Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6083 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
45 crawler(s) on-line.
 22 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 Rob,  DiscreetFX

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Rob:  2 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  3 mins ago
 Seiya:  28 mins ago
 Amiga4000:  41 mins ago
 Hypex:  45 mins ago
 agami:  1 hr 14 mins ago
 bhabbott:  1 hr 22 mins ago
 Davec555:  1 hr 26 mins ago
 Steady:  2 hrs 5 mins ago
 Karlos:  2 hrs 59 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )
PosterThread
bison 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 22-May-2022 22:13:05
#181 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 2104
From: N-Space

@cdimauro

Quote:
Linus Torvalds is much worse...

Linus has been pretty bad at times, but I'm not defending him either. The article @bhabbott is quoting from (via Wikipedia) is 17-year-old clickbait from Forbes.

Last edited by bison on 22-May-2022 at 10:14 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 1:13:48
#182 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1684
From: Kansas

Karlos Quote:

And for what it's worth, I appreciate the minimalism and why I don't really buy into the idea of "modernising" it. You want modern, then the AxRuntime is probably the best you are going to get. Recompiled binaries on Linux.


Doesn't AxRuntime just create a new instance of the AmigaOS for each Amiga process which provides process isolation? The same thing could be done on real hardware with the introduction of a hypervisor. The great resource sharing of the AmigaOS would be lost but resource sharing is often a casualty of security on modern systems. I suppose it could be possible to allow processes to go in different hypervisor containers while walling off less trusted processes. WHDLoad allows a kind of walled off AmigaOS process within a process without even using hardware.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 4:32:43
#183 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@cdimauro

And for what it's worth, I appreciate the minimalism and why I don't really buy into the idea of "modernising" it. You want modern, then the AxRuntime is probably the best you are going to get. Recompiled binaries on Linux.

Let's talk IF/when AxRuntime will be running on Windows (without WSL2).
Quote:
Any attempt at a modern AmigaOS iteration has the best part of 30 years to catch up on and would still need some sort of internally unprotected sandbox to run legacy applications in. It's just not a realistic prospect, IMO.

It would be a very different o.s..

However I don't see it unrealistic: there are many new o.ses which are developed by enthusiasts, and a new one which is inspired by the Amiga one is possible. Like a new ISA inspired by an old architecture.

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:
Karlos Quote:

And for what it's worth, I appreciate the minimalism and why I don't really buy into the idea of "modernising" it. You want modern, then the AxRuntime is probably the best you are going to get. Recompiled binaries on Linux.


Doesn't AxRuntime just create a new instance of the AmigaOS for each Amiga process which provides process isolation?

No, there's no Amiga o.s. / AROS running on Linux. AROS applications are like native ones, but each one running isolated on its process.

I don't know if we can talk about "instances of AROS" here.
Quote:
The same thing could be done on real hardware with the introduction of a hypervisor. The great resource sharing of the AmigaOS would be lost but resource sharing is often a casualty of security on modern systems. I suppose it could be possible to allow processes to go in different hypervisor containers while walling off less trusted processes. WHDLoad allows a kind of walled off AmigaOS process within a process without even using hardware.

The real hardware has no hypervisor.

Besides that, I don't think that creating such a hypervisor is possible, since the Amiga hardware (and its rewritings) has no mechanism for completely virtualizing the hardware resources.

But even having it, it would be a complex and very challenging task.

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
Linus Torvalds is much worse...

Linus has been pretty bad at times, but I'm not defending him either. The article @bhabbott is quoting from (via Wikipedia) is 17-year-old clickbait from Forbes.

The situation is even worse after 17 years; Torvalds included.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 4:43:35
#184 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1156
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@cdimauro

Security and Amiga in the same breath are meaningless. In some ways we are lucky that it didn't become the leading platform because if it had, malware would be total.

Assuming no one would have ever done anything to address the lack of security.

Orphaned operating systems can not become "leading platforms", so then in this scenario, Commodore or whoever purchased it, would continue to develop it. And just as Microsoft dealt with the lack of security in Windows 9x in our timeline, the company behind Amiga OS would've done the same to maintain its leading platform status.


Quote:

Karlos wrote:
And for what it's worth, I appreciate the minimalism and why I don't really buy into the idea of "modernising" it. You want modern, then the AxRuntime is probably the best you are going to get. Recompiled binaries on Linux.

