19-Apr-2024 15:13 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 32 items in your selection
[News] comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31ANN.lu
Posted on 21-Dec-2001 10:44 GMT by Christian Kemp32 comments
View flat
View list
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31. Beside the obvious reasons why and why not this group should be created, or if it would have been better to have comp.sys.morphos.* or any other of the possible alternatives, I think it's interesting to see who voted "Yes" or "No": Alan Buxey, Andreas Kleinert, Daithi O'Cuinn, Randy Vice, David Scheibler, Kermit Woodall, Ralph Schmidt, Paul Burkey and many others voted "Yes", Bill Hoggett, Conor Kerr, Dave Haynie, Wayne Hunt and considerably less others voted "No". [Note: These were completely deliberate and sometimes random choices, copied over because their name rang a bell, not necessarily because of some ulterior motive that I might or might not see behind their vote]
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 1 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 21-Dec-2001 12:08 GMT
In my country it's illegal to dispose who voted what. On ANN it's news. What happened to the friendly and united Amiga community that I used to know? It's really sad, you know...
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 2 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 21-Dec-2001 12:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Samface):
Read the rules in which way a newsgroup has to be created. It has
nothing todo with ann.lu, you can read all names in the RESULT:
posting.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 3 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 21-Dec-2001 13:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (David Scheibler):
Maybe it's too hard to click on a link ? :-)
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 4 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Dec-2001 13:12 GMT
Samface: It's got nothing to do with your country. This isn't an
election. Everybody who voted were informed that their votes were
public.
In my opinion, that is a necessary precaution in this type of vote.
Anonymous "polls" are so open for fakery that they should not be used
for anything of any importance.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 5 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Frank on 21-Dec-2001 13:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Samface):
Dude, these names were publically announced all over UseNet.
This is the way this kind of elections are.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 6 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Dave on 21-Dec-2001 13:57 GMT
I cant imagine it becoming a vibrant forum, most likely that it will start noisy then tail off quickly as the posters fail ( again ) to cope with the deluge that is comp.sys.amiga.misc and make the sacrifice.
So when are we going to see a comp.sys.amiga.amiga forum?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 7 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by .@. on 21-Dec-2001 15:13 GMT
If we're lucky, maybe they'll take Tim Rue with them to their new group.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 8 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 21-Dec-2001 16:42 GMT
Congratulations MorphOS. Some of those who voted did so rather predictablly.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 9 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 21-Dec-2001 16:42 GMT
Voted "no", I mean!
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 10 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 21-Dec-2001 17:01 GMT
hmm.. how much can we tell from who is voting what?
anti mos ppl could vote:
yes - lets hope we can get rid of those mos guys in the amiga
newsgroups (or at least be able to point them elsewhere)
no - it should be comp.sys.morphos if anything.
and pro mos ppl could vote:
yes - we want our own group
no - this is the real new amiga, so why not just the usual amiga
groups
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 11 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by alan Buxey on 21-Dec-2001 17:55 GMT
yes...I had some misgivings....should it be under comp.sys.amiga.*
should there be such a group...etc. all of this is quite irrelevant
when you see the facts.
MorphOS should have its own USENET group
MorphOS runs on Amiga hardware.... therefore the amiga designation is valid
MorphOS isnt a hardware platform, so it cant be comp.sys.morphos.* ;-)
(and anyway..a lot of groups would have to be made under that domain :-))
MorphOS discussions should be taken away from inappropriate groups/lists.
hopefully the creation of this new group will help concentrate the efforts
and knowledge.
certainly the ovtes cast look like the whos' who list of active Amiga
coders/users and advocates..so thats a good sign! Also, the lack of no votes
shows that those BeOS/Windows fanatics dont know what MorphOS is ;-)
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 12 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 21-Dec-2001 19:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (alan Buxey):
The facts?
The fact is that this vote was purely an opinion poll, it had nothing to do with what the group would be called as that is up to someone else entirely.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 13 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Veroukis on 21-Dec-2001 19:27 GMT
How do they determine who votes? Is it open to anyone who wants to vote?
- Mike
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 14 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 21-Dec-2001 20:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Mike Veroukis):
It was open to anyone, yes. Voting has now closed, or you wouldn't have known the result yet. :)
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 15 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 21-Dec-2001 20:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):
Apparently the appropriate naming was discussed prior to the vote, but your satisfaction with that process would depend on whether your POV was ignored or not. A search of Google does not lead me to believe that any other group name was seriously considered.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 16 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by John Chandler on 21-Dec-2001 20:12 GMT
I voted Yes, but agree it probably should've been something like comp.sys.morphos or comp.os.morphos. It was a vote for a MorphOS newgsroup, someone else made the decision about the name and that wasn't what the vote was about. IMHO of course ;-)
John
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 17 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Elwood on 21-Dec-2001 20:29 GMT
This news post was completely useless IMHO. Obviously if you asked to people to vote for
any comp... Amiga related group, you would see all MorphOS people vote No and all Amiga people vote Yes.
So the fact that "these" voted yes and "those" voted no is of no interest.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 18 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by suomynonA on 21-Dec-2001 21:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Elwood):
Huh?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 19 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Mekanix on 21-Dec-2001 21:42 GMT
... so when will we see c.s.a.linux c.s.a.bsd c.s.a.windows c.s.a.beos c.s.a.whatever...?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 20 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Emmanuel Lesueur on 21-Dec-2001 22:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Bill Hoggett):
Bill Hoggett writes:
> Apparently the appropriate naming was discussed prior to the vote,
> but your satisfaction with that process would depend on whether your
> POV was ignored or not. A search of Google does not lead me to
> believe that any other group name was seriously considered.
The RFD generated a huuuuge thread on news.groups of about a dozen posts
over 2 or 3 days. In other words, almost noone bothered to discuss the
proposal.
The comp.sys.morphos name was suggested, some arguments were given
to support the comp.sys.amiga.morphos one, and noone really argued
against it, end of story.
If you wanted an other name, you should have told it before the vote.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 21 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 21-Dec-2001 22:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Mekanix):
de.comp.sys.amiga.unix already exists and has for a long time.
Besides, if you were *REALLY* that bothered, then you would have entered the discussion in the relevant channels BEFORE the vote, rather than waiting until after to bleat.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 22 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 21-Dec-2001 23:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Anonymous):
And your point is?
comp.sys.amiga.unix also exists, but is not used much.
comp.unix.amiga is actually quite busy by comparison.
The point about these is that they are about discussing Unix on Amigas, not about Unix in general.
How exactly does this compare with discussing MorphOS on bPlan's Pegasos in a comp.sys.amiga.* newsgroup? It won't be long before the new ng is primarily used for MorphOS and bPlan advocacy, and any connection with real Amigas is totally forgotten.
That's just what I think, of course. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 23 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 21-Dec-2001 23:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Elwood):
"MorphOS people" are only Amiga users.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 24 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2001 09:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Bill Hoggett):
My "point", dear Bill, is that the previous poster complained that such a naming convention does not already exist - I pointed out to him it does.
He then moaned how inappropriate the name was - I pointed out that had he actually been INTERESTED in discussing it, then he would have done so during the well-publicised consultation period - he did not, ergo he has no cause for complaint.
That was my point. which you knew already, but hey, that never stopped you from trying to twist things in the past, did it Bill? I guess anything which isn't your Precious (deliberate choice of words there) Amithlon is Not Worth Considering these days, eh Bill?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 25 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 22-Dec-2001 09:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Anonymous):
Don't be so stupid. I've already explained my stance on this issue - the specific newsgroups discussed here - in the vote thread. If you're incapable of separating issues from dogma that's your problem.
Why do you always have to bring Amithlon into arguments? No Amithlon newsgroup exists, no Amithlon newsgroup has been proposed - I can hear the howls of protest already - and MorphOS has nothing at all to do with Amithlon.
My objections were not even a reflection of my opinion on MorphOS, and were not even suggesting there should not be a comp.sys.amiga.morphos. My objection was that the charter does NOT require discussions to be about Amigas, even though it is in the comp.sys.AMIGA hierarchy.
It would be much more interesting if you made your personal attacks without hiding in the shadows when doing so.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 26 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2001 10:23 GMT
Does it really matter where the MorphOS newsgroup is placed,
or are all the people who are complaining just trolling?
I can't believe anyone can get so upset about such a trivial
thing. Does you mindless devotion to the Amiga name really
extend so far?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 27 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2001 11:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Anonymous):
Apparently, yes it does. This has been noted by many people in various forums lately.
