23-Apr-2024 16:55 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Web] Amiga wants you!ANN.lu
Posted on 15-Jul-2003 12:55 GMT by Lewis Mistreated160 comments
View flat
View list
Amiga Inc. started out a competition giving the chance to graphix artists to see their pics published on the forthcoming AmigaOS 4.0 cd.
Contribute now and let the world know where Eric Schwartz came from! ;-)
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Lando15-Jul-2003 11:22 GMT
Comment 2Waddehaddedudeda15-Jul-2003 11:25 GMT
Comment 3MIKE15-Jul-2003 11:46 GMT
Comment 4Gregg15-Jul-2003 11:49 GMT
Comment 5dammyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 11:53 GMT
Comment 6Emeric SH15-Jul-2003 11:57 GMT
Comment 7derf15-Jul-2003 12:12 GMT
Comment 8derf15-Jul-2003 12:14 GMT
Comment 9corpse15-Jul-2003 12:27 GMT
Comment 10Emeric SH15-Jul-2003 12:30 GMT
Comment 11samface15-Jul-2003 12:49 GMT
Comment 12Emeric SH15-Jul-2003 12:55 GMT
Comment 13samface15-Jul-2003 13:01 GMT
Comment 14MarkTime15-Jul-2003 13:07 GMT
Comment 15MarkTime15-Jul-2003 13:11 GMT
Comment 16Olegil15-Jul-2003 13:22 GMT
Comment 17FuskoSCN15-Jul-2003 13:28 GMT
Comment 18Anonymous15-Jul-2003 13:47 GMT
Comment 19Anonymous15-Jul-2003 13:56 GMT
Comment 20MIKE15-Jul-2003 14:02 GMT
Comment 21JoannaK15-Jul-2003 14:16 GMT
Comment 22Ann Onymus15-Jul-2003 14:52 GMT
Comment 23Emeric SH15-Jul-2003 14:59 GMT
Comment 24Lando15-Jul-2003 14:59 GMT
Comment 25MarkTime15-Jul-2003 15:08 GMT
Comment 26Jeff Martin15-Jul-2003 15:20 GMT
Comment 27Anonymous15-Jul-2003 15:38 GMT
Comment 28dammyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 15:43 GMT
Comment 29Anonymous15-Jul-2003 15:48 GMT
Comment 30Lando15-Jul-2003 15:58 GMT
Comment 31Troels ErskingRegistered user15-Jul-2003 16:07 GMT
Comment 32Emeric SH15-Jul-2003 16:14 GMT
Comment 33Anonymous15-Jul-2003 16:14 GMT
Comment 34Emeric SH15-Jul-2003 16:15 GMT
Comment 35takemehomegrandmaRegistered user15-Jul-2003 16:36 GMT
Comment 36Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 16:38 GMT
Comment 37Anonymous15-Jul-2003 16:48 GMT
Comment 38Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 16:49 GMT
Comment 39Anonymous15-Jul-2003 16:50 GMT
Comment 40Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 16:57 GMT
Comment 41z515-Jul-2003 17:06 GMT
Comment 42Anonymous15-Jul-2003 17:24 GMT
Comment 43Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 17:33 GMT
Comment 44samface15-Jul-2003 17:36 GMT
Comment 45Anonymous15-Jul-2003 17:38 GMT
Comment 46samface15-Jul-2003 17:44 GMT
Comment 47Anonymous15-Jul-2003 17:52 GMT
Comment 48Hiraghm15-Jul-2003 17:52 GMT
Comment 49samface15-Jul-2003 17:53 GMT
Comment 50samface15-Jul-2003 18:17 GMT
Comment 51z515-Jul-2003 18:23 GMT
Comment 52samface15-Jul-2003 18:27 GMT
Comment 53samface15-Jul-2003 18:33 GMT
Comment 54Mark Phillips15-Jul-2003 19:02 GMT
Comment 55smithy15-Jul-2003 19:55 GMT
Comment 56Anonymous15-Jul-2003 20:05 GMT
Comment 57KenHRegistered user15-Jul-2003 20:26 GMT
Comment 58Mickael Cromer15-Jul-2003 20:58 GMT
Comment 59Hagge15-Jul-2003 21:06 GMT
Comment 60Mickael Cromer15-Jul-2003 21:13 GMT
Comment 61Johan Rönnblom15-Jul-2003 21:45 GMT
Comment 62Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 21:47 GMT
Comment 63Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 21:49 GMT
Comment 64KenHRegistered user15-Jul-2003 21:52 GMT
Comment 65Ray A. AkeyRegistered user15-Jul-2003 21:58 GMT
Comment 66Anonymous15-Jul-2003 22:05 GMT
Comment 673seas15-Jul-2003 22:06 GMT
Comment 68Anonymous15-Jul-2003 22:08 GMT
Comment 69Anonymous15-Jul-2003 22:10 GMT
Comment 70Mickael Cromer15-Jul-2003 22:51 GMT
Comment 71KenHRegistered user15-Jul-2003 23:20 GMT
Comment 72Some Farker16-Jul-2003 00:01 GMT
Comment 73Darrin16-Jul-2003 00:55 GMT
Comment 74dammyRegistered user16-Jul-2003 01:34 GMT
Comment 75Ray A. AkeyRegistered user16-Jul-2003 03:03 GMT
