@cgutjahr

Quote:

I don't think using the Friedens as an example is a good idea. Let's put it this way: I've met people who could handle not being praised all the time better than those two.

The Friedens didn't take criticism well. Nor did they like it when people put them on a pedestal.

Geennaam also has a fiery temper. Enough, that he got this forum to delete not just his account, but also every post that he ever wrote here...

Quote:

Plus: You're a developer, and you seem to handle it just fine. Another clue that the problems were not the forums, but the Friedens?

I've been at the receiving end of people lashing out and trying to bully me into submission too. Having almost every decision you make attacked/questioned gets tiring. It's NOT easy being a developer on these forums, with some of the toxic s##t that gets thrown in your face. You need to be very thick-skinned, and learn not to let other people's issues become yours. Or, your better off finding something else to do with your time...

I've had periods where I stopped visiting Amiga forums altogether for a while too, just to get away from the BS. My presence on any Amiga forum is quite limited these days.

Hans

Last edited by Hans on 04-May-2025 at 01:49 PM.

_________________
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work

cdimauro Quote:

Around $100 means that it's the target of a Celeron-based MiniPC, which might also include a Windows license, and that is overall better (especially performance-wise).

The RPi 5 SBC price is less at $50 (2 GiB), $60 (4 GiB) and $80 (8 GiB) but a working system in a case has a similar price to a low end PC. The RPi 5 may be a little lower power and heat but most of the PC specs are better and it can run Windows and games without emulation. ARM lacks native games and even RPi systems are less standardized than 68k Amiga systems.

cdimauro Quote:

The new board also suffers from another, more important, detail: the price, which is missing. I haven't found even a price range (but I haven't read the latest comments) If the price could be lowered by only supporting the e6500 cores and a single type of memory (DDR3), then that's the way to: e5500 and LDDR3 are meaningless for the purpose of this board / computer.

Someone on amiga-news.de in the German comments made an estimate.

Manni (02-Mai-2025, 20:19) Quote:

150 CPU 10 FPGA 50 PCB 70 Kleinkram 150 Software-Lizenzen 150 Kram für Komplettsystem 150 Staat 150 Garantie usw Wird also sicher ne 999,- Euro Kiste werden. Aber alles in Allem ein geiles Projekt! Danke an alle bisher Beteiligten und auch die zukünftig bald Beteiligten. Könnte zur Abwechslung mal Cloanto nen 100er Lauf finanzieren und auch wirklich was für die Community tun...

The Google translation for others follows.

Manni (02-May-2025, 20:19) Quote:

150 CPUs 10 FPGAs 50 PCBs 70 small items 150 software licenses 150 items for the complete system 150 government costs 150 warranty, etc. So it'll definitely be a 999 euro box. But all in all, a great project! Thanks to everyone involved so far and to those who will be involved in the future. For a change, I could finance a 100-euro run for Cloanto and really do something for the community...

The T208x SoCs with PPC e6500 cores are likely more expensive than the T1042 SoC with e5500 cores. The T208x SoCs are a little newer and may be guaranteed to be available for longer but both are still active. The PCIe 3.0 lanes for the T2080 may only be 2 instead of 4 but it would be a more professional board if SATA worked and cheaper DDR3 memory may have offset some of the extra cost.

cdimauro Quote:

Yes, it uses less lanes for the PCIe. Evidently it hasn't so many available, so it's only mechanically compatible with the PCIes slots, but the bandwidth is much lower than the expected.

Some lower end boards and discreet GPUs do not use all the PCIe lanes in a PCIe x16 slot. The Mirari board is unlikely to have a low end price though.

cdimauro Quote:

But RPi, AMD, Apple, Sony and Nintendo haven't standard GPUs: they have SOME GPUs, exactly like PCs. Because there's no "standard GPs". Which is quite normal on PCs, essentially since the beginning. And those projects / companies are using PCs' technologies (SOME of them, like I've said).

These businesses have de facto integrated GPU family standards. There is no one GPU but there are GPU similarities which may allow more optimization, share more of a simplified and standardized API, simplify driver development and testing, etc.

Last edited by matthey on 04-May-2025 at 03:29 PM.

@Hans

and Joerg if you read AW

This is a hobby, and as such accurate communication is not a priority for anyone obviously.

Forgive me Trevor for using this fine example:

Trevor posted here (to clear things up) "A-Eon does not own Execsg."

Think about that. Instead of stating who DOES own Execsg, he posted who doesn't. If I asked you if "that" is your car and you answered "it is not my neighbor's car" what have I learned in relation to my question? Right. Nothing.

