Who will fight for "Amiga" custom hardware in 10 years from now? I don't think of any. The fans gets older and there are not that many new fans coming. If you want to compete with Windows and Linux and not just die as a OS4 think larger instead of this Commodore wannabe.

The only thing we know about Commodore is that it supports 68xxx chips and was lost in 92 because it still used fx. the Paula chip.

I would gladly buy one of the new "Amigas" if the price were not twice the amount of an i7 setup.

The Amiga back then was the cheapest PCs with the best specs. Today it's the most expensive machines with lower spec. than my android phone.

Last edited by VoltureX on 05-Nov-2013 at 01:21 AM.

_________________
Amiga Demo Scene II app 4 Droid phones:
Google's Play - Amiga Demo Scene II

@wawa

I talked to my friend and I have proposed to share that work, my friend does not mind doing it again in the course of this academic year, but not a promise, however, would provide only a prototype.
It may be of interest to our community, I will try to keep your interest because I sincerely believe that is a real alternative.

I should also say that I do believe that the Linux kernel can be also another alternative .....

Last edited by drstrangelove on 05-Nov-2013 at 10:20 AM.

@VoltureX

Quote:

@NutsAboutAmiga Maybe the PPC structure was Commodore's goal but why going for a minority of customers. I don't get it :(

Hemm I did say nothing about PowerPC

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 05-Nov-2013 at 10:45 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@VoltureX

Just saying that Linux MC680x0 can't run Amiga programs, I'm also saying you need UAE to run Amiga programs on Linux.

To keep it simple for you:

point 1, to run old programs you need chipsets, whit out chipsets AGA/Paula/Denise you be only able to run 10% of the programs maybe.

point 2, you can't run AmigaOS programs on Linux whit just a 680x0 emulator, you need a compatible kernel or "kickstart" like we Amiga users like to call it, Whit the correct API's.

final point whit out compatible chipsets and a compatible kernel there is no way a Amiga program can run, you can emulate 680x0 cpu all day long on linux, but you want be able to run anything on it whit out this two components.

The Linux kernel is not a drop in replacement for AmigaOS kickstart, you need to rewrite it beyond recognition or make a wrapper for it, basically what we are taking about a new OS, that is incompatible whit everything we have.

I have been holding back on this tread for a long while, I find it interesting from point of view what is different what is better and what can AmigaOS learn from Linux, but in the sense that AmigaOS should migrate to Linux, its point less, unless you want to make new OS that is nothing more than a look alike, it’s a bit like comparing an electric car against a diesel endian.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 05-Nov-2013 at 11:00 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

I know.

It's just the only way to run OS4 today.

_________________
Amiga Demo Scene II app 4 Droid phones:
Google's Play - Amiga Demo Scene II

@NutsAboutAmiga

I'm not a technician but the kickstart file is not hard to get and could be something you choose during installation via fx. your USB pen.

I guess the kernel OS4 is using now could be replaced though it would be a long process.

My dream installation would be like this with Linux kernel on x86 or x64.

1. Insert OS4 CD and click install

2. Choose your kickstart file from external storage for 68xxx emulation

3. Installing OS4

4. Do you have a cat weasel then install it

5. Done

6. Welcome to OS4 my way ;)

Could be impossible this way I don't know...

Last edited by VoltureX on 05-Nov-2013 at 11:08 AM.
Last edited by VoltureX on 05-Nov-2013 at 11:07 AM.

_________________
Amiga Demo Scene II app 4 Droid phones:
Google's Play - Amiga Demo Scene II

@NutsAboutAmiga

Amithlon proves that using the Linux kernel as a hardware abstraction layer is not only possible but desirable. MorphOS also proves that using a microkernel in a similar fashion is also a viable alternative that not only works but is the most Amiga-like and legacy compatible reimplementation of the Amiga OS for non- Amiga hardware.

@cdimauro

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that I left many other things, but I think that it's enough to show why I don't like Linux.

That's a fairly long list! One thing I will note: Linus is pretty adamant about not changing the Linux ABI unless it is absolutely necessary.

The other things, none of them bother me much; some not at all. One thing that does annoy me about Linux — and Unix in general — is there's no easy way to figure out which libraries to link based on the header files a program includes.

Quote:

The most important thing is having the drivers; who cares if they are open or closed.

