@Fab

Quote:

What is insane is his MUI bashing and disdain against MorphOS or AROS.

Kind of what you do in #morphos against AmigaOS 4.x you mean?

Last edited by zerohero on 23-Dec-2010 at 12:08 PM.

_________________
Common sense - So rare it's almost like a super power

@zerohero

No.

@Fab

I have logs, I'd say it doesn't differ that much. Let me add that I don't agree with Joerg, but there are two sides to this coin as well.

_________________
Common sense - So rare it's almost like a super power

@Nibunnoichi

Accept it or not MUI is the future of all Amiga systems.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

I have never, nor will I ever, accepted MUI as the future. I simply never liked it. And on OS4, MUI _is_ alien, in the sense that it is a secondary UI toolkit to the officially supported one on THAT platform. Sorry, but I don't see how that could be a question of personal preference.

There's a reason why there is Ubuntu and Kubuntu (and Xubuntu). You just CAN'T make everyone standardize on one UI toolkit. The world of computing just doesn't work that way.

_________________
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.

@itix
if you say so, but then make at least the current version available "for all amiga systems".

@wawa

Quote:

@itix if you say so, but then make at least the current version available "for all amiga systems".

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

@olegil

It doesnt matter what you think about it. Major applications have always been and will be written using MUI toolkit.

Last edited by itix on 23-Dec-2010 at 01:21 PM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

You forgot about SDL :D

@rzookol

Or X11? :)

@itix

So that's why OS 4.x comes with a usable version !!

Quote:

itix wrote: @olegil It doesnt matter what you think about it. Major applications have always been and will be written using MUI toolkit.

Last edited by Spectre660 on 23-Dec-2010 at 02:17 PM.

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@All

Please can we avoid other flames and war discussion between MUI and so ?
Would be cool if we can use this thread to follow the kas1e progress and maybe help him with somethings usefull

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@olegil

Quote:

I have never, nor will I ever, accepted MUI as the future. I simply never liked it. And on OS4, MUI _is_ alien, in the sense that it is a secondary UI toolkit to the officially supported one on THAT platform. Sorry, but I don't see how that could be a question of personal preference.

i don't know how 'alien' MUI is on OS4, per se. it's not the default GUI toolkit, but a runtime is included because of the number of MUI-based applications out there OS4 users still use day-to-day. even the AHI preferences applet is MUI-based.

from a strictly user perspective, the only complaints i have about MUI on OS4 is that the GUI elements -- buttons, fields, etc. -- look differently than their reaction-based counterparts. no matter what is done, the GUI isn't consistent between the two, just as QT-based apps on a GNOME-based linux distro look somewhat odd compared to their GTK-based counterparts. it's the lack of consistency i don't care for, but developers should use whatever GUI stack that meets the needs of their application.

if we could get the MUI runtime to provide GUI elements that look and behave exactly as their reaction counterparts -- such that the user couldn't tell what GUI toolkit was being used -- that would be awesome. but it's such a secondary concern. i'd much rather have fab's excellent OWB implementation on OS4 than not because of the absence of a MUI runtime over some sort of religious nonsense.

i also appreciate joerg's work on his OWB port. choice is good, and i'm very much looking forward to kas1e's work to bring the MOS OWB implementation to OS4, progress on the timberwolf front, and continued efforts to improve stability of the OS4 implementation of netsurf. as i said, choice is good. regardless of the GUI stack behind it.

-- eliyahu

_________________
"Physical reality is consistent with universal laws. When the laws do not operate, there is no reality. All of this is unreal."

@realize
Quote:

Still no word from Joerg? Is he just ignoring this?

Dunno. He works on different project (owb-reaction), and we not ask (and we not need) any help from him for sure. All the help which i need i already have: fab (because its all done by him) and Deniil who will help to add necessary mui4 deps. Joerg there not play any role. Only what i know is that TSK trying to ask source from him , of his reaction based owb (that one, which we use for now) and still no luck (but maybe i wrong, and he already get it).

