26-Apr-2024 05:01 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 187 items in your selection (but only 87 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 187]
[News] Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardwareANN.lu
Posted on 25-May-2002 20:50 GMT by Seehund187 comments
View flat
View list
There's a petition aimed at Amiga Inc. set up at http://www.petitiononline.com/amigaos/ for all those who disagree with Amiga Inc's presented plans regarding compulsory OS/hardware bundling and licensing. An excerpt from the petition:

On April 12th, 2002, you, Amiga Inc., published your plans regarding distribution policies for the forthcoming AmigaOS4 in an "Executive Update" on your web site.

In short, what you say and what we the undersigned object against is this:

* Any hardware capable of running AmigaOS must first be modified with "AmigaOS specific extensions" to its "boot ROM" in order to be allowed to run AmigaOS.

* Such hardware and its distributors must be approved and licensed by Amiga Inc. and the hardware distributors must also sell and support AmigaOS4.

* AmigaOS will only be available bundled with such hardware.

We think that the above will seriously hurt AmigaOS users, the POP/PPC hardware market and thus ultimately you, Amiga Inc., yourselves.
To read the entire petition and sign it, please click here.

Before those imagining sides, factions, camps and personal enemies everywhere start commenting, it must be emphasised that this poll is not intended to "promote" anything else than the success of AmigaOS, the POP/PPC hardware market, free choice and ethical business practices.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 101 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 26-May-2002 15:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Ole-Egil):
Check this out:
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/ContractualObligations/ILoveChinese
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 102 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by yoodoo on 26-May-2002 15:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Ole-Egil):
There are more people in India (and the US!) who speak English as their first language than there are people in the UK who speak English.
Plus, there's no such thing as British English. The UK has one of the most dialectically diverse characters; there are more variants of colloquial English than there are languages in Europe.
Back in the 1600s the French passed laws banning the use of foreign words and set up committees who put together lists of 'official' words. This carries on today (eg the use of 'baladeur' as a literal translation of 'walkman')
This is the greatest dichotomy of Europe: how to work together in an effective manner, yet retain individual cultural strengths.
OT you say? Not when you compare it to the Amiga market :(
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 103 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by SlimJim on 26-May-2002 15:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Ole-Egil):
@Ole-Egil
Sad but true - the swedish language has soked up quite a lot of foreign words
in the last 20-30 years. You norwegians have been a lot more consistent (and stubborn)
in that regard. That's why you are the laughing stock of us Swedes I suppose :-)
Nah, kidding. Most Norwegians I know are very nice people and norwegian is much easier
for me to understand than danish (or finnish!). And Norway have that bloody oil, and that
is no laughing matter. You guys are doing damn well.
Sweden better occupy your asses again one of those days...;-)
(But many of the words you use ARE just plain cute though...:-P )
.
SlimJim (OT \off now)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 104 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 26-May-2002 16:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (SlimJim):
Heh, like Greeklish... It's much more widespread that real Greek on the net:)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 105 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Justin Veggerby Kristensen on 26-May-2002 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Ole-Egil):
"In Norway we have "språkrådet", keeping us in line :)"
Yeah, in DK we have a similar council, but they are WAY too acceptive of "new and improved ways of bending and spelling words" :-(
And they have approved a lot of english words to go into the danish dictionaries (along with some rather stupid new versions of several words).
Sorry for the off-topic, but I just couldn't resist ;-)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 106 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 26-May-2002 16:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (SlimJim):
"Plus, there's no such thing as British English. The UK has one of the most dialectically diverse
characters; there are more variants of colloquial English than there are languages in Europe.
Back in the 1600s the French passed laws banning the use of foreign words and set up committees
who put together lists of 'official' words. This carries on today (eg the use of 'baladeur' as a literal
translation of 'walkman') "
"Standard English" is the version spoken by middle class people in the
South East of England. Their grammar and vocabulary is basically what
is used in most printed books and magazines.
More than half the words in English are imported. If we only used the
words known to the Angles, conversation would be pretty limited. It's
the enormous and growing collection of foreign words from dozens of
languages that makes English so adaptable.
I heard that in the French slums they have a new language with the
first and second halves of French words swapped around. So much for
the Academie.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 107 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 26-May-2002 17:41 GMT
http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/finland.mp3
;-)
http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/chinese.mp3
;-D
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 108 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 26-May-2002 17:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 92 (Dagon):
> What I need is many PPC hardware choices. To be able to buy a cheap and faster
> non Amiga "Certified" PPC motherboard and put AmigaOS on it.
