31-Aug-2016 23:33 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 69 items in your selection [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 1 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Xeyes (216.187.195.240) on 03-Feb-2003 21:41 GMT
Serious Bug?
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 2 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.32.150) on 03-Feb-2003 21:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Xeyes):
sorry, i should have mentioned i quoted all text from mos-news.de

it seems serious for the mos camp, since they released a patch for it...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 3 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.32.150) on 03-Feb-2003 21:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (catohagen):
and since this place is a generic news, rumour and comments site, i guess
i'll better post it here since so many mos'ers live here, and better chance of
warning them if they they a fatal shock or something of seeing their
mos is turned into amigaos4(their nemesis)... :)

Maybe they did overreact.....they use an emulator to run classic 68k apps
and scream if some version or host os strings are wrong :)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 4 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis (212.205.250.221) on 03-Feb-2003 21:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (catohagen):
MorphOS reports versions >50 so it's normal for some software to think that
it's OS4. It was taken seriously cause some people would jump at it saying that MOS still uses AmigaOS IP etc.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 5 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Argh (212.134.18.144) on 03-Feb-2003 22:21 GMT
MOS-fan: "MOS is 100% compatible to AmigaOS. Application cannot tell the difference. MOS is the best. OS4 is not compatible to OS3.x"

IBroswe: "You are running an AmigaOS machine."

MOS-fan: "No, no. MOS is totally different to AmigaOS. MOS would not dirty itself on such a useless machine as an Amiga. Yuck. The two are entirely unrelated."

...Ho hum...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 6 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by the man in the shadows (67.64.40.160) on 03-Feb-2003 22:34 GMT
This is so funny I laughed until I stopped. I don't see where a dire need of a patch is required for IB2.3 to function properly. To each I guess.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 7 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Ryu (62.254.0.7) on 03-Feb-2003 23:59 GMT
hmm a really simple answer springs to mind here, DONT use it, make your own browser :■
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 8 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Linus G (130.235.185.230) on 04-Feb-2003 00:11 GMT
I have not seen a claim of any MorphOS support in Ibrowse. If you are running software written for another OS you can┤t complain that it doesn┤t recognise your OS.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 9 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (130.94.106.231) on 04-Feb-2003 00:14 GMT
You know, in my opinion, it's asking a lot for the MorphOS team to ask users to invest time, money and effort in an OS which even the blind faithful have to admit, is on the bleeding edge of legality in many countries. When asked to provide some evidence or documentation which clears MorphOS of any infringement when another company has threatened them with lawsuits, the response is usually hostile and unforgiving. You'll probably see examples of it in response to this post.

A hack to remove the trade name "AmigaOS" and replace it with the word "MorphOS" underlines just what a thread the legality of MorphOS is dangling by. The product legality may be a splash in the pan to most users, but when it's used by someone in a position where the threat of legal issues is a serious matter, I think responding with anything other than professional legal answers is something to raise a questioning eyebrow to.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 10 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c (219.162.44.51) on 04-Feb-2003 00:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Argh):
> MOS-fan: "MOS is 100% compatible to AmigaOS. Application cannot tell the difference. MOS is the best. OS4 is not compatible to OS3.x"

> IBroswe: "You are running an AmigaOS machine."

IBrowse says nothing about the machine AFAIK, only the OS, and hasn't been told to distinguish between AmigaOS and MorphOS.

> MOS-fan: "No, no. MOS is totally different to AmigaOS. MOS would not dirty itself on such a useless machine as an Amiga. Yuck. The two are entirely unrelated."

Relax. This isn't what anyone is saying. 68x Amiga apps can run in MorphOS's Abox just as they will in AOS4's 68x emulation; this is where there is similarity. The fact that IBrowse reports an AmigaOS environment indicates the success of the Abox, wouldn't you say? Of course it would be nice if applications were smart enough to distinguish the real host, but this isn't much more than a cosmetic flaw, it seems to me.

-- gary_c
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 11 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c (219.162.44.51) on 04-Feb-2003 00:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
Somebody afraid to be identified wrote:

>You know, in my opinion, it's asking a lot for the MorphOS team to ask users to invest time, money and effort in an OS which even the blind faithful have to admit, is on the bleeding edge of legality in many countries.

There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those who own IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press their case. I think the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

> When asked to provide some evidence or documentation which clears MorphOS of any infringement when another company has threatened them with lawsuits, the response is usually hostile and unforgiving. You'll probably see examples of it in response to this post.

I don't know where you live, been in most of the free world, it is not the task of the accused to prove innocence, but of the accusor to prove guilt. Is this a hostile response? I hope not; I'm trying to be calm and reasonable, despite your calculated attempt to stir up trouble.

> A hack to remove the trade name "AmigaOS" and replace it with the word "MorphOS" underlines just what a thread the legality of MorphOS is dangling by.

Not at all. This issue doesn't involve the operating systems or the hardware at all; it involves the software application. Admittedly we are in uncharted waters to some extent here, since it's unusual for an application to be able to run under more than one operating system. So it will take some refinement for apps to distinguish their OS, if this is deemed important. But please understand that this is a technical issue, not a legal or moral one.

> The product legality may be a splash in the pan to most users, but when it's used by someone in a position where the threat of legal issues is a serious matter, I think responding with anything other than professional legal answers is something to raise a questioning eyebrow to.

Precisely where is anyone at legal risk in this situation? Is there legal culpability in IBrowse reporting an incorrect OS environment? Is there anything illegal about a MorphOS user running whatever software he/she is otherwise entitled to? Is there something illegal about patching IBrowse to report an alternative OS environment? You really should follow your own advise and not raise the issue of legality when you are only kicking up dust without having a clue about the facts of the matter.

-- gary_c
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 12 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by the man in the shadows (67.64.40.160) on 04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (gary_c):
> There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those who own
> IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press their case. I think
> the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

If you were a lawyer would you tell your client to blab about any legal proceedings that might take place? Any such public statements would offset any such legal proceedings. It's possible they are waiting to release OS4 as a product before proceeding to the next step of possible legal action. They also might be waiting for OS4 to be released and "fixed" (like IBrowse) for OS4 to work on a Pegasos without the proper licensing required by Amiga Inc. There are limitless reasons why nothing has been said. Have you ever tried to contact a company in the middle of a legal situation, they have a standard script they are coached to read to anyone who questions the infractions of a legal standing if there hasn't been any form of public statement posted. There's a slight DUH factor about the whole "they haven't said anything so there's no legal battle". Call them up and ask them what their legal stance is against MorphOS, I'm sure you will be given a line that leads to nowhere. So the lack of indication is more of an indication that there is something happening behind the scenes rather than the other way around. Think about it.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 13 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (130.94.123.189) on 04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (gary_c):
> Somebody afraid to be identified wrote:

Just another individual with cash burning a hole in their pocket is all.
Really, calling anyone who asks a question afraid really starts the
rebuttle off nicely.

> There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those
> who own IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press
> their case. I think the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your
> opinion, though.

Utterly no indication. Whatsoever.

Hmmm... there's been indication. It's the merit of this indication that's
in question. The silence says nothing nor proves nothing. I assume you've
never been through parenthood.

> I don't know where you live, been in most of the free world, it is not
> the task of the accused to prove innocence, but of the accusor to prove
> guilt. Is this a hostile response? I hope not; I'm trying to be calm and
> reasonable, despite your calculated attempt to stir up trouble.

I'm not accusing. I just want to know where the product stands before I
throw my money, time and effort into an area where legality is questioned
by another company. I'm not allowed to do this in your part of the world it
seems. Amiga, Inc has come under intense scrutiny by the public, but if
someone points a finger at MorphOS, they're "not living in the real world."
Interesting.

