OS3.9 BB3+4 V1.2 Available

[kolla]

Nice to see everyone agree.. uhm.. about what I want.

[TjLaZer]

Thanks for the post!  Downloaded it from EAB!  

[kolla]

Of course. Enterprises need stable systems. Unlike the typical experimental software that is created by the Linux hackers.

Oh yes, those "hackers", not really developers are they.

Like me. Linux developers have, typically, not the funding to run testing, or user studies, or...

You are not a Linux developer just because you were hacking around on some ancient graphics drivers that no-one really gives a damn about. Your code was not important. You code broke. Your code is not maintained. Your code will be removed. This is part of the process.

Distributions have, to some degree. So they necessarily have a more conservative approach.

They have whatever approach the distro aims for.

Progress needs a direction to progress to. No, I do not want to keep the status quo, where AmigaOs 3.x is only seen as an annoying old-time competition that blocks the income stream to "more modern" variants that were supposed to be sponsored by "designed to be outdated" PPC hardware.

Very few see OS 3.x that way, I think it must only be Hyperion. The rest of us sees Amiga OS 3.x for what it is, that weird and messy, yet awesome little OS that we can run on ancient hardware, in emulators, on FPGA systems, and pretty much anywhere these days. Too bad it is crippled not only be legacy, but also by being hostage in a legal catch 22 that very few seem to have the nerve to break it free from. At least not in our lifetime.

And AROS will fail

This should be a breaking news item in itself

Famous Amiga Developer announces that AROS will fail!! Because... open source is bad! M'key?!

for exactly the same reason Linux has not managed to become a main-stream Os for end users...

Really now. Please take a look around, how many linux systems can you count in immediate proximity? Do you have a "smart TV" running Android? Do you have an Android phone or tablet? What does your home wifi spot and home router run? Do you have a NAS, what OS did it come preinstalled with? What OS does this very website run on? What OS is used to host the vast percentage of cloud services we use every day? What OS does Facebook run on? How about ChromeOS devices? How about CoreOS? Why are Microsoft implementing Linux compatibility layers in Windows?

So maybe this will not be the "year of the Linux desktop", again, but why is it at all relevant - Linux is pretty much everywhere, providing experiences to end users.

AROS is most often hosted on Linux.
FriendUP runs mostly on top of Linux.
AEON supports development of Linux for AmigaOne systems.
Linux/m68k is still developed and evolving.
Amithlon was running on Linux.
ARIX is/will be running on Lunux.

These are just projects in our own "amiga realm".

Illegal stays illegal, no matter what.

Not at all. Laws change over time. You are German, you should know, sigh.

Just illegal source code, indeed, which leads to illegal software, once compiled. What else could it be? Do you seriously believe it becomes magically legal by somebody touching it or compiling it?

Again, not at all. As anyone in this industry should know by now, this is a gray zone legally. You seriously should read yourself up on how copyright infringements are dealt with when they land in courts. Some hints for you, it is not regarded as "theft", nor is it regarded as "criminal offense".

Anyhow - whether you say "illegal", it does't really matter, you, Cloanto, Hyperion etc can scream as high as you can - it is too late.

Which brings us back to - Now what?!

[kolla]

Hypocrisy is sometimes justifiable

Interesting. You obviously mean in cases like this thread, since that is the topic right here and now. I disagree with you. I think Thomas disagrees with you too But he is more interested in bashing me with rhetorics about how much open source sucks and how OS 3.x is not and never will be open source, even though the sources now are out in the ... open.

he just doesn't like it because he wants everything free legally and will make any argument (not that this will ever work).

What I want is not relevant. Neither is it relevant what Thomas wants. Or what you want. What matters is the general consensus of the greater society. So, today it is illegal, here and there. Kinda like drinking beer in the streets is illegal here and there. No, actually, less bad, since drinking beer in public is more likely considered a criminal offense, while copyright infringement is considered more like a breach of contract and hence a civil case where someone has to be sued and convicted. Something that happens all too often. Especially in the international software industry. Of which Amiga is part of. Not. :laughing:

[guest11527]

Oh yes, those "hackers", not really developers are they.