In other words, joerg do what he want with reaction-based owb , and some ppls trying to ask sources from him, to update exactly that version.

Yeah, all of this looks really strange for me, why just not give it to ppls , to make it better, if you personally do not want to make it better ? Of course he have rights on his code, but its just smels bad. Fab also have his rights on mui-owb, which have tons of features, and he not in interest in aos4 , and still, even in that situation, he help more than aos4 coder ! Really funny. And childrish and unprofessional as well. And why need to bashing mui ? Holly crap, i give a #### mui-shmoui-reaction-geraction-maraction-caraction : the matter is to have normal working OWB with features. If reaction based are time consuming for now and have problems with adding features, then mui. SDL are possible too, but it will slow like hell, so mui version of OWB (of better version of OWB for now) are prefferable.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@kas1e

Quote:

Dunno. He works on different project (owb-reaction), and we not ask (and we not need) any help from him for sure. All the help which i need i already have: fab (because its all done by him) and Deniil who will help to add necessary mui4 deps. Joerg there not play any role. Only what i know is that TSK trying to ask source from him , of his reaction based owb (that one, which we use for now) and still no luck (but maybe i wrong, and he already get it).

Don't know exactly how it works at internal level code but for what i've see following the bug tracker he (Joerg) did a good job fixing tons bugs on the core, in latest 2 years we (as users/betatesters) help him tracking/removing bugs in this specific area. (not 100% working pages, scripts, DHTML issues and so on) ...

This is a good reason to have his latest diffs pubblically, all that fixing can be availible automatically in all version and give benefits to Fab port too

As far as i know ATM Fab didn't receive all the feedback we gave to the OS4 version

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@all

Blah blah blah, blah blah de blah.

Come on stop the bickering let Kas1E, Fab and co. get on with the job at hand. They only have a handful of months to get the job done before FF arrives. Who cares about what Joerg said on another forum, its his source code, he does as he pleases, he doesn't owe anyone anything. People should be thankful of his work over the years.

The answer to the thread title is obviously Yes - end of story.

Last edited by djrikki on 23-Dec-2010 at 02:59 PM.

_________________

@samo79

Well, many of the bugs reported in OWB OS4 bugtracker simply never occurred in the MorphOS version. So joerg likely introduced them in the first place (except for cookies where he indeed tried to fix OWB buggy cookiemanager).

@itix

Quote:

Accept it or not MUI is the future of all Amiga systems.

Bright future...

_________________
http://www.amigasoft.net

@Fab
Quote:

And what's laughable too is these people who consider MUI "alien" on OS4 but don't seem to have a problem with really non amiga-like toolkits like XUL or upcoming QT. Have they all lost their minds?

Have you ever thought about why MUI is considered alien on AmigaOS4?

-Lots of people didn't like MUI on their classics, looked pretty but slowed the computer down and was avoided if possible.

-AmigaOS4 uses another toolkit as default toolkit, it's natural to work with that before you use a 3rd party toolkit which is mainly present for "backwards compatibility" in the first place.

- MUI is freezed at v3.9 on AmigaOS, why not suggest and work on improvements for the native toolkit instead of working with MUI that will never make v4.0 on AmigaOS.

- Is it even possible to register MUI anymore?

Personally I'd love to see AmigaOS use QT as the default toolkit but perhaps that's just me.

Cool thing is that contrary to MUI, newest sourcecode is actually available for QT for everyone to work with if they so desire.

Last edited by Troels on 23-Dec-2010 at 07:17 PM.

_________________

@Troels

Quote:

- MUI is freezed at v3.9 on AmigaOS, why not suggest and work on improvements for the native toolkit instead of working with MUI that will never make v4.0 on AmigaOS.

There is Zune. It is not complete but at least open source.

But anyway, it is rather irrelevant. Reason why other toolkits havent gained ground is that currently only MUI allows rapid UI development. On Reaction creating UI is too laborous -- it is notable how popular it to (mis)use tooltypes as prefs editor replacement.

Oh, and sorry about dragging this thread further into land of off-topics... :P

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook