19-Sep-2019 15:24 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 280 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 280]
[Rant] AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web siteANN.lu
Posted on 06-Jun-2002 04:30 GMT by Seehund280 comments
View flat
View list

AmigaPOP.8bit.co.uk is finally online!

Here you'll hopefully find all information you could possibly want about the "AmigaOS distribution policies and POP/PPC hardware petition". I hope the background information and FAQ will be especially helpful to clear up any confusion surrounding these issues.

If you have not yet signed the petition, then please do so now! Please help spreading the word by linking to AmigaPOP.8bit.co.uk. It's not too late to save our favourite OS and a unified POP-based hardware market!

In other news, I have finally managed to get in touch with the PetitionOnline.com administrators. The few abuse and sabotage attempts so far have been removed from the signatory listings. Not that any garbage would ever reach the recipient of our petition, but I understand some thought that it didn't look too good...
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 1 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Amifan on 06-Jun-2002 04:53 GMT
Oh no not again!!
"Please save our amiga market and drop the Amiga trademark, so I can stamp it on my selfmade/breadboarded Microchip PIC powered nano-computer!"
The unsigned
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 2 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 06-Jun-2002 04:58 GMT
bljatlh 'e' ylmev blnep
naDev vo' ylghoS
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 3 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 06-Jun-2002 05:02 GMT
What like this one: sue bplan and die amino clowns
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 4 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 06-Jun-2002 05:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Amifan):
@Amifan
What the heck are you on about now? "Dropping the Amiga trademark" has nothing to do with this.
http://amigapop.8bit.co.uk/faq.html#4
http://amigapop.8bit.co.uk/faq.html#5
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 5 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by W on 06-Jun-2002 05:23 GMT
Haha, this is ridiculous. Is there any petition against stupid and naive petitions that I can sign?
/W
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 6 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by SimplePPC on 06-Jun-2002 05:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (W):
Exactly my sentiment, i like the way they are doing it NOW. So who starts a PRO petetion. Amon_re perhaps ?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 7 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 06-Jun-2002 05:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (W):
It's saddening to see how you treat those who are promoting *your* rights. It'sn no wonder the market's goin down in a blaze of glory.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 8 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 06-Jun-2002 05:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
Our rights?
Oh soo funny!
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 9 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 05:33 GMT
Like someone told me once, you're operating with alot of misconceptions my dear Seehund.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 10 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 05:41 GMT
I haven't seen (aside from Trolls) any constructive comments supporting the current hardware policy...
ie: "Not supporting the POP platform is beneficial because..."
Does anyone interested in "intelligent discussion only" wish to take this up?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 11 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 05:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (DaveW):
Linux users have this right, *Windows* users have this right. Microsoft, not even Microsoft, would ever entertain this policy.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 12 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 06-Jun-2002 05:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Tbone):
OK Mr Clever Clogs tell me how Amiga Incs current policy is NOT supporting POP?
Because there is nothing in the current policy that sayes they are not supporting it it is pointless to start a discussion the way you cite.
Also there have been plenty of articulate discussions on both sides, and plenty of juvenile ones too.
Why should we sit here and repeat them all?
Rights? What rights? Right to do what? You guys arent making sense.
Windows works on a subset of the platforms out there and Microsoft works hard with various OEMs and vendors to ensure that their platform gets supported - through a business agreement similar to what you see here. Do you think Intels mobo series has not been through stringent tests with Windows? Do you think the same of AMD?
If you create a new bit of hardware and dont talk to the OS provider dont expect it to work and dont expect the OS provider to bend over backwards to support you. Who is going to buy a board without an OS?
Dave.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 13 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 06-Jun-2002 06:07 GMT
I must remark that Hyperion fully endorses Amiga Inc's distribution policies.
The main reason behind that stance is very clear: piracy.
Currently there is a wide variety of servers hosted all over the world that carry our products like Heretic 2, Shogo and Freespace for download.
Heretic 2 showed up for download the same day it was released.
Despite our best efforts to give people a sneak peek of what a game is about or how it will run on a given system by releasing demos prior to the games itself, quite a number of people persist in pirating our software and that of other commercial developers thereby threatening the future of commercial development on the Amiga.
The OEM policy adopted by Amiga at least means that every time you buy an AmigaOne, you're buying AmigaOS 4 and are thereby compensating the hard work of some 30 developers.
It's imperative that piracy of OS 4 is kept to a bare minimum because without the much needed revenues, we cannot guarantee further development of OS 4.
Hyperion is a commercial company with full-time professional developers which is your best guarantee for a good product.
If OS 4 were to be sold separately, piracy would again be rampant and would eat deeply into the already uncertain revenues of OS 4.
This is a far bigger threat to the platform's continued existence than the rather theoretical appearance of yet another POP solution at an affordable price which would not be certified in some way or another by Amiga.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 14 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 06:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Tbone):
1. Amiga Inc. owns the AmigaOS and the Amiga trademark, they can write up any kind of license restrictions they like. They don't need permission from anyone, not from us or any hardware manufacturer.
2. AmigaOS has been a ROM based OS requiring an appropriate ROM/Kickstart in order to run since 1985 which means that this isn't exactly news. It's been like this for atleast 17yrs now and it doesn't make sense to get upset about it now. Furthermore, if this was such an evil thing, how come Amiga became succesful in the first place and how come Apple that is even more restricted for hardware competition is still successful as a business today?
3. Ben Hermans explained several times that they are open for licensing any hardware capable of running AmigaOS4 and no redesign of the hardware will ever be required. Individual solutions can be made for those motherboards not having FlashROM capabilities onboard, such as a USB dongle, for example. The *only* obsticle for getting AmigaOS4 to run on alternative hardware is the application for the license itself. The hardware manufacturer must want to have AmigaOS4 support and that's not a decision for Amiga Inc. or their partners to make.
4. The ROM code does NOT affect the use of other operating systems and the license does NOT restrict the hardware for use with AmigaOS only.
Noone but those not wanting to cooperate has been excluded from running AmigaOS4 on their hardware (only the Pegasos atm) and expecting Amiga Inc. to support manufacturers not wanting to cooperate simply doesn't make sense. Just because AmigaOS4 runs on one kind of POP motherboard that doesn't mean it will run on every POP motherboard out there, the OS will have to have a motherboard specific HAL for every motherboard made and this requires support from the hardware manufacturer.
Cooperation is needed and the license is the key to this kind of cooperation. Nobody is restricted from applying for one and that's also all they have to do if they want AmigaOS4 support.
Amiga Inc. and the AmigaOS4 partners simply cannot support every POP motherboard manufacturer out there without support from the manufacturer himself and if the hardware manufacturer wants AmigaOS4 to run on their hardware is a decision which is entirely up to them, not Amiga Inc. or the AmigaOS4 partners.
Furthermore, I don't see any problem with the distribution policy either as neither Windows or MacOSX are distributed along with other operating systems and having the OS bundled with the hardware is a policy that Microsoft has shown is a very profitable way of doing it. We want AmigaOS4 to become profitable, right?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 15 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 06:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (DaveW):
"OK Mr Clever Clogs tell me how Amiga Incs current policy is NOT supporting POP?"
Because it uses a draconian licensing sceme that requires an existing POP board be modified for a limited market. This is obviously not going to happen unless said hardware is specifically manufactured for the Amiga as it is in the case of the AmigaOne. "Supporting a platform" means that when you buy the OS, it will work on the "Supported platform." This is not the case with AmigaOS.
"Because there is nothing in the current policy that sayes they are not supporting it it is pointless to start a discussion the way you cite."
The current policy doesn't say it supports the POP platform, that's the whole point my dear friend.
"Also there have been plenty of articulate discussions on both sides, and plenty of juvenile ones too."
"Why should we sit here and repeat them all?"
If you don't feel it's constructive, you don't have to participate.
"Rights? What rights? Right to do what? You guys arent making sense."
The right to install your OS on the platform your OS runs on. Windows doesn't have any restrictions on what motherboard I use, and it runs on all motherboards manufactured for the platform. That is why we have the concept of "platforms."
"Windows works on a subset of the platforms out there and Microsoft works hard with various OEMs and vendors to ensure that their platform gets supported - through a business agreement similar to what you see here."
Windows works on the entire PC platform, and manufacturers do -not- have to license their hardware with Microsoft. Microsoft does have certification similar to what's being discussed, but uncertified hardware is still supported, and still works!
" Do you think Intels mobo series has not been through stringent tests with Windows? Do you think the same of AMD?"
Tests are not "licensing", Windows doesn't check to see if a motherboard is "licensed" and then fail to run because it doesn't see a dongle'd ROM. Windows -does- however, have a dongle, but it works on -unlicenses- hardware, generating an ID based on system components. Intel and AMD do not have to license their hardware to gain permission to run the OS.
"If you create a new bit of hardware and dont talk to the OS provider dont expect it to work and dont expect the OS provider to bend over backwards to support you. "
The OS should be developed to support a "platform" not a specific motherboard, the benefits to this, are common sense.
"Who is going to but a motherboard without an OS?"
Most people. Most motherboards sold, are sold that way.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 16 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 06:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Tbone):
Like I just said, no redesign of the hardware is required, no modifications, nothing. ROM code can be implemented in many different ways and they do individual solutions for individual needs, all the hardware manufacturer/dealer have to do is apply for the license.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 17 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 06-Jun-2002 06:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Tbone):
"Because it uses a draconian licensing sceme that requires an existing POP board be modified for a limited market"
No it does not.
/Björn
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 18 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 06:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
@Ben Hermans
We completely understand the need to prevent piracy, and are willing to work with you to whatever extent to find a better way, one that doesnt have the same hardware restrictions as the current license scheme.
We'd also like to ensure that as many copies of OS4 -as possible- are sold, this is exactly the reason we want to see the entire platform supported, we want the potential userbase to be as large as possible. This means supporting POP in general, without requiring the manufacturers to manugacture a board specifically for OS4.
We want nothing more than to see your product succeed, and to see you sell as many copies as physically possible, that is why we'd like you to embrace this opportunity at the platform level.
The POP platform is not large right now, but it's larger than an Amiga-proprietary POP market is, or ever will be. We should be able to benefit from new motherboards and new hardware as they are developed, just as Eyetech was able to benefit from POP as new chipsets became available. You should be able to benefit from this too, as you will benefit everytime someone purchases their OS to run on this new hardware.
We are -in no way- against any form of copy protection, but the price we ALL pay due to the current policy is too great! We would be completely %100 in support of a form of copy protection that does not limit the market to modified hardware. The current policy concerns us, as we'd like to see an Amiga platform, rather than just a board.
I'm interested in what you say, and understand your concerns. I'm glad you took the time to respons, thanks. I haven't heard anything from Amiga inc in regards to our concerns.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 19 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 06:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Tbone):
Also, you cannot compare the POP standard with the IA-32 architecture and open firmware. You see, you cannot make an OS based on the POP standard and expect it to run like Windows on IA-32 and open firmware based motherboards, because it won't. The AmigaOS4 will need a motherboard specific HAL for every specific motherboard and this requires cooperation from the hardware manufacturer. The license is a great way of opening this possibility for others to have AmigaOS4 support for their hardware as it wouldn't be possible at all without cooperation. Remove the license policy and you will probably have *less* support for alternative hardware in the future.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 20 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 06-Jun-2002 06:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Tbone):
"We would be completely %100 in support of a form of copy protection that does not limit the market to modified hardware"
The hardware does not have to be modified.
/Björn
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 21 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 06-Jun-2002 06:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Tbone):
Why do you keep saying the hardware needs to be modified?
It need not be modified at all: other schemes may be adopted to ensure that OS 4 is running on licensed hardware.
Besides, we've talked with people from IBM and Motorola, the AmigaOne is the first attempt at commercialisation of the POP design in large quantities.
There are no other candidate producers out there at the moment and if you stop and think that the POP design has been available for many years now without anybody mass-marketing them, this is hardly surprising.
