@ gary_c

Quote:

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.

The only way to make an objective definition of an "Amiga user" is by looking at both words and their meaning.

1) The English definition of the word "user" would be: "someone who uses a product, machine or service"
2) And "Amiga" (taking out of account the non-computing related Spanish meaning): "Brandname for a family of personal computers and operating systems."

Now if we put 1 and 2 together => The objective definition of an "Amiga user" would be: Someone who uses an Amiga branded personal computer or operating system.

A "classic-Amiga-application-user", thus isn't by objective definition per se an "Amiga user". Just like a "Sony TV user", isn't per se a "Philips TV user" just because the TV includes components which could also be used for a Philips television set. Pagestream isn't an Amiga, nor are any other applications or games which also run with Amiga solutions.

Similarly a "Linux user", using Wine as a Windows-applications-compatibility-layer, isn't by objective definition per se a "Microsoft Windows user".

To use the most literal, restrictive definition possible, you are correct. (I'll leave aside the argument of subjective vs. objective here, as it is too abstract to be useful.) But the real world is not so cut-and-dried. As a practical matter, terms such as "Amiga user," "Amigan," "Amiga platform," and "Amiga community" have taken on meanings that are not necessarily consistent with the almost legalistic definition that you described. In practice, if you surveyed those involved, the people themselves, you would probably find that a looser definition is more popular.

I think as the MorphOS/Pegasos market and userbase matures, there will be less identification with the Amiga roots, but in the transition time, there is still a certain amount of self-definition as "Amigan" even though the connection is (merely) running AmigaOS executables, frequenting nominally "Amiga" web forums, user groups, using "made for Amiga" hardware (that also runs on a Pegasos, such as the PCI Catweasel) and so on. But in time this identity will probably fade as it is replaced by a new one based on the emerging hardware and software.

The difference in our case and that of the Windows/Linux-Wine case is the fact that there are strong bonds connecting people with the legacy here. Many people don't particularly think, for example, that Genesi is any less entitled to a claim to the "Amiga legacy" than Hyperion is, believing that things like coders' backgrounds, software implementation, userbases and so on account for more than superficial IP purchases and licensing. None of this complicated interconnectedness exists in the case of Windows-Linux/Wine, so the comparison is not helpful.

I appreciate your argument, but at bottom it remains a personal choice, with no "right" or "wrong." "Subjective" vs. "objective" is an interesting philosophical discussion, but as a practical matter, people will think of things how they please, based on their own reasoning. As with all things in a heterogeneous world, the key to getting along is accepting the fact that each of us does have his/her own way of thinking about all of this.

-- gary_c

@ gary_c

Quote:

As with all things in a heterogeneous world, the key to getting along is accepting the fact that each of us does have his/her own way of thinking about all of this.

Agreed => subjectivity => Influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than solely based on facts.

That's why we don't allow name calling and obvious trolling at AmigaWorld. Repect for eachother's opinion is a very important pillar for this website, just as well as to focus on providing a service targeted at Amiga users and products.

@Gary_C

Thats one of the best reasoned posts Ive seen in a long time.

I would just like to chip in here & say thanks to gary_c & MikeB for conducting a lengthy, potentially heated, discussion without decending into name-calling & general small-mindedness.

I've been getting fed-up with the constant flaming, abuse and in-fighting at amiga.org, which is why I've started to read this site.

The only problem I found was that there was almost no-one from the MOs/Peg camp here to put forward opposite sides of the argument!

So many thanks again to you both.

Martyn.

ps Please agree to disagree - many people call an 'Amiga User' and the 'Amiga Community' many different things. I have my own opinions. It's different to both of yours .

@ Martyn

To quote myself from a recent AmigaWorld forum discussion:

Quote:

My advise would be, to keep discussions clean from personally aimed insults/ridiculing, name calling and expressions of hatred. Alot of people could learn from gary_c, who despite differences of opinion words his criticism well and politely, unlike many essentially similar minded trolls. IMO such people as gary_c are a joy to discuss with and talk to. Keep your criticism constructive and reasonable.

@ gary_c

For me it's a joy having you here. People like you cause interesting and constructive discussions.

If this discussion could be compared to a football match, the match was at least interesting to follow combined with fair play, regardless of who scored more goals through the eyes of individuals based on their personal beliefs or feelings.

[Edited 27-04-2003]

I always considered gary_c a rational well versed MOS supporter, but now it's clear to me that his personal interests far outweigh his reasoning, considering the level of defence he puts up for the wrongs BB does.

Quote:

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.