Any attempt at a modern AmigaOS iteration has the best part of 30 years to catch up on and would still need some sort of internally unprotected sandbox to run legacy applications in. It's just not a realistic prospect, IMO.

There are many ways to modernize an outmoded thing.

While I am not necessarily arguing in favor of direct modernization of the old OS 3.1, catching up on 30 years of development is not as difficult as it's made out to sound.
Just as countries who never invested in vast copper based telephony networks can skip the decades of upgrades and maintenance of such infrastructure and go straight to wireless cellular networks, so too can developers of a "modernized" Amiga OS learn from the ups and downs of operating system development over the past 30 years and make a bee-line to a modern incarnation that embodies the virtues of the original, but is otherwise every bit as modern as its contemporaries.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 5:01:56
#185 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@agami: it will be a new, and incompatible, o.s., anyway.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 7:20:04
#186 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3147
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@agami

Just to there's no uncertainty, let me be clear what I mean by modernisation in this context:

Multiuser with permissions management. Even as a single user operating system, processes and services should have the minimum permissions necessary to function.

Full memory protection with per process address spaces.

Full multiprocessor support.

64-bit logical addressing.

These are the absolute MVP for a mainstream OS today. If you want these as a foundation, you may as well start with Linux. People aren't generally dissatisfied with Linux as an operating system, it's the user experience. After all, the Android/Linux distribution is pretty popular, I believe ;)

Retrofitting them to AmigaOS, any flavour, would result in something incapable of running existing software (except by emulation) which you can already do.

FWIW, Microsoft didn't Modernise 9x (as in 95). They abandoned the underlying operating system completely and replaced it with NT

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 8:22:31
#187 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1156
From: Melbourne, Australia

@cdimauro
Quote:

cdimauro wrote:
@agami: it will be a new, and incompatible, o.s., anyway.

Of course.
Does macOS 12 (Monterey) support the execution of MacOS 7.x 68k binaries? Or MacOS 9.x PPC binaries?
One of the hallmark features of Microsoft's Windows OS is backward compatibility, as it never steered away from x86. Yet running 32-bit apps from the Windows 9x stream is hit and miss in "Compatibility Mode".

Executing old 68k Amiga apps in a sandbox (interpreted) is the best outcome.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 8:30:26
#188 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1156
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
These are the absolute MVP for a mainstream OS today.

Agreed.


Quote:
If you want these as a foundation, you may as well start with Linux. People aren't generally dissatisfied with Linux as an operating system...

Do we have to though? I've used Linux for decades, dozens of different distros, and even right now I have a laptop, a desktop, and my main home server running Linux, and I have been and continue to be very dissatisfied with it. Slightly less so than macOS and Windows, which I also run.

Is it too much to ask to have an OS/platform that is not rated by degree of dissatisfied, and can potentially be more than just satisfactory to the point of actually being satisfying?


Quote:
Retrofitting them to AmigaOS, any flavour, would result in something incapable of running existing software (except by emulation) which you can already do.

Agree. Which is why I would never advocate this direct approach.
Don't teach the old dog new tricks.


Quote:
FWIW, Microsoft didn't Modernise 9x (as in 95). They abandoned the underlying operating system completely and replaced it with NT

One of the ways to modernize. Go with a different OS architecture and code base, and maintain compatibility for apps written for the other architecture/code base.
Teach the new dog old tricks.

Last edited by agami on 23-May-2022 at 08:38 AM.
Last edited by agami on 23-May-2022 at 08:36 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 9:21:25
#189 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 6171
From: Unknown

@Karlos @all

What you all ask for will be AxRuntime. From now it looks that at some point you will be able to combine AxRuntime compiled programs (that are Linux components finally), Linux and Aros 64bit in one environment. Deadwood also promised aros desktop like scalos would be ported. So it is very easy to help to get there. Deadwoods developments are public so skilled devs could help there. Also it is possible to work on user distributions and help with feedback and ideas. That is what I do.

For me there are two main branches today. Traditional amiga branch based on 68k that is more retro orientated and the modern world outside. What is called "NG" is stucking between more and more lagging behind and (in my view) with no chance to catch up. To modernize 68k makes no sense to me either because it would mean to break a lot of stuff without adding something from view of endusers. In my view Deadwoods Ideas is the only really promising concept because it moves the platform on a modern base adding drivers, security and modern software and will still offer the chance to save the look&feel of amiga based on ported amiga components and desktops.