I guess the most interesting thing of all is, many people really disguise their blind and irrational loyalty to the trademark behind some compelling rationale. These are smart people, just blinded by - for the lack of a better word - fandom. That happens to the best of us in one way or the other in life. The name makes all the difference in the world to them and some have already admitted that.
Many of these people seem to be people bent on safeguarding the purity of the Amiga name from third-party influence while giving the legal trademark owner basically the right (and I'm not talking about legal rights here, those they obviously have) to do just about anything with the name, no matter if the third-party solution is better or closer to the original Amiga or whatever.
This certainly explains part of the hostility exhibited towards the new MorphOS group. As I said, some compelling rationale has been proposed against the group as well - and with some of that I can certainly sympathize and agree with - but mostly, I would guess, from people who do not wish to acknowledge or legitimize the obvious connection Amiga ja MorphOS share.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 28 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 22-Dec-2001 12:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Bill Hoggett):
So why is Amithlon discussed in csa.misc? There are emulator NGs,
aren't there?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 29 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Dave on 22-Dec-2001 12:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Anonymous):
LOL!!!!
Cut by your own sword. The *main* reason oft discussed on IRC was that the morphos group ended
up under comp.sys.amiga.*
was not the right one, it is simply to keep under the popular tree and hopefully take away
yet more Amiga users along with other minor propaganda reasons. Bills statement is the correct
one.
Anyone who does not agree with someone who is even vaguely pro MorphOS ( even if it is
a MorphOS user who has not openly stated the fact ) gets such foolish flames against them.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 30 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2001 13:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Dave):
Actually, my comment was not really directed towards Bill. I will not go as far as to guess publicly what any particular person thinks. While we may not agree on everything, as I said, I can certainly agree with some of his argument - and even where I don't, I can certainly agree that he has a point. My opinion on this issue of Amiga trademark bliding some people still stands, though.
Personally I feel that creating a whole comp.os.morphos hierarchy would be premature. Perhaps a single group would be justifed, but then - given the connectiong MorphOS and Amiga share, and the fact that some people feel it really represents the future of Amiga - comp.sys.amiga.morphos seems like a good idea and better than two new groups (c.s.a.morphos and c.o.morphos).
If in the future MorphOS evolves into directions that justify new groups and groups that are not associated with Amiga, then by all means new groups should be established elsewhere and the group in Amiga hierarchy devoted to discussion about running MorphOS on Amigas. But for the moment it certainly can't be disputed that MorphOS has got very much to do with Amiga, more than, say, AmigaDE - although the latter does have the trademark.
Do you not agree that the Amiga trademark does hold unimaginable value to some people as opposed to technology it represents?
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 31 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 22-Dec-2001 13:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Dave):
Also, I have never used MorphOS (but have, of course, read a lot about it and any other new technology associated with Amiga including Amiga Inc.'s offerings - many of which I have also used) nor did I vote on the newsgroup issue since I didn't really make up my mind in time - as I said, I did agree with some of what Bill was saying. In the end, though, I came to the conclusion stated above.
comp.sys.amiga.morphos passes 178:31 : Comment 32 of 32ANN.lu
Posted by well on 25-Dec-2001 09:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Dave):
Well, there obviously actually only were 209 people who did care
enough to make them participate in the vote. It's likely, that
the potential number of newsgroup participators won't be much
larger (at least in the beginning) - simply a subset of the voters.
So, everyone, who should be even vaguely pro morphos should not
have voted against a morphos newsgroup (no matter, where in
the hierarchy it should be located - and splitting into multiple
groups is always contra-productive, anyway).
Why anyone who isn't even remotely interested in morphos should
vote against it, is over my mind - except maybe, that some people
might have a problem with morphos mentioned in the amiga context
(since they like OS4.0, -DE, Amithlon or WarpOS better).
However, the main purpose of MorphOS is to run AmigaOS.
It does not emulate the hardware and it does not really
emulate anything in software - except the CPU.
The bplan machines could be used to run other OS'
than AmigaOS, however, Amigas can be used to run Unix as well.
So, a bplan machine basically is not much different than
a CyberStorm/PPC card running MorphOS software-wise,
and it is not much different than a Draco hardware-wise
(well, concerning the rest of the hardware).
In case the x86-native support inside Amithlon grows,
Anonymous, there are 32 items in your selection
Back to Top