Im banned from a.org and my post deleted just for talk about this topic, just for the record.

I wonder if at the time when Hyperion released AmigaOS 4
for classic and there was already MOS and Aros there what
would happen if it actually went to US court.

No way of knowing and I doubt that it was lack of funds to start
legal action by Hyperion/Amiga Inc. combined.

Although AROS is opensource and free and Morphos doesn't have
any "Morphos Inc." software company it could still be seen as damage
to official (ThA ReAl) Amiga OS and cause loss of sales.

No way of knowing what would happen , law is applied by judge not
by some CPU doing calculations.Fact is that there was no legal action
when there was a chance to gain and less chance to loose.

I'm more worried about future implications on Classic software.
Here at the time I was one of few who had expanded A1200 and
everyone hated RTG (because they had no gfx cards) , MUI was kinda
liked but most people just used MUI Icons not whole package and
AHI was very unpopular as it was considered slow.

Only team that actually allowed for growth of these add-ons (patches)
or call them drivers (although driver should be more on low-level side)
in my opinion is Aros team.If there are 5 AmigaOS 4 developers then
how many MOS developers are out there ? 10 ? 20 ?

Both systems can go for world record in number of users / amount
of development ratio (Aros too).

I hope this doesn't spill into classic arena.

Last edited by blizz1220 on 11-Sep-2015 at 09:46 PM.

@blizz1220

Quote:

I wonder if at the time when Hyperion released AmigaOS 4 for classic and there was already MOS and Aros there what would happen if it actually went to US court.

They were already IN court with Amiga Inc. when classic was released.

AmigaOS 4.0 for Classic has gone Gold!

Court case was April 2007-December 2009 roughly.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

And the reason Hyperion was chosen was probably
because they didn't have a good idea of what Amiga Inc.
was at the time while MOS team knew better.Aros wasn't
even an option as it was open-source.

What I meant was that Hyperion's post from the time as
badly as I saw it first time made different sense after re-
reading it.It said you need better legal protection (in a form
of a hostile advice).Just because it never got to court it
doesn't prove it couldn't do damage.

If there was no Amiga Inc. (Bill) I'm sure that Genesi / and
whoever was making AmigaONEs later could join forces
and MOS team would be given fair conditions to becoming
successor of AmigaOS 3 name and all.Hyperion would probably
cooperate and it would be one line of hardware and OS.

As for timing , time that counts is when Hyperion was given
rights not when it actually delivered from legal perspective.

Reason so few classic users didn't switch to either is the same
in both cases.They were expecting new Amiga compatible , list
of titles that worked with NG OSes is marginal and those old
titles were made by commercial companies and plentiful.
Not being able to use them -as on 68k Amiga- was the deal
breaker.

@pavlor

I dont know. Like I dont know why your name is pavlor and not pavel.

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

@blizz1220

Quote:

Reason so few classic users didn't switch to either is the same in both cases.They were expecting new Amiga compatible

Hence why the Escena failure was such a disappointment to all who commented about it.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@blizz1220

Quote:

If there was no Amiga Inc. (Bill) I'm sure that Genesi / and whoever was making AmigaONEs later could join forces and MOS team would be given fair conditions to becoming successor of AmigaOS 3 name and all.

No Amiga.Inc = no possible licence for new AmigaOS.


But yes, your assumption is right. MorphOS Team turned down proposals of Amiga.Inc and current AmigaOS4 was born. MorphOS Team thus created its most dangerous competitor whose name alone (not features!) restricted grow of their fledgling OS in its critical years. How ironic...

@itix

Quote:

I dont know. Like I dont know why your name is pavlor and not pavel.

Then read original dos.h in AmigaOS sources...


And yes, you are right about my name.

@pavlor

And Hyperion went to costly court case and couldn't
recover ever since.

If Bill was never involved things would probably take different
(logical) approach.AmigaONEs could have had 68k CPUs on
them or anything other from legacy hardware that wouldn't
make price to high for hardware-assisted emulation thus
making them more compatible to old Amiga models even if
the chipset would be emulated.

Apart from that Amithlon would also be sane choice (with
some custom parts of hardware to enable better compatibility)
as it competed well in terms of speed of PC clones running
WIndows at the time.Not to mention that it would be way
easier to port new things as it could do x86 code.

@blizz1220

Quote:

If Bill was never involved things would probably take different (logical) approach.

Logic in world of Amiga?

Quote:

AmigaONEs could have had 68k CPUs on them or anything other from legacy hardware that wouldn't make price to high for hardware-assisted emulation thus making them more compatible to old Amiga models even if the chipset would be emulated.

Technological nightmare. A1 (Eyetech) class hardware is able to emulate A500/1200 games, need for "real hardware" is so only emotional.

Quote:

Apart from that Amithlon would also be sane choice (with some custom parts of hardware to enable better compatibility) as it competed well in terms of speed of PC clones running WIndows at the time.

Amithlon was great product - 1/3 of native performance in most published benchmarks. However, lack of MMU emulation wouldn´t be ideal for future OS developement.

