26-Apr-2024 12:53 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 169 items in your selection (but only 69 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 169]
[Rant] osopinion: Close That Open Hardware!ANN.lu
Posted on 12-Jun-2002 00:21 GMT by sutro169 comments
View flat
View list
A rather unispired article at best. Read here for more.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 101 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 12:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Marcus Sundman):
Well of course. I never said you were wrong either. :-)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 102 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 13-Jun-2002 12:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Henning Nielsen Lund):
> > ... has to include all anti-piracy hardware ...
>
> Just the ROM, like when I bought AmigaOS 3.1!!!
If the only anti-piracy hardware it uses is the ROM then the ROM is enough, yes. If it used only a USB-dongle then that would be enough.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 103 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Chisholm on 13-Jun-2002 13:56 GMT
I cannot really understand what is going on here. What the heck happens with you? It seems that most people in the community have gone nuts as of late. I mean, how on earth can you expect Hyperion to support every single piece of PPC hardware when:
1) The most successful and widespread PPC boards are made by a company (AKA Apple) which will never release the required low-level hardware details to make a port of OS4 possible.
2) OS4 for Pegasos is a utopia. The single mention of Pegasos as a target hardware platform for OS4 in the famous article really cracked me up. How can anybody be so naive as to state that, at this stage, a port for Pegasos is still possible? I think it is not that difficult to understand that Bplan will NEVER allow any kind of development of a rival OS to their MorphOS for their hardware, which I find fair enough, for it is their hardware. In the long run I reckon the end user is the one who will be harmed by these decisions, though.
3) The technical resources needed to tackle a release for multiple hardware platforms are immense. It is not only a matter of having the damn HAL working its magic, but it is also a problem when it comes to working on various drivers for the OS. It is no good having a topnotch OS if it does not support a wide range of hardware, at least wide enough to satisfy the needs of the users. Most people take for granted how time-consuming the damn driver making thing can be. Either Hyperion focus on making a good, solid OS with enough drivers for a handful of target hardware platforms or they simple make an inconsistent and incomplete OS for a wide variety of hardware, with little support and very few drivers.
There are some more reasons which suggest that this thing of closed hardware has more to do with narrow-minded people with close views of the whole issue than with a real problem with regard to the attitude of AInc/Hyperion towards the 'problem'. All the same, I would not like to bother you and, anyway, it seems that most of you have already made up your mind and will never try to understand a different point of view, so I had better stop writing now.
I hope some of you at least try to be a bit more understanding with regard to these policies, because, all in all, they do nothing but protect the end user against abusive hardware manufacturers and retailers.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 104 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Charlie on 13-Jun-2002 14:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
The author complains that in order to use AmigaOS, you have to "buy licenced
hardware to use the licensed software (AmigaOS)"
Macintosh anybody??
In other words.. What's the big deal!!??
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 105 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] on 13-Jun-2002 15:27 GMT
First off, the information to make AmigaOS4 run on Apple Macs exists - in the form of the Darwin open source kernel.
Second, Apple will not stop you buying a copy of OS X and hacking it to run on some other PPC board (this is possible thanks to Darwin being open source) - they just won't support you.
Finally, if bPlan didn't want a competing OS - why does the Pegasos support Linux ? Why have they attempted to work with Amiga Inc in supporting the Pegasos with OS 4 ? Think again.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 106 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Charlie on 13-Jun-2002 18:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 105 ([JC]):
Just to go off on a tangent here.
Amiga Inc. has been way to slow on all fronts!
It's been TWO years and the only things that really stand out that Amiga Inc has accomplished was AmigaOS 3.5 and AmigaOS 3.5. They didn't even do the work themselves as it was outsourced...outsourced so that they could concentrate on AmigaDE which is cool BUT.....
Why does it seem AmigaDE has slowed down to a grinding halt and AmigaOS 4.0
been the forefront of the business model, especially when Amiga was about to retire/orphan the classic OS gracefully? Oh I am sorry they did come out with the much needed AmigaAnywhere game pack (Thus perpetuating the name "Amiga" with the word "games") God forbid they'd come out with a useful productivity pack that would have grabbed the attention of serious industry!
Amiga Inc has demonstrated too many major shifts of priority for my taste.
I don't even think they know exactly where they are going or what their market is! I certainly don't!
I am afraid my money which was saved for the long awaited, long overdue AmigaOne/OS4.0 is going towards a P4/2.4 ghz. At least I wont have to worry about an abundance of software/support. Hopefully one day Amiga Inc and all associated will get their act together and if they do I will gladly return.. What will the AmigaOne offer in terms of software/hardware/performance/price that a PC or Mac doesn't offer today.. I really don't know!
Until then, my A4000 will be a conversation piece...a technological marvel of the past.. a vision by a company that no longer exists but that is sorely missed. Bye bye Amiga.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 107 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Brad on 13-Jun-2002 21:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (Charlie):
Actually, It's been 2 years, 5 months and 13 days.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 108 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] on 14-Jun-2002 01:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (Charlie):
Lemme point out your money is better spent on an Athlon XP with a VIA KT333 based motherboard and PC2700 RAM than a P4 with RAMBUS. The XP is just as powerful (in fact more so in some cases), and the whole thing will be cheaper (since as RAMBUS ram is very expensive).
It'd make a nice Amithlon box :)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 109 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 14-Jun-2002 06:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Chisholm):
> how on earth can you expect Hyperion to support every single piece
> of PPC hardware
Noone (afaik) is asking them to.
They would just have to release enough information ("driver development kit"?) so that other people can make their own drivers.
> Bplan will NEVER allow
Bill has said, several times, that they will support anyone that is interested in having pegasos licensed.
> The technical resources needed to tackle a release for multiple hardware
> platforms are immense. It is not only a matter of having the damn HAL
> working its magic, but it is also a problem when it comes to working on
> various drivers for the OS.
They would just have to release enough information ("driver development kit"?) so that other people can make their own drivers.
> they do nothing but protect the end user against abusive hardware
> manufacturers and retailers
The thing is that end users should not be forced to be "protected". Many don't want to be protected. One size does NOT fit all. Many probably want to be protected, and it's good if they have that option, but many don't want to be "protected" and it would be good if they had that option.
Of course Amiga, Inc. may do as they please, but the users naturally want the Amiga to succeed and not shoot itself in the foot by playing Big Brother.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 110 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 14-Jun-2002 06:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 104 (Charlie):
> The author complains that in order to use AmigaOS, you have to "buy
> licenced hardware to use the licensed software (AmigaOS)"
>
> Macintosh anybody??
>
> In other words.. What's the big deal!!??
So if one company makes a mistake then Amiga users should want Amiga, Inc. to make the same mistake, or? Many, many people were upset when Apple refused to let MacOS be run on custom hardware.
People just want Amiga to succeed. Many think that placing an artificial limit on what hardware AOS will run on will have a negative impact on its success.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 111 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Solar on 14-Jun-2002 07:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 110 (Marcus Sundman):
...
:-)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 112 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 14-Jun-2002 09:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 110 (Marcus Sundman):
Also, it's impossible to compare Apple with Amiga Inc. in the first place. Amiga Inc. doesn't design, make or sell any hardware. Apple makes a living on their hardware.
Regarding MacOS on other platforms, Apple has learned some of its mistakes with the Darwin project.
http://amigapop.8bit.co.uk/faq.html#7
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 113 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by hgm on 14-Jun-2002 10:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 67 (Don Cox):
<Actually, they have said many times that they want to see AmigaOS
running on a variety of hardware. All they need is people to come to
them with convincing business plans for new hardware.>
Ahh, nobody is coming. So imo this is it, I would think. We are ready with
this business. Lock the door and let do something different. But wait there is
always Chapter 11. So , don't lock the door (yet).
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 114 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 14-Jun-2002 10:07 GMT
Im sure you can think of some other ways to try and keep that petition at the top of the news stories for another week. Come on think hard Seehund!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 115 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 14-Jun-2002 11:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Chisholm):
>2) OS4 for Pegasos is a utopia. The single mention of Pegasos as a target
>hardware platform for OS4 in the famous article really cracked me up. How can
>anybody be so naive as to state that, at this stage, a port for Pegasos is
>still possible? I think it is not that difficult to understand that Bplan will
Thendic have already said they will support anyone interested in supporting AmigaOS on Pegasos. This was stated by Bill Buck on ANN. But the licensing barrier is an added obstacle. The technological barrier we can discuss and find reasonable reasons why something couldn't be supported (like Apple if it really is that hard or somehow illegal), but add to that the license it adds to the requirements and the "height" of the barrier. That is what the petition is all about, they find this added barrier unnecessary and restrictive.
It isn't about the technological feasibility at all. And please, don't tell me you need the Amiga Inc. license to get that. You don't. You perhaps need co-operation from a vendor, but to get the technology to work you won't need the license part. It is an added obstacle. Whether or not other merits, in people's opinion, do still make the license necessary is what this petition is all about. The undersigned feel it is not necessary.
Others are free to disagree. That is the opinion part.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 116 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 14-Jun-2002 12:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 110 (Marcus Sundman):
> People just want Amiga to succeed. Many think that placing an artificial
> limit on what hardware AOS will run on will have a negative impact on its
> success.
I want to see Amiga succeed as well. But I don't want to see Amiga start pandering to a group of people that claim their petitions are for the best interest of POP/PPC/Amiga, when their alterior motives are to run OS 4.0 on the Pegasos. If the Barbie prototype represents the final product, I don't see why people woult want to run OS 4.0 on it as it looks very limited. I only see two products with the intention to become higher volume than evaluation boards and that's the Pegasos and Eyetech's AmigaOne.
Many people have criticized Eyetech for not "designing" the AmigaOne, yet I don't see any other third part stepping up to the plate to license the bPlan board. If you truly want to see Amiga succeed, support the companies supporting Amiga and skip the "This is how you should run your company so I get what I want petitions!" Vote with your wallet, buy a copy of OS 4.0 and ask why it won't run it on the <insert non-licences solution here>.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 117 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 14-Jun-2002 12:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 116 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>I want to see Amiga succeed as well. But I don't want to see Amiga start
>pandering to a group of people that claim their petitions are for the best
>interest of POP/PPC/Amiga, when their alterior motives are to run OS 4.0 on
>the Pegasos.
On Pegasos and on whatever. The issue is far larger in principle. Please don't badmouth it, you don't have any proof of bad-faith on the petition's part (or if you do, please provide it), even if you don't agree with it. You don't see me doing it even though I haven't signed the petition either.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 118 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by hgm on 14-Jun-2002 14:16 GMT
I would like to see the AOS or clone on any desktop. That is how you can make a buck.
As long as this is not the case, Amiga Inc. is narrow minded imo, than the AOS will
vannish like HP-Apollo did once in the ninety's.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 119 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 14-Jun-2002 14:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 117 (Janne Sirén):
> On Pegasos and on whatever. The issue is far larger in principle. Please
> don't badmouth it, you don't have any proof of bad-faith on the petition's
> part (or if you do, please provide it), even if you don't agree with it. You
> don't see me doing it even though I haven't signed the petition either.
Oh come on now, I have a hard time believing the petition was starting in good faith. A few people are waving the flag of open platform, good for POP/PPC for what? If people want an Amiga, buy an Amiga. It's truly that simple. As far as bad mouthing goes. I've kept all the nasty stuff to myself. My comments are my oppinion and are nothing more than harsh criticism. I'd like to call some of you the worthless bunch of copyright infringing pirates that some are. I've hinted at it, but I've not starting calling any people names as I don't see it worthwhile, just as I see the petition. I see the petition as a form of grand standing in public forums used to attack private companies business strategies without any regard for the fact that businesses have the right to protect their investment and intellectual property.
In short, allowing the OS to run on any unlicensed POP board does not make any sense for Amiga Inc. I'm sure the circulation of the OS would increase, but how many of those would be legitimate copies? It all goes back to the people against the licensing policy are barking up the wrong tree. If you want OS 4.0 on the Pegasos, find a third party company willing to get it licensed. I think people now officially have a burr up their butt since bPlan/Thendic are not going to go after OS 4.0 licensing themselves. Looking at the Barbie, it seems more suitable to embedded / set top box products. If people are critical of the Eyetech board lacking horsepower why would you be supporting the Barbie? The so-called Amiga community is quite fickle and to be honest, it would be a better place if their was no choice in what to buy. Since the demise of Commodore, it seems to have been two (at least) factions trying to head in opposite directions. At this point in history, the two factions are Amiga Inc./Hyperion/Eyetech and bPlan/Thendic/DCE. The hardware we're waiting for seems vapourous enough, yet the specualtion about many companies on the verge of producing POP boards is naivete at it's best.
Who are they making these boards for? The Linux community?.....heck bPlan/Thendic should have that market sewn up shortly if you want to buy a more expensive system just to be different from your x86 buddies.
As far as principles go....the largest principle to speak of is that companies are in this to make money. I know some people are new to this idea as some parts of the world are relatively new at this concept, but if you take risks you deserve the rewards. This is the general idea. Any company that makes an unlicensed board has not taken any risk to deserve any reward. Period.
Do you people not see how bad it is to not support the companies supporting Amiga's direction? I've seen many comments where people are so easy to dismiss Amiga Inc's purchase/ownership of the Amiga IP as well as Eyetech's involvement with the AmigaOne. Then there was the slagging of Hyperion because all they do is port games. I've written a lot of real time kernels in the last 20 years for various processors on single board computers yet haven't ported or written a video game yet. The three companies with the biggest interest in the Amiga surviving as a platform are Amiga Inc, Eyetech, and Hyperion. I'm sure Elbox should be listed as a fourth when the SharkPPC becomes available.
The only thing you will be supporting by buying hardware outside of the licensed products is the Amiga's funeral procession. Do not take this oppinion that I'm slagging bPlan/Thendic/DCE. I'm not, and I have to admit I like their honesty that they are not in this business to support the Amiga. They have their own business goals and a decent product to support going after the Linux crowd/embedded market. God bless capitalism! Go out and sell as many as you can Bill Buck and company! Just don't slag me for not seeing that the "issue is in far larger". I DO SEE IT as a larger issue, I just see it more clearly than you!
I apologize for the length of this reply.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 120 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 14-Jun-2002 14:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 118 (hgm):
> As long as this is not the case, Amiga Inc. is narrow minded imo, than the
> AOS will vannish like HP-Apollo did once in the ninety's.
To be honest, I prefered the Sun workstations over the HP-Apollo's by a long shot during the nineties. Sun's worked hard and looked good too, and I didn't mind their keyboards. It was the mouse that I didn't like.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 121 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 14-Jun-2002 16:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (Adam Kowalczyk):
> In short, allowing the OS to run on any unlicensed POP board does not make
> any sense for Amiga Inc. I'm sure the circulation of the OS would increase,
> but how many of those would be legitimate copies?
Err.. "allowing OS4 to be run on unlicensed POP boards does not make any sense" only if the total number of legitimate copies of OS4 would be less than if it could be run only on licensed boards.
Let's speculate a bit about the relative numbers of people running what on AmigaOnes and PegaSOS boards:
OS4 only on licensed boards (and PegaSOS wouldn't be licensed):
> 70% - AmigaOne + OS4
> 30% - PegaSOS + MoreFuss
OS4 also on PegaSOS boards (either unlicensed or licensed):
> 50% - AmigaOne + OS4
> 40% - PegaSOS + OS4
> 10% - PegaSOS + MoreFuss
If these figures were real (which they of course aren't) then even if half of the OS4 versions sold were pirated copies there would still be as many legitimate copies sold as if OS4 would only run on the AmigaOne, but there would also be a 29% increase in the user base (70% to 90%).
In any case, if OS4 can be run on a certain POP board, POPX, if it just had the copy-protection (be it USB-dongle or whatever) then the figures would be as follows (this is of course NOT speculation):
OS4 available as OEM only:
- x illegal copies on POPX
- 0 (zero) legal copies on POPX
> i.e. 0% legal copies on POPX
OS4 also as a retail version:
- y illegal copies on POPX
- z legal copies on POPX
> i.e. p% legal copies on POPX
From here it is just a matter of opinion. If you believe that allowing OS4 to be run on unlicensed hardware will be more beneficial to Ainc, fine. If you don't, fine. It will still only be your belief. We will never find out which case is true.
> The only thing you will be supporting by buying hardware outside of
> the licensed products is the Amiga's funeral procession.
That may be your belief. Some might share it, some might not. (If one does not then it does not mean that that person is a "copyright infringing pirate" or whatever.)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 122 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 14-Jun-2002 16:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 121 (Marcus Sundman):
"My comments are my oppinion and are nothing more than harsh criticism. I'd like to call some of you the worthless bunch of copyright infringing pirates that some are."
Marcus, please read my oppinions more closely. I did not indicate that I thought everyone was a copyright infringing pirate, but that some are (and some will). I've also said (in previous posts) that if people do run a hacked version of OS 4.0 on their unlicensed board to have the decency to buy a legitimate copy....even if it is one that would work on the CSPPC/BPPC. Time will tell who the pirates are, and that goes for all platforms.
My biggest point about why Amiga's licensing plan makes sense is that is supports the companies that support the Amiga. Tratech does not support the Amiga, bPlan/Thendic does not support the Amiga, MAI does not support the Amiga. The companies that deserve the rewards are the companies supporting the Amiga and not producers of unlicensed hardware, regardless of the use of a legitimate copy of the OS or not. If it weren't for Eytetech, we wouldn't have an AmigaOne. We might have MorphOS running on the Pegasos, but we wouldn't have an Amiga.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 123 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 14-Jun-2002 17:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (Adam Kowalczyk):
> If people want an Amiga, buy an Amiga. It's truly that simple.
But there will be no new Amigas.
> I see the petition as a form of grand standing in public forums used to attack
> private companies business strategies without any regard for the fact that
> businesses have the right to protect their investment and intellectual property.
As I see it one company's strategies would waste its investment and devaluate their intellectual property. I don't see anybody saying "Give AmigaOS away for free! Let companies use the Amiga trademarks freely! Remove all anti-piracy measures! Let's all live on flowers and love!". I see people saying "Unless you are in the hardware business you should leave our hardware decisions alone and not make your product unattractive to customers by unnecesarily limiting their hardware options."
> The only thing you will be supporting by buying hardware outside of the
> licensed products is the Amiga's funeral procession.
That procession passed years ago.
If AmigaOS was sold separately as well as bundled with licensed hardware, then it has no negative impact on AmigaOS sales, I argue that it will have a positive impact. More supported hardware, bigger potential install base, more attractive product, bigger sales opportunities.
It feels like I'm doing more explaining of what I think and what the petition stands for than arguing actual points here. Read the intro and FAQ on http://amigapop.8bit.co.uk and of course the petition itself, http://www.petitiononline.com/amigaos , then offer your opinions on that if you wish. It's not very interesting to participate in a discussion when you label people as pirates, anti-capitalists and whatnot instead of speaking about the issues at hand.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 124 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 14-Jun-2002 17:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (Seehund):
> But there will be no new Amigas.
Then what's the point of the petition? I am getting an AmigaOne with OS 4.0 which is a new Amiga.
> I see people saying "Unless you are in the hardware business you should leave > our hardware decisions alone and not make your product unattractive to
> customers by unnecesarily limiting their hardware options."
And I see people who pre-ordered a Pegasos ;)
> That procession passed years ago.
Amiga Inc. of today may be small and not like Commodore of yesterday, but there is still a little bit of life yet.
> If AmigaOS was sold separately as well as bundled with licensed hardware,
> then it has no negative impact on AmigaOS sales, I argue that it will have a
> positive impact. More supported hardware, bigger potential install base, more
> attractive product, bigger sales opportunities.
And this is where we disagree. I would like to see more licensed hardware that is supported, not the unlicensed model. This is to guarantee the people taking the risks, get the rewards.
> It feels like I'm doing more explaining of what I think and what the petition
> stands for than arguing actual points here.
I've read your petition and understand it. I also 100% disagree with it period.
> It's not very interesting to participate in a discussion when you label
> people as pirates, anti-capitalists and whatnot instead of speaking about the
> issues at hand.
These are the issues at hand. Pirates work to take money away from the deserving people. It is very anti-capitalistic. That is my point. A model where the OS is not bundled with hardware is far too open for piracy at this point in time. These companies are in business to make money and have the right to protect their interests in the manner they see fit. If you want to see an OS run on different platforms in a somewhat open manner, then use Linux.
And as a jab in your direction....I'm not interested in talking to people who grandstand behind petitions meant to allow them to get OS 4.0 running on the Pegasos. I understand the issues and agree with Amiga Inc's policy. I'm not going to apologize for happening to agree with Amiga Inc's strategy. I tell you one thing...I'm going to enjoy running OS 4.0 on my AmigaOne knowing I'll have the support I've paid for.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 125 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 14-Jun-2002 22:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (Adam Kowalczyk):
Just one question... What killed the Amiga?
1) Commodore's close mindness.
2) Weakness at marketing
3) Not letting clones appear thus not opening the Amiga market.
The only Amiga clone came TOO late to matter... (DraCo).
Amiga Inc. is doing the same mistake (#3) and that's Amiga's last
chance to survive. Windows survived cause they run on OPEN hardware
(yes the IA32 architecture IS open). If they continue like that...
they will lose in a glance of an eye...
What they should do is: Try to get OS4 on as a big segment of the POP
market as they can, secure it and THEN apply licencing policies.
Also, avoiding piracy is good for a start but after they start selling
they must allow it for some time, to spread the OS, and tighten it up
again afterwards. (as Microsoft did)
Of course this market is too small to do exactly that, but:
1) It might grow.
2) That's just a model, they don't have to follow those actions by word.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 126 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 14-Jun-2002 23:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 125 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
> Just one question... What killed the Amiga?
> 1) Commodore's close mindness.
> 2) Weakness at marketing
> 3) Not letting clones appear thus not opening the Amiga market.
> The only Amiga clone came TOO late to matter... (DraCo).
Actually, you should have added: 4) None of the above. My understanding of Commodore's demise was that it had more to do with it's failure in the PC clone business and that the Amiga component of the company was doing well. I don't recall anyone wanting to make Amiga clones in the pre-bankrupt era, but will agree that weak marketing and poor management did hurt the company
> Amiga Inc. is doing the same mistake (#3) and that's Amiga's last
> chance to survive. Windows survived cause they run on OPEN hardware
> (yes the IA32 architecture IS open). If they continue like that...
> they will lose in a glance of an eye...
> What they should do is: Try to get OS4 on as a big segment of the POP
> market as they can, secure it and THEN apply licencing policies.
"Clones" are typically licensed, at least this was true in the era of Apple clones. Amiga is promoting licensing not preventing it. It's just noone other than Eyetech and Elbox have officially agreed to the licensing arrangements. Until these magical mystery POP board makers come out of the woodwork, I'd have to say that OS 4.0 will be running on as big a segment of the POP market as they can. I don't consider the evaluation boards an option, nor do I consider the Barbie board a real option. If people are critical of the Eyetech board, why the heck would you want a Barbie. Maybe the "Ken" upgrade to the Barbie has some real balls ;) This is where I find the petition to be weak, there aren't many options to the Eyetech board that are being mass produced other than the Pegasos.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 127 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 15-Jun-2002 00:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 126 (Adam Kowalczyk):
If new boards appear, HW developers won't hunt down software developers to
port their OS over, especially if there's any licencing scheme in the middle.
So... You lost em.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 128 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 00:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 127 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
I do not see the Amiga OS as being a big attraction for a POP board maker. Linux will be the biggest draw for the POP makers. Again, there is nothing stopping a third party from using these mysterious POP boards and getting them licensed. I'm sure if a better product came out, Eyetech would be one of the first to look at it.
The biggest thing I find strange about the POP market is why isn't there a mass production version of either an IBM product or a Motorola product. If anyone can make these boards cheap like borscht it should be them. If there is this huge POP market, why aren't the big boys making the boards cheap, and making them available? Can anyone answer this question? Even MAI doesn't seem interested in selling boards but chipsets. Looks like a solution without a problem. At the end of 2002, I will expect that Eyetech and bPlan/Thendic will each have a 50% share of the non-Apple mass produced PPC motherboards.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 129 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DDiehl on 15-Jun-2002 02:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 77 (Samface):
WOW... what an insult to all those 600+ plus Amiga users responding to "FUD".
From my objective viewpoint, Seehund has presented factual evidence and has voiced very intelligent comments. To disagree with these is FINE, but I find subtle insults and media catch - terms very silly.
As a returning Amiga user, I appreciate the paradigm presented by Seehund(as well as other posters) and many of those who signed his petition. This is obviously not a black and white issue, so why treat it as such?
Thanks!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 130 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 05:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 129 (DDiehl):
Yes, it's actually very simple. Amiga Inc. is the owner of the brand and Hyperion is the ones responsible for developing the software, it's their product and they may do whatever they choose to do with it, regardless of what we may think of it. There's a reason for why they run a several million dollars worth business, cooperating with partners like Sharp, Nokia and even Microsoft, it's because they are pretty competent at what they're doing. I also think there's a reason for why neither we or Seehund isn't the head of such business corporation. Now tell me, you don't think Amiga Inc. does what they think is the best for their product in order to make it as profitable as possible? You don't think they are competent enough for such a decision? You think Seehund has better marketing experience then Amiga Inc. and their executives as well as Hyperion and their software development and product marketing experience?
Well, of course. They only bought the name for $5 million in order to kill the Amiga once and for all. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 131 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 05:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 129 (DDiehl):
BTW: Read post #88 please.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 132 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 06:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 123 (Seehund):
Seehund, why would Eyetech's AmigaOneG3SE (made in cooperatin with Amiga Inc. and Hyperion) not be an Amiga? Why would any product made in cooperation with Amiga Inc. and Hyperion not be an Amiga product? Please, I'm dying to know you're explanation to this one...
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 133 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by gz on 15-Jun-2002 07:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 132 (Samface):
because the amigaone is a teroncx POP board from MAI, a company that has nothing to do with amiga and is targetting a completely different market (linux)
Eyetech have just aquired that board for their own purposes to cut down R&D costs and time. Also as eyetech or amiga inc aren't even manufacturing those boards you could say they are not an "amiga"
For somepeople an amiga is anything with a sticker of amiga inc on it, even if it was a refridgerator or a wintel box as long as it has the "approval" of ai.
Others feel amiga is piece of hw discontinued in 1994 and that the only thing that's left of it is the os.
Ofcourse these are all different views of different "factions" of the "amiga religion" There can be no right or wrong in the subject because of that and therefore it's silly to even argue about what exactly is an "amiga"
It's as difficult as trying to determine wheter an alligator is a "dinosaur" or not. They date back as far as the dinosaurs but yet it's not extinct millions of years ago and is still living in our time.
So please samface, try not to persuade anyone not sharing your exact "purist" views into your own as you always try to. Your not more right than seehund is in his.
What you should really concentrate on is learning acceptance and understanding of opposite views and meditate them constructively without taking them personally. Doing so doesen't mean you have to give up on your OWN view. It just enables you to see a bit further than just 2 feet ahead of you.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 134 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 07:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 133 (gz):
It's not about views, gz. It's about people spreading false rumours causing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. (FUD)
From http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/faq.php:
Is the AmigaOneG3-SE the same as the MAI Teron Cx?
No. During the period leading up to the OS4 development agreement being signed we evaluated the Articia S northbridge chip for possible use in a redesigned AmigaOne. We concluded that it was the most cost-effective chip for the design and proceeded to draw up some new specifications for an uprated, more cost-effectively engineered AmigaOne, the AmigaOneG3-SE. Clearly using the Articia S instead of Escena's custom northbridge design meant that both the schematic design and the PCB layout would be entirely new. MAI logic are a chipset manufacturer, not a PPC motherboard manufacturer, but they had commissioned a low volume, high cost evaluation board, the Teron Cx, to help sell their chipsets. The Teron Cx was never designed to, or intended to, go into volume production. We therefore asked them if they could recommend a design company who was familiar with using the Articia S in PPC motherboard design. They recommended the same (Far Eastern) company that designed their Teron Cx evaluation board.
The new Eyetech AmigaOne design obviously shares a lot of commonality with the Teron Cx board, but more than a cursory glance at the specifications (ATA speed, integrated ethernet, custom firmware, number of active PCI/AGP slots etc) - and the price - of both boards should be enough to convince most people that they really are different designs.
However if you remain unconvinced you are of course perfectly welcome to purchase the Teron Cx evaluation board. It costs $3900, misses many features of the AmigaOneG3-SE, and won't run OS4.
End of Quote.
In other words, saying that the boards are the same is nothing but one big lie. The *only* thing they have in common is the designer as not even the design is the same. Sure, there are similarities but still, they are NOT the same, period.
Eyetech's AmigaOne is a computer made specificly for the Amiga market in cooperation with Amiga Inc. and therefore it's an Amiga computer. Anyone saying anything else is simply full of "it", period.
Please stop spreading FUD.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 135 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 15-Jun-2002 08:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 130 (Samface):
With that in mind it would be fine if MS bought out Amiga and killed
OS4, as it would be their product, wouldn't it?
Get serious. They can do whatever they want with their product
(Amiga Inc) but they can't commit suicide with it. They owe us something.
If the screw up, and if MorphOS fails as well , bye bye Amiga, I'll leave in no time and try not to remember the last dark years...
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 136 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 08:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 135 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
LOL! Welcome to the cold reality, Alkis. MS can indeed buy them out and kill them off if they would like. Let's just be happy they didn't and that the current owners actually is trying to revive the old 'n faithful Amiga, ok?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 137 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by hgm on 15-Jun-2002 08:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 126 (Adam Kowalczyk):
<This is where I find the petition to be weak, there aren't many options to the Eyetech board that are being mass produced other than the Pegasos.>
Please don't tell me that you believe this AmigaOne will sell by the thousands.
If that were the case than there should have started ,a long time ago, big commercials
in the media. That is not the case. The only thing is blah blah and exciting blah blah.
Helas , times have changed. And what's more . There is a kind of inbreed in this discussions.Its repeating itself pepetually. ( Me too)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 138 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 09:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 137 (hgm):
No numbers are mentioned, just the fact that they are mass produced meaning they won't be assembled board by board but by a mass producing assembly line. That's the definition of something beeing mass produced, not the quantity of the production.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 139 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 15-Jun-2002 09:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 136 (Samface):
Just one question... If we didn't empty our pockets a thousant times in HW
and SW trying to keep the Amiga market alive for 8 years, after Commodore's
demise,would they have anything to buy right 2 years ago?
If they really are Amigans as they stated when they bought Amiga out,
they will keep that in mind. If not... too bad.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 140 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 15-Jun-2002 09:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 139 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Yes, they are Amigans themselves and they obviously have good intentions towards the Amiga community regardless if you agree with their policies or not. We should be glad that this is the case as anyone could have just bought the name (like some german PC vendor did with "Commodore", remember?) and used it for whatever marketing scam they like.
Also, *they* didn't make any money from Amiga users buying Amiga products in order to keep it alive as they weren't the owners back then. That means they have no obligations at all to satisfy the demands from the community due to those efforts from the community, but still they do care. Despite the fact that there is no profitability what so ever in the Amiga market as of today they still do whatever they can in order keep the little Amiga market alive. They could've just as well forgotten completely about us and go for the PDA market only but they haven't. Be glad about it and hope for the best, that's about all we can do.
Besides, if the Amiga market was *completely* dead and forgotten when they purchased the name and the assets it would have probably be valued less and cost less. So, thinking about it that way, we actually didn't do them a favor by keeping the market alive. Anyway, *I* am glad there's still a few guys around, the only sad thing beeing when we can't even get along... :-/
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 141 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 12:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 137 (hgm):
I'm pretty confident that the sales figures for the AmigaOne will break over 1000 motherboards. 10's of thousands is a different story. Time will tell.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 142 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 12:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 133 (gz):
> because the amigaone is a teroncx POP board from MAI, a company that has
> nothing to do with amiga and is targetting a completely different market
>(linux)
> Eyetech have just aquired that board for their own purposes to cut down R&D
> costs and time. Also as eyetech or amiga inc aren't even manufacturing those > boards you could say they are not an "amiga"
Apple, Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway do not manufacture every single product they make. Is the iMac II not an Apple? I'm pretty sure Flextronics manufactures that machine, same with the XBox. Eyetech is using the MAI board in a manner not expected by MAI. Who designed the actual board is irrelevant. Marketing in todays world has more to do with bundling and name brand recognition.
I say the new boards from Eyetech are Amiga's because they are licensed from Amiga Inc. with an officially licensed OS. My I doubt anyone at HP ever saw my HP desktop, yet someone will not mistake it for something else. And it came equipped with a fully licensed copy of Windows XP.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 143 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 15-Jun-2002 15:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 142 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>Apple, Compaq, HP, Dell, and Gateway do not manufacture every single product
>they make. Is the iMac II not an Apple? I'm pretty sure Flextronics
>manufactures that machine, same with the XBox. Eyetech is using the MAI board
>in a manner not expected by MAI. Who designed the actual board is irrelevant.
>Marketing in todays world has more to do with bundling and name brand
>recognition.
Agreed. I'm quite sure those who wrote the petition have no desire in questioning Amiga's claim to the trademark. In a marketing and legal sense, AmigaOne is an Amiga. However, the point the petition is making is that there will (in the foreseeable future anyway) not be any new Amigas as we used to know them.
They are motherboards made of standard hardware and at this time even lacking any special design that would make them more Amiga than something else. Now, I know this is very debatable if we take it to the details, but as far as the petition goes the argument of standard hardware (vs. real requirement of specific, proprietary hardware) does stand. We don't have any custom chips anymore. Now the only thing really custom is a hardware dongle.
Nothing bad with this. It may prove to be a great benefit for the platform. But it also separates the present from the past in a way that does give merit to the petition. Whether or not you see that merit as large enough is your opinion. At this time I haven't signed.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 144 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 15-Jun-2002 15:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 119 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>Oh come on now, I have a hard time believing the petition was starting in good
>faith.
Why is that? Do you know the person that started it? Do you have some inside knowledge that I do not? All I see is bias on your part. I'm not saying you are biased, I'm just saying it seems so. Please provide proof of otherwise.
>If people want an Amiga, buy an Amiga. It's truly that simple.
So it seems. However, just like with Apple clones or whatever, people are still entitled to hold another opinion. Mind you, I think Apple chose pretty wisely (for themselves) on that, but then Apple is different from Amiga Inc. in the fact that Apple themselves host a computer line AND have a larger, more established user base (a point the petition makes as well, I believe).
>I'd like to call some of you the worthless bunch of copyright infringing
>pirates that some are.
That I object to immensely. Just because one talks on behalf of, or agrees with a scheme that in someone's opinion lessens an anti-piracy scheme that does not make them pirates. I hate the idea of error-protected CD's as they don't play on some DVD players even if the player and the CD are fully legal, purchased copies (just spoke with a friend who was this unlucky), yet all my CDs are legal and I don't own any MP3's (apart from a few free ones).
Yet I still do agree with some arguments why such a protection is necessary, and I do respect people expressing their opinion and basing it on sound argumentation. I, however, personally do disagree based on my own arguments. I believe philosophers like Wittgenstein called that the concept of personal moral in the absence of absolute truth. My personal moral can tell me I'm more right than someone else, yet I must admit there is no absolute truth.
Also, this petition isn't just about copy-protection. Actually, I'm pretty sure (even though I hope it won't happen) someone will break the AmigaOS 4.x protection anyway. The scheme will probably stop some casual piracy (like the Microsoft scheme), and I think that is very good indeed. But whether or not it hurts more than it benefits is open to discussion. Nobody knows for sure.
BUT, and this is why I _really_ respect the petition, the big but is that the protection also introduces an added obstacle to the options in hardware for the user-base. Whether or not you believe this is a large-enough obstacle to merit suggesting change of plans to Amiga Inc. is also your cue to sign or not to sign the petition. Signing, creating or supoorting such a petition does not make someone a pirate. And, again, this isn't just about a copy-protection scheme.
>In short, allowing the OS to run on any unlicensed POP board does not make any
>sense for Amiga Inc.
That is your opinion and I respect it. That may also be Amiga Inc.'s opinion and I respect it as well. But I also respect other people's right to disagree and make their beliefs known to Amiga Inc. and the rest of the world.
>As far as principles go....the largest principle to speak of is that companies
>are in this to make money.
Certainly. And if you do read the petition, you will see that the undersigned believe it will benefit Amiga Inc.'s sales and thus make them more money. Since no-one has any facts on either way (just beliefs), we don't know whether or not they are indeed right. This belief, in this case, of course goes hand in hand with the argument that larger hardware-base results in a larger user-base.
Again, as was pointed out by people supporting the petition, there are other ways to prevent piracy than OEM installation. Even if they aren't as effective, they might be enough to close the gap between illegal and legal copies and still result in a larger user-base. Again, that is the opinion part and you are welcome to agree or disagree. Nobody knows how it would turn out.
>Any company that makes an unlicensed board has not taken any risk to deserve
>any reward. Period.
I can respect your opinion on that, sure. Not that capitalism really is that simple or pure these days (if it ever was), but sure. The other opinion is that the Amiga community (and via it the market) would benefit so much from the way the petition undersigned believe that giving a little extra to unlicensed manufacturers who don't deserve "any reward" is worth it.
Someone might even look at it like this: the unlicensed manufacturers deserve just as much as anyone else, since they took the risk to develop an interesting hardware platform that is succesful even in markets they are not interested in.
>Do you people not see how bad it is to not support the companies supporting
>Amiga's direction?
I believe it is far more damaging to blindly support anything. No matter how beautiful capitalism is (and I do practice it, have lived in a society practicing it all my life and believe in it very much myself, thank you), I hope people's independece of thought and freedom to express it will go even further than that. Those I value even more dearly.
>The three companies with the biggest interest in the Amiga surviving as a
>platform are Amiga Inc, Eyetech, and Hyperion.
That really doesn't mean they always make the right decisions, though. Nobody does all the time, even if they have a huge incentive to do so. Remember how many times Amiga Inc. has changed plans due to feedback so far? Like the time when they moved away from the d'Amiga-only plan to software SDK kits. They merit the change to community feedback. Imagine if everyone would've just kept their mouths shut then? Feedback is very important for any company.
Again, let me remind you and other readers that I am supporting here the right for this petition to exist. Not necessarily agreeing with it. I haven't signed it. What I do agree with is that the petition does express a legitimate opinion and that people have every right to agree or disagree with it. The thing I object to is that many still feel it was written in bad-faith, or it is FUD. No proof of that has been proposed or provided.
>Just don't slag me for not seeing that the "issue is in far larger". I DO SEE
>IT as a larger issue, I just see it more clearly than you!
Please do not presume to know what I see, know or do. I don't do so to you either. All I said, and meant, was that the issue is far larger than just some people wanting to support Pegasos.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 145 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 16:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 144 (Janne Sirén):
I'll keep this reply short....
> Again, let me remind you and other readers that I am supporting here the
> right for this petition to exist. Not necessarily agreeing with it. I haven't
> signed it. What I do agree with is that the petition does express a
> legitimate opinion and that people have every right to agree or disagree with
> it. The thing I object to is that many still feel it was written in bad-
> faith, or it is FUD. No proof of that has been proposed or provided.
I do not object to the existence of polls or petitions. The reasons I feel the petition is being done in bad faith are the following:
1) The petition implies the existence of more POP boards than truly exist or will exist.
2) The petition is being spread outside of the Amiga community and presents Amiga Inc. in a negative light. How can this be good for the Amiga platform?
3) I haven't seen Seehund on the AmigaOne developer list, so I think he hasn't bought an AmigaOne.
4) The original wording of the petition was poor. A quick glance at the first sentence could have people that support Amiga Inc's policies sign the petition. Some of the comments clearly prove this. English is my first language and I felt it was unclear. I can only imagine the people out there where english isn't there first language.
@Seehund: Which board have you pre-ordered? I'm more curious than anything else. I'd say that if you have pre-orderd a Pegasos, that your petition can be construed as biased and may be interpreted as an alterior motive.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 146 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 15-Jun-2002 18:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 145 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>1) The petition implies the existence of more POP boards than truly exist or
>will exist.
Granted, that may be the case. However, this goes to principle. I personally feel, not even having signed the whole thing, that it is a reasonable principle to propose: AmigaOS open to any hardware solution out there, where technical feasibility can be reached. Not really that far away from the ultimate goal of Amiga Inc. as it has been laid out to us so far.
I have already admitted that the wording of the petition may certainly need some tweaking. Now, what doesn't. The problem is that doing so afterwards would require another round of signing. One can't just go and change the petition text after people have "signed" it. However, possible shortcomings in the wording - in my opinion - hardly justify the level of innuendo and attacks the petition has been receiving.
I welcome anyone coming up with a renewed petition text that they feel is more approriate (but do ask the petition's creator first if you use any of his work).
>2) The petition is being spread outside of the Amiga community and presents
>Amiga Inc. in a negative light. How can this be good for the Amiga platform?
What is immediately good for Amiga Inc. may not be ultimately good for it. Or, more pressingly, what may be good for Amiga Inc. may not be good for the Amiga community. If the petition indeed does present Amiga Inc. in a negative light, it in my opinion does so for a reason (as long as it remains factual). While we may find flaws in its wording, I am yet to find any substantial factual errors in it - and thus, if it does paint a negative picture of Amiga Inc. it does so because the person viewing it negatively feels indeed that Amiga Inc.'s actions are negative.
I'm quite sure you do not feel that we should hide or not discuss, as consumers, any shortcoming any company out there may have. The companies may not always like it (and sometimes we ourselves are on the receiving end through our own employements or holdings), but ultimately the free flow of discussion and criticism does benefit the society as a whole. But then, I'm really sure you agree on these basic principles and we have no reason to question them.
Personally I have contributed substantial amounts of time and work to supporting this Amiga Inc. and its predecessors through community projects, such as our local user group and its activities. I still participate and welcome these efforts even when we may find flaws in the company or community we are supporting. But what I do not find acceptable is the implied suggestion that we should not be able to criticize that company as consumers and potential (or existing) customers. I can and do support many a cause, but never blindly.
>3) I haven't seen Seehund on the AmigaOne developer list, so I think he hasn't
>bought an AmigaOne.
Whether or not he has or has not is quite irrelevant when considering the legitimacy of the petition. The argument that one should buy something first and only then have a right to speak his mind is questionable at best. Also, just voting with the wallet usually doesn't benefit anyone. Speaking your mind, so that the recipient can address the issue, and then voting with your wallet (i.e. buying what you like, not buying what you don't like) is far more preferable in my opinion.
>4) The original wording of the petition was poor. A quick glance at the first
>sentence could have people that support Amiga Inc's policies sign the
>petition. Some of the comments clearly prove this. English is my first
>language and I felt it was unclear. I can only imagine the people out there
>where english isn't there first language.
Lets look at it another way: the wording also suggest supporting Amiga Inc., not some other camp people here have been suggesting. Its not all negative on Amiga Inc., instead it offers opinion on a matter found important by the undersigned IN SUPPORT OF a company they feel is worthy of the attention. Sure, its wording is pretty harsh, but then it is meant to be taken seriously and to change the minds of its recipients.
So, I agree there may be poor wording in the petition. Now would be a good time for other people to agree there may be a legitimate point the petition is making even if they don't agree with it. It really isn't all FUD and trolling. I'd call it healthy initiative, even if not everyone likes it cause.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 147 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 19:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 146 (Janne Sirén):
Janne, your use of the word "factual" when referencing the petition is starting to annoy me almost as much as the use of the word FUD annoys Seehund. There is very little, if anything factual in the petition other than Amiga Inc. has a licensing policy which they've identified for quality assurance and anti-piracy measures. Here are just a few tidbits from the petition that I would classify as mere speculation.
"We think that the above will seriously hurt AmigaOS users, the POP/PPC hardware market and thus ultimately you, Amiga Inc."
Speculation. I consider the policy as a move forward that will deliver a quality product with support to AmigaOS users. Is this hurtful? No, but it's my speculation. But being part of the AmigaOne developer list, I'm seeing evidence that supports I'm correct in believing support for licensed boards will be available.
"The POP/PPC hardware market, its development and competition will be hurt because it would have to be artificially split into an "Amiga" and an "everybody else" part, instead of growing with users regardless of OS"
The split in the Amiga community right now is pretty much real and there isn't a reason to pussy-foot around the fact the Amiga community is grouped into factions. Frankly, my speculation is that Amiga is looking at a bigger market than just POP/PPC. I really did like the idea of VP and the possiblity of having an OS that was totally hardware independent.
"AmigaOS users will be hurt because we unnecessarily lose options"
There is only one option we've lost right now and that is the Pegasos board. Please identify what other options have been lost. I would classify this statement as FUD, if not FUD then it's extremely biased speculation.
"Just don't deprive us of options for no technological reason when it comes to hardware."
Again, someone is miffed that there are no present plans to run OS 4.0 on the Pegasos.
"Amiga Inc. will lose revenue since you'll only make money on the very few hard-core AmigaOS users who can be expected to buy bundled and licensed hardware together with AmigaOS at premium prices."
Again more speculation, as the statement is too ambiguous and just meant as a jab against Amiga users with respect to price. After all is said and done, the cost of my developer board and OS will be less than half of what I paid for my brain damaged CSPPC. Practically a bargain in the Amiga world! Heck, it even costs less than what I paid for my C64 + 1541 drive back in the early 80's.
After looking at the petition again, I don't see any real facts, just someone's speculation. Time will tell whether or not the originator of the petition's crystal ball or Amiga Inc's crystal ball is telling the correct story.
There's always three sides to every conflict....there's my side, your side, and the truth somewhere in the middle.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 148 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 15-Jun-2002 20:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (Adam Kowalczyk):
>Janne, your use of the word "factual" when referencing the petition is
>starting to annoy me almost as much as the use of the word FUD annoys Seehund.
If you read my replies carefully, you will notice that I speak of two sides to the petition. First, the facts it is based on (namely the Executive Update by McEwen) and, second, the opinion expressed by the undersigned. You have quoted mostly things that are obviously of the latter category.
I have always, I repeat, always, identified people's right to disagree with the opinion part and thus not sign the petition. That would be in stark contrast of me claiming the whole petition text to be made of facts. Clearly, since it is an expression of opinion, it is not. What I do not agree with is the allegation that the petition itself is fundamentally flawed.
The petition is expressing an opinion (undersigned's view, opinion, on how the market will evolve) based on a fact (Amiga Inc.'s statement on how they intend to market AmigaOS 4.x).
>There is very little, if anything factual in the petition other than Amiga
>Inc. has a licensing policy which they've identified for quality assurance and
>anti-piracy measures.
Agreed. But then, that is the imporant factual part. Amiga Inc. have introduced this licensing policy and the petition is based on that fact. If that fact were indeed a lie, the petition would be fundamentally flawed, but since Amiga have posted the principles of the policy on their site I do not think it is.
>Here are just a few tidbits from the petition that I would classify as mere
>speculation.
Well, that is the nature of the beast, isn't it? We don't know which licensing policy would benefit us the most in the end. Please don't claim anyone does (and so far you haven't). Nobody does. But people have differing views, opinions, based on differing world-views, knowledge etc. Expressing one of those views is exactly what this petition (and any petition for that matter) is all about.
>"We think that the above will seriously hurt AmigaOS users, the POP/PPC
>hardware market and thus ultimately you, Amiga Inc."
"We think" clearly implies opinion. Very much in line with a good petition.
Please think of the petition as a letter the undersigned send to Amiga Inc. That way you can think of the text in its right context. It is an opinion the undersigned express, based on a fact (Amiga Inc.'s statement of intention). I have never, ever, denied that is still an OPINION. What petition isn't?
>"AmigaOS users will be hurt because we unnecessarily lose options"
>There is only one option we've lost right now and that is the Pegasos board.
>Please identify what other options have been lost. I would classify this
>statement as FUD, if not FUD then it's extremely biased speculation.
I do agree that the assumption that there will be more POP boards or similar hardware is one of the more speculative points in this petition. Clearly options like Pegasos and Barbie may have been lost due to the licensing, and the belief that this will hurt Amiga users is a valid opinion, so technically that should not be in error.
However, the assumption that the POP market will somehow magically pick up is certainly one of the weaker arguments behind the petition. I think Ben Hermans listed some nice reasoning as to why that may not be the case. I still do feel the petition is based on a reasonable principle, though - that of being open to any hardware options out there without mandatory licensing. That is a clear goal even if at present it only concerns one or two products.
If you do not believe there will be a POP market, or that we will lose options due to this policy then, by all means, do not sign the petition. If you believe options will be limited, do consider signing. At this time we have no way of knowing how the market will shape up when actual products arrive. They aren't here yet, and no firm deadlines have been laid out recently.
And even if we lose only Pegasos, I personally would find that rather disappointing. Even more so if it is only because of licensing. But we don't know yet, perhaps some dealer will pick up the licensing deal - or perhaps the petition or something else will have effect and Amiga Inc. will adjust their policy, or... Clouded the future is.
>Time will tell whether or not the originator of the petition's crystal ball or
>Amiga Inc's crystal ball is telling the correct story.
Obviously, agreed.
And I _still_ haven't signed the petition. It is quite difficult to know what to think of all this. It is a complicated scenario if you look at it from all angles. I'm sure it hasn't been an easy decision to Amiga Inc. either, but all the more reason for them to get good feedback. I'd call this petition one of the more constructive initiatives I've seen if it ever does get delivered to Amiga Inc. in a final, polished form.
All I'm saying: the petition expresses an opinion we should respect, since it is based on a fact we can all confirm - the Amiga Inc. policy statement. even if we find flawed wordings in it. It is a just a product of human creation, not some evil device to bring down things Amiga(tm). IMHO anyway.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 149 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by TBone on 15-Jun-2002 21:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 147 (Adam Kowalczyk):
> "AmigaOS users will be hurt because we unnecessarily lose options"
"There is only one option we've lost right now and that is the Pegasos board. Please identify what other options have been lost. I would classify this statement as FUD, if not FUD then it's extremely biased speculation. "
You're missing the Barbie, one of who's developers has already spoken about his take on the license issue.
> "Just don't deprive us of options for no technological reason when it comes to hardware."
"Again, someone is miffed that there are no present plans to run OS 4.0 on the Pegasos. "
That's your bias showing it's slip, not the petition. Like I said, there is a "Real" loss of options already, not speculated, Real. Two manufacturers have already stated publicly that they just don't DO their business this way, face it no motherboard manufacturer does really.
That's the proof right there that the license is damaging. It is, we have less options now, due only to the license. There are -Zero- manufacturers from outside markets who agreed to this license, this is hardly a forward thhinking move, especially to an OS that claims to be moving towards platform independance.
In your counter to the petition, you never did make your case that the license as is, is beneficial in a way that couldn't be implemented another way. In order to effectively oppose the petition, you would first have to show this to be the case.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 150 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 15-Jun-2002 21:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 148 (Janne Sirén):
I do wish the petition was worded better and that it lacked the amibiguities. Regardless of the number of signees, it will be hard to take as a good form of feedback due to its flaws. The web page you go to to view the petition signees reads as follows:
"We endorse the AmigaOS(TM) distribution policies and PPC hardware Petition to Amiga Incorporated."
It's obvious you have to read the petition, but it should have been called something more anti-Amiga. Maybe something like: "We endorse the 'Holy Crap What Was Amiga Inc. Smoking when they came up with the Deal with the Devil Licensing Agreement'
> Clearly options like Pegasos and Barbie may have been lost due to the
> licensing, and the belief that this will hurt Amiga users is a valid opinion, > so technically that should not be in error."
bPlan/Thendic are as responsible for the Pegasos not running OS 4.0. The same argument or petition could be directed at bPlan/Thendic to accept the licensing agreement. The fact of the matter is they have different business goals, but I'm sure they don't mind picking up the odd ex-Amiga user to buy their hardware and run their Amiga software under MorphOS. I can speculate that the sales of the Pegasos board would go up if it ran OS 4.0. But bPlan/Thendic don't care about the Amiga market. Maybe they are the smart ones because they've moved on. I feel it makes more sense to support the companies that support Amiga. I do not see supporting the Pegasos (or any other board) in an unlicensed format as supporting Amiga and the Amiga OS and its users.
> If you do not believe there will be a POP market, or that we will lose
> options due to this policy then, by all means, do not sign the petition. If
> you believe options will be limited, do consider signing.
I do believe there will be a POP market....eventually. I buried some open source POP plans from IBM in my garden to see if a POP tree would grow. Maybe that's where these vendors are coming from. I won't be signing the petition as I don't see my options as limited. I don't consider the Barbie an option as it has less features than the AmigaOne. I don't consider the Pegasos an option due to "suspect" quality of assembly. It's like when you buy a car and get a lemon, well I got a lemon CSPPC and I have a hard time throwing good money after bad. Had the experience been more positive and if there were less occurences of failed DCE built CSPPC's, the shoe might be on a different foot.
Anonymous, there are 169 items in your selection (but only 69 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 169]
Back to Top