@amigang

Quote:

Looks like on the 16th December 2021 AmigaOne name is in dispute, like many pointed out already, the AmigaOne name seems to be pulled / dropped by A-eon

The dispute over both the uspto filing for AmigaOS and AmigaOne is not new.

Please reread:
ruling on partial refusal
and post #183 below that one.

There was as usual a time limit to reply. Your December link concerning objection -to- that refiling for trademark has now been followed by a reply by Hyperion's trademark attorney a few days ago:
Hyperion's reply

Note: The above applies to "AmigaOne". The same series of events (refiling and likely objection and reply) would possibly occur for Hyperion's other uspto filing, the one for AmigaOS.
As of now said trademark is set to be "abandoned" unless reply is received from Hyperion by uspto in April.

Again, please refer to the first link in this post. If you read these new filings, they reference exactly what I stated, that there is ongoing litigation to be considered here. Ergo, this represents imo no change in status whatsoever, nor does it hint at any progress whatsoever.

Also as I may have mentioned prior, the courts can barely function due to lack of personnel.
For at least the 2nd time I notice advertisements asking people to apply to be judges/magistrates in this court. Given they handle important cases concerning lawsuits against the government of the United States, it is somewhat unlikely they would have a meeting and decide to drop all that because they need to move on to the more important issues of Amiga ownership.

Additional note for those bothering to read the filing of January 25, 2022 (link above):
Affirmative defense according to google - "Definition. This is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts."

Supporting data regarding state of the Western District Court concerning judicial vacancies:
https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/judicial-vacancies
So, the judge handling the Amiga case (Ricardo Martinez) has achieved senior status.
Google again - "Senior status is a classification for federal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while hearing a reduced number of cases."

#6

Last edited by number6 on 01-Feb-2022 at 03:25 PM.
Last edited by number6 on 01-Feb-2022 at 01:57 PM.

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

@matthey

Quote:

Unix was *not* designed "more future proof" than any other OS. It was *not* designed for portability or multitasking.

This just makes the situation look worse!

Quote:

After multitasking was added, it was many years before it was SMP capable. The monolithic kernel made it difficult to port and update drivers. It was low performance and was going nowhere on the desktop until a highly optimized and hacked Linux version was created for the large x86-64 platform. Binary compatibility was not as important as the source code was often open source. Old versions of Unix based software requires a recompile and may require code changes as well. The open source philosophy saved Unix but the flavor/distribution and ISA/binary divisions keep it from becoming more popular.

Not that I noticed but I was wasn't aware Unix had any desktop presence. I did wonder how it survived against a free copy. Linux code tends to need updating and recompiling with each kernel release as the include files go out of date.

Quote:

The AmigaOS is somewhat like a cheaper more efficient Unix but the Amiga has binary compatibility and standard hardware while lacking the open source code philosophy. The AmigaOS either needs to break compatibility and evolve like Unix or return to standard customized hardware and focus on maintaining compatibility. In 1985, the AmigaOS may have had a chance at becoming like Unix but doing it today is likely to result in another fragmented Unix like flavor that is three and a half decades behind Unix derived OSs. Returning to standard customized hardware could unite all Amiga fans and makes more sense to explore and possibly ride the retro computing wave back to prominence while taking advantage of hardware integration.

Historically each major Amiga OS update broke some compatibility. Usually games though if they didn't use the OS as intended and went bangers they were coded wrong. And then the usual software problems. Some with newer CPUs but that's progress. But software had a lot of flaws like expecting Topaz 8 window fonts so seemingly trivial changes to borders and fonts messed them all up.

Quote:

The 68k MacOS was probably serviceable but likely difficult to update while maintaining compatibility. It was not multitasking from the beginning like Unix and adding cooperative multitasking had issues and is inferior to preemptive multitasking. Apple had decided to change architectures from 68k to PPC breaking compatibility anyway so they decided to fix it with something that was working and proven. Apple nearly went bankrupt during the Mac PPC years and changed again to x86-64 and ARM but they eventually successfully made the transition to a more advanced OS. There were definitely politics involved in both OS and architecture decisions. Jobs likely didn't care what was under the hood as long as it worked well enough and supported his GUI design.

My first experience of Mac I recall was OS7 emulated in ShapeShifter on my Amiga. 2 colour mode being the fastest. After that I used an OS9 PPC black book. By the time Mac OS9 came out I couldn't tell that it didn't have full multitasking. It did a good job. Having auto loading disks and a Ram disk made it very Amiga Like. And the layout was neater, by comparison Amiga was sloppy and they never fixed it up.

