|[Rant] osopinion: Close That Open Hardware!||ANN.lu|
|Posted on 12-Jun-2002 00:21 GMT by sutro||169 comments|
A rather unispired article at best. Read
here for more.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 1 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 11-Jun-2002 22:36 GMT|
|I would call that well based but... Too aggressive.|
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 2 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by TBone on 11-Jun-2002 23:31 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 1 (Alkis Tsapanidis):|
re: too agressive
I didn't think so, There's no agression in describing, as a consumer, the product you're expected to purchase, in the hopes the industry picks up on it and delivers the product you asked for.
That's what the market's all about.
If Amiga hears the outcry, and delivers a product we can buy, then it's beneficial to them. If they don't, and we don't purchase because the product isn't acceptable, then they lose. If we never made the problem clear, it would be our, the consumers, fault. If we made it crystal clear, and they just didn't listen, then, well, it's their fault.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 3 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by [JC] on 11-Jun-2002 23:31 GMT|
|Pff, it's bang on, every word of it. I just signed the petition.|
Usual disclaimer, this is my opinion, not neccesarily that of epic interactive, yadda yadda.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 4 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by gz on 12-Jun-2002 00:16 GMT|
|The problem amiga inc faces now is the fact that there hasn't been anyone claiming control over the hardware/software market since commodore went bust.|
Since those days there hasn't been anyone telling developers and manufacturers what they can't do on the amiga market. Phase5 created their own solution with their ppc boards and other hw companies too have created their own. All these products were called "amiga" products as they were targeted to improve the performance of aging real amiga hw.
Anyway the point is that now when a lot of people have been in a market for 8 years where amiga trademark holders have had no power over the hardware that has been on sale on our market, we have got used to the freedom of choice and "openess" of the hw market. At least I personally cannot think of a similar market anymore like it was in the commodore times, where every hw was in tight scrutiny of C=. That wouldn't work anymore anyway since it's 2002 now.
When amiga inc proposed their licencing scheme it caused a sudden rush of unease in me, because I was used to the "open" way that has flourished in the amiga market for the past 8 years. I was used seeing hw developers researching and developing for the market as they saw fit and without restrictions or licence schemes that force them into anything else. This has proved to be both good and bad as those people know who have had problems with their hardware repairings and customer services etc.
Suddenly along comes the new holder of amiga trademark and starts to claim control over the market with their new licence scheme. It has good aspects and it has bad aspects. Good aspects are what are claimed at amiga inc website. Bad aspects are what aren't covered, and that's the thing that was outlined above. Not just some of us users have got used to do whatever we like without having to fish around for anyone's concent but also the hw manufacturers have got used to create and sell their products as they please. Now that they have to adopt a licence and bundling scheme before they can sell hardware targeted at the new market, may cause some of them to think twice about the worthwhileness of the deal when comparing at the low sales of this miniscule market. Companies that have designed open hw that isn't tied strictly to amiga market may very well consider it as a not so warm welcome from our platform. At the moment we have only one licencee producing a board running OS4.
Anyway, my point is not who is licencing what and when, but it's more about why I think the licencing issue has caused so much split in the community and uproar from developers and users aswell. I personally feel that it's caused by the way people have got used to coding, soldering and selling their products without having to do anything special in between. Now that they are required to do so, it may feel odd and unececcary to some of them.
The article at osOpinion seemed to have more moot points than valid in my opinion but there were some...
Personally I get upset everytime when Ainc act as they were the saviours of amiga platform, when infact they have done nothing more than one sdk and a de player. All other work has been done by third party and by the sole iniative of those parties. The way I see it the only thing AI can be credited of are 2 little products that currently have even smaller community than we have.
I hope that will change in the future.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 5 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 12-Jun-2002 00:24 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 2 (TBone):|
As far as the Pegasos and Barbie boards are concerned, it looks like a third party is going to have to come forward and have that hardware licensed. I have a hard time believing that the hard core LinuxPPC supporters will buy a board for Linux and then possibly want to run Amiga OS 4.x, whereas I feel the converse is true. I still maintain that the people making the most noise about Amiga's licensing issue are not people doing it for the good of the POP platform, but rather are doing so because in their mind they want to run OS 4.x on a board different than Eyetech's AmigaOne.
If you want to run OS 4.x, buy an Eyetech AmigaOne or a PPC equipped classic machine. If you want to run it on a Barbie or Pegasos, talk to some third party who is willing to go through the proper channels and take some financial risk. It would be nice to think that the people who have signed these petitions would be buying a POP motherboard together with a copy of OS 4.0, but I have my doubts. At this point in time the companies working on a future for the next generation Amiga are Amiga Inc., Hyperion, and Eyetech. These are the companies taking the financial risks to move the platform forward.
Now let's do a little math. Let's say 1000 people sign the petition, and 90 percent of those people truly would buy OS 4.0. Let's ballpark the cost of OS 4.0 at $100.00 USD. The related Amiga companies would be losing potentially $90,000.00 USD. That amount might be able to pay a years salary for two programmers out of school, let alone someone with experience. I think it's going to take a lot more signatures on petitions before anyone is going to take them seriously.
Now here's a suggestion to the people who want to run OS 4.0 on their at present unlicensed board: Go out and buy a copy of OS 4.0 when it's released and then petition to get it to run on your POP board. As they say "Money talks and bullsh*t walks." Alternatively, when someone hacks the OS to run on these boards, have the decency to buy a legitimate copy and support the people that made it possible.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 6 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 00:51 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 5 (Adam Kowalczyk):|
> Now here's a suggestion to the people who want to run OS 4.0 on their at
> present unlicensed board: Go out and buy a copy of OS 4.0 when it's
> released and then petition to get it to run on your POP board.
The problem is that OS 4.0 isn't supposed to be available for buying separately, but you'd have to buy a board with it.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 7 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Björn Hagström on 12-Jun-2002 02:59 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 6 (Marcus Sundman):|
"The problem is that OS 4.0 isn't supposed to be available for buying separately, but you'd have to buy a board with it."
A standalone version of AOS4 will be available for classic Amiga hardware with installed PPC accelerators.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 8 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 12-Jun-2002 03:00 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 4 (gz):|
> Personally I get upset everytime when Ainc act as they were the saviours of
> amiga platform, when infact they have done nothing more than one sdk and a de > player. All other work has been done by third party and by the sole iniative > of those parties. The way I see it the only thing AI can be credited of are 2 > little products that currently have even smaller community than we have.
> I hope that will change in the future.
I don't see Amiga Inc. acting as if they are saviours of the Amiga, but rather "enablers" of the platform. Amiga Inc's ownership of the trademark and the OS has made Hyperion's work a task possible of completing within a reasonable amount of time. Having new motherboards to run this OS on will bring us up to date from a hardware point of view, and this we have to thank Eyetech. More will be and has been done with Amiga Inc. in the picture than had they not been. They also will have accomplished more in less time than competing elements of the Amiga community.
AROS has been a long running project mostly aimed at running on x86 hardware. It's goals aren't that different than Amiga Inc's.....updated OS running on newer hardware combined with the open source twist. They've been working on it since 1995 and there are a few more pieces of the puzzle to be fit together, but I'd have to say I'm pretty impressed with their work. I'm not sure how long MorphOS has been in the works, but they are basically doing the same thing on PPC hardware, albeit a closed source version of it. I strongly feel that had nobody taken the reigns from Gateway, the Amiga community would be happy with either of these two solutions and made the choice based on their preference of PPC vs x86.
Amiga's role has been one of the enabler, and they are demonstrating by working with Hyperion that it is easier and quicker to start with the source code and improve upon it instead of doing an implemenation from scratch. I guess ownership of source code does have value worth protecting. What machine a person buys may all boil down to what people consider a "real" Amiga. I am one of many who see value in Amiga's stamp of approval on the project. I do feel that work done by the AROS and MorphOS people have contributed to the Amiga community, but I do not see the three groups as having the same goal even though they may look similar.
I don't get upset if Amiga Inc. comes off as a saviour, I just understand that they are a business with certain goals to achieve in order to make the Amiga platform successful. I don't see bPlan/Thendic as any different. They too are in this market to make money, but have somewhat different goals than developing the Amiga platform. I believe AmigaOS compatibility within MorphOS is more a method to bring Amiga developers over to a new platform that will be heading in a very different direction from where Amiga Inc. is going. That is why it's so obvious that bPlan/Thendic do not want to agree to Amiga Inc. licensing requirements. They are not on the same team working towards a common goal. They are two competing companies trying to attract customers from the Amiga community. This is also why I find petitions a waste of energy as we vote with our dollars (or Euros). This is how I interpret the meaning of the petition: "I really want to buy a <insert non-Eyetech PPC board here> and run AmigaOS 4.x" It's basically telling Amiga that you're unwilling to support one of the companies that supports the direction they are heading. Is that the signal you really wanted to send? The same petition also give bPlan/Thendic an idea of the support they have for their hardware, but that maybe MorphOS isn't the best thing since sliced bread. It's the same thing the Linux people have been doing on the x86 platform. Hardware's great, cheap, ubiquitous....but <insert Winblows, Windoze, etc. here> really sucks and you're making me pay for it?
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 9 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by gz on 12-Jun-2002 04:27 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 8 (Adam Kowalczyk):|
It is true that amiga inc have "enabled" hyperion to bring us the long awaited os4 by not refusing from a win,win contract proposed by mr.Hermans.
AI were supposed to be making the os4 and they approached MorphOS team in the hopes of using that as the basis of their new os (aswell as the coding talents of the MOS team) However it seems that the team weren't fond of the idea of AI calling them up and saying "we could work together by us lending our name to your os, if you give us 50% of the profits when it's sold" Or something like that... The bottom line is that it didn't work out as AI had planned. For reasons unknown to human beings AI kept secret about the bumps on their roadmap that had occurred and they insisted that os4 was on it's way and even insisted on the release date to stay the same even they had noone working on it. Time wen't on and AI kept quiet while the promised last date was getting nearer and the unease kept rising among the community. Finally the date went past and just in time hyperion approached and showed interest in taking part on the project. A plan was made, hyperion would get the rights to develop the os as they saw fit and even in the case of AI going bankrupt they would still have the rights to continue developing it. What does this mean? It means a superb deal for amiga inc. Not only they don't have to do ANYTHING as hyperion does all the work for them but also they have to pay amiga inc their share of the bargain for each copy sold.
So in a nutshell: Hyperion approaches AI and says they will research, develop, give their expertise, handle the future projects aswell (updates, bugfixes etc.) And the best part of the plan is that AI don't have to pay a dime for all this expensive and time consuming work, yet they still get their os4 and their money from it aaand manage to keep us punters happy in the process. They would have been mad not to accept. But why on earth should they get my gratitude for signing the deal with hyperion? It's not that they would have done anything else than secured their wallets for free in a foolproof way as hyperion wanted os4 for their own agendas to materialize.
Thats like I was being admired and shouldertapped for being a kind soul enough to buy a vaccuum cleaner from a door to door salesman if he offered me money for accepting to take his vaccuum cleaner.
History shows there have always been people who for some reason need a leader which they can follow and look up to. I'm not saying you are one of those people as you have good points in your views, but I cannot understand why it is so noble in some ppl's opinion that AI signed the deal with hyperion. And especially why they should be congratulated for making a decicion even a rabid dog would have accepted.
I for one have lost all my faith for AI's intentions. I believe they bought the name for the de only and to have a ready base out of which to launch it. All of their actions support that theory. I would be a lot more happy about amiga's future if hyperion would be the amiga trademark owner and I believe even those who disagree with all of my other views, agree with me on this one.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 10 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Bill Hoggett on 12-Jun-2002 05:23 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 6 (Marcus Sundman):|
> The problem is that OS 4.0 isn't supposed to be available for buying
> separately, but you'd have to buy a board with it.
That's not quite accurate. The OS will be available to buy separately, but it will need licensed hardware to run on, and Amiga Inc have already declared that all licensed hardware must be sold with OS 4.0 in the first place. As a result, the only people who will benefit from the standalone OS 4.0 version will be CSPPC/BlizzardPPC users.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 11 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 05:31 GMT|
|It's sad to see how Seehund has succeeded in spreading his FUD. Why don't he just try something simple like, contact Amiga Inc. and ask for a clarification? I mean, the announcement of the license on Amiga.com isn't the actual license, you know...|
I wonder how he thinks AmigaOS could possibly run on every POP based motherboard out there by simply supporting the POP standard. I mean, how do you make a HAL for some unknown hardware without support from the hardware manufacturer? The x86 plaform has open firmware which makes Windows able to run on standard IA32 architecture motherboards, there's no such thing in the POP world and that's simply what most people seem to not be able to comprehend.
If we want AmigaOS4 to support as much hardware as possible (not just the Pegasos) then we need this kind of license which makes the required cooperation between software and hardware developers possible.
Please stop this stupid petition thing and stop spreading FUD! You are opposing your own cause, damn it!
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 12 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Casper on 12-Jun-2002 05:40 GMT|
|>And the best part of the plan is that AI don't have to pay a dime for all this expensive and time consuming work,|
How do you know that AI haven't paid Hyperion a dime? Have you seen the contract?
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 13 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by kjetil on 12-Jun-2002 05:50 GMT|
|I se this POP liaison agreement make shore that the hardware we by works with Close source kernel of Amiga OS 4.0, Kickstart NG, If the Amiga kernel where to run on more the Motherboards then assigned to it, there my problems with hardware that are not really supported with AmigaOS, it’s about make shore that they really support Amiga and that they produce drivers.|
About linux users not being able to use AmigaOS, Linux is open and can run on any POP PPC card so do not se the problem, when they are in need for new hardware the just get an AmigaPPC supported POP,
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 14 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Seehund on 12-Jun-2002 07:03 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 11 (Samface):|
Samface, please stop it yourself. "Your" arguments are getting boring, because they are the same as the transparent excuses we all could read in black and white on amiga.com since day 1. Also, stop confusing the term "FUD" with "opinions". FUD is a marketing technique based on conjecture utilised to make your competitors' products look less attractive.
The petition and my article don't deal with legal details unknown to the public. It deals with the faults of the *BASIC PRINCIPLES* presented by Amiga Inc. itself. If the basic principles presented by Amiga Inc. are incorrect, then the company should retract them and present what it wants to do instead. Two months should have been ample time to do that.
Nowhere is anybody saying that removing unnnecessary obstacles against having AmigaOS running on as much hardware as possible will automatically mean that it will run on any piece of plastic and silicon with a PPC processor.
Of course work on compatibility has to be done (and it has to be done by the software developer!), but naturally the presented policies aren't necessary in any way for such work to be done. Hardware developers/vendors provide documentation and code to software developers every damn day without any license agreements or need to sell the software bundled with their hardware. If they don't, well tough shit, but of course they won't be more cooperative if they have to comply to somebody's licensing terms and sell somebody else's OS with their hardware. Compulsory licensing etc. are an obstacle against the cooperation of which you speak.
For guaranteeing compatibility we have already seen that the licensing is totally meaningless. The short list (1 item) of licensed "new" hardware was presented before AmigaOS4 ran on any hardware at all, because the kernel was not even in alpha stage and development of other OS components have admittedly so far been developed in 68k environments and on old PPC-accelerators. Neither was that single piece of licensed hardware available in its final shape.
Here, have an URL: http://amigapop.8bit.co.uk - go read the information, FAQs and comments there and come up with an opinion and arguments of your own. Just because one loves AmigaOS, one doesn't have to try to excuse every decision by the company owning its trademarks no matter how outrageous those decisions might be.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 15 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Jack Me on 12-Jun-2002 07:25 GMT|
|Half of the people on that petition don't even know what the petitioning about. You’ve got comments like. "Amiga User since 1987", "Long lives the AmigaOS" & "amiga are the best. os and hardware ".|
What a load of rubbish.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 16 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by MadGun68 on 12-Jun-2002 07:47 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 14 (Seehund):|
Why should Hyperion be forced in to supporting every single piece of
hardware that should happen along? You don't see games makers being
asked to write drivers for video cards by vendors such as ATi. (And
I'd like to see you get information so you can make a driver for an
This door swings in both directions. You can look at it from either a
"Hyperion will write the HAL support for increased OS sales" or "the
hardware vendor will write the HAL support for increased sales." Both
of them apply.
What I find interesting is that it was mentioned here on ANN that
resellers need to configure the bPlan boards before sale. If they need
to spend the time doing that, a reseller can just as easily take a
moment to flash a bios for the AOS 4.0 support. It'll take less time
to do that than configure a motherboard.
Then again, it's not like there are any other POP motherboards
available yet anyways. There are promises of release, but those get
broken all the time. And I still think that an evaluation by a
psychiatrist should be mandated before anyone thinks of purchasing one
of those "Barbie" boards. A whopping two pci slots and no agp (not to
mention a video chip that is seriously out of date.) If they've
changed the design (a lot) they need to take some new photos of the
As a side note on the Pegasos boards.. I don't know about anyone else,
but I'd never purchase a motherboard who told me I was
"inconsequential" to my face.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 17 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Seehund on 12-Jun-2002 07:52 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 15 (Jack Me):|
In what way do those additional, optional comments imply that the signatories do not endorse the petition? The 8 sabotaging morons who signed with comments against the ideas of the petition or were faking the names of others have long since been removed. (Before any asshole gets any bright ideas, rest assured that your garbage naturally won't reach the recipients of the petition, all you'd accomplish would just be showing the world what clowns you are.)
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 18 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Treke on 12-Jun-2002 07:57 GMT|
I don't share the point of view of the autor of the article. That's it.If someone makes a petition, which agrees with this policy of Amiga Inc., I think it will suceed too ;-)
I just want to be a user,who has a system somebody looked at(HW and SW compliancy). I'm bored when I see linux nerds running linux on every calculator, what they construct.(Yes as a proffesional developer I hate this kind of development as a former nerd I like it ;) ) A "certified" system is more acceptable from QA measures. Amiga Inc made these steps, because every wiser market player should made them, to make more profit and to secure revenues. If Amiga were not made these step , I would think about their prioffesionality.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 19 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by tinman on 12-Jun-2002 07:59 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 10 (Bill Hoggett):|
Wasn't there another option of buying a dongle-pack? Maybe it was only suggested, but I remember it in the case of buying a "LinuxOne" from Eyetech and then later buying the licensed ROM + OS4 to plug into your board to make it an AmigaOne.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 20 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 08:01 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 7 (Björn Hagström):|
> "The problem is that OS 4.0 isn't supposed to be available for buying
> separately, but you'd have to buy a board with it."
> A standalone version of AOS4 will be available for classic Amiga hardware
> with installed PPC accelerators.
True, that is the one exception to the rule. However, we were talking about POP boards, and the PPC accelerators that OS4 will run on aren't POP boards.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 21 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 08:10 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 10 (Bill Hoggett):|
> > The problem is that OS 4.0 isn't supposed to be available for buying
> > separately, but you'd have to buy a board with it.
> That's not quite accurate. The OS will be available to buy separately, but
> it will need licensed hardware to run on, and Amiga Inc have already
> declared that all licensed hardware must be sold with OS 4.0 in the first
That contradicts the earlier statement that OS4 would be sold as OEM only.
> As a result, the only people who will benefit from the standalone
> OS 4.0 version will be CSPPC/BlizzardPPC users.
<speculation>Perhaps there will be a special version of OS4 to be run on CSPPC/BlizzardPPC, and only that version will be sold separately. That would make sense since it would be unnecessary to sell the POP versions with CSPPC/BlizzardPPC compatibility.</speculation> However, as Ben Hermans (?) earlier stated; the only exception to the "OEM only" policy was the OS4 for CSPPC/BlizzardPPC.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 22 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Björn Hagström on 12-Jun-2002 08:30 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 20 (Marcus Sundman):|
Yeah, but the intent of the original poster seemed to suggest that that was a way to show support. Instead of just using a cracked version without buying anything.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 23 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 08:42 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 22 (Björn Hagström):|
> Yeah, but the intent of the original poster seemed to suggest that that was
> a way to show support. Instead of just using a cracked version without
> buying anything.
I failed to see that if that indeed is the case.
If you don't own a PPC accelerator card then buying OS4 for one isn't a very good option (after all, this isn't charity).
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 24 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 09:11 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 14 (Seehund):|
1. What you read at amiga.com is a statement explaining the license agreement terms, not the actual license. If you have concerns about it, contact Amiga Inc. for a clarification. Have you tried that yet? I didn't think so.
2. It's NOT restricting AmigaOS4 from running from running on specific hardware, it's *enabling* AmigaOS4 to run on whatever hardware. All it takes is an application sent in to Amiga Inc. for a license. Those NOT applying for a license is the ones restricting their hardware, not Amiga Inc. It's a *fact* that they cannot make hardware support without cooperation from the hardware manufacturer. An "open hardware" OS based on POP is an impossible dream of yours.
3. Please stop making up lies such as only one "new" hardware is supported, I thought you said you have read the announcement at Amiga.com? Get your facts straight...
4. Without the license, Amiga Inc. will have to make individual partnership agreements with each hardware manufacturer if they want AmigaOS4 to support (this is the way they made it before, remember?). Do you really think such policy will bring more hardware options to the end user? I simply don't see it, this way *anyone* can get AmigaOS4 support for their hardware with only a simple license agreement.
Again, Seehund. Your petition is based on FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) simply because most of your arguments are based on just that. You haven't even contacted Amiga Inc. to confront them with your arguments and all you have is an announcement on their webpage trying to explain the actual license in easier and simplified wording. That's not very professional, you know...
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 25 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by adavidm on 12-Jun-2002 09:35 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 24 (Samface):|
I agree wih samface here.
The only hardware manufauctures that will be affected are the one that have no interest in the Amiga. Why does this matter? How many options is this going to close off to the Amiga community? Pegasos? Name one other. If a hardware vendor wants to sell Amiga POP boards, they can. Provided, of course, that they can meet certain levels of service and support for the hardware and software. What is the problem with this? Even the Pegasos cold be used.
If we didn't have this systrem, and someone goes out and buys a board that calls itself POP compliant, but dosn't work with AmigaOS, whose fault would this be? Hyperion's? Amiga Inc's? How would the user know this in advance? Is Hyperion expected to test AmigaOS with every POP board that hits the market?
Of course, all this will create an artificial split in the POP/PPC hardware market. The exact same hardware base would become either "POP" or "POP -- but for AmigaOS."
What the hell is this about? If you buy a AmigaONE, its still a POP board! why is there a split? You don't need dongle code to run Linux on it.
There was a (very good-natured, actually) discussion on Amiga.org about this here:
(Sorry if this appears messed up, I don't really use ANN enough to learn the escapes)
P.S. The article was FUD IMHO because no attempt was made to try and empathise with Amiga's position on this issue, and no viable alternatives have been offere.
Apolgies for a) The long, ranting post and b) Appalling spelling, my £2 keyboard is playing up again ;-)
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 26 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by DaveW on 12-Jun-2002 09:37 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 24 (Samface):|
I agree with Samface, I think Seehunds agenda from the start has been dubious and close minded even if he did something constructive about it ( petition ).
The petition has been used as a rallying cry for those with an axe to grind against Amiga Inc ( regardless of whether or not they have a clue about what they spin ).
I think Amiga Inc are doing the right thing, ignoring the petition and not volunteering extra official clarification because the executive update is clear enough to those that read it without an agenda to find some reason to cause further trouble.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 27 of 169||ANN.lu|
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 28 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Tbone on 12-Jun-2002 09:43 GMT|
|What I'd like to know, is why hasn't Amiga Inc. responded to these concerns? Hello? Amiga? Can you read me?|
Hello? It's us, the users and potential customers of upcoming products... concerned about how the licensing will impact the platform... hello?
Anyone there? It's been months, and we havent heard a peep... this doesn't bode well I'm afraid.
Anyone there? Customers, manufacturers, and developers have valid and legitamate concerns that are being expressed all over the place, what must we do to get a response, skywriting?
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 29 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Henning Lund on 12-Jun-2002 09:47 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 28 (Tbone):|
Sorry, but I believe most of the people who has signed the petition has never been real Amiga users, or they have not read the petition!
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 30 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by adavidm on 12-Jun-2002 09:48 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 26 (DaveW):|
Here Here, DaveW.
SeeHund DOES SEEM quick to throw mud(or should that be FUD?) at Amiga Inc. With no viable alternative of his own.
Would it not be a good idea to set up a poll, to find out whether most people agree with you, before sending your petition, that way you can find out what proportion of support there is in the community, rather then how many people you can sway to your way of thinking. A one-sided petition(all petitions, by their very nature, are one-sided and biased), with no opposing numbers is unlikely to impress the decision-makers at Amiga, is it now? Deleting entries from a petition because they don't agree with you is also a fairly disgusting practice and should suggest to you that not everyone, not even a MAJORITY possibly, agree with your point of view.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 31 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Tbone on 12-Jun-2002 10:05 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 26 (DaveW):|
"I agree with Samface, I think Seehunds agenda from the start has been dubious and close minded even if he did something constructive about it ( petition ). "
I think those looking to place agenda's are the ones labeling people with perfectly legitimate concerns as having an "agenda." This isn't charity folks. What other product would you patron, when valid concerns you have about the product are dismissed?
"The petition has been used as a rallying cry for those with an axe to grind against Amiga Inc ( regardless of whether or not they have a clue about what they spin ). "
Nonsense, The petition is being used as a tool by the opposition to label those on the petition as any group those opposed to the petition happen to have an axe to grind with, wether they be MorphOS supporters, or they wear fur, or whatever. The petition has nothing to do with that.
"I think Amiga Inc are doing the right thing, ignoring the petition and not volunteering extra official clarification because the executive update is clear enough to those that read it without an agenda to find some reason to cause further trouble."
Again, this is not charity, AmigaOS is a product. Even charities I give to I expect more clarification about the details from.
We've already suffered damage from the current license. We've had developers, willing to donate time and effort to make AmigaOS run on more hardware turned away due to the license. This is a fact. Were the licensing different, we would be in a better situation with regards to platform longevity.
You could argue "All they had to do was license..." He's a -developer- people, developers don't market hardware! Therin lies a huge flaw in the license that hasn't been addressed. A license that turns people away is not good, we need all the help we can get, and we're already losing it.
Has everyone forgotten the past decade? In the "best case scenario" with regards to the current license, we will only have a subset of the POP platform available to us, just a subset that someone decides to support and become a VAR for. You people have argued that the POP platform is slow developing and small, what -more- reason not to limit yourself to a -subset- of that market, and not turn away willing developers?
As far as an "agenda" goes, If you consider not wanting to see AmigaOS fail to gain market acceptance, then maybe I do have an agenda.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 32 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by TBone on 12-Jun-2002 10:08 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 30 (adavidm):|
"Would it not be a good idea to set up a poll, to find out whether most people agree with you, before sending your petition, that way you can find out what proportion" [snip]
Been there, done that.
I'd like to add that this poll doesn't even reflect the petition, as the petition doesn't mention a "totally open" license, just that the -current- one is damaging.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 33 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Björn Hagström on 12-Jun-2002 10:17 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 23 (Marcus Sundman):|
Well, that is a different issue that you will have to discuss with the original author.
Basically he said: Buy AOS4 anyway, and then ask of AInc/Hyperion to make it possibly to use AOS4 on hardware xyz. This may or may not reflect my oppinion on the matter, but the issue is what he said. Not what I think.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 34 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 10:20 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 32 (TBone):|
Hrm... Wouldn't it be better if they confronted Amiga Inc. and verified their arguments before setting up a petition instead of starting it directly, based on nothing but their own interpretation and assumptions?
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 35 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Henning Lund on 12-Jun-2002 10:20 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 32 (TBone):|
Have you ever seen the lisence???
I havn't, so I don't think you have!
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 36 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Seehund on 12-Jun-2002 10:21 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 24 (Samface):|
> 1. What you read at amiga.com is a statement explaining the license agreement
> terms, not the actual license. If you have concerns about it, contact Amiga Inc.
> for a clarification. Have you tried that yet? I didn't think so.
Once again, it is the basic principles of compulsory licensing, compulsory OS/hardware bundling and compulsory hardware-vendor provided hardware license verification means (a.k.a. "piracy-protection") as officially outlined by Amiga Inc. that we who signed the petition are disagreeing with. As for detailed clarification from Amiga Inc., Gary Peake didn't provide any when I asked him, I just got a repetition of the poor excuses in the "executive update", i.e. the policies would somehow be necessary for "anti-piracy" and "quality control" reasons.
Maybe you have been privy to seeing a license agreement document in its entirety and know that the details and technicalities change everything and they turn the publicly outlined basic principles into a meaningless pack of lies? If that's the case I just wonder why Amiga Inc. chose to present something that wouldn't be a result of those oh-so important details. Why did they do that? Come on Samface, tell us, you surely seem to have inside knowledge?
> 2. It's NOT restricting AmigaOS4 from running from running on specific
> hardware, it's *enabling* AmigaOS4 to run on whatever hardware. All it takes
> is an application sent in to Amiga Inc. for a license. Those NOT applying for
> a license is the ones restricting their hardware, not Amiga Inc. It's a
I'm breathless. Once again, it is up to the software developer to make his software run on as much hardware as possible. Hardware vendors not applying for a license are not restricting their hardware. It is their hardware and they sell it just like they've always done, without bothering about licenses, which OSs run on their hardware and without selling any little crazy sofwtare vendors' products together with their hardware.
Come on! If a software vendor sets up terms, any terms, governing which hardware is to be *allowed* to run their software product, then you can't seriously claim that it's the HARDWARE vendor who's restricting his hardware - it's not he who made up the terms in the first place.
> *fact* that they cannot make hardware support without cooperation from the
> hardware manufacturer. An "open hardware" OS based on POP is an impossible
> dream of yours.
You speak as if compulsory licensing is a prerequisite to get cooperation from hardware vendors. That's rediculous. If anything it's an obstacle against getting that cooperation. As for "open hardware OS based on POP" I'm not sure what you're talking about.
> 3. Please stop making up lies such as only one "new" hardware is supported, I
> thought you said you have read the announcement at Amiga.com? Get your facts
If that's a lie then I'm not the one who made it up:
"As a result, AmigaOS4 and all future versions will ship only on those hardware products to which Amiga Inc has specifically granted a license [...]
Currently this hardware comprises:
* Eyetech's AmigaOne series of PPC motherboards
* Cyberstorm-PPC accelerators by phase 5/DCE
* Blizzard-PPC accelerators by phase5/DCE"
Spot the "new" hardware, Samface. Hint: You can count the number on my middle-finger. When accusing somebody of lying, make sure that you either can back up your accusations or that the facts aren't available in public. (BTW I didn't write "supported", I wrote "licensed")
> 4. Without the license, Amiga Inc. will have to make individual partnership
> agreements with each hardware manufacturer if they want AmigaOS4 to support
> (this is the way they made it before, remember?).
No! No! NO! I can't even imagine where you get these ideas from? The software developer sends an e-mail politely asking for software developer documentation for the hardware, just like things have always been. It's WITH the license that individual agreements are necessary. Sweet bejebus.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 37 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Janne Sirén on 12-Jun-2002 10:35 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 24 (Samface):|
I believe one of Seehund's arguments is that, in his opinion, Amiga Inc. should be the one trying to assure as great a compatibility as possible, to apply for any possible developer programs and licenses necessary for making that happen, and to get all possible information to guarantee technical compatibility. Or at least, not build any obstacles against people like Hyperion to do so. This, in his opinion as I see it, would then enable the AmigaOS to run on maximum amount of hardware thus benefiting Amiga Inc. and the POP market as a whole while not requiring any hardware manufacturers being bothered with licenses.
The argument is, as far as I see, that Amiga Inc. as the small fish should be the one doing this because larger (or simply other) players necessarily would not be interested in going to ANY trouble in a getting a license for their hardware. Hey, even Thendic don't seem to be interested in getting Pegasos approved, they view the market as uninteresting and have other priorities. Bill Buck recently said, though, they are willing to help someone with it. Seehunds' is an opinion I can respect. Whether or not there are or will be any interesting players (apart from Pegasos) in the POP market is certainly another matter, but Amiga Inc. definitely are limiting the hardware AmigaOS will run on with this decision. Naturally there are good arguments for that as well.
But back to Seehund's petition. Say, someone builds a POP board for embedded medical applications. They might also sell their hardware product separately and it might seem like a nice piece of hardware for AmigaOS. Now, the maker of it really couldn't be bothered with anything called Amiga, too small a market and they have their focus (even if Amiga would seem like a good idea, many businesses like their focuses real tight) but the Amiga community might still view their product as a viable alternative and the maker might still sell it standalone. For this board to get AmigaOS 4.x there is now the added obstacle of requiring a license from the maker or a dealer. This adds to the requirement of Hyperion creating a compatibility layer.
I'm quite sure this is what Amiga Inc. and Hyperion's recent clarifications here do mean. They require someone to get a license for any hardware supported by AmigaOS 4.x (current PPC accelerators being the exception). While this has some benefits, it also adds to the already difficult task of getting the OS run on as many hardware platforms as possible. And, as I see it, this is what the petition is all about.
Let me have a detailed go at it one more time so that you can agree or disagree with my points:
1) Amiga Inc. requires all hardware capable of running AmigaOS 4.x to be licensed.
2) The licensing can be done by anyone willing to offer adequate support for end-users and providing the hardware for testing (i.e. the manufacturer or a dealer).
3) Amiga Inc. requires AmigaOS 4.x to be sold with all hardware that is capable of running it (i.e. all that are compatible and have the dongle).
4) Their executive update seems to suggest otherwise, but at this time it is unclear whether or not a separate AmigaOS 4.x and hardware dongle could be sold for a licensed piece of hardware. Doing so would certainly alleviate some concerns, not all. I believe 1-3 to be quite clear at this time though.
5) CyberstormPPC and BlizzardPPC are exceptions to 1) and 4).
Whether or not you agree is certainly your business, sign it or don't. Claiming the petition to be FUD is just misusing the term. Please counter 1-5 if you do not agree (I'm not saying you have to agree with the opinion opposing them, just if you agree with the argument that this is what Amiga are indeed saying). And if you do agree, please tell me where you think the petition differs and is mistaken (again, no need to agree with the rationale in the petition, just with the position of Amiga Inc.).
And if you do think above and the petition are correct in 1-5, the rest in the petition is opinion and something for the undersigned to consider. No right and wrong there, at least not something easily proven - but that's what petitions are all about, people expressing their opinion on a matter. All we should debate here is whether or not something in that petition is fundamentally flawed and I am yet to see those arguments from you.
I'm looking forward to your reply, thank you.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 38 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 10:42 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 36 (Seehund):|
Seehund, what world are you living in? I mean, tell me this:
How do you get Windows to support your hardware *without* beeing IA32 and open firmware compatible? You don't. It's one of the *requirements* in order to run Windows just like the license and the ROM code is a requirement in order to run AmigaOS. The difference is that there is no POP based open firmware which forces AmigaOS4 to have a specific HAL for each motherboard. This cannot be made without some kind of cooperation between the software developer and the hardware developer and this is why they made this license in order to *enable* anyone to apply for AmigaOS4 support.
You explained how things are done in the Windows world, please snap out of it and realize that the POP world isn't the same thing. AmigaOS isn't Windows and POP doesn't equal IA32 and open firmware.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 39 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Janne Sirén on 12-Jun-2002 10:43 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 37 (Janne Sirén):|
>in the POP market is certainly another matter, but Amiga Inc. definitely are
>limiting the hardware AmigaOS will run on with this decision
A mistake on my part there, should read:
"Amiga Inc. are definitely placing an obstacle on the hardware AmigaOS will run on with this decision".
Whether or not that obstacle will become a problem is debatable and only future will tell. Also to consider is that naturally Amiga can change their licesing policy at any time (considering that past I wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened at some point) if the market requires it. The petition and its undersigned seem to suggest that they do so immediately, and do make a fair point. Whether or not one agrees is another debate.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 40 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 10:47 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 36 (Seehund):|
BTW: Cut'n paste is easy... How come you just happened to leave out the following part of what you cut out of it's context? Elbox, Merlancia and MAI does count too, you know...
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 41 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Seehund on 12-Jun-2002 10:47 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 37 (Janne Sirén):|
That summarises my personal opinions exactly, as well as what the petition is all about. As far as I'm concerned you got all known facts right as well (and according to both the exec. update and comments from Gary Peake, Alan Redhouse and Ben Hermans it is clear that the plan is to sell separate copies of AmigaOS *only* to owners of CS/BlizzardPPCs).
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 42 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Seehund on 12-Jun-2002 10:53 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 40 (Samface):|
Because that is not licensed hardware, and I was talking about "new" licensed hardware ("new" as in "not old CS/BlizzardPPCs"). When I say that there is only one piece of "new" licensed hardware I mean that there is only one piece of "new" licensed hardware, and I quoted the list which tells us which licensed hardware there is. Neither Elbox, Merlancia or Mai (hah!) are on that list. Read again.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 43 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by TBone on 12-Jun-2002 10:53 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 38 (Samface):|
"Seehund, what world are you living in? I mean, tell me this:"
"How do you get Windows to support your hardware *without* beeing IA32 and open firmware compatible? You don't. It's one of the *requirements* in order to run Windows just like [snip]"
Samface, do you know what HAL Eyetech used to test the AmigaONE? Do you? They used the BARBIE drivers. that's right. POP is a platform.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 44 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 10:56 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 41 (Seehund):|
Why buy the OS seperately at all? I think bundling is much better service and more cost effective. That is atleast something we can learn from Microsoft and their policy, how many versions of Windows do you think they sell seperately in comparison with those bundled with the hardware?
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 45 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 10:58 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 43 (TBone):|
Barbie HAL on the AmigaOne? LOL! I'll believe that one when I see it...
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 46 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 10:58 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 33 (Björn Hagström):|
> Basically he said: Buy AOS4 anyway, and then ask of AInc/Hyperion to make
> it possibly to use AOS4 on hardware xyz. This may or may not reflect my
> oppinion on the matter, but the issue is what he said.
That is speculation stated as if it was a fact.
He actually said: "Go out and buy a copy of OS 4.0 when it's released and then petition to get it to run on your POP board." This is ambiguous, since the second "it" could mean either your "copy of OS 4.0" or "OS 4.0" in general.
(Whether or not one version of OS4 will run on some hardware with another kind of copy-protection remains to be seen.)
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 47 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by TBone on 12-Jun-2002 11:01 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 45 (Samface):|
"Barbie HAL on the AmigaOne? LOL! I'll believe that one when I see it..."
Check the linux distro they used, let me show you who developed the drivers for the Linux distro and chipset on the AmigaONE. They are indeed the ones used.
See it and weep.
Jeeze Samface, this is old news.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 48 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Janne Sirén on 12-Jun-2002 11:04 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 38 (Samface):|
>The difference is that there is no POP based open firmware which forces
Is there, or isn't there - I don't know. But let us assume (and I do think the petition assumes so as well) that Hyperion will need to do the compatibility work themselves.
>AmigaOS4 to have a specific HAL for each motherboard. This cannot be made
>without some kind of cooperation between the software developer and the
Most likely very true.
>and this is why they made this license in order to *enable* anyone to apply
>for AmigaOS4 support.
Wrong, at least they publicly claim they did so to prevent piracy and enable quality control for product and service. Or please post a reference.
The issue the petition has with this is:
1) It is true co-operation between the hardware and sofware manufacturer is required for the HAL to be created. We both agree on this one.
2) Technically that co-operation from the hardware manufacturer could amount to them receiving an email from Amiga, sending out a standard development kit (or something simialr) with all the necessary information (or some) for Amiga, and never talking about Amiga again. I hope you agree, as this is plain as day.
3) To reiterate, 2) is all that is technically needed. Hardware manufacturer sells their kit, Amiga sells their OS. Users buy both if they want to use that combination (lets not debate the piracy or other issues here, just the basic facts - you do not have to agree with the petition's stance when doing so).
4) Amiga Inc. adds to the task described in 2) by requiring the manufacturer (or a dealer representing him) to sign a license agreement and to sell their OS with the hardware that has the protection scheme included. This adds to the technical requirement with a politicy/business one.
I'm sure the technical feasibility and possibility of just 1-3 without 4) we can all agree on. Whether or not 4) can still be justified is something for people to consider when thinking of signing the petition or not. As of this date, you are yet to see my name there (my mind is not yet made) - but you don't see me flaming the petition either, quite the contrary.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 49 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Janne Sirén on 12-Jun-2002 11:07 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 48 (Janne Sirén):|
>1) It is true co-operation between the hardware and sofware manufacturer is
>required for the HAL to be created. We both agree on this one.
Let me add to that: It is required, or otherwise it is very hard.
|osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 50 of 169||ANN.lu|
|Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 11:12 GMT|
|In reply to Comment 44 (Samface):|
> Why buy the OS seperately at all?
As long as there is no (technologically compatible) hardware for which OS4 is NOT available there is not much reason for OS4 to be available as a stand-alone product. However, when(/if) there IS such hardware available then the only way (for an end user) to run a legal copy of OS4 on that hardware is that there be a stand-alone version of OS4.