But stir up trouble? I'm trying to get answers to a question to which I've
received responses almost exactly like this one. They're along the lines
of "It just is, so there." The owners of the trade name don't seem to think
so. They've made a threat which they've not yet retracted. That leaves, at
the least, cause for concern.

What concern? In part, MorphOS runs Amiga software. To do so it must
provide an environment that is identical to that of AmigaOS. Last I
checked, copyright law covers this area of intellectual property, unless it
is substantially different. Surely the writers of MorphOS have thought this
all through. They must've known the issue would present itself one way or
another. Having thought it all through, I would think there would be a
desire on their part to assure their clientele of that legitimacy. As a
potential investor, I believe I have the right to know these things.

> Not at all. This issue doesn't involve the operating systems or the
> hardware at all; it involves the software application. Admittedly we are
> in uncharted waters to some extent here, since it's unusual for an
> application to be able to run under more than one operating system. So it
> will take some refinement for apps to distinguish their OS, if this is
> deemed important. But please understand that this is a technical issue,
> not a legal or moral one.

I don't see a gray area here. MorphOS must recreate the AmigaOS
environment on either a large or small scale for the software to function.
Until there is clarification that the environment in MorphOS is not in any
way an infringement on copyrighted materials, this issue will continue
to surface. Just the standard "it just is, so there" is obviously not
sufficient.

> Precisely where is anyone at legal risk in this situation? Is there legal
> culpability in IBrowse reporting an incorrect OS environment? Is there
> anything illegal about a MorphOS user running whatever software he/she is
> otherwise entitled to? Is there something illegal about patching IBrowse
> to report an alternative OS environment? You really should follow your
> own advise and not raise the issue of legality when you are only kicking
> up dust without having a clue about the facts of the matter.

I could invest in MorphOS, either financially or intellectually, then three
years from now find myself in the crapper when the company has been taken
down by lawsuits which people like yourself were telling me were never a
concern, and have no platform to run the applications which I've either
developed or funded. You're right, there's no risk to be found here.

Until these questions are answered, it's something to be considered.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 14 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by [JC] (212.69.226.40) on 04-Feb-2003 02:11 GMT
Here is my view on all this.

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. Microsoft is even more against competing products than AInc is, and has more money and a better team of lawyers to hunt such things down.

It is not illegal to clone an API/ABI, and this is all MorphOS has to do to make Amiga apps run under it. Hell, with a 68K emulator and a suitable API/ABI layer, you could make Amiga apps run under Windows, MacOS or any other OS you like - as long as the API/ABI layer makes it appear to the app that it is running on AmigaOS (this only applies for OS-Legal apps obviously and not ones that hit the hardware).

The only reason Amiga Inc/Hyperion/Blind followers of the above spread such FUD about MorphOS is because it is serious competition to AmigaOS4, it is available now, and is getting a good following. Notice they do not spread such FUD against AROS... the only reason they do not do so is because they can take (steal?) bits from AROS for use in AmigaOS4.

As per usual, standard disclaimer: my opinions written here are my own and not neccesarily those of my employer e.p.i.c interactive gmbh.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 15 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c (219.162.44.51) on 04-Feb-2003 02:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 13 (Anonymous):
>> Somebody afraid to be identified wrote:

> Just another individual with cash burning a hole in their pocket is all.
Really, calling anyone who asks a question afraid really starts the
rebuttle off nicely.

It's just suspect to me when someone posts on a sensitive topic but isn't willing to reveal who they are.

>> There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those
>> who own IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press
>> their case. I think the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your
>> opinion, though.

> Utterly no indication. Whatsoever.

> Hmmm... there's been indication. It's the merit of this indication that's
in question. The silence says nothing nor proves nothing. I assume you've
never been through parenthood.

Another wrong assumption, I'm afraid. As for the merit of the indication, I'm familiar with the allegations and the responses to them.

> I don't know where you live, been in most of the free world, it is not
> the task of the accused to prove innocence, but of the accusor to prove
> guilt. Is this a hostile response? I hope not; I'm trying to be calm and
> reasonable, despite your calculated attempt to stir up trouble.

> I'm not accusing. I just want to know where the product stands before I
throw my money, time and effort into an area where legality is questioned
by another company.

Companies can bluster if it's in their interest to do so; BT tried to claim it invented hyperlinks, remember? But if a company has a legitimate claim, there are ways to follow through. If the company doesn't have a substantial-enough case to follow through, then everyone else in its business sphere doesn't have to sit on their hands motionless waiting for lawyers to call. Life goes on. If the company doesn't have the resources to follow through, then we're not likely to see much of anything else coming from that company either, so the question is moot. Again, it is the privelege of an offended company to present its case against an alleged transgressor. If it doesn't, then the assumption by all concerned -- customers, competitors, customers of competitors, etc. -- should be that there is no case. How else can we function in a litigous society?

> I'm not allowed to do this in your part of the world it
seems. Amiga, Inc has come under intense scrutiny by the public, but if
someone points a finger at MorphOS, they're "not living in the real world."
Interesting.

I don't think there's a double standard. Well, I can't vouch for other people's standards, but personally I'd react the same way. For example, I've never said, "Amiga, Inc. is out of business," only that "Amiga, Inc.'s office phone lines are out of service and their office space has been vacated." Only the facts. Perhaps they can run a business from a cell phone; I grant them that, if it's possible. (Just as an example.)

> But stir up trouble? I'm trying to get answers to a question to which I've
received responses almost exactly like this one. They're along the lines
of "It just is, so there." The owners of the trade name don't seem to think
so. They've made a threat which they've not yet retracted. That leaves, at
the least, cause for concern.

If you're basing your suspicion of MorphOS on the muted rumblings of displeasure from Amiga, Inc. staff, then I'd say yes, you have cause for concern. But most people would want something more substantial as evidense before condemning the MorphOS team as criminals. Since the Genesi products are being developed, displayed and sold without restraint, at least circumstantially I think we could assume they are legal products. And, again, it isn't the responsibility of Genesi to *prove innocence* but of Amiga, Inc. or Hyperion to prove guilt.

> What concern? In part, MorphOS runs Amiga software. To do so it must
provide an environment that is identical to that of AmigaOS. Last I
checked, copyright law covers this area of intellectual property, unless it
is substantially different.

Better check again. Copyright law does not prevent functional equivalence.

> Surely the writers of MorphOS have thought this
all through. They must've known the issue would present itself one way or
another. Having thought it all through, I would think there would be a
desire on their part to assure their clientele of that legitimacy. As a
potential investor, I believe I have the right to know these things.

I'm sure they have thought this through, and their continuing development of the product evidenses their conclusion. That is, they know they are within the law. I'm surprised people are still thinking otherwise.

>> Not at all. This issue doesn't involve the operating systems or the
>> hardware at all; it involves the software application. Admittedly we are
>> in uncharted waters to some extent here, since it's unusual for an
>> application to be able to run under more than one operating system. So it
>> will take some refinement for apps to distinguish their OS, if this is
>> deemed important. But please understand that this is a technical issue,
>> not a legal or moral one.

> I don't see a gray area here. MorphOS must recreate the AmigaOS
environment on either a large or small scale for the software to function.
Until there is clarification that the environment in MorphOS is not in any
way an infringement on copyrighted materials, this issue will continue
to surface. Just the standard "it just is, so there" is obviously not
sufficient.

MorphOS doesn't "recreate the AmigaOS environment." It provides an environment of equivalent functionality. This environment was designed independently of Amiga, Inc. IP, thus is not an infringement. Cleanroom reengineering to achieve equivalent functionality is not illegal in *any* country. How do you think non-Microsoft programs are able to import and export Word documents when their developers don't have access to the Microsoft sources? Are all these programs illegal because the developers have managed to duplicate MS functionality? They do things differently but get to the same end point. There's nothing illegal about that. There's sufficient public documentation of the Amiga API to enable the MorphOS developers, along with their own deductive reasoning, to produce a functionally equivalent Abox.

