OS4 on the pegasos

[KennyR]

Bhogget wrote:
The drivers exist - in binary form - but they're good drivers, they're free (as in beer) and they fully support the card features.

Good if you define "good" as being "incompatible and buggy as hell", that is. The complaints of Linux users about these drivers are constant. Change kernel, you have to wait for update. Choose any CPU but x86, too bad. This goes totally against the Linux mindset.

The suggestion that one company is evil and closed while the other is open and helpful is laughable.

And your implying that if one doesn't use these big companies for a computing solution then the result must be crap by default is equally laughable. You are trapped in this world where only the cutting edge is any good, which is really not better than some who believe anything x86 is inherently evil just by existing. Or is it that you simply believe that supporting any hardware other than that you currently own is a waste of time?

So the A1 was designed specifically for an OS which would only exist years later, right?

YES! It was! Hardware designs for the A1 were being processed years before a single line of code were being written for OS4. How have you missed that?

And then, when it was decided that the Escena A1 was vapor, and Eyetech offered the TeronCX (the board that mostly closely matched what Escena A1 would have been), OS4 was still only just a bare skeleton. So I'm not wrong, it's just you who who seem to be rather ill-informed. Which is surprising considering how long you've been hanging around the forums, even if it is only to push one subject always only.

A1 was meant for OS4, and isn't priced or supported or publicised for anything else. Who'd even pay Amiga Inc.'s brand tax for a board that wasn't intended to run OS4?

"tweak" to one person is a "workaround" to another one. As long as special mofications are needed, of any sort, that's a workaround to me. Scale is irrelevant.

Oh, really. The difference is that one will be totally unstable and lose data, the other that it will be inefficient. How is that insignificant? Don't mix semantics with practicalities, Bill.

[Acill]

Just get a Pegasos and run MorphOS. I dont even miss my A3000 since I started using the Pegasos II I have now. Its so much better then the current state of the A1 and I wouldnt put OS4 on it even if it did work as it is now! MOS is light years ahead of it!

[sir_inferno]

that_punk_guy wrote:
You know the negotiations in Theme park, with the biscuits running out, but no-one's sticking their hand out?

It's exactly like that.

i thought that was a cake  :-?

[that_punk_guy]

sir_inferno wrote:
i thought that was a cake  :-?

What? Who in their right minds would eat a cake by slicing off the top horizontally? :-?

Hmm... Maybe it was a different version. :-)

[Cymric]

KennyR wrote:

Bhogget wrote:
The drivers exist - in binary form - but they're good drivers, they're free (as in beer) and they fully support the card features.

Good if you define "good" as being "incompatible and buggy as hell", that is. The complaints of Linux users about these drivers are constant. Change kernel, you have to wait for update. Choose any CPU but x86, too bad. This goes totally against the Linux mindset.

Aren't you extemporising again and again? Mind, you are entitled to your opinion, but the original statement was 'no drivers available under Linux for nVidia graphics cards'. Which is plain wrong. Now over a few messages the statement has transformed to 'no free, bug-free, open-source, company-supported drivers under Linux available for nVidia graphics cards', which of course is true.

You can complain about it 'not being the Linux mindset' to offer binary-only drivers and being barred from accessing chipset documentation to write your own drivers, but this is beginning to sound like the infamous KDE/Gnome flame war. Gnome is a huge waste of time, manpower, programming effort and disk space, just to avoid one slightly restrictive (read: non-GPL) license. And in the end the problem ceased to exist thanks to Trolltech's change of mind.

Unfortunately, with Windows' dominance over the games and media market, I fear it will be a very long time indeed before you get access to hardware documentation. In fact, I think we should be grateful that there is at least some support for 3D on Linux. And yes, ATi's support is a little better in the sense that they provide qualified 3rd party Linux developers with development kits. Emphasis on little.

[bhoggett]

KennyR wrote:

Good if you define "good" as being "incompatible and buggy as hell", that is.

Not in my experience, that's for sure. As far as I'm concerned, they work every time, except maybe with the very latest bleeding edge kernels.

There are any number of ways to install these drivers. You can download pre-packaged binaries for your distro, or you can use the driver package directly from nVidia. If it finds an unsupported kernel, it can recompile the kernel for you with the module support needed.

