Why not support Aros 68k instead of patching old binaries?

[guest11527]

Who cares? They're awesome retro machines for the Retro Computerer

I didn't say anything different. But one should really understand the difference between a retro machine and a state-of-the-art architecture.

[Thorham]

I didn't say anything different. But one should really understand the difference between a retro machine and a state-of-the-art architecture.

Don't look at me, I know peecees have been a lot more powerful for quite a while now. As nice as they are, my Amiga is still on almost everyday (and it's not nostalgia, I'm getting sick of reading about nostalgia :p).

[OlafS3]

Thanks for telling me what my objection is. Allow me to correct you - BTW, you got it wrong.

Point one is that I'm not (primarely) concerned about copyright, at least not right now. Copyright is a much more serious matter for commercial use than it is for hobby use. Point is simply:

If you patch a program, make a good attempt reaching the author. If that fails, try again, or ask somebody else with contacts to him. See what the author has to say, listen carefully and try to understand the point, whatever the point might be. For or against, no matter. Be respectful.

If all this fails, there are *still* options to probably organize improvements on old software. Probably even without patching. The danger of this binary patching stuff is: You never know what the intentions of the author might have been, you cannot read the source, and you cannot read the comments in the source. It might be just your problem that you did not understand the interface, or that there is a bug in *your* program instead of the author's code. The second danger is that this causes a chaotic "anti-development" of the software in question because somebody else might *also* have an idea what would need fixing. And probably such "fixes" do not even work with each other, or mess up the software completely. In worst case, we end up with N totally incompatible versions of the software, and program A working with version 1 but not with version 2, and program B just the other way around...

So for example, if you want to update such old software, probably try to find a group of people that are interested in the same old code, get organized, and - after some good testing - release a patch and make this group of people responsible for the code. Or try to reach the author as a group, organize a petition.... There are many ways. These ways are more complicated, but they will probably yield better software, or - gosh! - even legal software. (There is the copyright argument).

Problem is: Nothing of that happened. In fact, this was a wild-west style shoot-first-ask-later attempt at fixing a potentially, though likely bug, without any coordination and without any attempt of giving the author a chance to even react.

In this particular case, the author is even still around, can be contacted, and should at least be given a *chance* to say something about the problem. Probably not even fixing it, but probably give hints or provide direction. Whatever the answer is: Respect it. It's not your software.

If there is no answer, there is still time to do something. But only then.

Patches are as old as amiga. As long the original binary is not distributed nobody can say anything about it. It is up to the user if he uses a patch or not. You have yourself admitted that Hyperion gives a sh*t about 68k except perhaps as resource of potential customers. The same is true for other devs. To me the discussion is a little dogmatic, there are some devs who patch a binary to make it faster or remove a bug and offer it to others with similar problems who either use it or not. Nobody expects today the original authors to make support or bugixes to the old 68k versions, what would be for me the only reason not to offer a patch but work together with the devs. If 68k is abandoned I really see no reason why anybody would be affected. In a perfect world 68k would be supported and we would need not to discuss but it is not.

[psxphill]

Really? It appears you don't understand what his objection is. He simply objects to any patching or updating of anybody's code (unless it's public domain or open source) without the owner's express consent.

That is only one of his objections. The compatibility issue is another. In situations here the person who wrote the code is contactable it makes perfect sense.

It makes no difference to him whether you release a binary patch or the complete software.

That wasn't your original argument. You said he didn't understand the difference. I said he understood but that wasn't what his objection was. You're now saying it makes no difference to him, which is essentially what I told you. So you're agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong. Is English not your first language?

[vxm]

Look [...] weaknesses.

A computer does what you ask him to do.
 If a computer crashes every 5 minutes, it is because you asked it to crashe every 5 minutes.
 If you want it does not crash every 5 minutes, ask it to not crashe every 5 minutes.
 It is easy to say that a dog is rabid when we no longer want him.

 So all that is old is obsolete?
 The wheel, which is more old than UNIX or Amiga, would be an outdated idea ?
Should we use a boat instead of a car? what do you recommend ?
 
Bug fix, which is part of evolution, does not prevent the world keep turning.

Oppose the how (standard) to the why (design) is a suicidal argument.

[SpeedGeek]

That is only one of his objections. The compatibility issue is another. In situations here the person who wrote the code is contactable it makes perfect sense.

 He has just given a much more detailed explanation of his objections on this thread and it's appears that neither one of us completely understood them.  

That wasn't your original argument. You said he didn't understand the difference. I said he understood but that wasn't what his objection was. You're now saying it makes no difference to him, which is essentially what I told you. So you're agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong. Is English not your first language?