It depends on how they work, Kolla. There is some well-driven development in Linux, too. But the system as a whole does not work well together - for end user applications. It is the lack of  a common goal that causes all the problems with Linux on desktops.  

You are not a Linux developer just because you were hacking around on some ancient graphics drivers that no-one really gives a damn about. Your code was not important. You code broke. Your code is not maintained. Your code will be removed. This is part of the process.

I don't claim anything was of importance, really. I don't mind. It helped me, and I contributed hoping that it might help others, too. That's it.  

Very few see OS 3.x that way, I think it must only be Hyperion. The rest of us sees Amiga OS 3.x for what it is, that weird and messy, yet awesome little OS that we can run on ancient hardware, in emulators, on FPGA systems, and pretty much anywhere these days.

Where "anywhere"? Actually, AmigaOs is pretty much nowhere, really.  

Too bad it is crippled not only be legacy, but also by being hostage in a legal catch 22 that very few seem to have the nerve to break it free from. At least not in our lifetime.

"Free" or falling victim to a crowd of hackers?  

Famous Amiga Developer announces that AROS will fail!! Because... open source is bad! M'key?!

Kolla, I didn't make statements like "OpenSource is bad". I'm saying that AROS will fall victim to the same problems Linux has. Lack of direction, lack of a clear goal, lack of organization. The end result, if we should ever see a complete one, will be the same disorganized mess AmigaOs is these days, for exactly the same reason, actually: Nobody defining where the journey is supposed to go.  

Really now. Please take a look around, how many linux systems can you count in immediate proximity? Do you have a "smart TV" running Android? Do you have an Android phone or tablet?  

No, I don't. But never mind. "Android" is not Linux, Kolla. Android is a system that is based on Linux components, but that is driven by a big player in the IT world with a clear goal and a clear direction, which is exactly why Android works so well. (At least for Google...) In the end, *Google* has a say what goes into Android and what does not, they define the rules how *their* system is supposed to work, look like, and what the future directions will be.

This is *exactly* the difference between Linux and Android, and exactly the reason why the former is still not main stream, whereas the latter is.  

What does your home wifi spot and home router run? Do you have a NAS, what OS did it come preinstalled with? What OS does this very website run on? What OS is used to host the vast percentage of cloud services we use every day? What OS does Facebook run on? How about ChromeOS devices? How about CoreOS?

Again, these are areas where the Linux kernel (not the typical Linux Desktop) has industrial sponsors that define a direction. Kolla, again, we *pay* for Linux distributions here in our department. SLES, if you want to know. It is the part where Linux works. Yet, go into an average home, see what runs on Laptops and Desktops there. It's not Linux. Can you guess why that's the case? The average user gives a sh*t about open source or not.

The average user wants his daily tasks solved by the system. Linux does not. No serious money goes into "Linux on PCs for end users".  

Look at successful IT systems today: Servers: Yes, that's Linux, driven by players like SLES or Ubuntu that collect money for the service. Driven by such distributions, paid by such distributions that are paid by users. Android: Driven by google. Collect money from the users, commercial interest, big players.

Now look at AROS: Driven by? A bunch of crowds. No direction, no funding. Linux on Desktops? Which flawor do you like? Gnome? KDE? XFCE? Not driven by any big player, really. Not successful at all.

You do not get a succesful product without some serious investment taking place, and you do not get a succesful product without someone "wearing the hat" and defining a direction. It is not "Open Source" or not that is the problem. It is the availability of resources, and the ability to drive a project towards a specific goal to make it succesful and a "complete working system" instead of a "bunch of hacks".

Now, once again: Where should all the investment, the money and the goals come from for AROS? Or for AmigaOs (if ever)? Even more so if you're telling the community here that "everything should be for free for everyone?".

Where is your business model for an Open Source development of AmigaOs, Kolla? I already asked this question before. Frankly, I got no answer.

