@pavlor:

Quote:

Their licence allows use to "develop, sell and modify"

You left out the latter part of that sentence - "including through sublicensing" - which seems to be important in this context, especially since the license is explicitly described as a "object code and source code license" (emphasis mine). I tend to agree with the notion that Hyperion is not in a position to open source 3.1, but I don't think any of us is qualified to make that call.

Discussing this is a waste of time anyway - they obviously don't want to open source it, what does it matter if they could?

@resle:

Quote:

By the way.... what happened to that ludicrous "selling share" thing?

If Hyperion's history tells us anything, it's that you'll never hear about it - unless it comes up in a court case, or requires updating the company registration. Selling shares to Trevor doesn't, so let's hope for another cour case

@OlafS25

Quote:

MorphOS team already announced ISA change with 68k support only done by UAE so for them no value anymore too

You don't think some of them might have seen the source code (over the years)?
They weren't used to re-implement the API anyway, I doubt they were that useful in creating OS4.
The API itself was fully documented in widely available publications.

If the source code was completely dissected to create OS4, that might explain the long development time (and the fact that many MorphOS system calls work more efficiently).

Hey, OS3.1 sources are probably of primary utility in creating enhanced versions of OS3.X.
Who would have guessed?

@billt

Quote:

I thought it was reassuring to see that they are "not married to any CPU architecture".

And yet, no alternative ISA support (68K backporting, ARM, X64, etc).

Last edited by iggy on 08-May-2017 at 03:46 PM.

I think the interview was a good insight but I thought his answers were "legally this that or the other" too many times. Not his fault - what I take from that is that Hyperion are bound very tightly by the various law(s)/conditions and therefore what they can achieve is possibly, although not necessarily, limited.

Would love to see them break the 4.x releases and go for a full on 5.x which makes the OS current again 4.2 will be a welcome release though.

@iggy

Quote:

They weren't used to re-implement the API anyway, I doubt they were that useful in creating OS4. The API itself was fully documented in widely available publications. If the source code was completely dissected to create OS4, that might explain the long development time

AOS4 *is* based on that source code. it wasn't used as documentation. it's the base of the operating system itself.

-- eliyahu

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

@billt

Up until a year ago, Hyperion's official CPU statement had been "We like PPC because weird is good."
(Well, that is if Solie was not just speaking off the cuff).

It is a bit refreshing to see the shift of perspective with respect to CPU choice. This is not to say that they have decided to use another CPU, but being open to the idea is a step in the right direction.

_________________
I sold my SAM460ex lite... waiting for money to buy a Raspberry Pi... or a Classic A1000 with Buffee... or an A1222... and OS4.3 FE update 11

@PhantomInterrogative

in my view the interview more or less says nothing, at least regarding amiga development and direction. At best that they could theoretical support a different hardware and are not limited by amiga inc. legally

@resle

Nothing like this ?

https://github.com/amigasource/amigaos/blob/master/v40_src/workbench/devs/narrator/readme

Kamelito

@eliyahu

Quote:

AOS4 *is* based on that source code...

NO, much of OS3.1 was coded with assemly, not created with C.
AND, no one except the authors really has any insight into how much was involved to writing the new OS.
But, you can be sure its NOT a straight recompilation.
THAT would have taken far less time.

@iggy

http://blog.hyperion-entertainment.biz/?p=1220

http://blog.hyperion-entertainment.biz/?p=1227

Kamelito

@kamelit0

And your point being that assembly code can be converted into C code?
But it doesn't account for the massive amount of tweaking and rework necessary to adapt to completely different hardware, add new functionality and components from later OS3.X variants, or change coding features designed to take advantage of assembly code that don't translate well into C.

Again, no where near a straight forward port.

Last edited by iggy on 08-May-2017 at 07:11 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 08-May-2017 at 07:10 PM.

@cgutjahr

http://amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2017-05-00019-DE.html

Either google translate has failed me or Martin has written a somewhat confusing account of this interview. I wonder if you could look it over and/or tidy it up. heh.

@iggy

Quote:

Eh, a little optimistic about Amiga Inc's ability to defend its trademark, now that they have let it lapse.

On that score, since our thread about the trademark went dark...

The next step has been listed:

Quote:

NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLICATION E-MAILED

And tomorrow it gets published for opposition, which lasts about a month, barring extensions being filed etc.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 08-May-2017 at 08:26 PM.

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

@broadblues

Quote:

and one of thoe updates included the new console which is bigger advance than anything added to 3.1 in 3.5

thats a favourable yardstick to apply. hardly any of the updates after 3.1 or even 3.0 till 3.9 were that much groundbreaking or even significant. most were contributions, and some console or shell update was even among them (vnc one?).
i have not had the opportunity to test os4.1 final update console nor i intend to any soon (too busy on more rewarding tasks), but it has been spread that it doesnt makes long time third party proposals, such as kingcon (or whatever it is called) look obsolete.
in my own defence i must admit i dont demand any much of a console. i like to be able to dig into far history and then flush it down the drain, but i dont necessarily need tabs, even if convenient. therefore on linux im mostly even satisfied with what lubuntu provides as default, which isnt much.

