Layers.library V45 on the aminet

[guest11527]

This makes sense if the software is maintained, but what happens when it is not maintained due to the limitations you stated yourself in previous post?

It means that somebody must maintain it if there is a demand. Quite obvious? Isn't it that I said multiple times that I'll try to look for a solution? Hacking up the software to infinity is not a solution because it leaves an unmaintainable junk of garbadge. Now tell me again I won't look for solution.

[LiveForIt]

because it leaves an unmaintainable junk of garbadge.

Well thats a good thing in my book, because then just maybe people decides to upgrade to AmigaOS4.x, what better way to get people to upgrade because software does not work on AmigaOS3.x because wrong versions and patches that makes system unstable.

maybe its a conspiration :laughing:

unmaintainable

On the other hand if who is going maintain it if the source code is not obtainable?

I see a catch 22 here. :-)

[modrobert]

It means that somebody must maintain it if there is a demand. Quite obvious? Isn't it that I said multiple times that I'll try to look for a solution? Hacking up the software to infinity is not a solution because it leaves an unmaintainable junk of garbadge. Now tell me again I won't look for solution.

At this point you are trapped in a circular argument, defunct by design. We were discussing closed source cases where you claimed the legal rights to the code in question were uncertain effectively preventing existing developers to maintain the source code already in their possession, or releasing it to someone else.

The active Amiga community is pretty small these days, so even though I don't know you or Cosmos personally, I know projects both of you are involved in, past and present.

For example, Cosmos ongoing assembler optimization of classic 68k Amiga libs where performance has been improved and size reduced, mainly because they were written in C to begin with.

Also some of your projects, like this one (the thread) and MMULib.

As mentioned previously in this thread, and where most of us seem to agree, is that the Amiga is mainly used by hobbyists these days and a few hardcore individuals who never really stopped using it productively, at least when it comes to classic hardware.

I for one appreciate the "hack and slash" Cosmos is doing, and your projects as well, one does not rule out the other. When old software needs a fix/update in this community, someone will come up with a working solution, even if it means bare metal hacking of the binary or full source code repository access.

[OlafS3]

Predictable ? Well some did not agree with this predictions.

PowerPC back in 1998 was doing about the same in the benchmarks as the Intel chips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G3

MacOS9 / IMac G3 perty muth saved appel from bankrupcy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2rXhKncGRU&list=PLozRe3PHsxkUzla6CtOex3mCwPZs6UtSD#

Power Mac G5 came out in 2003, and was the one thing that made Appel look to Intel, if I remember correct it was late, this way Appel went with to Intel.

It was predictable because money rules the world and big numbers decide in the chip industry. At that time the PC market was already far ahead in volume and investment. G5 is not bad, I think a little power hungry and I do not know if it was competitive on price but as long as the software runs on one core it was and even is not bad but nevertheless it would have been a better choice to use X86 or have at least a option to change ISA if necessary.

[OlafS3]

It means that somebody must maintain it if there is a demand. Quite obvious? Isn't it that I said multiple times that I'll try to look for a solution? Hacking up the software to infinity is not a solution because it leaves an unmaintainable junk of garbadge. Now tell me again I won't look for solution.

Simple question... who maintains it now or will maintain it?

[guest11527]

At this point you are trapped in a circular argument, defunct by design.  

You still don't get it, right? I'm trying to find out what the situation is, understood? How much more explicit do I need to get?  

For example, Cosmos ongoing assembler optimization of classic 68k Amiga libs where performance has been improved and size reduced, mainly because they were written in C to begin with.

Have you made any measurements showing the efficiency of these "improvements", and have you considered that this leaves the libraries in a pretty unmaintainable state?  

When old software needs a fix/update in this community, someone will come up with a working solution, even if it means bare metal hacking of the binary or full source code repository access.

Again, what is "working" for you? For me it means that I can also fix something in two years in the future. With the kind of "improvements" I see from Cosmos this is unlikely to be even possible. First of all, it doesn't really improve anything, and second, even if the results were measurable, the improvements were lost or incompatible to any other changes that had to be made.  Anyhow, make your pick. If you don't agree with me, I'm ready to leave and don't touch any of the old stuff anymore.

[modrobert]

You still don't get it, right? I'm trying to find out what the situation is, understood? How much more explicit do I need to get?

Sorry about that, my mistake, I interpreted your previous replies as if it was intentionally left in limbo for good reason.

