@GregS
Quote:

If the Hyperion contract allows OS4 to be contiunually developed (it may not) then what the hey, OS5 is OS5 and OS4 is OS4. one does not magically disappear once the other comes out, and besides at the point of releasing OS5 it will probably be 90% OS4 recompiled to run on VP.

I seriously doubt it's possible to just "recompile" OS4 to run on a virtual machine. It would actually be a port to another architecture, which is a major piece of work. And anyway even if it were possible, why on earth would you want to run OS5 on top of AmigaAnywhere/DE, on top of another OS? Which host OS will you use? Windows?! Why?! Please tell me, why do you want to do this? Why would anyone want so many layers of software?

Quote:

And again so what, OS4, amigaOS whatever still has a future, which is really the point surely.

Secondly, your assertion that everything will be ok as long as something is called AmigaOS is absolutely barking. Are you interested in what you actually use (i.e. AmigaOS), or what it's called? (wasn't this name obsession the basis of the MOS vs AOS wars?)

These latest clarifications have only confirmed that the AmigaOS technology will continue into OS4.x, which is promising, but still the silence remains about the plans for the AmigaOS technology. Why invest or work with a technology that is little more than a short-term stopgap? Amiga software developers need more than this.

It's no good simply adding the disclaimer "if it sells well" either. Amiga Inc haven't added that disclaimer to their AmigaAnywhere/DE plans. If they were as committed to the future of the AmigaOS technology then why are disclaimers being added here and not for AA/DE)?

..................Garry Hare...................

_________________
On Planet Boing Trevor is God

How does this....

Quote:

@Wiffy Official OS5 has ceased to exist. That is officially there are no plans for it - officially speaking -- So I don't think Garry will say much on this.

.....square with this....

Quote:

I thought this was exactly what I was trying to convey. I have just seen your reference to OS5, which is not so much cheeky but tongue in cheek. Look I am the one who has been saying all along that OS5 is a given because it is a logical step to take, regardless of officially announced plans, plans revoked or plans re-instated. I think yoiu have severely misread what I said.

?????????????????????????????????

Quote:

I have never said anywhere anything at all like this, I have never said anything anywhere against MorphOS.

I never said you did say anything against MorphOS Greg. Read it again, I am talking about your impassioned arguments on the moral and legal stance in response to:

1. Bill Buck using the AmigaDE and AmigaOS logos on Pegasos sale pages.

2. Bill Buck claiming Amiga compatibility ( by claiming that eventually all these will be ported - same page actually )

3. Bill Buck claiming to be able to use the Amiga trademarks.

4. Bill Buck laying claim to AmigaOS in the lawsuit.

5. Bill Buck making a claim after the lawsuit ruling that they had full rights over AmigaOS4

I don't think I am the one misreading anything ( but then I wouldn't ), however it seems to me you are, as well as misremembering what you have already stated and what I was arguing with that you are willing to overlook trademark, versioning and branding issues in one way and not in the other.

Anything that would, in theory, confuse, dilute and cloud the marketplaces understanding of what on earth the relationship between AmigaOS5.0 and AmigaOS4.0 is strategically stupid.

If Amiga Inc come up with an operating system based on Intent ( and as I CLEARLY stated in my previous responses WITH references that I believe they think they will ) to call it Amiga OS 5.0 or Amiga OS anything without any technical compatibility ( and I am not talking about hosting WinUAE ) would be a serious mistake for the reasons I have already argued.

If they continued to allow development of AmigaOS4.x and evolved it then called it Amiga Home OS 4.0 and then created a new OS which is called Amiga Anywhere OS 1.0 then the confusion would be significantly lessened as the two products, from their names, would be evidently different.

I can't help you taking the sleight of hand remark as personally as you clearly want to, but I am sure once you have cooled off and read my response again you will see that you are indeed ( if not with the post I originally replied to certainly the one above where you dissassotiate yourself from your own statements ) muddying the debate.

Perhaps a better way of responding would be to merely respond to my arguments and if you take personal offense at something would be to respond to that in a different section of your reply. In the meantime if we are talking about needlessly offensive posts, then you might want to re-read this one which got more than a few peoples backs up:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11225&forum=14

Was it because of how they read it or because of what you put?

Oh and Greg, I skipped a few of your discussion points that otherwise I would have liked to reply to because smithy already responded in a similar vein to what I would have done. If the argument diverges significantly from what I would have put I will thrust my oar in.

I especially like this statement:

Quote:

Don't panic

Wed

Maybe he's a Douglas Adams fan, but I ask, who is panicking?

Nice one butt this is good news, and a good read

_________________
Dark Lord Design Wicked Solutions For Damned Problems

Quote:

I seriously doubt it's possible to just "recompile" OS4 to run on a virtual machine.

Well first OS4 has been written to be as portable as possible, second I was sloppily meaning that if this inhouse product became something like OS5 the first version would no doubt be 90% of the code from OS4 (at compile time) -- with perhaps 10% from other sources. In otherwards OS4 now running on intent.

Again this is my speculation based on what I am hearing publically said.

The questions you pose are good ones by the way.

1) I want my software/application base in VP because this promises longevity.
2) I want to create my own tasked based environments and the effort means I don't want to lose them because the HW or OS changes (see point 1).
3) I want small tool based technology (see 2).
4) These have been my long term aims before I heard of AmigaIncs revival or Tao (they go back to Clive Sinclair's ideas in the late 1980s).

All of these can be acheived in hosted mode. At first I thought I would have to have a OS to run them, but have since changed my mind, the best fit for me is AA hosted.

However, I think AmigaInc has far more ambitious plans, my observations are not the same as my opinions, but then I am not running anything either. I can see reasons why VP OS might supply a lot of power, personally I am not sure that needs an OS. But if I were choosing an OS for this purpose I would certianly be choosing OS4. This seems toi be the logic behind what was said and the past and whatr Garry is saying now.


1) I assume I do not know all the reasons for needing a VP OS, or the specific markets this could appeal to. (presumption of ignorance is a helpful tool I find).
2) I assume that people in AmigaInc do.
3) I try and make sense of what they do and say on the basis of 1 & 2.

I could wildly speculate the reasons why OS4 rewritten and running within VP might be a killer but I don't known enough to actually argue that. On the other hand it seems to me that AmigaInc has had a consitent direction which seems to include bringing the whole of OS4 into OS5, so I comment to that effect.


Quote:

Why would anyone want so many layers of software?

Maybe it does not work out to that many layers, maybe what you effectively get is a transaltion layer and within that several layers of software abstraction (in a tiny tool setting this becomes a path to the HW rather than something that has to be negiotiated with.

The Amiga Party Pack certianly showed that Intent, despite the on the fly translation gets a lot closer to the HW than MS does, and maybe even linux come to think of it.

Quote:

Secondly, your assertion that everything will be ok as long as something is called AmigaOS is absolutely barking.

Well it would be if that is what I meant. No I ams saying that between OS4 and the possiblity of OS5 there is a lot of complimentary crossover. That geoiven the state of play AmigaOS has a firm future and even AmigaOS-PPC, I don't really care what anything is called.

Quote:

These latest clarifications have only confirmed that the AmigaOS technology will continue into OS4.x, which is promising, but still the silence remains about the plans for the AmigaOS technology. Why invest or work with a technology that is little more than a short-term stopgap? Amiga software developers need more than this.

Why ? because of what you just said OS4.x is safe, safe as houses, and will be around for years. Its great, marveloous thing of an OS, its success will define what else happens -- and you want plans?

Could I also say something about stopgaps. Growing feathers was a stop gap measure against heat loss, but with them birds flew. Insect wings were once a stopgap measure for losing heat, and with them insects flew. Eyes were once simply a means of staying upright and with them a world is seen.

Stopgap measures are fine, as long as they are well made in the first place. Plans are good as far as they go, but they act more as limits than anything else.

What I want was to have direct communication with those making the moves and making the gear (soft and hard), from that I can work out their direction regardless of what they say their plan is. Well communications got well and truely stuffed up in the Amiga comunity so now we pressure people like Garry to give us some tidbits from time to time.

I try and make as much sense of the tidbbits that I can, and that is about it.

As for software developers they need intent and AA more than anything else in the world -- 100% seriously put -- AmigaInc is working towards giving them it, in a form that is useful for applications big and small (forget games think applications).

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@Hare
Thanks so much for this follow up!
I love your sense of humor

_________________
ikir

@wiffy

This got people's backs up? I apologise if it did, it referred to no one in particular, I can't see reason for offence, despite my rather sarcastic style in the post. I did not see many negative comments in that thread last time I looked, but you can't please everyone.

I can't see the contradiction i9n the first two quotes you use? Last I heard when I wrote the first one was all bets off from the interview of 25/march 2004. Hence my belief Garry would not mention it directly. The second quote states I have just seen the picture joke on the Amiga site which mentions OS5, and then go onto to say that despite its official status mI have always thought it was on the books.

Quote:

I never said you did say anything against MorphOS Greg. Read it again, I am talking about your impassioned arguments on the moral and legal stance in response to:

I apologise, the context was a little ambigious but it looked to me that I thought MorphOS was beiong referred to in particular. As for that dreadful court case, my opinion has always been that it was without merit.

I know the judge ruled otherwise, but the proof is I am affriad on my side, as Garry points out - despite "winning" the court battle the spoils were ignored and the whole thing lapsed into nothingness (the IRC interview was the first I heard of the final moments of this).

That is my take on that sorry episode, it need not be anyone elses. I don't care too much about trademarks at any time, and as for BB well it is no secret, I don't respect him or his tactics. I cannot see how any of this reflects on anything said in this thread at all, for the most part my comments on that dreadful law suit were aimed at analysing the arguments and the merits of the case. I said very early on that Amiga Inc should just present the code to Thendic and be done with it (not that the claims had merit, but to end it quickly). In the end it was quite clear that the DE code had nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Anything that would, in theory, confuse, dilute and cloud the marketplaces understanding of what on earth the relationship between AmigaOS5.0 and AmigaOS4.0 is strategically stupid.

OK your opinion but not mine, I have never seen dilution as a problem, I have always for instance recomended that people have a look at Pegasos and Genesi before makinbg up their mind, the general market does not know enough about Amiga to be confused.

Quote:

I can't help you taking the sleight of hand remark as personally as you clearly want to, but I am sure once you have cooled off and read my response again you will see that you are indeed ( if not with the post I originally replied to certainly the one above where you dissassotiate yourself from your own statements ) muddying the debate.

If I have muddied things (which I often do) then I apologise. If I have said something I later find out is untrue, or I have changed my mindf on it I usually also apologise and make the change as public as possible. Otherwise I think you may try and read what you see as not so much a dissassociation but as a qualificationas new information cam to hand.

I still cannot see what you are getting at, perhaps I just merely miswrote, used bad expressions, or a lazy concept. I just don't see the contradiction. I actually believe we are simply arguing at cross purposes, using the same words but different meanings.

I think you may have assumned I take naming conventions, and trademarks more seriously than I do, basically you call it pink elephants for all I care, version 10.09, it just does not matter. OS4 will standout no matter what it is called, same with AA when we really get to see what it does.

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@Wiffy

Well, people seems to have settled now. But before, it was hard to read any post with no trace of panic in them.

I quite simply like that statement though.

@ glokraw

Quote:

Now as for guessing the mystery OS4 device, my guess is a. PPC based 'tivo' type mobo, already used in consumer devices, or b. PPC based server mobo, that is already used in business circles

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you

_________________
Thomas, the kernel guy

"I don't have a frigging clue. I'm norwegian" -- Ole-Egil

All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion Entertainment

Garry Hare rocks!!!

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@GregS

OK this needs to be simplified, otherwise its getting into a he said she said thread and we lose the continuity of the discussion. I'd like, if you will let me, to number the discussion points so we can refer to them, keep the headings if so. Then hopefully eventually I can bring back the MooBunny/Thendick point in a gentler fashion and so get you to understand the point I was trying to make ( if not agree with it ).

1. Whether or not Amiga Inc is doing or intending to do something called AmigaOS5.0

For the reasons I have already stated, I believe they are. Whether this is the same as the AmigaOS5.0 that Fleecy used to talk about or a new AmigaOS5.0 is hardly relevant. The statements I have referred to that lead me to the conclusion that they are intending to do something is what I would have you argue with.

2. What AmigaOS5.0 will be

Assuming that (1) is true, they do seem to be developing some kind of 'internet OS' idea and that, again for the reasons I have already stated, this is unlikely to be an evolution of AmigaOS4.0 and would more likely ( not least pointing to the comment Mr Hare made about removeable media ) to be an evolution of AmigaAnywhere - which is Intent based. As Smithy pointed out this is, regardless of how you look at it, level apon level apon level. The base level being the host operating system and the drivers ( which incidentally supervise the top level multitasking, addressing, allocation and handle the device I/O and this cannot be bypassed by any middleware such as Intent/AA ). The middle level being Intent/AA and the top level being the 'internet operating system' and then on top of THAT ( well actually co-dependent ) you have your apps.

For this to succeed in the marketplace it needs a value add, which we have not seen explained yet. Thats fine, we don't really care about the value add - that can come nearer to release when the marketing campaign starts. What it does show is that it can NOT be AmigaOS4.x based or AmigaOS4.x binary compatible.

The question is, will any AmigaOS4.x technology make it into this new operating system? That covers APIs, concepts, portability and emulation. Although emulation is highly unlikely.

3. Why it is important to know

Because as I pointed out, unless there is a logical progression from one to the next of some form ( if it is called AmigaOSxxxxx that is ) then AmigaOS4 loses some of its momentum, the community kernal that we have now that COULD grow to a critical mass and be the foundations of a much bigger advocacy group, will polarise.

Those that want to stick with AmigaOS4 related direct operating system technologies will be in one group, those that want to embarse the AmigaOSxxxxx indirect operating system technologies will be in another group.

Sales opportunities for AmigaOS4 will be lost, people will assume the worst ( deadending ) and what useful 'community kernal' will be lost.

If AmigaOS4.x is to be allowed to evolve, become multiplatform, or have some kind of evolutionary progress ( the missing link - LOL ) between the actual now and the nebulous future then sales CAN be driven, a link IS established and AmigaOS4.x stays rosily part of the picture, and the future.

So consumer buying decisions are impacted, development houses investment plans are impacted, in effect anyone who has an interest in the platform has an interest in the answer to this question.

If the answer is 'no, its not related, it might host the new mechanism' then fine, at least we know what to expect.

4. Discussions of what it should be called, if anything

Im repeating myself now, but version numbers ARE vital. They don't just imply succession and replacement they identify it.

Minor version numbers are by industry practise identifying modification of a generally similar technology.

Major version numbers are by industry practise identifying major revisions of a technology, it could even be a total replacement with a total breakage of backwards compatibility.

If a total breakdown of backwards compatibility to version 4.x is in order, then investment plans and growth will get shelved for 4.x because those who are making a reasonable investment in the platform will already see the writing on the wall.

Calling it something different still allows for a backwardly compatible version 5.x, or API compatible or whatever. That allows plans to stay open. The uncertainty of what 5.x will be is then fine, people can say 'well it could be pink bananas but they have yet to release 4.1 and 4.2 and at least we have some time to get our oar in to ensure that 5.x doesn't break our balls'.

Im pretty certain I know what the device was.

@GregS and Wiffy

You two seem to be going hammer and tongs here, but it seems to me that niether of you have really looked at all that was said and strung the bits and pieces together very coherently.

I think it is extremely unlikely that there will be any kind of desktop operating system that is based on a VP with an amiga tag on it.
From what has been said, and just as importantly, what has not been said it seems to me that Hyperion have sole ownership and rights to develop and distribute OS4.0 and beyond for as long as they wish until a certain set of circumstances happens at which point Amiga Inc. can then buy OS4.0 from them.
I am pretty sure Amiga Inc. has no rights to any code of OS4.0 except that which they have contributed to it.I am sure there are posts around to back this up, but I can't find them at the moment.
I would not be surprised if Amiga Inc. has comissioned Hyperion to do a port of OS4.0 to a specific device they have in mind.Garry's referance to the current incarnation of AOS4.0 as a "distribution" give me this feeling.Also, the fact that everything is covered by a NDA would explain alot of the tap dancing he has done.
Garry has alos stated that he thinks AOS4.0 should have AA as part of the feature list. I take this to mean that Amiga Inc. WANTS AA to be integrated into AOS4.0, but as they don't own it they cannot force this.I doubt that this will prevent an AA port to AOS4.0 however...
Now it has been said many many times over the past few years that AOS has been re-written in C to make it far more portable to other hardware, and that this porting could be done in months once AOS4.0 was finished.
It also seems that AA has been expanded past what AmigaDE origonally was, and is more than simply a content delivery system, yet plays a crucial role in what AMiga Inc seems to be doing.They have said that THEY are taking care of devices but leaving computers to Eyetech.

The way I see all this working is like this:

Amiga Inc. get a contract to support device X.
They pay Hyperion to do a port of AOS4.0 to that device.
AMiga Inc supplies AA (unless AA is actually integrated into AOS4.0.This would save them some hassle)
That device is now AA enabled.

So what do I think AA is?

I think AA is a content delivery service allowing a developer to write the program once for many differant operating systems and many differant devices.
I also think that AA will provide the capability of any computer on an AA enabled network(be that over the internet, intranet or both) to access that content on any device, no matter where it is stored or what device it is stored on or what operating system is being used.

Just imagine your A1 computer playing a dvd that is in your linuxPPC AA enabled STB, whilst your mobile phone accessed the stored adresses on your A1 and sent an email whilst you watched your cable tv on your PDA across the other side of the city from your house and so on.Imagine having all your information and applications available to you no matter where you were, or what device they were stored on.

This is where I believe Amiga Inc. wants to go.It certainly explains why they want an amiga laptop and multi user support so much.

_________________

@IonMane

Quote:

You two seem to be going hammer and tongs here, but it seems to me that niether of you have really looked at all that was said and strung the bits and pieces together very coherently.

........

Quote:

I think it is extremely unlikely that there will be any kind of desktop operating system that is based on a VP with an amiga tag on it.

Point to me one person that claimed that?

Can I also remark that regardless of what its written in, operating system code is markedly different in its operation and expectations than mere application code.

Quote:

As an aside, the Frieden brothers are very talented and yes I like them. I release them from any confidentiality if they wish to comment on me.

I can say that I can't complain about Garry, either

Quote:

Yes I have OS 4 running on an Amiga and elsewhere (that ought to start a new thread).

I wonder why this didn't happen yet

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

I think it did already, but feel free to start a thread about it.

Questions to put in:

1. Can it be held in the palm of my hand

2. Is it designed by IBM

3. Is it PowerPC compatible

4. When can I have one please

"Robots was good, especially if you are a kid."

And to think Garry entertained 4 Ten year olds
after dealing with at least 15 2 yeary olds for
a couple of hours,,, yeah, your the right guy for
CEO.

The future is thata way. Let's go.

Thanks Garry.