23-Apr-2024 08:02 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 63 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 63]
[News] comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established?ANN.lu
Posted on 15-Dec-2001 23:53 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselä63 comments
View flat
View list
The first call of votes to establish the comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup is now underway. Read how to vote here.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 1 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by RC on 16-Dec-2001 00:11 GMT
This should really be comp.sys.morphos, comp.os.morphos, or comp.sys.powerpc.morphos. The former two make the most sense, as they allow proper subgroups of the .morphos extension. This is not a flame against the product, but rather just a pointer to the proper function of UseNet newsgroup hierarchy.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 2 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 16-Dec-2001 00:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (RC):
I am not sure about that... As MOS runs so much Amiga apps, it is more amigaish than others..
Maybe it change sometime, but until now it is sure a real Amiga thing, so it make sense to put it after amiga
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 3 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by amigammc on 16-Dec-2001 00:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (RC):
Agreed. Morhphos is not Amiga, it should not be in the ".Amiga" category.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 4 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Troels Ersking on 16-Dec-2001 01:21 GMT
It should be either comp.sys.morphos or comp.os.morphos.
Sure Morphos can run most of the _current_ AmigaOS programs, but no-one knows if it will always be that way and I guess that isn't the primary intention with Morphos.
Morphos is a complete new OS and has nothing to do with AmigaOS, apart from beeing able to run some of the software (so does Amithlon or Uae/under Linux/win/qnx...).
Whats still needed is some Morphos news sites, here are some suggestions: wwww.mnn.lu, www.morphos-news.de, www.morphos.org... Then the Amiga news sites would be worth reading again, especially the comments sections:-)
Best Regards
Troels E
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 5 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Daniel Miller on 16-Dec-2001 01:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Troels Ersking):
Troels Ersking typed:
> whats still needed is some Morphos news sites, here are some
> suggestions: wwww.mnn.lu, www.morphos-news.de, www.morphos.org...
> Then the Amiga news sites would be worth reading again, especially the
> comments sections:-)
Have you entered "www.morphos-news.de" in your browser lately?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 6 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Dec-2001 08:33 GMT
The original linux newsgroup wasn't a subgroup of
comp.os.minix.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 7 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 16-Dec-2001 09:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (amigammc):
Err sorry, but I don`t understand it.. why is MOS not Amiga? only of the missing Amiga Label??
it has Workbench, and all the well known Concepts from AOS. Only the name differs..
So could you give me some good reasons, why MOS is not Amiga? And again, please don`t tell me it has not the same name..
Is your wrangler, Diesel or whatever not also called "jeans"? Even if it is not a Levis?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 8 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 16-Dec-2001 09:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (RC):
I agree, something like comp.sys.morphos.* would be more appropriate.
/Björn
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 9 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by DET Nicolas on 16-Dec-2001 09:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Troels Ersking):
>Morphos is a complete new OS and has nothing to do with AmigaOS, apart from >beeing able to run some of the software (so does Amithlon or Uae/under >Linux/win/qnx...).
UAE and Amitlon are EMULATORS.
MorphOS is an Operating System, with APIs compatible with old AmigaOS 68k and a 68k CPU emulator.
Im my own mind, MorphOS IS the AmigaOS PPC.
It's really different !
bye
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 10 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 16-Dec-2001 10:08 GMT
MorphOS may be Amiga compatible NOW, but it is not meant to be in the future, when the AmigaOS is meant to be redesigned.
The newsgroup hierarchy should have been comp.os.morphos, or comp.sys.morphos.
Those using it on Amigas could then have comp.sys.morphos.amiga if they so choose. If a group called comp.sys.amiga.morphos is created, it should be limited to people running MorphOS on Amigas, and should exclude any discussions regarding Pegasos or any other bPlan systems.
MorphOS is not AmigaOS any more than Linux is Windows.
(This is not an anti-MorphOS view. It is just against those jackasses who want to hijack the Amiga name without paying for it)
MorphOS as MorphOS is a fine OS.
