type of goal do you have in mind? AmigaOs being separated into a pile of unmaintainable junk? Look at the arbitrary discipline of your average Amiga hacker, look at Cosmos. That's exactly the type of problem I do not want - people picking up the code, making changes without even asking, releasing stuff they should have coordinated. If the AmigaOs community would be somewhat more coordinated, disciplined and well-behaived, all fine. But it's in general a very unfriendly environment for stable software. No, I *do not* want five incompatible shells, ten incompable workbenches and six incompatible icon libraries because coder A doesn't like the style of coder B or is even too lazy to write a report.

Don't you think he would behave differently if code was available and updated ? I'm pretty sure there are people hacking like him in the Linux world, just because you can, but would you say Linux has become a pile of junk ? I wouldn't say so...

[warpdesign]

What exactly do you mean by "WB replacement app"? You mean the desktop? It has not been updated for years. It is in the process of being updated as far as I know but I do not know when. But (at least on 68k) it is not really important because you can use Magellan and Scalos (Scalos only works with certain older MUI classes so I do not support it). Icaros desktop 2.0 will be using Magellan too.

I must admit that it sometimes lacks focus in development. Priority should have been (from day one) 68k integration, stable and modern desktop, MUI on at least 3.8. and others. The priorities of Aros devs were different so people did not use it. But on 68k you can integrate 68k components like on MorphOS or AmigaOS (propably even better), so I have replaced Zune with MUI38 and Wanderer with Magellan. And that is only two examples. What is missing is optimizations and more support for classic hardware.

Next Icaros desktop sounds very promising but of course 68k still works as a blackbox and that will stay the same in future.

I was referring to the "low-end" 68k AROS targeted at Amiga OCS/ECS with very-little RAM, by WB I meant "Workbook" by Jason McMullan which is supposed be a Workbench.

I guess this is quite different if you target higher-end: then you have plenty of ram/power to use bigger desktop apps like Magellan or Scalos.

But be it high end or low end, it seems focus gets lost after some time and lots of things are almost ready, but not yet, and lack polish: Zune, WorkBook,...

[OlafS3]

I was referring to the "low-end" 68k AROS targeted at Amiga OCS/ECS with very-little RAM, by WB I meant "Workbook" by Jason McMullan which is supposed be a Workbench.

I guess this is quite different if you target higher-end: then you have plenty of ram/power to use bigger desktop apps like Magellan or Scalos.

But be it high end or low end, it seems focus gets lost after some time and lots of things are almost ready, but not yet, and lack polish: Zune, WorkBook,...

"Workbook" was designed as a kind of minimal desktop as far as I know. Jason has joined Arix and was contributing not much last year because of lack of time (not only for 68k). I have never tested workbook so I cannot say much about it. Do not forget that the project started to bring AmigaOS to X86 so there always were plenty of resources and today even on ARM (the new low-end) you have much more resources than you ever had on Amiga. That meant they never optimized it for classic hardware, for a long time it not even existed on 68k and from Aros devs noone is caring for it at the moment. Toni is doing something and has done some optimizations recently, Jason did do a lot in the past but not some time now. 68k never was really priority or interesting to most Aros devs. Because of that I hoped that there would some of the 68k devs join and help there because it is not that far away. It needs still certainly some optimizations regarding classic hardware and additional support for hardware, nothing impossible and propably only a few months for experienced developers. Up to now I could create some interest in the 68k community but still no developer who helps at the core and that is the place where most has to be done. Lack of direction, yes propably, everyone does what he likes to do but there is no big plan and management like in a company that wants to sell products. It is opensource, that has advantages and disadvantages.

I do not think that "Workbook" will be updated in future, I know there is a updated version of Wanderer in future and you can use Magellan and Scalos as desktop. Bring Zune to at least 38 should have highest priority but it propably is a complicated task. For me personal there is no problem because on Aros 68k you can simply add original MUI38 and replace Zune. The only problem is that the original Prefs do not work anymore, I partly solved that by using other prefs and predefining prefs files.

[kamelito]

HACKER [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] n. 1. A person who enjoys learning the details of programming systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically, or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value (q.v.). 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. Not everything a hacker produces is a hack. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; example: "A SAIL hacker". (Definitions 1 to 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. A malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to discover information by poking around. Hence "password hacker", "network hacker".

[guest11527]

What you describe, we already have in AmigaOS, 3.5 and 3.9 introduced a whole lot of incompatibility, OS4 is even worse in that regard. Features of both Workbench and shell has come, vanished, reappeared etc. And all this within "official AmigaOS

What, where? Excuse me, but since when are there incompatibilities? I don't know much about workbench problems since I'm only using it and it works fine -  but as a matter of fact, I maintain the shell. Yes, I do. Thus, speak up open, which incompatibilities are there? I haven't received a bug report for years, and there's a straight line of shells from 3.1 to 3.9 and the various boing bags. Hopefully all compatible to each outher. If not, report a bug. Yes, please do.

