25-Apr-2024 12:53 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 96 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 96]
[News] New Ben Hermans InterviewANN.lu
Posted on 24-Apr-2002 09:49 GMT by Jon96 comments
View flat
View list
Please visit here to read the interview.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 1 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 24-Apr-2002 08:12 GMT
all sounds good there.....i just can't belive where they get the funding from,
30 people....and when did they start ? lets assume february, thats about 3 months
30 people * 3 months...thats 90 monthly salary payments...thats 90/12 =7.5 years
if one man did the job......that *must* cost serious cash...
taking that into account, OS4 is 7.5 years in development time if one man
did the job....how many people work on MOS and for how long....?
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 2 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 24-Apr-2002 08:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (catohagen):
STOP IT! Right now. Don't drag the MOS discussion into this thread too.
.
SlimJim
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 3 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 24-Apr-2002 08:37 GMT
"The second stumbling block was that Amiga wanted a clear separation between hardware and software development to ensure competition in the hardware field. It was simply not convincing that people who had a direct financial stake in a specific hardware product (=the Pegasos) would give non-discriminatory software support to hardware produced by their competitors such as Eyetech or Elbox. The arrangement whereby one single entity would control both hardware and software would mean the creation of a monopoly in the vein of Commodore. We all know what happened there: Commodore went bust and this spelled the end of hardware and software development for years. There was little desire to see history repeat itself. We need competition in the hardware market because it drives down prices for consumers and puts pressure on producers to provide adequate customer-support."
Interesting to see Hyperion attacking AI's compulsory licensing/bundling scheme. "Separation between hardware and software development" and "one single entity would control both hardware and software" indeed!
AI, sell me *your* product, the OS, and let me buy *other* companies' products, the hardware, from whomever I like, and let current and future hardware distributors keep doing what they do today: build and sell hardware to whomever wants to buy it.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 4 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 24-Apr-2002 08:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (SlimJim):
it wasn't meant in a negative way at all....mentioning morphos...
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 5 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 09:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (catohagen):
Ben is being a little "creative" with his figures. The "30 people" number everyone who is contributing code to OS 4.0. This does not mean 30 people are working on OS 4.0 full time, nor does it mean they are (all) being paid up-front for their work.
This means that the "man-hours" and funding calculations go out the window.
DISCLAIMER: This is not an anti-OS4.0 post, or an anti-Ben post, or an anti or pro anything post. Just trying to inject a bit of realism into the discussions, which tend to fly off into fantasy realm these days.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 6 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 24-Apr-2002 09:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Seehund):
Oh stop it already. It isn't Amiga Inc that prevents the AmigaOS4 to run on the Pegasos, it's bPlan. Ben Hermans said it several times, all they have to do is send them a developer board (which they have applied for) and they'll make support for it. What's wrong about wanting to reassure their customers about which hardware it supports? What's wrong about wanting to sell it bundled with the hardware and preinstalled? If you want to have support for alternative hardware, turn to the manufacturer or one of it's dealers, nothing is impossible if they just cooperate.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 7 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 24-Apr-2002 09:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Seehund):
>AI, sell me *your* product, the OS, and let me buy *other* companies'
>products, the hardware, from whomever I like,
IMHO: they are doing that.
But they do not want to get the blame from those cases where the HW that people use cause the OS/system to fail. That's one major reason why HW needs to be certified & OS dongled, piracy is the other reason.
>and let current and future
>hardware distributors keep doing what they do today: build and sell hardware
>to whomever wants to buy it.
Of course.
Except that so far every Amiga (except Draco and Access) have been built by using motherboards made by one and only officiall Amiga. All phase5 & others have done were just add-ons.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 8 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 24-Apr-2002 09:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Samface):
>It isn't Amiga Inc that prevents the AmigaOS4 to run on the Pegasos, it's bPlan.
Same for OS4 on BlizzardPPC.
re: http://www.kicker.nu/amigarulez/html/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=1
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 9 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 09:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (priest):
> But they do not want to get the blame from those cases
> where the HW that people use cause the OS/system to fail.
> That's one major reason why HW needs to be certified & OS
> dongled, piracy is the other reason.
Oh, for pity's sake!!
Where have you read anything about Amiga Inc testing and certifying the hardware before granting the ROM/dongle license?
This is about three things:
(a) piracy - though much less important than is made out. How many people own machines capable of running OS 4.0, even if it wasn't dongled?