The issue of the market being flooded by cheap POP boards by a wide variety of producers is completely theoretical at best.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 22 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by anarchic_teapot on 06-Jun-2002 07:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Tbone):
quote:
> "Who is going to but a motherboard without an OS?"
>Most people. Most motherboards sold, are sold that way.
The original poster meant "motherboard for which no OS is available", and this was quite clear from his remarks.
All commercial-production motherboards sold are *already* licensed to run an OS, hence the e.g. Windows-compatible BIOS already installed.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 23 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 07:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (anarchic_teapot):
Having a "Windows-compatible" bios and being "licensed" are two entirely different things.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 24 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Hasselqvist on 06-Jun-2002 07:16 GMT
A theoretical question:
If the hardware manufacturer doesn't have to modify the hardware and instead an USB-dongle is used, what is stopping "people" from cracking AmigaOS4 and buying motherboards directly from the manufacturer?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 25 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 07:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Tbone):
Not entirely, the only difference is that the licensed hardware has the Amiga seal of quality and guarantee for compatibility with AmigaOS4.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 26 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 06-Jun-2002 07:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Anders Hasselqvist):
"A theoretical question:
If the hardware manufacturer doesn't have to modify the hardware and instead an USB-dongle is used, what is stopping "people" from cracking AmigaOS4 and buying motherboards directly from the manufacturer?"
Nothing more than what would stop anyone from cracking a copy of AOS4 targeted for a "modified hardware".
/Björn
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 27 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 06-Jun-2002 07:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Tbone):
so f**k off and use windows
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 28 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 07:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Anders Hasselqvist):
The "cracking" is made much more difficult as the ROM code needs to be present in order for AmigaOS4 to run and the ROM code is within the USB dongle, how do you fool the system into thinking the ROM code is available as a hardware peripheral?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 29 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 07:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
@Ben Hermans
"Why do you keep saying the hardware needs to be modified?"
Because it requires the manufacturer to create a separate product line, even Eyetech has to have separate boards for POP, and AmigaOS. Separate BIOS's have to be produced for each one.
"It need not be modified at all: other schemes may be adopted to ensure that OS 4 is running on licensed hardware."
Great, then why not the other scemes? Why licensed hardware? There's already manufacturers on record saying it stands in the way of their product running OS4 with their help. We'd like more freedon where/what we but, and we'd like you to have more options where you sell.
"Besides, we've talked with people from IBM and Motorola, the AmigaOne is the first attempt at commercialisation of the POP design in large quantities."
I'm sure they told you about the benefits of platform standardization, and how easy it was to provide linux users with chipset drivers that work on all existing POP boards.
"There are no other candidate producers out there at the moment and if you stop and think that the POP design has been available for many years now without anybody mass-marketing them, this is hardly surprising."
Yet you chose this platform anyway, right? Obviously because of the benefits.
"The issue of the market being flooded by cheap POP boards by a wide variety of producers is completely theoretical at best."
The whole reason we HAVE the AmigaONE as it exists today, is because the POP market is moving faster than anyone could develop a Proprietary board, this is why Eyetech went POP in the first place, remember?
Obviously it's not theoretical at best, it's a perfect example of why we even HAVE an AmigaONE at all. If it wern't for the POP market, there'd be no AmigaONE as Eyetech cancelled the prototype many months before they decided POP was moving too fast to ignore.
Add to that Eyetech already have another board lined up, again from the speed the POP market is moving, another chipset appeared! And we haven't even recieved the first one. Obviously the POP market is "greased lightning" in it's speed, especially when you consider the Amiga market ;)
---
Again, I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this, thank you.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 30 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 06-Jun-2002 07:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Mr Hermans, may I ask you a question?
Your Point for strict licensing is piracy.Ok, i can understand this, but..
Do you realy think that if someone wants to run AOS on a non licensed POP Board,
He isn`t able to do that? Or do you believe that Hyperion is able to do the supperdupperhyper Protection code?
(I am not daubting on Hyperions abilities,but you know, release a protection system today, it`ll be cracked tomorrow)
Beside the animousities between Bplan and Hyperion, there is another Pop Board Producer which made a clear statment:
" If I can make AOS4 run on this, I'll contribute my sources/drivers, if not, well, one board is better than none, eh? Barbie will NOT be licensing AOS, we don't deal with software companies, it's not our job to chase down OS developers"
you see? There are other interesting boards on the way now, but stucking on one board is not that good IMHO,
and as AI often said they are a Software, not a Hardware company , I am a bit confused about that.
And if piracy is the Problem, wouldn`t it better to make something like an external dongle (usb perhaps)
to protect the system? So it will be easier to get AOS 4 running on more Plattforms, and Hyperion will sell more copies of OS 4.0
One thing at least (It seems quit needfull these days ;-)
Yes I am a Pegasos/Mos fan, No this has nothing to do with flaming, it is a serious question, as i made my own thoughts about this, and i really cannot understand this policy. BTW sorry fot the bad english ;-)
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 31 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Hasselqvist on 06-Jun-2002 07:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Björn Hagström):
Nothing more than what would stop anyone from cracking a copy of AOS4 targeted for a "modified hardware".
/Björn
-------------------
The point I was trying to make is that you can't get an AmigaOne without the OS bundled so then there's no reason for cracking it.
"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."
But I guess this can be interpreted as "They can sell AmigaOne hardware but without the special Rom"
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 32 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 07:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Bladerunner):
@bladerunner
"One thing at least (It seems quit needfull these days ;-)
Yes I am a Pegasos/Mos fan, No this has nothing to do with flaming, it is a serious question, as i made my own thoughts about this, and i really cannot understand this policy. BTW sorry fot the bad english ;-)"
Personally, I've never followed Pegasos/mos, so it's not relevant to me... but I wonder, will MOS run on POP boards? (looking for a golden parachute just in case Amiga/POP doesn't happen)
I think some of the flames directed at those of us that signed the petition, are because they believe this is an extension of the Mos/AOS4 flame war, which is is not.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 33 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Hasselqvist on 06-Jun-2002 07:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Samface):
You dump the ROM-code to disk and load it from there instead.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 34 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 06-Jun-2002 07:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Tbone):
I'm sorry but I think you are not fully informed about the facts.
The speed with which POP is moving is due to only 1 thing at the moment: the AmigaOne and the cooperation between MAI, Eyetech and others who have a stake in POP development.
There was no serious, financially backed up interest by the Linux community for hardware which most there consider overpriced when compared to x86 Linux.
Add to that the fact that Linux PPC won't allow you to run things like VMWorks, Wine, Corel Suite etc. and you know why interest from the Linux community is lukewarm at best: a novelty item at best.
In fact, were it not for the AmigaOne project and Eyetech's sensible decision to work with MAI, all we would have today would be very expensive POP based evaluation boards from MAI which are intended to show off the capabilities of their Northbridge.
The POP project has been out there and dormant for years.
With the demise of Beos, the end of the Apple clone makers and the dominance (through economies of scale) of x86 Linux, there simply wasn't any OS around that warranted mass-production and further development of POP boards.
No OS to run on it, no POP production.
Now there is in the form of OS 4 which is exactly why anybody else interested in entering the POP market will look at OS 4 first and foremost.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 35 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 07:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Anders Hasselqvist):
"The point I was trying to make is that you can't get an AmigaOne without the OS bundled so then there's no reason for cracking it."
"But I guess this can be interpreted as "They can sell AmigaOne hardware but without the special Rom" "
It's already available without the ROM.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 36 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 08:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Bladerunner):
"Do you realy think that if someone wants to run AOS on a non licensed POP Board,
He isn`t able to do that?"
Well, he could of course reverse engineer his own HAL for AmigaOS4 but I assure you that cooperating with Amiga Inc. and their AmigaOS4 partners would make things *alot* easier. Besides, if it wouldn't work properly, guess who the customer would blame for it...
Once more, just because AmigaOS4 runs on one POP motherboard, that doesn't mean it will magicly run on any POP based motherboard. Every POP based motherboard will still require it's own specific HAL in order to run AmigaOS4 and the AmigaOS4 developers cannot do this without cooperation from the hardware manufacturer. The license is the key to this kind of cooperation and combining this with a copy protection such as the ROM code makes it beneficial for both the license holder and the licensee.
I'm telling you, the license policy is a good thing(TM) and doing it any other way would just make things worse. Please drop this whole petition thing as what you're doing isn't beneficial to your own cause, on the contrary.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 37 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 08:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Anders Hasselqvist):
Yes, but how do you get the OS to look for the ROM code on the disk? I mean, it's not like it will read the ROM code from just anywhere available.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 38 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 06-Jun-2002 08:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Bladerunner):
I'm sorry, with the access I have to information at IBM and Motorola, I simply have a hard time believing in another serious mass-production of POP boards.
The economics are stacked up against this for the reasons I've outlined above and which simply boil down to a lack of demand.
Producing a few boards is one thing, mass producing them at an affordable and competitive price is another which requires very substantial financial backing.
We'll deal with it in the unlikely case it comes to pass.
And yes, we could consider something like a USB token which is another reason why I consider this whole discussion to be a non-issue.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 39 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 06-Jun-2002 08:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (anarchic_teapot):
"All commercial-production motherboards sold are *already* licensed to run an OS, hence the
e.g. Windows-compatible BIOS already installed. "
There's nothing Windows-specific about the BIOS on a PC motherboard.
It will support QNX, Linux, BSD, or Amithlon equally well.
You have it the wrong way round - Windows is a BIOS-compatible OS.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 40 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 08:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Don Cox):
POP does not equal open firmware, drop it already.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 41 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 06-Jun-2002 08:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
"There was no serious, financially backed up interest by the Linux community for hardware which
most there consider overpriced when compared to x86 Linux. "
Amiga users think so too.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 42 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Bladerunner on 06-Jun-2002 08:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Tbone):
Thone:
I don`tknow if MOS is running on other POP Plattforms than Pegasos, but that is not the point,
It is about the licensing policy. have you read the statement from the developer of the barbie board?
He is willing to do the drivers himself to get AOS running on his Board, but he won`t take a license from AI
as supported Plattform. If now he would say, I am going to do the same for MOS, I am sure that Bplan has nothing against it,
If the people will buy MOS (OK, for MOS it seems a higher risc, as in the Moment i have no idea about protection plans for MOS)
Got the point? I hope so..Would be better for me, if i could explain it in german ;-))
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 43 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 06-Jun-2002 08:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 32 (Tbone):
>I think some of the flames directed at those of us that signed the petition,
>are because they believe this is an extension of the Mos/AOS4 flame war, which
>is is not.
What, you mean the petition which has been going for weeks yet has a pitiful 300ish signatures, many of which are now "false entry voided" and most of the rest (if you bother to read the comments) actually either disagree with the petition or dont understand what the petition is about in the first place. (But then, since the terms of the petition is so badly worded and contains such stupidly inaccurate statements its hardly surprising). And of those few genuine signatures most are probably made-up names from mos-groupies who've signed numerous times. Considering the number of people who must have seen the petition by now, 50 or so actual signatures from real people isnt too impressive now, is it ?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 44 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous coder on 06-Jun-2002 08:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Samface):
> Yes, but how do you get the OS to look for the ROM code on the disk?
> I mean, it's not like it will read the ROM code from just anywhere available.
By patching the OS.
You know it is possible, it has been done before.
There is no unbreakable protection scheme.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 45 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 08:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Don Cox):
Not every Amiga user. It all depends on what you compare with, consider this:
1. It's the cheapest PPC hardware available on the entire computer market as of today.
2. It's about half the price of existing PPC hardware currently available on the Amiga market.
3. You cannot compare apples with peaches, I don't think any x86 hardware manufacturer out there could make cheaper PPC hardware.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 46 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 06-Jun-2002 08:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (anonymous coder):
I didn't say it wasn't impossible. However, it does make it a bit more tricky and perhaps discourage most of the "hobby-crackers".
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 47 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 06-Jun-2002 08:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (Don Cox):
>Amiga users think so too.
Correction: some x86 advocates think so.
Certainly not the people who spend money on any Phase 5/DCE hardware.
The AmigaOne is excellent value for money for those people.
So would be any similarly priced PPC hardware.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 48 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 08:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
@Ben Hermans
"I'm sorry but I think you are not fully informed about the facts."
That's debatable, but feel free to debate them ;)
"The speed with which POP is moving is due to only 1 thing at the moment: the AmigaOne and the cooperation between MAI, Eyetech and others who have a stake in POP development."
Eyetech/Amiga haven't promoted the technology of the POP platform at all, if you'd care to ask MAI, all the advancements in POP architecture (the chipsets) were developed indipendantly of Amiga/Eyetech, and wern't influenced by Amiga at all, both were already available/in development before Eyetech decided to use them. neither chipset ever even anticipated being used in an Amiga, by it's manufacturers.
"There was no serious, financially backed up interest by the Linux community for hardware which most there consider overpriced when compared to x86 Linux."
True, but there was more interest/market/funding than the Amiga market could muster, this is why Eyetech canned the original AmigaOne and decided to use the board that benefitted from the R/D from the (small as it was) linux/POP community.
"In fact, were it not for the AmigaOne project and Eyetech's sensible decision to work with MAI, all we would have today would be very expensive POP based evaluation boards from MAI which are intended to show off the capabilities of their Northbridge."
Which is a good thing? no? Much better than a proprietary board Eyetech never got to work.
"The POP project has been out there and dormant for years."
Much like the Amiga ;) Yet the dormant POP market has been moving faster, and producing chipsets, technology that we're using in the AmigaONE. the big thing is to ensure we can continue using this technology, as it develops, in the future. The licensing scheme puts the iniative in others hands, rather than the people we are buying the OS from.
"With the demise of Beos, the end of the Apple clone makers and the dominance (through economies of scale) of x86 Linux, there simply wasn't any OS around that warranted mass-production and further development of POP boards."
(Apple never ran on POP boards, Apple is a platform, even the clones)
Yet the POP technology still advanced, obviously, as Eyetech has chosen it after failing to compete with a proprietary model.
"No OS to run on it, no POP production."
Yet R/D is still happening (remember that's why we have the technology we're borrowing from POP) and new chipsets are still being developed, even the next Eyetech model is again based on R/D from the POP market you feel isn't relevant.
"Now there is in the form of OS 4 which is exactly why anybody else interested in entering the POP market will look at OS 4 first and foremost."
Well, so far there's only one company that looked at OS4 first, Eyetech, others looked, and decided the license model wasn't to their liking. The problem here is that the licensing model put's the iniative on the manufacturer, something that isn't good in a market you yourself decribe as "dormant."
In a perfect world, we'd be able to use OS4 on those boards who's manufacturers have passed us over. Not all these manufacturers have expierence in an Amiga market, and I'm afraid most are litterally afraid of it, after all there's this talk of a curse ;) when building hardware specifically for an Amiga.
If running OS4 on a motherboard didn't involve commitment from the manufacturer to tailor to Amiga's license, and instead just allowed it to run unmodified on it's existing product line, the bar would be lowered for other entries into the market we could benefit from.
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 49 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Georg Steger on 06-Jun-2002 08:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
> I'm sorry, with the access I have to information at IBM and Motorola, I simply have a hard time believing in another serious
> mass-production of POP boards.
*Another* serious mass-production? So a few thousand A1 boards is a serious
mass-production?
> The economics are stacked up against this for the reasons I've outlined above and which simply boil down to a lack of
> demand.
Wouldn't that mean for MAI + unknown fareastern company that the best
thing for them to do is to drop out of the ppc chipset/motherboard market?
AmigaOS + POP/PPC petition official web site : Comment 50 of 280ANN.lu
Posted by Tbone on 06-Jun-2002 08:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Samface):
Actually, it's spec compatible with it.
http://www.openppc.org/pop/download.phtml
Anonymous, there are 280 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 280]
Back to Top