07-Oct-2024 23:50 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 116 items in your selection (but only 16 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 116]
[News] OS 4 coverage on OS newsANN.lu
Posted on 15-Jul-2002 06:57 GMT by SimplePPC116 comments
View flat
View list
Mike Bouma did an excellent write-up on OS 4 for OS news. Includes 5 unreleased screenshots. The article can be found here.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 101 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by strobe on 16-Jul-2002 19:15 GMT
I had no problem viewing these screen shots using Internet Explorer
...Mac version |-)
Anyway until we actually SEE this OS in action, all the screen shots in the world doesn't change anything.
Mop up the pee streaming from your pant legs and calm down.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 102 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 16-Jul-2002 19:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (Adam Kowalczyk):
"Linux is a great alternative, but it still requires porting to new targets."
How do you think Tao/Amiga's system works? Fairy magic?
They have to manually port the system to each new target, just like Linux. They have absolutely no advantage over a Free Software alternative, in fact if anything they are at a disadvantage because they must defend binary portable solutions over other choices, while Linux and *BSD are free to do either as appropriate to the situation.
Tao's claim for OS portability is that you can write a PCI driver on x86 and then use the same driver on Alpha or Sparc. That would be a big deal, except that Windows and Linux do that too, you just recompile the driver, a purely mechanical operation. You can write non-portable code on Linux, but you can also write non-portable code on Intent. Similarly you can write code that isn't thread safe, or which has security holes on any of these platforms.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 103 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 16-Jul-2002 21:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 102 (Anonymous):
"How do you think Tao/Amiga's system works? Fairy magic?"
Isn't that what the bag of pixie dust is for that comes with every computer? Of course I understand the translation layer needs to be ported to a new system/CPU. In the ideal world, that's where the porting ends. There wouldn't be a need to recompile code to generate any binaries. Keep in mind that not all companies favour the GPL and the open source movement. If you are a software maker writing programs for PDA's, the portability of binaries is very beneficial as it opens a potentially much larger market to your product without having to worry about having to support multiple CPU platforms.
I think Linux can benefit from running on a VP system. Imagine an OS that would run on both Macs, PCs and anything else where programs would run regardless of CPU. Now imagine writing programs for that OS. It's a much larger market and no worry about keeping x86 or PPC versions. I see this as beneficial.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 104 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous on 16-Jul-2002 21:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (Adam Kowalczyk):
"OS4 is a stepping stone from the point of view that it will pretty much be written in C. Once the code is retargetable and has all the hooks it needs to be supported by multiple platforms and hardware, Tao/VP might become much more attractive."
I think we all agree from a technical standpoint, but what is being done to realize this? We've only heard some cursory remarks from Ben about how the Tao system is more of a curiosity at this point.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 105 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Hammer (Same person from Amiga.org) on 16-Jul-2002 21:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 102 (Anonymous):
> They have to manually port the system to each new target, just like Linux.
OF course they do port Intent/VP to host OS and hardware platforms.
> They have absolutely no advantage over a Free Software alternative, in fact > if anything they are at a disadvantage because they must defend binary
> portable solutions over other choices,
I don't see the problem with Intent's solution in regards to "transparent" binary portability.
> Tao's claim for OS portability is that you can write a PCI driver on x86 and > then use the same driver on Alpha or Sparc. That would be a big deal, except > that Windows and Linux do that too,
> you just recompile the driver, a purely mechanical operation.
It's not transparent for the mundane user. Not very one is elitist linux geek.
> You can write non-portable code on Linux, but you can
> also write non-portable code on Intent. Similarly you can write code that > > isn't thread safe, or which has security holes on any of these platforms.
The focus of Intent's solution is "transparent" binary portability for mundane end user.
> while Linux and *BSD are free to do either as appropriate to the situation.
It's not transparent for mundane user.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 106 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 16-Jul-2002 21:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Adam Kowalczyk):
Adam, I don't think you understand the scope of CLI/CTS/CIL/VES ...
Think of it tthis way:
The internet is your system, the local Area Network is your system, your system is your system.
You are not constrained to the OS level, but rather your OS choice is just your local interface to the big network system.
Rather than an OS and it's applications you can move across platforms by just porting the VP part, you have applications you can run on any OS for which a VES has been written for.
More like running VP Hosted and any platform, rather than running VP native on different hardware.
The biggest difference is that the OS becomes alot less important for running a range of applications that can tie in togther with many other application over the net.
The concept of AmigaDE, as has been communicaed in public, means you have to move the application around, rather than just accessing the application where ever they are on the net.
Are you understanding the difference?
I'm sure that if for AROS a CLI (Common Language Infastructure) was made, or ported from the mono or dotgnu efforts, then you'd be able to use AROS as your local user interface of net accesable applications, cept with the GPL application, you will be able to download the applications and source to your local machine raher then running them off the slower internet. Though some of these applications you or others sew together may rely onhaving application out on the net collecting information....
Understand there is some common ground here with the CLI that MS and GNU have in common and these two together doesd present a prett big mass to try and compete against (note that mono and dotgnu are of such nature to be used by other OSI operating systems like freeBSD, MacOSX, etc...).
It's more likely that Amigas NDA and Double NDA secret is just hype to generate excitement about what probably amounts to Amiga themselves making use of this CLI technology. It'd certainly help explan how SHEEP can be a scripting language, an interpreted language and a compiled language.
And it's certainly evidenced that Amiga really isn't creating something new as much as they are simply using what already exist.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 107 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 16-Jul-2002 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (3seas):
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/16/1813221&mode=thread&tid=106&threshold=0
Guess Amiga really felt the bite in the MS booth.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 108 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Kowalczyk on 16-Jul-2002 22:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (3seas):
Tim, you're trying to emphasize a different point than I am. Frankly, I'm not overly interested in the "pie in the sky" approach, but more interested in using technologies like VP to quickly develop products for mass consumption. In the future companies like Apple or Amiga can port their OS to another platform to free themselves of the restrictions of the present technology. Similarly, Microsoft can port their OS to a VP style plaform so it can run on different H/W with binary portability for even further market penetration.
These are things that can be accomplished in the short term and are very and also apply to smaller consumer good like PDA's and STB's. I think you see this this technology as some kind of "IT Glasnost" whereas I see the technology making things easier for big businesses to make products that more people can use. From a business point of view, I see this type of technology benefiting the hardware and the software companies and driving competition because it opens up options available to those companies.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 109 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 16-Jul-2002 23:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 108 (Adam Kowalczyk):
There is alot more information available and work being done on .net type of efforts then there is about AmigaDE and Tao VP.
I'm not so sure Amiga DE and Tao VP are going to be compairable to these other efforts. Already PDA, STBs and small consumer devices are running Linux. Certainly a VES is likely to be smaller than a linux OS.
In any event, it's about running applications and also about who collects royalities for the execution engine.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 110 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Marcus Sundman on 17-Jul-2002 06:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (Fabio Alemagna):
> > I hate windows that hang outside the screen borders. How are you supposed
> > to drag it back with only a gadget in the top bar showing?
>
> If you can drag out of the screen's border you can put it back in the same
> way, don't you think? There's no way you can lose a window outside the
> screen moving it by hand.
Drag a window to the bottom right corner and then switch your screen resolution from your normal 1600x1200 to e.g. 1024x768. I have "lost" many windows that way.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 111 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Wolf on 17-Jul-2002 09:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 98 (Chris Y):
> What GUI system is that?
It's MUI (http://www.aminet.net/pub/aminet/util/wb/MUIScrMode1_5.lha).
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 112 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Wolf on 17-Jul-2002 09:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 111 (Andreas Wolf):
link correction: http://www.aminet.net/util/wb/MUIScrMode1_5.lha
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 113 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 17-Jul-2002 09:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Adam Kowalczyk):
"I think Linux can benefit from running on a VP system."
Why would I want Linux to run more slowly ? I don't understand. You're going to have to explain slowly and clearly why making all my software slower AND paying a license fee to Tao would be a "benefit". Every piece of Linux software that's released runs fine on my PC. 99% of the same software runs on Ole's PPC Linux system, including EVERYTHING in the modern Red Hat or Debian distributions.
[ Do you also think people should own cars that are 10% more expensive and 10% slower but have a reversable steering column so that they can be safely driven in countries with contrary road laws ? ]
It's also important to realise that Tao's "binary portability" does not apply in temporal terms. That is, software from one version of AmigaDE (say the "Fruity Loops special developer edition, Dec 2001") won't necessarily work with a different version (say the "Double Intent pre-non-release, June 2002") and so from the POV of an end user, AmigaDE is actually worse than the supposedly "non portable" system they have now.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 114 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 17-Jul-2002 11:48 GMT
Whether you ar talking about Tao VP or the CLI (Common Language Infrastructure)
of dotnet type of stuff, you are talking about the use of Virtual Machines.
It took alot of years but the C compiler has reached producing binaries near as
fast as Assembly Language. In time the Virtual Machines will also improve, but until
they do.......well are you really fully using the speed of your system or are you
running at the slowest link of what you are doing, like 28.8...???
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 115 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 17-Jul-2002 12:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 113 (Anonymous):
""I think Linux can benefit from running on a VP system."
Why would I want Linux to run more slowly ? "
Programs written in Tao's VP don't _run_ more slowly, they load more
slowly from disk. The actual running program is in normal x86,
StrongARM or whatever binary code. The translation is done in the
loading process, like the finalising of addresses in Amiga hunks.
OS 4 coverage on OS news : Comment 116 of 116ANN.lu
Posted by Solar on 18-Jul-2002 03:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 115 (Don Cox):
Don, that is not true. Running binaries through an abstract, intermediate state yields a penalty, even if it may be small.
It is true that the VP code is translated at load time. But the translated code cannot recieve the same amount of optimization as dedicated target-compilers can. Or are you trying to tell me that Tao's VP translator matches e.g. the Intel C++ compiler? Hardly.
What's more, for all that we know the Tao VP cannot utilize SIMD units like Altivec or MMX/SSE. You need optimized modules for that - there goes the write once.
Anonymous, there are 116 items in your selection (but only 16 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 116]
Back to Top