The problem is not Open Source as such. The problem is "lack of direction" due to lack of a clear structure, and lack of structure due to lack of funding. You don't get one by throwing sources at a bunch of hackers. You only get an unstructured mess.

I wouldn't have much less of a problem with OpenSource-ing AmigaOs if I would know how to give such an attempt a clear structure and a development direction, and if I would know how to finance such an attempt (and yes, it needs funding). I don't have an answer.  

Seems you don't have one, either.  

Until then, I believe a better model is to accquire funding by selling something to users. Which is, surprisingly, exactly what the big "Linux" players do, too. SLES, Google, you name it.

[utri007]

Thomas / Kolla : Please stop, if you want to argue about this, do it through a email or something.

[donpalmera]

In the end, *Google* has a say what goes into Android and what does not,

Google has a say on what goes into AOSP and the builds for Nexus devices. What actually gets shipped on devices is a different matter. The AOSP source is fairly modular so you can actually replace almost anything you want.

they define the rules how *their* system is supposed to work, look like, and what the future directions will be.

The test kits that builds have to pass to be allowed to ship with the play market don't test all that much. Basically they just test that apps in the market will run.. they don't sanity test any of the UI changes, hacks to the frameworks etc that the vendor has done. If you don't need/want Play you can ship whatever you want.

All of that aside...

You seem to be complaining that Linux being flexible to be used in projects ranging from tightly embedded, IoT etc applications to mobile phones all the way up to HPC machines with hundreds of cores is a bad thing.. I would argue that it's not. Linux being generic enough (not tied to any one person or companies goals) that it can be used in all of these things is one of the most important things it has going for it.
Not everyone wants a fully featured desktop environment. The Linux kernel doesn't impose that on people that want to work on it and that's why there are thousands of people that contribute to Linux.

The grand OS you want would never have stuff like fully working ports for multiple abandoned architectures (m68k, H8, SuperH etc) because the people that are keeping that stuff working have no interest in keeping all the other crap you want working. It wouldn't have support for different security models, strong crypto etc because the people that need that stuff and pay for it to happen aren't interested in your "everything looks the same" desktop either.

[guest11527]

You seem to be complaining that Linux being flexible to be used in projects ranging from tightly embedded, IoT etc applications to mobile phones all the way up to HPC machines with hundreds of cores is a bad thing..

No. I complain that this complexity overburdens the user by creating a system that is not managable by the average IT user, and that this is exactly the reason why we fail to see Linux on desktops.

[psxphill]

Google has a say on what goes into AOSP and the builds for Nexus devices. What actually gets shipped on devices is a different matter. The AOSP source is fairly modular so you can actually replace almost anything you want.

Manufacturers try to differentiate and end up filling your device with battery draining crud that makes your phone behave differently to every other Android phone out there.

They then offer updates for a limited time, because porting new builds is difficult as they only got binary blobs from the vendors.

Getting stuck on an old Android build is very bad news because it inherits all the security issues from Linux.

So you either risk running an ancient official build, or put your trust in one of the teenagers pulling together builds from a dozen different githubs with hundreds of updates cherry picked. If cyanogenmod is the only modern build available then sit back and wait for your mobile banking apps to start complaining that your phone is rooted, even though you didn't enable root on it yet.

My next phone will be running windows 10 mobile, if they support their phones as well as they do the desktop.

[donpalmera]

Manufacturers try to differentiate and end up filling your device with battery draining crud

I only buy Nexus devices.

that makes your phone behave differently to every other Android phone out there.

See above. And that's sort of what I said.. Google only has control what goes into AOSP and the test suite that needs to be passed for vendors to get the play market on their phones.

They then offer updates for a limited time, because porting new builds is difficult as they only got binary blobs from the vendors.

Again, I only buy Nexus devices because of this. The source and the binary blobs are available from Google.

Getting stuck on an old Android build is very bad news because it inherits all the security issues from Linux.

Got CVEs for all of them there security issues?