@pavlor

I compared dos.h from H&P NDK 3.9 to MorphOS SDK and no lines match with diff tool. The NDK mixes tabs and spaces to align the text, the MorphOS SDK is using tabs only in the beginning of the line and everything else is using spaces for the alignment.

Thus it can't be naive edit with just comments removed.

[edit] I just read the message from IRC (I was travelling couple of days) that includes were written by CISC and it took weeks to write them. You might want to ask him for details.

Last edited by itix on 11-Sep-2015 at 10:46 PM.

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

@pavlor

By the time AmigaONEs actually came it was too late anyway.
Apart from that they weren't really Amiga h/w quality with all
those mistakes on board ?

And having option to use real 68k card , or Amiga floppies or
making emulation start right when you press power (if you
want to) would make a lot of difference.

Amiga joy ports could be nice too.

@itix

I´m still waiting for answer to my question (why empty line...).

@blizz1220

Quote:

By the time AmigaONEs actually came it was too late anyway.

It was too late even in 1994.

Quote:

or Amiga floppies or making emulation start right when you press power (if you want to) would make a lot of difference.

Catweasel with right software (eg. RunInUAE-like) is the right solution. But you are again right, AmigaOne was too close to common PCs as there was no other choice: Amiga hardware design failed in test of time.

@pavlor

Maybe CISC found it significant to separate Kickstart 1.x and 2.x error codes. I can't know why, you have to ask it from CISC.

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

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @itix I´m still waiting for answer to my question (why empty line...).

You already got a response from the person you asked. Stop behaving like an idiot.

@megol

Quote:

You already got a response from the person you asked. Stop behaving like an idiot.

Thanks for your kind words.

Example I mentioned is pure copy/paste with some after work. In original dos.h, there is comment line, so "difference" is really obvious here. Browsing through MorphOS SDK yielded more such examples. I don´t blame MorphOS Team for any intended "copyright Infringement", I only think these headers originated from original AmigaOS headers: take *.h as basis, change spacing, remove comments, add MorphOS stuff and you have *.h in current MorphOS SDK. That is my understanding, of course.

If MorphOS Team members say, it is not so, I have no real evidence to dispute their statement. But I expect same benevolence towards creators of AmigaOS SDK.

@pavlor

It would help if you could get at least one Amiga developer to support your claims.

Last edited by itix on 12-Sep-2015 at 09:21 AM.
Last edited by itix on 12-Sep-2015 at 09:21 AM.

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

@itix

Quote:

It would help if you could get at least one Amiga developer to support your claims.

While I am not an "Amiga developer", I hope my technical opinion still carries some weight...

And having looked at the dos.h files in the MorphOS SDK and the old 3.9 NDK, I have to agree with Pavlor --- the MorphOS one is clearly derived from the NDK one. All comments were removed, and the whitespace was layed out much more nicely but other than that (and some MorphOS-specific additions), they are identical.

I actually expected to find the exact opposite --- that the files would (necessarily!) convey the same information, but would do so in independent ways. For a list of numeric return-code constants with well-established names, it wouldn't have been surprising at all to find almost-identical-looking content in the file.

However, there are quite a few sections in this file, dealing with different sides of DOS. And in both versions, these sections appear in exactly the same order. Within each section, information appears in the exact same order, too, even though at times, there is no inherent "natural" order.

Both versions have a superfluous pair of parentheses around the "0L" in the definition of DOSFALSE. Both versions list the FIBB_* constants in descending order. Both versions have superfluous parentheses around the hex-defined ID_* constants; For that matter, both versions use the same hex definitions for those constants, despite the MorphOS one using an ASCII/shift based definition for the CDROM and SFS IDs.

Both versions include identical definitions of BITSPERBYTE, BYTESPERLONG, BITSPERLONG, MAXINT and MININT --- which are strange to include in dos.h in the first place; And for BITSPERLONG, one would expect to see (BITSPERBYTE*BYTESPERLONG), rather than the numeric constant 32. For that matter, both versions use the numeric array sizes 108, 80 and 32 directly in declaring a struct FileInfoBlock, rather than #define-ing symbolic constants and using those, as one would certainly expect in a from-scratch implementation created in the 21st century.

Both versions cater for OBSOLETE_LIBRARIES_DOS_H being defined --- where would the from-scratch MorphOS (and the associated compiler) encounter obsolete libraries that require a different handling of BCPL pointer typecasting?


So yeah, I would certainly recommend adding the original Commodore/Amiga Inc copyright notice back in, at least; And also looking into how it got "lost" in the first place, to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Last edited by umisef on 12-Sep-2015 at 10:55 AM.
Last edited by umisef on 12-Sep-2015 at 10:53 AM.

@umisef

If MAXINT were in the original dos.h then it must be in new headers for source compatibility. Including obsolete defines.

It is true that items are in identical order. However, I don't see problem with that.

But spacing in defines is different. Original uses tab width 8 what is not matching to MorphOS header in any way. Editing those is so much work it is easier to write everything from scratch.

Anyway, according to Hyperion they have no issues were they based on the original or not. This is official. And when CISC says he write headers by hand I believe him.

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