[Files] Amiga Exec 1.2 disassembled and commented | ANN.lu |
Posted on 22-Jul-2003 23:24 GMT by Hagge | 56 comments View flat View list |
followed a link from a link from a ... and found this.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Amiga Exec 1.2 disassembled and commented : Comment 50 of 56 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Joe "Floid" Kanowitz on 24-Jul-2003 01:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 38 (Anonymous): > The accusation I heard Amiga Inc make against MorphOS was that they used code
> directly lifted from Amiga sources. If they really had proof of this one might
> believe they had a valid case, but AFAIK no one outside Amiga Inc or the
> MorphOS team has seen the code in question, so the authenticity of the claim
> must be in some doubt.
Does anyone really know? Remember, the MOS team initially wanted to ship an Amithlon-esque product; Quark and the ABox would clone major APIs, but you were still to provide your own Workbench. The accusations of code-stealing have done the rounds of the mailing lists, but AInc. seemed most concerned of the 'incitement to piracy' -- encouraging users to copy 3.x to an unsanctioned platform smelled like a bad idea for them, and probably for the industry as a whole. It's not clear to me what complaints were ever filed; if there's one thing we can learn from this, it's that the WA court system is fairly obscure with their records.
In any case, whatever people thought then, H&P seem to have emerged as the real "bandits," letting AInc. churn -- concerned about protecting 3.5/3.9 for the benefit of both parties (and running up associated legal bills?), on up to the 'screw you' gesture of refusing to pay their Kickstart licenses; like it or not, AInc. seems to hold that IP, and it *was* an enabling basis for the AmigaOS XL package. Unfortunately, the immaturity of everyone involved (sorry, Bernie, that whole 'girlfriend on the mailing list' fiasco just came off pathetic for both sides) makes it hard to tell the real jerks from the "good guys" prone to off days.
As insane as it all is... Would MorphOS even look like a "platform" now if you needed 3.x to run it? Would the QBox/native mode be further along? While nothing would justify frivolous litigation (of which both "sides" seem fond), they've certainly shaped the mess of emulations and pipe dreams into something resembling an "industry."
To the 'red' team -- 4.0 looks like it'll be beautiful, even if it's taken an age to get there... and despite the many permutations, it's been fairly easy to track a sense of what to expect. Ray, man, we've had our differences, you know *I'm* perfectly capable of shooting my mouth off without thinking, but I don't profess to represent a company; with 4 so close, what the world needs now is professionalism, not bluster, and if you do wield the stick, why not shoot lines straight to Christian and the author of the page before stirring up the hornets' nests? Moo Bunny is one thing; there's moderation here, if you know where to look. ;)
And to the 'blue' team -- c'mon, guys, I'm trying to respect the hard work *you've* been putting in, but despite all the chances to make it Harder, Better, Stronger and Faster, you seem to want to slip by playing the compatibility card. C'mon, wow me with some QBox features before DragonFly does! |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|