Instead, this only got clarified AT AmiWest through a statement made by Trevor that he owned Execsg as an "individual" and an Execsg presentation, which I fully covered here.

My point is not to pick on any individual but to suggest no one here looks at communication as a vital part of "business", which should explain why we see misunderstanding after misunderstanding from posters. Not to mention how a "story" changes with each retelling, just like in grade school where each person whispers back one row to the next person a pre-determined line by the teacher. By the time it reaches the last row in the classroom no one can even recognize it from the original line given by the teacher.

Thank you for listening to my rant of the day/week/year/decades.

#6

Added: the statement made on AW:
Here

Last edited by number6 on 04-May-2025 at 04:08 PM.

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

kolla Quote:

What’s the value of a settlement agreement when the signing parties cannot agree on what they have settled.

The value of the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement was short term relieve from litigation for Amiga Inc. That is why I believe the contract was coerced by Hyperion on Amiga Inc in financial duress after Pentti Kouri's death. Hyperion did not own much if any of AmigaOS 4 in 2009 due to their contracted labor and the so called "exclusive" licenses for the "AmigaOS" and AmigaOS related IP were just as much fantasy with Cloanto and others having a grandfathered in license too. No financially healthy business would have agreed to this fantasy right after paying for AmigaOS 4 and suing Hyperion to fulfill the contract to deliver the source code for AmigaOS 4.

Hans Quote:

I suggest that you take Joerg's comments with a grain of salt, because he: - Is NOT privy to all agreements, nor is he a lawyer (e.g., my understanding is the Trevor outright owns ExecSG, and Hyperion's original agreement to use that code still stands)

I believe Joerg is correct about the Frieden brothers retaining ownership of the ExecSG and Trevor having a license.

https://www.amiga-news.de/files/2019-03-04_hyperion-dickinson_secret-agreement-acquisition-execsg.pdf

A license can be quite powerful though and likely suffices for use by Trevor. More consolidated AmigaOS related IP ownership without multiple complex licenses would simplify the situation. More open and lower cost AmigaOS IP and source code availability could improve AmigaOS proliferation and development. We need negotiation and cooperation to improve this AmigaOS situation rather than people and businesses acting like the AmigaOS is priceless and needs to be protected at all cost.

Hans Quote:

- Parted ways with Hyperion on very bad terms, which taints his opinions. I don't know exactly what happened, but I'd say that the bridge between him and Hyperion was burnt to the ground. Burnt so badly that he did indeed revoke Hyperion's permission to use his code (and he had the right to do so)

Amiga developers were likely suing Hyperion already at the time of the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement judging by the following contract clause.

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF Quote:

20. AmigaOS Developers. Hyperion agrees and acknowledges that it is solely responsible for all payments and other obligations to third party developers of AmigaOS 4 pursuant to software development and other agreements between Hyperion and such developers. Hyperion agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Amiga Parties from any claims by third party developers of AmigaOS 4, including without limitation Hans-Joerg Frieden, Thomas Frieden and Andrea Valinotto, in connection with AmigaOS 4, including without limitations claims for payment or compensation, at Hyperion's sole cost and expense.

In the same contract written by Ben, Hyperion claims ownership of AmigaOS 4. Was Ben attempting to steal AmigaOS 4 for Hyperion from the contracted developers and Amiga Inc at the same time perhaps while promising both ownership of AmigaOS 4? Did Ben then license Trevor a portion of the small or non existent part of AmigaOS 4 owned by Hyperion in a secret agreement too? When does this all constitute fraud?

Hans Quote:

If all AmigaOS 4 developers behaved the way that he did, then Hyperion would indeed be in a difficult position. However, other developers of AmigaOS 4 have NOT behaved in a similar fashion. I can only speak of myself. When I did contract work for Hyperion (once, small contract), I made sure to get paid before handing over the source code. Any other changes I made to the code outside the contract, I donated to the code base (I see no value in claiming ownership over reordering lines of existing code or adding/tweaking small fragments of code here and there). So, there was no way that we'd get into a fight over unpaid work. No rage quit. No claiming copyright over parts of the code-base and revoking license to use said code. Nothing to renegotiate licensing for. Mind you, my contributions to the OS4 code base are rather small. I mostly just made tweaks/fixes to the graphics.library & Picasso96 so that modern GPUs could be used more efficiently.

The way Ben treated early developers and business partners was not sustainable. Even he likely realized he could not litigate everything even as he obtained more ownership of Hyperion through stock dilution by paying himself to litigate for Hyperion. I know it is difficult to believe that someone as inconceivable as Ben exists but I believe most of the Google Amiga documents are true. Perhaps your demanding payment up front from Hyperion for development work is recognition of what you do not want to accept? Perhaps the stealing of AmigaOS 4 is less of a Robin Hood story and more of a predatory Ben story?

Hans Quote:

P.S., It looks like Geennaam has discovered why the Friedens stopped posting or reading Amiga forums years ago...

Transparency is good. It was propaganda, lies and secret agreements that allowed Ben to operate in the shadows. Bring it all into the light and be enlightened by the truth. It is the intellectual thing to do.

cgutjahr Quote:

This is most likely a combination of three things: 1. Joerg revoked Hyperion's license for his contributions to OS4 due to outstanding payments and removed his code from the central OS4 repository about 1.5 decades ago. The code was simply reinstated later on, after Ben Hermans claimed the problem had been solved (it hasn't, according to Joerg). Joerg knows he's not the only one who claims Hyperion is pirating his code. 2. Hyperion never "owned" much regarding OS4, since all of the code used to be licensed from external developers, who retained ownership. In most (all?) cases, these licenses contained quite a few restrictions (e.g. "binary only", "PPC only"). That changed later, when developers were pressured to sign NDAs containing clauses that assigned copyright to OS4 contributions to Hyperion - but by then development had slowed down considerably. 3. https://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2024-04-00037-EN.html

Yes. My posts above largely agree with you and thanks for the amiga-news link which pinpoints the applicable secret agreements from the Amiga documents website.

cgutjahr Quote:

IIRC, Geennaam's issue was with ACube, not with Hyperion.

Thanks for the correction. Hyperion/Ben is not responsible for all the shenanigans related to the Amiga. There are too many other players and supporters.

Last edited by matthey on 04-May-2025 at 05:22 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 04-May-2025 at 05:08 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: In the same contract written by Ben, Hyperion claims ownership of AmigaOS 4.

Which might still be true.

Think about an apartment block, with several people owing one or few units.

Ben/Hyperion might be the original developer (real estate, not SW ) still retaining the title to the land and other key assets.

So it's just another of plenty entities that could block any port or at least hold it hostage for a while.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@thread

Mirari covered under "news" by AmigaBill:

AmigaBill Sunday show

Quite a -lot- mentioned. News is towards latter part of show after the Revision demos etc.

#6

Note: for ease of finding the news, anyone can post the utube link and timestamp it here after it appears on Bill's utube channel.

Last edited by number6 on 04-May-2025 at 08:39 PM.

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

I hope this project works out for all involved. It would be nice to see AmigaOS4 and MorphOS running on this hardware. Yes, perhaps I'm just trying to be optomistic amongst a flock of naysayers.


redfox

Last edited by redfox on 04-May-2025 at 08:38 PM.

@redfox

Nothing wrong with being optimistic. I want an Amiga machine that can dual boot AOS4 and MOS.

_________________

@matthey

Quote:

SerDes lanes are used for the highest speed SoC I/O but they are also expensive. PCIe for a discreet GPU uses too many lanes for a low cost SoC/SBC. Integrated GPUs can have more performance at a lower cost without wasting SerDes lanes on the GPU. SerDes saved can be used elsewhere for more performance. Standard GPUs have an advantage. RPi, AMD, Apple, Sony and Nintendo understand the advantages but the PC and Amiga world are full of dinosaurs.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/grhFf7/intel-core-i3-12100f-33-ghz-quad-core-processor-bx8071512100f
The cheapest Intel Core i3-12100F Alder Lake is $68.00 and supports PCIe 5.0 16X.
F markings have disabled the IGP due to fabrication defects.

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/PRO-H610M-G-DDR4/Specification
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/hPWzK8/msi-pro-h610m-g-ddr4-micro-atx-lga1700-motherboard-pro-h610m-g-ddr4
The cheapest LGA 1700 motherboard at $89.99 price with PCIe 4.0 16X.

SerDes are reasonably low cost, but there is a higher profit expectation with higher SKUs.

FYI, Intel Lunar Lake IGP is competitive against AMD Strix Point IGP and it crushed Qualcomm Elite X's IGP.

Nintendo Switch is Nvidia's X1 SoC.

Sony PS5 is AMD's SoC i.e. AMD's copyright is on the silicon. AMD sells defective PS5 SoCs as AMD 4700S SKU in China's PC market. The same for the defective Xbox Series X SoCs as 4800S SKU. AMD provides the necessary "Design for Windows" ACPI with UEFI for standard Windows compatibility with game console SoCs.

PC's partitioned graphics allows for independent graphics advancement e.g. RDNA 4 GPU vs RDNA 3.5 IGP (Strix Point, Strix Halo).

PS5 Pro IGP is a hybrid between RDNA 3's dual issue feature with RDNA 4 RT cores. It lacks the full advancement from RDNA 4 RX 9700 series.

RDNA 3.5 has 2X texture fetch per CU improvements. RDNA 3.0 has a 2X FLOPS rate per CU, with missing RDNA 3.5's 2X texture rate per CU. Games need textures.

Nvidia has the most advanced GPUs on the PC. Switch 2 has ADA IGP, not the latest Blackwell.

Last edited by Hammer on 05-May-2025 at 12:10 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@matthey

Quote:

These businesses have de facto integrated GPU family standards. There is no one GPU but there are GPU similarities which may allow more optimization, share more of a simplified and standardized API, simplify driver development and testing, etc.

Yes, it's quite like the desktop market.

There is mobile GPU software standardisation but is all done at the API level (OpenGL ES, OpenCL, Vulkan etc.). They'll also use standard interfaces into the target OS (usually Android). Hardware wise, they use standardised I/O interfaces e.g. AMBA.

There wont be any standardisation in the internals of the GPUs, CPUs have a fixed instruction set, GPUs don't, so the designers are free to do whatever they like as long as the driver implements the API.

The driver itself is supplied by the GPU vendor but it is custom built specifically for the SoC and the OS it is integrated into.

For software optimisation, that isn't standardised at all. The GPUs from different vendors, or even the same vendor can be quite different and what works on one might be detrimental on another. That said, there will be a lot of commonalities, just as there are optimisations that will work across different CPU ISAs.

I spent a few years working in this area. I wrote GPU driver integration guides and later I did developer optimisation guides.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: cdimauro Quote: Around $100 means that it's the target of a Celeron-based MiniPC, which might also include a Windows license, and that is overall better (especially performance-wise). The RPi 5 SBC price is less at $50 (2 GiB), $60 (4 GiB) and $80 (8 GiB) but a working system in a case has a similar price to a low end PC. The RPi 5 may be a little lower power and heat but most of the PC specs are better and it can run Windows and games without emulation. ARM lacks native games and even RPi systems are less standardized than 68k Amiga systems.

Indeed. A "boxed" RPI5 doesn't make any sense with such prises: it offers too little compared to a similar MiniPC.
Quote:

cdimauro Quote: The new board also suffers from another, more important, detail: the price, which is missing. I haven't found even a price range (but I haven't read the latest comments) If the price could be lowered by only supporting the e6500 cores and a single type of memory (DDR3), then that's the way to: e5500 and LDDR3 are meaningless for the purpose of this board / computer. Someone on amiga-news.de in the German comments made an estimate. Manni (02-Mai-2025, 20:19) Quote: 150 CPU 10 FPGA 50 PCB 70 Kleinkram 150 Software-Lizenzen 150 Kram für Komplettsystem 150 Staat 150 Garantie usw Wird also sicher ne 999,- Euro Kiste werden. Aber alles in Allem ein geiles Projekt! Danke an alle bisher Beteiligten und auch die zukünftig bald Beteiligten. Könnte zur Abwechslung mal Cloanto nen 100er Lauf finanzieren und auch wirklich was für die Community tun... The Google translation for others follows. Manni (02-May-2025, 20:19) Quote: 150 CPUs 10 FPGAs 50 PCBs 70 small items 150 software licenses 150 items for the complete system 150 government costs 150 warranty, etc. So it'll definitely be a 999 euro box. But all in all, a great project! Thanks to everyone involved so far and to those who will be involved in the future. For a change, I could finance a 100-euro run for Cloanto and really do something for the community...

Thanks. Then it will be the A1222 killer.
Quote:

The T208x SoCs with PPC e6500 cores are likely more expensive than the T1042 SoC with e5500 cores. The T208x SoCs are a little newer and may be guaranteed to be available for longer but both are still active. The PCIe 3.0 lanes for the T2080 may only be 2 instead of 4 but it would be a more professional board if SATA worked and cheaper DDR3 memory may have offset some of the extra cost.

Right. But DDR3 prises might increase over the time, because that's obsolete technology. Not now, but if this project is delayed like the A1222, then it'll happen.
Quote:

cdimauro Quote: But RPi, AMD, Apple, Sony and Nintendo haven't standard GPUs: they have SOME GPUs, exactly like PCs. Because there's no "standard GPs". Which is quite normal on PCs, essentially since the beginning. And those projects / companies are using PCs' technologies (SOME of them, like I've said). These businesses have de facto integrated GPU family standards. There is no one GPU but there are GPU similarities which may allow more optimization, share more of a simplified and standardized API, simplify driver development and testing, etc.

I don't know how much similar they could be.

AMD changed a lot the internal implementation of its GPUs (I have a friend of mine which was working on designing them some years ago) and likely the same happened to nVidia (I strongly doubt that the GPU used on the Nintendo Switch 2 is similar to the one used on the first console).

I expect that AMD and nVidia have their proper "philosophies" on building their GPU chips over the time, but certainly their GPUs aren't "standard".

Looks interesting, I still love AmigaOS4 and its efforts to push Amiga forward, but even I can see, being stuck on PPC is really problematic now. (to put it lightly)

But its still good to see, that maybe A-EON wont be the last PPC systems.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

@thread

Utube upload from Sunday live show on Twitch:

AmigaBill Mirari coverage timestamped 4:08

#6

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

Kronos Quote:

matthey Quote: In the same contract written by Ben, Hyperion claims ownership of AmigaOS 4. Which might still be true. Think about an apartment block, with several people owing one or few units. Ben/Hyperion might be the original developer (real estate, not SW ) still retaining the title to the land and other key assets.

No. The wording of the 2009 settlement agreement is as follows.

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF Quote:

1. Grant. (a) Hyperion acknowledges that the Amiga Parties are the owners of the Software, without prejudice to any third parties with rights in said Software. The Amiga Parties acknowledge that Hyperion is the sole owner of AmigaOS 4 (with the exception of the Software), without prejudice to any third parties with rights in said software.

"Hyperion is the sole owner of AmigaOS 4" is using the word "sole" which means only or exclusive. I will substitute these synonyms of sole for sole to perhaps make it clearer.

"Hyperion is the sole owner of AmigaOS 4"
"Hyperion is the only owner of AmigaOS 4"
"Hyperion is the exclusive owner of AmigaOS 4"

There is either sole ownership, co-ownership or no ownership. Hyperion may have had co-ownership of AmigaOS 4 but that is not what they are representing here and may not be true either if all the development used contracted developers up to 2009 when the contract was written. The developers like Joerg state clearly what they think Hyperion owns of AmigaOS 4 and there would have been less in 2009 if there is any today.

https://amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/329247.html
Joerg (03-Mai-2025, 19:01) Quote:

@geenaamm > As you could read on os4welt.de, in the thread that was started by you, > Hyperion is eager to support the new board. > But they do not fully own amigaos. I fail to understand why people, especially ones who should know better, still think Hyperion owns ANYTHNG of AmigaOS 4.x. The base source of some small parts, the few usable AmigaOS 0.9-3.1/m68k C sources which could be used for AmigaOS 4.x/PPC (most of it was completely useless m68k assembler code instead and had to be reimplemented from scratch for AmigaOS 4.x, not only Exec(SG), but other large and important parts like dos.library, graphics.library/P96, etc., as well. If at all only the comments in the m68k assembler sources were of any help for that) is owned by Cloanto/Amiga Corp., and for the AmigaOS 3.x/m68k versions additionally by iComp (3.x/m68k versions of P96). For releasing new versions of AmigaOS 4.x/PPC, and especially AmigaOS 3.x/m68k ones, Hyperion's insolvency manager first would have to get a licence from Cloanto/Amiga Corp. ExecSG is, and always was, owned by the Frieden brothers. Trevor/A-EON may have an exclusive licence of it now, but even that doesn't change the ownership. In any case Hyperion can't use it anymore, unless they get a sub-licence from Trevor/A-EON first. Copyright isn't transferable, at least not in Germany and probably not in most other parts of the EU either, even something like "Public Domain" software isn't legally possible here. The ONLY exception is if software is developed in their payed hours by employees of a company, but Hyperion never had any employees doing software development for them (maybe for their games, but definitely not for AmigaOS), only contract workers/companies who still own all of their respective parts of AmigaOS 4.x, and in most cases Hyperion's former licences to use such parts were revoked 10-25 years ago already because of breach of contract. Without getting new licences from the about 3 dozens of AmigaOS 4.x owners Hyperion's insolvency manager can't release something like an AmigaOS 4.2 for current systems, let alone adding support for new hardware.

I take Joerg's comment at his word and not with a "grain of salt". As I stated earlier, Joerg and other developers were likely suing Hyperion already in 2009 judging from the settlement agreement which has the following clause.

2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF Quote:

20. AmigaOS Developers. Hyperion agrees and acknowledges that it is solely responsible for all payments and other obligations to third party developers of AmigaOS 4 pursuant to software development and other agreements between Hyperion and such developers. Hyperion agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Amiga Parties from any claims by third party developers of AmigaOS 4, including without limitation Hans-Joerg Frieden, Thomas Frieden and Andrea Valinotto, in connection with AmigaOS 4, including without limitations claims for payment or compensation, at Hyperion's sole cost and expense.

