"Hyperion and Cloanto allegedly close to finalizing settlement"

[Gulliver]

BTW why do you think Aros 68k developers have the desire to imitate the features of 3.2 (like Reaction)

both platforms are in competition in future and users will decide what they want to use (depending of course on the hardware)

In competiton? How?

AROS is more platform agnostic, and it is one of its major advantages as an OS. I don't see it as competition.

[Minuous]

BTW why do you think Aros 68k developers have the desire to imitate the features of 3.2 (like Reaction)

So that modern AmigaOS software will run on it, presumably. Otherwise AROS will continue to become less and less useful.

On one hand you say AmigaOS is not modern enough, but then you expect developers to limit themselves to just OS3.1 features, just because AROS is deficient? If these modern features were added in the future, AROS still wouldn't support them because it is just a (not very good) OS3.1 clone.

And how exactly would you propose supporting memory protection on machines that lack an MMU?

[cgutjahr]

The latest AfA release is from 2016. The latest AmigaOS update is from 2019.

I was talking about the follow up project, I think it's called "AfA One". That one had a release in October.

[Gulliver]

The latest AfA release is from 2016. The latest AmigaOS update is from 2019.

I was talking about the follow up project, I think it's called "AfA One". That one had a release in October.

But that is not an an OS, it is a prepackaged set of programs and customizations meant for AROS. It is what we call a "distro", that relies in the underlyinng OS, much like ClassicWB, Amiga In a Box, BestWB, etc.

[Matt_H]

@ cgutjahr

I don't want this to get too heated. I agree with a lot of the concerns you raised previously.

MUI vs ReAction, NSD vs whatever the other thing was, P96 vs CGX, PowerUp vs WarpOS, and, of course, the big one, OS3 vs OS4 vs MorphOS vs AROS.

• All of those were created despite AmigaOS being closed source
• All of those were created while there was no active development of the official OS
• All of those were resolved the second the official rights holder declared one of them to be the official solution

But I would argue that all of those were created *because* we'd lost the governance that Commodore provided in its stewardship of the OS. And even though one or the other has been declared the "official" solution, the situation is far from resolved--MUI is still used despite ReAction being the "official" choice for OS3/OS4. If we still had strong governance a solution would have been found before a split happened, and in a way that would have not left proponents of an alternative feeling personally offended.

Why is critical mass important? Look at what happened with AWeb. We had an open-source web browser!

We also had an open source DPaint! Look at what happened! What do mean, "it was totally outdated by the time its source was released"?

At the very least it was an Intuition GUI that could have had a new rendering engine dropped in. Easier than starting from scratch, but still nothing came of it.

As much as we want it to be true, open source isn’t a panacea for every situation.

Nobody's claiming that. But the situation is really, really fucked up.

Oh, absolutely agreed!

And Thomas and you are arguing "let's continue to try what we tried countless times in the last 25 years, one of these days it has to work, right?".

I'm not hostile to the idea of open source, just concerned that it could make our problems worse in the long run. Hence my comment about the dead branches. See below.

Instead of one slow-moving branch we could have 4 dead branches.

Why? Because Thomas and his guys rage-quit when the sources are released?

No, because the 4 branches will each start out with passionate defenders who ultimately aren't numerous enough to sustain them in the long term. Meanwhile everyone else will be confused as to which one to back and in all likelihood will end up backing none of them and just lose interest and walk away. That doesn't benefit anyone.

Thomas is also right that a developer driven model is rarely one for long-term success.

"Long term success"? We're discussing AmigaOS 3.x - where do you want it to go in 2020?

That's a very valid question and it's one that I think a strong governance system could help resolve. Just what do we want for OS3? OS4?

My ultimate interest is preventing this from happening again:

[guest11527]

Thomas why on earth would a person with sane minds change existing APIs all the time just for fun and to make software developers unhappy?

Because that is already happening. Look at vampire, and their unwillingness to announce hardware by Autoconf ("we have our own method to identify RTG") or their unwillingness to use the F-boot rom mechanism ("We need a 1MB ROM"). Because we already have that problem with certain reaction classes, where under the curtain, the interfaces changed slightly enough to break the color wheel gadget at some place. At the icon.library, where certain hacks are established for more colorful icons the Os did not or currently does not have. Or, look at 3.1.4, where we had to invent something new just to make large drives boot properly. There is the necessity to advance the API at some point because it lacks, but without coordination, you get incompatible extensions, such as we got with NSD or TD64.

[bison]

We *must* cut complexity down, and we cannot in an open source world. See Linux.

Your argument seems to be "Linux is open source, and Linux is complex, therefore all open source software is complex."  This does not bear up under even casual examination.  OpenBSD, for example, is also open source, and yet they do a pretty good job of containing complexity.

[guest11527]

That plus AROS 68k leaves two branches, yes? Plus 3.X from Cloanto. So you're fine with two or three  branches? How many is too much?

3.x I already told you is nonsense. AROS is a different  "market", why should I bother. I just do not get their point.

No, the world is not black and white. Meaning I'm against open source does not mean I'm for Ben, that is just naive.

You're creating valueable IP for Ben that can be held hostage, just like OS4 has been held hostage for a decade. You're creating revenue for Ben. Given the choice to open source or stay with Ben, you'd stay with Ben. Hence, in the context of this discussion you're pro Ben.

Yes, for you, things are simple. I'm trying to advance things, and that is only possible with Ben at the moment, so I must be "for him". This is just stupidity. You are one of those persons that would rather block every development rather than trying to help. Thanks, but I knew that.

It is not that simple, really.

Explain to me how giving 3.1.4 for free to Hyperion makes it more likely that some sort of comittee of skilled benefactors will get a say in what's going to happen? Because it worked so well for OS4?

Because currently we have a troll-free development environment, for one thing, and no branches for another, and still contact to some outside experts to talk to. Certainly not perfect, but that is a lot better than what would happen in an open source environment. It would now need end-user support, which we wouldn't get in the open source world either, to make it even better, but well - we don't get that from either side.

[OlafS3]

3.1.4 introduces memory protection? 

it is not possible, at least not without breaking most of the software

But there are still other features like RTG, Network, USB that are needed on a useable system

[OlafS3]

and who defines how the API is advanced?

In a open source environment f.e. developers of patches or libraries can take part and contribute (if they want)

Closed source only the maintainer (and owner) decides

I prefer the first one

And the danger of forking is (as I wrote) in reality not that big because you need very skilled devs to do that who are willing to invest time in that

BTW to general make it clear to all... Aros on 68k needs no special compiled software but runs normal amiga software. Of course both 3.1.4 and Aros are now in competition on 68k (at least on vampire)

[guest11527]

and who defines how the API is advanced?

I suggest you read what I propose, then come back.

I prefer the first one

I don't. There is a difference between "closed source" and "transparent development". Please read my suggestion, I beg you.

And the danger of forking is (as I wrote) in reality not that big because you need very skilled devs to do that who are willing to invest time in that

Then why do prefer "Open source", if in the end, the net result is defined by the same people anyhow?? The development model has little to do with software licensing.

[kolla]

The development model has little to do with software licensing.

And what is the licensing of OS 3.1.4?
What will be the licensing of OS 3.2?
Same list of BS requirements and nonsensical restrictions?
It is the LICENSE that prevents me from BUYING any more OS from Hyperion.

That is disconnected from development model, open source, closed source, whatever.

("transparent development" - that is what was known as "open development" back in the days, but haha, the lolz)

[Gulliver]

BTW to general make it clear to all... Aros on 68k needs no special compiled software but runs normal amiga software. Of course both 3.1.4 and Aros are now in competition on 68k (at least on vampire)

You got it all wrong, AROS is competing with CoffinOS(which is based on 3.9).
Which seeems to be the promoted choice by the Vampire Team. In fact, one of its creators/distributors is a member of the Vampire Team himself.

http://amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2019-11-00011-EN.html

[OlafS3]

not everyone is using that other distribution

Amigans are purists and individuals

And yes at the moment Aros is mainly targeting vampire (besides UAE)

that is where the growth currently is

[OlafS3]

what is transparent about 3.1.4?

2 developers in background decide

And what will happen with 3.1.4 if f.e, Cloanto wins?

[guest11527]

It is the LICENSE that prevents me from BUYING any more OS from Hyperion.

Nope.