@Yasu
"One problem is that this is based on a 2006 beta version of MUI 4.0,"

I should have missed something, but how can you be sure that it's based on MOS MUI source code ?

Thank you

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

double post

Last edited by zzd10h on 31-Aug-2016 at 10:13 PM.

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

@cgutjahr

Please, tell me, why there is empty line between "#define ERROR_NO_MORE_ENTRIES 232" and "#define ERROR_IS_SOFT_LINK 233" in dos.h of MorphOS 3.9 SDK?

@zzd10h
Quote:

I should have missed something, but how can you be sure that it's based on MOS MUI source code ?

It is based on the early mui4 source code done by Stunzi , and lately was added missed bits by Thore to make mui on os4 be on same level as on mos.


@All who there say that mui on os4 are not the same as on morphos

It is right and wrong. Right, that internals and code are different. Of course. Thore doing hard job to add and to reimplement all missed (in compare with morphos's mui) fucntionality just with base on public autodocs and trial-and-test. And that was really hard part, and of course that code differs. But, for end user and developers it provide the same API and classes as on morphos. One may like it, another hate , but it is. Thore even consider to make AROS version someday, so, it will be time to hate AROS too ?:)


Strange that haters keep repeating it all like they only "copy autodocs". Damn, they just copy autodocs, because they didn't think that it will be such a problem for anyone, as hardest part was to reimplemt functionality of this classes. Writing the same 1:1 autodocs make sense for someone ? Well, sure, for someone, but didn't someone think that hardest part done by trial-test-based-on-autodocs, and in compare writing the same autodocs for the same function just can't be compare with amount of work done on reversing. But no, "they copy autodocs! aaaa !! illegal!". Need to delete spaces ? One want _specially_ restructure autodocs so they will look different, to more fuck heads of 3d party developes ? Is there real needs for ? If classes and api already clones, is there needs to just restrucure the same autodocs, just to make them looks different ?

And in end, to all why cry about "why they rename it to mui5 now", why they "do it just because mos do it". I think (but can be wrong) because Thore think that current fucntionality of mui on aos4 are on the same level as on morphos. So to avoid confusion it was renamed to help 3d party developers to know, that mui on aos4 and mos provide the same fucntionality. While OF COURSE, different code inside of new classes and mui itself, and can be slower or whatever, but in terms of API and classes its the same, and developers better to know that when he do app on os4, he can easyliy port it to mos, and in different way as well. At least that how i think about, someone may start to hate me for now :)

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@kas1e

Ahh, thanks
Fresh air on this thread finally ..

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@Kas1e

Thanks for the reply

"it is based on the early mui4 source code done by Stunzi"
=> therefore it's confirmed ? Without the agreement from original author ?

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

@Yasu

If you read the thread on morph.zone carefully, you will spot vague hints and traces of the evolution of MUI in MorphOS, like replacing old core OS functions (integrating MUI into the OS even further), "new language" support etc, whatever that may mean, possibly internal preparations for a multi-threaded SMP enabled "MorphOS 4.0", who knows...

But I do actually believe that the major version bump is a result of major improvements, and not as of a knee-jerk response to FrankenMUI versioning scheme. That would be out of character for The MorphOS Team IMHO. And "version 5" is most certainly about a lot more than some interface classes that is publically visible, that FrankenMUI could have mimicked.


@zzd10h

Quote:

"One problem is that this is based on a 2006 beta version of MUI 4.0," I should have missed something, but how can you be sure that it's based on MOS MUI source code ?

MUI4+ == MorphOS.

It's officially part of the MorphOS Source Tree, there is where it is, it's nowhere else. It's being developed by MorphOS developers (including Stuntz).


Quote:

Thanks for the reply "it is based on the early mui4 source code done by Stunzi" => therefore it's confirmed ? Without the agreement from original author ?

They were offered access to the sources to port v3.9 to Amiga OS. But in the Source Tree was all versions, including an early alfa of what would later become version 4.0. What really pissed off Stuntzi AFAIK was when they released versions with the license key requirement removed.

Hyperion was offered an official license to MUI once. For a fee, of course. They didn't take the offer.

Maybe it's better this way? Cheaper, at least. Hyperion isn't exactly known for rewarding their developers financially, so keeping it as a third party contribution kind of follows their modus operandi, right?

Instead the OS4 development leader (who officially hates MUI BTW, like the Friedens and everyone else over there) promise "MUI4" to the OS4 users, an unofficial fork is created that isn't fully compatible anyway, they name their creation "MUI4" (now MUI5), and release it through the official OS4 update system. But as a "contribution".

No money spent. IP owner unpaid. But OS4 enjoying the benefits of it.

After that followed a series of copyright violations from the "MUI for AmigaOS development team", as cgutjahr mentioned above...

But the most moronic thing, is still their habbit of calling their different, incompatible fork by the same name, and the same versioning scheme as the real, official thing. This is both provocative and confusing.

Quote:

AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition has now been released for Apple PPC computers. Download it here: AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Mac

Eh, OK...? Well, as long as everyone understands that this isn't AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition... Which some people won't understand. Since it's called AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition...








Quote:

It is only AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition available for Macs...

But this is not AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition, it's something else. Should have used a different name. "MorphOS" for instance...


Quote:

Looking at your comments (and other comments at amiga.org), this news hurts many members of AmigaOS 4.1 community, why? Better AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition on all platforms is good for everyone.

Look, they have the same purpose, aim for the same users and developers, they share the same origin in some deprecated Amiga 3.1 API, but from that common point they have both evolved in different directions ever since. A user could even today use either one of them without much trouble because they are similar enough at a shallow level, but they are not directly interchangeable since development decisions in the past took them both in different directions about what happens under the hood. Some applications written for the first will not run out of the box on the second. This is the natural outcome of forks and long enough development along different paths, in different directions.

Calling this thing AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Mac is misleading, since This and the real AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition is not the same thing.


Quote:

So, original author of AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition decided to tolerate this AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition fork. Enough for me. AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition developers could solve this problem years ago by allowing ports of newer AmigaOS 4.1 to other platforms. But they wanted advantage over competition...

Wait what? How is this in any way the original developer's fault?

And having two different products sharing the exact same name is confusing.


Quote:

Confusion? AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition fork we discuss here is the only AmigaOS Final Edition available for Macs.

But they are two different things, sharing the same name! It's not the same thing, even though presenting somewhat similar result to the users and developers!


Quote:

While OF COURSE, different code inside of new AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs itself, and can be slower or whatever, but in terms of API and classes its the same, and developers better to know that when he do app on AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs, he can easyliy port it to Hyperion's version, and in different way as well. At least that how i think about, someone may start to hate me for now :)

But the thing is, the developers behind this FrankenAmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs didn't aim for maximum compatibility, they started to add their own ideas as well! This makes it incompatible! Take their new system Reggae that effectively could replace the datatypes system. If a developer making a program for this FrankenAmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs depends on this new feature in his program, then this program could not easily be ported to Hyperion's AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition, since Reggae is not present there. So this portability argument isn't entirely true, AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs was from the start something different. But using the same name.


Quote:

This should be good news, but it's the usual complaining.... And what does it boil down to? It boils down to whom ever bumped the version number up first. Some times I do wonder why Hyperion users are even here, maybe it's the constant need to infest every AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs thread. Please move along, nothing to see here.

Well, you could try to see it from the other sides perspective and read what they are actually saying and maybe then you will see that there is reasons to be just a little bit annoyed.


Quote:

I don't read Hyperion forums, I don't have a need to be there, but I am still, somehow almost spoonfed, with Hyperion "butthurt" feelings..

I've always assumed that this is an "Amiga" forum, not an "AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs" forum.

If you don't like how comments from certain parts of Amiga community are allowed, might be easier to move somewhere, where they aren't.


Quote:

@thread the conflict between the AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs developers and certain Hyperion enthusiasts is well-known and unfortunate, but it does not need to be stirred up every single time there is a thread about AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition. the situation is what it is, and the constant rehashing is annoying at best. if you feel the need to complain about AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs, please head over to amiga.org and do it there. going forward these threads on AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition for Macs will be more strictly moderated. i've been deluged with complaints on both sides, and it just isn't worth it. this is 2016, not 2004. enough already. further comments along these lines will be removed. -- ehyohoo

But some of us Mac users also thinks this naming scheme is peculiar...?


Quote:

thread closed. -- ehyohoo

@TRIPOS

You are putting really admirable effort in the lost cause. At first, I admit, it was a little bit annoying. Now, it´s pure entertainment. Thanks.

After asking around, it turns out it might not have been based on a 4.0 beta version after all. It might be based on 3.9. I will try and dig further. The truth is more important than silly camp wars.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=11372&post_id=127937&viewmode=flat&sortorder=0&showonepost=1

_________________
Amiga Forum - Sweden's best Amiga Magazine

My MorphOS Blog

"Free speech includes other peoples right to offend you."

@Yasu

Thank you Yasu for your impartiality and honesty

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

@thread

AmigaOS needs to move to a response/interact service layer like ReactJS Horizontal Platform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feUYwoLhE_4

_________________
Download 499.26 Mbps, 659.94 Mbps Upload :)

Quote:

It is right and wrong. Right, that internals and code are different. Of course. Thore doing hard job to add and to reimplement all missed (in compare with morphos's mui) fucntionality just with base on public autodocs and trial-and-test. And that was really hard part, and of course that code differs. But, for end user and developers it provide the same API and classes as on morphos. One may like it, another hate , but it is. Thore even consider to make AROS version someday, so, it will be time to hate AROS too ?:)

I can understand and appreciate that, if it will stay fully compatible with MorphOS version, but originally there were mentions that Amiga version added some functions which aren't backwards compatible to MorphOS anymore, and that raised frustration level pretty high. I haven't checked myself that is it really the case or was it just a rumour. But if it will break the compatibility with MorphOS MUI with some own extensions, then the rage is justified, especially when called with the same name and version. That made the feeling that other camp is leeching what it can from other, but also trying to do hidden work to block possibility to do it other way around, which would be very immoral and disapproved.

And in any case, I think this clone would be tolerated much better if it would add something to its name which would indicate that it isn't a direct port but a clone or branch with different code and authors. I'm not saying it should be totally different name like Zune on AROS, you could include the MUI part because it's originally based on it, but add something else there too to make it more obvious it isn't by the original authors.

I understand the desire to have the latest MUI on all our platforms, and because there isn't any indications for an official port, a clone is the only way to do it, but it should be done in a fair and open way and in any case not causing any more separation.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

Accordning to a programmer I know who makes stuff for all Amiga flavors the two MUI's have serious differences that makes cross compiling really difficult. The most notable thing is that the version numbers of the different parts aren't the same, even though they should be.

I understand that it's their intention to become compatible with MorphOS, but as of now it isn't and that should reflect in the name I think.

How about this (in)official naming scheme:

MMUI 5 = MorphOS MUI 5
A3MUI 5 = MUI 5 for AmigaOS 3
A4MUI 5 = MUI 5 for AmigaOS 4

_________________
Amiga Forum - Sweden's best Amiga Magazine

My MorphOS Blog

"Free speech includes other peoples right to offend you."

@Yasu

I still don´t get it. Instead of helping to create one MUI for all, MorphOS side demands new name for only cross-platform MUI in developement.

In case of MUI, it makes sense to cooperate, not to dig trenches. Or maybe OS3/OS4 MUI should be ported to MorphOS to create single MUI for all platforms?

Note that the developers has not made any demands. Only us fanboys

You have the right to that opinion, but in the end it's not up to you or me but the parties involved. And the party that has made the software is not happy about this, though they seem to think there's not anything they can do about it (when they tried, it was ignored).

If one part kept accusing you of stealing code, destroying the community for existing and being pricks would you yourself like to help that part prosper? There is nothing strange with not wanting to feed the mouth that bites you.

Last edited by Yasu on 02-Sep-2016 at 09:03 AM.

_________________
Amiga Forum - Sweden's best Amiga Magazine

My MorphOS Blog

"Free speech includes other peoples right to offend you."

If you program for Amiga use "Reaction" if you program for "Morphos" use MUI. There's little developers left so they better spend their time polishing for one platform IMHO.
Kamelito

"If you program for Amiga use "Reaction" if you program for "Morphos" use MUI."

If you are crazy enough to program for an AmigaOS, use what YOU want !

_________________
http://apps.amistore.net/zTools

@zz10dh
Quote:

"it is based on the early mui4 source code done by Stunzi" => therefore it's confirmed ? Without the agreement from original author ?

Not sure i understand what you mean, but it is Stunzi itself give his early mui4 code to thore/jens. Of course everything done with agreement with him. That was told many times, and by Thore and by Jens.

@Yasu
You are wrong when say "it is based on 3.9 code". No, it is based on early 4x code, i know it, as i help to betatest it from begining.

@All_who_want_more_details
Here is link (google translate will help), if one want to know details:
http://os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1806&sid=54bb6b6969e0f64fb3c2b810336897fa

There anyone will found all answers, and probably will stop cry about "illegal". Let's it will be pure hate, based on emotions :)

Last edited by kas1e on 02-Sep-2016 at 06:19 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@kas1e

Thanks for link. So only legal problem is copy of autodocs. Which reminds me about my question to cgutjahr...