28-Mar-2024 10:03 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 103 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 103]
[News] Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversyANN.lu
Posted on 16-Nov-2000 13:41 GMT by Christian Kemp103 comments
View flat
View list
Elbox responds to attacks on its latest graphics card drivers. Read more below.
  1. The latest Elbox driver for the Voodoo3 chipset is a proprietary and independent software solution written by Elbox programmers, without any support or help on part of any outside team of programmers, developers or companies.
  2. All legal rights for the Voodoo3 driver are property of Elbox Computer company. Actually, P96 authors did not acquire rights for this software (although our driver provides added value to P96, no doubt). We are open to further negotiations.
  3. The Voodoo3 ver. 1.0 driver (available now for MEDIATOR PCI registered users) is 100% compatible with the P96 graphic system.
  4. Elbox does not distribute P96 software, which is available from other sources, e.g. from Amiga OS 3.5 CD-ROMs.
  5. P96 is shareware, paid by the users. Elbox provides expanded capacities for P96 and as for now does not want to be paid for it from P96 authors (the Voodoo3 driver is free for registered users of MEDIATOR PCI).
  6. Development of Elbox Voodoo3 drivers will be continued and updated and they will be made compatible with OTHER graphic systems, too.
  7. If the P96 authors team decide to try to make efforts to block MEDIATOR operation with future P96 graphic system releases (strange enough, as Elbox drivers indirectly helps P96 authors in their own business…), Elbox will provide a completely NEW, modern and expandable graphic system (soon…).
  8. Drivers for other graphic chipsets are under development now and will be provided by Elbox.
  9. Support for all the drivers written by Elbox team of programmers IS and will be provided by Elbox Computer.
  10. Every user of MEDIATOR, who wants to use any graphic card based around a chipset supported by Elbox, will be free to choose which graphic system to use… and then pay the appropriate shareware fee if this is P96.
FOR EVERY 'BAD NEWS' WE HAVE TEN GOOD NEWS.
Mariusz Wloczysiak
ELBOX COMPUTER, Press Department
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 1 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Richard Brooklyn on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Nice too see that Elbox don't just take things lying down :-)
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 2 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Wonderful. First Elbox are unwilling to pay VFD for making money from
their product CyberGraphics. Then DCE are willing to pay VFD. Then
Amiga users rage at DCE for this shameful deed of supporting Amiga
developers, and at VFD for wanting to get paid for their work.
Now Elbox turns to P96. Again, they are not willing to pay the P96
team for making money off their work. Again, Amiga users rage at
the software developers for wanting to get paid for their work.
I just have one thing to say for Elbox. Either CGX and P96 are quality
developments which can enhance the value of the Mediator and make
Elbox money. Then they should pay the authors of this software since
they are making money from their work. Or CGX and P96 are not worth
paying for, and then Elbox shouldn't try to make money from these
products by attempting to get a "free ride".
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 3 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by bbuilder on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I think VFD guys were not fair toward Elbox. (it seems they turned their back to Elbox, without any reason)
I regret that I've paid for CGX V4.
P96 vs Elbox -issue:
I think it is completely different kind of issue.
Elbox has handled it a little bit worse than than the CGX -issue.
And P96 authors seem to be exaggerating, considering that Elbox might help blowing some life to the "dead" P96 driver.
Hopefully P96 people and Elbox can sort things out (10DM per lisence, perhaps).
If not, then I wish Elbox all the best on their task of building a new GFX system for Amiga.
(The brilliant idea of one GFX system for all GFX cards was doomed anyway, people get too greedy when they've got a monopoly, even Amigans) :()
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 4 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by m0ns00n on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (bbuilder):
The P96 system runs much better on my system than CGX, and I have gad a good time using it. Now, I've been using P96 without paying for some time. Shame on me. I will pay the fee soon, I promise! But listen. If I buy the mediator with a Voodoo card, I will definately buy P96, as it gives me great value since it is the only current system "supporting" this "new" card (in terms of Amiga hw). What is all this fuzz about. Don't you guys (developers) have phones!? Talk it over and let us know. It seems that it is only the developers who don't see the Amiga community as a "family" - vaguely related, but still.
What is this pay-pay-pay attitude? Is this all about money!? I _know_ you've done alot of work, but hey! Does the Voodoo drive steal money? Does it reduce profit in the long term? NO! And please, what about Halvardijan, the author of Perfect Paint. He's doing his app free of charge, and a Voodoo driver would boost the apps' functionality - which also goes for other freeware developers using P96. All this money crap really gets to me.
Can't ppl just be kind to each others? And rainbows and flowers and all that ****.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 5 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by m0ns00n on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Sorry, I hope you get the idea somewhere between the lines. I used to be a freeware games author some while ago... I just feel sad that these ppl argue so much about money. I really don't believe that P96 is the sole income source for the P96 developers, and still they make so much fuzz. We should be celebrating the mediator board, and still ppl complain. (!!) - What is this!? Perhaps we should call 3Dfx and let them claim some money too then :o( They would sell some more boards due to the mediator, but they would "loose money" (haha) on possible Amiga drivers.
Continuing - was P96 waiting for Elbox to pay them to make a driver for them? They should be paying Elbox themselves! Where is the logic MAN!?
Again.... I'm getting carried away, but these stupid debates are tiresome.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 6 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (m0ns00n):
I'm in full agreement.
It really seems that the P96 authors want Elbox to do all the work on new drivers and then PAY P96 for the right to do it- AND THEN make even more money when the development of the drivers leads to more registration of P96.
While it seems that guys like Ralph Schmidt, Frank Mariak, and maybe the P96 crew continue to live in the software writer's fantasy world- in which they write a program several years ago and continue to get paid forever for it by people who actually update it to make it more useful- I suggest that the history of computing is littered with the corpses of people who have hoped for just that. The fact is, the Picasso 96 authors hadn't done jack with P96 in a year, and then they want to get paid because someone else comes along and actually makes it useful again. My, an argument Bill Gates would be proud of!
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 7 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Oh, so software developers don't need to be paid?
Why pay hardware developers, then? Why can't the hardware designers,
manufacturing people, postal office, silicon miners etc work for free
just like the software developers are supposed to?
Well.. actually I wouldn't complain.. but imposing this new order on
software developers ONLY is clearly not fair. It's great to see that
some people are willing, and can afford, to work for free, but we can
hardly expect this. And especially, we shouldn't complain when someone
is NOT willing to work for free. Maybe Marcel Beck and Georges
Halvadjian could complain, but for most of us.. no I don't think so.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 8 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Johan Rönnblom):
Johan,
No, I don't think sw developers should work for free, but my point is that, in this case, the P96 developers actually AREN'T DOING ANY MORE WORK. All of the development work is done by Elbox. Add to that that P96 developers WILL GET PAID as more people register their P96. Hence, they are doing no additional work, but getting paid an additional amount :)
I don't begrudge them at all that users should pay to use P96, but I think it's very short sighted of them to expect Elbox to pay for the right to improve and make sellable their product.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 9 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by m0ns00n on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Mike, this is what I'm talking about ;o) Couldn't say it simpler myself.
.
Anyhow. Let's wait for the developers to have a say. I feel a bit guilty of spreading my subjective initial feeling all over the board. This needs some clarification.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 10 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Phil. on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I think that writing a driver for P96 without talking about it to the P96 programmers first is very unprofessional (and kinda rude :-)...
Imagine that the guys who make the Aminet CD's just take a freeware like PerfectPaint and sell it with their new Aminet CD-set without asking the PPaint programmer first...Wouldn't be really fair, would it ?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 11 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bernd Meyer on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Mike):
So far, I have not seen any statement from anyone connected to the P96 effort to the effect that they want to get *paid*. What they said, in private email, was that they will not support Elbox' driver, nor will they consider compatibility with it a design requirement for future versions of P96.
Maybe they want to get paid, maybe they don't. But so far, all they have stated is that they want people to abide by their published licence terms, and that anybody who doesn't cannot expect favours. That sounds more than reasonable to me. It's their code, and they can put any conditions they want on it.
The game of Rugby was born when in a soccer match, one of the players, William Webb Ellis, picked up the ball with his hands and carried it into the other team's goal. While eventually a new sport resulted, he still violated the accepted rules of the game he was supposedly playing. It is reasonable to assume that the other players either drove him off the pitch, or simply went home, disgusted at what had been done to their game.
Elbox violated the rules, too. They might end up writing the third large RTG system, but for the time being, they have to live with the other players either excluding them from the game, or cancelling the game altogether. They certainly can't expect all other players to enthusiastically follow their lead.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 12 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Mike):
Doesn't it occur to you that the reason little work is done on p96
(and cgx for that matter) may have something to do with low incomes?
If Elbox seriously thought they had a good idea for a deal with the
p96 team, why didn't they send them an email and ask about it? After
the debacle about CGX, don't you think they should have learned that
it's best to talk to the people whose products you want to earn money
from?
That there has been little work done (or released) on p96 for some
time should of course reflect the content of any license between Elbox
and the p96 team, but it doesn't mean Elbox can just ignore getting a
license!
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 13 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Bernd Meyer):
Bernd,
I agree that what Elbox has done is rude if they have in fact not contacted the P96 authors and tried to work with them. The situation sucks. That being said, I think the P96 authors would be calling for some payment, since their licensing agreement mentions it:
"Licensing
Companies that want to sell graphics cards or other products with Picasso96 as the core driver system must license Picasso96 from:
Kneer & Abt GbR.
Masurenweg 6a
D-89233 Neu-Ulm
Germany
The licence fees are based on the complexity of the product and the number of units sold. We request about 3 to 5 per cent of the retail price with a minimum of about DM 10. "
http://www.picasso96.cogito.de/
Of course, the above seems to imply that the P96 authors would be writing the driver themselves, but it's unclear. If they expect to get paid an additional amount (not talking about registration fees, obviously :) just to let someone else improve their product though, it's a fairly Microsoft-ian way to do business. Guess we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out.
I for one will go on record as saying that I don't use P96 now, but if they do support the Elbox products, I'll go buy it and use it.
Mike
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 14 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Johan Rönnblom):
Johan,
/***********************
Doesn't it occur to you that the reason little work is done on p96
(and cgx for that matter) may have something to do with low incomes?
***********************/
Yeah, but I think it's also due to the fact it's a pretty mature product. What new work needs to be done? Basically, just the card driver, done by Elbox.
/**********************************************
If Elbox seriously thought they had a good idea for a deal with the
p96 team, why didn't they send them an email and ask about it? After
the debacle about CGX, don't you think they should have learned that
it's best to talk to the people whose products you want to earn money
from?
***********************************************/
A very valid set of points. I really don't mean to sound like a toady for Elbox, because I think they've totally mishandled the situation. Yet, at the heart of the matter, I think they're right :\ I'm just going to hold my nose and try to remember that point.
/*********************************************************************
That there has been little work done (or released) on p96 for some
time should of course reflect the content of any license between Elbox
and the p96 team, but it doesn't mean Elbox can just ignore getting a
license!
*********************************************************************/
I agree in principle, but the license seems to be exceedingly stupid and wrong headed. I think Elbox is handling it exceedingly stupidly too, but at the basic level, their solutions looks to me like this:
"We write the drivers and you do nothing, and then the users have a good driver and P96 guys get more money from registration"
whereas the P96 guy's solution seems to be:
"You write the drivers and we do nothing, and then you pay us and the users will pay us too for having a good driver"
Given that the behavior of both groups is poor, I'd rather go with the first of those options.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 15 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Mike):
I agree demands from the p96 people should be reasonable. But when
Elbox suggest that the p96 people really ought to pay Elbox for this,
I can understand if there is some frustration.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 16 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Mike):
*** I agree that what Elbox has done is rude if they have in fact not contacted the P96 authors and tried to work with them. The situation sucks. That being said, I think the P96 authors would be calling for some payment, since their licensing agreement mentions it:
"Licensing
Companies that want to sell graphics cards or other products with Picasso96 as the core driver system must license Picasso96 from:
Kneer & Abt GbR.
Masurenweg 6a
D-89233 Neu-Ulm
Germany ***
As far as Elbox are concerned, this doesn't apply as they are not selling "graphics cards or other products with P96 as the core driver system". They are simply selling the Mediator which allows various "user-picked" graphics cards (and other things) to be added, and have simply supplied a driver which an Amiga user can either choose to use or ignore. If an Amiga user decides to buy a Voodoo3 card, decides to use the P96 software and install it on his system then the USER has to pay the licensing fee. You don't NEED to use the Mediator with a Voodoo card (Or any graphics card come to that - Some people might be happy with AGA and a flicker fixer/scan doubler!!!), so P96 is certainly not the "core" of the Mediator. The only fair thing for Elbox to do is state clearly that P96 is shareware and encourage people to send off the registration fee IF they use it.
One more mountain being made out of a molehill :)
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 17 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Rafo on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Phil.):
It's not comparable.
The Elbox/P96 situation wouls better be : selling a great plugin for PerfectPaint without telling the PerfectPaint Author.
BUT, if this leads to more usage of PerfectPaint, would the author complain about this ?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 18 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Ben on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Elbox have written a driver and are giving it away free to users.
Someone please point to the harm that does to P96 authors - maybe they were planning to sell their own version?
Bah! This sucks. Anyone want to buy an A4000 in a Tower and an A1200...
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 19 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Johan Rönnblom):
Actually, Elbox sent a decent machine to Mariak, so he haven't/wouldn't work for nothing. Besides, Elbox itself developed the driver, not the P96 team. Just it compatible with P96 (though will be also compatible with CGX later, according to them). P96 team's benefit is new registrations. OK, sadly only in theory in for some degree... :(
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 20 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Darrin):
"to sell graphics cards or other products with Picasso96 as the core driver system"
Yeah, they don't want to sell any graphics cards...
Though, they could check with P96 team...
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 21 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Ben):
Well, Elbox very likely used the Picasso Team's code to write the driver for one. For two, the P96 team will likely get some blame if Elbox's drivers turn out to be shoddy. For three, how many people out there actually register P96?
If I were the P96 people, I'd go about things differently, but Elbox has been so arrogant towards them that it really would take an act of great kindness on the part of the P96 people towards Amiga users to overlook Elbox's behavior and support the Mediator.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 22 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Those who think Elbox have done nothing to harm p96 haven't understood
what has funded development of p96. It has not been funded as a
shareware package, even though it is also available as such. It has
been funded by licenses from hardware manufacturers. I think it's fair
to say it's not likely to be seriously developed again in the future
unless such a license is agreed upon. Now, what hardware company can
afford to pay licenses to the software makers, if other hardware
companies don't? If they do, Elbox are getting a free ride. If they
don't, we won't see much development being made.
Elbox have not added value to p96. If they insist, they have set a
precedent which has rendered p96 almost without value.
The argument that Elbox don't have to pay because technically they are
not selling the p96 drivers might possibly hold in a court, but
certainly doesn't hold morally. What if every hardware maker acted
that way? I mean, you can use a PicassoIV without the drivers for it
too.. as a doorstop perhaps. If some people get a Mediator only for
sound and network cards, then Elbox should use this argument to get a
lower license cost.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 23 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I just read P96 ppl would ask 3-5% royality after pieces sold, probably in case they themself wrote the driver. While Elbox wrote the driver, they took use of the possibility brought by P96. So, they (Elbox and P96 ppl) could/should have reached an aggreement of about lets say 1% royality... That's not as much.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 24 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Troels Ersking on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
This case just proves how un-professional most (not all though!) Amiga companies are... Elbox could have asked the P96 guys for permission to write this Vodoo driver for their system (even if it MIGHT be legal), it couldn't be that hard to phone, fax or email them?
I think that if Elbox had contacted the P96 guys it would have been simple to work something out....here's why:
As there haven't been much (none?)developement on P96 in the last year or two I believe the P96 guys would have been more than happy that someone would create a demand for their product which has almost died and probably only sells a VERY few copies a month.
The price for registrering P96 is around 25-30DEM (=10$)let's say Elbox sells around 2000 pcs. of the Mediator and half of these are used with a Vodoo card....even that would create a rather large income (for NO work by P96)... 30.000DEM is ok for no work, and I gúess it would have been if Elbox had asked (btw. I think the mediator will sell even more if this will work out in some waymore money for p96).
Thanks to Elbox for (actually making) the great hardware and P96 crew for the software, now get to that phone and contact each other before this goes totally out of control. Good luck to all Amiga companies.....we know you need it.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 25 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by victor # on 15-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (victor #):
Well, to comment on myself, even 1% of nothing is nothing. Because Elbox charges nothing on their driver... So, it's not commercial, neither this is directly for the Mediator itself. (Though, parts of the driver is probably Mediator-specific.)
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 26 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by szutoman on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Dammit, can not Amiga people and companies unit one another and stop this fighting and such.... God, when will it ever end.. I am so sick of everyone fighting and comlaining that I am about ready to just cry)-: If I was at Amiga Inc. and had to decide who I as a company would consider to be a serious partner in any kinda effort, It sure as hell would not be any of the companies being discussed in this thread nor the people fighting about such things. This is division and partisian behavior. Once the New Amiga One comes out all of these arguments will be pointless and mute, and thank God for that!!! I'm sick of it. It is time to get New companies with NEW people with NEW Ideas and put to rest the Classic Amiga once and for all!!! This, In my opion, would be healthy and grand and a good start; moreover, Bla Bla Bla.
szutoman
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 27 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
And this is why I left the Amiga community. Legions of bickering children dragging it down. The V3 drivers provide a somewaht modern video solution and the P96 wankers want to drag them down, for what? To make sure you continue to be stuck with overpriced ViRGE and permeida2 doorstops?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 28 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I saw someone suggenstion the elbox ask PERMISSION to write video drivers for the V3 on P96? Does 3DFX ask PERMISSION to wirte Linux or Winblows drivers? No. The idea that a hardware vendor should need permission to write drivers for a certain grpahics APIs is laughable. The P96 people are behaving like AMATURES, like most of the remaining Amiga dev community. GROW UP. Hopefully the Amiga Inc guys can bring in a new era of Amiga computing and these amatures will fade away.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 29 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bernd Meyer on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Anonymous):
>>>Does 3DFX ask PERMISSION to wirte Linux or
Winblows drivers? No. The idea that a hardware vendor should need
permission to write drivers for a certain grpahics APIs is laughable.<<<
Companies don't need to ask permission to write Linux drivers. They *do*, however, have to play by the rules. Drivers are not stand-alone products, they are intimately interwoven with the framework they are based on. In Linux case, that's either the kernel or the X-Server; Both are explicitly licensed in a way that allows binary-only drivers to be developed and distributed. At least as far as the kernel is concerned, this has been a topic of discussion for a long time, and no matter what opinions they hold, just about everybody seems to agree that the kernel team *could* have chosen to extend the GPL to 3rd party driver code that interfaces with it.
However, regardless of the legal standings --- it's just plain disrespectful and rude to do what Elbox has done.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 30 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andrzej J. Debicki on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
This the real "first of all". Elbox didn't say they wrote
Picasso96 driver!!! They have written driver which is 100%
Picasso96 compatible. So, what they should to pay for?
"Second of all". Elbox don't want to distribute registered
Picasso96 package with their Mediator board. They only provide
free driver and end user should purchase full package. This is
free advert for Picasso Team. And they (P96 Team) want to be
pauid by Elbox? Am I stupid or them?
I use CGX because of BVisionPPC. Now, after what they treated
Elbox I regreat this. Now, Picasso Team shows they want to earn
not their money - ridiculous. So I wish Elbox to develop own RTG
system and we'll se if any other systems will survive. Look, is
there any other PCI board? NO! phase5 promised G3, now DCE (post
phase5) promise PCI. Eyetech will do AmigaOne first than their
PCI. The only choice is Elbox's Mediator which uoy can buy and
use NOW.
I thing the situation is based on jealousy. Other see: We are
dead, why Elbox don't? Lets do them dead.
But Elbox is the one who not lied us with their promises. And
this is the main point why they are strong. And. like they say:
FOR EVERY 'BAD NEWS' THEY HAVE TEN GOOD NEWS
Long live Elbox!
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 31 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andrzej J. Debicki on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Darrin):
And this is the opinion I missed in my comment :-). Elbox
distribute Mediator - PCI board. Is Picasso96 core for PCI
boards? NO! So why they should pay Picasso96 guys? What for?
For their own work?
<JOKE>
Maybe Picasso96 should contact 3Dfx and demant them to pay
licence? ;-))) 3Dfx makes graphics cards at last. So do
nVidia and STB and Diamond. There are so many gfx boards
manufacturers which shoud pay for Picasso96 licence.
</JOKE>
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 32 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andrzej J. Debicki on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Johan Rönnblom):
/*********************
Those who think Elbox have done nothing to harm p96 haven't understood
what has funded development of p96. It has not been funded as a
shareware package, even though it is also available as such. It has
been funded by licenses from hardware manufacturers.
**********************/
So, you want Elbox to pay licence. OK. And because of that you want
me to pay for Picasso96 (licence price WILL be included in retail
price of Mediator then) when I only use network card and soundcard
as PCI devices? come on, grow up. Elbox is not making gfx cards!
And Picasso96 is for gfx cards ONLY - where is connection? Nowhere!
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 33 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by KiRhann on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Johan Rönnblom):
"I agree demands from the p96 people should be reasonable. But when
Elbox suggest that the p96 people really ought to pay Elbox for this,
I can understand if there is some frustration."
And where in the press release did it state that Elbox were pursuing the P96 ppl for payment? In fact the press release stated that the Voodoo 3 driver for the Mediator will be free to registered users of the bus-board.
Please get your facts right and stop Trolling!
___________
David A Cox - Bog Standard Amiga user - since 1989
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 34 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Phill Wooller on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Elbox could have probably handled this a bit better ( although you never know they may have tried to talk to p96 authors... ).
But the licensing on p96 just has too many holes in it now. It was fine when you had to design & build an amiga graphics card, but with pci it doesn't hold water. It's been looming for quite a while now ( micronik showed a "working" pci board over two years ago ) & they should have updated the license to cover this. If there is a license & someone adheres to it then you can't just throw the morality card in.
I seem to remember that there was a p96 sdk available for a fee, which elbox would probably be required by law to pay for. In some countries you are allowed to reverse engineer a product to produce a compatible product if that is the only way you could do it. As there are different laws in different countries it complicates matters ( it may also affect whether you can export to a different country with a different law ). The bottom line is this shouldn't be a public issue.
Now if you run winuae + p96 on a pc, who pays the additional license fee? The pc manufacturer? I doubt we'll get the same problem with network & sound cards.
Phill
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 35 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Johan Rönnblom):
Hi!
Actually the P96 people - AFAIK - made an offer at the start, also wanting
to discuss the price. They never got a reply even. AFAIK there is another
offer on the table now, to clear up the situation. It is Elbox turn to react.
Steffen
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 36 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Troels Ersking):
Hi!
The offer the P96 team was suggesting was MUCH MUCH MUCH lower
than those 30000 you mention (assuming also a much lower number of
Mediators to be sold, though). The problem was that Elbox did never
reply to the offer.
Steffen
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 37 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Steffen Haeuser on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Andrzej J. Debicki):
Hi!
From the structure the Driver is appearently a P96 Driver (which pops up the
question where Elbox got the information from to write one, without breaking
copyright, this information is only available against NDA and licensing).
About you wishing Elbox to do an own Driver - this has one big problem. Lowlevel
things like Warp3D and direct Shapeshifter Drivers currently rely on the internal
workings of either P96 or CGX. As I am not the author I cannot tell, if there
is a risk involved that Warp3D might not run on a theoretical new system,
but I think the risk calculated in money is probably a higher price than
the price of the P96 license fee... of course it is possible that it would
run fine, if the internal workings of the new system is close enough to P96
and CGX... but you cannot be sure.
Steffen
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 38 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
Sometimes I think.. "who the hell to they think they are? Who think they can do everything exactly the way they want to?" .. Elbox.. they seem so damn stubbern in situations like this.. "Make our own gfx-system".. that's the stupidest thing I've heard.. except for this: "For every 'BAD NEWS' we have 10 GOOD NEWS" etc..
We are Amiga-users, not silly Word-users. I still hope there's a difference.
At least Eyetech and DCE tried to do something GOOD by doing that Voodoo-driver-deal. But Elbox, Nooo, they can't to anything like that! If I'm buying more Elbox-stuff I want to be respected as a user.. Now it seems like Elbox thinks that the users will go the elbox-way WHATEVER they do in the future. I'm not.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 39 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Olivier Fabre on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
This situation really sucks.
To me it looks like the Voodoo3/Mediator issue is not covered by the P96 license (plus I saw nothing about this license in the P96 2.0 package -I'm *not* talking about the WEB page-).
But my opinion is probably not worth much since I do not know whether this license is legal/applying to Elbox stuff, nor whether Elbox was aware of this license or not, nor if the parties involved where friendly or aggressive from the start, nor whatever else might be related.
But THE FACT is that I WANT BETTER HARDWARE ! So if that means Elbox must pay, say, 1% of the Mediator retail price to the P96 team, then, Elbox, JUST DO IT and simply increase the Mediator retail price by 1% !
Of course this should have been done privately in the first place because now, some users will scream that they do not plan to use P96 with a graphic board on their Mediator. Perhaps P96 could acquire the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to make drivers for graphic cards on the Mediator so that users wanting to use a PCI graphic board would NEED P96... (oh, but would that mean P96 should pay Elbox ? I am confused now) :-|
Anyway I hear that Elbox did not contact H&P for WarpUp/OS to run on the SharkPPC.. Do they plan to make another PPC kernel ? I don't think that making another RTG system, then another PPC kernel, while noone is buying Mediators because of this fuss, is realistic... (We don't need another kernel anyway :-() So Elbox probably should start to talk more with their (potential) partners..
(did I write something constructive ? Oh, never mind.....)
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 40 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bill on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Olivier Fabre):
you wrote----->
But THE FACT is that I WANT BETTER HARDWARE ! So if that means Elbox must pay, say, 1% of the Mediator retail price to the P96 team, then, Elbox, JUST DO IT and simply increase the Mediator retail price by 1% !
<-----
Okay, why should Elbox pay any money at all off each sale of a mediator to the P96 people? Voodoo has nothing to do with the mediator. It's an addon card. If you don't want Voodoo, you can use Virge. Elbox makes neither. They don't make any money off the sale of any graphics cards. The driver is free to those registered mediator users who wish to use a Voodoo card with their mediator. You are not paying for the Voodoo driver. Therefore it is shareware. Therefore P96 team cannot ask for any money according to their own license agreement. The only thing they can do is whine and bitch about it and scream bloody murder and say that they will not support such a driver.
------>
Anyway I hear that Elbox did not contact H&P for WarpUp/OS to run on the SharkPPC.. Do they plan to make another PPC kernel ? I don't think that making another RTG system, then another PPC kernel, while noone is buying Mediators because of this fuss, is realistic... (We don't need another kernel anyway :-() So Elbox probably should start to talk more with their (potential) partners..
<-------
That doesn't make sense. I wonder how big an effort it would be to do such a thing, and the compatability nightmares people are going to experience.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 41 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Andrea Maniero on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I think that Elbox should pay a 3-5% royalty only in the case that they have permission to include the FULL distribution of p96, and even better if their board was to be directly supported by the p96 team. That would be a good agreement, as it would ad value to both 'packages'. Otherwise, there isn't much to say about a company that supports its own product, and in the meantime increases the teorical user base of another product...
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 42 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Olivier Fabre on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Bill):
> Voodoo has nothing to do with the mediator. It's an
> addon card. If you don't want Voodoo, you can use Virge.
Hence my "point" about releasing only P96 drivers for graphic cards running on the Mediator... I *suppose* the large majority of people buying a Mediator want to get a better graphic card, so making everybody pay for a P96 license would be fair in that case. (I mentionned this as a joke, but perhaps it could be done after all)
> The driver is free to those registered mediator users who wish to use
> a Voodoo card with their mediator. You are not paying for the Voodoo
> driver.
You are paying for the Voodoo3 P96 driver, since it is being sent only to registered Mediator owners.
> Therefore it is shareware.
Did you mean freeware ?
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 43 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Olivier Fabre):
Emmm registration is free....
You actually just send an email to elbox and they send you the drivers.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 44 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Trizt on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Olivier Fabre):
I haven't read the licens for P96, but IMHO Elbox has done it quite right, they have
made a driver which works with P96, they aren't chareging anything for it, they haven't
included any P96 in their software. I would consider this quite eaqual to that you
make a small program for the Amiga and release it for free, no way that you would
pay licens money to Amiga for that.
One reason why Elbox haven't talk with H&P is maybe that they will go for MorphOS
instead, which really gives a better PPC environment than an addon kernel for
PPC. At the moment I think that MorphOS seems to be the best solution for PPC
powered classic Amigas.
Even if I haven't bought any Elbox hardware, I must say they have done a good job
even if I sometimes think theoy should have done a little more with the Mediator
board. I hope that Elbox could release a little bit more information about what
they will do in the future than they have already done, and I hope that they
will join MorphOS family, for then I will concider to invest in the mediator/sharc
combo.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 45 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Trizt):
MorphOS= Ralph Schmidt + Frank Mariak and a few other guys.
Ralph Schmidt doesn't like the Mediator right now but I HOPE
he supports the SharkPPC IF possible because this would give
MorphOS a bigger user base and will make all the users happy,
both Mediator and G-Rex ones.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 46 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bill on 16-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Olivier Fabre):
You wrote --------->
You are paying for the Voodoo3 P96 driver, since it is being sent only to registered Mediator owners.
<----------
It's a voodoo 3 driver for a voodoo card on a mediator board. It probably wouldn't work on a predator, for example.
You are not paying for the Voodoo3 P96 driver. Elbox are sending it out *no charge* to those ppl with mediator boards who wish to use a Voodoo 3 on it. You pay money for the mediator board, not for the voodoo driver. Elbox have the right to distribute their software drivers any way they wish.
The mediator costs, what ~$150 USD. What does the voodoo driver cost? A trip to the keyboard to register your mediator with Elbox?
> Therefore it is shareware.
Did you mean freeware ?
Sorta. Costs nothing to mediator owners, but they are not allowed to redistribute it freely. I don't know what that would fall under.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 47 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Olivier Fabre on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Bill):
> You are not paying for the Voodoo3 P96 driver.
> Elbox are sending it out *no charge* to those
> ppl with mediator boards who wish to use a Voodoo
> 3 on it. You pay money for the mediator board,
> not for the voodoo driver.
This is simple enough : You *must* *pay* (a mediator) to get the voodoo3 driver. This driver is *not* free.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 48 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bill on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Olivier Fabre):
You are paying for the friggin mediator. Let me ask you: Wtf good is the Voodoo driver without the mediator busboard to plug the Voodoo into???
Why aren't Elbox allowed to distribute *their* driver in the fashion they wish? Just because they limit the people who can get their hands on the driver, it doesn't mean that those people are paying for the driver. Say you wrote a piece of code, but you limited the audience that you distributed it to, you should be allowed to do so. They wrote the code, they have control over the code. They are not charging for the driver, but they are only giving that driver to those mediator owners who want it. Just because they haven't put that driver up on aminet shouldn't mean they have to negotiate with P96 folk for licensing fees. According to the p96 license, what Elbox did is totally okay. People shouldn't expect support from p96 people if they use the Elbox driver though.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 49 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by Bernd Meyer on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Bill):
>>> You are paying for the friggin mediator. Let me ask you: Wtf good is
the Voodoo driver without the mediator busboard to plug the Voodoo
into??? <<<
Potentially a whole lot of good. I can't speak for the V3 driver, obviously, but the Virge driver doesn't actually use very many Mediator-specific functions. In fact, it only uses two functions from the pci.library, no more.
It was not really all that hard to come up with an independent implementation of those two functions, which interfaces to the PC PCI bus on a machine running UAE. And voila --- the emulated Amiga suddenly has a Virge card being driven by the CGX Virge driver.
The same would almost certainly be possible with the V3 driver. But it can't be done, because the driver is not freely available. If it was, I could download it and make it work. As it is, the driver certainly isn't free.
Elbox responds to Picasso96 controversy : Comment 50 of 103ANN.lu
Posted by ShadesOfGrey on 17-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Elbox has decided that they are going to capitalize on the work of others and wrote a P96 compatible driver. The response of the P96 developers is that that's fine by them, but they're not responsible for the driver's compatibility in future revisions... Unless Elbox is willing to pay them 3-5% of every Mediator purchased, regardless of whether Mediator users use the busboards to add a graphics card.
One way or another people are going to purchase PCI busboards, whether it be from DCE, Elbox, Eyetech, or the presently vaporous Fastech. One way or another people will obtain drivers for the PCI peripherals plugged into these boards. One way or the other, more poeple will leave the Amiga _hardware_ platform in disgust because of all the petty bickering...
Personally I am looking forward to Eyetech's AmigaOne 4000 (if they add support for atleast one Zorro/Video slot) or Fastech's PPC/ColdFire/PCI solution (if it ever solidifies). I think those two projects, along with AI's Amiga DE (as long as it supports the 'Classic' apps) are the most forward looking. I sincerely hope to be one of the last people to actually abandon Amiga _hardware_.
Unfotunately, this latest feud puts quite a damper on my optimism.
Anonymous, there are 103 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 103]
Back to Top