@billt

Quote:

I thought it was reassuring to see that they are "not married to any CPU architecture".

certainly. thats what the audience wants to hear. unfortunatelly there is no easy opportunities to take. problem solved.

@PhantomInterrogative

Quote:

(Well, that is if Solie was not just speaking off the cuff).

have you ever taken that seriously? well then, your fault.

@eliyahu

Quote:

AOS4 *is* based on that source code.

thats an argument, that has been continously used to prove legacy in complementary with, that everything meaningful has been in the meantime reimplemented in c. hardly a subject to be proven any time soon, given os4 sources might be free for an independent review.

Last edited by wawa on 08-May-2017 at 08:47 PM.

@number6

Quote:

Either google translate has failed me or Martin has written a somewhat confusing account of this interview. I wonder if you could look it over and/or tidy it up. heh.

not sure what you want to have confirmed, im not even a first tongue german speaker. other than that i see some confusion or vugueness (who would bet anything else with a marketing statement) but i dont grasp what the problem might be, except to stay away.

Last edited by wawa on 08-May-2017 at 08:46 PM.
Last edited by wawa on 08-May-2017 at 08:46 PM.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @resle Quote: By the way, the code to Amiga OS 3.1 is out there These are of limited value (too old fork to be useable now for anything bigger than few utils).

A joint community effort could potentially achieve the same thing as Barthel did, and faster. Thus make the Commodore Amiga (the "Checkmark Sources") equally portable and compilable on modern toolchains. If this would be Cloanto's will (the legal owner of the sources), it could very well be open sourced only for this purpose. To see what the community would manage to make from it.

Quote:

Hyperion has sources cleaned by Olaf Barthel in the mid 1990s

Yes, the "Boing Ball Branch". No longer the original Commodore Amiga sources, but nevertheless derivative work of Cloanto's IP.

Quote:

all OS releases after 3.1 were based on them.

Not all, only the "Boing Ball Branch" family of OS's. These are a parallel fork to the various original Commodore OS's (the "checkmark" branch), which are all based on the truly original sources (unported, untouched). These OS's has been on the market all along by Cloanto, since at least 1997. Perfect for retro enthusiasts and preservation enthusiasts, since the "Checkmark" OS *IS* the original, real deal!

The new release a year or two ago had updates that made it more usable in todays world, but Cloanto had the good taste of minimizing the modifications, making it just as "true" as the original from Commodore, which it is a direct lineage from.

Then of course we have the AROS and MorphOS, who just like the "Boing Ball Branch" reimplements the 3.1 API using modern code and toolchains. They as well must be excluded from your "all OS releases after 3.1 were based on them" statement, since they (just like the original Commodore 3.1) use different code than the "Boing Ball Branch" fork, namely their own respective.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @ExiE Quote: That's questionable... Hyperion doesn´t own OS3 sources. Their licence allows use to "develop, sell and modify", not open source.

The answer to all Open Source questions is of course Cloanto!

@cgutjahr

Quote:

cgutjahr wrote: Discussing this is a waste of time anyway - they obviously don't want to open source it, what does it matter if they could?

Cloanto could! Maybe they want too?

It matters that it would/could spur some enthusiasm around their product. A vivid, creative community is something Cloanto could benefit from.

The different versions of the original OS's carefully kept locked and preserved in its original binary form forever, to please collectors, preservators and true retro fans of genuine Commodore H/W.

The Open Source communitydriven effort would be for evolution on 68k. A bit like AROS perhaps.

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @resle Quote: They are of enormous value: their value is pissing off hyperion. Well, if this makes you happy...

Yes, it would.

With the exception of Commodore's management, no one has damaged Amiga more than Hyperion.

They have kept the OS alive, didn't they? They kept it alive like one would keep his sick granddad in suspended animation to keep collecting his pension fund's checks.

Meanwhile, they prevented everyone else from having a real attempt at bringing it back to good health. For more than 15 years.

This is a company that literally stumbled upon a (small) treasure chest and kept attached to it with legal claws and nails to collect 50 euro here, 50 euro there, exploiting the undying passion of the Amiga community. And in the process, AmigaOS rot - because it wouldn't have been possible to profit from while employing the amount of development workforce necessary to really bring it up to speed with modern hardware and technology.

So yes, it would.
It would make me happy to see who pissed me and countless others, be pissed as well.

Last edited by resle on 09-May-2017 at 08:08 AM.