Quote:

Where did I state that?

In the post I replied to, not in those exact words but you called the entire paragraph which included a fact and your personal interpretation of the motivations behind that as "fact". Just because you do not use "in my opinion" does not mean that something is a fact.

Quote:

Provide me with a different explanation

Why should I? All I am doing is pointing out you are being deliberately inflammatory and trying to call your opinions "facts". If I wanted to get into a debate speculating as to Fleecys motivations for x,y or even z then my opinions wouild be just that - opinions.

Quote:

you can't just say "you're wrong"

You cannot just say "Im right". I am only pointing out to you that your are treating your own opinions - speculation - reasoning - as "fact" and demanding proof by contradiction from anyone else. This is arrogance.

Quote:

Thanks, but a lot of people take me seriously already, and this your "suggestion" only goes to prove how full of yourself you are. I mean, I bet you yourself would find it arrogant generalizing like that, if I had done it.

Im sure some people do. However I said you should not "expect" people to take you seriously if you treat your own opinions as fact and are so cavalier as to demand a prosecutors level of evidence to contradict yourself.

You are on here, doing a j'accuse and providing no evidence to back up your opinions.

Now rather than continue to waste bandwidth, take it to PM with the people concerned.

Quote:

Man walks into an Irish pub. Sayes, "look guys, I want a non emotional response to this." "Irish people are hypocritical ####s! The Irish PM deliberately obfuscates to sound interesting! The Irish should just give up, we did it all in Greece first! The Irish make stupid claims about Greeks!"

1) This is not an Irish pub
2) I haven't used those tones
3) This is an emotional response

Quote:

Note I see no emotional response to you,

Then you should read your own messages

Besides, I just replied to the guy who said I was here to force emotional responses from people, it's not me the one who threw that topic in the discussion, so don't blame me, blame your fellow.

Quote:

just questions as to why you think your posting consituted reasonable behavior.

And I've given plenty of explanations.

Quote:

You are right now way OT, you have failed to substantiate your claims for which you use as a basis to call Fleecy and Amiga Inc hypocrite, you are coming across as arrogant as hell and seem to be angling for moderation -

In what why am I OT? Isn't this a thread about Fleecy's interview? Didn't I post comments exactly about that topic? All I am doing right now is defending myself from your accusation: so am I not allowed to defend myself, because otherwise I will get OT? Please, then don't attack me if you don't want me to defend myself.

Quote:

probably just so you can go and bleat on ANN about how "biased" and "unable to cope with facts" AmigaWorld.net readers are.

Pure conjectures and speculations based on your own prejudices. I find those statements rather offensive, because you are assuming I am a little child seeking for troubles. In other words, you are insulting me. I'm afraid the one needing moderation is not me here.

Quote:

Fabio is doing his best to turn this into an "Amiga Inc evil hypocrits and so is anyone that doesn't choose MorphOS"

Really childish of you, Miffy, putting words im my mouth just to prove your point. You know perfectly well (or at least I hope you do), that that's not my aim. I'm not criticizing who chosed AOS in favour of MOS, I'm criticizing who criticizes MOS for the same reasons for which he/she applauds AOS: that, regardless of AOS/MOS, is an hypocrite behaviour by definition.

If you don't think you're part of that set of people, then you shouldn't feel offended by me, because it's not you whom I'm talking about.

OK, last attempt to get you to see it.

1. Its an analogy, heard of that?
2. Yes you did, first post in this thread.
3. Its an analogy, heard of that?

You went OT in your first post, where you started to drag in items that you claim representatives from Amiga Inc have said ( and you still have not substantiated ) and called them hypocrits.

Quote:

Pure conjectures and speculations based on your own prejudices.

No really? I dread to think what people would think of me if I had not put "probably" before it, they might have thought it was a "FACT".

Yep, it is speculation, based on past experience. Now, you can recognise speculation when others do it - so how about you flip back up and read your comments and provide yourself with the similar analysis and pop back down here when you are doing and maybe you will get my point.

Oh, and check out your first comment again.

OT:

Find another sand box to throw sand in. This one should do well.
Perhaps they'll even let you ruin each others little sand castles.

Moderators: Can't all the OT stuff here be moved to another thread?

/Björn

@ falemagn

Quote:

that's not my aim. I'm not criticizing who chosed AOS in favour on MOS, I'm criticizing who criticizes MOS

AmigaWorld.net is not focussed at MorphOS. If I see 'MOS sucks' threads they will be dealt with as being off topic.

MOS is with regard to this news posting. So please stop it now. Discuss the content of this Fleecy Q&A in context to the actual products the Q&A relates to! No more !

---
[Edit]

@ falemagn

Your posting was removed as you are clearly looking for a fight by calling people to be liars. If you are looking for a fight then please go elsewhere.

If you don't agree with other people's opinions state your point of view calmly without calling people names.

Quote:

Your posting was removed as you are clearly looking for a fight by calling people to be liars. If you are looking for a fight then please turn elsewhere.

You don't even consider the chance that the guy in question IS really a liar, right? He indeed said something about me which is not true: how do you classify that?

Also, I note that accusing me, even implicitely, of being childish and likely of being here just so that I could discredit Amigaworld is not deemed as "looking for a fight", right?

Double standards, as always.

Now, if you're honest, don't remove this post, I promise I won't further reply, but let me at least object to your decision and do so publicly, just like you publicly stated why you removed the post.