Where is the cheaper and faster non-Amiga certified PPC motherboard?
You might not care about quality, until your board breaks, the fly-by-night maker has disappeared and you have a dead system in your hands. Why are people so intent on dissing Amiga Inc's plans for quality for the consumer? Get Amiga certified, get AmigaOS guaranteed to work on your hardware, and you are ready to go.
You can buy PPC motherboards for Linux without AmigaOS4. You just can't call them Amiga's - seems fair to me. So what is wrong with this?
The entire concept is simple: if you want to release a motherboard for the Amiga market running AmigaOS4, then get the board certified by Amiga Inc and provide decent backup support for your product. You can then use the AmigaOne name, AmigaOS4 will be made to work with your product, and you sell computers to consumers running AmigaOS4.
This is the most open the Amiga market has ever been. Anyone can make the hardware now. However some people just seem to want to diss Amiga Inc for any reason. There will be zero chance of the Amiga market growing if there is bad hardware, or companies providing bad support for their hardware, because people will associate Amigas with "bad" and not even risk it. A good user experience will however make people more willing to risk money on a completely different computer system, although it will still take a long time, good word of mouth, good demonstrations and good reviews.
Graham
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 109 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by amigammc on 26-May-2002 18:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Ole-Egil Hvitmyren):
>What flavour of English do you support? :)
The official one, as long as it is backed by a valid distribution license. I don't think people should use the english language for free, they should pay for its use ;-)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 110 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by amigammc on 26-May-2002 18:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 102 (yoodoo):
>Back in the 1600s the French passed laws banning the use of foreign words
>and set up committees who put together lists of 'official' words.
Yeah, but I remember at work in France we used to speak "Franglais" :)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 111 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Dagon on 27-May-2002 00:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 108 (Graham):
@Graham
The entire concept is simple: if you want to release a motherboard for the Amiga market running AmigaOS4, then get the board certified by Amiga Inc
Yes but haven't you thought that may be some companies with quality PPC solutions won't care about the Amiga market? Who looses from that? Wouldn't be nice if you could just go and buy it an buy an AmigaOS for it? Amiga Inc could have a page with the PPC hardware that thinks that has the technical requirments.
The company might not be interested to run on their hardware AmigaOS but you will be if it has the quality, has the rigth price and the right cpu.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 112 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by wilhelm on 27-May-2002 01:08 GMT
Amiga inc has the right to protect their intellectual property rights. However
is it not possible to do this entirely with a software registration scheme that
ties the software to the machine? When the software is installed some particulars of a machine could be recorded, a code generated and the AOS serial number be sent to Amiga. Amiga would then send you an unlock coded and record the fact that their software is installed on your machine. If you wanted to move the OS to a new machine, you would log on the old machine and the software would be disabled by the software vendor, their data base would be updated so you could install on a new machine. A little more work, but no dongle and hopefully any machine the software could run could be used.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 113 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 27-May-2002 04:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Jack Me):
i'll sign
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 114 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 27-May-2002 05:02 GMT
FOR CHRISTS SAKE, ITS AN **AMIGA-ONE** BOARD.
What OS did you expect to be bundled with it???
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 115 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Oh Boy! on 27-May-2002 06:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 114 (Anonymous):
"FOR CHRISTS SAKE, ITS AN **AMIGA-ONE** BOARD.
What OS did you expect to be bundled with it???"
Jeesh... We're talking about *alternative* PPC hardware! As Amiga Inc. claims to be a software company, there is no reason why they should support one specific piece of hardware only.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 116 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 08:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 115 (Oh Boy!):
Which of course is NOT what they are doing.
Did ANY of you actually READ the executive update?
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 117 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 27-May-2002 08:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 111 (Dagon):
Then buy a bunch of the boards yourself, and get them certified and sell them on if they are that good.
As I have pointed out, there are no other PPC desktop motherboards apart from the AmigaOne, Pegasos and Apple systems. The latter will be hard to get technical documentation for anyway, so you aren't losing out anyway.