Quote:

Windows at least started out with cooperative multitasking even though it was primitive in the beginning (windows couldn't even overlap). It was also a mess under the hood trying to support segmented memory and the quirky x86 architecture. The Windows XP kernel was replaced with the Windows NT kernel to provide preemptive multitasking and there were many compatibility problems but also an improved "compatibility mode" introduced. The x86(-64) platform has payed attention to compatibility and has a unified OS and ISA unlike the others which has helped to attract developers and retain customers. It has also allowed the OS to be profitable and has supported the organic evolution which has occurred. The days of quickly evolving commodity hardware are over as the efficiency advantages of better integrated hardware is becoming more important. As only the most popular OSs can make a profit off sales of the OS in order to pay for commodity hardware drivers, expect any OS which gains personal computer market share to be on standard custom hardware. The Raspberry Pi is standard hardware and even ARM creating a more standardized AArch64 ISA is a move toward better standardization integration which should improve Android and Apple offerings.

It was obvious with classic Windows as it had that "fake" feeling to it. Not helped by the "da da". But it was more configurable than later Windows or it looked like. I recall a young lady who got a new computer that had Windows 3.1. Soon she had a different colour for each window border. It even put OS3.1 to shame on my A1200 since Workbench really only used 4 colours. But, I thought Windows '95 already had the Amiga style multitasking, so what kernel was used in '95 up to XP? I thought the Windows style compatibility mode was strange as it looked like each program had to manage its own gadgetry that looked exactly the same. Where as on Amiga OS only classic apps with custom gadgets had the old look while new look apps got the latest look. On Mac old apps looked old but it had this bizarre looking routine where it booted OS9 on OSX just to load up an app and then it looked old.

Quote:

The AmigaOS is closed, divided and has barely evolved compared to the other OSs mentioned above while there is not enough money in any of the niche markets to properly develop it. Replacing the AmigaOS kernel with a SMP capable kernel will not allow existing Amiga programs to use SMP without placing them in a sandbox using slow emulation. The AmigaOS is adequate for lower performance affordable hardware which could be popular enough to mass produce. It would be interesting to see what could be done with customized hardware as far as performance improvements while retaining enough compatibility for the retro computing markets and allowing some modern computing.

Well, AmigaOS as it stands, is the original 68K which really closed at OS3.1. OS3.2 is from another time though still 68K. And then there is OS4 which is almost like a cousin twice removed. Built from original sources and then C replacements with ideas from others. Running on Amiga foreign PPC hardware. But the design is too open. They encouraged programmers to directly peek and poke in system structures. Gradually improved the API with ease of use. But didn't provide a safe and private way access the system. The door was already left open. They made changes like dropping BCPL so Amiga standards changed but they needed to go deeper. Later they forbid the Forbid but it was too late by then and there was no other way. The move to OS4 changed a lot but they kept too much legacy in. Reasons cited were 68k compatibility but 68k code was emulated regardless so a fire walled 68k OS interface could have been put in place, but it would have been more work than task based emulation. Other quirky decisions were killing off Tools, which made tool types look meaningless, and confused Commodities which was moved into Utilities where it doesn't belong, allegedly because having both Tools and Utilities was thought to be confusing. Some 68K API changes were perhaps more confusing, like rendering GetCC useless, even though it was designed as a system friendly call to get conditions. In a time where system friendly calls were needed, it didn't make sense to do this, and introduce possible bugs into once fine working 68K code.

@Hypex

Quote:

Hypex wrote: @matthey Quote: Unix was *not* designed "more future proof" than any other OS. It was *not* designed for portability or multitasking. This just makes the situation look worse!

If only....

"In the late 1960s, Bell Labs was involved in a project with MIT and General Electric to develop a time-sharing system, called Multiplexed Information and Computing Service (Multics), allowing multiple users to access a mainframe simultaneously. Dissatisfied with the project's progress, Bell Labs management ultimately withdrew.

On the PDP-7, in 1969, a team of Bell Labs researchers led by Thompson and Ritchie, including Rudd Canaday, implemented a hierarchical file system, the concepts of computer processes and device files, a command-line interpreter, and some small utility programs, modeled on the corresponding features in Multics, but simplified. The resulting system, much smaller and simpler than Multics, was to become Unix."

Even in begining it was supposed to be multiuser system, kinda hard without multitasking...

Last edited by Rose on 01-Feb-2022 at 03:18 PM.

@number6

nice to have you back number6!

you much better than me at keep up with what's going on!

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

Rose Quote:

If only.... "In the late 1960s, Bell Labs was involved in a project with MIT and General Electric to develop a time-sharing system, called Multiplexed Information and Computing Service (Multics), allowing multiple users to access a mainframe simultaneously. Dissatisfied with the project's progress, Bell Labs management ultimately withdrew. On the PDP-7, in 1969, a team of Bell Labs researchers led by Thompson and Ritchie, including Rudd Canaday, implemented a hierarchical file system, the concepts of computer processes and device files, a command-line interpreter, and some small utility programs, modeled on the corresponding features in Multics, but simplified. The resulting system, much smaller and simpler than Multics, was to become Unix." Even in beginning it was supposed to be multiuser system, kinda hard without multitasking...