> Precisely where is anyone at legal risk in this situation? Is there legal
> culpability in IBrowse reporting an incorrect OS environment? Is there
> anything illegal about a MorphOS user running whatever software he/she is
> otherwise entitled to? Is there something illegal about patching IBrowse
> to report an alternative OS environment? You really should follow your
> own advise and not raise the issue of legality when you are only kicking
> up dust without having a clue about the facts of the matter.

> I could invest in MorphOS, either financially or intellectually, then three
years from now find myself in the crapper when the company has been taken
down by lawsuits which people like yourself were telling me were never a
concern, and have no platform to run the applications which I've either
developed or funded. You're right, there's no risk to be found here.

I think if you are looking three years down the road for any niche market like AmigaOS or MorphOS, you've got a lot of factors to consider, most of them significantly more important than this "illegality" question. You must realize, of course, that there are rather imposing risks in this market in any event. The weight of your concern is more befitting a developer than a customer. (As a customer, you have no risk. The applications you buy will be yours to use no matter what happens eventually between these companies from a legal standpoint.) Any developer with such concerns should contact Genesi directly and air his/her concerns. Naturally people like that are important to them as they try to build their market, and concerns like those must be put to rest.

> Until these questions are answered, it's something to be considered.

It's an interesting topic, but I think the situation speaks for itself. Unless Amiga, Inc. or Hyperion (or whoever owns the IP in question) presents a case in the proper manner, we can assume there is no case to be presented. People have made accusations in offhanded ways, and the reply has been that there has been no impropriety. The onus is not on the accused, but the accuser. If you can't live with that situation, then I'm wondering how you otherwise manage in this little corner of the computing world where uncertainty is the only constant.

-- gary_c
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 16 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Hooligan/DCS (62.165.188.98) on 04-Feb-2003 03:26 GMT
What does IB say when run under UAE .. hopefully not AmigaOS as that would be a cause for another oooooh! and aaaaah!
</ending idiotic conversation>
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 17 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by bbrv (212.198.0.93) on 04-Feb-2003 03:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (gary_c):
Thank you Gary_C for the well-reasoned and spoken responses to another obvious trolling attempt. We appreciate the effort you made to respond in such a manner.

@ all concerned

MorphOS IP is 100% legal. Any concerns or questions can be emailed to us directly. All suggestions to the contrary are complete FUD. Neither, Amiga Inc. or any of the AmigaOS4 signatories have any legally supportable evidence to the contrary.

Having said that, Genesi has taken legal action against Amiga Inc. in Federal Court (Washington State) for breech of contract (FACT). We are expecting a favorable result (OPINION).

Best regards,

Raquel and Bill
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 18 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c (219.162.44.51) on 04-Feb-2003 04:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (the man in the shadows):
the man in the shadows wrote:

> There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those who own
> IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press their case. I think
> the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

> If you were a lawyer would you tell your client to blab about any legal proceedings that might take place? Any such public statements would offset any such legal proceedings. .... So the lack of indication is more of an indication that there is something happening behind the scenes rather than the other way around. Think about it

Sure, the silence, considered alone, is open to interpretation. I'm not sure how valid your ideas about the reason for delayed action are, though. To me the "lack of indication" is exactly what it appears to be.

But the bottom line for me is that projects that can go forward should go forward, on their own merits, and see what they can do in the marketplace. If another individual or company initiates court action, then legal issues can be hashed out. Until then, speculation by outsiders, such as in this thread, is pointless, and repeating old accusations serves no good purpose. That is their prerogative, of course, but it reflects more (and more badly) on the accuser than the accused.