So you either risk running an ancient official build,

Buy Nexus devices. You'll get security updates long enough that the internal resistance on the cell in the device is through the roof and you'll have to bin it before you get stranded in the land of no updates with Samsung users.

or put your trust in one of the teenagers pulling together builds from a dozen different githubs with hundreds of updates cherry picked.

Not sure why their age matters to be honest. I'm pretty sure people in the 20's, 30's etc can write buggy software. If you have the modified source you can compare it with AOSP just in case those naughty kids put in some anti-OAP backdoors.

If cyanogenmod is the only modern build available then sit back and wait for your mobile banking apps to start complaining that your phone is rooted, even though you didn't enable root on it yet.

https://www.google.com/nexus/

My next phone will be running windows 10 mobile, if they support their phones as well as they do the desktop.

I just laughed so much I puked a little. You're paranoid about security so you're painting a massive bulls eye on your forehead?

[donpalmera]

No. I complain that this complexity overburdens the user by creating a system that is not managable by the average IT user

There are plenty of people out there that can barely use Windows and OSX that have moved to Ubuntu without too much trouble.
OSes are complex things, Windows, OSX etc are no different. If anything the only reason those OSes are any easier than a distro like Ubuntu is because they usually come preinstalled on the machine so essentially the hard parts have already been done by someone else.

AmigaOS was simple, elegant, whatever but it's a joke by today's standards. The fact that people are still fighting over the crumbs that remain of it like it's worth anything cracks me up.

and that this is exactly the reason why we fail to see Linux on desktops.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that Linux on the desktop is the one sign that Linux has won. I don't think the majority of kernel developers think that's the only thing that'll validate their work. I'm pretty sure the one guy that got the H8 support reintroduced recently wasn't constantly thinking "If I can't get KDE running on the tiny amount of DRAM this thing can address I might as well give up!". Linux has won like Skynet won in Terminator; Whether you like it or not it is now everywhere and controls your life.

[guest11527]

There are plenty of people out there that can barely use Windows and OSX that have moved to Ubuntu without too much trouble.

Go make an experiment. Take an average new laptop, try to install Ubuntu. You'll experience all types of problems. Wifi networks not connecting, or instable connections, graphics slow or unsupported or only a subset of modes supported, devices running hot or running low on battery fast...

Try to install your average printer. The typical result is that it will not work (GDI printers).

Yes, of course, all that is not the fault of Ubuntu or Linux. It's the problem of proprietary hardware, proprietary protocols and so on.

Maybe I, personally, can get the kernel tweaked to allow the device to run quite stable, and exactly the way I want it to run. Please don't get me wrong, I *use* Linux. There is no windows on this machine and there never was.

However, in the end, it doesn't change a thing. Linux doesn't work well for the end user for such reasons. The reason is simply that Linux has no market power in the end user market.

OSes are complex things, Windows, OSX etc are no different. If anything the only reason those OSes are any easier than a distro like Ubuntu is because they usually come preinstalled on the machine so essentially the hard parts have already been done by someone else.

Not only. But also because the vendors deliver drivers mostly for Windows. Potentially for OsX. Hardly ever for Linux. Guess why that is?  

The Linux problem is the "kernel of the day problem". Lack of stable interfaces within the kernel. Impossible to write a kernel module that survives a kernel release without requiring recompilation, restructuring or fixup of its interfaces towards the ever-changing kernel-internal interface layer.

That's a lack of a high-level statement "these are the interfaces, don't touch them for the next two years". It does not happen.

Linux helps to keep its developers happy. Vendors, or - huh - users are completely irrelevant here.  

AmigaOS was simple, elegant, whatever but it's a joke by today's standards. The fact that people are still fighting over the crumbs that remain of it like it's worth anything cracks me up.

It is certainly a joke, and not even by today's standards. I see nothing elegant in the BCPL/C intertwining, and I see even less elegance in multiple system components. graphics is a pure mess, for example. There are a couple of components that were "nice enough" for its day (exec, intuition), but that doesn't make an operating system without elementary Os services.  

