@ ssolie

Webmasters can contact us and ask to re-post or translate the questions. However we would like to know who would like to do so and why. The content should not be modified, credit and a link should be provided to the original.

These are just standard policies and procedures, which also apply for OSNews. I have given permission to translate and re-post my OSNews articles to various foreign or disk-based/online Amiga Magazines.

@Hooligan

what is it with you today? You`ve actually started talking sense and thats two things we`ve agreed on!

Are you feeling ok?

_________________
2017 Camaro 2SS

@MikeB
>Webmasters can contact us and ask to re-post or translate the questions...

I just knew you were going to say that

I know we should only have a single source and so on and so forth *but* this is a rather unique situation (loss of faith, conspiracy theories abound, etc.) and I think you should break the rules just this once.

If your prime directive really is to disseminate the information to as many Amiga people as possible and you insist on controlling the distribution of said info... well, let's just say the trolls would have a field day with this one.

It is also a matter of trust. If you do not trust others to faithfully copy verbatim and credit the source then why should they trust the source?

I fully believe that in the long run, people will realize there is no point to copying it when you can just post a link. In the mean time, give some really serious thought to the idea. This step forward is completely within your control whereas any other idea requires you to rely on external forces beyond your control.

'nuff said.

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@ ssolie

Quote:

If your prime directive really is to disseminate the information to as many Amiga people as possible and you insist on controlling the distribution of said info... well, let's just say the trolls would have a field day with this one.

IMO we should continue to handle the Q&A sessions as professionally as possible. Why should we take into account the trolls, who aren't interested in the questions and continue to troll anyway? Why should we take into account webmasters who think this provided service is not newsworthy, even beforehand without knowing its content?

If anything, I personally see BeNews as AmigaWorld's great example. And IMO if we follow their footsteps and examples, this website can end up being just as professional and offering a similar constructive environment to Amiga users as BeNews did for BeOS users.

@Rudei

I don't know... maybe its the butterflies, sun and coming summer calming me down. Hopefully it's just not some passing stage...

Or it could be that at eastertime I have actually had time to think the proper words for what I mean, instead of quicly trying to squeeze lots of things up without having too much time checking what I said, in fear my boss kicks my ass for hanging in forums

/me opens a cold beer and relaxes some more

Quote:

If anything, I personally see BeNews as AmigaWorld's great example. And IMO if we follow their footsteps and examples, this website can end up being just as professional and offering a similar constructive environment to Amiga users as BeNews did for BeOS users.

I think BeNews is a terrific model. I used to visit BeNews every day when I was using BeOS as my main OS. Of course that was a simpler world. The Be-related web sites all got along well, at least judging from the user's viewpoint; I regularly checked out BeNews, BeOSCentral, BeGroovy, BeForever, BeDope, etc. They reported similar news in common, but each had (or has still, in some cases) it's own personality and unique features, and they referred to each other with a good spirit.

The difference is, though, there was only one Be, Inc. and only one BeOS. All BeOS applications ran on that one operating system; all app developers wrote for it, etc. In the broadly-defined Amiga market, not only is there a long history of factionalism and frustration, but we now have several ways to run "Amiga" executables, with more on the way. A modern "Amiga" equivalent to BeNews would have to report on all aspects of community activity. This means Genesi's products as well as those of Amiga, Inc./Hyperion/Eyetech, and also things like AROS, UAE, etc. To leave any of these out would mean having a news site something like "BeNews-BeBox" and not carrying news about BeOS on x86 or Powermacs.

I don't really know what the policy of Amigaworld.net is about news related to MorphOS or Pegasos, but if you aspire to be a comprehensive site like BeNews, then I assume you'll want to report on those products as well. Otherwise, like I said, you'll be the "BeBoxNews," not the "BeNews" of the Amiga community.

-- gary_c

@ gary_c

Quote:

A modern "Amiga" equivalent to BeNews would have to report on all aspects of community activity.

First that's your *opinion*. Secondly we intend to report on anything of clear interest to *Amiga users*. As you probably know we have reported major news regarding 3rd party alternatives as well and we will continue to do so.

However IMO the definition of an Amiga user, is a user who uses Amiga products. The fact is that 'Amiga' is a computer/OS brandname, and we focus on AmigaDE and AmigaOS solutions. Feel free to go onto MorphOS websites to tell them that they should finally start reporting positive AmigaOS4 news as well.

Quote:

To leave any of these out would mean having a news site something like "BeNews-BeBox" and not carrying news about BeOS on x86 or Powermacs.

BeOS was also a Be product, so your statement is factually incorrect. We will report on AmigaOS, if available for PowerMacs, including for any other hardware platform. In fact if you look closely you would see that withiin the latest Cloanto article, I also reported on MaxUAE (AmigaOS emulator) for MacOS X.

BeNews focussed on BeNews and not solely on BeBoxNews (parallel Classic Amiga platform), BeOSNews (parallel AmigaOS) or BeIANews (parallel AmigaDE).

Quote:

Otherwise, like I said, you'll be the "BeBoxNews," not the "BeNews" of the Amiga community.

We intend to report on anything of clear interest to Amiga users. This may include BeOS, AROS, MorphOS, MacOS and even Windows and many other kinds of news.

Just use the searchbox on the left to get to know AmigaWorld a little bit better.

Just imagine this, Be Inc back in business, BeNews back in business. Many users of that platform may have moved to AtheOS or other BeOS inspired projects. Would BeNews focus on BeNews or AtheNews? Just run a parallel and it is not too hard to understand that we focus on Amiga products.

Quote:

First that's your *opinion*.

Well, of course. I hope that's always understood, just as your interpretations or anyone else's are opinion.Quote:

However IMO the definition of an Amiga user, is a user who uses Amiga products.

OK, fair enough. But a lot of people think of an "Amiga user" as someone who runs Amiga executeables. For example, if you check your server logs, you'll find http agent info includes reports of "Amiga OS4". These browsers are running on MorphOS. Funny world, isn't it? Although this particular case is more a quirk than typical, it illustrates my point that there's a widely-held view that the "Amiga community" is bigger than how you're defining it, and some people --you've found out-- react negatively to the idea that, having bought a Genesi product, they are now outside the community that they have some bonds to. However, your view is also valid, and you are certainly entitled to describe your web site accordingly. But this shouldn't be confused with a truly comprehensive definition of the community.Quote:

Feel free to go onto MorphOS websites to tell them that they should finally start reporting positive AmigaOS4 news as well.

When AmigaOS4 is released, I'm sure it'll make the news at those sites.Quote:

BeOS was also a Be product, so your statement is factually incorrect.

Oh, I didn't mean there was an exact parallel. What I meant was that BeNews covered everything related to the platform. It didn't subdivide it. The differences between the "Amiga" case and the Be case of course prevent a good comparison, as I mentioned.Quote:

We intend to report on anything of clear interest to Amiga users.

That's good. However, a Pegasos owner running YAM, Voyager, PageStream, etc., etc., doesn't qualify as an Amiga user under your brandname-linked definition. But, whatever. It's up to you. Quote:

Would BeNews focus to be BeNews or AtheNews? Just run a parallel and it is not too hard to understand that we focus on Amiga products.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. This is just a transition phase anyway. People will gravitate to where they get what they want or need.

-- gary_c

@ gary_c

Quote:

OK, fair enough. But a lot of people think of an "Amiga user" as someone who runs Amiga executeables.

The ability of executing Amiga programs is of interest to many Amiga users (any OS in combination with an UAE port can to some extent) and thus we will likely report more on AROS and MorphOS, than on for example MacOS. However for every little titbit of news, such users should better turn to dedicated websites.

Let me ask you a question: Do you consider a MorphOS user who has never used an Amiga before, nor harbors any special feelings towards the platform to be a 'member' of the Amiga community or the MorphOS community?

Quote:

When AmigaOS4 is released, I'm sure it'll make the news at those sites.

Judging on past reporting, IMO this cannot be concluded. For instance MorphOS-News did not report on extensive benchmark comparisons regarding the Pegasos/AmigaOne hardware platforms, IMO likely because the outcome does not suit their agenda. However they did report on a comparison between two *different CPU-type* setups using Linux bogusmips.

Quote:

Ultimately it doesn't matter. This is just a transition phase anyway. People will gravitate to where they get what they want or need.

Exactly, AmigaWorld's primary focus is providing a constructive environment for Amiga users. We do not think the massive and childish fighting at other Amiga-related websites is helpful to the platform nor its community.

Quote:

But a lot of people think of an "Amiga user" as someone who runs Amiga executeables.

You're right. But then, that is the user's subjective point of view rather than an objective definition of the term. Every user has their own subjective point of view and very few are the same. Since it's impossible to please everyone, every Amiga news site has to take a stand on this particular issue wether they like it or not. Though, I think all Amiga news sites agree on one point; everything that runs Amiga executables is Amiga related. The differences between the sites shows once we start talking about the meanings of the terms Amiga, Amiga user, and the Amiga community. This is because they, just like you and I, have their own subjective point of view of these terms.

Personally, I kind of like the way AmigaWorld's subjective point of view complies with the objective definition of the term without excluding anything related to it.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

Quote:

Fleecy gave you a political answer.

I can't disagree with this statement.
Quote:

From his answer you can gather: 1. Don't get your hopes up high that this issue will be resolved anytime soon.

I have zero hopes in that regard. My Amithlon installation works well enough as it is, and simply serves as cheap file storage for the BBS machine.
If it weren't for AmigaDOS filenotes, it wouldn't even be doing that job. If Umilator had seen the light of day and we'd gotten fully compatible hardware ports, (serial et al) it might have even replaced my aging A2k/060.
Quote:

2. Amiga would like to see Bernie's solution come to fruition.

So why didn't Fleecy WRITE that? Does he really need you to interpret for him?
Quote:

3. Amiga does not want to go into details, but due to the complexity of the differences between several involved parties your suggestion is not yet a possibility.

Once again, why didn't HE write that. My original question was quite simple and didn't need more than a sentence or two to answer, yet Fleecy's attitude seems to be "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls#|t"

Sorry, but I feel any credibility Fleecy might have had is gone completely.

I'm outta here.

Quote:

Quote: 2. Amiga would like to see Bernie's solution come to fruition. So why didn't Fleecy WRITE that?

He did. In case you missed it:

Quote:

We are as interested in seeing a resolution as everyone else but a lot needs to happen to achieve this.

Quote:

Quote: 3. Amiga does not want to go into details, but due to the complexity of the differences between several involved parties your suggestion is not yet a possibility. Once again, why didn't HE write that.

He did. In case you missed it:

Quote:

It is a very complicated situation in which multiple parties have taken positions that have made it difficult for any solution that is acceptable to all to develop.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

Quote:

Personally, I kind of like the way AmigaWorld's subjective point of view complies with the objective definition of the term without excluding anything related to it

Huh? What objective definition? I think you'll find any definition that might be brought into this discussion is subjective, for what it's worth. The fact that something has to be defined to be a useful term in a a discussion means it is subjective; the definition reflects the point of view.

-- gary_c

Quote:

Huh? What objective definition? I think you'll find any definition that might be brought into this discussion is subjective, for what it's worth. The fact that something has to be defined to be a useful term in a a discussion means it is subjective; the definition reflects the point of view.

What I mean by an objective definition is that the definition would be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. An example of an objective definition of "Amiga" would be "AMIGA and it´s logos are registered trademarks of Amiga Inc." or "Amiga is spanish for a female friend".

Now, explain to me why defining an Amiga user as someone using Amiga products would be subjective rather than objective.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

To clarify my reasoning a bit further, defining an Amiga user as "someone running Amiga executables" is subjective because it is only an interpretation of the individual and has no relevance to reality what so ever. You see, an Amiga user is somone using (hence a "user") an Amiga. So, what an Amiga user is boils down to what "Amiga" means. If we stay focused on the facts and nothing but facts, an Amiga means an Amiga labeled product (as long as the context is commercial and computer related, of course). By using this perfectly objective and factual reasoning, an Amiga user is someone using Amiga labeled products.

Someone running Amiga executables, on the other hand, does not neccessarily have to be an Amiga user since it's today possible to run Amiga executables with non-Amiga hardware and OS. An executable in itself does not an Amiga make and neither does it's execution somehow make it's host OS nor hardware an Amiga. Claiming otherwise would be infringing on Amiga Inc.'s trademark. However, the experience of running Amiga executables might feel like using an Amiga to the user, hence the subjective experience and interpretation of the term "Amiga user".

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

I wish other amiga sites would have debates posted in this manor.

_________________
PowerTower A1200, 060/80Mhz, Heatsink & Fan, 66MBRam, PowerFlyerGold, 50xCDRomdrive, 250Zip, 2.1

Quote:

To clarify my reasoning a bit further, defining an Amiga user as "someone running Amiga executables" is subjective because it is only an interpretation of the individual and has no relevance to reality what so ever.

It is relevant to the reality of that individual; of course it is subjective, but so is your definition which links "Amiga user" to only Amiga-brand products.Quote:

an Amiga user is someone using Amiga labeled products.

It's fine to use this definition, although it is no less subjective than any other. I think what you are doing is equating "objective" to "legal." But even in law there is subjectivity. That is because the legal system is a human institution. Law is subject to review and interpretation. If it were all objective, this wouldn't be necessary.

In any case, what is the practical definition of "Amiga user" in the view of the people themselves? Does the "Amiga-brand only" test satisfy everyone? We have seen in the forums that many Amiga computer users aren't especially interested in Amiga, Inc.'s cell phone partnerships and so on, although some are. Are those people any less qualified to be considered Amiga users because they're only interested in the desktop OS? What if somebody were only interested in Amiga, Inc.'s cell phone projects, or only connection to Amiga was playing games in his Windows AmigaAnywhere player? Is he therefore an "Amiga user" because he is using an Amiga-brand product, whereas somebody running all kinds of Amiga-platform programs and Amiga-platform expansion hardware on a Pegasos is not an "Amiga user" because he isn't actually using any Amiga-brand product? You can say yes, that's right, but it comes across as very petty and small-minded.

In the final analysis it doesn't really matter much. My guess is that most people that are getting into MorphOS are redefining their identity vis-a-vis the "Amiga community" anyway. These people are probably having too much fun to worry much about somebody else's definitions of identity anyway. Of course there's a certain group on both sides of the fence that loves to tangle in the forums but I think real enthusiasts are leaving these guys and their arguments behind as they now have something to actually play with. My own Pegasos arrived several days ago so I'll be joining them as soon as I get the components together. I have tons of "Amiga" software to try again, things I haven't run in years, as well as a lot of new Amiga-platform software that's come out since I last ran my now-dusty A3000, not to mention the new MorphOS apps, so I may be showing up in the forums a little less often myself.

Anyway, to clarify your stance, perhaps you ought to always write "Amiga(TM)-user" so the basis of your definition is clear.

-- gary_c

@ gary_c

Quote:

Anyway, to clarify your stance, perhaps you ought to always write "Amiga(TM)-user" so the basis of your definition is clear.

Maybe, to clarify your stance, perhaps you ought to always write "Classic-Amiga-applications-user" so the basis of your definition is clear.

Quote:

It's fine to use this definition, although it is no less subjective than any other. I think what you are doing is equating "objective" to "legal." But even in law there is subjectivity. That is because the legal system is a human institution. Law is subject to review and interpretation. If it were all objective, this wouldn't be necessary.

Yes, law is a subject to review and interpretation, but does that mean the law itself is subjective? In that case, everything in life is a subject of review or interpratation, nothing in this world would be objective by your reasoning. You see, just because it's possible to have your own subjective interpretation, that doesn't mean there is no objective definition. The law is objective, the individual's interpretation of it is not. Quoting from the book of laws would be stating an objective definition while an making an interpretation of the law would be a subjective definition. See the difference?

Now, take a look at my *objective* definition of the word "Amiga:

"Amiga" is a word and like all other words, it's defined by the language and the context using it. In the context of the computer industry, the word "Amiga" is a world-wide registered trademark of Amiga Inc. and only Amiga Inc. decides which computer products that may be associated with it.

That's a defintion based on facts rather than my own personal interpretation. It's not in my mind but something that is governed by outward things, like the law. That means this definition is objective rather than subjective. You with me yet?

Furthermore, a *subjective* definition would look like this:

An "Amiga" is everything capable of running Amiga executables.

This is an interpretation based on the individual's own experience of running Amiga executables rather than a fact. The product they are using this for is acting just like a real Amiga product and therefore the subjective experience tells the user that it is an Amiga.

Now please stop twisting things around. Everything is relative so you could probably go on twisting for an eternity unless we can atleast agree on some basic definitions such as subjectivity and objectivity. I don't know wether you did it intentionally or not but, it seems that you mixed up the concepts of interpretation and refering to facts. There is no such thing as beeing subjective when you are refering to actual facts. It's only when you move beyond the scope of the facts that you may be accused of beeing subjective. I did no such thing when I defined the word "Amiga" and if you insist that I'm beeing subjective, please point out exactly where I moved beyond the scope of the facts I was refering to.

As for the rest of your post, how about defining all users by what they are using? I may be a bit simplistic and naive here but, what's wrong with calling Amiga product users Amiga users, Genesi product users Genesi/Pegasos/MorphOS users (they really need to work out a common label for their products rather than inventing something entirely different everytime...), Linux users Linux users, Mac users Mac users, etc? I really don't see the problem here...

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

Quote:

I don't know wether you did it intentionally or not but, it seems that you mixed up the concepts of interpretation and refering to facts. There is no such thing as beeing subjective when you are refering to actual facts. It's only when you move beyond the scope of the facts that you may be accused of beeing subjective.

Referring to actual facts in itself does not move one from subjectivity to objectivity. It is a fact that Amiga programs can be run on non-Amiga, Inc.-licensed hardware. A person running, for example, Pagestream (an "AmigaOS application" -- also a "fact" -- it says so on the box, etc.) may refer to himself as an "Amiga user" because he is using the Amiga platform application, even though he is not using the AmigaOS or Amiga hardware. Now, you may not agree with him that he is an "Amiga user" but I think you can see that his claim is just as much "related to facts" as yours is; it's merely a different set of facts. His is no more subjective a definition than yours; he simply has a different reference for verification.

Quote:

Now, take a look at my *objective* definition of the word "Amiga: "Amiga" is a word and like all other words, it's defined by the language and the context using it. In the context of the computer industry, the word "Amiga" is a world-wide registered trademark of Amiga Inc. and only Amiga Inc. decides which computer products that may be associated with it.

Fair enough. But this defines "Amiga" and the association of the name with products. It doesn't define "Amiga user." As my example attempts to illustrate, an "Amiga user" could be defined as a user of Amiga platform applications just as easily as a user of Amiga-brand OS and hardware. It's no more subjective to do so.

I think you are equating "objective" to "externally verifiable". Since there is a legal basis for associating the word "Amiga" with the company by that name and its products, you feel this is an objective definition. Maybe this is where we are having trouble seeing eye to eye. I feel this is merely a legal definition and not a particularly objective one. It simply relies on a different set of subjective associations.Quote:

As for the rest of your post, how about defining all users by what they are using?

That's exactly what I'm already doing; however, my definition includes references to not only the hardware brand and OS vendor, but also their commercial and other software applications, user groups, web sites, and other significant connections.

Quote:

(they really need to work out a common label for their products rather than inventing something entirely different everytime...)

Genesi is the company, Pegasos is the hardware, MorphOS is the operating system. Is it that really difficult? In view of the fact that Genesi is encouraging the development of other OSs on Pegasos (Linux and NetBSD so far, OpenBeOS and others underway), it wouldn't make sense to use one name to describe all aspects.Quote:

I may be a bit simplistic and naive here but, what's wrong with calling Amiga product users Amiga users, Genesi product users Genesi/Pegasos/MorphOS users

Well, you said it already: it is simplistic. The essential point, I think, is that we aren't just one kind of user. These descriptions overlap. When I turn on my Pegasos (well, in a week or two), I can be several kinds of "users" sequentially or at the same time. The hardware brand doesn't necessarily define me. I'm typing this on a Sharp notebook computer. OK, I'm a "Sharp user," but also a Windows user at this moment. When I had my Thinkpad, I was an "IBM user" and a Windows user and a BeOS user and sometimes a Mac(OS) user and an Amiga user, as all those OSs were present and used at one time or another (via runtime environments, etc.). See what I mean? Anyway, I think people will be happy enough being "Pegasos users" or "MorphOS" users if they decide to think of themselves that way. But I think the definition should be self-selected. I'm only arguing about this because I don't like the idea of someone else telling me or other people what or who I am, or someone else trying to define a community that I feel some bonds with, but excluding me from the definition. Ultimately it makes no difference, but at least I want to make it known how I feel about it.

Thanks for the interesting dialog.

-- gary_c