I would ask people to help there, that moves more than just talk ever can. Help either by doing distributions or help with AxRuntime or perhaps port software with AxRuntime.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 23-May-2022 at 09:22 AM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 23-May-2022 at 09:22 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 11:26:56
#190 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3147
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:
@Karlos

Quote:
These are the absolute MVP for a mainstream OS today.

Agreed.


Quote:
If you want these as a foundation, you may as well start with Linux. People aren't generally dissatisfied with Linux as an operating system...

Do we have to though? I've used Linux for decades, dozens of different distros, and even right now I have a laptop, a desktop, and my main home server running Linux, and I have been and continue to be very dissatisfied with it. Slightly less so than macOS and Windows, which I also run.


While I could be wrong, I suspect that you aren't dissatisfied with Linux, rather that you are dissatisfied with the userland experience of the distributions you are using. Which I totally get, because I find them frustrating too. Almost every single one of them gets about 70% of things "right" based on an entirely subjective metric of what you personally prefer, but none of them are perfect. Which is why there are so many.

But in truth, uou rarely interact with linux, it's almost entirely the distribution. From the shell, to the package manager, to the window manager, all the services and and pretty much everything in-between are whatever the distribution provides. Android/ASOP is also Linux, it's just a completely different userland.

I would say Linux is a satisfactory Operating System. Better still from security is OpenBSD, better than that for performance is FreeBSD.

From that point, it's really a question of how deep do you go? To me, AxRuntime is a shallow implementation. It's GNU all the way down with runtime support binaries on top with a window manager is in the works. Or you could just start with the kernel and build it all upwards from there, more akin to what Apple did with OSX.

In the end, though, it's just another operating system. With the exception of people like us, I just don't think the majority of people out there care that much, if at all. As long as they can run the software they need to run - which these days is mostly just a bunch of internet data consumption apps, the OS is usually a sideshow. There are countless free operating systems already but without application support, they just about exist and that's it. How many people, out of all "computer users" actually do anything creative with their machines as opposed to just content consumption?

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bhabbott 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 14:46:03
#191 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 6-Jun-2018
Posts: 229
From: Aotearoa

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote:

This isn't a protection, rather a side-effect of having the need to instantly turn on the system.

'Instant turn-on' was never a design requirement. The A1000 didn't even have it, it had a 'Writeable Control Store' which was loaded from floppy disk - and then write protected. Some more modern Amiga systems used a similar technique, copying the Kickstart into fast RAM and then remapping it to replace the slower ROM - and write-protecting it. They didn't have to write protect it, but they did because that makes it more secure.

Quote:
Absolutely no. There were already other o.ses, even much older than the Amiga one, which offered proper abstractions with their API and which have NOT published / allowed to access their internal data structures.

Name one.

Quote:
It would have been impossible anyway, because the Amiga o.s. was based on message-passing by sharing memory between all tasks (included its own).

As did Tripos, which ran on the PDP-11 and Data General Nova 2 minicomputers, and the SAGE IV.

So now you are accusing Martin Richards of making bad design decisions too.

Quote:
Allowing applications to control the hardware (and the multitasking) is another bad design decision.

And Bill Gates too.

Quote:
True, but with the Amiga o.s. it's even worse: it has 100% open doors for vulnerabilities. In fact, malware software doesn't need to use any security hole to make damages: it can already and immediately do whatever it wants.

As a scammer recently found out when he made the mistake of phoning to tell me that my computer was infected with virus, and that I should follow his instructions to 'fix' it.

Since I was using the A1200 at the time I thought, "Why not string this guy along?". So I explained to him that I had an Amiga, which doesn't run Windows. He went away for bit and then came back more informed (must have googled it) about how the Amiga was a 'gaming computer from the 90s'. He then told me to download a file from some url and run it, which I did (actually I hung up on him after explaining that it would take a while on my old computer, because I wanted to go shopping and time was slipping by. He rang back!). For some strange reason the program I downloaded wouldn't run. The scammer then went away for a bit, then came back to tell me that I must purchase an Apple iTunes card. At that point (after 2 hours!) I hung up for good.

You see, it wouldn't have mattered if the guy was smart enough to find some malware that worked on the Amiga, because there wasn't anything on my computer worth having.