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that Linux on the desktop is the one sign that Linux has won.

Make a pure count of noses. If I check which operating systems students bring to the campus, then there is a very clear signal: Windows. Maybe MacOs. Linux is completely irrelevant here on end user devices.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'm none of those Windowers, or Apple-fans. But it doesn't change a thing. Face reality, please.

That doesn't make Linux irrelevant, of course. There is the server market, the high-performance market and so on. All markets where Linux could collect some serious money. Linux is successful where it could accquire enough resources to create a controlled environment - where distributions could sell service contracts and manufacturers can be sure to have a stable distribution that is supported by five years or so.  

IOW, Linux works where "someone wears the hat" and avoids the "kernel of the day" problem simply by freezing the kernel release for a long time and offering custom patches (paid by the customer) to ensure that things keep working.

If we start the same thing with AmigaOs, we again end up with the "Kickstart of the day" problem - pretty much the problem we have today already. This 68060.library does not work with that card, this scsi.device not with that hardware, this exec.library requires patching, this shell does not work with that script... you name it. This is the whole tragedy. The solution cannot be to create even more rumble by everyone programming into some direction.

There need to be *some* agreement where the journey should go, and someone who makes this decision. And no, before you ask, that should not be me. I simply want to stop all this compatibility mess we see today, and it doesn't get any better by making everything for free and inviting the hacker of the day to create even more noise by creating another patch of a system component.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

i only buy nexus devices.

+1   :cool:

[donpalmera]

I've cut out some parts because I have stuff to do. I haven't edited out things I wanted to ignore...

Go make an experiment. Take an average new laptop, try to install Ubuntu.

Have been running Debian on all of my machine including laptops for the past 15 years or so.. The last 5 years or so worth of laptops just worked after debian-installer had finished and I installed the non-free wifi firmware.
I don't think I've ever seen a Windows machine installed from the vanilla install media and not a restore disc that didn't need a lot of work to make all of the hardware work.

However, in the end, it doesn't change a thing. Linux doesn't work well for the end user for such reasons.

Can we get some empirical evidence of that and not just your feels on the matter?

Hardly ever for Linux. Guess why that is?

In the x86 world Intel, NVidia etc actively support Linux.. In the ARM world western vendors like TI, Atmel etc all have guys trying to get their drivers into the mainline kernel. You're a lot more likely to plug some random junk into a Linux machine and have it work than any other system IMHO.

The Linux problem is the "kernel of the day problem". Lack of stable interfaces within the kernel. Impossible to write a kernel module that survives a kernel release without requiring recompilation,

The "kernel of the day" that is probably the most widely used kernel out there if you ignore some deeply embedded RTOS like FreeRTOS and uTRON.
Kernel modules from one kernel version aren't meant to loaded into a different version?! Oh noes what a massive problem!

restructuring or fixup of its interfaces towards the ever-changing kernel-internal interface layer.

Which layer are you talking about? It's easy to make some vague statements but they are pretty useless here if you consider how many wildly different subsystems Linux is comprised off. One of the things I hear all the time is that the people that maintain stuff like the networking stack are too strict about changes i.e. refusing to allow hardware NAT support in. I'd really like to know which subsystem you think is constantly changing under developers feet.. maybe you mean something fairly recent like device tree for ARM?

That's a lack of a high-level statement "these are the interfaces, don't touch them for the next two years". It does not happen.

Linus has a high level statement "Don't break userland". As a user you don't care if the way the business logic in the kernel works changes as long as the exposed interface is the same or has glue to present the legacy interface to userland.
I hope you realise there are -stable branches of the kernel that you can use if you don't like actually seeing progress.. Considering you're fighting over an OS that's been dead for decades maybe those aren't old enough.

That doesn't make Linux irrelevant, of course. There is the server market

If you think Linux is just about servers you're either short sighted or being willfully ignorant.