(b) control - it means that Amiga Inc can prevent manufacturers they don't approve of, such as bPlan, from selling machines you can run OS 4.0 on.
(c) money - it provides an extra item from which a license fee can be leveraged. The users will have to pay for this indirectly, as the hardware manufacturers pass on the cost.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 10 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 09:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Bill Hoggett):
Well yes, you're right Bill.
I never meant to imply that these 30+ people are working on it full-time.
We all know that would beyond the current financial abilities of Hyperion or indeed Amiga.
Having said that, there are people there who dedicate most of their time to OS 4 including ofcourse the Hyperion staffers who are working on it full-time (not all of them, mind you, we still have contract-work to complete).
Olaf Barthel did however confirm to me that this was the largest team of developers and largest number of full-timers since the Commodore days.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 11 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 24-Apr-2002 09:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Bill Hoggett):
>Ben is being a little "creative" with his figures. The "30 people" number everyone >who is contributing code to OS 4.0. This does not mean 30 people are working on OS >4.0 full time, nor does it mean they are (all) being paid up-front for their work.
>This means that the "man-hours" and funding calculations go out the window.
ok...i know those figures can't be very realistic, but you can't say
he's being a little "creative" with those numbers, unless you have some information
no other have about the os4 development, so i'm basing these calculations
on what Hyperions managing parter says, so you can't throw those calculations
out the window until its verified/deverified(?) by a person inside that company.
ok....back to work...
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 12 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 24-Apr-2002 09:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Seehund):
@Seehund
> AI, sell me *your* product, the OS, and let me buy *other* companies' products,
> the hardware, from whomever I like, and let current and future hardware distributors
> keep doing what they do today: build and sell hardware to whomever wants to buy
> it.
I know you are very good at arguing this point -you sure have had a lot of excercise
the last couple of weeks ;-) And although I don't want to start it all over again,
I just thought I'd add something of my own view on this.
Put yourself in AInc:s shoes here. First we imagine that there really ARE huge amounts
of third party PPC motherboards floating around having what it takes to run AOS4.
-----
Imagine AInc sells AOS4 independantly. Now someone buys this and runs it on unlicensed,
cheap hardware. Many of his/her friends do the same - for some reason that particular PPC
board happen to be very cheap in their area. And AOS4 is buggy as hell. It's slow. It
crashes randomly.
What will this little cell of people do? Will they be reasonable and say "Oh
that's too bad, silly us for buying unlicensed hardware"? No, that would be logical,
and people are generally not logical when they waste money. No- they will call
AInc telling them how bad their product as. Since Ainc haven't even heard of that
particular motherboard, they won't be able to help, least of all pay a refund for
AOS not working. So those people discuss this in forums. Most will realize that nothing
of this is AInc:s fault. But not all, particularily not people new/interested in
the community. And then come the next group of people complaining about another type of
board... The result is that the brand AmigaOS4 gets sullied down. Exactly that is what AInc want to
prevent.
-----
As it is, as long as AInc does a good QA, the only people that will experience
compatability problems with unlicenced boards will be the pirates - since AOS4
isn't supposed to run on these boards in the first place. And who cares about the
rantings of pirates?
[disclaimer - I'm NOT calling people complaining about the bundling issues
for pirates! You cannot pirate what isn't there yet. I'm referring to future
hypothetical pirates.]
But for now, I believe that there is a distinct lack of third party boards besides
Pegasos/AOne(/and a few 'classic' solutions) (I'm not that knowledgeable in this area
though, so I might be wrong).
If so, all you are saying is that you want AOS4 to run on Pegasos and a few clasical
harware patches, and for it to do so unlicensed without checking if it works first.
- in that case I have no answers. It's your opinion, after all. Ainc has put their
feet down due to the logic above. It is BPlan's (and the other concerned companies')
call to accept or refuse that.
.
SlimJim
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 13 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 24-Apr-2002 09:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Bill Hoggett):
never mind :) i just saw comment 10..
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 14 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 09:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Bill Hoggett):
@Bill H.:
>(b) control - it means that Amiga Inc can prevent manufacturers they don't >approve of, such as bPlan, from selling machines you can run OS 4.0 on.
No, that's not the case. Hyperion has always said that we are eager to support the Pegasos (why else would we have applied for a developer board?).
Besides, certification could be obtained by third parties, not only by bPlan itself and I for one hope that some enterprising soul will pick up on this.