/me hymns: "Wooohoo, let's twist again..."

Seriously, that's like saying that you are a pedestrian just because you use shoe polish. If I use shoe polish, I'm a shoe polisher, period. If I want to be a pedestrian, I'll have to start walking first. The same thing goes for beeing an Amiga user. I have to use an Amiga in order to be an Amiga user. What I'm trying to say here is; even though you pointed at a fact, it wasn't relevant to the case nor did it prove your hypothesis. You see, it's a fact that an Amiga application does NOT equal an Amiga. For example, would you hand over an Amiga *application* to the customer asking to buy an Amiga? It is true that many Amiga applications can be run on non-amiga hardware. However, jumping to the conclusion that it makes the user an Amiga user is going beyond the facts and making it an interpretation based on the subjective experience of the user. That's what differs my objective defintition from his subjective interpretation.

Objectivity lesson #2: It is objective when you're simply refering to facts. However, as soon as you go beyond reference and make your own conclusions, wether based on facts or not, that is beeing subjective.

Now, let's take a quick look at the facts again:

Fact #1: "A person using an Amiga" is the definition of the term "Amiga user".

Fact #2: An Amiga compatible application does not equal an Amiga.

Fact #3: "A person using Amiga applications" is NOT the definition of the term "Amiga user".

That's pure and simple facts and has *nothing* to do with my personal interpretations since they are externally verifiable. An objective point of view, so to speak.

As for the different usages of the term "Amiga user", none of it matters since that's a matter of people's own subjective interpretation of the term rather than an objective definition. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with having your own subjective point of view, all I'm doing is pointing out that it is subjective. Sure, there are alot of arguments for all those different interpretations and many of them sounds reasonable. However, in the end, that's all they are. We would have to have some kind of physical evidence in order to refer to any of those interpretations as objective.

Anyway, I don't think any of the above is a problem for you to understand. It seems more like you want to "degrade" my objective definition to the level of a subjective one. For example:

Quote:

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.

Let's take a look at the definition of "objective" again. Dictionary.com will give you many different definitions based on different contexts. However, I do believe this one applies to our case:

"Emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation".

You see, in order to emphasize or percieve something without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation, it must be externally verifiable. If you cannot externally verify it, it only exists in theory. If you emphasize or percieve something that only exists in theory, then it's only your own subjective point of view rather than an objective definition.

The law has as one of it's main purposes to be as objective as possible, leaving room for as little interpretation as possible. Of course it can never achieve this as long as we have human judges, lawyers, attorneys, etc. However, just because a court of law may make subjective interpretations, does that neccessarily mean the law itself is subjective? Nope. The law is an object, it's verifiable, and it's not a fiction of my mind. In other words, it's an object and refering to it would be an objective thing to do (as long as you stick to only refering rather than trying to make your own interpretations).

Now, the Amiga brand has many different meanings for many different people, but there is one thing they have in common; they all have the very same origin. Regardless of what your current interpretation of the word Amiga is, nobody wouldn't even have an interpretation of it if it wasn't for the existence of the Amiga brand (except for the spanish speaking parts of the world, of course). It was a company that through legal means gave a meaning to this word and if it wasn't for this company, there simply wouldn't be any other interpretation of the word besides spanish for female friend. So, what we have here is a trademark which many people associates with alot of different things, especially fond memories and similar subjective experiences. However, none of those subjective interpretations changes the *fact* that it is a trademark which only the trademark owner may decide the definition of. That is not my personal opinion but a fact, ok?

Please note that I haven't yet told you at all what *my* personal definition of the term "Amiga user" is yet. My own opinion has intentionally been completely left out in this discussion. Despite this, you accuse me of beeing subjective, as in defining things out of my own subjective point of view. When doing something like this, you should really *know* what you're talking about since *nobody* knows my personal opinions better than me. There are two possibilities here for who is right and who is wrong, the only one knowing this for sure would be me, while all you can do is guess. Think about it for a moment.

Quote:

Thanks for the interesting dialog.

Well thank you too. It's not everyday I find such intelligent opponents in Amiga forums these days. Keep those alternative theories coming!

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

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

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

Quote:

To use the most literal, restrictive definition possible, you are correct. (I'll leave aside the argument of subjective vs. objective here, as it is too abstract to be useful.) But the real world is not so cut-and-dried.

I never argued against that. I even dare saying that *everyone* has their own subjective view of what the term Amiga means, including myself. All I ever said was that we should keep in mind that these individual views are subjective and that many of them doesn't comply with actual facts.

