Consequences of the AmigaOS 3.1 source code "leak", one year after?

[giZmo350]

Hmmm... apparently, you can actually take .device files from a further release (designed for the same processor and similar hardware, mind you) and run it on an earlier system.

Not guaranteed, but it does generally work. You want big drive partitions (non boot) on 3.1?

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71766&page=2

@PtC

Would you say you're totally full of sh!t or just partially? :rolleyes:

[Pat the Cat]

@PtC

Would you say you're totally full of sh!t or just partially? :rolleyes:

Any human being that says they have none of that in them is either lying, or a truly gifted newborn baby.

SO, are you partially full of it? And if you say no and you ain't lying, I've been trying to get hardware working for the past 45 years or so. That's a lot more experience than a truly gifted newborn baby has.

When did you start? And have you actually tried using .device drivers from a release further than the one you have?

Of couse, you are free to ignore my questions. Ignorant people often use such a method. To ignore is to be ignorant.

[slaapliedje]

Oh, I was well aware of being able to do that, my point was I would rather run an open source operating system that can continually be supported by a community over copying out updated libraries/device files that may or may not get continued support.

[Pat the Cat]

Oh, I was well aware of being able to do that, my point was I would rather run an open source operating system that can continually be supported by a community over copying out updated libraries/device files that may or may not get continued support.

So do I. It's called Linux. The reason I'm interested still in the Amiga is because I've got some old code to throw in the melting point that might just help people if they want to try VJing.

AmigaDOS isn't open source, which is a voluntary sharing by the originator. Anyway, I was talking about using NEWer .device files on older systems. Not older .device files on NEWer systems.

The only way I know of to get GUARANTEED CONTINUED SUPPORT - is to wear a sports bra. Forget it for technology, it's a myth.

Bad move on not admitting you were at least PARTIALLY full of the brown stuff. Unless you are an AI. Met a few of them online.

[Minuous]

@fishy_fiz:

I merely pointed out a shortcoming of AROS x86, and you have responded with a personal attack for some reason. It is a fact and not "spewing crap" that it does not have proper 3.9 support, you can read the same thing on the official pages. No need to get angry and start trolling just because I don't think it is very useful in its current form; surely I have the right to an opinion without being vilified by yourself and/or other AROS zealots.

[gertsy]

I'll take the gertsy challenge and give it a title. Prince John....  3.1 is a bit of a traitor. "It" betrays its early kin yet rules its serfs.

Per your instructions I have translated the title to Mandarin - well almost Mandarin... there's no Mandarin language to translate to in Google translate so here it is in traditional Chinese. http://www.google.com/url?q=https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/%25E7%25BA%25A6%25E7%25BF%25B0%25E7%258E%258B%25E5%25AD%2590&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjYpsiV_KfRAhUr0YMKHVaJCdkQFggUMAA&usg=AFQjCNHkRTudFdhj9U42JRYVU2fm9u8fEA

LOL.... This post is "open source" and I grant full use to the public. However any changes to this post must segway to subsequent posts.  :razz:

I like it gizmo.

[gertsy]

Maybe your English teacher should have told you, that when using the word "it", the convention is that it refers to the last noun OR the first usage of the word "it" in a sentence. The first "it" in that sentence was referring to a noun you had used earlier, "source code".

Or maybe they did tell you, and you ignored them,

How anyone could confuse "Translate the title" with anything but....   Whoops just got my own answer, move along.

[olsen]

As a result we now have updated C:Sort and C:Wait programs in the "BB3+4", plus some other neatness (trackdisk.device 40.2?) right out of the "box". Especially the Wait update was useful, one can give a file as argument, and wait will sit there till the file shows up. Great! A lot of people have had fun looking at the sources and learning about the inner workings of whatever subsystem they are interested in - I could list names here, but I prefer they rather do it themselves (some have been quite open about on the Amiga Facebook groups), a lot of code has been improved because of this knowledge.

This sounds just like the positive outcome I thought might happen

Given how large that source code archive is, I expected that any change would happen at the edges: drivers, shell commands, etc.

[olsen]

Why? Copyright rests with the copyright holder until 70 years (probably longer) after expiration of the copyright holder.

It becomes Open Source 70 years after CBM filed for Chapter 11.

Hm... I think the expiration time for work created in this context is significantly longer.

As a single author (e.g. somebody such as H.P. Lovecraft, whose descendants and/or legal representatives did not renew the copyright for his works after his death), your work (currently) becomes part of the public domain some 70 years after your death.

For material created as work for hire, for a corporation (say, The Walt Disney Company), I recall that the expiration date was 112 years after it was created.

In any case, it is going to be a long time for this to happen. And even if it does, it may not have much of an impact any more. For example, the works of Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel quickly lapsed into obscurity after they died, to be rediscovered and recognized some 100-150 years later.

[olsen]

So we are all hackers, users/developers... that all kind of blurs after a few decades.

It should.

As a hacker, the point of doing the work is often enough to "scratch an itch". The work starts small, with a specific focus. As time passes, the work grows and you can conveniently carry its design and application around in your head as it evolves.

More time passes, and looking back you may suddenly realize that you crossed a threshold at some point: instead of the "hack" you began with, you now have a system with numerous interdependencies.

That change implies a profound transformation of the work: you've left "hacker space" and entered "management space". One tends to be more fun than the other. Keeping a system in shape and operational means that you've joined the fire brigade whereas before you might have been a firebrand

[olsen]

LMAO we are sooo scared.

For some people it's a risk to be talking about the matter. I added the note so that you can make up your mind whether or not it's worth taking a risk in the first place.

Looks you already took that advice to heart - at least it got a laugh

[olsen]

If you have to ask that question, then there have been no consequences.

Either that, or they happened in places where you can't easily observe them. That's why I am curious: the current 68k Amiga operating system being what it is, resolving the small and big annoyances might have been enabled by the source code becoming available.

[olsen]

@Olsen
Is there any correlation between the leaked sources and the new 68k kickstart and wb updates?
Kamelito

No. The only relationship there is is in that both are based on the same operating system source code, last modified in May 1994.

The recent Kickstart/Workbench 3.1 changes use the unified native build which is the foundation for the AmigaOS 4 work. I dragged my 3.1 build out of storage in 2016 and converted it (again) from CVS format, to be usable with subversion instead.

[stefcep2]

Not sure what the Big Deal is about OS 3.1 anyway.

Lets face it, A BARE BONES OS 3.1 install is not even a skeleton for a usable operating system.  

Anyone who installs OS 3.1 likely has numerous patches, utilities, libraries, datatypes, 3rd part audio and graphics routines, menu systems, docks, icons systems, task schedulers, requestors filesystems just to be usable.  

The end result is unrecognisable from the original OS both visibly and functionally

[cha05e90]

Just my opinion, but... I can see no advantage in moving up. I mean, I want to run Amiga software. That means, something written for a machine with a 3.1 ROM. Or earlier.

How many full size applications are there specifically for 3.5 or later? Erm... not enough.

Depends. For me as a user with a nice and streamlined AmigaOS 3.9 setup it would be a step backwards. At least when it comes to "real Amigas" or UAE. So no AROS for me.
If you only want to play games - ok. But stuff like an AREXX aware Workbench was one of the OS3.5/3.9 "killer features". And many more little things that made live easier (for me!). Being AmigaOS-3.1-API-compatible could have been 2.1 or 1.3 compatible. I have no use for that. But maybe it's only me...

Fun fact: There are indeed (68k) applications were developed at 3.5 or 3.9 times that run perfectly with my 4.1 setups (Petunia) but won't do so with a 3.1 setup. Of course.

[Rotzloeffel]

Fun fact: There are indeed (68k) applications were developed at 3.5 or 3.9 times that run perfectly with my 4.1 setups (Petunia) but won't do so with a 3.1 setup. Of course.

There are a lot of them.....