Have you made any measurements showing the efficiency of these "improvements", and have you considered that this leaves the libraries in a pretty unmaintainable state?

No, I haven't made my own measurements, was just inspired by the idea to optimize the libraries and acknowledgements by others that Cosmos patches were indeed working. I did check some of the assembler code "before/after change" which he posted over at eab a while back, looked good to me.

My 68k assembler knowledge is still a bit rusty compared to what it used to be, slowly getting back in the game. What I love about 68k is the CISC part and that the Amiga hardware is well documented, even binary patches disassembles to decent source code which can be easily worked on and understood.

I thought about this some more last night, and in cases where no one is maintaining the source code (or where the source code indeed is lost), one solution could be disassembling the binaries (eg. with adis or resource). Make sure the source compiles OK, and then post/push that to github for everyone to enjoy, to either improve further or fork into new projects. At least it would provide some structure compared to binary patches.

Again, what is "working" for you? For me it means that I can also fix something in two years in the future. With the kind of "improvements" I see from Cosmos this is unlikely to be even possible. First of all, it doesn't really improve anything, and second, even if the results were measurable, the improvements were lost or incompatible to any other changes that had to be made.  Anyhow, make your pick. If you don't agree with me, I'm ready to leave and don't touch any of the old stuff anymore.

I hope you will continue, and accept that people have different views on contributions which clearly has good intention.

[kolla]

Again, what is "working" for you? For me it means that I can also fix something in two years in the future. With the kind of "improvements" I see from Cosmos this is unlikely to be even possible. First of all, it doesn't really improve anything, and second, even if the results were measurable, the improvements were lost or incompatible to any other changes that had to be made.  Anyhow, make your pick. If you don't agree with me, I'm ready to leave and don't touch any of the old stuff anymore.

i dont understand how unofficial patches like that of Cosmos affect any future "proper" maintainance or whatever you have in mind, or how they in any way makes anything "unmaintainable" - noone is forced to use those patches, they are totally optional and experimental, they may work perfectly for some, but not for all. it reminds me of those who think same-sex marriage somehow affect so called traditional marriage.

But oh well, you are clearly fishing for an external excuse to finally leave Amiga scene behind, which probably would be the best for everyone anyhow.

[guest11527]

i dont understand how unofficial patches like that of Cosmos affect any future "proper" maintainance or whatever you have in mind, or how they in any way makes anything "unmaintainable" - noone is forced to use those patches, they are totally optional and experimental, they may work perfectly for some, but not for all. it reminds me of those who think same-sex marriage somehow affect so called traditional marriage.

It's not "forcing" anyone. It means if "software X" does not work, where can we look? We have patches A,B and C, and versions D,E and F, from maintainers 1 to 6. Now, how can a developer in such an environment create a working program? You'll never know which version of the software you find, and you'll probably left with the problem of having to support several, mildly but not completely incompatible versions of a library or a software. I don't consider this a working environment.

But oh well, you are clearly fishing for an external excuse to finally leave Amiga scene behind, which probably would be the best for everyone anyhow.

I'm not fishing for an excuse. I'm asking for a honest opinion which type of protocol you prefer for developing software. In case you wonder, I left a long time ago. I'm not developing anything new here, and I will not in the future. I'm only trying to clean up, and maintain what I can maintain. If you believe that "patching" is the better way of maintaining, so might it be, and then please tell me that. I don't, and I will not offer anything like that. I prefer the official way. It may take longer, and it may be harder, but I can try. But again, you may disagree and I will respect your honest opinion. Thank you.

[guest11527]

I thought about this some more last night, and in cases where no one is maintaining the source code (or where the source code indeed is lost), one solution could be disassembling the binaries (eg. with adis or resource). Make sure the source compiles OK, and then post/push that to github for everyone to enjoy, to either improve further or fork into new projects. At least it would provide some structure compared to binary patches.

Problem is, in none of the cases the source code is lost in limbo. It's all existing, probably not in perfect shape, but in a repository "somewhere". Problem is, it is not so easy to get access to it, and it is a struggle, but maybe it's worth it. I can try. I may fail. That's what I can say. Will it become accessible for everyone? Unlikely, not my decision.