 Semantics or language (English) that is the question. Maybe he doe's understand the difference but considers them to be irrelevant to his objections. The end result is the same (he still objects) but apparently you expect both me (and him also) to be sticklers and perfectionists of trivial details in causal discussion (e.g. he should explain in great detail that he has no legal objections to releasing binary patches even if it's completely irrelevant to his primary objections).

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Should we use a boat instead of a car? what do you recommend ?

Boats have been around a lot longer than cars.  Just FYI.  :lol:

[vxm]

Boats have been around a lot longer than cars.  Just FYI.  :lol:

Why not. If you consider that a floating trunks is a boat.

[psxphill]

The end result is the same (he still objects) but apparently you expect both me (and him also) to be sticklers and perfectionists of trivial details in causal discussion

Your statement was completely and utterly the opposite of what you meant. That isn't trivial, I'm not picking you up for grammar/punctuality/spelling.

When I commented on it you didn't understand what I said either & carried on arguing. Your objection seems a little one sided, you can say anything and we have to agree and you can't be held responsible if you say something wrong. I'd expect that from talking to a woman, not on an amiga forum.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

I'd expect that from talking to a woman

:laughing:

[Wolfe]

Well, I look at what’s being said and came to my own conclusion.  

Patches work, but if someone has the talent and time to re-engineer the software to work on a classic Amiga without performance issues, AFA or AROS68k or other, that would be great.  Better than a bug fix.  But its having the coders to do it . . .

Author’s wrights for “abandoned software” matter not, least not to me!  Because its abandoned.  Holding software technology hostage is why “Open Source” is so popular IMO.  Re-engineer it and the author no longer matters from a copy wright POV.  No offense intended.  

Oh, and on the note of NG Amiga’s, there isn’t any real world next generation ultra modern Amiga’s.  A shot at a new beginning while emulating the old is whats available.  

[Brian]

The CybergraphX thread was closed so I could not answer there and decided to make a new one.

The issues with patching or not distributing abandoned binaries with or without permission of author pops up regularly here. I do not want to start a bashing thread about authors but we all know that many old projects are either completely abandoned (author not accessible anymore) or authors still active (on one of the NG platforms) and reluctant to support 68k anymore.

My conclusion and question is... we do not need the old binaries anymore because there is a replacement for it: Aros 68k together with Rom Replacements from Toni Wilen. It is opensource and sources are legally accessible and it is possible to change and improve them. The Aros project lacks developers so if people want to improve the situation why do they not help there.

In this case CybergraphX 3 is implemented in Aros, why not helping to improve it? The situation regarding the old sources will not change anymore so why not accepting it and start somewhere new. Additionally Aros 68k benefits from the Aros developments so it is very sophisiticated and gets new software. Forget the old stuff... where Aros needs improvements when running on old hardware is mainly improvements in speed. And on API level some are very good implemented, in others stuff is missing. But it offers future... What do people here think?

I don't know... maybe because we want to use AmigaOS and not a replacement OS?

I fully understand the potential problems that an unofficial patch can create but I can only see it as a problam for the creater and user of such a patch, as long as we make sure things work with official files I let other worry about what problem they cause for them selves.

[SpeedGeek]

Your statement was completely and utterly the opposite of what you meant. That isn't trivial, I'm not picking you up for grammar/punctuality/spelling.

When I commented on it you didn't understand what I said either & carried on arguing. Your objection seems a little one sided, you can say anything and we have to agree and you can't be held responsible if you say something wrong. I'd expect that from talking to a woman, not on an amiga forum.

How could anyone be 100% certain based on his earlier posts he really did understand the difference? He was certainly no less aggressive in his objections to releasing a binary patch then to a full release of the software in question.

I already explained that I could have been wrong about his not understanding the difference but in the end it's still a TRIVIAL issue because the end result is exactly the same (he still objects).

Now, that's exactly what I would expect from a woman, continued bickering about a completely moot point! :lol:

[OlafS3]

I don't know... maybe because we want to use AmigaOS and not a replacement OS?

I fully understand the potential problems that an unofficial patch can create but I can only see it as a problam for the creater and user of such a patch, as long as we make sure things work with official files I let other worry about what problem they cause for them selves.

People have to decide what they want

Regarding Patches... Patches are for sure legal, there are propably hundreds on aminet. If the 68k version is still supported then contacting author would make more sense but for abandoned software (even if there are still PPC versions in development) I see no real problem or harm in it. Finally it is up to the users then if they use a modified binary then and as long only the patch but neither the original binary or a modified one is distributed without permission.

[SamuraiCrow]

If we get LLVM/CLANG working one day, maybe the generated code will be fast enough for that.

Kamelito

That and decent chipset drivers...
Fortunately, FBlit source is available under the open source MIT license.  Both sources are on my GitHub account.