OK so according to you I am a liar because I speculate about your motives, yet you provide no "hard evidence" against my speculation on this matter.

See your "double standards"?

You speculate about Fleecys motivation for using buzzwords, you call them hypocrits and fail to provide a factual basis and worse - claim your speculation is fact ( something i did not do in your counter example ) - and then demand hard evidence to contradict your opinion ( that you call a fact ). You call me Childish, then moan that I am implying you are childish. Are there no bounds to your own hypocrisy?

I am sure this will get moderated too, for continuing to be off topic. So I will throw this in, you either have a problem cogitating or understanding the nuances of the English language. I would prefer to believe the latter.

@ falemagn

Quote:

He indeed said something about me which is not true: how do you classify that?

A disagreement of opinion. When reading your comments I got the same impression as him, even if you didn't mean it that way.

Quote:

Also, I note that accusing me, even implicitely, of being childish

Well, you told him that you believed he was being childish. I believe you are being childish and you can reply to say that I am being childish. So? We are all even.

Quote:

Double standards, as always.

IMO not. No more childish flamewars and off topic discussions within this thread. They will ALL get deleted from now on.

End of !

Quote:

IMO not. No more childish flamewars and off topic discussions within this thread. They will ALL get deleted from now on.

Fine, then can someone give me a Buzzworld free overview of how AG2 is going to work, and what we can look forward to.

@drebben

It all seems rather fluffy to me. Fleecy has had concepts in this area for years, even before the current Ainc bought the amiga assets.

The whole idea is a bit of a gamble though. Remove to much of how AmigaOS works today on the interaction level and they risk alienating people. The risk IMHO is that it ends up being a system perfect for your grandma rather than for a professional, like a set top box with a lot och good looking easy to understand buttons to click on totally hiding anything that goes on under the surface. But we'll see when or if it ever materialises.

/Björn

@ drebben

To understand how this should work the following can be derived and quoted from Fleecy's Q&As:

So what is AG1 and what is the AG2 project about?

"AG1 refers to all hardware and software upto the AmigaOS3 family (the last revision being AmigaOS3.9)."

"The AG2 project is about reviewing the AmigaOS in all its domains, both internally and in its external relationships."

"AmigaOS4.0 is the product that begins the transition from Amiga Generation 1 (AG1) to Amiga Generation 2 (AG2)." (i.e. HAL, rewriting OS components in portable C, untying the OS from the classic chipsets, etc.)

The Goal: Easily adaptable for new potential hardware markets and optionally added functionality for device manufacturers. A modular service based architecture which should be easily configurable/scalable from Smartphone to Server. All devices should be able to easily exchange data and take advantage of each other's functionality.

Completely overhauled AG2 modules should gradually get intergrated into AmigaOS and replace AG1 based modules. The first overhauled (For what AG1 parts need to be altered/replaced for realizing the goal stated above are being reviewed) component to be introduced will likely be the audio architecture, similarly 2D/3D graphics, datatypes system, user environment(s), etc should all follow in successive AmigaOS releases.

This entire process should take various OS releases (with release intervals planned of at least 6 months).

"AmigaOS5.0 will mark the first time when there is no more Amiga Generation 1 technology in the AmigaOS." This is planned to be a fully 64-bit OS, before this AmigaOS4.x may be ported to 64-bit processors, but running in 32-bit mode.

As for knowing about the actual 'buzzword' features under development and planned for the various OS components much can be read within the various Fleecy Q&As, interviews, Amiga/CAM articles, etc.

@ Uncharted

Sorry, I had to remove your posting for being off topic. Please read the explanation some postings above.

All child postings in reply were removed as a result as well.

@ falemagn

How many times do I have to warn you to not continue your little flamewar?

@ Drebben

You have been mainly contributing flamebait to AmigaWorld. Please find some other place for flamebaiting.

@Orgin

Much of what Fleecy sayes uses jargon to describe concepts to those initiated into the jargon in the first place. This is a failing of anyone overtly technical.

However, from what I understand, the system he is outlining is higher level and even host independant and concepts that sit on top of it providing source/sink operations ( like the way graphics are handled in Java ) do not have to be related to visualisation on a given device.

There are some other cool bits that I have found out in private conversation with one of the developers, but thats up to them to reveal if they so wish.

I don't see that anyone needs to repackage this as a threat to the all hallowed Amiga API, just an augmentation, and as certain calls get used less in favour of higher level and more service oriented ones, no doubt they will be left to wither and eventually be removed from the codebase.

Its natural evolution of software.

The main reason however that Fleecy fails to be specific is that if he was, he would reveal too much of the design. So what you are left with is a series of building blocks and hints and its up to you to put it together.

@Miffy

It's not so much as the jargon. It's more the way he's using them to express himself and the connection to the earlier 'project' Kosh and what came out of that. My interpretation comes from what I know of the general status of Ainc (Which may be little however). In other words, I don't feel very convinced that they are that deep into implementing this. But as is hinted, there may be more things going on behind the public image and he may not be able to be very clear about it. Orthonogal persistance for user objects and all the bells and wistles he mentions are all interesting topics per se. However very easy to screw up from a user standpoint and it would take a huge lot of user testing iterations to get right. I personally don't see it as _the_ natural evolution, more as one possible evolutional path among others.

All in all, I'm standing in the cautious corner of all this until something more substantial materialises.

/Björn