Here's an example. My sister's printer stops working every time she changes the printer cartridge, and I have to uninstall and reinstall the printer driver to get it working again. There's probably a bug in the driver, although it could be the firmware in the printer. Without source code there's no way to tell.

Another example, this one also involving a printer. I was not able to print on my mother's printer with Linux, despite the fact that I have a driver for it. The driver would just not install. Fortunately, there was source code published for the installation program, so I grepped (there's one of those words! ) the source for the error message I was getting and fixed the problem. It was some weird corner case that Canon probably missed whlle testing.

Last edited by bison on 05-Nov-2013 at 08:22 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Plus fork() its not a essential part of a modern OS, Windows does not have it.

Windows' POSIX subsystem supports fork, or at least it used to. Cygwin supports it as well.

Windows does not support fork natively because it is conceptually a member of the VMS family of operating systems, and VMS does not fork.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I'm pretty sure that I left many other things, but I think that it's enough to show why I don't like Linux. That's a fairly long list! One thing I will note: Linus is pretty adamant about not changing the Linux ABI unless it is absolutely necessary.

Unfortunately it was by a Linus' decision that the situation became even worse. Previously, the "odd" releases were for development purpose only, so the coders can experiment, and the ABI can change. The "even" ones, instead, were stable versions, and there was guarantee of no ABI change. So, at least there was a clear idea of what's stable, and when the things could change.

But from the 2.6 (if I remember correctly) Linus decided to drop the distinction between odd and even releases, so even ABIs can change at any point...

Quote:

Quote: The other things, none of them bother me much; some not at all. One thing that does annoy me about Linux — and Unix in general — is there's no easy way to figure out which libraries to link based on the header files a program includes. Do you mean at what of libNAME*X.so (with X = a number) a program has to link? Quote: [quote]The most important thing is having the drivers; who cares if they are open or closed. Here's an example. My sister's printer stops working every time she changes the printer cartridge, and I have to uninstall and reinstall the printer driver to get it working again. There's probably a bug in the driver, although it could be the firmware in the printer. Without source code there's no way to tell. Another example, this one also involving a printer. I was not able to print on my mother's printer with Linux, despite the fact that I have a driver for it. The driver would just not install. Fortunately, there was source code published for the installation program, so I grepped (there's one of those words! ) the source for the error message I was getting and fixed the problem. It was some weird corner case that Canon probably missed whlle testing.

I clearly understand your PoV, and I agree. But I can make a different example.

Suppose that a vendor doesn't release the sources neither the documentation of an own product, because he want to protect its IP. So he just releases the binaries. What's your choice: do you use it, or no?

If open sourceness isn't mandatory, you can take and use whatever you want: both products with sources and other without them. And as a user, you don't care.

If you put a constraint that open source must be mandatory, you're limiting the products set. And even the users freedom, which IMO is even worse.

Less is more? I don't think so.

Quote:

bison wrote: @NutsAboutAmiga Quote: Plus fork() its not a essential part of a modern OS, Windows does not have it. Windows' POSIX subsystem supports fork, or at least it used to.

Yes, it implements the fork (and even filesystem case-sensitivity), but there are some limits (which I don't remember now). But even a Unix o.s. has limits on the fork; not every resource is forkable.

Quote:

Cygwin supports it as well.

It's normal, because the Cygwin applications run in a POSIX-compliant environment. So, it's the Cygwin runtime that offers the POSIX services, exactly like any other Unix o.s..

Quote:

Windows does not support fork natively because it is conceptually a member of the VMS family of operating systems, and VMS does not fork.

Yes, but in any case it offers a POSIX subsystem (starting from the Professional license, if I remember correctly). Especially the subsystem introduced with Vista is of a very good quality, with a very high POSIX-complianceness.

@IntuitionAmiga

Quote:

Amithlon proves that using the Linux kernel as a hardware abstraction layer is not only possible but desirable.

what is so desirable about it? The dependency of operating system you do not see or can touch, that does nothing more the provided drivers for the OS you really want to run, a OS that is crippled by having to be run in a 68k emulator, instead of running native on the processor, a system that can't take advantage of CPU cores of host computer, and can never support 64bit.

Well maybe if it was taken to the next level it might have become, but then you have AROS that is just that, its funny that AROS native is the faster then AROS hosted, if it was so desirable.

