Poster | Thread |
olegil
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 10-Dec-2004 22:36:42
| | [ #141 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Aug-2003 Posts: 5895
From: Work | | |
|
| @EntilZha
So, when are you going to release this? _________________ This weeks pet peeve: Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
minator
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 11-Dec-2004 0:58:28
| | [ #142 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 23-Mar-2004 Posts: 989
From: Cambridge | | |
|
| @Rogue Quote:
That is true. In all considerations backwards compatibility was always the secondary goal. Compatibility IMO is important, but only to a certain degree. Well-Behaved programs do work; everything else would go through UAE.
It was obvious that this would create some shortages in software where old software would cease to function, and it is the hope that developers will fill these holes with new software. In the end, you can only keep to backwards compatibility for a certain time without moving forward; at one point you have to let go. Our idea was that in all the years so much was neglected that it would make sense to make a BIG step forward, even if that meant loosing some programs.
Also, I like the AmigaOS as it is. We could have chosen to go a different route and box it in, to be replaced later by something else, but we chose not to do that. Instead, our idea is to develope it further, keep it as Amiga as it is, and thus make it the logical follow-up to the classic OS. |
So MOS is doing it the OS X way, you're doing it the BeOS way.
Be changed their executable format at one point and it killed everything in one go. The thing was at the time (around R4) there was an active development community and all they had to do is recompile, it was fixed so quickly you don't even hear it mentioned these days. In the early days I believe it happened quite a few times.
So it has been done before but I suspect in this case will require more than just a recompile. As long as developers are kept well informed well ahead of changes it shouldn't be too difficult.
I'm curious though, why didn't you do this from the very beginning - or would that have taken too long?
Last edited by minator on 11-Dec-2004 at 02:04 AM.
_________________ Whyzzat? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
EntilZha
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 11-Dec-2004 18:39:23
| | [ #143 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 27-Aug-2003 Posts: 1679
From: The Jedi Academy, Yavin 4 | | |
|
| @olegil
Quote:
So, when are you going to release this? |
_________________ Thomas, the kernel guy
"I don't have a frigging clue. I'm norwegian" -- Ole-Egil
All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion Entertainment |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
EntilZha
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 11-Dec-2004 18:43:54
| | [ #144 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 27-Aug-2003 Posts: 1679
From: The Jedi Academy, Yavin 4 | | |
|
| @minator
Quote:
I'm curious though, why didn't you do this from the very beginning - or would that have taken too long? |
No, it would have taken less time (speaking of backward compatibility through a boxed approach, assuming you mean that).
However, the reasons against this have been brought to the point by DaveP elsewhere in this thread. What he describes there are the exact reasons why we did it in the first place._________________ Thomas, the kernel guy
"I don't have a frigging clue. I'm norwegian" -- Ole-Egil
All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion Entertainment |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
minator
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 11-Dec-2004 19:34:56
| | [ #145 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 23-Mar-2004 Posts: 989
From: Cambridge | | |
|
| @EntilZha
Quote:
it would have taken less time (speaking of backward compatibility through a boxed approach, assuming you mean that). |
No, I meant having a clean break from 68K, adding memory protection from the beginning and not assuming any compatibility on PPC. Leave UAE to handle all backwards compatibility._________________ Whyzzat? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tomazkid
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 11-Dec-2004 19:36:43
| | [ #146 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 31-Jul-2003 Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden | | |
|
| @EntilZha
Quote:
You're kidding, right? _________________ Site admins are people too..pooff! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
MikeB
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 11-Dec-2004 21:24:00
| | [ #147 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 3-Mar-2003 Posts: 6487
From: Europe | | |
|
| @minator
Quote:
No, I meant having a clean break from 68K |
But they have done a clean break. ExecSG is a totally new PPC Exec kernel with many improvements while taking into account important future functionality.
It would have been *much* easier to host the old 68k Exec on top of for instance a LinuxPPC kernel by usage of an emulation box (a la Amithlon) or to use a PPC re-implementation of Exec in a box, without adding new functionality (a la ABox/MOS).
ExecSG has taken a lot of effort to be done right! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Zardoz
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 12-Dec-2004 5:38:53
| | [ #148 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 13-Mar-2003 Posts: 4261
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @MikeB
He's talking about the burden of compatibility, not leaving 68k stuff in the kernel. About the kernels now, I think that apart from the AROS exec, all PPC exec implementations would be difficult to host (including ExecSG/OS4 and ExecPPC/MOS) for different reasons. _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
MikeB
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 12-Dec-2004 7:47:32
| | [ #149 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 3-Mar-2003 Posts: 6487
From: Europe | | |
|
| @AMiGR
Quote:
He's talking about the burden of compatibility, not leaving 68k stuff in the kernel. |
IMO so far neither has the MorphOS team, AFAIK most of the work has been spent on the ABox.
Quote:
About the kernels now, I think that apart from the AROS exec, all PPC exec implementations would be difficult to host (including ExecSG/OS4 and ExecPPC/MOS) for different reasons. |
Why?
And MorphOS already uses this approach. I believe the naming has confused a lot of people. IMO a better name for the QBox would have been QuarkOS or something like that.
Let's take Linux as an example. Linux is a far more complex kernel than Exec is, but MkLinux hosts Linux on top of a Mach microkernel just fine. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
EntilZha
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 12-Dec-2004 10:57:28
| | [ #150 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 27-Aug-2003 Posts: 1679
From: The Jedi Academy, Yavin 4 | | |
|
| @minator
Quote:
No, I meant having a clean break from 68K, adding memory protection from the beginning and not assuming any compatibility on PPC. Leave UAE to handle all backwards compatibility. |
This approach would probably have been similar in scope to what we have now, i.e. you wouldn't have some of the problems we have now, but you would have a bunch of stuff (intuition, dos, etc) that wouldn't work any longer and have to be rewritten... _________________ Thomas, the kernel guy
"I don't have a frigging clue. I'm norwegian" -- Ole-Egil
All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion Entertainment |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
EntilZha
| |
Re: Difference between MOS & OS4? Posted on 12-Dec-2004 10:58:51
| | [ #151 ] |
|
|
|
OS4 Core Developer |
Joined: 27-Aug-2003 Posts: 1679
From: The Jedi Academy, Yavin 4 | | |
|
| @MikeB
Quote:
Linux is a far more complex kernel than Exec is, but MkLinux hosts Linux on top of a Mach microkernel just fine. |
Correct._________________ Thomas, the kernel guy
"I don't have a frigging clue. I'm norwegian" -- Ole-Egil
All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion Entertainment |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|