But why was I using my A1200 to go online when I have a PC that does it much better? I started using the Amiga again after being informed that I was a 'criminal' for using Windows XP. You see, despite all the excellent design decisions Microsoft made, XP is apparently an insecure OS - so insecure that going online with it is tantamount to committing a crime. Even worse, I don't run any antivirus or malware detection. Surely my PC must be riddled with malware by now?

And the Amiga - what with no memory protection and all those shared messages flying around everywhere (including some that give access to internal - but published - system data), all those worms and other malware that hit you the instant you plug in an Ethernet cable must have crippled it by now!

But hey, you're right about security. I lost all the files for some commercial software I was writing on the A1000 because it wasn't secure enough. Actually I lost the entire computer, including the hard drive and all my backup disks. And this was my fault for making the 'bad design decision' of installing a door that could be pried open with a crowbar.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 17:10:21
#192 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:

FWIW, Microsoft didn't Modernise 9x (as in 95). They abandoned the underlying operating system completely and replaced it with NT

That's not correct. Microsoft APIs are basically the same since the beginning (enriched over the time, of course).

It was their implementation that changed with the different o.ses versions. With the implementation being hidden / not (directly) accessible by applications.

In fact and for example, Windows up to '95 tunneled the Win32 API calls to its internal Win16 implementation.
NT did the opposite (Win16 API calls were tunneled to its Win32 implementation).
Finally, XP x64 tunneled the Win32 API calls to its Win64 implementation.

All of this was possible because the o.s. offered the correct abstraction with its APIs.

For the same reason, Windows exposes different subsystems which use the internal implementation of the o.s.. Win32 is the most common one, but POSIX and OS/2 (both deprecated & abandoned) were the other two notable ones.

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:
@cdimauro
Quote:

cdimauro wrote:
@agami: it will be a new, and incompatible, o.s., anyway.

Of course.
Does macOS 12 (Monterey) support the execution of MacOS 7.x 68k binaries? Or MacOS 9.x PPC binaries?

No, but simply because its x86 (x64, in reality: it's 64-bit), whereas 68K, PowerPC are completely different architectures.

Whereas here we're talking about a modern o.s. with the expected features.

You can also write a fragile o.s. running on the super-blinder x86 protected mode (using segmentation, call gates, etc..).
Quote:
One of the hallmark features of Microsoft's Windows OS is backward compatibility, as it never steered away from x86. Yet running 32-bit apps from the Windows 9x stream is hit and miss in "Compatibility Mode".

It happened with MacOS as well, when Apple switched to MacOS X: the old application using the old APIs were running separately, but sharing part of the resources.

And that's because MacOS had a good abstraction with the applications.

Something which was/is impossible with the Amiga o.s., because of its bad design decisions.
Quote:
Executing old 68k Amiga apps in a sandbox (interpreted) is the best outcome.

See above: it's the only possible solution.
Quote:

agami wrote:
@Karlos

Quote:
FWIW, Microsoft didn't Modernise 9x (as in 95). They abandoned the underlying operating system completely and replaced it with NT

One of the ways to modernize. Go with a different OS architecture and code base, and maintain compatibility for apps written for the other architecture/code base.
Teach the new dog old tricks.

Which isn't the case with Windows. In fact, even very old Win32 applications from Windows 3.0 time could be run on the latest 64-bit Windows (and Win16 applications on the latest 32-bit Windows). And that's because the o.s. offered a good abstraction from the beginning.

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
Quote:
@agami

Do we have to though? I've used Linux for decades, dozens of different distros, and even right now I have a laptop, a desktop, and my main home server running Linux, and I have been and continue to be very dissatisfied with it. Slightly less so than macOS and Windows, which I also run.


While I could be wrong, I suspect that you aren't dissatisfied with Linux, rather that you are dissatisfied with the userland experience of the distributions you are using. Which I totally get, because I find them frustrating too. Almost every single one of them gets about 70% of things "right" based on an entirely subjective metric of what you personally prefer, but none of them are perfect. Which is why there are so many.

But in truth, uou rarely interact with linux, it's almost entirely the distribution. From the shell, to the package manager, to the window manager, all the services and and pretty much everything in-between are whatever the distribution provides. Android/ASOP is also Linux, it's just a completely different userland.

But before you talked about Linux as operating system. And, as you said, you can find issues on practically every distro. Android has it's own issues as well.[/quote]

Whether they are coming from the kernel (Linux) or the userland (what's above the kernel) it doesn't matter to people, since customers are using it and don't know those details.