Quote:

As a practical matter, terms such as "Amiga user," "Amigan," "Amiga platform," and "Amiga community" have taken on meanings that are not necessarily consistent with the almost legalistic definition that you described. In practice, if you surveyed those involved, the people themselves, you would probably find that a looser definition is more popular.

I don't doubt that at all. However, since we're talking about a registered trademark here, it's really not up to us to define the word to begin with. We will of course always have the ability to have our own subjective view, noone can ever take that right away from us. However, while we may have whatever subjective views about it as we like, we will still not be able to *define* the word in any way we want. There already is a legitimate definition and you simply cannot change it in order to make it suit your own subjective view better.

Please note, all I'm opposing here is those trying to redefine the word "Amiga" rather than everyone with a subjective view on it. There is a difference between saying "a cup of tea means warmth and relaxation to me" and "tea is everything you can pour into a cup", if you know what I mean.

Quote:

I think as the MorphOS/Pegasos market and userbase matures, there will be less identification with the Amiga roots, but in the transition time, there is still a certain amount of self-definition as "Amigan" even though the connection is (merely) running AmigaOS executables, frequenting nominally "Amiga" web forums, user groups, using "made for Amiga" hardware (that also runs on a Pegasos, such as the PCI Catweasel) and so on. But in time this identity will probably fade as it is replaced by a new one based on the emerging hardware and software.

I agree. Though, I would prefer a faster transition since the entire community as a whole seems to be screaming in pain from internal dichotomy, kind of like a pregnant woman going into labour.

Quote:

The difference in our case and that of the Windows/Linux-Wine case is the fact that there are strong bonds connecting people with the legacy here. Many people don't particularly think, for example, that Genesi is any less entitled to a claim to the "Amiga legacy" than Hyperion is, believing that things like coders' backgrounds, software implementation, userbases and so on account for more than superficial IP purchases and licensing. None of this complicated interconnectedness exists in the case of Windows-Linux/Wine, so the comparison is not helpful.

My personal preference when it comes to the different alternatives of the former uniformed Amiga market is not based on any ownership of any IP. To me, it's all about which I determine to be the most viable path forwards. For quite obvious reasons, owning the original brand gives you quite an advantage in this area. There are alot more former Amiga users (as in potential customers outside today's minimalistic Amiga market) than there are still active and up to date Amiga users that are aware of these new alternatives. When it comes to things like coders' backgrounds, software implementation, userbases and so on, I'd say there are many of those in all of our alternatives, not just AmigaOS4 and MorphOS. AROS, for example, is a pure Amiga community product, if I may say so. However, it's also a perfect example that this simply doesn't cut it in order to make a commercially viable product.

Quote:

I appreciate your argument, but at bottom it remains a personal choice, with no "right" or "wrong." "Subjective" vs. "objective" is an interesting philosophical discussion, but as a practical matter, people will think of things how they please, based on their own reasoning. As with all things in a heterogeneous world, the key to getting along is accepting the fact that each of us does have his/her own way of thinking about all of this.

Of course. This is pretty much what I was saying too, you know. I mean, seperating subjective views from objective defintitions. I do believe sorting things like this out does lead to better understanding, it's "just" a matter of sorting it out first.

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

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

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

A firm brand identity would be great - it gives people something to latch onto.

If the machine comes in the standard PC cases, nobody will notice. If it has something unique, people will point and say "whassat?" at which point you can launch into a spot of Amiga evangelism

_________________
Folding@Home Team AmigaWorld no: 33424

@unclecurio:

Exactly. Furthermore, a firm brand identity would not just be beneficial for the trademark owner but everything related to it as well. I even dare saying that Genesi would benefit from a strong Amiga brand. You see, since they are not just any alternative computer but an Amiga alternative, every market conquest of Amiga would be an increased marketing potential for Genesi as well.

It's seems to be a common misconseption among Amiga Inc. critics that it's all about Amiga Inc. and their IP when it's actually relevant to us all, regardless of the Amiga alternative we prefer.

Sorry, I'm going to stop my rather lengthy rantings now. Gotta get some sleep.

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

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

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

I agree that well kown brandnames/logos combined with positive associations are very important to companies, just like "Coca Cola" would be to soft drink producers or "Nintendo" to a games developing company.

Of course the rest of the Amiga IP, including AmigaOS source code and licenses to all Amiga-related patents are also very important. IMO Amiga deserves credit for being able to raise millions for acquiring these assets and working together with excellent partners to make a new Amiga possible today.

And in other news ... its my birthday today


Happy birthday to me !!

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************