Layers.library V45 on the aminet

[wawrzon]

You would probably be astonished how hard it is to do proper line clipping if you have drawing styles (aka MinTerms), the FirstDot flag and line patterns involved. Graphics gets it *almost* right, cybergraphics messed it completely, and the latest P96 should probably be as fine as the original graphics, hopefully avoiding the one bug I remember in Gfx.

seems so. even though actually working now om aros68k there are cases where it fails to work properly, but then again, not enough reliable testing causes issues not to get fixed. it costed two years that my repeated reports were actually taken seriously and interpreted as completely lacking line clipping implementation on planar screens. thats fun, isnt it?

edit:Btw, im not saying something is wrong on developer side, just of more quality reports would happen it would be easier to fix not that obvious problem.

[Cosmos Amiga]

I have a dream. I'd like to see ThoR and Cosmos working intelligently together without killing each other, each in his field of expertise.
 
But unfortunately, since I saw the little mouse to be eaten by the cat, I do not believe in Christmas.

I only wanna explain that the quality of the code is very important.

(Thomas Richter still compilling most of his programms (like BenchTrash for example) with the -68000 option. BenchTrash is a part of the OS 3.9 who is 68020+ only...)


These mistakes are done by all the other actors in the computers world like Microsoft or Apple : they bypass the quality of the code using crappy compilators most of the time...

With my reworked libraries, I do exactly the opposite : I simpifly the code and make it smaller...

Another example with my 6 autovectors in the exec.library : original ones take 544 bytes. Now with good coding, only 130...

[olsen]

That is 15 years ago. I don't think we are going to see new 68k release. Only that matters to people here.

Never say never. Technically, building the operating system is easy enough, and it doesn't work any less good than it did back then.

The hard part is in figuring out if the result is sufficiently robust and does not cause important application software to fail. In short, while the code does work, it needs a QA team to make sure it's up to standards: beta testing, and fixing the bugs.

If you can find somebody to pay for that, then the current owner of the operating system may actually want to sell it, if asked. Mind you, that would only give you an updated OS 3.1, and OS 3.5 and beyond would still require more work for integration into the whole.

[biggun]

Never say never.

That's the spirit!

The hard part is in figuring out if the result is sufficiently robust and does not cause important application software to fail. In short, while the code does work, it needs a QA team to make sure it's up to standards: beta testing, and fixing the bugs.

QA and testing work might be something which could be distributed well enough on a voluntary team.
There are still some parties put quite some man power and energie in 68K development right now.
I think here of the efforts to design compatible chipsets and 68k cores.
These teams also needs and use QA, to ensure that the chipset is compatible and the CPUs are compatible.

[guest11527]

If you can find somebody to pay for that, then the current owner of the operating system may actually want to sell it, if asked. Mind you, that would only give you an updated OS 3.1, and OS 3.5 and beyond would still require more work for integration into the whole.

Well, actually, it would give you a bit more than just 3.1 plus an updated workbench because you can surely count me in. But we would be still short of Reaction, the updated FFS, the updated console, the updated RAM, the updated exec, the updated SCSI and the updated SetPatch. The only stuff from my side that depends on Reaction is BenchTrash, and I would hope that I'll find an older release without Reaction (just gadtools) somewhere.

Anyhow, whether that's financially viable is the next big question. I cannot answer that.

[biggun]

Olsen , Thomas,

I have to ask a stupid question here.

When you would such a possible buyout of AMIGA OS - with the existing free AROS.
Where are the advantages?

Is AROS so far from this?
Or would AROS have already some areas where its ahead - like a MUI clone etc?

What is AROS really missing today?

[vxm]

I only wanna explain that the quality of the code is very important.

And the problem is that each of you is right.
One said where to go while the other say how to go.
Then, each of you take one end of the same rope and pull very exactly in the opposite direction of the other. So, inevitably, nothing is moving forward.

Remenber, your discussion is about a 7 MHz clocked hardware.
Synergy will always be more profitable than a true false antagonism.

[olsen]

Well, actually, it would give you a bit more than just 3.1 plus an updated workbench because you can surely count me in. But we would be still short of Reaction, the updated FFS, the updated console, the updated RAM, the updated exec, the updated SCSI and the updated SetPatch. The only stuff from my side that depends on Reaction is BenchTrash, and I would hope that I'll find an older release without Reaction (just gadtools) somewhere.

Anyhow, whether that's financially viable is the next big question. I cannot answer that.

ReAction is one of H&P's contributions to the 3.5/3.9 product. As for FFS and other operating system modules which Heinz Wrobel worked on (FFS, SCSI, SetPatch), I suppose it would be his call whether or not these could be included. My own contributions to the product make up a sizable bunch, too, so there's a possibility to roll all of that into a product. Let's call it "AmigaOS 𝜋"

[warpdesign]

Olsen , Thomas,

I have to ask a stupid question here.

When you would such a possible buyout of AMIGA OS - with the existing free AROS.
Where are the advantages?

Is AROS so far from this?
Or would AROS have already some areas where its ahead - like a MUI clone etc?

What is AROS really missing today?

Seems like AROS doesn't run well on true (slow) 68k Amigas.

I don't know if it's far, but it doesn't run correctly. AROS on a real Amiga seems fine to run some (non-DOS) games but it seems to be it.

That's a difference.

[olsen]

Olsen , Thomas,

I have to ask a stupid question here.

When you would such a possible buyout of AMIGA OS - with the existing free AROS.

I do not understand the question, could you reword it?

Where are the advantages?

Is AROS so far from this?
Or would AROS have already some areas where its ahead - like a MUI clone etc?

What is AROS really missing today?

I have no idea, since I did my best not to get involved with AROS. Not out of spite or antagonism, it's just that because of my involvement with the Amiga operating system I did not want to give anybody enough rope to hang the AROS project by.

[biggun]

I do not understand the question, could you reword it?

I used AROS a couple times on x86.
On x86 AROS looked very amiga-ish and very good.
I compiled a couple of selfwritten Amiga shell tools for it.
This worked fine and the programs ran fine.
From just having a gimse look - it looked very AMIGA like and it looked working to me.

I have not used AROS on 68K so far, so I have no clue what is missing there.
Maybe not much?


I generally like the idea to continue developing AMIGA OS for 68k very much.

When I understood you right you and Thomas were discussing the option to develop a new AMIGA OS version - e.g 3.9.1 or whatever..

My question was : Can someone give a statement how close/far the result would be to what AROS is today.

I wonder what the percentage of AROS to AMIGA completness is today.
If for example AROS has 95% of what is needed to be a 100% AMIGA OS replacement ?
Then maybe a bounty to get a knowledgeable developer that now how to code this part for AMIGA OS would be an option?

Or maybe just buying out the right of this part of AMIGA OS 3.1?

[bloodline]

I used AROS a couple times on x86.
On x86 AROS looked very amiga-ish and very good.
I compiled a couple of selfwritten Amiga shell tools for it.
This worked fine and the programs ran fine.
From just having a gimse look - it looked very AMIGA like and it looked working to me.

I have not used AROS on 68K so far, so I have no clue what is missing there.
Maybe not much?


I generally like the idea to continue developing AMIGA OS for 68k very much.

When I understood you right you and Thomas were discussing the option to develop a new AMIGA OS version - e.g 3.9.1 or whatever..

My question was : Can someone give a statement how close/far the result would be to what AROS is today.

I wonder what the percentage of AROS to AMIGA completness is today.
If for example AROS has 95% of what is needed to be a 100% AMIGA OS replacement ?
Then maybe a bounty to get a knowledgeable developer that now how to code this part for AMIGA OS would be an option?

Or maybe just buying out the right of this part of AMIGA OS 3.1?

Last time I tested AROS68k two things stuck out:
Workbook (Workbench clone), needs some polish.
Low level hardware drivers need work, the obvious being graphics.library which, IIRC is entirely CPU driven for Amiga Naive modes, was slow on a real Amiga but acceptable on emulation, by which point one would use RTG :-)

[OlafS3]

Olsen , Thomas,

I have to ask a stupid question here.

When you would such a possible buyout of AMIGA OS - with the existing free AROS.
Where are the advantages?

Is AROS so far from this?
Or would AROS have already some areas where its ahead - like a MUI clone etc?

What is AROS really missing today?

First what do you mean when you say AROS? Here it seems you use it for AROS X86. AROS 68k is very different to the others (even though it inherits most of the advantages and disadvantages) because you can directly mix 68k with AROS 68k. From the view of a application there is no difference. AROS 68k when you download the nightly build is more or less a very basic 3.1. installation with Roms, small editor, more or less good-looking icons, MUI in form of Zune (still missing parts) and Wanderer as desktop. Basic problems with it are that Zune is still not 100% MUI38 resulting that not all MUI programs work or at least only partly work. The desktop Wanderer is based on Zune and slow, has bugs and is limited. That is what people look at and make (misleading) judgements on AROS. Then there are typical basic libs and devices from 3.1. that implement gadtools, intuition, AHI, CybergraphX 3 and so on.

The nice thing about Aros is you can replace almost everything, you can add installer by copying it in C, you can replace Wanderer with another desktop (I use Magellan), you can easily replace Zune with MUI (what I did in my distribution) and you can add almost everything by just copying files. That is how I created my distribution.

I have f.e. added almost any compiler from 68k to my distribution and they all work (including all examples). In newest version I just upload I have included working Modula 2 and Oberon compiler and the newest port of Freepascal (from this weekend). All were not created for Aros 68k because it did not exist at that time but all work on it.

I cannot say much about Aros 68k on real hardware, Toni optimized it recently and Wawa wrote that it becomes usable (on 68060).

[wawrzon]

as just a noob tester im not likely fully entitled to talk about aros, so take my opinion with a prize of salt.
workbook is a problem or a question here, it has been meant as a basic desktop replacement for limited systems but isnt being developed now. for the time being there is scalos being incorporated into aros (contributions) and also magellan could be put there i guess. also wanderer is being updated afaik, so at some point we will have at least three full blown desktop alternatives. the simplistic floppy based replacement could still need some attention, if any 68k c/asm coder was interested to finish its implementation.

the main problem of aros 68k is low level stuff: device drivers, but also graphics library planar/chunky conversion, some clipping problems. generally efficiency also in exec (i dont know if its possible to reach the aos levels) and probably dos data transfer could be optimised. there is also still missing functionality in gfx drivers for amiga chipset.

having that things like aros version of poseidon could be reintroduced and made working with 68k hardware and existing drivers or their aros replacements if neccessary.

[biggun]

Hi Olaf,

From what you say AROS 68K is already or can already be a very good AMIGA OS replacement?


If there are areas where performance could be improved like e.g EXEC, or LAYERS.
Would these be areas where some geeks ould help?

I would assume Cosmos would be talented for tuning Exec?

And I would think that Thomas would be the perfect guy to do layer super fast?

[itix]

If you can find somebody to pay for that, then the current owner of the operating system may actually want to sell it, if asked.

This is the black hole I mean. There is nobody to invest this money and then this current owner, whatever company it is. Re-establishing OS3 development would help MorphOS and AROS but makers of that another OS what I dont mention here surely wont agree.