24-Apr-2024 14:47 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 69 items in your selection (but only 19 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 69]
[Forum] Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3ANN.lu
Posted on 03-Feb-2003 22:33 GMT by catohagen69 comments
View flat
View list
IBrowse 2.3 falsely claims MorphOS system is using AmigaOS.
Particularily misleading since MorphOS systems are reported as running AmigaOS 4.0 !!.

There exists a crude hack that just replace all "AmigaOS" strings with "MorphOS", and
"3.1", "3.5" and "3.9" with "1.1" or "1.2". Better solution should be provided by the IBrowse authors.

Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 51 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Feb-2003 14:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (JoannaK):
I dont think so.

I say its the other way around.

with MOS ppl wanting all new AmigaOS SW to Mention MOS even tho it was not made for MOS.

Just like amithlon ppl used to ask.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 52 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 04-Feb-2003 14:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (tired):
> Morphos is the successor of amigaos so it normal that the version
> numbers continue.

> The real question is why ainc has chooosen, some years later, to
> take the same number of versions as morphos"

Exactly! Not!!
sigh... why don't you get a life...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 53 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Jupp3 on 04-Feb-2003 14:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 ([JC]):
[quote]
If making an OS run apps at API level from a completely different OS was so grey area, Microsoft would've sued the authors of WINE by now several times over.
[/quote]

Very true, but there's a lot better example of the same, involving Microsoft aswell...

The Lindows case.

Yep, they were threatened with legal action. NOT becouse of compatibility with their own OS (They knew, they couldn't win that) but becouse of the name.

Why?

Maybe to scare the developers, OR more like, postpone the release of Lindows, while Windows would be gaining larger user base, while the case had been handled in the court.

But luckily, the authors weren't that easily scared, and guess, which side won?

If you ask me, that's what Amiga inc. tried to do with those empty threats; Either scare the developers and/or buy some time for themselves
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 54 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by cheesegrate on 04-Feb-2003 15:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (pixie):
>Exactly! Not!!
>sigh... why don't you get a life...


another personal attack to what is a blatantly true observation. mos was made by amiga community developers and retains and expands on the spirit of the original.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 55 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 04-Feb-2003 16:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Cyberwlf):
UAE/Amithlon use the original AmigaOS files. MOS uses it's own replacements
with their own version numbers. The prob is that it reports itself to be
running on OS4.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 56 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Elwood on 04-Feb-2003 19:17 GMT
Am I the only one to not care at all about all this ? We'll see....
What we all want is a good OS, not stories about legal this or legal that !
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 57 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by AnonX on 04-Feb-2003 21:12 GMT
I like mos, but its a deadend waiting to happen
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 58 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Feb-2003 22:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
>Its not for the authors to take acount of every amiga emu & amiga compat API.
>IB is a amiga app not a MOS app.
>IB does not use any MOS stuff at all.
>The fact is IB is running on the amiga API side NOT on the MOS side.

It´s only for catohagen not being able to claim parasetic marketing anymore
when IB (falsely) claims to run on OS4 when in fact it´s MOS!! :-)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 59 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 05-Feb-2003 00:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 57 (AnonX):
> I like mos, but its a deadend waiting to happen

This might be true; the odds against any tech startup are really high. Of course, AmigaOS and the AmigaOne have pretty much the same destiny awaiting them. The differences are that, from indications so far, the Pegasos and MOS are more advanced tech and have wider aspirations, and the Amiga products have the name association to try to leverage and the dual front of AmigaDE and AmigaOS.

Look at it this way: both Pegasos and the Amiga One will be able to run most 68x apps. Beyond that, where is the future course? How well will either of them be able to expand out of the core of already-sold fans running existing programs? How well will either be able to attract new users and developers? How quickly will the OSs be able to get new PPC native applications (at which point the two platforms will really diverge)? How well will each be able to leverage its technology into various niches? Both face the same challenges in this area.

Of course Amiga, Inc. supporters generally respond by bringing up the melding of AmigaDE and AmigaOS. As I've tried to describe in the past, I don't see how this strengthens the proprietary Amiga platform. It seems to me, the more AmigaDE is pushed by Amiga, Inc., the more irrelevant AmigaOS becomes. If Amiga, Inc. is encouraging developers to target AmigaDE, and AmigaDE runs on Windows, etc., what is the motivation for any end user to buy an Amiga One? The attraction of an alternative platform is to get something you don't have with the mainstream platform. AmigaDE nullifies that effect, so at best it's neutral for AmigaOS and at worst (and most likely) it's a strong negative. In regard to hardware, there is no real Amiga hardware, but generic hardware dongled to run AmigaOS, so it isn't really a part of the equation unless you are an investor or owner of Eyetech.

On the Pegasos side, they are banking on hardware sales to Linux users (or more generally, opening up Pegasos for as full a range of OS platforms as possible), embedded applications in various form factors, as well as sales to what's left of the Amiga market. As I understand it, Genesi has other products that can contribute to cash flow and can be leveraged, but I don't know how well these are doing.

Was I unfair or did I miss some important things? Feel free to add to the lists (but not flame pointlessly, please). Please consider potential dead-ends in the light of these various factors.

-- gary_c
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 60 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 05-Feb-2003 00:32 GMT
I asked about this years ago, asking why the heck MOS used AmigaOS versioning numbers when it would be so much convenient to nativly use CVS compliant numbering, and leave some $VER: string with AmigaOS3.1-ish number behind.
Never got any good answer, as far as I can remember.

As it is, this will be a mess for everyone, users and developers alike, for both OS4 and MorphOS.

But then again, they _all_ deserve the trouble they can get from one another :)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 61 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by joe on 05-Feb-2003 11:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (Anonymous):
>It´s only for catohagen not being able to claim parasetic marketing anymore
>when IB (falsely) claims to run on OS4 when in fact it´s MOS!! :-)

It doesn't. IB just doesnt care about MOS. MOS delivers a wrong version number since it's build on OS3.x which is in case pre V50. Fact. This is an AmigaOS styleguide which MOS simply misuses. AmigaOS apps will use this V50 numbering to enable features in their code ASAP OS4 will be available which MOS simple cannot provide. -> App will crash on MOS.

I don't think that any MOS app cares if it runs on OS4. It simply won't start (there is no MOS layer in AmigaOS4). Why should they care anyway. Who is interessted in runnning MOS SW on AmigaOS?

(Go ahead. Flame me ;)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 62 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 05-Feb-2003 13:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (cheesegrate):
> another personal attack to what is a blatantly true observation.

What true observation!? The one which he says:
"The real question is why ainc has chooosen, some years later,
"to take the same number of versions as morphos"

I should state you again,(not to you but to all who have forgot) MorphOS team didn't want anything to do with Amiga Inc.,whatever were the reasons I don't care, they didn't paid the 5 million $ the Amiga paid for the rights... the rights to decide what is the oficial next OS. And yet the 'bastards' had the nerve to use the same version number of MOS, as if they owes anything to MorphOS, pelease...

I consider itself also a 'personal attack' but to my brain!

> mos was made by amiga community developers and retains and expands on the
> spirit of the original.

Yet it isn't the original, he have the spirit and so on,like pOS, Aros, Amithlon whose despite being an emulator could be used further, beOS QNX and many others but yet they aren't they all have diferent target except MorphOS.

Someday you'll start to say red isn't red, that AOS4 has nothing to do with AmigaOS...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 63 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 05-Feb-2003 13:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Jupp3):
> Maybe to scare the developers, OR more like, postpone the release of Lindows,
> while Windows would be gaining larger user base, while the case had been
> handled in the court.

I bet Bill Gates was shaking on his knees... oh prlease!!! As if Windows din't yet had an already big user base...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 64 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 05-Feb-2003 13:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (gary_c):
> The attraction of an alternative platform is to get something you don't have
> with the mainstream platform. AmigaDE nullifies that effect, so at best it's
> neutral for AmigaOS and at worst (and most likely) it's a strong negative. In
> regard to hardware, there is no real Amiga hardware, but generic hardware
> dongled to run AmigaOS, so it isn't really a part of the equation unless you
> are an investor or owner of Eyetech.

Let me put it this way... you're wrong if the best software where indeed made for DE. In this case Joe user would be looking for the best host,and a good merge between AmigaOS and DE could do it... AmigaOS gives a faster than anything else, so this merge could push it beyond windows.

Unfortunately this ought not to be the case, until then... you're right
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 65 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by pixie on 05-Feb-2003 14:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 49 (JoannaK):
> *our Os* .. From anonymous poster... Please.. you are getting way too
> desperate.. :)

Well, if these are the things you don't agree you should have agreed with the other...

Why on earth MorphOS has to have the same kind of version tag if it a *diferent* product!? It should have whatever the tag choosen as long as not the same of AOS4, if they want to be serious... IMNHO
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 66 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 05-Feb-2003 16:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (joe):
You can't run MOS apps on OS4 and you can't run OS4 apps on MOS. Should be quite simple?

Using V50 for MOS was quite clever because in the beginning they were using AmigaOS libraries too. From version number you could identify easily if the library was original 68k or native PPC/MOS library.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 67 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 06-Feb-2003 10:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (pixie):
They use an EXTENDED version of the OS 3.1 APIs. They HAD to bump the version
up or else the programs wouldn't know about the new features. It's the same with
AOS4.0.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 68 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 06-Feb-2003 23:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (joe):
>MOS delivers a wrong version number since it's build on OS3.x which is
>in case pre V50. Fact.

What do you mean, OS4 is built on OS3.x sources so a higher version number
would be wrong, too? Or do you want to say MOS is OS3.1 - which it´s not!?
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 69 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Ketzer on 11-Feb-2003 08:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 68 (Anonymous):
morphos is a ripoff of OS3.1 with some added features that break compatibility with AmigaOS (4 and beyond).
Anonymous, there are 69 items in your selection (but only 19 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 69]
Back to Top