Quote:

MorphOS also proves that using a microkernel in a similar fashion is also a viable alternative that not only works but is the most Amiga-like and legacy compatible reimplementation of the Amiga OS for non- Amiga hardware.

None of the operating systems emulate hardware, they depend on well writen software, most of old 68k software that runs on MorphOS runs on AmigaOS4.1, whit a few exactions.

Amithlon on the other hand works as wrapper on top of Linux, but its more then that is does emulate CIAA, CIAB and CPU and few other things, Paula emulation was removed.

You where forced to use NallePuh to redirect audio to AHI, NallePuh was then ported to MorphOS and AmigaOS4.0, latter NallePuh stopped working on AmigaOS4.x after a few software updates.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 05-Nov-2013 at 10:59 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 05-Nov-2013 at 10:57 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@cdimauro

Fork() is emulated using ZwCreateProcess() on windows, fork is not a native API.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.nt.kernel-mode/hoN_RYtnp58

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 05-Nov-2013 at 10:56 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@cdimauro

Quote:

Suppose that a vendor doesn't release the sources neither the documentation of an own product, because he want to protect its IP. So he just releases the binaries. What's your choice: do you use it, or no?

If it's something non-essential — games, for example — then I'm OK with binary-only drivers. But if I need it to get my work done, it has to be open source.

I use Intel graphics, and the drivers are open source, so there's no problem. But I wouldn't use Nvidia or ATi with binary-only drivers unless there were open source drivers that I could fall back on in the event something went wrong that I couldn't fix. The open source drivers would be my insurance policy. Maybe they're too slow for games, but at least I can still use my computer to get work done.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@cdimauro

Why is a stable kernel ABI desirable?

I'm reminded of the state motto of New Hampshire. :)

@IntuitionAmiga

Quote:

Well Commodore never released a product called AmigaOs...

Hmmn..... http://www.pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=305&type=software

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

OS that is crippled by having to be run in a 68k emulator

Why o you insist on repeatedly making false claims like this?

x86 and 68k binaries are freely interchangeable on Amithlon, just as PPC and 68k binaries are freely interchangeable on MorphOS and OS4.

Compile equivalents of each OS3.x component to x86-BE binaries and the whole OS will still run identically yet still the ability to run 68k binaries will be there.

Likewise, replace PPC components with 68k equivalents on MorphOS and the OS will still run identically and the ability to run PPC binaries will still be there.

I assume this is also the case for OS4 but I haven't used it on my own hardware since I sold my BPPC in 2007. I will be able to test this when my Pegasos II arrives in a week or so, but I have no reason to believe it is not the case.

I'm hoping ARIX will eventually become something like the fabled Umilator. We'll find out soon enough.

"crippled" my arse.

@danwood

There's no Commodore AmigaOS in those photos.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

its funny that AROS native is the faster then AROS hosted, if it was so desirable.

Proof?

_________________
Support AROS sponsor a developer.

"AROS is prolly illegal ~ Evert Carton" intentionally quoted out of context for dramatic effect

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote: @cdimauro Fork() is emulated using ZwCreateProcess() on windows, fork is not a native API. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.nt.kernel-mode/hoN_RYtnp58

Thanks. This is the internal / "real" API. The one used by the subsystems that expose public APIs.

Last edited by cdimauro on 06-Nov-2013 at 06:13 AM.

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Suppose that a vendor doesn't release the sources neither the documentation of an own product, because he want to protect its IP. So he just releases the binaries. What's your choice: do you use it, or no? If it's something non-essential — games, for example — then I'm OK with binary-only drivers. But if I need it to get my work done, it has to be open source. I use Intel graphics, and the drivers are open source, so there's no problem. But I wouldn't use Nvidia or ATi with binary-only drivers unless there were open source drivers that I could fall back on in the event something went wrong that I couldn't fix. The open source drivers would be my insurance policy. Maybe they're too slow for games, but at least I can still use my computer to get work done.

Yes, that's right, but as you stated there are also open source drivers for graphics cards. The quality is not that good compared to the close ones and they let you use your card, albeit it's very difficult for games or some applications.

But in the end it's your choice. As a user you decide what to buy. But if you force a platform to have open source-drivers only, you're limiting the freedom of users, that have different needs from you.