Fact is, Amiga Inc would get the bad image when AmigaOS4 did not run on the "MagicPPC" motherboard because it used a Xyzzy southbridge instead of a VIA southbridge, or because the northbridge is different, or for any other number of reasons. This prevents this from happening, ensures a consistent quality program from the sellers of the hardware, and keeps standards high, which is a worthwhile ambition. It also makes piracy harder, especially casual piracy, which is also worthwhile.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 118 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 27-May-2002 08:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 115 (Oh Boy!):
But they aren't.
Fact is there is one PPC motherboard out there anyway. There is not a whole galazy of different PPC motherboards you know. If a company makes a new PPC motherboard, then they (or somebody else if that company doesn't want to do it) can get it AmigaOne approved and sell it with AmigaOS to the Amiga market.
Some people here seem to think that AmigaOS4 would run just fine on the Pegasos if this scheme was not in place. I can tell you that it wouldn't. The northbridge is unknown (suspected to be the MAI Artica S, but not definite) and the southbridge is different from the one in the AmigaOneG3-SE anyway, so extra drivers would be required. And whilst bPlan are having a tizzy fit over getting a board to Hyperion and getting themselves Amiga certified for their hardware, AmigaOS4 will not run on that motherboard, dongles or not.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 119 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 09:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (Graham):
Whereas I think that some like Seehund genuinly are seeking clarification over the licensing
direct from Amiga Inc ( apparently logic and others reasoning does not have the credibility with him
- fair enough ) others are seeing this as a reason to bash Amiga Inc. and defend the
"poor beleagured Pegasos".
Few of these people run a business, in fact some of them dont have to earn money in
a paid job in order to survive day to day. Near zero are going to have had real experience
with the computing industry beyond the pages of Linux Format or PC Shopper and
a significant amount want free beer.
Forget trying to explain it further, if it underminds their current standpoint
pride will stick in their throats and they will ignore it or focuss on a spelling
mistake rather than tackle the nub and crux of the matter.
I think Amiga Inc should resend its Executive Update out to those that have signed
this petition underlining the bits that these people have got wrong ( if any have
indeed read it ) and thats enough. If they arent willing to read what Amiga Inc has to
say then f**k them.
I suspect that the signees arent going to be willing to accept anything other than
Amiga Inc being bent over and porked heavily by BPlan in order to ship AOS4 with the
Pegasos to give BPlan the very minor advantage that it still has - being able to ship
MorphOS with the mobo as well.
I think Amiga Inc should go its own way, ship A1SE and A1XE with AOS4 and SUSE as
planned, let Shark and other boards go through the branding scheme as previously agreed
and once BPLan realiases theres little or no profit in the PPC Linux market ( free beer
and the why should I buy a PPC mobo when I can have a Celeron mobo for less ) and
a limited future for MorphOS ( sorry I cant see what gap it is trying to fill ) it
will *have* to start playing ball.
Thats the future as I see it.
Dave.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 120 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 27-May-2002 10:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (DaveW):
Agreed. Most of the petition signers don't seem to realise what the petition is about anyway, and many are just using it to send abuse to Amiga Inc, because they get off on that kind of thing.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 121 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Mika Hanhijärvi on 27-May-2002 10:19 GMT
I'm not going to sign that petition. I think Amiga Inc, Eytech, Hyperion etc are doing good work. Please let them time to complete OS4 and AmigaOPne. Petitions like that are not good at this point those just make people nervous and make Aminga Inc etc work more difficult.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 122 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Mika Hanhijärvi on 27-May-2002 10:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 121 (Mika Hanhijärvi):
Sorry about typos, I hate these Win95 keyboards :)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 123 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Georg Steger on 27-May-2002 10:37 GMT
> Fact is, Amiga Inc would get the bad image when AmigaOS4 did not run on the "MagicPPC" motherboard because it used a
> Xyzzy southbridge instead of a VIA southbridge, or because the northbridge is different, or for any other number of reasons.
Oh, come one! If someone is stupid enough to buy a motherboard without
checking whether AOS4 runs on it how will certification prevent him
from doing so???
checking whether AOS4 runs on motherboard == look up the supported-motherboards-
list on some official AOS4 website.
If he doesn't look up such inforamtion before buying some motherboard, he
will not know about the certification thingy either, so it doesn't help him
prevent buying the wrong motherboard, as he will not look for any
certified-for-aos4 sticker on the motherboard or anything.
And anyway: the danger to buy an unsupported motherboard is IMHO waaaaaay
smaller than the danger to buy an unsupported mouse/keyboard/printer/scanner/
gfx card --> so why don't these have to be certified?
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 124 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 10:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (Georg Steger):
Most users dont have a f?cking clue what they are buying, they buy out of the box solutions.
An Amiga branded solution would be guaranteed to work out of the box. Adding on peripherals later without checking to see if they had drivers available is a seperate matter.
Buying a computer that the reseller had decided that works with the AmigaOS and in fact nobody had checked ( do you think this is unlikely??? ) would look bad for Amiga Inc. At least Amiga Inc could then seek legal recourse for the manufacturer not getting a proper license.
Dave.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 125 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 27-May-2002 11:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (Georg Steger):
> And anyway: the danger to buy an unsupported motherboard is IMHO waaaaaay
> smaller than the danger to buy an unsupported mouse/keyboard/printer/scanner/
> gfx card --> so why don't these have to be certified?
The motherboard is one of the central parts of the computer. If the motherboard is crap, or poorly supported, then people will complain that "Amigas are crap" when in fact it is "Xyzzy computers running AmigaOS is crap".
AmigaInc don't want people thinking that "Amigas are crap", hence the quality requirements that some companies do not appear to want to provide. And the additional reduction in casual piracy is also good for Amiga Inc and the market, especially as the market is so small currently.
People will blame the printer/scanner if it doesn't work, which is good for Amiga Inc. Scanners will be the biggest difficulty with AmigaOS4, they are mostly proprietary, especially in the USB arena. I don't see any form of mouse or keyboard having a problem, they run on standard interfaces and protocols. The graphics card is an issue of course - it looks crap for Amigas if they don't support Xyzzy graphics cards (e.g., nVidia GeForce) when the person buys one. But these things are available everywhere, so return it to get a different card - a bit more of a hassle to return a no-name motherboard to a foreign country if it doesn't work as you hoped.
Graham
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 126 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 27-May-2002 11:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (DaveW):
DaveW,
> Whereas I think that some like Seehund genuinly are seeking clarification
> over the licensing direct from Amiga Inc ( apparently logic and others
> reasoning does not have the credibility with him - fair enough )
Oh come on. Saying that logic has no credibility with an "opponent" in a debate is pretty low. If anyone's disregarding logic here I have a hard time seeing it. What I see are different opinions, experiences and unfortunately the old irrelevant and boring side-taking and trademarks which influence people's logic reasoning.
The basic plan regarding the compulsory licensing, OS/hardware bundling and demands in general on third party hardware distributors/manufacturers are there on AI's site in black and white for everyone to read. Details may be unclear, but the fundamentals can't be argued. Yet I see so many people here (no names) merely parroting what we all can read - and what the petition is opposing in the first place - as arguments against what's said in the petition! It's ridiculous. Lot's of credibility for some people's reasoning disappear right there:
The petition: "We don't agree with Amiga Inc. saying X, because [...]"
NN1: "But Amiga Inc. says X! You're wrong!"
Me or a signee: "Yes, they do say X, and we think that's bad because [...]"
NN1&2: "Why aren't you reading what they say?? Amiga Inc. says X!!!"
Me or...: "We have been reading, that's how we came to our conclusion, and X is not our opinion. Why do you agree with X?"
NN1&2&3: "AMIGA INC. SAYS X!!!! SHUT UP!!! X!!! X!! X!! bplan trolls!!!!"
I'm not after clarification as much as a total change. Small details have been clarified by Ben Hermans in online forums, but those details don't change what the petition points out as the basic flaws in AI's plans. Not even these few clarifications of minor details are anywhere to be found on the web site of the company in question, Amiga Inc.
> others are seeing this as a reason to bash Amiga Inc. and defend the
> "poor beleagured Pegasos".
So be it, with their signatures they support the petition so I don't care what each individual thinks other than that. I also think many here have different views on what constitutes "bashing" of any company. Some seem to think that any disagreement is equal to "high treason".
Abuse and attempted sabotage will of course be deleted before any results are compiled, so those who find that amusing can lay off right now, please. I have to say that >200 signatures in a day and a half, and only max 10 abusers is still a better ratio than I had hoped for.
I'm not sure who you're referring to in the rest of your comment, Dave. People who have signed the petition, people who have posted abuse in the petition or people who have used the Optional Comments field for Optional Comments?
> I think Amiga Inc should go its own way, ship A1SE and A1XE with AOS4 and
> SUSE [...]
Yeah, if they don't change their minds regarding what's been said, then I think that this would be a good idea *if they indeed sold their own hardware*. Now we know that there's no chance that AI will ever design, make or sell any hardware, so I think they should adjust their thinking to that of a software company and try to get their product used on as much hardware as possible.
Anyway, I have said most of what I have to say in the petition and in the comments here and elsewhere before that was published. If anyone has anything else but merely repeating the executive update again and again without any reasoning of their own, I might bother to join this discussion again.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 127 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Graham on 27-May-2002 11:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 126 (Seehund):
> Now we know that there's no chance that AI will ever design, make or sell any
> hardware, so I think they should adjust their thinking to that of a software
> company and try to get their product used on as much hardware as possible.
But they are allowing this.
It is just a simple requirement that the person selling the hardware gets certified (i.e., the hardware is guaranteed to run AmigaOS4, the seller will provide hardware support for its use with AmigaOS4, etc) and they can also use the AmigaOne name. An AmigaOne is shipped with AmigaOS4 - no problem there, that is logical.
There is no discrimination against hardware companies - it is fair. This is the most open Amiga market ever as well.
If people want to use the Pegasos with AmigaOS4, you should be petitioning *bPlan* to get the board certified with AmigaInc, and to guarantee hardware support with AmigaOS4, and guarantee *quality* service. Amiga and Hyperion have made it quite clear that they are happy to certify the Pegasos / make AmigaOS4 run on it should it be submitted for certification, and bPlan (or someone reselling Pegasosen) will provide the necessary support.
Because bPlan otherwise will not provide any support for AmigaOS4 on their hardware, which makes AmigaInc have to take the flak for any problems caused the hardware and the resultant bad name that Amiga will get.
Graham
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 128 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 12:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 126 (Seehund):
Seehund if you took time to read the thing you cite as something you are summarising you
will see it does not actually say what you have summarised it as saying!
That is my point. You ARE disregarding that in creating that petition!
Parrotting as you call it is an attempt to point out to you that it does not actually say
what you claim it does. Anywhere!
If thats not disregarding logic I dont know what is.
Dave.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 129 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 12:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 128 (DaveW):
And if you took time to read the comments on here you would see them saying
"the petition sayes that AInc have said X and Y in the exec update, it doesnt say that anyhere"
Perhaps this is a translation of English into your native language trouble, it mst
be the scale of those that also see X and Y when it doesnt appear on the update
is enormous.
When it comes down to it Y was based on a Ben Hermans comment misinterpreted deliberately
and X is based on nothing publically available.
This is what destroys the credibility of the petition in my mind.
If you had found something to complain about that AInc was actually doing then
I might have considered signing it.
Dave.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 130 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 27-May-2002 12:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous):
>Amiga protects it's customers with a certification process.
They "protect" them against choice and new HW products.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 131 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 12:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (Anonymous):
If you could PROVE that that was the case Id sign the petition. You cant. Nor can Seehund with
the available evidence.
But Im *sure* Im just parrotting or trolling or anything that allows you to disregard
the guy that is saying the emporer has no clothes.
Dave.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 132 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by amigammc on 27-May-2002 12:53 GMT
Just to add my voice, I agree with the distribution policy and am against the petition. Enough valid reasons have been given here.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 133 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 27-May-2002 13:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (DaveW):
Dave,
I couldn't have said it better myself. You've logically reasoned out the situation and came to the same conclusions I have regarding this matter.
Adam
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 134 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 27-May-2002 13:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 127 (Graham):
Graham;
>> Now we know that there's no chance that AI will ever design, make or sell
>> any hardware, so I think they should adjust their thinking to that of a
>> software company and try to get their product used on as much hardware as
>> possible.
> But they are allowing this.
Oh really, you don't say? How very generous of them. Imagine that, hardware companies are still allowed to make hardware. :-P
Umm. Oops. Were you referring to AI "allowing" their own product to have maximum possible sales? In that case they should do what any other little upstart software company has to do - make sure themselves that their product runs on as much hardware as possible and sell their product to whomever wishes to buy it. NOTHING can be required from other companies, i.e. hardware manufacturers or distributors. Making an OS run on a piece of hardware is NOBODY elses responsibility but the ones who make the OS.
> It is just a simple requirement that the person selling the hardware gets
> certified (i.e., the hardware is guaranteed to run AmigaOS4, the seller will
> provide hardware support for its use with AmigaOS4, etc) and they can also
> use the AmigaOne name.
That's not a "simple" requirement for any software company, especially not a young and small one like AI, to make on any other company if they want their software product to be successful. It doesn't matter if it's a "simple" requirement or not - it's a requirement, and a small software company that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hardware CAN NOT make any requirements. BTW and OTOH, if a Big (dominating) software company made similar demands they could possibly be successful (in the short run if there were any software competitors at all), but it would most likely become a case for antitrust courts.
That's the business and profit aspect - for us mere users it means totally unnecessary obstacles against getting as many hardware options as possible for our preferred OS.
> An AmigaOne is shipped with AmigaOS4 - no problem there, that is logical.
Yes, because an "AmigaOne" would be a mobo with the licensed right to use that trademark, and a licensed distributor. The Big Bad Petition isn't arguing against licensing in general. The link is right up there at the top. It's arguing against COMPULSORY licensing combined with the other restrictions placed on users, hardware and its distributors.
Believe it or not, there are people who don't give a flying fsck about labels, licenses and trademarks when it comes to their hardware. They want to buy AmigaOS4. The hardware is nobody's business but the user's. If they want to buy a licensed bundle from a licensed distributor, so be it. That shouldn't stop people from also being allowed to buy the AmigaOS separately (maybe only from a licensed dealer , that's up to Amiga Inc, that's *their* product) and buy whatever hardware from whomever they very well fancy.
> There is no discrimination against hardware companies - it is fair.
If a POP motherboard is ever to run AmigaOS it must be licensed, have a licensed distributor, have the so-called anti-piracy measures applied and the distributor must also be/become a reseller of this third-party OS. Other distributors who keep selling the exact same mobo just like they've always done don't have to bother with this lunacy, but they're not allowed to reach the entire POP market. At the same time, the licensed distributor can't expect to sell the exact same mobo to anyone else than AmigaOS users - no customer in their right mind who have no intention to run AmigaOS would buy the more expensive mobo together with an OS he's not interested in. Voilá, an artificial and 100% unnecessary split in the POP market.
This could maybe fit some strange definition of "fair", but it sure as heck is not wise or even remotely sane.
> If people want to use the Pegasos with AmigaOS4, you should be petitioning
> *bPlan* to get the board certified with AmigaInc, and to guarantee hardware
> support with AmigaOS4, and guarantee *quality* service.
Why, oh why, does everyone insist on only staring at these two differently labelled POP motherboards all the gddmn time? OK, fine, let's say bplan get *their* board certified and they (or someone else) sell it with Amiga Inc.'s OS. So what? Woop-dee-doo. "One down, keep petitioning everyone else and every possible future option."
The obstacle needs to be removed at its roots!
Quality service? So the whole unlicensed third-party hardware market has been a hellhole of fly by night cowboys (as I believe someone expressed it) until the benevolent Amiga Inc. came along and completely altruistically brought order to the chaos with as simple a remedy as a fscking licensing and bundling scheme? Please. Don't believe everything you read in marketing material, regardless of from whom it comes.
Like I said, the petition isn't against licensing in general. If someone wants to offer AmigaOS bundled with hardware, use the Amiga trademark and provide official AmigaOS support, they should of course get a license.
Other customers who don't care as much about labels, official software support from their hardware vendor and are happy with their legally constituted and whatever other guarantees that their hardware is normally protected by should still have the option to buy AmigaOS-compatible hardware elsewhere.
That's healthy competition with companies providing options and different benefits for their customers.
Regarding compatibility - that's AI's (and Hyperion's) responsibility. Even if the Stupid(TM) obstacles were out of the way, noone can expect and depend on hardware designers to submit their hardware to a software company and nicely ask for compatibility, not unless the software company is Microsoft. Without compulsory licensing it would also be AI's responsibility to announce which hardware that's compatible, just like other software companies who don't make their own hardware. If a microcephalic excuse for a human being would run off and buy something that's not on the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) he'd have it coming, and such a subhuman creature would obviously not have been able to put together the letters "AMIGA" either if he saw a licensed machine.
The "user protection" argument is... strange.
Does anyone have the exact number of decades that an independent hardware industry has been around, before we suddenly were deemed too stupid to pick our own hardware?
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 135 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 27-May-2002 13:08 GMT
I support Seehund's petition. Partly because I feel community initatives are a good idea (and I'd like to see a more varied and organised approach to it), and partly because I can see no valid reason for Amiga NOT to adopt a voluntary system akin to an Amiga 'Seal of Approval'.
This way, branded/approved systems are certified to conform to Amiga Inc specifications, while hardware developers are given much more to freedom to make their own hardware, without being bonded to a draconian licensing policy that forces them to ship AmigaOS with every machine they manufacture.
It also allows for the potential of OS 4 being developed for a variety of "unlicensed/unapproved" hardware, such as generic PowerPC/CHRP, PowerMac, Intel x86 etc hardware, and reach a larger audience.
I still think Amiga would be better off just openning up the whole OS project - open source it, and set up a funding mechanism to reward participating developers - and push AmigaOS into new markets. Then they can leverage the attention and support from new users and developers to help them get software written for AmigaDE, where they can make their money back.
But regardless of this, *compulsary* licensing is not the way to IMHO. If having a 100% compatible system IS your number one priority, go get a branded/approved system. If not, a clear warning that non-approved/non-branded systems won't be supported and may not be compatible is enough of a warning to disclaim Amiga Inc responsibility; the manufacturer will then be responsible for support issues.
AmigaOS development need not take into account unapproved systems as Amiga Inc will owe nothing to non-approved systems, but it will open up more choice and flexibility for manufacturers, and thus by logical extention, us users and developers.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 136 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by smithy on 27-May-2002 13:13 GMT
This petition isn't just about the given issue though. I think many people have signed it simply to send a message to Amiga Inc that they don't agree with their direction or policies. The pro-Amiga Inc toadies can fill a 100-message thread with comments claiming the petition isn't valid for various technicalities, however, the fact is that over 200 people have signed it. So in the name of democracy, that is perfectly valid.
To those who seek to tell the community that their opinions are wrong:
Democracy still counts even when you disagree with it.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 137 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 27-May-2002 13:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (DaveW):
"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. For hardware which is not capable of being used in conjunction with Amiga WB 3.1 (such as the AmigaOne) we will require, as part of the licence conditions, that a copy of Amiga OS is purchased with all boards sold that are capable of running it."
>Note. The hardware's boot ROM. No were does it say that a NEW ROM must be
>fitted, just an existing one modified.
One could also read that the pegasos boards sold by Merlancia -case is left a little bit open.
And it is strange that if there's SharkPPC & Matay's thing, which runs as attached to ClassicAmiga, they might still need the OS4 extension... Or perhaps they will run also stand alone, like the rest of those coming products (all vaporware, but still).
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 138 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by SC on 27-May-2002 13:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 136 (smithy):
Exactly. At the end of the day, the judge of whether Amiga "listens" to the community in a "democratic" sense is whether they would win a referendum, or emerge the biggest "party" in a democratic vote. Perhaps it's time something like this was organised?
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 139 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 27-May-2002 13:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (André Siegel):
"As far as I know, the PEGASOS board is delivered with YellowDogLinux and MorphOS being a *part of the whole package*. While dealers are allowed to sell it along with *additional* software (such as operating systems) and/or hardware, they _must not_ remove any parts of the original product (ie. MorphOS and YDLinux). "
Oh bummer, we need a petition against that.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 140 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Georg Steger on 27-May-2002 13:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 124 (DaveW):
> An Amiga branded solution would be guaranteed to work out of the box
In what way is "AOS4 runs only on certificated ppc motherboards"
better than "AOS4 runs only on the following supported motherboards"
to make sure that an user buys the correct motherboard?
Either the user knows about this/has read this, or he hasn't. If
he hasn't he might buy the wrong motherboard. If he has, he will
not buy the wrong motherboard. But the text ("requires certified
motherboard" or "following motherboards are supported") is irrelevant.
So certified motherboards are not better than simply a list of
supported motherboards in making sure an user does not buy a
wrong/unsupported motherboard.
If, as you say, most users don't know what they are buying and just
buy out of the box, then certification doesn't help them at all,
since they don't know about the certification. If they are seeing/wanting
to buy some unsupported ppc motherboard there won't be any "NOT certified
for AOS4" sticker on it, I guess ;-)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 141 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 27-May-2002 13:26 GMT
how can some people believe when they are told that a company is doing a compulsory licence to "protect" and benefit the users. Since when ANY company has done ANYTHING in pure faith and without any thinking about prosperity!? Just to guarantee the wellbeing of users?