Disassembly doesn't resolve the legal problems. Thus, on this basis, you cannot really place the disassembled sources somewhere and run from there maintainence of obsolete software. It doesn't work, and you put yourself and everyone participating in that in a risky situation. The only *waterproof* way of getting there - if the originals are lost indeed - is really to take the documentation, and re-implement the API as described by the documentation, from scratch, without having access to the sources. You might not like it, but these are the rules. Thus, if you want to maintain intuition, go ahead, contribute to AROS, make it as good as possible, or better than the original, then you have an "intuition" that works for everyone and satisfies your needs. That's perfectly ok for everyone. Yes, it *also* takes long. There is no easy access, I afraid.

[modrobert]

Problem is, in none of the cases the source code is lost in limbo. It's all existing, probably not in perfect shape, but in a repository "somewhere". Problem is, it is not so easy to get access to it, and it is a struggle, but maybe it's worth it. I can try. I may fail. That's what I can say. Will it become accessible for everyone? Unlikely, not my decision.

If it is all "existing" I feel confident it will become open source eventually, at least if someone like you is involved and help to push in that direction.

Disassembly doesn't resolve the legal problems. Thus, on this basis, you cannot really place the disassembled sources somewhere and run from there maintainence of obsolete software. It doesn't work, and you put yourself and everyone participating in that in a risky situation. The only *waterproof* way of getting there - if the originals are lost indeed - is really to take the documentation, and re-implement the API as described by the documentation, from scratch, without having access to the sources. You might not like it, but these are the rules. Thus, if you want to maintain intuition, go ahead, contribute to AROS, make it as good as possible, or better than the original, then you have an "intuition" that works for everyone and satisfies your needs. That's perfectly ok for everyone. Yes, it *also* takes long. There is no easy access, I afraid.

My life has always been guided by ethics rather than following specific rules/regulations, so taking a little risk can be worthwhile for the sake of the community. Anyway, I can fully understand that messing with a closed source project which is actively maintained is disrespectful to the original author(s) in the community, and for that reason should be left alone.

Legally I can only see a problem if you are living in USA (or hosting the source code in USA), and limited by the harsh laws regarding reverse engineering there. Perhaps some countries in Europe might be a bad idea to base this as well. There are plenty of ways this can be solved while remaining legal, as long as you don't limit the perspective to one country.

[HyAmi]

Problem is, in none of the cases the source code is lost in limbo. It's all existing, probably not in perfect shape, but in a repository "somewhere". Problem is, it is not so easy to get access to it, and it is a struggle, but maybe it's worth it. I can try. I may fail. That's what I can say.

Are you saying you're trying at the moment? Or just what you (or anyone else?) could do?

[guest11527]

Are you saying you're trying at the moment? Or just what you (or anyone else?) could do?

Yes, I'm currently trying with P96. Is that good enough?

[stefcep2]

@thomasrichter.

I appreciate your work, and your efforts to respect the legalities.  Its absolutely your call.

But I just find it incredible that after all this time that people would actually care that someone else modified-for the better- their obscure piece of code running on an archaic piece of hardware that has no practical or commercial value.

I could get any SNES ROM I ever wanted all over the net at a time when Nintendo was trying to sell versions for the Wii, and did anyone get sued?

The Amiga situation is insane.  We are just trying to have a bit of fun.

[guest11527]

I could get any SNES ROM I ever wanted all over the net at a time when Nintendo was trying to sell versions for the Wii, and did anyone get sued?

The Amiga situation is insane.  We are just trying to have a bit of fun.

Ok, time for some war-time stories. Want one? It just happened that I'm also a bit engaged in the construction of Atari emulators. The old 8-bit stuff. Another hobbyist was kind enough to provide web-space for hosting this, along with some other Atari programs he wrote, all old stuff. Now it happened that Atari (not the original company, but some French? publisher that accuiquired the rights on the name "Atari") was a bit short of money and send legal claims to any holder of any web site that seemed to hold (in the views of their lawers) "illegal pirated Atari content". Now, for this specific web site, nothing illegal was around, provably, so the mentioned Hobbyist got away, but it was quite some hassle. If that happens, you *definitely* need to call a lawer and pay him some money, just for the required legal action.  

No, you *do not* want to go through this, and throw money behind lawers just because you have an unofficial, non-licenced logo of a corrupt company on your website. These types of "fun" are just an open invitation to any company short of money to collect some cash for nothing.  

So yes, you must be careful these days.

[modrobert]

I have another war story; some guy made a bet on IRC that he could host the Amiga Kickstart ROMs on a web server, free for anyone to download, and he did just that for a year without complications, until the domain hosting ran out.