Well heck Simon, I'd hate to think this was keeping you from real work!
I'm with you on "Open Source everything" being a fruitless call. But here:
Quote:
My applications are targetted at OS4 simply because I know I can use all the features without worry, plus I'm in the lucky position to be able to implement features in the OS should I require them. If I were coding for MorphOS, I would certainly make sure I pushed MUI4 to the limit, simply because I can. Oh hang on, that means it won't work on the other platforms because they have those features missing, ho hum!
Then if the standard were OS4, for arguments sake, and the other platforms raised their game, then people like you on MorphOS would be able to recompile (given cross compiler) for AmigaOS4 testing and still take advantage of the features.
It would be unambitious but a reasonable stab to say "what is common?"
More ambitious and not outside the realms of possibility (politics, priorities and passions aside) to say "AmigaOS4.x is the standard, now go achieve it but for the next revision of the operating systems, it is going to be based on a co-operation.."
Thus you could code for AmigaOS4.x in the happy knowledge that it will eventually work on AROS and MorphOS.
Standards do not have to be lowest common denominator. If the movers and shakers think it is a good idea, then they will be open to it happening. If they aren't, then balls to the idea. But it would be interesting to see "why not". I'm quite sure that said chiefs of their respective areas aren't as arrogant as people like to make out towards the userbase, whom in the most part, it is productive to have onside.
Well heck Simon, I'd hate to think this was keeping you from real work!
I'm inbetween compiles :P
Quote:
Thus you could code for AmigaOS4.x in the happy knowledge that it will eventually work on AROS and MorphOS.
In all honesty, as far as MorphOS goes, I see all that is needed is to improve OS4Emu, if that is kept up to date with the latest goings on with AmigaOS4, there shouldn't be a problem. Hell, perhaps that code could then even be shared with AROS to provide a compatibility layer...As that code is already in place, it would save all that hassle of a "steering commitee" and hours of organising for nothing.
Some on the forums have touted the idea of running OS4.x on the powerstation. While in essence a rather horny idea, and it would satisfy the high-end hardware drought, it will still offer excuses for those that simply want to moan, to complain about it. It doesn't matter what you do, in any walk of life, those that are not happy will never be satisfied. I really don't know what the solution is, and luckily it's not up to me to make any decision on the future of AmigaOS 4, just like the rest of us here.
Its more about availability, the powerstation is a readily available product that already runs linux (ie an OS with a lot of readily available apps to plug those gaps we currently have) and could be brought to market with relative ease as an OS4 machine (please note relative easy, not "Easily"). Also following that logic you may just as well give up now, because people are going to moan no matter what you do, and those that are going to moan will always be the loudest.
Quote:
So perhaps the idea is to leave the decision making to those that have to make it. I wonder if the MacOS crowd spent countless hours on forums arguing about where the new Mac OS version should go, or what hardware they should port it to? I'm inclined to think that the decision was made behind closed doors, and the "community" only knew about it once it was well under way.
It's a real shame that these countless hours of pointless discussions and regurgitations of the same old same old are not put to better use. Just think what could be achieved if time was put to better use....
I dont wonder, because I know they did, Apple may not have paid any attention (any more than Hyperion will necessarily pay any attention) but it did, and does happen. The point is though, that currently the user base is quite small, not listening to that user base, their needs and wants is a mistake, doesn't necessarily mean that this is the most important user base for Hyperion, nor that they should reach the same conclusions, but by having these discussions in a publicly available forum, means that they can gauge the relevance and needs of those potential customers. Besides which whether we are ignored or not, having a debate/discussion about these things may just change the users mind, may open up other thoughts, and just gets it off our chests which is possibly the whole reason for the forums existence anyway.
Mark
Edited by Mark on 2009/7/1 12:09:47
For custom designed applications, websites, ecommerce and secure hosting visit:
So if we were to think about this as a logical progression:
1. AmigaOS3.x style portability. Lowest common denominator stuff, available now. Good to get people started. Portability guide posted some pages back.
2. AmigaOS4.1 and MorphOS plus OS4emu + includes/sdk for that and AROS ppc if its portable and able to be brought up to date. That would be the next de-facto standard.
3. Some future co-operation on components and API that all can work towards on a level playing field. Amiga OS5
But I'd also like to go back to sharing driver code, opening up stacks etc. Covering hardware combinations out there is a massive drain on resources for sure. With greater sharing between the teams on at least that item, perhaps the drivers could become more advanced at least......
AmigaOS 3,x is the common denominator yes. Well screw aos4 mosX and aros then, just stick to 3.x programing and screw mui and do it all in intuition, or get and base them all on zune. bam, Were mostly compatible. Some backporting from aros, supporting the functions missing in our 3.x libraries making them roughly compatible with Aos4 mosX etc. would also be a possibility. Afa is doing some of this, right?
Perhaps someone should start an OpenAmiga project and make some initial notes to get this going.
I personally don't really see the point, or anyone stepping up to the plate to take the reins, but all the mechanisms are in place to get this most ambitious project under way...
I agree, i dont know if theres much difference in the bsdsocket from os3 to aos4/mos tho btw.
The best thing as far as 68k goes, i think would be the port of Aros ( Which is on its way last i heard, moving slowly ), this would however likely be too slow in many cases. But writing in missing functions would be heaps easier and not requiring everyone to shit 68k ASM for breakfast. Thats the only way i can think of to keep the 68k up to scratch.
As far as anyone stepping to the plate, co-operation would be the key here, some interested skilled people from each respective parts of the woods and a CVS/SVN spitting ideas?
There is a significant difference, and that is the AmigaOS 4.x library call mechanism and API. Whilst you CAN use AmigaOS 3.x style calls, it isn't the AmigaOS4.x way of doing things.
@Rigo
Anyhow back to the point. If we, for example, define AmigaOS4.x as the "standard" how far along is os4emu I wonder? Does it emulate reaction?
If there are missing components, it would be interesting to know what they are, to see how hard it would be to plug that gap. If for example the problem is missing "reaction", then how much work for MorphOS users to create a "hostile" version of it like Zune is of MUI? Versus working towards a common user interface library.
But yes, whilst I can see three projects possible, I would like to seek some co-operation from some MorphOS and AROS people first.
@DaveP Some people seem to flip & go crazy when they read about OS4emu on MorphOS, so attempts to improve it might meet some resistance (sadly).
There was also supposed to be a "MOSemu" proof-of-concept for OS4 (written at Hyperion I think?) but never released. Would be nice to see that, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Anyhow back to the point. If we, for example, define AmigaOS4.x as the "standard" how far along is os4emu I wonder? Does it emulate reaction?
Of course picking any "one" OS as the common standard will immediately alienate all the pro-ponents of the "other" OS(s)
Quote:
If there are missing components, it would be interesting to know what they are, to see how hard it would be to plug that gap. If for example the problem is missing "reaction", then how much work for MorphOS users to create a "hostile" version of it like Zune is of MUI? Versus working towards a common user interface library.
But yes, whilst I can see three projects possible, I would like to seek some co-operation from some MorphOS and AROS people first.
Getting this going would be a fairly huge task, finding a common "base" to work from filling in any holes (on either side) and then documenting it, would just be the start, not to mention the need for the aforementioned committee which would need quite a lot work to get right. I mean you cant even get FF/IE/etc to agree on W3C standards let alone this....
Mark
For custom designed applications, websites, ecommerce and secure hosting visit:
Well of course it would alienate, which is why it would require broader consultation and agreement on a way forward. Perhaps the main barrier to going forward.
Yet the difference here is that AmigaOS *was* a standard once, back in the AmigaOS 3.x days, and all are written to more or less meet that standard and where they don't it is reasonably well documented.
What is different is the new bits. The OS4 programming model, Reaction, MUI. These are all deviations from that model.
Therefore it would be less work than two disparate browsers, for example. It is also why I am advocating the less challenging rule of source code compatibility.
As for documentation, well there are OS3 autodocs, and OS4 autodocs, and a lot of esosteric knowledge out there. I don't see this as zero work, but where there is a will there is a way. Problem is I suspect, not just a lack of will, but such a scheme would be seen as threatening to various closet interests.
What would be practical, and just to start somewhere, would be some sort overview comparison of what is incompatible and compatible across platforms. A MOS/OS4 compatible program guide if you will,.Choosing those two first as those are the two "main" players, but i believe AROS is up to scratch as well. So a guide describing how different library functions/calls are handled, whats there and whats not there across the platforms.
Next a port of Zune to OS3/Os4/MOS for further compatibility.
Anyhow, if were supposed to start somewhere and become somewhat compatible, first things first, figure out whats compatible and whats not, sure my idea about creating a flow-chart/chart/ANYTHING of some sort of documentation sounds good, but who is actually willing to step up and help with this? ( the interested parties, now who are they? )
Taking 3.x as a common base wont really work, there are incompatibilities in the general way stuff is programmed from 3.x to 4.x to Mos.x etc, so everyone will have to give somewhere.
Now, we have few options, i only talk for the 68k part, as thats the only "part" im remotely familiar with. Either we wait for the Aros 68k port and the 68k port and pray everything will alright, sure it wont be as speedy as the finely tuned asa the asm optimized for amigas 3.1 were used to, but for future projects like the natami it would work. Or start gobbing 3.x with aros libs, figure out where 3.x is in relation to aros, fix whats missing and call it a day. Or.... *suggestion goes here*
Ok If there not targeting AmigaOS4.1 as a desktop os then why call it an os? Alot of people are going to get confused big time by that statement. As normal folk consider the name Amigaa os as "desktop os" , if that makes any since?!? (Its a friday my brain is confused.com) lol.
ChrisH wrote: @DaveP Some people seem to flip & go crazy when they read about OS4emu on MorphOS, so attempts to improve it might meet some resistance (sadly).
There was also supposed to be a "MOSemu" proof-of-concept for OS4 (written at Hyperion I think?) but never released. Would be nice to see that, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Perhaps a more practical API wrapper would be a version of hosted AROS for every next-generation Amiga platform. Not that there's a lot of AROS software that lacks on OS 4 however.
AmigaOS 3,x is the common denominator yes. Well screw aos4 mosX and aros then, just stick to 3.x programing and screw mui and do it all in intuition, or get and base them all on zune. bam, Were mostly compatible. Some backporting from aros, supporting the functions missing in our 3.x libraries making them roughly compatible with Aos4 mosX etc. would also be a possibility. Afa is doing some of this, right?
Your only saying that becuase you dont have a sam with os4 right? :)
Remember that the SAM440ep ran AROS before it ran AmigaOS 4.1.
-edit-
I think getting the hardware up to date with a team like the Natami team is more practical than trying to get software to be compatible between all of the platforms, but hosted AROS can run on anything also.
First of all, thanks for your notes about Icaros Desktop.
Then, let's answer to your concerns about a common Amiga platform. Well, what I can say is that I agree 100% with you, we are too much accustomed to look at ourselves as a split community: reds to the left, blues to the right, arosians in the middle... but the reality (sad reality) is that this whole diversification between 'Amiga dialects' is nothing more than a struggle between poor men. Relics of a glorious past that people outside the community can't simply understands (and, frankly, there are NO motivation why they should, indeed).
The war is over, and it's time to understand that what remains of the Amiga community simply hasn't the numbers to count something in the IT industry. So we have better thinking about ourselves as a "whole" community like in the old age. AmigaOS, MorphOS and AROS users are still Amigans that simply chose a different path for their 'amigism', but that kept a strong Amiga attitude in their hearts.
All in all, there is no need for a 'common amiga platform': it already exists. There are programs that fairly run today on AmigaOS 4, MorphOS and AROS, so keeping compatibility with all the systems is possible and, from my humble point of view, mandatory (Shinkuro explains how to reach this goal in his own website). It's mandatory 'cos having the program X running on all three systems will give X more users, more testing, more feedback. And a wider userbase will thow in more interest from the outside.
But if we keep coding our jewels in a "only my Amiga flavour will enjoy it" way, well, that jewel will be stuck to its few users and will stop glaring very soon. And 2/3 of the Amiga community won't be able to use it.
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
Donate