MorphOS as AmigaOS is an impostor.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 11 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Dec-2001 10:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Bill Hoggett):
Legitimate views, but don't you all just find this a bit ironic. Here we have an AmigaOS compatible PowerPC operating system, already released in beta and almost shipping (not just in theory, but the betas make this one so much different from any past attempts). A brand new machine for it is available soon as well, people have already seen it running as far as I know.
Granted, future software for it may not be compatible, but then that was always (or at least has been for a long time) a given. We have to move forward. Finally we have this machine that does all the stuff many of us have dreamed of, runs our old Amiga software and provides a path forward. A complete rewrite offering possibly a clean break, and is already available in beta, not just in the minds of some slick executives and vague announcements.
We have been promised this stuff by many a company since Commodore. We have waited for it, dreamed for it, fought many verbal battles for it. Many companies have died for it. And finally, it is here. Or, had it been called an Amiga, it would be here and we would be drooling over it. But alas, they don't have the trademark and hence for a whole lot of people they mean nothing.
Instead, these people are betting on another company with a very mixed record and no visible proof of shipping anything spectacular anytime soon. But they have something the other people don't, they bought the Amiga name.
I'm not a MorphOS fan nor an Amiga Inc. fan really. At the moment I'm not really interested in either one, but if I'd have to pick one, I'd be more inclined to follow the actions of the latter. My emotions are attached to the Amiga name. But from a technologial and believability standpoint, MorphOS would win any day (for now, at least).
And not only is that ironic in my opinion, it is also sad. We have, I know I have to some extent, become so attached to the Amiga name that some of would go to any length to defend whatever it is that Amiga Inc. does - no matter if it is of any quality or importance, no matter if somebody else is already doing it or does it better... we keep following the Amiga name.
Such is the power of brands. No wonder books like No Logo do so well.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 12 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by suomynonA on 16-Dec-2001 10:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Bill Hoggett):
>MorphOS as AmigaOS is an impostor.
Would that still hold true had Amiga Inc. come to an agreement with the MorphOS team/bPlan?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 13 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Dec-2001 10:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (suomynonA):
Just to clarify, that was exactly my point in comment 11. In a different world MorphOS could very well have been the new AmigaOS and we would all love it for that. Look at AmigaOS 4.0 many people are waiting for over MorphOS. Done by H&P, Hyperion and people like that. Not much involvement from Amiga Inc. (nor do even they have that much to do with the original Amiga in any case)...
Its all about the brand-name. Guess we're more mainstream than we lead ourselves to believe. The sad thing is, Amiga got its name and fame for really being ahead of its time, really being a great machine above the competition. Now it is just about the name, or the legacy, no matter how poor or outdated technology it represents, no matter if somebody does it better...
Hey, as long as it is an Amiga. By name.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 14 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 16-Dec-2001 10:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Troels Ersking):
You haven't ever looked at www.morphos-news.de right? :-)
The comp.sys.morphos <-> comp.sys.amiga.morphos has already been
discussed before the CfV. And the result was comp.sys.amiga.morphos.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 15 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by suomynonA on 16-Dec-2001 10:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Anonymous):
My problem with this is that the current keepers of the name seem to have deprived it of any value it ever had.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 16 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 16-Dec-2001 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (suomynonA):
(Just adding a personal comment here although it was not adressed to me)
>>MorphOS as AmigaOS is an impostor.
>Would that still hold true had Amiga Inc. come to an agreement with the MorphOS team/ bPlan?
Certainly not, but unfortunately they didn't so there we are. With two distinct products and different agendas. It does not matter what merits the two products have, which one is best or which one is first. One is MorphOS and one is AmigaOS. And they are not the same, AmigaOS is not MorphOS and MorphOS is not AmigaOS, compability or not makes no difference. No matter whether people see one or the other as the true follower of the 'classic' AmigaOS the one AmigaInc has contracted out is (Both legaly AND moraly mind you) the only one that can call itself just that. AmigaInc owns the name and there isn't much anyone can do about that other than steal, buy or get the rights to it.
/Björn
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 17 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 16-Dec-2001 13:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (suomynonA):
>> MorphOS as AmigaOS is an impostor.
> Would that still hold true had Amiga Inc. come to an agreement with the
> MorphOS team/bPlan?
Of course not, but they haven't, and from the last words I heard from Fleecy on the subject of bPlan, it's highly unlikely they ever will.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 18 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by suomynonA on 16-Dec-2001 13:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Bill Hoggett):
Thank you, just goes to show how much that label really means.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 19 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Dec-2001 13:43 GMT
I'd vote YES for comp.sys.morphos
I've just voted NO for putting it in the Amiga groups for the Reasons Bill stated above.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 20 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by adam ceremuga on 16-Dec-2001 13:47 GMT
so some ex gateway employees who licenced amiga ip in a dodgy inside deal get to decide what is amiga or not?>
no the community decides..
would you people be so critical if it was comp.sys.amiga.aros?
would you say no it should be comps.sys.aros??
just wondering?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 21 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 16-Dec-2001 14:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Anonymous):
Well if the vote fails then MorphOS will be discussed in
comp.sys.amiga.misc...
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 22 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by anon on 16-Dec-2001 14:18 GMT
this vote is not about where the wannabe protectors of the AmigaOS want to see MorphOS. Its only about if MorphOS content will still discussed inside the Amiga-group or in a mos-group inside amiga.
It makes no sense (and wont have any effect) to try to push MOS-Users out of the Amiga-community.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 23 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by MIKE on 16-Dec-2001 14:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (David Scheibler):
Why vote, I'll just add it into the newsgroup hierarchy, hows that?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 24 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Dagon HELLAS on 16-Dec-2001 16:38 GMT
I don't see any reason why it could't be comp.sys.amiga.morphos
It would be a discussion group for commputers and more precisely for an operating system that runs on Amiga computers (I mean current AmigasPPC and future, seeing that AmigaOS4 will run on Pegasos)
In my eyes MorphOS is an AmigaOSPPC, but when I'll buy Pegasos I'll also buy AmigaOS4.0 (when its released) and then I can compare which is the best for me.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 25 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 16-Dec-2001 18:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Bill Hoggett):
The same istrue for your beloved Amithlon, so...
At least MorphOS may get an OS4 emulation layer
after the OS4 API is done, and OS4 can a MorphOS
emulation layer too... But...both are PPC.... so this
cannot be done with Amithlon... Both AOS4 and MorphOS
can become future oriented solutions... Amithlon cannot...
Except if your side makes a new "OS", incompatible with
ALL PPC apps, and waiting for massive x86 apps to appear...
It's too late for the later... (almost) No commercial company wants
to port anything commercial to Amithlon...
No offence here, just expressing my opinion. Prove me wrong.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 26 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 16-Dec-2001 20:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
First, this is a non-issue. No one has suggested the creation of an comp.sys.amiga.amithlon group, nor is Amithlon an operating system.
As for it being too late for x86? Maybe, but if that is the case IMO it is too late for anything Amiga related to succeed, be it AmigaOS 4.x+ or MorphOS. You may not want to believe it, but a large percentage of people are sick of buying expensive customised low-availability hardware, which is what both the AmigaOne and Pegasos boards will end up being.
This is not relevant here. The only question here is this: Is MorphOS the next official AmigaOS, and will MorphOS be guaranteed to run all future AmigaOS applications. Also, will all future Amiga approved systems, like the AmigaOne, be able to run MorphOS.
If the answer to any of those questions is "no", then MorphOS is an operating system apart, with some compatibility with AmigaOS built in.
As I've said, MorphOS is a good product - even if I don't believe PPC systems have any chance of commercial success - but it is NOT AmigaOS. If Ralph or anyone else wants to claim the Amiga label, they must come up with enough money to buy it. If it isn't worth the price, stop claiming it anyway.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 27 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Chris Young on 16-Dec-2001 20:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (RC):
I agree, and I said it ought to be comp.os.morphos when the RFD was posted.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 28 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Chris Young on 16-Dec-2001 21:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Anonymous):
Well done. Now if everybody who believes morphos does not belong under the comp.sys.amiga hierarchy could do the same, that'd be great. I'm all for comp.os.morphos, but it does not belong under c.s.a for reasons already stated.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 29 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil Hvitmyren on 16-Dec-2001 22:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Chris Young):
comp.sys.windows.wine anyone?
comp.sys.opensource.microsoft?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 30 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by redrumloa on 16-Dec-2001 23:02 GMT
alt.sex.ralphschmidt
comp.sys.amiga.clone.morphos
??
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 31 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by RC on 17-Dec-2001 06:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Bladerunner):
It has nothing to do with a brand name here. It is a totally new modular OS with an Amiga emulation built in. Just as you wouldn't include a version of BeOS or Linux with included Amiga emulation under comp.sys.amiga.beos or comp.sys.amiga.linux. UseNet works with a standardized hierarchy. Listing this under comp.sys.amiga.morphos would pose two problems:
1> No proper subgroups (aka comp.sys.morphos.developers, comp.sys.morphos.announce, &c)
2> Confusion with MorphOS versions that do not include Amiga emulation, which I can safely assume to exist in the near future. Think about it, who would use Amiga emulation to route distributed PowerPC computing networks. The MorphOS kernel is not Amiga anything, at all. Therefore it is a new OS platform, and should deserve a new comp.sys or comp.os newsgroup subheader. \
This is not an AmigaOS vs. MorphOS argument. It shouldn't evolve into one either. I will not partake in such a discussion if it does. This is simply a logical observation about proper UseNet usage. The proper use of a comp.sys.amiga.morphos would be to talk about Amiga compatibility on Morph, but not as the main MorphOS newsgroup.
RC.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 32 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 17-Dec-2001 08:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (RC):
It has completely to do with the brand name! To say it clear, with this argumentation neither MOS nor OS 4.0 will be an Amiga OS!!
The difference between MOS and OS 4.0 ist, Hyperion is allowed to use the original sources, and they have the right to name it Amiga OS!
But as MOS is done by B-Plan and others, OS 4.0 is done by Hyperion and others, NOT Amiga INC!
Beside that, both have a brand new Kernel and technologies to keep the old 68k/PUP/WOS Stuff running.
They are both completely new OS, but only one has the "right" trademark!
So don`t tell me it has nothing to do with the brand name!
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 33 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by CyberZorro on 17-Dec-2001 08:54 GMT
>It has nothing to do with a brand name here.
>It is a totally new modular OS with an Amiga emulation built in.
Where did you get this stuff from??
Go to www.morphos.de => "API compatible PPC reimplementation of the (Amiga) OS"
The only emulator is the 68k emulator just as in OS4, Amithlon, AmigaOSXL, WinUAE.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 34 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Dec-2001 10:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Bladerunner):
There is one very important difference. One, AmigaOS 4.0, is ostensibly contracted by Amiga Inc to Hyperion, whereas the other, MorphOS, is not.
The brand name is important, at at this time MorphOS has no right to it. If, as some claim, the brand name doesn't matter, why are the MorphOS supporters always going on about how it is the "real" AmigaOS, and why does it have to have a limited newsgroup as comp.sys.amiga.morphos when it could have a whole hierarchy as comp.os.morphos.*
This is nothing more than a cheap attempt to claim the Amiga brand name.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 35 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Dec-2001 10:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (CyberZorro):
> The only emulator is the 68k emulator just as in OS4, Amithlon,
> AmigaOSXL, WinUAE.
Actually, AmigaXL and WinUAE (in common with all UAE versions) emulate much more than just the 68k.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 36 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Daniel Miller on 17-Dec-2001 10:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (RC):
RC typed:
> 1> No proper subgroups (aka comp.sys.morphos.developers,
> comp.sys.morphos.announce, &c)
This is a valid observation, but not an issue at this time. We talked about all this before the CFV. The fact is that comps.sys.amiga.morphos is a good choice right now, and in no way rules out future groups in comp.sys.morphos hierarchy. We would just approach that when it becomes appropriate. There are other reasons for this name which were discussed a month ago during the RFD. It's all on the record.
> 2> Confusion with MorphOS versions that do not include Amiga emulation, which > I can safely assume to exist in the near future. Think about it, who would
> use Amiga emulation to route distributed PowerPC computing networks. The
> MorphOS kernel is not Amiga anything, at all. Therefore it is a new OS
> platform, and should deserve a new comp.sys or comp.os newsgroup subheader.
That's right about the kernel. It's Ralph's Quark kernel, if I remember right.
> This is not an AmigaOS vs. MorphOS argument. It shouldn't evolve into one
> either. I will not partake in such a discussion if it does. This is simply a > logical observation about proper UseNet usage. The proper use of a
> comp.sys.amiga.morphos would be to talk about Amiga compatibility on Morph,
That will certainly be a hot discussion topic, maybe the dominant topic. In thinking about proper Usenet hierarchy structure please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Even considering the issues you raise, you admitted that comp.sys.amiga.morphos would indeed have a legitimate use. Please remember to vote.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 37 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Daniel Miller on 17-Dec-2001 11:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Bill Hoggett):
Bill Hoggett typed:
> The brand name is important, at at this time MorphOS has no right to it. If,
MorphOS has its own brand value. It is known as being highly functional, superior to the competition, and also it's unencumbered by any baggage. Being designed to run Amiga software, it does have a connection to that platform,
and placing the NG in the amiga hierarchy increases user-friendliness. People will be able to find the MorphOS group, and it will be in the neighborhood of related groups.
> This is nothing more than a cheap attempt to claim the Amiga brand name.
Absolutely not, in fact when I mentioned the proposal to RS he took a neutral position on it. This is just another cheap flame by you Bill Hoggett. The other day you were calling people "jackasses."
In comp.sys.amiga.morphos charter it specifies that flame wars are inappropriate and need to be taken somewhere else or dropped. We will
*elevate* the discussion!
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 38 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Dec-2001 11:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Daniel Miller):
> That will certainly be a hot discussion topic, maybe the dominant topic.
Unlikely. The vast majority of MorphOS topics right now revolve round what it will do on the Pegasos, and what will be supported there.
> In thinking about proper Usenet hierarchy structure please don't let the
> perfect be the enemy of the good.
Then why not instigate the new hierarchy now?
> Even considering the issues you raise, you admitted that
> comp.sys.amiga.morphos would indeed have a legitimate use.
> Please remember to vote
I agree that there would be a legitimate use for comp.sys.amiga.morphos, but not the one described in its current charter, so my vote was "no".
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 39 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Yoris on 17-Dec-2001 11:16 GMT
Blablablablablablablablabla...
How my God, this is the Amiga now : blablablablabla...
We are "mal barrés de chez mal barrés"
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 40 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 17-Dec-2001 11:45 GMT
Funny :)
Seems the positions are strangely reversed here.
MorphOS supporters seem to prefer comp.sys.amiga.morphos, despite
the emphasis comp.sys.morphos places on morphos being a complete
system, not just some Amiga compatibility kludge.
MorphOS opponents on the other hand seem to prefer comp.sys.morphos
even though comp.sys.amiga.morphos would do much more to remove
annoying (jealousy-inducing?) MorphOS discussions from the other Amiga
newsgroups.
Technically, I think it's clear that the morphos group belongs at
comp.sys.morphos. However, usenet is not just a technical but also a
social thing. Since practically all people discussing MorphOS are
Amigans, it seems very strange to sever the group from the rest of the
Amiga usenet community.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 41 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 17-Dec-2001 12:52 GMT
Whilst I voted for comp.sys.amiga.morphos, I did it to move the discussion from the other Amiga newsgroups. Hopefully when MorphOS improves to being more than a kernel capable of emulating the Amiga API with a 68k emulator, then it will get its own newsgroup in comp.sys.morphos or comp.os.morphos.
I believe that the comp.sys.amiga namespace is really for official Amiga computers, but I agree about the social aspect as well. I would tend to think of Morphos being to Amiga what FreeBSD is to Linux - both can run the others binaries natively, but it isn't what the OS is. AmigaOS is AmigaOS. AROS is AmigaOS. MorphOS can run AmigaOS binaries, but is really a different beast underneath. That is the difference in my view.
How many more votes would comp.sys.morphos have required over comp.sys.amiga.morphos?
There is a place for comp.sys.amiga.morphos, in the same way there is a place for comp.sys.amiga.linux and comp.sys.amiga.netbsd. For the purpose of talking about morphos/linux/netbsd running on Amiga hardware. Where is comp.sys.amiga.amigaos? I feel that now we are differentiating between the hardware and the OS, there should be an amigaos topic as well!
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 42 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 17-Dec-2001 13:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Graham):
>AROS is AmigaOS. MorphOS can run AmigaOS binaries, but is really a different beast underneath
Sorry, but i cannot follow.. what makes Aros an Amiga OS, more than MOS??? sounds really weired, because it has a complettley different sstructure, as it uses x86 native!!
Not to forget, that you need a recompile to run Amiga stuff on it, currently there is no 68k Emu on Aros.
So what makes AROS more AmigaOS tham MOS?? Especially, there is even no official Amiga Label on AROS, like MOS haven`t
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 43 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 17-Dec-2001 13:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Graham):
>Hopefully when MorphOS improves to being more than a kernel capable of emulating the Amiga API
>with a 68k emulator, then it will get its own newsgroup in comp.sys.morphos or comp.os.morphos.
>
I second that - and I voted YES for the time being.
>
>I believe that the comp.sys.amiga namespace is really for official Amiga computers
>
AInc not building their own computers anymore and Pegasos being designed according
to the official Zico specs and supported by the official AmigaOS4 team, makes it a
perfect "official Amiga computer" imho.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 44 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Kleinert on 17-Dec-2001 14:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Johan Rönnblom):
No, technically, it won't be comp.sys.morphos but:
comp.sys.pegasos.morphos
comp.sys.pegasos.linux
comp.sys.pegasos.macos
comp.sys.pegasos.blafooblurb
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 45 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Dec-2001 14:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Andreas Kleinert):
> No, technically, it won't be comp.sys.morphos but:
>
> comp.sys.pegasos.morphos
> comp.sys.pegasos.linux
> comp.sys.pegasos.macos
> comp.sys.pegasos.blafooblurb
Yes, that's why a comp.os.morphos hierarchy would be most appropriate.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 46 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 17-Dec-2001 15:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Bill Hoggett):
Err no.. as the Amiga is also (mostly?) Hardware, and MOS will also run on PPC equipped Amigas,
comp.sys.amiga.MorphOS fits perfect :-)
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 47 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 17-Dec-2001 15:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Bladerunner):
But only for discussion about it running on Amiga hardware, not about it running on Pegasos or any other hardware.
comp.os.morphos.* (The MorphOS hierarchy)
comp.os.morphos.amiga (Running Amiga software on MorphOS)
comp.sys.amiga.morphos (Running MorphOS on Amiga hardware)
It's simple, yet no suitable explanation has been given why this format has been rejected. I remind you that changing the charter of a newsgroup after it has been established is a hellish thing to attempt.
If the above groups were proposed, with the appropriate charters, I'd vote "yes" for every one, including the last. It's much easier to do things right the first time round than it is to fix screwups later on.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 48 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Kleinert on 17-Dec-2001 17:19 GMT
Best would be, to create all these groups.
It's the best guarantee to prevent flamewars and get all-time harmony (i.e. only one person per newsgroup and most developers on a mailing list, anyway ;-)
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 49 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by logain on 17-Dec-2001 20:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Bill Hoggett):
Hey Bill,
what the hell is your point. Its seems you only want to kick and diss people who will go on with MOS (not only in this thread). To build up an own mos-group inside the amiga group is in both parties interest. You (and others) will never hear mos-related content again, which is actually entitled discussed inside amiga ( if this vote fails it still will). MOS-user have an own part where they can feel as Amigans and talk about mostly Amiga-related stuff. Besides this vote is not about where you (and amigainc. believers from the Amiga Inc./AmigaOne message board) want to see MorphOS, its about to find a solution for the different solutions. There might be an Amithlon section (and an AROS already is) as well.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos newsgroup to be established? : Comment 50 of 63ANN.lu
Posted by PaulT on 17-Dec-2001 21:24 GMT
the c.s.a. hierarchy sounds best to me. Who can say that they're interested in MorphOS, who was _not_ previously an Amigan? Unfortunately, hardly anybody, and in fact that something that will have to be fixed before commercial success can be had. In the meantime, MorphOS users will be a subset of former Amiga users, and c.s.a.* seems the right call.
Anonymous, there are 63 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 63]
Back to Top