20-Jan-2022 11:33 GMT.
[Web] NCSCAUG Interview with OmniscienceANN.lu
Posted on 07-Nov-2003 19:55 GMT by Tony Gore37 comments
View flat
View list
The NC/SC Amiga User Group presents an interview with developer Jim Wingard of Omniscience. The interview outlines the process of becoming an AmigaDE developer, the software development cycle, as well as his take on AmigaDE in general. Read the full interview ...
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Anonymous07-Nov-2003 19:15 GMT
Comment 2Tony Gore07-Nov-2003 19:28 GMT
Comment 3Tigger07-Nov-2003 21:15 GMT
Comment 4Tony Gore07-Nov-2003 23:08 GMT
Comment 5Tigger08-Nov-2003 00:14 GMT
Comment 6Tony Gore08-Nov-2003 00:34 GMT
Comment 7Tigger08-Nov-2003 05:15 GMT
Comment 8Douglas McLaughlin08-Nov-2003 05:46 GMT
Comment 9Tigger08-Nov-2003 06:13 GMT
Comment 10samface08-Nov-2003 06:49 GMT
Comment 11Kronos08-Nov-2003 07:29 GMT
Comment 12Purist08-Nov-2003 10:35 GMT
Comment 13samface08-Nov-2003 11:04 GMT
Comment 14Kronos08-Nov-2003 11:08 GMT
Comment 15samface08-Nov-2003 11:17 GMT
Comment 16samface08-Nov-2003 11:20 GMT
Comment 17itix08-Nov-2003 11:46 GMT
Comment 18Kronos08-Nov-2003 11:54 GMT
Comment 19Purist08-Nov-2003 12:02 GMT
Comment 20itix08-Nov-2003 12:56 GMT
Comment 21samface08-Nov-2003 13:51 GMT
Comment 22itix08-Nov-2003 14:53 GMT
Comment 23Don CoxRegistered user08-Nov-2003 17:17 GMT
NCSCAUG Interview with Omniscience : Comment 24 of 37ANN.lu
Posted by Purist on 08-Nov-2003 18:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (samface):
>>>>Simple, they have their own agenda to make money and put it in first place.
>>>Congratulations! You just earned yourself a degree in economics.
>>>Seriously, they are a business rather than some form of charity >>organization, >>of course they will do what makes the most business sense! >>What did you >>expect, free beer?
>>>There was no investmente from them that was necessary.
>>So I'd expect them to support the users by letting the 3rd party companies
>>continue AmigaOS, at that time (when they announced AmigaOS dead).
>They didn't expect anyone to be up for such seemingly non-profitable task
>(which would be true for just about any other business out there). However, >once it turned out that they were wrong, they changed their decission pretty >much right away. I'd even say they announced their change of plans a bit >prematurely and should have waited until the deal with the third party was >properly set first.

Again no. they changed plans when they saw that they couldn't have memory protection on TAO's intent.

>>>...However, when several third parties offered to do the work for them, they
>>agreed to license the technology so that third parties could continue the
>>classic line of products while they keep their focus on the next generation
>>No. Please get your facts rigth! That allowed third party developers to
>>continue AmigaOS when they saw that they couldn't modify TAOS' intent to have
>>memory protection. AmigaDe over AmigaOS is supposed to have that.
>>So again, it wasn't "for the users".
>The original plan to write a new OS from scratch to integrate the AmigaDE >technology with has NOT changed. The original AmigaOS will be gradually >replaced, piece by piece, until nothing or very little is left of it....

Yap. And that's exactly my point. They only changed their minds because the thing turned out to be handdy for them nothing more.

>Again, this as a business plan for a hopefully commercially viable product, >not your everyday hack and patch made "for the users" that you find on Aminet.

Hugh?! So you don't think it was possible to mature the OS like what Hyperion are doing right now? Wich will be completely replaced "till there is nothing of it" by the way.

>>> You can whine about this strategy all you want but I don't think you will
>>accomplish anything but look really childish.
>>Childish?!! So you don't think that people that have dedicated so much time >to
>>the platform and see the company screwing it all up because of their own
>>agenda, when they could have simply let other companies continue supporting >it
>>have a right to say something?
>I'm sorry if it disappoints you if they try to turn the Amiga market into a >profitable business again rather than some kind of exotic hobbyist niche >thing.

How could it be profitable if they scared away the major developers there were for AmiagaOS?!
Look at the few remaining quality applications: ImageFx, Pagestream... they have a port to MOS, something wich nobody ever dreamed would happend. This has happend precisely because of the reasons I mentioned. Don't you think that the people that developed that software are not that stupid and must have their reasons? They're precisely what I'm talking about.
Don't you think that people aren't stupid enouph to not distinguish between AmigaOS and some software layer "run everywhere fit everywhere..". I mean, if they were fans of AmigaOS after all these years there must have been some reason. Many people even know the LOV by memory!!
Before you sudden to make conclusions that I'm on the other side, I've switched to Linux in Collas times, but still keep an eye on the news.

>>Don't get me wrong I'm talking about the situation as in 2000 (or close) when
>>they announced AmigaOS dead.
>They never announced it dead, all they said is that they won't pursue the >classic product line since it doesn't make business sense for them. This >remains true as of today.

Bill McEween said it was dead in one of his letters on the main site.

>>They screwed it. AmigaOS developers just got away.
>The results of their strategy still remains to be seen. Don't expect a new OS >to be written from scratch with as limited resources as theirs over just a day >or two, expect it to take several years. In the meantime, their strategy has >been to go ahead and release the AmigaDE as a hosted ontop of other operating >systems solution in order for developers to be able to start developing for >this new future software platform today.

THe DE idea is a damn good one, but it doesn't mean that they had to destroy what was left of AmigaOS (2000) when they announced it dead, to make everyone follow their plan, wich doesn't even allow one to publish software by oneself. Pretty great.

>>There sure was a lack of
>>product responsability too, but had they let 3rd parties continue the OS the
>>the time, I don't think we would be in the situation we are now.
>Their are alot more to the story than you know about. The problem never was >Amiga Inc.'s inability to let a third party take over the development of the >classic product line, the problem was trying to get all the third parties to >cooperate so that the product could be produced and delivered. Negotiations >was in a stand still and nearly dropped entirely when Hyperion finally stepped >in and saved the day, so to speak.

Again, that was AFTER they saw they couldn't integrate memory protection in TAOS Intent.

>>So forgive me if I sound too hash, but the thing is, after what they've done
>>(or didn't), it just seems too much hypocrisy to hear people saying something
>>along the lines of "we're giving AmigaOS back to the users, allowing 3rd
>>parties to continue the OS" or something.
>From a business stand point, I don't think Amiga Inc. care much for the >classic Amiga product line at all and I never claimed otherwise. However, just >like me, they are fond of their history and appreciates the efforts from >Eyetech and Hyperion like the rest of us.

But being so fond of "their" story and appreciating so much the efforts of Hyperion and Eytech, like we all do, why was it only when it was conveninent to them, that they let a 3rd party continue the OS? Don't you think it's too much coincidence?!

>>Companies can do whatever they want to with what they own, but their actions,
>>specially towards customers/users are pretty much the normal relations of
>>normall Joe's. If they screwed you once you shouldn't trust them till they
>>prove the contrary.
>In what way did they "screw" you?
#26 samface
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 25Tigger09-Nov-2003 05:51 GMT
Comment 26samface09-Nov-2003 11:21 GMT
Comment 27samface09-Nov-2003 11:36 GMT
Comment 28samface09-Nov-2003 11:56 GMT
Comment 29Kjetil09-Nov-2003 13:06 GMT
Comment 30samface09-Nov-2003 13:34 GMT
Comment 31Tony Gore09-Nov-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 32itix09-Nov-2003 14:19 GMT
Comment 33Tigger10-Nov-2003 03:37 GMT
Comment 34Purist10-Nov-2003 10:20 GMT
Comment 35Tony Gore10-Nov-2003 11:25 GMT
Comment 36samface10-Nov-2003 12:12 GMT
Comment 37Anonymous13-Nov-2003 19:57 GMT
Back to Top