Layers.library V45 on the aminet

[psxphill]

I also do not really see the problem, people are not forced to use them.

That is the problem, you're fracturing the user base.
 cosmos isn't just fixing bugs, he's changing fundamental behaviour as he sees fit. This will make software work differently. If someone does come along and starts writing applications for the amiga then it's going to be a nightmare to make sure it's compatible with all the different hacks.
 
 Getting people on the same page was one of the reasons for OS3.5 & 3.9 in the first place.

[OlafS3]

That is the problem, you're fracturing the user base.
 cosmos isn't just fixing bugs, he's changing fundamental behaviour as he sees fit. This will make software work differently. If someone does come along and starts writing applications for the amiga then it's going to be a nightmare to make sure it's compatible with all the different hacks.
 
 Getting people on the same page was one of the reasons for OS3.5 & 3.9 in the first place.

Fixing bugs is ok, making it faster is ok, adding new functions is already a little problematic, changing behaviour of existing functions is very problematic indeed. It makes testing much more difficult. Perhaps Cosmos and others should do their own shared libraries?

On the other hand, you cannot do anything against it and people are responsible for themselves. People know that Patches are risky and make everything less compatible (or at least can).

[guest11527]

Fixing bugs is ok, making it faster is ok, adding new functions is already a little problematic, changing behaviour of existing functions is very problematic indeed. It makes testing much more difficult. Perhaps Cosmos and others should do their own shared libraries?

That is pretty much my central point, and I thank you for mentioning it. I wouldn't have such a big problem if the library interface would either not change, or the library would get a different name, or the changes would be at least coordinated with the Os 4 development team.

As far as layers is concerned: The point is here that the interface was extended, but this was coordinated with Os 4 (in fact, the interface is a subset of the Os 4 interface), and this was also one of the promises I had to make to get it published, i.e. "make sure there is a clear development line". In fact, it is. V45 layers is mid-point between v40 and the Os 4 one.

[kolla]

There is no official way, whoever wants to do something with AmigaOS for m68k are free to do so, offering patches like Cosmos is doing is perfectly legal and I prefer that people like you stop pretending that it is not. You say you will try to clean up things and do it the proper way - well, then quit talking about it already, and do it, and then show the community what you have managed. You have had 15 years already, dont expect us to quietly sit here doing nothing, we are all getting old and gray while you are "trying". You have been told many times, over and over, that the community prefers open source. You have made it clear that you are scared of open sourcing AmigaOS components, you do not trust the community, you look at us as unworthy and uncapable. What a shame that you are such a wuss. You have also made it clear that you are no longer developing, only maybe fixing a bug here and there if you feel like it. You are not advocating a protocol for development, that is a protocol for stand still.

[biggun]

Some people should better know when to shut up.

[kolla]

If someone does come along and starts writing applications for the amiga then it's going to be a nightmare to make sure it's compatible with all the different hacks.

First or all, that is a huge IF, and secondly, no, it is no more a nightmare than what we have had the last 20 years now.
 

Getting people on the same page was one of the reasons for OS3.5 & 3.9 in the first place.

In that respect they were total failures

[OlafS3]

There is no official way, whoever wants to do something with AmigaOS for m68k are free to do so, offering patches like Cosmos is doing is perfectly legal and I prefer that people like you stop pretending that it is not. You say you will try to clean up things and do it the proper way - well, then quit talking about it already, and do it, and then show the community what you have managed. You have had 15 years already, dont expect us to quietly sit here doing nothing, we are all getting old and gray while you are "trying". You have been told many times, over and over, that the community prefers open source. You have made it clear that you are scared of open sourcing AmigaOS components, you do not trust the community, you look at us as unworthy and uncapable. What a shame that you are such a wuss. You have also made it clear that you are no longer developing, only maybe fixing a bug here and there if you feel like it. You are not advocating a protocol for development, that is a protocol for stand still.

The community prefers open source? Really? Where is the help regarding Aros 68k? I read lots of excuses why not helping but noone jumping in.

Thomas has said that people should either do their own library or at least not change the existing API. That sounds reasonable to me.

[OlafS3]

First or all, that is a huge IF, and secondly, no, it is no more a nightmare than what we have had the last 20 years now.
 


In that respect they were total failures

Perhaps there are reasons why standards are defined, don´t you think? Microsoft f.e. develops new .NET versions but it is still compatible to prior versions. Developers would jump on their heads if they would "patch" the API all the time. I do not want to compare the situation but it makes sense not to change existing API (even if you think to have good reasons for it) because it might lead to strange errors that are difficult to find for the software developers (who has not installed the patch). "If" you change the API then either add something or do your own library.