Comment 76samface16-Jul-2003 04:33 GMT
Comment 77samface16-Jul-2003 04:48 GMT
Comment 78Olegil16-Jul-2003 04:53 GMT
Comment 79DaveP16-Jul-2003 05:11 GMT
Comment 80RAG16-Jul-2003 06:26 GMT
Comment 81Emeric SH16-Jul-2003 06:40 GMT
Comment 82smp26616-Jul-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 83samface16-Jul-2003 07:44 GMT
Comment 84Emeric SH16-Jul-2003 07:52 GMT
Comment 85Emeric SH16-Jul-2003 07:55 GMT
Comment 86samface16-Jul-2003 08:36 GMT
Comment 87samface16-Jul-2003 08:41 GMT
Comment 88samface16-Jul-2003 08:45 GMT
Comment 89Emeric SH16-Jul-2003 08:55 GMT
Comment 90Lando16-Jul-2003 09:09 GMT
Comment 91samface16-Jul-2003 09:13 GMT
Comment 92samface16-Jul-2003 09:23 GMT
Comment 93Lando16-Jul-2003 09:38 GMT
Comment 94samface16-Jul-2003 09:43 GMT
Comment 95samface16-Jul-2003 10:03 GMT
Comment 96rafo16-Jul-2003 10:14 GMT
Comment 97samface16-Jul-2003 10:28 GMT
Comment 98Jupp316-Jul-2003 10:57 GMT
Comment 99Jupp316-Jul-2003 11:02 GMT
Comment 100Rafo16-Jul-2003 11:07 GMT
Comment 101samface16-Jul-2003 11:20 GMT
Comment 102Anonymous16-Jul-2003 11:42 GMT
Comment 103Bernie MeyerRegistered user16-Jul-2003 11:48 GMT
Comment 104Anonymous16-Jul-2003 11:49 GMT
Comment 105Anonymous16-Jul-2003 11:51 GMT
Comment 106Anonymous16-Jul-2003 11:52 GMT
Comment 107Bernie MeyerRegistered user16-Jul-2003 11:52 GMT
Comment 108Bernie MeyerRegistered user16-Jul-2003 12:23 GMT
Comment 109samface16-Jul-2003 12:30 GMT
Comment 110samface16-Jul-2003 12:32 GMT
Comment 111Bernie MeyerRegistered user16-Jul-2003 12:37 GMT
Comment 112Bernie MeyerRegistered user16-Jul-2003 12:38 GMT
Comment 113dammyRegistered user16-Jul-2003 12:41 GMT
Comment 114dammyRegistered user16-Jul-2003 12:47 GMT
Comment 115Lando16-Jul-2003 12:57 GMT
Comment 116Peter Gordon16-Jul-2003 13:16 GMT
Comment 117samface16-Jul-2003 13:27 GMT
Comment 118Peter Gordon16-Jul-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 119Ketzer16-Jul-2003 13:39 GMT
Comment 120Ketzer16-Jul-2003 13:53 GMT
Comment 121MIKE16-Jul-2003 14:53 GMT
Comment 122William F. Maddock16-Jul-2003 15:15 GMT
Comment 123Leif16-Jul-2003 16:33 GMT
Comment 124Jonny Johansson16-Jul-2003 16:37 GMT
Comment 125Ray A. AkeyRegistered user16-Jul-2003 16:49 GMT
Comment 126KenHRegistered user16-Jul-2003 16:49 GMT
Comment 127Anonymous16-Jul-2003 17:52 GMT
Comment 128smithy16-Jul-2003 18:59 GMT
Comment 129Olegil17-Jul-2003 03:54 GMT
Comment 130Olegil17-Jul-2003 03:57 GMT
Comment 131samface17-Jul-2003 08:41 GMT
Comment 132samface17-Jul-2003 09:00 GMT
Comment 133Anonymous17-Jul-2003 09:57 GMT
Comment 134Peter Gordon17-Jul-2003 10:03 GMT
Comment 135jt6517-Jul-2003 10:39 GMT
Comment 136Ian Shurmer17-Jul-2003 14:26 GMT
Comment 137Ian Shurmer17-Jul-2003 14:42 GMT
Comment 138Jupp317-Jul-2003 16:23 GMT
Comment 139Mr_Bumpy17-Jul-2003 16:59 GMT
Comment 140Anonymous17-Jul-2003 17:35 GMT
Comment 141Ray A. AkeyRegistered user17-Jul-2003 21:17 GMT
Comment 142Reality18-Jul-2003 09:33 GMT
Comment 143tarbos18-Jul-2003 09:37 GMT
Comment 144Anonymous18-Jul-2003 11:11 GMT
Comment 145samface19-Jul-2003 06:06 GMT
Comment 146samface19-Jul-2003 07:57 GMT
Comment 147samface19-Jul-2003 07:58 GMT
Comment 148Anonymous19-Jul-2003 12:09 GMT
Comment 149samface19-Jul-2003 13:04 GMT
Comment 150Anonymous19-Jul-2003 13:48 GMT
Comment 151samface20-Jul-2003 10:49 GMT
Amiga wants you! : Comment 152 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 20-Jul-2003 15:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 151 (samface):
Where do you get your information? The MorphOS project was announced back in 1997.
----
When was MorphOS a via option? Was this not within the past 2 years. Also, the PegasOS board associated with MorphOS was not a viable product until a year ago. PegasOS probably doesn't break any but depending upon the actions of MorphOS they may I've yet to see Amiga Inc. attempt to protect their intellectual property.

