27-Apr-2024 00:04 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] Amithlon lives on!ANN.lu
Posted on 23-Jun-2002 22:12 GMT by Budda21 comments
View flat
View list
An interesting message lingers at amithlon.net
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Teemu I. Yliselä23-Jun-2002 20:21 GMT
Comment 2Anonymous23-Jun-2002 20:41 GMT
Comment 3coldfire23-Jun-2002 22:19 GMT
Comment 44pLaY23-Jun-2002 22:22 GMT
Comment 5Bill Hoggett23-Jun-2002 22:29 GMT
Comment 6anon24-Jun-2002 02:15 GMT
Comment 7Anonymous24-Jun-2002 03:59 GMT
Comment 8cheese24-Jun-2002 04:04 GMT
Comment 9Seehund24-Jun-2002 09:42 GMT
Comment 10DaveW24-Jun-2002 12:44 GMT
Comment 11Bill Hoggett24-Jun-2002 12:56 GMT
Comment 12Don Cox24-Jun-2002 13:24 GMT
Comment 13Adam Kowalczyk24-Jun-2002 16:36 GMT
Comment 14Mike24-Jun-2002 20:39 GMT
Comment 15DaveW25-Jun-2002 05:35 GMT
Amithlon lives on! : Comment 16 of 21ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 25-Jun-2002 10:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Adam Kowalczyk):
Adam,
> Aren't you the same person petitioning to have OS 4.0 run on as many POP
> platforms as possible.
Yes. Well, I believe that removing the compulsory licensing/bundling/dongling is a prerequisite to make that possible in the first place. Surely you're not disagreeing with that *goal* at least, i.e. having our favourite OS run on as much hardware as possible?
> Licensing agreements are one way to ensure your marketshare and intellectual
> property are protected.
Yes, if it's your marketshare and your IP. For Amiga Inc., hardware belongs in neither category. Amiga Inc. doesn't have anything to do with hardware, remember? Amiga Inc's marketshare is to be cut out from the OS market. How does one ensure the biggest possible marketshare by artificially limiting what hardware one's OS is allowed to run on?
> It's odd seeing the words like "competition" coming out of your keyboard
> since it's obvious you'd like to see the playing field levelled by having OS
> 4.0 run on the Pegasos.
I'm not following your reasoning here. OS4+ is Amiga Inc's product (well, it's based on their IP anyway), hardware is not.
What does me saying that Amiga Inc. should make AmigaOS an attractive (==competitive) product have to do with what you're writing?
There's no playing field to be levelled, because Amiga Inc. is not on the hardware playing field, at least they don't belong there. Right now it's like if Amiga Inc. has placed its entire paycheck on a bet with impossible odds in a game and now it's sitting in the audience, shouting its advice to the coaches and players on that playing field, confident that someone will heed it and this will make the bet a winning one. (And I and the petitioners are standing outside the arena, shouting that Amiga Inc. should retract the bet before the game has started and go back to work... ;) )
To me it seems like you're looking at a commodity like hardware as something that is somehow inseparably connected to Amiga Inc. and its software product, that Amiga Inc. has anything to do with funding or development of hardware and that hardware thus has to be "protected" by Amiga Inc. If that was the case I could very well understand your point. If you really think this is the case there's not much more to discuss, we just have to agree to disagree.
Jump...
#18 Adam Kowalczyk
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 17Seehund25-Jun-2002 10:49 GMT
Comment 18Adam Kowalczyk25-Jun-2002 12:29 GMT
Comment 19DaveW25-Jun-2002 13:05 GMT
Comment 20Adam Kowalczyk25-Jun-2002 13:45 GMT
Comment 21Adam Kowalczyk25-Jun-2002 13:48 GMT
Back to Top