[guest11527]

There is no official way, whoever wants to do something with AmigaOS for m68k are free to do so, offering patches like Cosmos is doing is perfectly legal and I prefer that people like you stop pretending that it is not.  

Once again: If I release the binaries of P96, will you host it and indemnify me?  

You say you will try to clean up things and do it the proper way - well, then quit talking about it already, and do it, and then show the community what you have managed.

Sorry, but I think I did. To my very knowledge, you've a pile of freeware I released to Aminet, you received a new Shell for 3.9, and three updates to that, you received a new Console for 3.9, you received an Update to BenchTrash all the way. I also released updated MMULibs, a new 68060.library because Matthew found a bug. I'm sorry, but I believe I contributed my share. I also believe that I *do* fix bugs when I find them. So please, don't be overly harsh.  

 You have had 15 years already, dont expect us to quietly sit here doing nothing

No. I expect you to do the *right* thing. There are three branches of AmigaOs where you could contribute. Os 4.0, Morphos and Aros. Now, please take your pick. Or you can also try to talk to owners whether releases are possible, a forth possibility. As you can see from the very theme of this thread, I did this and I succeeded. For one library. Apparently, you're still demanding more. It's a slow going, what exactly do you expect? And what exactly have you contributed?  

We are all getting old and gray while you are "trying".  

Then, with all respect, get *your* arse up, man. You want open source, you know what to do. Right in front of your face. All you need to do is to handle the Aros software, update it, and contribute to it. Where is your problem?  

You have been told many times, over and over, that the community prefers open source.  

That's perfectly fine, but I'm not paid by the community. I can only tell you what *you* need to do if *you* want open source. You need to write open source. Yes, it is *really* that simple. Look, what you're basically telling me is that I should work for you for no cost, and should give everything away for no money, so you don't have to work, and you define how I should work, and under which conditions. Please, make a reality check. As long as I write maintain my software, please understand that as long as you don't contribute, it's my role to define the conditions under which I work. If you want other conditions, there are possibilities. I already told you.    

You have made it clear that you are scared of open sourcing AmigaOS components, you do not trust the community, you look at us as unworthy and uncapable. What a shame that you are such a wuss. You have also made it clear that you are no longer developing, only maybe fixing a bug here and there if you feel like it. You are not advocating a protocol for development, that is a protocol for stand still.

There are *three* protocols for development I'm advocating. Please pick one. I have personally other preferences in my life than AmigaOs, so please count me out. I can answer questions, but I won't write software anymore. What I promise is that I take the responsibility for the stuff I wrote serious, and you should at least try to appreciate that this is a lot more than you get from most other people in the AmigaOs scene.

[Minuous]

>The community prefers open source? Really? Where is the help regarding Aros 68k? I read lots of excuses why not helping but noone jumping in.

I'm interested in working on the proper AmigaOS, not some half-baked clone of it. Probably others feel the same way. Why spend years coding all the missing functionality into AROS just to get us to the point we are already at with OS3.9?

>There are three branches of AmigaOs where you could contribute. Os 4.0, Morphos and Aros. Now, please take your pick.

OS4 and MOS are not open source, and their developers probably wouldn't welcome unsolicited binary patches. So I'm not sure how people are supposed to contribute to them.

>Or you can also try to talk to owners whether releases are possible, a forth possibility. As you can see from the very theme of this thread, I did this and I succeeded. For one library. Apparently, you're still demanding more. It's a slow going, what exactly do you expect?

It might be possible to get sources to a few components by this method, and I certainly do appreciate the effort you are making, but it is never going to lead to full sources for the whole OS. The only realistic method for achieving this is a H&P bounty for the release of OS3.9 sources.

[OlafS3]

>The community prefers open source? Really? Where is the help regarding Aros 68k? I read lots of excuses why not helping but noone jumping in.

I'm interested in working on the proper AmigaOS, not some half-baked clone of it. Probably others feel the same way. Why spend years coding all the missing functionality into AROS just to get us to the point we are already at with OS3.9?

>There are three branches of AmigaOs where you could contribute. Os 4.0, Morphos and Aros. Now, please take your pick.

OS4 and MOS are not open source, and their developers probably wouldn't welcome unsolicited binary patches. So I'm not sure how people are supposed to contribute to them.

>Or you can also try to talk to owners whether releases are possible, a forth possibility. As you can see from the very theme of this thread, I did this and I succeeded. For one library. Apparently, you're still demanding more. It's a slow going, what exactly do you expect?

It might be possible to get sources to a few components by this method, and I certainly do appreciate the effort you are making, but it is never going to lead to full sources for the whole OS. The only realistic method for achieving this is a H&P bounty for the release of OS3.9 sources.

It is NOT a halfbaked clone how you call it. I say you have never really used my distribution and are just throwing phrases. And to be honest I do not care about classic hardware anymore and will not push in that direction anymore. Be happy with your 3.9 (or whatelse)...

[guest11527]

I'm interested in working on the proper AmigaOS, not some half-baked clone of it.  

But then make it less half-baked by contributing to it. That's the spirit of open source! Doesn't work how you like it? Change it!  

Probably others feel the same way. Why spend years coding all the missing functionality into AROS just to get us to the point we are already at with OS3.9?

Because you can't have one without the other. Essentially, you're saying "I want what you have, for free, so I can play with it". If you want it for free, you need to work for free. What do you think?  

OS4 and MOS are not open source, and their developers probably wouldn't welcome unsolicited binary patches. So I'm not sure how people are supposed to contribute to them.

No serious developer welcomes unsolicitated binary patches. But if you want to contribute, at least for Os 4 there is a contact form on their web page. Guess what, I used exactly that. I'm not aware of any other or better method, but maybe there are. I'm pretty sure you also find a contact form for Morphos. You need to talk to the people and offer your service. The result will not be open source, though. You'll probably need to sign a NDA or some other form of contract. But again, if you want something somebody else spend a lot of time and sweat in building, you shouldn't expect to get this for free. Or only if you *also* invest the same amount of work. Yes, it is *really* that simple.

Nothing is for free in this universe. You can either pay money, or you can pay with your work. One is commercial software, the other open source. Make your pick. I'm not even advocating one or the other. I'm just saying that your demand is quite unrealistic.  

It might be possible to get sources to a few components by this method, and I certainly do appreciate the effort you are making, but it is never going to lead to full sources for the whole OS. The only realistic method for achieving this is a H&P bounty for the release of OS3.9 sources.

Well, then set this up if you think this is going to work. I don't know how much you're going to pay for that, but if you can pay out Animo and/or H&P, and the developers that contributed to 3.9, that may also work. I don't know how much they would ask for (or whether they would be even willing to contribute), but I can at least ensure you that I'm personally not so much interested in the money itself. I would prefer a different development model, a more open one maybe, but not necessarily the "everything is for free for everyone". But that's a different story.

One way or another, you won't reach your goal by complaining here. The most realistic approach for *your goal*,i.e. Open Source AmigaOs, is really to start programming on AROS.

[Minuous]

>But then make it less half-baked by contributing to it.

I don't see the point of rewriting ReAction, Installer and all the rest from scratch when I already have them...I don't really have time to do that and write applications too. Even if I did, there's no reason to think they would get put into AROS, as it seems fairly clear that they are MUI zealots, standards be damned. Plus even a complete reimplementation would still be just a reimplementation, not the real thing.

>You need to talk to the people and offer your service. The result will not be open source, though. You'll probably need to sign a NDA or some other form of contract.  Or only if you *also* invest the same amount of work. Yes, it is *really* that simple.

Why would anyone want to do unpaid work on a piece of closed-source commercial software which is still being sold!? In the case of OS4 I don't even have a machine that will run it (not having a spare $5000 or so lying around), so it's out of the question. And as you point out, the result still would not be open source.

>I'm just saying that your demand is quite unrealistic.  
>But again, if you want something somebody else spend a lot of time and sweat in building, you shouldn't expect to get this for free.

I'm not demanding anything, what am I expecting to get for free? I have pointed out some of what's missing from AROS which keeps me on OS3.9, from a user perspective. I'm not demanding anyone else implement this, it seems obvious after 15 years that it won't be implemented. They're wondering why people don't want to use AROS, and I'm giving them the answer. As simple as that. Surely I have the right to say why I don't use something without having to volunteer years of unpaid labour on a piece of software I don't even like. By that logic, if I say why I don't like Windows, I have to go do unpaid work for Microsoft.

>Well, then set this up if you think this is going to work. I don't know how much you're going to pay for that, but if you can pay out Animo and/or H&P, and the developers that contributed to 3.9, that may also work.