So that argument must go out of the window.
>(c) money - it provides an extra item from which a license fee can be leveraged. >The users will have to pay for this indirectly, as the hardware manufacturers >pass on the cost.
That's also not the case.
The idea is not to extract money for the certification as such but obviously if you want to ship under the Amiga brandname (Amiga this and that), you need to negotiate a trademark license.
OTOH, there is no requirement to ship under the Amiga trademark. It would be up to individual companies to decide if they think this is worth paying for.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 15 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 24-Apr-2002 09:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Bill Hoggett):
Are you saying Amiga Inc wouldn't allow support for the Pegasos even if they did send it in to Hyperion?
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 16 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by tinman on 24-Apr-2002 10:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Bill Hoggett):
> (a) piracy - though much less important than is made out. How many people own machines capable of running OS 4.0,
> even if it wasn't dongled?
Similar to SlimJim's argument, you can't predict the future, so you can't say there are not enough people running PPC hardware to be able have a serious number of pirates.
Even in the not so distant future, what if Eyetech started selling the LinuxOne (same board as AmigaOne, but targetted at Linux users, which Eyetech have expressed an interest in). Obviously this Linux version would be cheaper since it does not come with OS4.
Now, what if there were no dongles? The boards are the same, and since the AmigaOne is certified you can pretty much take it that the LinuxOne would also run OS4 no problems (since they are the same board). You can't tell me there wouldn't be a large quantity of people who'd buy the LinuxOne and pirate the OS. You just have to look at pretty much any piece of commercial software to see that it gets widely ripped off.
Of course, this scenario may or may not happen. But surely it's better to plan for such possibilities now, instead of further down the line and realise you're losing a load of income to pirates and /then/ try to prevent such things.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 17 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 10:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Samface):
Perhaps I misunderstood. From what Amiga Inc have said, I thought the new AmigaOS will only be allowed to run on "Amiga" hardware, and that in the case of new systems this meant hardware with the ROM dongle code. I therefore assumed that if a hardware manufacturer wanted to have his hardware supported they would have to pay for the priviledge.
Ben now says that is not the case, and Amiga Inc have no control over which hardware is supported by AmigaOS. This appears to me to contradict what Amiga Inc have said, but what do I know?
In the case of Pegasos, the issue is moot anyway. In order for the Pegasos to be supported, not only would they need to send one to Hyperion, but they would need to redesign it, as the Pegasos has no provision for the ROM extensions required by AmigaOS 4.0. Whether this factor was taken into consideration when AI, Hyperion and Eyetech all descussed the protection method is something you can make your own mind up about.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 18 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 24-Apr-2002 10:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Bill Hoggett):
As far as I was aware, the ROM requirement was an AmigaOne specific protection system. On Amiga accellerators, for example, it will be using routines in the 3.1 ROM (how does this prevent piracy of OS4 then?) to verify that the platform can run the operating system. For the Pegasos another mechanism would surely be designed if it could not do the ROM - however the ROM could be put on the CPU cards, not the board.<p>
As the AmigaOne obviously had room for a ROM, then the TeronCX most likely did as well. IF the Pegasos uses the MAI chipset, then their design would most likely have been following some MAI design guidelines - whether this includes the ROM I don't know. IF the Pegasos does not use the MAI chipset, then AmigaOS4 will not run on it anyway, so the entire point is moot.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 19 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 24-Apr-2002 10:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Bill Hoggett):
> In the case of Pegasos, the issue is moot anyway. In order for the Pegasos to
> be supported, not only would they need to send one to Hyperion, but they would
> need to redesign it, as the Pegasos has no provision for the ROM extensions
> required by AmigaOS 4.0.
I hate to be nitpicking, but does it say that the dongle has to be on a ROM? Ben
just said (some posts ago) that the ROM was chosen as the mean of applying the
dongle only in the specific case of AOneG3-SE. Since that is the only licensed
hardware that would need a dongle (since kickstart 3.1-amigas are excluded), of
course they are only mentioning this solution as of now. My intrerpretation is
that if BPlan was playing ball, the two parties could, without contradicting the
terms of licencing, negotiate some other means of applying the dongle (USB,PCI,
enigma codebox, whatever) without having to redesign the Pegasos from scratch...
Am I right or am I completely out of the loop here?
.
SlimJim
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 20 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 10:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Bill Hoggett):
@Bill Hogget:
Further misunderstandings here.
The idea is to identify the hardware as being certified.
This need not be done by a ROM.
This was the route chosen for the AmigaOne, it need not be the case for any other hardware.
Besides, it's not the case that the ROM is an additional ROM. We're simply talking about extensions of the Openfirmware ROM which is already used by the Pegasos.
So no "redesign" of the Pegasos hardware would be required as some seem to think.
And yes, Amiga controls the hardware OS 4 runs on. But the certification process is open, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
Remember that Hyperion is supposed to make money through the sale of OS 4. It's not in our interest to overly restrict distribution.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 21 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 24-Apr-2002 10:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
What do you know - I wasn't completely clueless after all :-)
This is a misconception that has been floating around quite some time.
Perhaps there should be a FAQ just to answer the questions about the licensing?
Everyone suddenly seems to be so tremendeously interested in legal matters ;-)
.
SlimJim
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 22 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 24-Apr-2002 11:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (SlimJim):
Somebody needs to publish a fat textbook on "Law and the Amiga". A
copy could be bundled with the OS, along with a copy of "How to Win
Friends and Influence People".
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 23 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Jon on 24-Apr-2002 11:29 GMT
I found another Ben Hermans interview, done by SWAUG. I am posting the link here before maybe someone else has also missed it:
http://amigainfo.boing.net
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 24 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Jon on 24-Apr-2002 11:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Jon):
Sorry, this might be more accurate, although you will find the interview easily.
http://amigainfo.boing.net/amigaos4/interview010402.html
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 25 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 24-Apr-2002 11:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Thanks Ben!
(Why is it that we never get to hear things right the first time they're officially announced by Amiga Inc?)
> The idea is to identify the hardware as being certified.
And the anti-piracy issue isn't even worth mentioning any more? As long as AI get their licensing fees from hardware companies everything's A-OK?
> This need not be done by a ROM.
> This was the route chosen for the AmigaOne, it need not be the case for
> any other hardware.
Good, could you please tell AI to update the executive update to reflect this?
That makes the anti-piracy argument totally meaningless though, those people who steal the OS will be able to buy their hardware wherever they want and flash their BIOS with a w4r3zed image, but paying customers are restricted to only what AI tells us is "Good For Us".
What's so horrifying with a common POP market?
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 26 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Tomas on 24-Apr-2002 11:36 GMT
ppl stop complaining!!! AmigaINC and Hyperion has allready done more than what any of the previous owners did for amiga "escom and gateway"....
We are finally getting new hardware and our favorite OS ported to it :)
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 27 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 24-Apr-2002 11:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (priest):
priest,
> But they do not want to get the blame from those cases where the HW
> that people use cause the OS/system to fail. That's one major reason
> why HW needs to be certified & OS dongled, piracy is the other reason.
Certification, OS+hardware bundling and copy-protection (rather something less intrusive and compatibility limiting than a dongle, but whatever...) are Good Things, but not when it's compulsory. There could just as well be certified OS+hardware bundles (complete "Amiga" systems), an official HCL (hardware compatibility list like from Linux distributors) and separate OS sales. That would maximise sales of the OS and not separate AmigaOS compatible machines from the rest of the POP market, resulting in common growth, more competition, more choices for the customers and lower prices.
Companies aren't slammed for not supporting products they've never made an obligation to support, and if they're still slammed those who do the complaining are liars without impact on the market or reputation of an OS.
> Except that so far every Amiga (except Draco and Access) have been built
> by using motherboards made by one and only officiall Amiga.
And that's not happening anymore, thus AI should stay out of our hardware and distributor choices.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 28 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 12:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (SlimJim):
> I hate to be nitpicking, but does it say that the dongle has to
> be on a ROM?
From Bill McEwen's April update:
"In the case of newly available hardware, including the Eyetech, Elbox and Matay products above, the licence requires that OS4-specific extensions are included in the hardware's boot ROM as an anti-piracy measure."
Sounds pretty clear to me...
> Ben just said (some posts ago) that the ROM was chosen as the
> mean of applying the dongle only in the specific case of AOneG3-SE.
...which is why I said that Ben is contradicting what Amiga Inc say.
Ben says that AI are in control of hardware certification, but then he contradicts what AI say on their web site. How am I supposed to know who is right? Both have made inaccurate statements before, so who's right this time?
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 29 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] on 24-Apr-2002 12:20 GMT
@ Ben Hermans
It seems very coincidental to me that you were all very pally with bPlan and the developers of MorphOS until they refused to give you thier source code... source code that would've saved you serious development time and put you forward by about 6 months at least.
Furthermore, why should MorphOS have to give you thier source code so that you can create interoperability between you both ? And don't try and lie to me, I'm a programmer, I know you don't need the source to provide API compatibility.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 30 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by cheesegrate on 24-Apr-2002 12:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Bill Hoggett):
>DISCLAIMER: This is not an anti-OS4.0 post, or an anti-Ben post, or an anti or >.pro anything post. Just trying to inject a bit of realism into the discussions, >which tend to fly off into fantasy realm these days.
indeed, in every camp ;) inc the amithlon the x86 aos .. ;)
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 31 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by cheesegrate on 24-Apr-2002 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
>Olaf Barthel did however confirm to me that this was the largest team of >.developers and largest number of full-timers since the Commodore days.
yes but are you including all the developers that petro as the wise guiding force of amiga gave source code to? ;)_
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 32 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 24-Apr-2002 12:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Bill Hoggett):
Hmm, I'm no worse that I can admit when I'm wrong... amiga.com does indeed
say "boot-ROM" explicitly, which seem to contradict Ben. I can only assume
they are really refering to the only 'dongelable' licenced hardware that is currently available for them to comment on - the AmigaONE- and not being so general as we think they are.
.
SlimJim
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 33 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by cheesegrate on 24-Apr-2002 12:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (cheesegrate):
i mean if petro as head of amiga runs around giving away aos source and saying that aos should be open source (afaik) dosn't that make aos open source from a amiga community philosophy viewpoint and make the choice of an os not dependent on who owns the trademark?
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 34 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 12:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (cheesegrate):
> indeed, in every camp ;) inc the amithlon the x86 aos .. ;)
I've never made any secret of my own preference, so what's your point?
Let's get two things straight:
(a) No one claims Amithlon is x86 AmigaOS (except for Bill's rather ill-advised AmiWest announcement). It does contain what may be regarded as x86 extensions to OS 3.9, but it is not an OS in itself.
(b) Amithlon is a non issue at the moment. It is not a licensed product and not legally on sale at the time of writing, so bringing it into the discussion is a waste of time.
However, since you breached the subject of x86, and to get back to the topic on hand, I do have a bone to pick with Ben's statement in the interview:
"If you don't like the fact that OS 4.0 runs on PPC and not x86, fine, don't buy it and use AROS or organise your own OS 4.0 for x86 project."
This is something he's often repeated and it is total bull. Although someone might indeed be able to license an OS 4.0 for x86 from Amiga Inc, AI do not have access to the code of the PPC version of OS 4.0. Thus any x86 version would not even be source compatible with the PPC version, making the whole idea laughable. Whether he likes it or not, Ben now has control over OS 4.0 on ANY platform. Anything developed on x86 - with or without a license from Amiga Inc - would be something completely different.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 35 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 24-Apr-2002 13:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Bill Hoggett):
> AI do not have access to the code of the PPC version of OS 4.0.
No. But they can buy it back from Hyperion for a contractual, fixed sum, can't they? I don't think that AInc would willingly loose all future control of the OS to another company - any company.
.
SlimJim
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 36 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 13:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (SlimJim):
Indeed they can.
However, this doesn't change the fact that no one can develop a compatible x86 version at this time, even if they do get a license from AI, so Ben's comment only becomes valid AFTER AI buy the code, not before.
(I'm not holding my breath about AI buying the code back - all recent evidence points to AI being desperate to make money, not spend it)
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 37 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by _Steve_ on 24-Apr-2002 13:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (SlimJim):
> Besides, it's not the case that the ROM is an additional ROM. We're simply talking about extensions of the Openfirmware ROM which is already used by the Pegasos.
Isn't the OF Rom the "boot rom" of the pegasos? So I don't see the problem here. If the OF Rom boot sthe pegasos, then what Ben states is in no way contradicting the AInc announcement.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 38 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 24-Apr-2002 13:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (_Steve_):
Not in the case of the Pegasos, but please read Ben's statements in full. He clearly says the protection code does not have to be in ROM, while Amiga Inc's web site says it has to be in the boot-ROM.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 39 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by ShadesOfGrey on 24-Apr-2002 14:39 GMT
ANN readers please note. I have NO bias toward or against Amiga Inc./Eyetech/Hyperion or bplan/MorphOS. Any perceived bias is that of the reader.
Ben,
I have a couple of questions that may either start to clarify things or just start yet another useless flame war... I'm hoping for the former.
So far the AmigaOS 4 licensing discussion has centered on the OEM version of the AmigaOS 4. As I understand it, the terms of the OEM license require that any hardware running AmigaOS 4 must be certified by Amiga Inc (i.e. Amiga1.5); any hardware thus certified, must then have AmigaOS 4 bundled with it. Correct?
Also, Amiga Inc. do not require that the hardware being certified come directly from the manufacturer of said hardware. So hypothetically, a hardware vendor could purchase bplan Pegasos motherboards and get Amiga Inc. to certify them. This would then mean that this vendor could then sell AmigaOS 4 with the Pegasos. Presuming of course that bplan would not restrict the vendor from doing so.
Now to the big question... Has Amiga Inc. categorically precluded the possibility of a Retail version of Amiga OS 4? And by retail I mean a version of AmigaOS 4 targeted at any PowerPC platform with an OpenFirmware BIOS/ROM (requiring an alternate copy protection scheme). If this is a possibility, can you comment on what conditions [financial, political, or religious (as the case may be)] would need to be met before such a Retail version could be released?
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 40 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 24-Apr-2002 14:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (_Steve_):
The OpenFirmware BIOS of the Pegasos (and quite likely any future POP/PPC options) does not reside in a ROM. It's on a re-writable non-volatile chip; think EEPROM.
After something has been "written" to a ROM (by the manufacturer) it stays there. When Amiga Inc wrote "ROM" in the exec update, they should have written BIOS.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 41 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Veroukis on 24-Apr-2002 15:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Bill Hoggett):
>(a) piracy - though much less important than is made out. How many people own
>machines capable of running OS 4.0, even if it wasn't dongled?
Um, I believe the point is you could buy an AmigaOne without the OS4 and pirate yourself a copy to save a few bucks. This is what they wish to avoid. Simple really.
>(b) control - it means that Amiga Inc can prevent manufacturers they don't
>approve of, such as bPlan, from selling machines you can run OS 4.0 on.
That sounds like a brain dead marketing move. Why would you want to not support some hardware? The more hardware OS4 runs on the better. Why? More money for Amiga Inc. It's interesting though that Hyperion have applied for a Pegasos but bPlan still hasn't given it to them. I think you have it all backwards my friend.
>(c) money - it provides an extra item from which a license fee can be
>leveraged. The users will have to pay for this indirectly, as the hardware
>manufacturers pass on the cost.
Huh? If you want to run OS4 you definetly should pass on the cost. Of course even EyeTech have suggested that an AmigaOne might be sold without the ROM/dongle for strickly Linux usage. Obviously this version would be cheaper. So you argument falls rather flat here as only those who need the OS4 ROM would end up paying for it.
- Mike
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 42 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Mekanix on 24-Apr-2002 16:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Bill Hoggett):
And then fun part? Last year when AInc was in "negotiation" with the MorphOS team, the reason AInc. gave for the failure, was that Ralph Schmidt wasn't "willing" to give up the source code to AInc. for free. AInc. needed to be in control!
Fast forward to today. Can someone explain to me the difference between the deal Mr. Hermanns have made with Amiga Inc., and the deal that Amiga Inc. wouldn't make with Ralph Schmidt? I spot none...
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 43 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 16:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Seehund):
Okay, with respect to other means of identifying the hardware as certified, I did go beyond what was stated in the Executive Update.
That's simply because at the time we didn't contemplate other means than additional code in the ROM.
People suggested things like USB tokens etc., all of which could be workable and would still help to control piracy.
Now I'm under no illusion that it is possible to rule out piracy altogether.
The idea is just to make it more annoying and cumbersome.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 44 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 16:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 ([JC]):
@JC:
Hey, I know who you are. You're doing great work for Epic.
Now to address your comments:
>It seems very coincidental to me that you were all very pally with bPlan and the >developers of MorphOS until they refused to give you thier source code... source >code that would've saved you serious development time and put you forward by >about 6 months at least."
I'm sorry but that's simply not true. We were never "pally" with the MorphOS team.
It's a well-known fact that some senior MOS developers don't like Hyperion because we were perceived as being "in the pocket" of Haage & Partner during the WarpOS versus PowerUP days.