Of course AI see a benefit in the licence deal for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Usually the marketing economyistic thinking of a company can very well benefit the customer in the form of better products and development. However with the current AI policy linked with what I have seen with the repackaging and renaming intent, has given me the feeling that AI are in it for something else than just pure thoughts for amiga userbase.
It's a way of trying to control the market with iron glove and making extra profit in the process by "forcing" a customer to buy HW licenced by AI.
Can amiga inc. be solely blamed for the problems with bplan/morphos? NO.
Can it be critisized for using unethical marketing in our small niche? YES.
All thoughts above are presented in IMHO(tm) and as such are not to oppress others in sharing same views.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 142 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 13:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 140 (Georg Steger):
LOL! :))))))))))))
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 143 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 13:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 141 (gz):
Be very careful about claiming that AInc has used unethical marketing here.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 144 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 27-May-2002 13:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 136 (smithy):
Yeah thats right - technicalities, thats all it is Smithy.
Its just a technicality that the two of the three complaints are not even correct
in the thing that they are complaining about is not, with current evidence, true.
Just a technicality.
M'lud, the defense has evidence to show that two of the prosecutions claims are
incorrect - based on their own evidence, we assert that the prosecution should
drop these claims.
Objectiun! That is just a technicality!
Thank god for a opinion based non evidenced based system.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 145 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 27-May-2002 13:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 134 (Seehund):
>it's a requirement, and a small software company that has absolutely nothing
>whatsoever to do with hardware CAN NOT make any requirements.
Hey, they paid 4.5 f* mio USD so they have the f* right to make requirements!
:-)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 146 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 27-May-2002 13:57 GMT
I mostly agree with DaveW's comments (those that are on-topic).
And since ANN is not the most reliable source of information...
I would like to hear 1 clarification from AmigaInc:
- Is it true that motherboards with AmigaOS4 are not allowed to ship with other OS (like being bundled with Linux and MOS).
And one clarification from bplan:
- Is it true that pegasos motherboards are not allowed to be shipped without MorphOS?
If both of those are true, it will mean that Merlacia can not sell pegasos motherboards with AmigaOS. (less pegasos sales, less AmigaOS sales)
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 147 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 27-May-2002 14:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 143 (DaveW):
>Be very careful about claiming that AInc has used unethical marketing here.
And why should I be very careful? It's just my personal opinion and not a general accusation. Or do you mean I should be careful not to upset you by saying something you don't like reading?
A black van was cruising past me yesterday, and another one was on my parking lot today... Perhaps I should be alarmed. After all it wouldn't be the first time in history where one has had head cut off because others don't approve personal thoughts.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 148 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by graham on 27-May-2002 14:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (gz):
It is hardly a personal thought to basically write online that Amiga Inc have unethical marketing.
No backup, no reasoning supplied.
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 149 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 27-May-2002 14:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 148 (graham):
>It is hardly a personal thought to basically write online that Amiga Inc have unethical marketing.
Well then perhaps you should have read the original post to which DaveW was replying to. I specifically stated there that: "All my thoughts above are presented in IMHO(tm) and as such are not to oppress others in sharing same views. "
I made no claim at AIinc. Just my personal opinion of the situation.
>No backup, no reasoning supplied.
What backup? What reasoning? Are there any backup proof that I could use PRO Ainc or PRO Bplan? No, there aren't. I haven't seen the insides of the licence, and I doubt that you have either. Nor have seen the personal emails exchanged by bplan, amiga inc. hyperion and eyetech to name a few. None of us know the WHOLE truth or all of the reasons.
So there is no way for me to be able to present anything other than a personal opinion of mine, which is based on what I have seen so far being done by Ainc and others. If you don't agree then GREAT! :) It means I cannot use my personal views to oppress you to share mine. Why should I like AI being allowed to do that then?
Petition: AmigaOS distribution policies and PPC hardware : Comment 150 of 187ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 27-May-2002 14:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 148 (graham):
And BTW. This is a public forum for PERSONAL thoughts.
Anonymous, there are 187 items in your selection (but only 87 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 187]
Back to Top