BTW, I had/have an experience similar to agami with Linux.

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote:

This isn't a protection, rather a side-effect of having the need to instantly turn on the system.

'Instant turn-on' was never a design requirement. The A1000 didn't even have it, it had a 'Writeable Control Store' which was loaded from floppy disk - and then write protected.

This was because the o.s. was very immature, with tons of bugs, and burning it in a ROM wasn't a smart move.

In fact, all subsequent o.s version came in a ROM.
Quote:
Some more modern Amiga systems used a similar technique, copying the Kickstart into fast RAM and then remapping it to replace the slower ROM - and write-protecting it. They didn't have to write protect it, but they did because that makes it more secure.

All Amigas sold after the 1000 had the o.s. (Kickstart) in a ROM...
Quote:
Quote:
Absolutely no. There were already other o.ses, even much older than the Amiga one, which offered proper abstractions with their API and which have NOT published / allowed to access their internal data structures.

Name one.

I don't like it, but you forced me to name it, and here's the name: Unix. Which should be old-enough (more than 50 years).
Quote:
Quote:
It would have been impossible anyway, because the Amiga o.s. was based on message-passing by sharing memory between all tasks (included its own).

As did Tripos, which ran on the PDP-11 and Data General Nova 2 minicomputers, and the SAGE IV.

So now you are accusing Martin Richards of making bad design decisions too.

This is a logical fallacy: the Appeal to Authority.

What I've said is still valid, to whatever / whoever it applies.

BTW TripOS was a piece of junk, and you should know very well it.
Quote:
Quote:
Allowing applications to control the hardware (and the multitasking) is another bad design decision.

And Bill Gates too.

No way. Please, tell me which API were exposed by Windows, or even by DOS, which allowed applications to turn-off the multitasking, or even the interrupts...
Quote:
Quote:
True, but with the Amiga o.s. it's even worse: it has 100% open doors for vulnerabilities. In fact, malware software doesn't need to use any security hole to make damages: it can already and immediately do whatever it wants.

As a scammer recently found out when he made the mistake of phoning to tell me that my computer was infected with virus, and that I should follow his instructions to 'fix' it.

Since I was using the A1200 at the time I thought, "Why not string this guy along?". So I explained to him that I had an Amiga, which doesn't run Windows. He went away for bit and then came back more informed (must have googled it) about how the Amiga was a 'gaming computer from the 90s'. He then told me to download a file from some url and run it, which I did (actually I hung up on him after explaining that it would take a while on my old computer, because I wanted to go shopping and time was slipping by. He rang back!). For some strange reason the program I downloaded wouldn't run. The scammer then went away for a bit, then came back to tell me that I must purchase an Apple iTunes card. At that point (after 2 hours!) I hung up for good.

You see, it wouldn't have mattered if the guy was smart enough to find some malware that worked on the Amiga, because there wasn't anything on my computer worth having.

But why was I using my A1200 to go online when I have a PC that does it much better? I started using the Amiga again after being informed that I was a 'criminal' for using Windows XP. You see, despite all the excellent design decisions Microsoft made, XP is apparently an insecure OS - so insecure that going online with it is tantamount to committing a crime. Even worse, I don't run any antivirus or malware detection. Surely my PC must be riddled with malware by now?

And the Amiga - what with no memory protection and all those shared messages flying around everywhere (including some that give access to internal - but published - system data), all those worms and other malware that hit you the instant you plug in an Ethernet cable must have crippled it by now!

But hey, you're right about security. I lost all the files for some commercial software I was writing on the A1000 because it wasn't secure enough. Actually I lost the entire computer, including the hard drive and all my backup disks. And this was my fault for making the 'bad design decision' of installing a door that could be pried open with a crowbar.

This is a Red Harring: another logical fallacy. Which does NOT change my previous statements.

BTW, if XP is insecure it's only because it's not supported anymore.

Whereas the Amiga o.s. is insecure BY DESIGN.

Spot the difference...

EDIT: fixed the damned quotes...

Last edited by cdimauro on 23-May-2022 at 07:03 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 17:38:09
#193 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3147
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@cdimauro

Quote:
That's not correct. Microsoft APIs are basically the same since the beginning (enriched over the time, of course).