Multics was an innovative but underachieving OS for large expensive mainframe computers designed to support time sharing. The Bell Labs guys did not try to create a replacement for Multics but rather were more interested in downsizing a similar OS while retaining and improving on some of the concepts. The PDP-7 and later PDP-11 minicomputer hardware was lower end than a mainframe and very resource limited. One of the motivations was to play the game "Space Travel" which cost $75 per session on a GE mainframe. Unix was primitive on the PDP-7 while the PDP-11, which inspired the 68k, opened up new possibilities for both Unix and what became the C language. Unix development started in 1969 on the PDP-7 but it was not until 1973 on the PDP-11 when multitasking was implemented.

Dennis Ritchie Quote:

Thus, in 1971, work began on what was to become the C language. The story of the language developments from BCPL through B to C is told elsewhere, and need not be repeated here. Perhaps the most important watershed occurred during 1973, when the operating system kernel was rewritten in C. It was at this point that the system assumed its modern form; the most far-reaching change was the introduction of multi-programming. There were few externally visible changes, but the internal structure of the system became much more rational and general. The success of this effort convinced us that C was useful as a nearly universal tool for systems programming, instead of just a toy for simple applications.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170403063715/https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/hist.pdf

"Multi-programming" is running more than one program at a time and implies multitasking. Time sharing also implies multitasking but Unix was originally developed on hardware which made it difficult to implement. There may have been multiuser concepts in the file system of Unix from inception like "protection modes" but I guess the users had to take turns using the OS. AmigaOS file systems often support both user and group protection bits while full multiuser support was never implemented. At least the AmigaOS was designed to be minimal and support preemptive multitasking from inception. The AmigaOS started with the superior 68000 which is practically a 32 bit super PDP-11. Both Unix and the AmigaOS designs made compromises to be usable on more affordable hardware, at least partially motivated by computer gaming.

More Amiga Unix parallels are legal disputes over IP and lawsuits for many years. The end result for Unix was that the free reimplementation called Linux became the most successful branch and many of the Unix businesses involved in the legal disputes disappeared. This would be like AROS becoming the dominant AmigaOS branch and Hyperion, A-Eon and AmigaKit disappearing. Some new Amiga hardware is already including AROS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix

Sorry for the thread interruption but clarification was needed. If a more in depth discussion is desired then please start a new thread.

Last edited by matthey on 02-Feb-2022 at 05:24 PM.

Quote:

Sorry for the thread interruption but clarification was needed.

Friend matthey,
I hope you're aware you should set this as your signature.













(OH NO WHAT DID I DO FRIENDS BRACE FOR A 30 PAGES LONG HISTORY OF SIGNATURES, UTF CHARSETS, BYTE ORDER MARKS AND THE PERFORMANCE IMPACT OF ISO-8859-1 ENCODING)

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: kolla Quote: Eh, what? What "hacked" Linux are you yapping about? The original Linux had many x86(-64) dependencies and semantics. Linus believed that Linux was inherently Intel specific. The 68k version of Linux for the Amiga was one of the first ports and it was 2-3 years after Linux was released before others succeeded in porting the architecture specific hack job with many changes. Unix and then Linux evolved which required many years and changes.

What does all this have to do with the actual statement that I commented:
Quote:

It (unix) was low performance and was going nowhere on the desktop until a highly optimized and hacked Linux version was created for the large x86-64 platform.

"going nowhere"? It was going A LOT of places, more like... everywhere!

Quote:

kollaQuote: NeXTStep? IRIX? I recall even Ultrix with X11R4 and CDE using a puck mouse being a heck lot better desktop than contemporary windows and mac. And Linux isn't Unix. Are niche market Unix derivatives requiring high performance hardware and using vendor specific devices comparable to personal computers?

Who said "personal computers" was a requirement?

And to the point - yes, why not? Most people wanted a PC to run their familiar apps, but those of us who had no issues with Unix, getting "high performance" hardware with vendor specific devices (as if that was not an issue on PC and Mac?!) to run "niche market Unix derivatives" was not much of a problem. We got them cheap second hand.

Quote:

Are they really examples of broadly popular Unix derived success?

Yes, they were, very much so. But I understand now that your definition of "success" is solely about "home computers" - not all vendors have "home users" as their target market - it is perfectly fine to have "the movie industry" or "academia" or "banking" or whatever as target market and have success, without even touching "home market".

Unix and later Linux has had so many successes in so many different markets and segments, it's almost easier to count which market it has not had success in.

Quote:

NeXTStep did eventually evolve into the new MacOS after personal computer hardware became powerful enough so it is one example of success but after a long evolution of changes from Unix to BSD to NeXTStep to Darwin to MacOS and evolving over 30+ years.

NeXTStep runs quite well on a 68040 based old NeXTStation. It was a success, never meant as a "home computer", but more targeted at academia and research.

And the evolution is Unix to BSD to NeXTStep (first 68k, then sparc, pa-risc and x86) to Rhapsody (x86 and at last PPC) to (Mac)OSX (and Darwin - x86, ppc, amd64 and ppc64) to macOS 11 and 12 (currect, still with Darwin, currently release 21.2.0, amd64, arm64)

Quote:

Minix and Linux were some of the earliest derivatives of Unix which tried to simplify, optimize and improve the efficiency to better run on personal computers.

With minix to a point of being close to utterly useless - it took decades for it to become "usable", and then only certain embedded targets. And then it ruined its entire legacy by becoming most known for being "the security problem" for a whole range of Intel products that used Minix for lights-out management. Success.

Quote:

Windows and the original MacOS had adequate GUIs which ran on lower end personal computer hardware than Unix derivatives ran on at that time.

Heh, macOS perhaps, but Windows? Adequate? As I said, in the mid/late 90s I found it a LOT more adequate to get an old workstation second hand to run that niche Unix, like an second hand Solaris or SGI.

Oh, and have you ever used Apple/UX?

Quote:

The AmigaOS had the most responsive GUI, the best multitasking and the smallest footprint which none could match.

I don't know about "best multitasking", and all the benefits came with a huge obstacle that made the OS model very much irrelevant for just about all market segments as time went on. Total and utter lack of any security measures (memory protection), and no adequate networking stack - ALWAYS more and more years behind.

Quote:

kolla Quote: Hm, in old time Unixen was not much open source - the word "open" at the time had a different meaning - "code open to our licenced partners" and to some degree "open standards". Open Source as we know it today came with GNU and GPL, really. BSD was (and is) open for commercial exploitation. I understand but Unix APIs and standards still evolved for years before being copied. The open source code Unix derived branches evolved quicker and later.

Sure, and it's not like open source Unix and closed source Unix didn't evolve together, they are very much interweaved and entangled with each other. Today, most Unixen (and for that matter, Windows too) are a mix of closed and open source components, blended together as far as licenses allow.

Quote:

kolla Quote: He cared enough to keep PPC alive for a decade, he could have dropped it right away when he took over Apple, but instead they spent years porting NeXTStep (with a mac aqua skin and cocoa) to PPC. The Apple PPC Mac years were from 1994 to 2006 and Apple nearly went bankrupt in 1997. Not exactly the best years for Apple and Macintosh sales.

I don't quite see the relevance of this argument. The point I made was that Apple remained committed to PowerPC also after Jobs took over - they COULD have switched to x86 right away, as NeXTSTEP was already running on x86. But they didn't, because Jobs knew that key to success was to, at very least, keep their existing customer base, who had just been transitioning from 68k to PowerPC. To switch again to x86 right away would have killed all credibility, and besides... with NeXTSTEP and OpenSTEP, Jobs had a portable code base, porting to PowerPC shouldn't be so hard, right? And then it was the need to bring over a bit of the looks and feel from MacOS, so that the user base would recognise the OS as "mac". This whole effort took place on both x86 and PowerPC systems under the name "Rhapsody", which once it was finished (enough), was released as MacOSX. I was at univ at the time, and there were quite a few Rhapsody systems in the student lab.

And then there was mkLinux, a little bit on the side of it all.

Quote:

PPC was as good for Apple as it has been for the Amiga. The 68k Mac was relatively more successful in personal computer sales than the x86(-64) Mac which was more successful than the PPC Mac.

So "success" in your view boils down to just sales numbers.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@thread

Official update on post #1641 (currently top of this page) concerning the refiling for the Amigaone trademark (uspto) and subsequent objection etc.

2 weeks ago, but frankly I find coverning inaction tiring at this point.

JOINT STIPULATION AND
CONSENTED MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS

In addition on the same day activity ceased concerning "recognition" of the Amiga trademark.
If you haven't been following this, briefly the trademark was registered by uspto to Amiga Corporation, but Hyperion has refused to recognize this. If you read about the Amiga/Amico affair this is somewhat detailed.
Sadly, however, all that I had written at Atariage with supporting documentation has been removed, as they closed down the entire Amico section. I have no time to explore archive.org to see if the facts are still floating around somewhere...

JOINT STIPULATION AND
CONSENTED MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS

In essence both sides have agreed to do nothing about these marks and recognition of same pending resolution of the legal case.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 01-Mar-2022 at 02:23 PM.

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

Intellivision cuts latest Amico fundraising campaign short, setting alarm bells ringing @ Eurogamer

_________________

@thread

Reference:
Sean

he's back

#6

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

@thread

No surprise that Sean (above) is not alone in yet another C64 revival effort:

Yay?

#6

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