If we start the same thing with AmigaOs, we again end up with the "Kickstart of the day" problem

AmigaOS is A: totally dead B: totally worthless C: Not interesting to anyone except for nostalgia. There is never going to be an agreement on what to do with it because there isn't really anything to do with it except tinkering.
The best thing that could be done is let the source code go and let people that want to mess around with it do so. I suspect the reason that didn't happen already is a little bit of "We need to squeeze every last drop out of this" and "We're not actually sure what we own, we'll make a big noise about things like the source leak but in reality if it did go to court we'd have a hard time proving what we actually own". If I was one of the groups that think they own AmigaOS I would be happy that someone leaked the 3.1 code as the torrents for it will probably out last all of the commercial entities that are trying to make a buck off of it and is less likely to be lost forever.

There need to be *some* agreement where the journey should go, and someone who makes this decision. I simply want to stop all this compatibility mess

Trying to make AmigaOS and Amiga hardware not a massive kludge of 80's and 90's crap barely hanging on for life in the present is never going to happen. If anything it goes against the spirit of Amiga. It was always a kludge and that made it lovable and interesting.

making everything for free and inviting the hacker of the day to create even more noise by creating another patch of a system component.

I would argue that if the source for AmigaOS and commonly used stuff like P96 was all up on github there would be less of a problem with people random hacking binaries and sticking them in unofficial patch sets. People are lazy and although there might be forks they would most likely be pretty close to each other. What you seem to want is someone to dictate who gets to release stuff, who gets to pick version numbers etc. That could happen if there was an official AmigaOS opensource release with an official maintainer, an official P96 opensource release with an official maintainer. I doubt there are enough people with the knowledge and time to manage that stuff left but it would certainly be a better situation than the only options being to disassemble existing binaries and release unofficial patches/beg the Amiga gods of long long ago for the right to fix their precious.

[guest11527]

Have been running Debian on all of my machine including laptops for the past 15 years or so.. The last 5 years or so worth of laptops just worked after debian-installer had finished and I installed the non-free wifi firmware.
I don't think I've ever seen a Windows machine installed from the vanilla install media and not a restore disc that didn't need a lot of work to make all of the hardware work.

Lenovo T530: Instable wifi connection, or no wifi connection. I've also a couple of old Dell laptops here where the network connection breaks down.  

Can we get some empirical evidence of that and not just your feels on the matter?

 
Find it attached. This is the access statistics of our home page (university, top-level). Linux is utterly irrelevant, 1.2% of the devices that connect to our page are Linux-driven. Forget it...

This is approximately on par for what I found in other sources.

The "kernel of the day" that is probably the most widely used kernel out there if you ignore some deeply embedded RTOS like FreeRTOS and uTRON.
Kernel modules from one kernel version aren't meant to loaded into a different version?! Oh noes what a massive problem!

The "massive problem" is exactly that vendors cannot provide a driver and expect that it "works". NVIDIA doesn't ship kernel modules. They ship a source code kludge that compiles (hopefully, but not always) against the kernel, and a binary X11 module that often (but not always) works with the current X11 server. Depending on what the kernel is or how its "interfaces" changed, the version may or may not work.

VMWare: Same problem. Requires manual patching to make it run on the latest kernel.

Which layer are you talking about?

Exactly. There are none. That's one of the typical Linux problems. There is no clear-cut interface between kernel modules and the kernel. They are more or less in daly flux. If you have a binary module that works today, chances are less than even that it'll break tomorrow.

Linus has a high level statement "Don't break userland".

Which is nice, but doesn't help vendors to create hardware for it. "userland" != "kernel land". As I already said, there are no interfaces in kernel land. You take whatever your kernel of the day defines as functions, and hope you'll get away with it tomorrow.

As a user you don't care if the way the business logic in the kernel works changes as long as the exposed interface is the same or has glue to present the legacy interface to userland.

As a user, I care whether I can use a hardware of my choice, connect it to my system and get it supported tomorrow as well. A vendor cannot ensure that. The best a vendor can do is throw some source-code blob into the open source community and hope somebody will pick it up and support it for free for its lifetime. Many private enterprises do not have the man-power to run the daily cleanup behind the modifications of the kernel interfaces. It's not a self-sustaining model.