The clause above does not directly mention the labor was contracted but "third party developers of AmigaOS 4" strongly hints that it is true. Hyperion may have falsely claimed to be the "sole owner of AmigaOS 4" without fulfilling the contract with the developers to obtain it at the time the settlement agreement was written so even if Hyperion won a dispute of ownership of AmigaOS 4 with the developers, Hyperion would not have been the "sole owner of AmigaOS 4", if any owner of AmigaOS 4 at all. Ben is an experienced IP-IT lawyer, wrote the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement and likely was involved in the litigation between Hyperion and the developers yet he wrote, "The Amiga Parties acknowledge that Hyperion is the sole owner of AmigaOS 4 (with the exception of the Software), without prejudice to any third parties with rights in said software." It appears that the "third parties had all the rights" and ownership "in said software" for AmigaOS 4 and Hyperion was "sole owner" of nothing AmigaOS 4 related at that time. I would say this is deliberate falsification and misrepresentation which is fraud and grounds for nullification of the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement. The details should be further verified with the AmigaOS 4 developers.

Does anyone disagree with my analysis and conclusion?

Last edited by matthey on 05-May-2025 at 05:46 PM.

@matthey

The debate continues on OS4welt...

#6

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

@cdimauro

Quote:

AMD changed a lot the internal implementation of its GPUs (I have a friend of mine which was working on designing them some years ago) and likely the same happened to nVidia (I strongly doubt that the GPU used on the Nintendo Switch 2 is similar to the one used on the first console).

FYI, Switch 2 IGP has Ampere with Ada Love Lace features.

https://www.xda-developers.com/not-only-nvidia-nintendo-switch-2-processor-leaks-massive-upgrade/

an Ampere-based GPU with some Ada Lovelace features backported and 1,536 CUDA cores


https://www.tweaktown.com/news/96808/most-nintendo-switch-2-games-will-use-nvidia-dlss-and-passed-on-using-lovelace/index.html
Nintendo said no to Ada

Where it gets interesting is the news that Nintendo passed on using NVIDIA's cutting-edge Ada Lovelace architecture for the Switch 2 in favor of a more affordable and cost-efficient Ampere chip. According to Moore's Law is Dead, some Lovelace features, like efficiency tweaks, were added to the custom chip.

its 1536 CUDA Cores are significantly less than even the GeForce RTX 3050's core count. Still, it's lightyears ahead of the hardware found inside the current Switch hardware.

The Switch 2 will reportedly also include NVIDIA's dedicated ray-tracing hardware, so Switch 2 titles could include real-time ray-tracing - and DLSS 3.5's Ray Reconstruction technology

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

#6 Quote:

The debate continues on OS4welt...

It would be nice if they used one forum and one language. Joerg is posting in German now and it is related so I will show the translated posts.

https://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=52311#p52311
Joerg translation Quote:

Cyborg translation Quote: It's up to Hyperion and Trevor Dickinson personally as ExecSG owner and Hyperion shareholder. He has to take off his Aeon hat and make decisions solely for ExecSG (Timothy, as director, ultimately makes the decisions for Hyperion). Porting ExecSG to it without the rest of AmigaOS 4.x, which also doesn't belong to Hyperion, would be relatively useless Even if there were still valid license agreements between the owners of the various AmigaOS 4.x components and Hyperion (rather unlikely), they are useless for a new board. The agreements from about 20 years ago were explicitly limited to classic Amigas with BlizzardPPC/CyperStormPPC and AmigaOne systems. Nothing will work without new license agreements with all AmigaOS 4.x developers. The only possible alternative would be for the board developers to license the AmigaOne brand and pay the license fees for all AmigaOS 4.x components they want to use directly to the dozens of owners of these AmigaOS 4.x components, as A-EON did with the AmigaOne X1000, X5000, and A1222. Unlike A-EON, however, hobby developers of a new PPC board probably don't have the necessary financial resources. I wouldn't expect anything from Hyperion itself, at least not as long as the same people from before, like Timothy, are still involved.

https://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=52317#p52317
AntonP translation Quote:

Joerg translation Quote: Even if there were still valid license agreements between the owners of the various AmigaOS 4.x components and Hyperion (rather unlikely), they are useless for a new board. The agreements from about 20 years ago were explicitly limited to classic Amigas with BlizzardPPC/CyperStormPPC and AmigaOne systems. Nothing will work without new license agreements with all AmigaOS 4.x developers. Are you intentionally omitting the settlement agreement between Hyperion and Amiga Inc.? Porting AmigaOS4 to other systems is not tied to the "AmigaOne" trademark; the "AmigaOne" trademark can be licensed optionally. And do you know all the agreements signed between Hyperion and AmigaOS4 developers?

https://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=52322#p52322
Joerg translation Quote:

AntonP translation Quote: Are you intentionally omitting the settlement agreement between Hyperion and Amiga Inc.? Porting AmigaOS4 to other systems is not tied to the "AmigaOne" trademark; the "AmigaOne" trademark can be licensed optionally. This is irrelevant to the contracts between Hyperion and the AmigaOS 4.x developers; Amiga Inc. was not a contractual partner. Quite the opposite: by excluding the transferability of the contracts themselves to legal successors, which is very unusual for such contracts, Amiga Inc. was prevented from receiving anything from AmigaOS 4.x, even if Amiga Inc. had won the legal dispute against Hyperion. AntonP translation Quote: And do you know all the contracts signed between Hyperion and AOS4 developers? No, not all of them, but a few from other AmigaOS 4.x developers that are almost identical to mine, and since almost all of them were created at the same time and by the same incompetent lawyer, they all likely contain the same clauses regarding the target systems covered: Only AmigaOS version 4.x on BlizzardPPC/CyberStormPPC and AmigaOne with PowerPC CPUs, but explicitly nothing else, neither other AmigaOS versions like 3.x or 5.x (AmigaDE), nor other CPUs, nor any ACube Sam4x0 systems, apart from the "AmigaOne 500", no Pegasos2, Apple MacMini G4, IBM PDA, ..., or anything else that could run AmigaOS 4.x or possibly even already ran it. The AmigaOS 4.x contracts between Hyperion and Olaf Barthel are, as far as I know, publicly available as part of the Amiga Inc. vs. Hyperion court documents. I don't have a link to it, but anyone who's bored can google it themselves.

According to Joerg, the issues with getting AmigaOS 4 on the Mirari board are the contracts between Hyperion and the AmigaOS 4 developers. Hyperion licensing "AmigaOne" for the Mirari board may solve the issues. It sounds reasonable but then how did the Sam and A1222 avoid "AmigaOne" branding? Is the Hyperion 68k AmigaOS 3.x, which Hyperion could only provide if it was considered "AmigaOS 4" in the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement, only legal for "classic Amigas with BlizzardPPC/CyperStormPPC" or would it need to be named AmigaOS 4.x too? How ironic would it be if the only way for Hyperion to develop and sell the 68k AmigaOS 3.x was by it being considered "AmigaOS 4" in the settlement agreement but no code from AmigaOS 4.x could be used according to developer contracts with Hyperion?

Last edited by matthey on 06-May-2025 at 01:35 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 06-May-2025 at 01:21 AM.
Last edited by matthey on 06-May-2025 at 01:18 AM.

@thread

It's only natural that there's a lot of chatter surrounding the potential of a new (to us) motherboard with an embedded PowerPC CPU and PCIe slot. If A-EON could've gotten the price of the X5000/20 down to under $1,000 USD, they would've sold 5x - 8x as many. Heck, if they could've pulled off the miracle of a PowerPC board with PCIe slot for under $500 USD (A1222), there'd be no need for this new board.

"If Muhammad won't go to the mountain, bring the mountain to Muhammad".
It makes sense to try and spec a board that is as close as possible to the existing X5000. The idea being that getting either or both MorphOS and AmigaOS 4 running on it would be easier.

I wouldn't expect members from either team to outright reject the proposed board, but receptiveness and optimism do not write code. Speaking of which, up until this point never have I wished more that there were a LLM/A.I. Agent that could write the necessary software.

Which is to say, the BoM will say more about the retail price and very little about the amount of work either team would have to perform to get their respective operating systems running in a stable manner on this board. And that's not taking into account the fragmented architecture and IP ownership of AmigaOS 4.

Some of you may point out how it is not that much work in relative terms, and were we back in 2015 I'd probably agree with you. Back when MorphOS was releasing updates annually. If there's no one to do the work, it doesn't matter how relatively trivial the task at hand might be.

For those who want this board to be their last hoorah for Amiga on PPC, I do wish they make it happen. I just don't see it is all.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@matthey

I don't know how to interpret all of what Joerg is attempting to convey here.


Quote:

Only AmigaOS version 4.x on BlizzardPPC/CyberStormPPC and AmigaOne with PowerPC CPUs, but explicitly nothing else

He is certainly referring to the contract between Amiga and the AmigaOne Partners, who were collectively Hyperion Entertainment VOF and Eyetech Ltd.