I think the contention here is in the term "operating system" and what it comprises of. For me, that's the kernel more than anything in userland, which is probably apparent from the rest of my post.

Anyway, as of Windows 2000, the kernel was changed to Windows NT. Thanks to having a decent set of APIs this meant that most userland code didn't care what the underlying kernel was and as you say, backwards compatibility was good. Not perfect, but certainly good enough for most people. By Windows 7, most people (except hardened 98 users) had forgotten that any DOS based underpinning had ever existed.

It's hard to make this clear distinction for AmigaOS since it doesn't have a separated kernel/userland, everything just runs together. The closest it gets is supervisor/user state when doing hardware critical operations.

Quote:
But before you talked about Linux as operating system


Hmm. I'm usually pretty careful. When I say "Linux" (without at least adding the word "distribution"), I normally mean the kernel, unless the context is a very high level "windows v linux v macos" type discussion. Otherwise I'll normally say GNU, Android, or name specific distributions.

Last edited by Karlos on 23-May-2022 at 05:46 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 19:09:27
#194 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
That's not correct. Microsoft APIs are basically the same since the beginning (enriched over the time, of course).


I think the contention here is in the term "operating system" and what it comprises of. For me, that's the kernel more than anything in userland, which is probably apparent from the rest of my post.

Hum, here I don't agree.

The kernel is a part of the o.s., but an o.s. includes: kernel, drivers, libraries, and some "service" applications. From very long time it also includes an UI (either CUI or GUI).
Quote:
Quote:
But before you talked about Linux as operating system


Hmm. I'm usually pretty careful. When I say "Linux" (without at least adding the word "distribution"), I normally mean the kernel, unless the context is a very high level "windows v linux v macos" type discussion. Otherwise I'll normally say GNU, Android, or name specific distributions.

This is was I was referring to:

"These are the absolute MVP for a mainstream OS today. If you want these as a foundation, you may as well start with Linux. People aren't generally dissatisfied with Linux as an operating system, it's the user experience. After all, the Android/Linux distribution is pretty popular, I believe ;)"

but maybe I've misinterpreted it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 19:45:15
#195 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3147
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@cdimauro

It's fine as long as we each know what the other defines it as :)

Quote:
From very long time it also includes an UI (either CUI or GUI).


That doesn't work for me because it's possible to have completely different GUIs and desktops on the same underlying subsystems (kernel plus other layers). Is the OS different because it has a (sometimes very) different user interface? It's a bit subjective, I suppose.

I do regard Android as a distinct distribution of Linux, but I don't tend to regard all the other GNU based Linux distributions as different because it's really only the interchangeable bits that get changed (shell, package manager, desktop etc). They are all much more immediately interoperable with applications than Android is (as much as I love termux, etc).

This lack of precision is why I like to keep the operating system defined as "the bit(s) that allow everything else to run." For a lot of systems that's often just the kernel but if you add the requiremnt "and be minimally useful" then yes, the CUI, filesystem, networking etc become important.

Last edited by Karlos on 23-May-2022 at 07:55 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 23-May-2022 20:04:58
#196 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
From very long time it also includes an UI (either CUI or GUI).


That doesn't work for me because it's possible to have completely different GUIs and desktops on the same underlying subsystems (kernel plus other layers). Is the OS different because it has a (sometimes very) different user interface? It's a bit subjective, I suppose.

Well, you can have many GUIs, but only one is active at the same time. So you have an UI.

BTW, you can do the same with Windows (by changing the default explorer with a different GUI shell, on a registry key).
Quote:
I do regard Android as a distinct distribution of Linux, but I don't tend to regard all the other GNU based Linux distributions as different because it's really only the interchangeable bits that get changed (shell, package manager, desktop etc). They are all much more immediately interoperable with applications than Android is (as much as I love termux, etc).

Depends on the distro. There are some which have a completely different filesystem hierarchy, so some applications might not work on them.
Quote:
This lack of precision is why I like to keep the operating system defined as "the bit(s) that allow everything else to run." For a lot of systems that's often just the kernel but if you add the requiremnt "and be minimally useful" then yes, the CUI, filesystem, networking etc become important.

You can't live without them...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 24-May-2022 2:20:59
#197 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1156
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
While I could be wrong, I suspect that you aren't dissatisfied with Linux, rather that you are dissatisfied with the userland experience of the distributions you are using. Which I totally get, because I find them frustrating too. Almost every single one of them gets about 70% of things "right" based on an entirely subjective metric of what you personally prefer, but none of them are perfect. Which is why there are so many.