If you think Linux is just about servers you're either short sighted or being willfully ignorant.

It is utterly irrelevant on the desktop. And no, I don't buy "Android = Linux".

The best thing that could be done is let the source code go and let people that want to mess around with it do so. I suspect the reason that didn't happen already is a little bit of "We need to squeeze every last drop out of this" and "We're not actually sure what we own, we'll make a big noise about things like the source leak but in reality if it did go to court we'd have a hard time proving what we actually own".

Of course AmigaO is completely outdated and irrelevant, and not worth being called an operating system (given that it doesn't "operate" as it should most of the day, Guru be welcome!). Still, there are some people that run interesting products on it - and you cannot support users anymore on AmigaOs nowadays, not for any "new" hardware at least. There is just too much arbitrary junk on the internet, without proper integration and compatibility.

That's the kind of mess AmigaOs is today, and it's not going to get better by throwing its sources at a bunch of hackers.

I would argue that if the source for AmigaOS and commonly used stuff like P96 was all up on github there would be less of a problem with people random hacking binaries and sticking them in unofficial patch sets. People are lazy and although there might be forks they would most likely be pretty close to each other.

I doubt that. Given the amount of worthless patches we have today, the same amount of worthless patches would be in the source, without a quality control, without interoperability testing. Even as of today, you cannot just "install AmigaOs" anymore due to various hacks, workarounds and kludges vendors came up with due to lack of intergration, knowledge or testing.

What you seem to want is someone to dictate who gets to release stuff, who gets to pick version numbers etc. That could happen if there was an official AmigaOS opensource release with an official maintainer, an official P96 opensource release with an official maintainer.

As you say, it would probably not matter *how* you would release AmigaOs if there would be maintainer, a test procedure, nightly builds and so on. This might be all just fine, and it might also work with OpenSource. Problem is: Servers cost money, electricity costs money, support costs time.

For Linux, there is (already) an (albeit small) stream of income that allows such procedures. Big users (like computing centers, like us) pay distributions, distributions pay for servers, for developers keeping care of "their" kernel, keeping bugs fixed and so on. It is a (small) ecosystem that works.

Now, and I'm not asking this for the first time, what is your suggestion for a business model for AmigaOs to make this workable? IOWs, who would pay for the servers, for the electricity, for some (minor, small) man-power?

I'm personally happy to agree with Open Source if you can answer me this question and provide me with an idea where a minimal continuous stream of income should come from. Especially with users around that want everything for free (as in money, not as in speach).

I doubt there are enough people with the knowledge and time to manage that stuff left but it would certainly be a better situation than the only options being to disassemble existing binaries and release unofficial patches/beg the Amiga gods of long long ago for the right to fix their precious.

There are still *some* people around. Some idiots like me would probably even invest some part of their small spare time. Regardless of open source or not. Provided there is an infrastructure, testers, vendors, a qualified distribution channel and regular releases. All of which, unfortunately, costs some (minimal) amount of money.

Tell me where this money should come from, and I'll be happy.

[Pentad]

My next phone will be running windows 10 mobile, if they support their phones as well as they do the desktop.

Wow, you really have no idea what is going on do you.  You might want to do some reading:

https://www.google.com/#q=Windows+10+spying

http://bgr.com/2016/02/10/windows-10-spying-investigation/

And you are aware Windows 10 mobile is just about dead right?

"Windows 10 for phones has had a catastrophic Holiday quarter as sales slumped to an all-time low to just 4.5 million Lumia phones. That's a decline of the whopping 57% over the same quarter in 2014, and 49% drop in revenue."

Oh, and you should probably read this too:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Windows-10-for-phones-has-a-huge-problem-its-app-store-is-infested-with-fake-apps_id78106

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10864034/windows-phone-is-dead

Sorry to rain on your parade,
-P