This is well documented.
>Furthermore, why should MorphOS have to give you thier source code so that you >can create interoperability between you both ? And don't try and lie to me, I'm >a programmer, I know you don't need the source to provide API compatibility.
I don't follow. What source-code?
I think you misunderstood something. We don't want to ensure interoperability with MorphOS nor their source-code, we want hardware documentation of the GREX, Pegasos and Phase 5 hardware to aid us in producing OS 4.
You would think that a hardware company would welcome additional software support annex customers.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 45 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 16:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Bill Hoggett):
@Bill Hoggett:
It stands to reason that anyone who would want to produce OS 4 for x86, MIPS or what have you, would need to strike a deal with Amiga in the first place (or use AROS).
There would be two ways to go about this:
1. license the 3.1 source-code from them and reproduce the work we're doing for OS4
2. reach a comprehensive deal with Amiga which includes them lifting the "buy back" option in the OS 4.0 contract. Note that the amount of this "buy back" option is contractually locked in and quite low and that this is not up to our discretion.
So any impediments you are seeing are purely financial but then embarking on such a massive project would present its own financially challenges anyway.
You know our position on this: we don't think it's a good idea but we are not in a position to prevent this should anyone want to do it.
You can't expect us to foot the bill for development of something which we don't believe in.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 46 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 16:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Mekanix):
One major difference: Amiga Inc. has an option to buy the OS 4 intellectual property at a fixed fee.
Hence they can retake control of the OS (source-code and all) whenever they feel like it.
If they fail to do something with it within a certain amount of time, our right to develop the OS further is revived.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 47 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Alessandro on 24-Apr-2002 16:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Ben, can i ask you some things ?
Ok, thanks ! :-)
(Sorry for my english...)
1) The new system graphics by Matt Chaput is only for
the icons or also for other parts of the GUI ?
2) Can you boot the OS4 on AmigaOne already ?
If not, have the Hyperion team an A1 already ?
3) How much seconds is the boot procedure on A1 ?
And on the your current dev sistem ?
4) When ? :)))
Good work...
Bye.
--
Alex
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 48 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 16:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (ShadesOfGrey):
>Now to the big question... Has Amiga Inc. categorically precluded the >possibility of a Retail version of Amiga OS 4? And by retail I mean a version >of AmigaOS 4 targeted at any PowerPC platform with an OpenFirmware BIOS/ROM >(requiring an alternate copy protection scheme).
This would include Apple hardware BTW. Apple also uses openfirmware.
>If this is a possibility, can you comment on what conditions [financial, >political, or religious (as the case may be)] would need to be met before such a >Retail version could be released?
One problem I immediately see is technical. It's a misconception to believe that "openfirmware" is some kind of magical solution which dispenses you of writing drivers.
You would still need hardware documentation to produce OS 4 for this specific piece of hardware you are targeting.
To my knowledge the choice of openfirmware PPC hardware is limited to the Pegasos, the AmigaOne and Apple hardware.
Supporting Apple hardware is currently not very high on our list of priorities.
One problem I see with the Apple hardware is that it is instantly recognisable as such and therefore can hardly serve as a suitable OS 4 platform. But I digress.
I don't think Amiga would at this point agree to a retail version of OS 4 unless somebody out there (a company, a dealer) would accept to take on the after sales and warranty obligations with respect to this hardware.
In my book the ideal solution is for bPlan to cough up the documentation of the Pegasos to a dealer who can then have himself and the hardware certified.
If there is sufficient demand, this should not be that hard.
Moreover, such a dealer could "retrofit" existing mainboards in the same way that Eyetech would retrofit Linux mainboards for AmigaOS4 use.
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 49 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 24-Apr-2002 17:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
>In my book the ideal solution is for bPlan to cough up the documentation of
>the Pegasos to a dealer who can then have himself and the hardware certified.
Why should they help you? It has been made clear on ANN by others that bPlan will be sued if OS4 runs on their machine and they don't ship their machine with it. Stop trying to claim the moral high ground!
New Ben Hermans Interview : Comment 50 of 96ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 24-Apr-2002 17:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (Anonymous):
No, it's been made clear that Amiga considers MorphOS an illegal product.
This has nothing to do with the bPlan hardware.
There is no requirement to ship the Pegasos with OS 4 to all customers, only to those that want OS 4.
Anonymous, there are 96 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 96]
Back to Top