What actions have Amiga Inc. taken to stop either one? That's my point Amiga Inc. has the responsibility to defend the Amiga intellectual properties. Amiga Inc. is not free of input into this situation their actions and inactions have led to these problems. I'm not saying they're only at fault but they're definitely not fault free.


AROS project was started as early as 1993,
----
Thanks as I said I didn't recall when it was started.

However, just because something was started prior to Amiga Inc. doesn't mean that Amiga Inc. can't do anything about it. Assuming they own the Amiga name and the intellectual rights associated with the operating system they can still take legal action against AROS and MorphOS. It's Amiga Inc's job to protect their intellectual property.


The decision to license the AmigaOS3.1 for emulation was a good decission because not licensing it wouldn't stop such emulators from existing.
---
I completely agree with you. However, my point was never that it wasn't a good decision. My point was that Amiga Inc. has taken actions and inactions that have allowed the question of what is an Amiga User to come into being. Thus, Amiga Inc. has put their stamp on 2 systems Amiga hardware w/ Amiga OS or PC Clone hardware w/ Amiga Forever w/ Amiga OS. This has helped add to the division of what is an Amiga user. Thus, accordingly you don't have to use Amiga Hardware to be an Amiga User.


As for the Amiga user or not discussion, we need to seperate the terms Amiga users and Amiga community members.
----
Don't know why you're jumping there. Your point was unclear why this supported or did not support what is an Amiga User. An Amiga User is someone that, at least, users Amiga Applications. A member of a community is someone that associates with other groups of people to help promote an idea. Yes, an Amiga User can not be part of the community and a person within the community can not be an Amiga User these 2 ideas aren't linked. However, your statement here doesn't lend itself to the definition of what an Amiga User is. It simply states a Amiga community member doesn't have to be an Amiga User -- Okay I accept that.

My definition of an Amiga user stands.
----
Which appears to be Amiga Hardware w/ Amiga OS w/ Amiga Applications, if I'm wrong then what is your definition? It appears Amiga Inc. has removed the Amiga Hardware equation or perhaps not removed but changed it to 2 types, Amiga Hardware or PC Clone hardware, so as I had said your definition is not the definition used by all users. As some now classify themselves as Amiga Users when they solely use Amiga Applications but don't depend on Amiga Hardware or the Amiga OS.


As for who is a part of the Amiga community or not
---
Not part of the discussion and respectively I'm going to stick to "What is an Amiga User".



BTW, Amiga Inc. isn't the only ones making promises and failing to keep them.
----
I agree quite a few software and hardware companies have done this at various time. My point was Amiga Inc. isn't free of fault as your statements seemed to imply. So, please give Amiga Inc. their share of faults in the problem with what is an Amiga User in 2003.
Jump...
#156 samface
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 153Anonymous21-Jul-2003 16:21 GMT
Comment 154samface22-Jul-2003 11:59 GMT
Comment 155Anonymous22-Jul-2003 12:06 GMT
Comment 156samface22-Jul-2003 12:31 GMT
Comment 157samface22-Jul-2003 12:37 GMT
Comment 158Anonymous22-Jul-2003 13:58 GMT
Comment 159Anonymous22-Jul-2003 14:02 GMT
Comment 160Anonymous22-Jul-2003 14:08 GMT
Back to Top