I wouldn't be able to contribute much but I would certainly put some money towards such a bounty. I don't know whether I would be the best one to negotiate with them on the community's behalf though. I'd rather such an important bounty be managed by someone who has already a proven track record of managing bounties, if that's at all possible.

More on topic, I can confirm the incompatibility of Birdie with the new layers.library. Do you know which of the two components is to blame?

[wawrzon]

@minous
i see you want to have a cake and eat it too. what concerns amiga operating systems none is open source, not os4 nor mos but neither the original one. that leaves you with aros or nothing im sorry. this is why i have chosen aros, because there was no alternative to contribute. we can discuss it to death but i dont see anything else happening, none will open source amiga system, none will probably even answer to such enquiries, none will establish a bounty and almost none will contribute to it. lets live with it.

[guest11527]

I don't see the point of rewriting ReAction, Installer and all the rest from scratch when I already have them...

But you already made the point... If you want it open source, that's the only way that is going to work. Is this really so hard to understand?

I don't really have time to do that and write applications too.  

But you expect others that they make their work available for free and invest this time? How charming...

Even if I did, there's no reason to think they would get put into AROS, as it seems fairly clear that they are MUI zealots, standards be damned.  

Drawback of open source. You cannot have an "open source that works only how you want it to work". That's a closed source model.

Plus even a complete reimplementation would still be just a reimplementation, not the real thing.

What's unreal about a re-implementation?

Why would anyone want to do unpaid work on a piece of closed-source commercial software which is still being sold!?  

Why would you want to do unpaid work on closed-source commercial software that runs on obsolete hardware? This is neither logical.

Look, it's really all a matter of perspective. You should understand that your demands are not even self-consistent. Step back, think a while about your priorities and what your goals are, pick your decision within the available constraints.

I'm not demanding anything, what am I expecting to get for free? I have pointed out some of what's missing from AROS which keeps me on OS3.9, from a user perspective. I'm not demanding anyone else implement this, it seems obvious after 15 years that it won't be implemented. They're wondering why people don't want to use AROS, and I'm giving them the answer. As simple as that.  

But then it's your turn to change it. Why don't you implement the missing bits and pieces, after all? If you want a challenge, it's right in front of you. You refuse to contribute because it's not complete enough to compete with 3.9? With that logic, nothing will ever get done because nothing will ever become complete, it's a completely circular argument. It's actually not different with commercial software. At some point, you need to get your arse up and start, no matter how incomplete it is.  

Surely I have the right to say why I don't use something without having to volunteer years of unpaid labour on a piece of software I don't even like. By that logic, if I say why I don't like Windows, I have to go do unpaid work for Microsoft.

No, by that logic you can either buy another product, or contribute to a product that allows contribution. You can buy Apple, you can contribute to Linux. Same difference. If you want to *contribute* to Windows, well, that's going to be harder - seek employment at Microsoft. But it is no option that Microsoft will release the windows source-code for free, to allow you playing with it. Won't happen. It's their source, they define the rules. You don't like the rules? Pick another product. Your choice. Quite the same here: You don't like Os 4 as a product? Pick another one. The owner does not allow open source? Ok, their product, their rules. Want other rules? Pick another product. You have all the options right in front of your table, you only have to make your pick.  

More on topic, I can confirm the incompatibility of Birdie with the new layers.library. Do you know which of the two components is to blame?

Birdie goes into the internals of layers, and these had to change slightly - the external API works the same, though. Layers pools now many of its structures, to avoid the "fragmentation bomb" older versions threw at the system for their "slice and dice" implementation. As soon as a program modifies internal layer structures by bypassing layers, this is going to be a problem.  

As far as Birdie is concerned: I don't have a contact to its author. Do you? Does anyone in the community have?  

Essentially, Birdie provides a functionality that would require integration into intuition - not layers, as layers doesn't even draw anything, it only clears out layers optionally by a backfill-hook. Layer is rather the "victim" here as it provides some information on when intuition performs its activity.

One way or another, I don't think that Birdie is an essential miss. It's only eyecandy.

[modrobert]

The only realistic method for achieving this is a H&P bounty for the release of OS3.9 sources.

Great idea. OS3.1 as well. Open source or die (trying)!

BTW: I'm typing this on my A1200, so no more recommendations to use Aros, that's best suited for a PC.


PS:

Have a good weekend everyone, especially those who disagree. High time to turn up the volume in HippoPlayer, goose bumps galore. Nothing really beats Amiga, does it?