The problem is that quality is not allowed to win,  

Quality is not allowed to win if people make stupid patches and somebody has to clean up behind them. It is not that I don't care about my software. Just that there wasn't much request for caring lately. I believe I released a couple of old and older stuff lately, and updated it. So please - I beg your pardon?  

Again and again the "official developers" have messed things up and created lots of trouble. Trouble that could have been avoided if development could have happened in the open so that _all_ developers and users could have a saying in what what solution we want, in what direction we want to see the OS advance.

Thus, once again, if you have a case where you believe that I've messed something up and it requires fixing, say so openly and I'll fix it. As soon as I find some time. But please don't tell me that I leave things unmaintained. Thank you.  

Noone stops anyone from forking the Linux kernel and it happens all the time, distributions typically has a whole lot of their own kernel patches that they maintain, the different architectures developers have sets of patches they maintain as they slowly get them merged into main.

So, apparently, you have not been working on it, right? Yes, you can patch up your own kernel. But there's no benefit. You need to move it into the official branch - and that's the important part where you have to discuss and argue, and will often find yourself in a position that you do not quite understand the sources well enough to produce something that is acceptable. Yet, in Amigaland, this type of crap is thrown untested at people, actually *without* giving the maintainer of the program even a chance to check or argue.  

 Those professionals you write about used to be a bunch of happy amateurs too at some point, they were allowed to learn and advance and Linux evolved into what it is today.

Funny thing. Guess I did the same, but I learned on AmigaOs. Yet, I never did what I see just here - patch up some outside program without actually knowing what it does, and release that to end users. Strange, isn't it?

As a matter of fact, you *don't need* the Os sources to write good programs. You need the interface. Actually, it's one of the core disciplines of software development to write against well-defined interfaces, or to define such interfaces. Yet, such key knowledge is apparently ignored in Amiga-land. Instead, the average Amiga hacker goes "bang-bang" on the hardware and "hack hack" onto the Os. So what do you think will happen?    

 Yes, when most developers ignore such requests, have bouncing email addresses etc. In real world it is quite common to create patches and distribute them, because sometimes getting proper solutions upstream takes time. Why should this be different on Amiga?

Because the audience you get is different. The skilled software engineer has long left the platform.  

Yes, and why is that a problem? The freedom to tweak and mess around as much as you like is _exactly_ what should happen.

No, should not. The problem is that such programs are released into the wild, there causing problems with *my* stuff, and I have the trouble cleaning up behind the lines. The amount of trouble tools like MCP caused and the amount of wasted hours because somebody didn't know better but still hacked the Os are enormous. There's an interface, program against it. If you don't like it, or need something else, talk to the person responsible for it. There are still ways to negotiate cooperation. Just because sources are closed does not mean they are locked away. They are only locked away from the fools, for the better of the rest of the users.  

And noone would be forced to use his code, anyone can chose what to use themselves.  

That's not quite that simple. You do not install such a hack and then say "it works or it does not". It will likely cause disruption elsewhere, with programs that seem to work just fine before. And believe me, in the end its not the author of the patch that gets the bug report. Such nonsense creates a lot of work *for other people* and trouble for the users that are completely unable to resolve the problems. Linux is a paradise for programmers, but its probably hell for ordinary users. Not that I'm not using it and loving it, but writing a program on Linux that still works in two years from now is almost impossible. You have to continuously update the sources because some of the smart developers again considered to change an interface. That's ok for Linux. It's not ok if you want stable products. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but there's a reason why they are successful. Their stuff just works. Guess what? It's what most people need: An environment that solves their problems. Not that creates new ones because patch A doesn't work with program B.  

With code out in the open, you don't even have to discuss with him, anyone can look at the code and there will be concensus about what makes sense and what doesn't. Also people have different needs, for some uses one solution makes a heck lot more sense than "the official" - this is why there in "Linux land" exists so much diversity.

For the better or for the worse. Or how does one say? "You never know how the print command is called today". Yes, works ok for me, I know by now enough about the details. Try to teach your granny, and you'll learn what's wrong with it.

That's exactly the type of problem you get without a good project management, or somebody who overlooks the big picture. How many inconsistent user interfaces do we have in Linux? I stopped counting... Again, fine with me - but the hell for the average user.

In Amiga, we even had a user-interface style guide. Completely outdated by now of course, but at least somebody took the time to write down how an Amiga application should look like, which AREXX commands it should support and so on.  

What do you mean "no legal constraints"?

Pretty simple. I can handout the mmu.lib to whomever I want - that's my source. I cannot hand out the latest layers.library, simply because I don't own it. Yet, I can maintain it.  

Because of legal nonsense and the hostile attitude among certain developers, the Amiga community was never even given the chance. Luckily at least some people realized this so AROS was born.

Again, I don't have a problem with AROS, but I *personally* don't really care much. Problem is, time of AmgiaOs is really over, for various reasons, the whole construction of the Os is just upside down, and there is no market for it in first place. Yet, if you want to contribute your time, you are surely welcome. I personally don't see the vision behind all that, i.e. what the purpose of the project is about. But anyhow, who am I to judge...