It is somewhat humorous when you consider THAT Amiga is gone. THAT Hyperion Entertainment VOF is gone. THAT Eyetech Ltd. is gone...

I also do not understand the talk about "brand" (AmigaOne). No one can use that. USPTO makes that clear from their trademark rulings.

The entire thread confuses me. re:OS4 development I see:
Quote:

there's a new director, and that's certainly slowing things down for now, because he has to figure out what needs to be done most urgently.

What urgently needs to be done is filing their overdue financial reports for 2022-2024. That's the only thing urgent if you want to put things in order of what needs to be done first. Then again, why believe the court when you can believe forum posters, right?

#6

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

#6 Quote:

I don't know how to interpret all of what Joerg is attempting to convey here. Quote: Only AmigaOS version 4.x on BlizzardPPC/CyberStormPPC and AmigaOne with PowerPC CPUs, but explicitly nothing else He is certainly referring to the contract between Amiga and the AmigaOne Partners, who were collectively Hyperion Entertainment VOF and Eyetech Ltd.

At least with the latest https://www.os4welt.de Joerg posts, Joerg is talking about the individual labor contracts for AmigaOS 4 development between Hyperion and each AmigaOS 4 developer. All rights and ownership of the work performed are specified in those contracts. Joerg claims that these labor contracts with early AmigaOS 4 developers were similar (the same contract template was likely used), "were explicitly limited to classic Amigas with BlizzardPPC/CyperStormPPC and AmigaOne systems" and the rights were not transferable so only Hyperion had rights and even the original contract for Hyperion to develop AmigaOS 4 for Amiga Inc could not be fulfilled. The Olaf Barthel agreement Joerg mentions may be on the Amiga Documents site under "All Documents".

https://sites.google.com/site/amigadocuments/all
2000-11-10_amiga-hyperion_agreement_haage-partner-olaf-barthel.pdf

I could not link the pdf directly as it requires Google login.

#6 Quote:

It is somewhat humorous when you consider THAT Amiga is gone. THAT Hyperion Entertainment VOF is gone. THAT Eyetech Ltd. is gone... I also do not understand the talk about "brand" (AmigaOne). No one can use that. USPTO makes that clear from their trademark rulings.

The USPTO "AmigaOne" trademark may be held up and nobody can register it for now. It does not stop "AmigaOne" branding or any other Amiga related IP use legal or not. Even being sued for illegal Amiga related IP use does not stop illegal Amiga related IP use. Will a court verdict even stop illegal Amiga related IP use?

Maybe the import of "AmigaOne" branded computers into the US could be stopped with some kind of filing of trademark violation. Not being able to use "AmigaOne" in the EU could be a more serious problem as certain product certifications may not be possible. I expect any issues are easily solvable with the Hyperion withdrawal of "AmigaOne" and "AmigaOS" trademark registrations and challenges and letting them fall under the more general "Amiga" trademark with the owner. This would be a great first step at deescalating the disputes.

The Hyperion AmigaOne "partners" like A-Eon and Eyetech were likely just sublicensed Amiga IP obtained from the 2009 Amiga Inc v Hyperion VOF settlement agreement. They would have no say about licensing AmigaOne to others unless their contracts give them rights. Since there have been multiple AmigaOne sublicenses from Hyperion, it it unlikely any sublicense was exclusive. A new "AmigaOne" sublicence from Hyperion for the Mirari board should not be a problem for Hyperion or any of the Hyperion partners. The AmigaOne branding may be a requirement to receive AmigaOS 4 support so as not to violate the contracts between Hyperion and AmigaOS 4 developers.

#6 Quote:

The entire thread confuses me. re:OS4 development I see: Quote: there's a new director, and that's certainly slowing things down for now, because he has to figure out what needs to be done most urgently. What urgently needs to be done is filing their overdue financial reports for 2022-2024. That's the only thing urgent if you want to put things in order of what needs to be done first. Then again, why believe the court when you can believe forum posters, right?

Ben made a mess of things. Maybe he knew he and Hyperion failed when they were unable to force Amiga Inc into insolvency/bankruptcy that would have given Hyperion the rights to the Amiga IP. Maybe he let Hyperion go to save himself the embarrassment of his litigation defeat and the failure of Hyperion. Everyone knows Hyperion's chances are between slim and none. Saving Hyperion may be too hard. They are likely to be gone before the Mirari board is released to the public and Ben's mess is likely to be worse after they are gone. AmigaOS 4 may not be any more savable than Hyperion, especially with the lack of urgency.