-- gary_c
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 19 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.33.227) on 04-Feb-2003 06:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (bbrv):
im sorry to mention this, but you where somehow right about YDL will crash and
burn, atleast one of their customers, NASA.....maybe you should tell US goverment
how you could predict this....its a terrible accident...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 20 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Senex (194.95.37.122) on 04-Feb-2003 07:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (bbrv):
Just to prevent any moralizing howl about the "bad, bad Genesi" taking the "poor AI" to court:

Please be aware that Genesi just RE-acts. AI & partners started with their FUD regarding MorphOS being illegal, etc. And the posting in this thread by someone concerned about this is no single case - there are several potential customers and especially developers who just hesitate to commit themselves to Genesi's products because of that mentioned FUD, being afraid to lose their money and/or IP and work in case there would be a successful law-suit by AI later.

Therefore I think it's been necessary for Genesi to take some action, and personally I very much welcome these news. Even if my personal wish that this leads to the end of AI doesn't come true, at least it might lead to an affirmation of omission to any law-suits against MorphOS.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 21 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by bbrv (212.198.0.93) on 04-Feb-2003 07:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (catohagen):
@catohagen

Is that supposed to be funny? If you are referring to you seem to be, you have a very disturbed sense of humor.

For the record, Terons are STILL not shipping with YDL.

Sincerely,
R&B
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 22 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (212.137.231.107) on 04-Feb-2003 07:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (Senex):
"Even if my personal wish that this leads to the end of AI doesn't come true,"

And that's why you SUCK.

In most cases its not about trying to close the other down its about justice.

And if that all that matters to you then dont moan if others wish the same for Genesi
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 23 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Yoris (217.109.191.5) on 04-Feb-2003 07:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (catohagen):
This is the most immature and cruel post I've ever read on ANN.

Maybe you should consider holding your tongue when the lives of 7 people are concerned.

Now show us a bit of responsability with public excuses...
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 24 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Senex (194.95.37.122) on 04-Feb-2003 07:23 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Anonymous):
The current AI added a big share of damage to our beloved Amiga, making the trademark in my opinion rather a disadvantage. Their inactivity on the one hand and their lies on the other hand hurted the whole market, including developers, dealers and compatible solutions.

Anyway, don't mix my very personal opinion with Genesi's intentions.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 25 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (62.242.129.171) on 04-Feb-2003 07:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 ([JC]):
> It is not illegal to clone an API/ABI, and this is all MorphOS has to do to make > Amiga apps run under it.

It's not illegal as long as you can prove it's a clean-room implementation, that is, noone in development has had direct access to (amigaos) sources etc.....
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 26 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.33.227) on 04-Feb-2003 07:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Ben Yoris):
ok, I was way out with my comment there....and I said i was sorry to mention it
too, but I see now it shouldnt been posted....

on the other hand, people die all the time, and those 7 people knew the risks, and got paid to take the risks, it was their job...there is a difference to that and to people to die in car accidents or other accidents..

My family have always had a black sense of humor, and I rushed out with an comment out of hand, im sorry and regret i posted it.

Moderators delete it if you wish.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 27 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.33.227) on 04-Feb-2003 07:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (bbrv):
im sorry about the post, and i regret i posted it, im really really sorry....

yes, maybe i have a wierd sense of humor, and posted a comment before thinking
twice...im sorry..

I still hope you and Genesi loose the legal action against AI, and I hope you go and Genesi goes bust or bankrupt, as you and Genesi are bad news to the amiga
community...

im still allowed to say my opinions :)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 28 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by priest (194.251.171.3) on 04-Feb-2003 08:39 GMT
IMO: It's not a bug untill MorphOS is officially supported by IBrowse.

It's a bit like someone complaining that IB has a bug because it does not run on LinuxPPC....
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 29 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Not a Eyetech Fan (62.254.0.10) on 04-Feb-2003 09:00 GMT
People give it a rest about MorphOS being illegal,

If you think it is illegal then prove it instead of posting nasty comments on here,

Amiga Inc and co are the useless bastards you people should be attacking.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 30 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Cyberwlf (211.28.96.8) on 04-Feb-2003 09:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 ([JC]):
Regardless, the MorphOS users who are complaining about this are even stupider than blind A1 Zealots which exist out there. Do they want every Amiga app now to be recompiled just so it doesn't report itself as AmigaOs. It IS emulating an Amiga. So for all intentions it should say the machine running it is an AmigaOS machine, as it's an AmigaOS app, not a morphOs one. It'd be like Amithlon/UAE users expecting Amiga apps to report them using a PC, instead of mentioning they are using an emulated Amiga environment.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 31 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (195.148.82.17) on 04-Feb-2003 09:16 GMT
Serious bug ? That ??? ┤Buhaha. Get a life!!
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 32 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.33.227) on 04-Feb-2003 09:25 GMT
maybe Ibrowse authors should add a detection routine to prevent itself from
running in alien environments, so in the future such serious bugs wont happen..
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 33 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis (62.103.189.161) on 04-Feb-2003 10:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Argh):
Tell me one MOS users that says these things about the Amiga...
BTW, you certainly don't know how the version system works.
MOS sets a version number (no mention of AmigaOS) greater than OS3.9.
V50. OS4 will have(has?) the same version number. That's why Mos is
recognised as OS4, IB checks for a version greater than any other known
AmigaOS version.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 34 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by mahen (148.60.3.71) on 04-Feb-2003 10:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Anonymous):
The "serious bug" term *IS* humor, as nobody seems to understand it !
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 35 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by mahen (148.60.3.71) on 04-Feb-2003 10:58 GMT
Also, please guys, RESPECT each other.

Some of you are really tiring, taking any opportunity to spit at the others.

MOS and OS4 are both great things for the community,
no need to be sided ! If only one of them turn out to be
complete / good, it gives us more chances.

MOS is perfectly legal until the contrary is proven and is my current only platform. It's really promising but I'll get OS 4 too when ready.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 36 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis (62.103.189.161) on 04-Feb-2003 10:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Cyberwlf):
The point was not that it reports itself to be running on AmigaOS, the point is
that it reports AmigaOS *4.0*. The APIs MorphOS replicates are extended AmigaOS
3.1 APIs, not OS4 ones.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 37 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen (81.29.33.227) on 04-Feb-2003 11:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
>MOS sets a version number (no mention of AmigaOS) greater than OS3.9.
>V50. OS4 will have(has?) the same version number. That's why Mos is
>recognised as OS4, IB checks for a version greater than any other known
>AmigaOS version.

why does morphos need higher version numbers than amigaos ? mos is not
amigaos, so it shouldnt need to continue with higher version numbers.
What in mos have version number 50 ? and why ?

is it because of all the features mos coders have added ? Reverse engeneering
of the kickstart/exec/whatever and thought "all this vork deserves a v50 " :)

Or maybe the version stuff still hangs around from back in the days when mos coders belived they made the next official amigaos ?

anyway, by conflicting with the official and orginal version numbers, such
things will happen again and again..maybe a good idea would be if coders
agreed of spesific ranges or prefixes on version numbers, so programs could
tell if its a mos version or amiga version of exec or kickstart ?
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 38 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis (62.103.189.161) on 04-Feb-2003 11:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (catohagen):
So that programs know that they will be able to use the new APIs. The A/Box
extends the OS3.1 API A LOT. They had to set a higher version number.
Maybe the MOS and OS4 teams should agree on a version scheme (for example
odd numbers for OS4, even for MOS and AROS).
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 39 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler (217.235.121.146) on 04-Feb-2003 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (catohagen):
>What in mos have version number 50 ? and why ?

Quite simple: If MorphOS' intuition.library for example had v1 then all
programs that want to open intuition.library v39/44/.. or higher would fail.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 40 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Johan R÷nnblom (193.11.248.159) on 04-Feb-2003 12:04 GMT
Some points:
a) Genesi don't have to prove their innocense, any accuser (is there
anyone officially?) have to prove their guilt.
b) Still, people thinking about investment or involvement may be
worried about all the FUD. As BBRV wrote, contact them if you're
serious.
c) I know Genesi have been reluctant to bring AInc to court. But, I
support their decision since even though the FUD has become more
subtle, it hasn't stopped. And I think Genesi clearly need to get this
100% cleared out.
d) I think this patch was very funny. :-)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 41 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by joe (213.240.121.250) on 04-Feb-2003 12:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (David Scheibler):
>>What in mos have version number 50 ? and why ?
>
>Quite simple: If MorphOS' intuition.library for example had v1 then all
>programs that want to open intuition.library v39/44/.. or higher would fail.

You know that this will simply break when OS4 is released and specific OS4
code checks for >V50 to enable OS4 specific features on MOS ... simple put.

have fun ;)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 42 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Sigbj°rn SkjŠret (80.203.17.78) on 04-Feb-2003 12:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (catohagen):
Oh come on, are you really so blind with hatred that you didn't spot the "Serious bug" joke?

..because that's what it was, nothing short of a joke, though, the patch is there for people who likes to accredit the right OS in the blogs out there, and as such it would be nice if iBrowse actually checked for MorphOS...


- CISC
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 43 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by tired (80.8.76.224) on 04-Feb-2003 12:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (catohagen):
"why does morphos need higher version number than amigaos ? mos is not
amigaos, so it shouldnt need to continue with high version number.
Why in mos have version number 50? and why ?"

despite what you cant think, MorphOS is the amigaos ppc, it has been
created to offer a ppc "amigaos" for the amigan, at the time when ainc
was trying to make us go on peecees and they didnt even know what cpu
to choose.

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
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 44 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by logain (80.142.183.188) on 04-Feb-2003 13:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (joe):
>>You know that this will simply break when OS4 is released and specific OS4
>>code checks for >V50 to enable OS4 specific features on MOS ... simple put.

And the other way round, too..

It has been known since the beginning, that OS4 and MorphOS-Code will be incompatible.

>>have fun ;)

Sure, just waiting for my winged horse :-)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 45 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Alfred Schwarz (141.50.43.176) on 04-Feb-2003 13:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (David Scheibler):
WOuldn't it be more clever if MOS would implement a different version management then AOS does, maybe with an API function?
So, "old" AOS programs that would look for a version string would get for example V40, but MOS programs that uses another function would get "MOS V1.0"?
So you wouldn't have problems with AOS programs or MOS programs...

Ciao, Alfred
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 46 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by logain (80.142.183.188) on 04-Feb-2003 13:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (Alfred Schwarz):
>>WOuldn't it be more clever if MOS would implement a different version
>>management then AOS does, maybe with an API function?

Why shouldn't the application software algorithm look for the host system instead of 'version'ing a library?
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 47 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (172.182.190.79) on 04-Feb-2003 13:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (David Scheibler):
"Quite simple: If MorphOS' intuition.library for example had v1 then all
programs that want to open intuition.library v39/44/.. or higher would fail. "

I don't think any MorphOS library has the right to preclaim itself as a newer version of any amiga OS library.

How about the morphOS team get their own ideas and stop leeching our os.
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 48 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by krize (152.94.4.175) on 04-Feb-2003 13:44 GMT
this is too stupid ... sorry
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 49 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK (213.130.196.60) on 04-Feb-2003 14:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Anonymous):
*our Os* .. From anonymous poster... Please.. you are getting way too desperate.. :)
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 50 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous (212.137.232.142) on 04-Feb-2003 14:17 GMT
LOL

You MOS ppl realy take the cake.

Maybe i should complain when i run Atari-ST emulator & apps come up with TOSS OS version numners.


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.


There is no MOS version so tought.

Go and USE MOS VOYAGER if you so upset with IB saying amigaOS on amiga API.
Anonymous, there are 69 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 69]
Back to Top