"incompatible and buggy as hell" is sheer FUD in my experience. I haven't found anything it caused crashes with, and I've always been able to install the drivers on my system.

The complaints of Linux users about these drivers are constant.

So are complaints about all sorts of things, not least the ATI drivers and even Linux not being exactly like Windows.

Change kernel, you have to wait for update.

Not always. See above.

Choose any CPU but x86, too bad.

Well, if you do choose anything except x86 for running Linux, you need your head examining anyway. :-P

This goes totally against the Linux mindset.

Some of the Linux mindset. Not everyone who uses Linux believes everything and anything must be open source or else it is unacceptable.

Binary only support from nVidia is far better than no support at all from nVidia. It's better no support at all from ATI, that for sure (And no, ATI do not disclose proper information for people to write drivers with. That's why the ATI drivers are reverse-engineered rather than written from specs.)

Anyway, anything to do with open source is totally against the Amiga mindset, so what's your point?  :-P

And your implying that if one doesn't use these big companies for a computing solution then the result must be crap by default is equally laughable.

Wha? I never said anything of the sort. You said nVidia were rubbish and used some made up FUD to justify your stance, and I just pointed out that you weren't telling the truth. That's all there is to it.

You are trapped in this world where only the cutting edge is any good,

I never said that. On the other hand, nine times out of ten "cutting edge" is better than "almost obsolete". "Almost obsolete" may still have plenty of merit, but I wouldn't advise anyone to pay more for it than they would have to for "cutting edge". Get it?

which is really not better than some who believe anything x86 is inherently evil just by existing. Or is it that you simply believe that supporting any hardware other than that you currently own is a waste of time?

No, I don't believe that. What I believe is that all hardware should be judged by the same set of criteria, and should be compared directly against the competitions. I do NOT believe anyone should pay more for something - or support it - for no other reason except that it is not mainstream.
 

YES! It was! Hardware designs for the A1 were being processed years before a single line of code were being written for OS4. How have you missed that?

And then, when it was decided that the Escena A1 was vapor, and Eyetech offered the TeronCX (the board that mostly closely matched what Escena A1 would have been), OS4 was still only just a bare skeleton. So I'm not wrong, it's just you who who seem to be rather ill-informed. Which is surprising considering how long you've been hanging around the forums, even if it is only to push one subject always only.

A1 was meant for OS4, and isn't priced or supported or publicised for anything else. Who'd even pay Amiga Inc.'s brand tax for a board that wasn't intended to run OS4?

The A1 exists because Eyetech need it. NOT because Amiga Inc or Hyperion or anyone else needed special hardware for AOS4. That's the point I'm making.

I don't see the difference with the Peg anyway. The Peg exists because "modern" hardware was needed for MOS. No one in their right mind really believes people will buy millions of Pegs to run Linux or BSD on them.

Oh, really. The difference is that one will be totally unstable and lose data, the other that it will be inefficient. How is that insignificant? Don't mix semantics with practicalities, Bill.

I would reply by advising you not to mix platform advocacy with the truth, because they rarely go together. I have yet to see tests done under objective laboratory conditions that prove anything one way or another. As far as I know, both the Peg and the A1 have unresolved (or at least unexplained) issues.

[Karlos]

Acill wrote:

Karlos wrote:

Acill wrote:

When the hardware was being shown to them they also had a Teron (A1 is the same as this) and a G5 dual system. The Pegasos beat them all out.

So, your'e saying a single CPU G3 based machine beat a dual CPU G5 based one. At what, exactly?

Where did I say G3? It was a 1GHZ G4 system running linux that was used. It out preformed the G5 system in several systems. In the end it was picked for qualiety and prince point with matching performance. Read the Genesi and Morphzone news and take a look at hese things from time to time. Freescale is the branch of Motorola that seperated BTW.

My understanding was that the common or garden variety Peg was a G3 600MHz based system (with the CPU on a replacable card) and that the Peg II was a 1GHz G4 machine.

So basically, nowhere did you say it wasn't a basic Peg 1, hence my assumption you meant the G3 600MHz.

[Karlos]

Acill wrote:
Just get a Pegasos and run MorphOS. I dont even miss my A3000 since I started using the Pegasos II I have now. Its so much better then the current state of the A1 and I wouldnt put OS4 on it even if it did work as it is now! MOS is light years ahead of it!

All this MOS v OS4 is frankly a bit wasted on me - I only have a 1200T. Still, OS4 is pretty damn nippy on my BlizzPPC, so nerr :-P :-)

[DFergATL]

All of this!!  All this pointless arguing!!  The Amiga was the first computer I ever owned.  I loved it!!  I was all excited about OS4 when I first heard about.  I am still excited about, but will not buy it or MOS.  Why?  Both are too expensive for old specs.  The A1 is so over priced as to be a joke.  I would consider getting a Peg. but I would want to run OS4 myself.  But, wait!  Can't do that.  Because these two compaines are trying to get what is left of a now Extreamly small userbase and are too busy fighting and name calling between each other to do the users much good.  If the people behind OS4 are so narrow minded not to allow their OS to be sold on a hardware platform that people want to buy then they are in a lot of trouble.  If they continue to insist that it only be sold on old, way, way over priced hardware, then in the end they get what they have comming to them.   All of this bickering reminds me of two little boys fighting in a sandbox.  Nobody wins.  Least of all us.  If MOS comes down in price, well then I might have to give it a try.  But down in price it will have to go, after all I have never been able see it.  Won't spend a lot on something that I can't try first.

[legion]

Oh look, a dead horse...

 :hammer:

[pixie]

[...] little boys fighting in a sandbox

Now I understand why MOS approach is better, it seems to be a proven concept since the very begining of ages!  :-P

[cecilia]

do I hear fighting?? :oops:

DON'T MAKE ME TAKE OUT THE STRAP!!!!!

 :admonish:

[DFergATL]

@ cecilia


Yes, mom.  (hangs head and drags feet while walking way)

[Holley]

It's not the companies that are doing the arguing, it's the people that have an opinion - nobodies actually said anything useful that explains the technical difficulties of porting it over (probably quite easy really) or what the differences in the hardware actually are.

I want a 'next generation' Amiga, the way Workbench works fits the way I think.  I want good hardware, but I don't really care as long as I don't run out of {bleep}ing chip ram!  I also don't mind paying for good hardware, in the time I've had one A3000 I've gone through 6 PCs and re-installed Windows many many times, and the A3000 is still quick to load and reliable - thats worth more than money as it's saving my time, the A3000 is soon to get it's first re-install in the last 5 years.

Now can anybody tell me facts or physical examples that are actually on topic?  I would like to know, and not read more piles of steaming brown personal opinion.

[Dan]

bhoggett wrote:

Dan wrote:
Mini-ITX in the industrial market :lol:
That´s a very small marketshare. PC104 is the formfactor that rules that market even if smaller boards and those a little bit bigger like the size of a 3,5"diskdrive have taken a big share of the market.
Secondly where is Linux(or BSD) going on the A1? Nowhere.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying Eyetech are targetting the entire industrial market with the A1. Eyetech's main income has, for many years now, come mainly from selling Amiga based systems essentially as embedded devices to a small but loyal and established set of customers. Eyetech have been looking after those customers and those customers like to stay with Eyetech. However, with no more A1200s bieng built for many years now, and old machines gradually failing, Eyetech's supply of bases for their systems must have been dwindling away, even counting the refurbs. Hence the A1: a custom board no one else is selling (as far as the Eyetech customers are concerned) and whose price cannot be compared on a straight basis with similar x86 efforts because "it's not the same".

Aside from that, I agree with what you're saying.

Now, I´m really curious about what software they run!
What is it that runs on an A1200 and a A1 but doesn´t run on UAE? :-P

[djbase]

Trolling and speculations. Congratulations. OS4 is well written
and you know it, both the system have some strong and weak point, you
are instead spreading fud. And the Articia bug... doesn't exist. Has
been proven but you want to spred false information. Pegasos 1 have a
useless hardware workaround, OS4 betateste have a working idedivice
with dma at full speed and without any workaound, only driver written
right with articia support.

:roflmao: