19-Apr-2024 19:27 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 169 items in your selection (but only 119 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 51 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by TBone on 12-Jun-2002 11:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (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."
Luckily developers offered to submit their work for free. Unfortunately the license issue stood in the way, as they have no incentive to donate their work, if they can only profit from their work by marketing the hardware. At least one (two?) have stated this publicly.
It's already a public fact that offers from manufacturers to make AmigaOS run on their hardware, are being turned away by a license that only rewards the people "marketing" the motherboard. The manufacturer no longer has an incentive to do the work themselves, because they don't benefit, unless they decide to market a product line, something some manufacturers don't want to do, for ANY os.
This alone should point out a flaw in the current licenseing scheme.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 52 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 11:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (TBone):
Aaaah.. so, because the author is the same, the source code of the HAL must be exactly the same as well? Is it impossible that he could have developed 2 different hardware specific HAL's for each motherboard?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 53 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 12-Jun-2002 11:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (gz):
> 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.
I too am glad that Hyperion stepped up to the plate to tackle the challenge of porting OS 4.0. It's not like Amiga held a gun to anyone at Hyperion's head in order for them to do the work. Contract agreements work by being satisfactory to both parties and the "out" clauses in this case leaves both companies in good positions. Hyperion is a business and I expect they will sell more of their products because of OS 4.0, and if Amiga fades away into the past they end up owning the OS. That's a pretty reasonable deal. I'm glad someone at Amiga had the sense to make the deal sweet enough for Hyperion. Personally, I see Hyperion in a better position than Amiga Inc. in this deal. BTW, it's IP that sometimes means you make money for not necessarily doing any additional work. Amiga Inc. paid for the IP and will receive the benefits of owning the OS even if they don't code a single line themselves. That's just business, and it also explains their desire to prevent piracy as it is a stream of revenue for them. From a business point of view, Amiga's licensing policy is crystal clear and it makes sense.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 54 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 12-Jun-2002 12:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Janne Sirén):
I flame the petition because:
1. It's based on assumptions and speculation, noone on that petition has confirmed their accusations about the license with Amiga Inc. If Amiga Inc. doesn't reply to such request, then make a petition about Amiga Inc. not replying to inquiries instead of raising this kind of FUD.
2. People don't seem to even think about the fact that *if* their assumptions would be wrong, they might be causing great damage to the already worn out Amiga market. Please think before taking action, people!
3. Amiga Inc. *never* claimed that they would make a POP based OS in the first place and never said anything else besides that they would be supporting hardware manufacturers cooperating with them. This was their policy from the very beginning and now because Eyetech choose a POP based design for their AmigaONE board people start whining at Amiga Inc. for not supporting every POP motherboard out there today and in the future, regardless of by whom or how it's designed. This is simply not how Amiga Inc. will market their OS and I see nothing wrong about it. If you have an issue with it, talk to them!!!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 55 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 12-Jun-2002 12:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Samface):
What the point of developing a HAL if you're going to make hardware specific ones which are incompatible with each other?
The point of a HAL is that while the hardware itself may be different, the interface presented to the OS is always the same, so that the OS itself doesn't have to support the hardware directly.
You can see a partial example of this on Amithlon's graphics display, and most likely in the networking and sound with the new version. While the abstraction layers load the correct drivers transparently, the driver presented to AmigaOS is always the same.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 56 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 12-Jun-2002 12:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Seehund):
Seehund, it was an admiriable attempt to defend yourself on here, but the Faithful Followers of The Name Cult, namely folks like Samface, are never going to agree with anything that is remotely negative to Amino. It would truely be a scary world to live in if we were still locked into the Amiga Kommunity, with no chance of escape with the fanatics frothing at the mouth when anyone points out a really stupid idea coming from Amino or HYPErion.
Dammy
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 57 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 12-Jun-2002 12:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Marcus Sundman):
LOL
ANN should be renamed UTG, Useless Thread Generator.
/Björn
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 58 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Jeff on 12-Jun-2002 12:51 GMT
It took me 10 minutes to find OS 3.9, OS 3.5 and copies of every AmigaOS
ROM version from 1.3 on the Internet. Need I say more?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 59 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 12-Jun-2002 12:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Samface):
>This is simply not how Amiga Inc. will market their OS and I see nothing wrong
>about it. If you have an issue with it, talk to them!!!
That is what this petition is all about. Seehund is making an admirable (if, perhaps, futile) effort in preparing his message to Amiga Inc. with a bunch of "signatures" (part of this futility goes to the inherent unreliability of online petitions, but still, it is an admirable effort). Then he will send the petition to Amiga Inc. and thus talk to them - just with more "signatures" than his own. And he did talk to Amiga Inc. previously, as he pointed out above.
Could you please reply to my post 37 and more precisely point 1-5 in it. Which one of these do you not agree with? If you agree with them, no way could this petition be seen as FUD. If not, I would like to know why you don't agree.
Thanks!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 60 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 13:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (Jeff):
> It took me 10 minutes to find OS 3.9, OS 3.5 and copies of every AmigaOS
> ROM version from 1.3 on the Internet. Need I say more?
Yes. You could start by explaining your point. :)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 61 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 12-Jun-2002 13:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Samface):
>1. It's based on assumptions and speculation, noone on that petition has
>confirmed their accusations about the license with Amiga Inc. If Amiga Inc.
>doesn't reply to such request, then make a petition about Amiga Inc. not
>replying to inquiries instead of raising this kind of FUD.
Just in case you would like to know why I posted my points in 37, I have gathered here references from Bill McEwen's executive update.
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1023841270&category=rant&start=1&59#message37
1) Amiga Inc. requires all hardware capable of running AmigaOS 4.x to be licensed.
"AmigaOS4 and all future versions will ship only on those hardware products to which Amiga Inc has specifically granted a license..."
That is quite clear, no need for a clarification.
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).
This is a harder one, and perhaps one that truly needs clarification - although here we have already made assumptions for the benefit of Amiga based on comments by Hyperion and perhaps some Amiga Inc. folks online. These comments do not seem to be in conflict with Bill's executive update, so no real need to question them.
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).
"For hardware which is not capable of being used in conjunction with Amiga WB 3.1 (such as the AmigaOne) we will require, as part of the licence conditions, that a copy of Amiga OS is purchased with all boards sold that are capable of running it."
No need for clarification there, I think? AmigaOS must be sold part of the kit.
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.
Again:
"For hardware which is not capable of being used in conjunction with Amiga WB 3.1 (such as the AmigaOne) we will require, as part of the licence conditions, that a copy of Amiga OS is purchased with all boards sold that are capable of running it."
That clearly states the OS will not be available separately, I only questioned it because of some remarks from Hyperion that have talked some alternatives. These may or may not have anything to do with shipping AmigaOS without the hardware to run it on. This certainly needs clarification, granted, but then is not really any issue regarding the petition if 1 still holds true.
5) CyberstormPPC and BlizzardPPC are exceptions to 1) and 4).
"[only licensed boards] The only exclusion to this policy is a temporary measure to support the community members who have invested heavily in existing PPC accelerators and will cover products where an Amiga manufactured or licenced Kickstart ROM is present (for instance A1200/A3000/A4000)."
Most clear.
Amiga Inc. have made their stance quite clear with the executive update. Nothing really by their partners has contradicted the executive update, nor the replies people have gotten from them. If you have seen or feel otherwise, do let us know and please post references. There is very little reason to doubt the validity of the executive update, unless of course, they change their plans. The goal of the petition is just that, I'm sure.
Once we can find a concesus on these, perhaps we can move on to looking at the petition itself and wordings in it that you find infactual and offensive?
Thanks.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 62 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] on 12-Jun-2002 13:23 GMT
Right, for all you lot wittering on about hardware, lemme pose this question to you.
How many different types of chipset are there on the PC ? Loads, over 15 at least. How many for PPC ? About 2 or 3.
Furthermore, the OpenFirmware BIOS is a LOT better at catering for all different kinds of hardware than the PC BIOS is. Yet still Windows manages to support them all, even without customised drivers from the manufacturer. And no, it doesn't come with drivers for every chipset by default.
What I say is this - Hyperion should write AmigaOS so the board level stuff such as controlling the northbridge/southbridge are done by drivers that can be easily changed at boot time. They can put out drivers for AmigaONE, and then release a DDK (driver development kit) telling others how to write for thier boards.
If they're concerned about quality control, they can set up some kind of system whereby a board/drivers get certified. Only certified boards can advertise themselves as being Amiga Compatible, but uncertified boards are allowed to run AmigaOS, just without warranty/support should it be unreliable.
As for graphics drivers, well again, what's wrong with supporting a few, like Matrox and ATi, and then letting others cover the rest ? Let's face it, its not as if they have to support things like S3 Virge's and SiS 6326's because none of them come in OpenFirmware form.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 63 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Troels Ersking on 12-Jun-2002 13:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Tbone):
""""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?"""""
Well did you call, fax or email Amiga Inc for a start and if, which person at Amiga turned you down and wouldn't clarify the issue?
I think the licensing is GOOD for the platform, the Amiga platform I might add.
Whiners'n'lamers all of you..........FUD campaign.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 64 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 13:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 ([JC]):
> Hyperion should write AmigaOS so the board level stuff such as controlling
> the northbridge/southbridge are done by drivers that can be easily changed
> at boot time. They can put out drivers for AmigaONE, and then release a DDK
> (driver development kit) telling others how to write for thier boards.
Amen.
(However, releasing a retail version of OS4 is not really necessary until there actually exists POP boards that can't be bought WITH OS4.)
> If they're concerned about quality control, they can set up some kind of
> system whereby a board/drivers get certified. Only certified boards can
> advertise themselves as being Amiga Compatible, but uncertified boards
> are allowed to run AmigaOS, just without warranty/support should it be
> unreliable.
Amen.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 65 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 12-Jun-2002 13:56 GMT
Notice the article is by Emanuel Mair, who also has a nice big fat agenda.
Sooooo transparent.
BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 66 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by |Lando| on 12-Jun-2002 13:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Treke):
>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 ;-)
Well it would succeed in that a lot of people would sign it (certainly more than have signed the Anti-Amiga one) but petitions in general are rather pointless and mean nothing. People will sign anything if you pitch it right.
A comedy TV program here once set up a table with big placards outside a supermarket and was trying to get women to sign a petition saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're too stupid (or similar). Guess what, nearly every woman who came out signed the petition. :)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 67 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 12-Jun-2002 14:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Samface):
"3. Amiga Inc. *never* claimed that they would make a POP based OS in the first place and never said anything else
besides that they would be supporting hardware manufacturers cooperating with them. This was their policy from the very
beginning and now because Eyetech choose a POP based design for their AmigaONE board people start whining at
Amiga Inc. for not supporting every POP motherboard out there today and in the future, regardless of by whom or how it's
designed. This is simply not how Amiga Inc. will market their OS and I see nothing wrong about it. If you have an issue with
it, talk to them!!!"
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.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 68 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 12-Jun-2002 14:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 ([JC]):
> If they're concerned about quality control, they can set up some kind of
> system whereby a board/drivers get certified. Only certified boards can
> advertise themselves as being Amiga Compatible, but uncertified boards are
> allowed to run AmigaOS, just without warranty/support should it be
> unreliable.
That suggestion isn't that much different than Amiga Inc's licensing policy. This work has to be compensated for....hence the reason behind bundling the OS with the licensed boards. If a vendor chooses to have their OS certified as a flat fee, undoubtedly the price would be based on how many copies of the OS they expect to be pirated. In the big picture, if you think 1000 people are going to use the OS on a board....charge $100,000 USD. The net effect is the same thing...the board supplier might as well just bundle the board with the OS. Do you think people like to work for free? I doubt seriously that any group of peole such as Amiga or Hyperion would spend time certifying solutions without a revenue stream. People are trivializing what it takes to get so-called POP board running an OS. Small discrepancies take time and money to fix....conference calls...endless emails....delays which represent interest on financing.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 69 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 12-Jun-2002 14:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 67 (Don Cox):
I want to see it running on x86 but Im happy with PPC for now, we need a START and then we can go on to get it running more more platforms - *IF* AOS4 and up turns out to be a good OS revision.
If not then bye bye AmigaOS scene for me.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 70 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 12-Jun-2002 14:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Seehund):
Correct me if I am wrong but AmigaONE and the classic hardware are on the potentially bypassing list ( even though Eyetech are going through the scheme ) and Elbox et al are on the list of those willing to go through the scheme.
It was that way last time I read the update.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 71 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 12-Jun-2002 16:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Samface):
@SamFace
> Aaaah.. so, because the author is the same,
> the source code of the HAL must be exactly the
> same as well? Is it impossible that he could have
> developed 2 different hardware specific HAL's for
> each motherboard?"
Stop guessing, look up the facts, and come back when you're armed with real "information" rather than your constant random guesses.
The AmigaOne uses the Barbie HAL, it's the ONLY one that linux HAS that works on that chipset at the moment. If you have any doubts about that, email the author, or even look at the packages available in the various linux distro's. It's blindingly obvious and easily verifiable, DRINK, camel!
Untill you have verified the above facts, your "participation" in this thread is useless, as your "guessing" adds only to the noise in the signal:noise ratio around here.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 72 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 12-Jun-2002 16:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (DaveW):
> "BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!"
Thank you for that productive comment, Mr. Helper.
I'm sure the competition is writhing in the crushing grip of reason.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 73 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous on 12-Jun-2002 17:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (Marcus Sundman):
> It took me 10 minutes to find OS 3.9, OS 3.5 and copies of every AmigaOS
> ROM version from 1.3 on the Internet. Need I say more?
>>Yes. You could start by explaining your point. :)
Seems pretty obvious to me: piracy is a rampant problem.
Does anyone have a reasonable estimate of the number of Amiga PPC boards that were sold or are actively being used?
With bplan/Thendic aiming their Pegasos boards at developers and OS bundling a requirement for Amiga-certified systems it would seem that the interim PPC solutions are about the only area where OS sales would be sacrificed.
Let's be real: if you invested money to upgrade a 10 year old dead platform no one owes you anything.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 74 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 12-Jun-2002 18:17 GMT
you all must have some pretty strong asprin or some very good reality distorting drugs.
Who really needs the headache of wondering whether or not what they buy today will be useful next week or 5 years from now? Who needs the headache of having to sort thru licenses to make sure their use of computers won't cause them to lose everything thru license related lawsuites?
Sometimes its better to take a step backward so to correct some key problems and then move forward with less stress and legal constraint batteling.
I.E. How much does one have to give up in switching from MS to GNU? and what do you suppose the mid to long term values gained is to you, for doing so?
Lets' see now, there is the "official" AmigaOS which has had a rocky water history. There is the GPL and commercial Amiga Emulators and then there is the Free/OSS and commercial Amiga work alikes - AROS and MorphOS that make porting existing Amiga applications to a non-Amiga system easier.
the only thing really to consider is whether or not Amiga Inc is going somewhere in proprietary that you want to go too, as the past development or store of applications is apparently usable thru emulation and convertable to run on work alikes. But how many developers will exclusively follow Amiga Inc. Otherwise the future of what is produced for the emulators and work alikes is just as open. And even in both of those you have an option between commercial closed source and Free open source.
Isn't it nice to have a choice?
Oh, BTW, in the open architecture spirit of the original Amiga, placing legalize hardware constraints just doesn't seem to be in that spirit. But then much about "Amiga official" has changed in relationship to technology. Once upon a time the custom hardware allowed more freedom, but as the technology in the rest of the industry moved forward while the Amiga hardware stagnated, it become more constrained. So "officially" additional constrants may very well be inline with the Amiga history direction.
But isn't it nice to have a choice where you may go?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 75 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 12-Jun-2002 19:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 73 (anonymous):
> > It took me 10 minutes to find OS 3.9, OS 3.5 and copies of every AmigaOS
> > ROM version from 1.3 on the Internet. Need I say more?
> >>Yes. You could start by explaining your point. :)
>
> Seems pretty obvious to me: piracy is a rampant problem.
Yes, but what has that got to do with the topic? If you think that the existence of a retail version of OS4 would help piracy in some significant way then please explain why that would be so.
The only reason I can come up with is if some hardware that comes bundled with OS4 would be sold without OS4, in which case you could buy the one without OS4 and the run a pirated copy of it, but if neither PegaSOS nor Barbie will be licensed (and Ben Hermans said that AmigaOne most likely wouldn't be made available without OS4) then this is not a problem.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 76 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Mikael Burman on 12-Jun-2002 20:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Samface):
"...I wonder how he thinks AmigaOS could possibly run on every
POP based motherboard out there by simply supporting the POP standard..."
In the same way Windows can run on alot of different x86 hardware. You say it
yourself, there is a POP-standard!! Following it would probably enable AOS4
to run on such hardware! AmigaOS may be limited to some selected GFX-cards,
Soundcards, network-cards etc.
Think about the classic Amiga... look at all the hardware that can be used under
AmigaOS 3.x (Mediator, G-Rex, USB, clock-port soundcards etc, etc). Having this
in mind I believe that it´s an easy task to make AmigaOS4 run on the POP-standard!!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 77 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 06:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (Janne Sirén):
I still don't see the admirable part about spreading FUD. This petition is not "talking", he's only giving inaccurate information about Amiga Inc.'s licensing policies to people which doesn't know better. It's easy to convince someone who can't tell the difference between the lie and the real facts, even more effective if you use FUD. This petition will only tell Amiga Inc. about their opinion, not the community's opinion as a whole. I find Wayne Hunt's effort to be much more admirable when he did the poll showing us an entirely different picture. Seehund is NOT speaking on the behalf of the community, he's only telling Amiga Inc. about which ones that has misunderstood things and needs to have a clarification from them. However, there would have been *much* less confusion on this issue if it wasn't for Seehund and his FUD spreading petition, raising an issue that doesn't even exist.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 78 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 07:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 76 (Mikael Burman):
Hrm... Hint: POP does not equal open firmware. The POP standard is not the same as an open firmware standard and therefore they'll have to create a HAL and specific hardware drivers for each motherboard. Also, the AmigaOS4 is not intended to run on just POP, it's intended to be compatible with as much PPC hardware as possible, not just POP. The former Phase5 hardware is not POP, the future SharkPPC will not be POP and MAI's future PPC hardware isn't going to be POP either. So, there's nothing POP about the AmigaOS4 and just because it will support one POP based motherboard design, it won't make the AmigaOS4 compatible with all POP hardware designs ever made now and in the future. It's not even possible to accomplish as long as their is no open firmware standard on the POP market, period.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 79 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Solar on 13-Jun-2002 07:35 GMT
Just one question:
What POP "market" are you all talking about...?
:-D
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 80 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 07:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (Solar):
The one with potentials of actually becoming a market. :-P
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 81 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Akaru on 13-Jun-2002 08:01 GMT
It makes several facts which are clearly incorrect. It says Amiga are using POP boards, this is not the case, It also claims Amiga never gave any standard or Spec.
The answer to both these is ZICO a spec that Amiga put forward as the base for PPC Amiga's to run AmigaOS.
If nothing else I'd like to congratulate the author on his amazing proganda skills for his petition. He's getting everywhere today.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 82 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 13-Jun-2002 08:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Seehund):
********************
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.)
********************
Should that be allowed? Trimming down a petition to only those you want to sign it? Is that ethical?
A comment like this from the starter of the petitioner gives me absolutely no faith in the petition.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 83 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Solar on 13-Jun-2002 08:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 81 (Akaru):
@ Akaru:
> The answer to both these is ZICO a spec that Amiga put forward as
> the base for PPC Amiga's to run AmigaOS.
Wrong. The Zico spec dates back to the time when there where no plans for an "intermediate" AmigaOS 4 PPC, and represent Amiga Inc.'s plans at the time for going directly for what they today call AmigaOS 5.
The Zico specs do not limit the hardware to PPC, and quite obviously, AmigaOS 4 does.
Mind you, in the meantime Amiga Inc. no longer officially commits on AmigaOS 5 being "hardware independant" in the meaning of the Zico specs (multiple CPU families). A move most unfortunate IMHO, but understandable given the considerable obstacles of funding and recieving support from Tao. :-&
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 84 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 13-Jun-2002 09:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 77 (Samface):
Samface,
> I still don't see the admirable part about spreading FUD.
And I still don't see why you persist in abusing and devaluating the term "FUD". Please stop it.
> This petition is not "talking", he's only giving inaccurate information about
> Amiga Inc.'s licensing policies to people which doesn't know better.
You have been asked over and over again by me, Janne Sirén and others in this thread alone to specify what you percieve as untruths from my part. You have not yet done that. Please be so kind and do that if you are going to call someone a liar in public.
I also think it's a it a rather remarkable behaviour to dismiss more than 600 people including well-known developers and "luminaries" from both our "community" and "outsiders" as people who don't "know better". Think, then type.
> It's easy to convince someone who can't tell the difference between the lie
> and the real facts, even more effective if you use FUD.
There you go again! Are you saying that all who don't agree with a company's clearly outlined distribution policies of a certain product are retarded or just analphabetics? I suppose we are lucky there is someone as enlightened as you here who is willing to repeat the same arguments which we don't agree with, so that we will learn the fault of our ways! Much appreciated. Thanks for being so elevated over our profane world down here so that you can help us determine "lies" from "the real facts" in an unbiased and absolute way.
Again, would you please tell us which of the things that the petition and its signatories don't agree with that differ from the "real facts"? Try to ignore for a moment *why* the petition (and the article which is the topic of this thread) doesn't agree with those things and *why* you agree with them. Just say what those "real facts" are which turn what I say into lies.
> This petition will only tell Amiga Inc. about their opinion, not the
> community's opinion as a whole.
Yes, a petition tells what the signatories of that petition think. This is the purpose of a petition. Is that supposed to be a shocking revelation?
> I find Wayne Hunt's effort to be much more admirable when he did the poll
> showing us an entirely different picture.
First, nobody is yearning for your admiration, second, none of the opinions endorsed by the petition are presented in that poll (wasn't it Rodney McDonell(sp?) who did it BTW?). It's quite unsurprising that an artist painting a picture of a forest will end up with a picture different to that of another artist doing a Stilleben of a fish. (BTW, currently 159 people have answered that they think "AI is going in the right direction", a statement "even" I and I suppose many signatories can agree with to some extent, but it's still less than 600.)
[snipped the repeated insults]
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 85 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Akaru on 13-Jun-2002 09:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 83 (Solar):
>> The answer to both these is ZICO a spec that Amiga put forward as
>> the base for PPC Amiga's to run AmigaOS.
>
>Wrong. The Zico spec dates back to the time when there where no plans for an >"intermediate" AmigaOS 4 PPC, and represent Amiga Inc.'s plans at the time for >going directly for what they today call AmigaOS 5.
>
>The Zico specs do not limit the hardware to PPC, and quite obviously, AmigaOS 4 >does.
Quoted Directly from Amiga's website.
The 'Zico' specification is our first generation specification aimed at the desktop and workstation markets. Any partner implementing the Zico specification and passing successfully through our quality and certification processes is allowed to badge and sell their product as an AmigaOne, the first wave of new Amiga product.
http://www.amiga.com/products/one/specs.php
Whilst the ZICO spec doesn't say which CPU it expects it does mention PPC. These are the specs that Amiga said the AmigaOne would have to have, and if the board passes their quality and certification process, then it can be licensed as an AmigaOne.
Nowhere do they mention it having to be POP compliant, But they do mention OS4, many times and ZICO compliance.
Now admittedly many of the PPC boards are also POP compliant as well as ZICO compliant, but I think my argument still sands.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 86 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 13-Jun-2002 09:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Anonymous):
If that's your thoughts then you obviously don't have an understanding of what a petition is.
A petition is a statement which persons who agree with that statement show their support for by adding their names/signatures to it. If you disagree with the statements in the petition, then you do not sign the petition.
When somebody misunderstands the concept of the term "petition" and signs it anyway, even though they do not endorse the opinions and purposes of the petition and clearly express their disagreement with the petition, then of course their signatures must be removed as they oppose what they just signed.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 87 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 13-Jun-2002 09:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 85 (Akaru):
Akaru, forget about the Zico "specification". It is a meaningless list of computer components for crying out loud. It dates back to the days when AmigaOS was supposed to be based on the DE and be "hardware independent". It's worthless. The PC I'm typing this on would be "Zico compliant" if I had a "next generation" Matrox gfx card in it.
That embarrassing vague description of just about any modern computer on the planet really should have been deleted a loooong time ago.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 88 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 10:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 84 (Seehund):
I'm sorry Seehund but you obviously (and possibly intentionally) misunderstood my post completely. I said that it's easy to confuse those not sure of the meaning of the license by spreading an inaccurate interpretation of it like yours, *not* that everybody that signed it is incompetent or unintelligent in any way. Also, I do think those who have signed it has simply jumped into conclusions just like you and a clarification from Amiga Inc. would probably reduce that list by atleast 75-90%.
I've told you several times why I don't approve of the petition. It's because it states that:
[quote]
AmigaOS4 will run on POP-based ("PowerPC Open Platform") motherboards (and old 68k Amigas with various PPC expansions/accelerators) and the first motherboards said to be supported are clones of the motherboards that Mai uses for its TeronCX "evaluation board", like the boards Eyetech are distributing using the licensed trademark "AmigaOne G3-SE". Amiga Inc. does not and will not design, make or distribute any hardware at all. Nobody makes or is planning to make any "Amiga", i.e. a hardware platform meant to run AmigaOS. The Amiga hardware died in the commercial sense the day Commodore stopped their Amiga R&D.
[/quote]
This whole statement is pure FUD and nothing but FUD because:
1. AmigaOS4 will only run on Amiga specific PPC hardware, POP has never been mentioned as the hardware for AmigaOS4, *ever*. Sure, Eyetech has made one AmigaOne moterboard based on a POP design but that has nothing to do with the hardware compatibility policies by Amiga Inc. for AmigaOS4, period.
2. Eyetech, Elbox, Matay and Merlancia Industries are all making or planning to make AmigaOS4 compatible hardware. The statement claims that *noone* is doing so which is simply one big lie.
Furthermore, the petition website sais:
[quote]
AmigaOS users will have their hardware and hardware vendor options unnecessarily restricted.
[/quote]
Why would it be more restrictive to the users hardware options when this license enables *any* PPC hardware manufacturer/distributors to get AmigaOS4 support instead of just POP based hardware?
Also:
[quote]
AmigaOS and its users have already lost two significant hardware options only because of this policy.
[/quote]
FUD! Amiga Inc. had support from the previously mentioned Amiga specific hardware manufacturers before this license came along while they have *never* had support from bPlan or the Barbie developer. The license hasn't affected the situation for the AmigaOS users at all.
I could go on like forever but unfortunately I don't have the time for it so, this will have to do for now...
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 89 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 10:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Seehund):
You are disagreeing with your interpretation of the license, not the actual license. Please atleast try resolving your concerns about it with Amiga Inc. before spreading your interpretation as "facts" all over the net.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 90 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 13-Jun-2002 10:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 89 (Samface):
Samface, I will address your concerns in a later post, but could you please, tell we whether or not you agree with my points in post 37:
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).
While it is true we have not seen the actual license, as I said, at least 1, 3 and 5 are very clear in the executive update and 2 has been laid out clearly by Ben Hermans (and we assume to Amiga's benefit!) and 4 is not relevant (to this discussion, it may be relevant otherwise) if and when clearly 1 still stands.
Please tell me if you agree or not. These are, as I see it, basically the interpretations that are the basis of the petition as well. Please address these one by one. Thanks!
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 91 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 13-Jun-2002 11:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 88 (Samface):
> 1. AmigaOS4 will only run on Amiga specific PPC hardware,
There is no AmigaOS-specific hardware. Nobody is making or designing any AmigaOS specific hardware.
It doesn't matter if the hardware utilised is based on POP, CHRP or whatever, there will not be any AmigaOS-specific hardware.
> 2. Eyetech, Elbox, Matay and Merlancia Industries are all making or planning to
> make AmigaOS4 compatible hardware.
Eyetech aren't making or designing any hardware. The yet "un-licensed" companies Elbox and Matay are making expansion boards for "classic" Amigas (or ordering rebadged Mac expansion boards?), and nobody really knows what Merlancia is doing, if anything. Last I heard they were going to sell systems based on the Pegasos POP-based mobos. Whether software is compatible with a piece of hardware is of course not the hardware vendor's or developer's concern.
> [quote]
> AmigaOS users will have their hardware and hardware vendor options
> unnecessarily restricted.
> [/quote]
> Why would it be more restrictive to the users hardware options when this
> license enables *any* PPC hardware manufacturer/distributors to get AmigaOS4
> support instead of just POP based hardware?
Now you're in opinion territory, you're not discussing the "real facts" which you were talking about. Very well, I'll explain my opinion again. There are unnecessary obstacles without technical basis against seeing AmigaOS running on any piece of potentially compatible hardware. There. And nobody has mentioned running on only POP-based hardware - it's about *any* potentially compatible hardware. You have yourself been repeating the obvious that all POP-based hardware is not created equal. As it happens, most PPC hardware that is not made by Apple or IBM is based on the POP/CHRP design guidelines. The compulsory licensing business has nothing to do with "enabling" anything.
> [quote]
> AmigaOS and its users have already lost two significant hardware options only
> because of this policy.
> [/quote]
> FUD! Amiga Inc. had support from the previously mentioned Amiga specific
> hardware manufacturers before this license came along while they have *never*
> had support from bPlan or the Barbie developer. The license hasn't affected
> the situation for the AmigaOS users at all.
(BTW, pleeease learn how to use the term "FUD" properly. If you're accusing me of lying, then say so, but any old lie is not "FUD")
Once again, there is no hardware designed with the intention of runnning AmigaOS, apart from maybe the PPC PCI-cards from Matay/Elbox, but they're for the old Amigas so they're rather irrelevant to the petition.
As for the effect of the license on AmigaOS users: Without the license there was a chance that AmigaOS could be made to run on the Pegasos or Barbie or whatever, but the compulsory license has evidently prevented that from happening. Maybe (hah!) someone sometime somewhere will decide to redistribute these "unlicensed" (i.e. normal) products under a license, but without the license all we AmigaOS users would have to hope for was that Amiga Inc./Hyperion made their software run on them - nothing else, there would only be normal technical obstacles.
You have still not provided any "real facts" that differ from what I'm saying, and yet you claim I'm spreading an "inaccurate interpretation" in the post I just replied to here. You just keep arguing against the opinions expressed in the petition. (Let's purely hypothetically say that the summary of the executive update in the petition is indeed an "inaccurate interpretation", then it would still not be as if I'm hiding the "truth" - the presented plans in its original form and exact wording is available via the obvious link to the executive update in the very first paragraph of the petition text. I could of course have included the complete document in the petition, but then I would've been getting nice cease & decist letters from Amiga Inc. and that would've been the end.)
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 92 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Seehund on 13-Jun-2002 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 91 (Seehund):
I wrote:
> [...] but without the license all we AmigaOS users would have to hope for [...]
"but without the compulsory licensing policies all we..." probably gets my meaning across better.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 93 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Janne Sirén on 13-Jun-2002 11:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 88 (Samface):
>I've told you several times why I don't approve of the petition. It's because
>it states that:
That's better. Lets address the issues instead of calling the whole thing FUD. It may have some content to it that could be adjusted and now we can discuss that. That is great. But lets drop the FUD part, it was clearly not meant as such, is not mistaken in its basic principles (if you agree with at least point 1 of mine in 37, which Bill stated clearly) and even though we find something to correct in it - and by all means, lets do so! - that doesn't invalidate it (unless we find something really wrong in its basics, nothing has been pointed out yet with reasonable argumentation).
>This whole statement is pure FUD and nothing but FUD because:
Oh c'moon. FUD this, FUD that. More abused term soon than "troll". The statement may have some mistakes in it, and those we can address quite nicely thank you. But that doesn't make it "pure FUD and nothing but FUD". You are SO misunderstanding the basic premise of the petition. That premise is very admirable even if we find something wrong in its execution.
>1. AmigaOS4 will only run on Amiga specific PPC hardware, POP has never been
>mentioned as the hardware for AmigaOS4, *ever*. Sure, Eyetech has made one
>AmigaOne moterboard based on a POP design but that has nothing to do with the
>hardware compatibility policies by Amiga Inc. for AmigaOS4, period.
Ok. I can appreciate that. Doesn't change the basic premise of the petition though, or anything else for the matter. One can still disagree with this decision even if they made it in the very beginning.
>2. Eyetech, Elbox, Matay and Merlancia Industries are all making or planning
>to make AmigaOS4 compatible hardware. The statement claims that *noone* is
>doing so which is simply one big lie.
AmigaOS compatible hardware is way different than anyone making an "Amiga". You seem to associate "Amiga" with AmigaOS 4.x compatible hardware, whereas the maker of the petition (or myself for that matter) clearly does not. "Amiga" used to be proprietary hardware, and in the foreseeable future it clearly will not be ever again. It is a proprietary software running on standard hardware. Whether or not this hardware should be licensed or not is what this petition is all about.
Lets dissect the statement you call pure FUD and nothing but FUD:
>AmigaOS4 will run on POP-based ("PowerPC Open Platform") motherboards (and old
Okay, possible mistake in saying AmigaOS4 will run on POP boards. It may run on others as well. As far as I know all proposed hardware platforms for it at this time are POP boards, though, but perhaps you are right - perhaps something else will be introduced. I'd call this a very minor problem with the petition and does base on the fact that the first AmigaOnes talked about by Amiga have all been POP boards (bplan was mentioned in the beginning as well). Correct me if I'm wrong, but so is SharkPPC as well? Some IBM reference design?
Nor does the fact that someone would introduce some other PPC platform than POP in anyway invalidate the petition, in fact, it only strenghtens its point if we think of all PPC hardware instead of just POP. People like Apple are never going to give the specs or apply for a license to run AmigaOS, but if AmigaOS could still be run on it that could be nice. Just an example.
>68k Amigas with various PPC expansions/accelerators) and the first
This is clearly correct and confirmed by Bill's executive update.
>motherboards said to be supported are clones of the motherboards that Mai uses >for its TeronCX "evaluation board", like the boards Eyetech are distributing
>using the licensed trademark "AmigaOne G3-SE".
Clearly correct and confirmed by various sources. Even if they are not the same board, the first AmigaOne is clearly based on TeronCX.
>Amiga Inc. does not and will not design, make or distribute any hardware at
>all.
Correct. Bill has said this on many occasions. They are a software company. Period.
>Nobody makes or is planning to make any "Amiga", i.e. a hardware platform
>meant to run AmigaOS. The Amiga hardware died in the commercial sense the day
>Commodore stopped their Amiga R&D.
Okay, possible mistake there. The Classic R&D ended with ESCOM. But that is HARDLY relevant or enough to call it FUD. No way. Also, no one is really planning to make an Amiga. That is true. Even the AmigaOne is based on someone elses design and SharkPPC is an expansion. The Amiga as we used to know it, custom made hardware, is long gone and that is very clear to anyone following the Amiga market. New hardware is based on standard parts and mostly standard designs, and that is what this sentence conveys.
>AmigaOS users will have their hardware and hardware vendor options
>unnecessarily restricted.
Clearly true. Of course the unnecessarily part is an opinion the undersigned share. Whether or not licensing is necessary is really an opinion at this time, technology-wise it is not and that is the point the petition makes.
>Why would it be more restrictive to the users hardware options when this
>license enables *any* PPC hardware manufacturer/distributors to get AmigaOS4
>support instead of just POP based hardware?
Because instead of only facing the technology-barrier, Amiga adds to it by requiring licensing and OEM bundling of the OS. This adds to the restriction to get the OS running on any board. Without licensing restrictions, R&D would only need technical data.
Now there is the added (and by the way NOT trivial) task of getting someone to agree on the responsibilities required by Amiga Inc. Many non-Amiga vendors will not - so the petition undersigned believe, as I see it - be interested and thus this will create an unnecessary - again, so the undersigned believe - barrier in getting AmigaOS to run on wider range of hardware.
>AmigaOS and its users have already lost two significant hardware options only
>because of this policy.
>FUD! Amiga Inc. had support from the previously mentioned Amiga specific
>hardware manufacturers before this license came along while they have *never*
>had support from bPlan or the Barbie developer. The license hasn't affected
>the situation for the AmigaOS users at all.
That is debatable, but clearly the wording in the petition is rather strong on that one. I probably would've toned it down a bit, more on the lines "AmigaOS and its users may have already...". But FUD, naah. Thendic has already said they will support anyone willing to go for AmigaOS support but they are not doing it themselves because they are not interested in this license deal. I'm not familiar with the Barbie situation, so I can't comment that.
If this is why you call the petition FUD I would suggest you to reconsider. It has way more merits than possible poor wordings.
>I could go on like forever
The age old "there's infinitely more but I won't tell you" argument is really getting old. Please lets debate the specifics.
I still strongly believe there is merit in the overall debate the petition is raising. Amiga Inc. are adding an obstacle to hardware compatibility with this licensing policy. Those who believe this obstacle is unnecessary, do sign. Those who believe the obstacle is necessary (there are certainly arguments for it as well, like the ones listed by Amiga Inc.), don't.
I haven't signed anything, yet I'm interested how many will.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 94 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 11:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 90 (Janne Sirén):
> 1) Amiga Inc. requires all hardware capable of running AmigaOS 4.x to be
> licensed.
Well, correction: The AmigaOS4 won't run on any hardware not licensed to run AmigaOS4 unless an illegal patch has been applied.
> 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).
Correct.
> 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).
Correct. But please note that a dealer or manufacturer can sell the hardware without the AmigaOS if they simply remove the ROM code or the peripheral containing it. In other words; the license does not restrict the hardware for use or bundling with AmigaOS only.
> 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.
It's true that this issue seems a bit unclear. However, I'm confident that the AmigaOS will be available seperately as well. Perhaps they will only sell it bundled (but seperately for Phase5 accelerator board owners) only in the beginning and sell it seperately for everyone later on. But please note, the ROM code will prevent it for use with unlicensed hardware anyway.
> 5) CyberstormPPC and BlizzardPPC are exceptions to 1) and 4).
Correct.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 95 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 11:34 GMT
FUDFear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
When I use this term it's either because:
A. The statemnt I'm replying to is based on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
B. The statement I'm replying to is causing or is meant to cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 96 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 11:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 91 (Seehund):
Sigh...
"There is no AmigaOS-specific hardware. Nobody is making or designing any AmigaOS specific hardware."
Yeah, well... That's no reply to my argument against that statement. It feels like arguing with a 3yr old, you know:
Child A: You stole my candybar.
Child B: No I didn't.
Child A: Yes you did.
Child B: No I didn't.
Etc...
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 97 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 13-Jun-2002 11:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 94 (Samface):
> sell it seperately for everyone later on. But please note, the ROM code will
> prevent it for use with unlicensed hardware anyway.
If OS4 is sold separately then it will of course have to include all anti-piracy hardware that it uses, so that it can be run on otherwise unlicensed hardware. What would it otherwise run on if all licensed hardware already comes bundled with OS4?
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 98 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Samface on 13-Jun-2002 12:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 97 (Marcus Sundman):
Well, imagine this scenario:
You purchase the Linux version of the AmigaOne board from Eyetech but later on you regret your choice and would like to have AmigaOS4 instead. In a scenario like that, I can see why someone would want to buy the AmigaOS4 seperately.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 99 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 13-Jun-2002 12:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 98 (Samface):
> You purchase the Linux version of the AmigaOne board from Eyetech but later
> on you regret your choice and would like to have AmigaOS4 instead. In a
> scenario like that, I can see why someone would want to buy the AmigaOS4
> seperately.
Yes, and because that "Linux version" isn't licensed (if it was then it would be the "Amiga version" and be shipped with OS4) the AmigaOS4 you buy separately has to include all anti-piracy hardware that it uses. This is what I said.
osopinion: Close That Open Hardware! : Comment 100 of 169ANN.lu
Posted by Henning Nielsen Lund on 13-Jun-2002 12:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (Marcus Sundman):
> ... has to include all anti-piracy hardware ...
Just the ROM, like when I bought AmigaOS 3.1!!!
Anonymous, there are 169 items in your selection (but only 119 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 169]
Back to Top