I don't mind if we get pedantic here. Words and terms have meanings, and I suppose I should not default to the use of colloquial terms when conversing with technically proficient interlocutors.

When I talk about levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, I'm referring to the whole enchilada: the entire operating environment, ecosystem or platform if you will.

When I say I have been dissatisfied and continue to be dissatisfied with Linux, I mean everything about it, e.g. I'm not a fan of the monolithic kernel, and I also find many shortcomings in the the userland space. Which is not to say that there is nothing redeemable about it.

Yes, most of my grievances stem from my experience as a user, though I do also here many grumbles from developers. Nevertheless, each and every day I experience eye-rolling levels of annoyance with features in all of them. Compounded by the fact that some of these annoyances have never been addressed through many upgrades over the years.

I know they say, and I'm firm believer in, "it's not a problem unless you have a solution", which is the source of my annoyance because I know I can architect/design a better platform.


Quote:
In the end, though, it's just another operating system. With the exception of people like us, I just don't think the majority of people out there care that much, if at all.

People care, if you give them something to care about. Most people don't give much thought about the driving experience of their car on their daily commute, but most will recognize a superior driving experience if they were given one. The kind that's hard to take for granted and that even after many years of driving is still viscerally felt.
NOTE: That's how I felt all the years driving my 1995 MAZDA MX6 with its 2.5L V6 and 4-Wheel Steering.

Between now and the arrival of Ubiquitous Computing, there will be 2-3 computing transformation/transition steps. All current "mainstream" desktop/laptop operating environments/platforms are extensions of '90s personal computing paradigms, easily 10 years past their "BEST BEFORE DATE", and neither are suitable for the coming transitional steps.

Sure, Microsoft, Apple, and Google will try to shoehorn their existing offerings into the next paradigm, but that will only further reveal the inadequacies of their current platforms.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 24-May-2022 8:35:08
#198 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3147
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@cdimauro

Quote:

Quote:

This lack of precision is why I like to keep the operating system defined as "the bit(s) that allow everything else to run." For a lot of systems that's often just the kernel but if you add the requiremnt "and be minimally useful" then yes, the CUI, filesystem, networking etc become important.


You can't live without them...


Sure, but if your needs are just a basic bash compatible/ssh access only server configuration, almost every major GNU Linux distribution is near identical. You only begin to approach a particular distribution over another the more requirements you heap on top.

@agami
Quote:
When I say I have been dissatisfied and continue to be dissatisfied with Linux, I mean everything about it, e.g. I'm not a fan of the monolithic kernel


Objectively speaking, what is it that you dislike about the monolithic kernel? A monolithic kernel doesn't have to be huge. A monolithic kernel simplifies a lot of design aspects that become trickier in microkernel architectures. The fact that the GNU/Hurd team still don't have a properly working microkernel solution for their own userland and the Linux kernel was able to fill that gap, despite being monolithic does lay bare some hubris. Subjectively speaking, as a "cog in the machine", how often does it's monolithic nature impinge negatively on your everyday experience of using a Linux distribution?

Architecturally, and purely subjectively, I do prefer microkernels but it's not a hill I'd die on.

Last edited by Karlos on 24-May-2022 at 08:42 AM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 24-May-2022 16:55:39
#199 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@Karlos: a monolithic kernel is more complex because it has many more direct dependencies, and especially points of failure & security issues.

GNU/Hurd is the failure, true, but there are several microkernels developed which arrived to 1.0 version (and above), and some were/are also commercially successful (any reference to QNX and BeOS is not casual).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: Port AmigaOS 4 to x86
Posted on 24-May-2022 17:40:39
#200 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3147
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@cdimauro

A monolithic kernel is only more complex when it's more complex. What do I mean by this? If the design isn't "right" you'll have problems. A monolithic kernel that tries to include everything and the kitchen sink will run into the problems you describe. A monolithic kernel that concerns itself with only the most fundamental aspects of memory, threads, hardware initialisation and delegates everything else into cleanly segregated userland processes doesn't have to end up in dependency hell.

The same observation is true for microkernels. If you take the idea to extremes and partition services too far and too granular you end up with Hurd and all the emergent complexity that arises from what seems like a simple design at first.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle