24-Apr-2024 22:56 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 81 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
[News] MorphOS 1.4ANN.lu
Posted on 27-Jul-2003 15:28 GMT by takemehomegrandma381 comments
View flat
View list
BBRV talked very briefly about MorphOS 1.4 on #MorphOS today ...

"yesterday we played a movie, then we open FIVE "Zoom" windows (new 1.4 feature) at differnt zoom levels and then we moved the curser around...alll this while the second desktop was running ImageFX...then we launched the CPU meter [also a new 1.4 feature] and it read between 70 and 95% -- flashing for a second sometimes at 100%...that was all done on a G3"

I asked: "Did TCP and JIT make it into the 1.4 release?"

"JIT yes, TCP/IP no, but license is signed and integration is being done" ... "we might release it without the GUI...we will think about it"

Apparently, there will be a demonstration of MorphOS 1.4 around 11:30 local time. Now, where were those streaming servers again ... ;-)

MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 301 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 21:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 256 (samface):
>Reverse engineering will never make an API an open and unified standard for
>the simple reason that the reverse engineered API will always be one step
>behind to the original and because the API's author will always be the one in
>control of future enhancements. Furthermore, do you really think Genesi will

But only IF we consider the original the reference design AFTER reverse engineering or documentation based re-implementation. This may not necessarily be the case, like it isn't the case for POSIX.

UNIX came first, sure, and continued its own way, but POSIX is a later innovation that continues to influence all UNIX variants, including, AFAIK, the original. In many ways, some of the people around UNIX have taken some control over its future. POSIX is a good idea and many OS makers want to implement it. Suddenly we have something in the open.

Except POSIX is not that open - there are, as I said, other more open initiatives in the UNIX community.

You seem to be of the opinion that clones should remain clones forever. Via co-operation, open standards etc. it may very well be that the clone is cloned one day by the original in some regard, or both implement something new at the same time that orinated from a third party etc. Much like POSIX, perhaps. Or the way Linux and GNU stuff have dribbled into other operating systems...

My perception of the three paths (hmm, now I sound like a Chinese politican :-) includes the crucial notion that no single path is the leading path by definition. The original is only the original, it is not necessarily the guiding star. Where we go from here is... well... open.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 302 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 21:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 301 (Janne):
I again point you to the UNIX example.

a) Not all "UNIXes" are fully compatible. They are not often binary compatible at all. Recompiles are necessary and special code often exists for different systems.

b) POSIX was born after UNIX was "cloned" by the BSD people. It continues to influence many operating systems to date and POSIX and its open alternative are AFAIK also influencing the original operating system.

c) Linux is AFAIK far more popular "UNIX" than UNIX itself. Or at least poised to be. Stuff from Linux has already appeared in other UNIXes?

Yet we can still, as a general term, call them all UNIX. Usually software for "UNIX" works on most of them, they look, feel and are controlled by mostly the same kind of mechanisms etc. For the lack of a better word, the original trademark is a good generic term for these systems outside of marketing material. For common folk, that is.

This is something that the Amiga community is, in my opinion, headed towards.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 303 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 21:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 296 (Anonymous):
A MorphOS user is someone that will *most likely* replace his Amiga applications as soon as their will be a comparable alternatives available for MorphOS running nativbely on PPC. Of course the same goes for AmigaOS4 users. However, the difference is that only the AmigaOS4 users will remain Amiga application users and therefore they are the only ones supporting the Amiga software market in the long run. Do you see why I think that most Amiga application developers probably don't think of supporting MorphOS as supporting the Amiga software market?

Yes, I am generalizing, but I do think I have a point. The argument that we would all be a happy bunch of Amiga applications users is rather weak and short sighted, IMO.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 304 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 21:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 302 (Janne):
Stop talking about those open source standards from the world of *NIX, that's the last thing I would ever want for the Amiga market. The standards might be open, but the effect is many derivates and inconsistencies, far beyond what is reasonable or user-friendly. Again, I *want* the standard to be an IP with a single owner that is in full control. Standards should *never* be open for anyone to make their own version of it nor should it be inconsistent in any way. That defeats the entire purpose of having a standard.

/me hates those damn screws on older Compaq models made for Compaqs own custom made screwdrivers.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 305 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 21:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 302 (Janne):
Besides, I'd say that's what people who are not supporting the official Amiga anymore is headed towards, not the entire former classic Amiga user community.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 306 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 21:48 GMT
Holy cow! This is my 102:nd post, that must be some kind of a record... =)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 307 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 21:49 GMT
In reply to Comment 306 (samface):
In this thread alone, I mean.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 308 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 21:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 307 (samface):
Well obviously you would say that, given your background, the amiga heritage, and so on.

It's up to the others to decide, not you. And this also applies to Ben Hermans, who has done similar things in the past (if not worse). This is not to say that he is all bad - he probably has all his facultys, gardening, and so on. However, it's not the end of the world (yet) so perhaps its time to end this tirade of yours before it all gets out of hand.

Feel free to prove me wrong. And good luck.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 309 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 300 (samface):
Hmm can't seem to get this 286 processor to fit in my Intel Pentium IV socket.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 310 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jul-2003 22:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 303 (samface):
Do you see why I think that most Amiga application developers probably don't think of supporting MorphOS as supporting the Amiga software market?

---
If the Amiga Developers don't like the MorphOS market then they don't need to make MorphOS specific versions of their applications. They can continue to make Amiga applications. MorphOS can continue to run them, assuming MorphOS supports the appropiate API's. If a developer likes both markets they well make a OS4 and MorphOS version. If a developer doesn't like the AmigaOS4 then not much to do there they would have switched to Linux, BeOS, Windows, or some other OS.

I remember many times in the past you'd get a floppy w/ Amiga/Atari versions. I also remember quite a few Mac/Windows versions shipping within the same package.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 311 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 22:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 304 (samface):
>Standards should *never* be open for anyone to make their own version of it
>nor should it be inconsistent in any way.

But then, that has got nothing to do with an open standard. An open standard does not have to be non-standard. Just because the open-source community has a lot of that, doesn't mean open standards like Java and OpenGL are not doing well. POSIX too. Sure, the standard can be in the hands of a certain, even commercial party, but all I'm saying that party doesn't have to be the official owner of Amiga. It isn't in the case of UNIX/POSIX. Perhaps a neutral party would be ideal? Neither UNIX nor POSIX are non-commercial. Don't mix the UNIX and open source communities. Two share a lot for sure, but UNIX does not equal open source.

For instance, MacOS X derives lot from open source and open standards, but one can hardly call it low quality non-commercial software or hard to use...

Another example, you were pretty worried about the 3D libraries since they are not part of the 3.1 API. Perhaps stuff like OpenGL (Mesa) could be of assistance here? Improved cross-platform compatibility through open standards.

All I am saying is that future can present us with a wide range of different scenarios. UNIX is one example of what has already happened. PC another. In both cases the diversity and opennes(not initial, but later through cloning) has brought along lot of bad for sure, but also a lot of good. The separation has already happened in the "Amiga" community, so my opinion remains that we should embrace the possibilities that are there, instead of pushing those away who made a slightly different choice.

You disagree, and I don't think there is a lot more I can say about this. You want strong leadership and a unified path. In a way I think that would be nice, but since that is not going to happen, something else is. We have different perceptions of what that something else will be and I respect that. I just find it unfortunate.

We could do a lot of good together instead of separated.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 312 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 29-Jul-2003 22:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 311 (Janne):
>We could do a lot of good together instead of separated.

And again, just to be precise, with that I mean that even when we already have the official path, the MorphOS path and the AROS path, all with their merits and none seemingly going away, we can still be united as an extended community. Today and in the immediate future at least. As for the long run, lets see!

But that is that. I agree to disagree with you Sammy.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 313 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 23:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 308 (Anonymous):
Huh?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 314 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 23:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 311 (Janne):
But for christ sake, Amiga Inc. is the owner of the IP and all other standards would not be Amiga standards nor comply with the actual Amiga standards. I'm not interested in standards that has nothing to do with the Amiga nor complies with Amiga standards so drop the issue already.

/me shrugs
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 315 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 29-Jul-2003 23:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 312 (Janne):
Your solution for preventing the Amiga community from becoming dived because of different API standards would be inventing a new unofficial API standard, right? I'm sorry but I already know what happens to Amiga software developers when there are multiple API standards to choose from. Remember the H&P vs Phase5 war? I still as of today have to dual boot the very same OS but with different boot parameters in order to run all of my favorite PPC Amiga applications. Your idea is a bad idea, I'm afraid. In order for a standard to become successful, all parties involved must embrace it. The entire Amiga software developer community will never cooperate on the level such new API standard would require, most likely because they already have chosen their prefered choice of API standard and will not support any other because they want it to be THE standard for everyone.

Your example OpenGL was mostly succesful because it was the ONLY standard 3D API when it arrived and therefore a neccessity. Likewise, POSIX was a neccessity for a quite large developer community with both commercial and and non-commercial *NIX derivates. You see, there is no need for another API standard in the market unless it provides us with new and unique functionality. Trying to create a common API standard for all AmigaOS3.x based derivates is not going to work as a sole reason. If you don't have a specific need for the standard (functionality wise), the standard will become superfluous and cause nothing but more inconsistency and dependency issues. There are many examples of that in the *NIX market.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 316 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 00:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 315 (samface):
Furthermore, what you are suggesting would be an interesting idea for AROS and the AROS developer community rather than the Amiga or MorphOS developer comunnities since these commercial alternatives are rather closed intellectual properties while AROS is open source. However, this will eventually lead to AROS becoming a platform on it's own rather than just a mere AmigaOS3.1 clone which leads back to my original point that this has very little to do with the Amiga platform. AROS would be as comparable to AmigaOS as Linux is to UNIX and I would hardly refer to a Linux developer/user as a UNIX developer/user nor a part of the UNIX community.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 317 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 03:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 303 (samface):
Do you realize that these, OH SO ALIEN, MorphOS A/Box compiled applications are
nothing more than PPC Amiga applications in the ELF format, using the AmigaOS
API with or without the many many extensions it has in the A/Box?
Do you realize that the A/Box, which is everything that exists over the kernel,
TODAY, in MorphOS, is a full AmigaOS replacement with many extensions and
improvements and not just an Emulation layer? Do you realize that right now your
forgetting everything technical I and MANY MANY others have told you and going
back to the arguements you had a year ago?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 318 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 03:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 314 (samface):
Ok, go back to vanilla 3.x and don't use A SINGLE additional library,
ANY drop in stuff that are not part of the OS distribution.
Do not use MUI, do not use CyberGraphics or P96 (they are just contributions
in the 3.5 and 3.9 cds), do not use AHI of course, no RTGMaster, no... no... no...
Practically do not run any applications using them (over 85% of all applications
released in the last few years) and... GO HOME.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 319 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 03:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 317 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Do you realize that those "oh so AmigaOS compatible binaries" will not execute in a real AmigaOS environment?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 320 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 03:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 318 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Did I say "ditch all standard APIs that are not a part of the original OS distribution"? I did NOT. All I talked about was superflous API standards that there already are API standards for which provides the user with no new functionalities than the already existing API standards. The difference is of outmost importance. Now please stay out of this Alki, since you obviously don't even comprehend what the discussion is about.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 321 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 04:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 319 (samface):
To clarify further; MorphOS and Amiga applications are about as compatible as WarpUP and PowerUP applications. You see, despite that they are compatible with the same OS API's, they make use of their own OS extensions that is a requirement in order for them to be executed. This tiny little difference was enough to split the entire PPC Amiga software development market and restricted the applications supporting one standard from running in co-existence with the ones supporting the other standard. Am I getting through to you yet or are you going to keep pulling this "I'm so much more technical than you" arrogance?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 322 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 05:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 319 (samface):
We'll see that with OS4, cause both MorphOS and OS4 use the ELF executable
format, if the ABI is the same, miracles can happen. There is NOTHING special
about MorphOS executables. At all. MorphOS executables are AmigaOS PPC ELF
executables. Nothing less.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 323 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 05:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 321 (samface):
Btw, the difference between PowerUP and WarpUP were not different extensions and
it was NOT tiny. They were different kernels, use different ABIs, different
executable formats and had totally different APIs. They were 2 different systems.
They had nothing in common.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 324 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Turrican on 30-Jul-2003 05:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 321 (samface):
That is right!
And you still call an application "Amiga application" either it is a PowerUP or WarpUP. The fact that WarpUP is not combatible with PowerUP has no relevance.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 325 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 05:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 323 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Let me draw some parallels:

WarpUP: PowerUp:
Exec format: EHF ELF
ABI: PowerOpen SystemV
API: WarpOS PowerUP

MOS: OS4:
Exec Format: ELF ELF
ABI: SystemV SystemV
API: 3.1+ext. 3.1+ext.

These 3.1 extensions are incompatible though, even if many of them serve the
same.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 326 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 30-Jul-2003 05:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 315 (samface):
>I'm not interested in standards that has nothing to do with the Amiga nor
>complies with Amiga standards so drop the issue already.

OK. That kind of makes it crystal clear to me. :-) If it ain't official Amiga, it is no good for you. Yes, got it. That's the ticket. I hope I never feel that way about any solution... kind of keeps your mind closed, now doesn't it?

>I would hardly refer to a Linux developer/user as a UNIX developer/user nor a
>part of the UNIX community.

OK. You are one of those, then. You are not alone. :-) But I do disagree. Many Linux developers have their software running on UNIX and vice-versa. Many users use the same software after recompilation etc. But hey, trademark-wise you are absolutely correct. And we sure must respect the trademark! :-)

Look, this is getting silly. I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you on the notion that we should stay/not stay together as a community. You make your case in that regard pretty well and I respect it. Perhaps your idea of separate ways has merit, time will tell. On the other hand, time may show us that sticking together becomes very fruitful. Your mileage may and probably will vary - we will probably measure any success differently. From the looks of it, you seem the think of the UNIX diversity as a failure, I see it one of its strengths (but I wouldn't use it for desktop, *nix is good for servers and was pretty much designed for that).

That is one thing and I don't think any amount of going forwards and backwards is going to change our minds. I have already conceded that time may show me wrong. I don't know. Are you willing to believe in the odd chance that I might turn out to be right? Perhaps you are. But that is hardly relevant. The part about communities mixing is certainly a matter of opinion and speculation.

As for the rest, well, I have a harder time agreeing to disagree. Your logic, the one that follows the Amiga IP and the trademark no matter what, is, while I respect your right for that individual choice and opinion, far less than what I'd call logical. Somehow you seem to be of the opinion that the Amiga IP is superior no matter what and diversity contributing to it is bad, multiple solutions for one problem are bad. Anything that the Amiga IP owners does, you respect that simply because they own the IP? What kind of reason is that?

You also continue to be of the opinion that trademark is the ultimate definition of an item in our society, whereas I really, really, really don't see it that way. Legalities aside, people and the general use of a word define its meaning. Facts, by definition, are nothing more than well founded beliefs either. Trademarks are just trademarks. Companies using them create the setting for a brand identity to be born, but ultimately the public will determine where that will lead. The Finnish word for cell-phone "kännykkä" was, is, a Nokia registered trademark. Yet today all cell-phones, no matter what brand, are called that here in Finland. The word got a new meaning because of the way it was used. For many people, it is the same for UNIX - or *nix for legal purposes. I'm saying that "Amiga" may get a generic meaning too.

What separates you and I, clearly, is that while I have every respect for people and businesses around the world contributing, my respect does not solely fall on any single party, nor do I accepty every decision they make no matter what. I don't really think anyone should do that. I really don't think, for instance, that the ownership of some software IP by Amiga allows them to make any moves in this market they like. The same for Genesi. I don't pirate anyones software, this is not about respecting the law (I respect and abide by it like the rest of us), it is simply common sense. The day we let people control our lives, the day things start going astray. You loose your objectivity.

Open standards, diversity in a diversified world, public opinion and knowing how to express it, voting with your wallet, mouth and action, democracy and the works... I could go on inventing nice phrases, but my bottom line is, that while I can easily agree to disagree with the first part - the one about how this community shoud live - the rest I can't really digest. Oh, sure, we'd probably get more done with only a single policital party too, but then I'm sure not even you would suggest or appreciate that.

You are giving way too much power to a single corporate entity in my books. Five million bought them a technology and a brand. It didn't buy us. Well, at least it didn't buy me. Not so sure about you? :-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 327 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 05:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 324 (Turrican):
That is only because they run in the same OS, MorphOS and OS4 applications do not.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 328 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 06:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 325 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
You are obviously going to keep up this "I'm so much more technical than you" arrogance, I see.

Nothing of what you said changes the fact that MorphOS and AmigaOS4 applications are NOT compatible in the sense that they would run unchanged in the same OS environment which is all that matters to me as a user.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 329 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 06:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 328 (samface):
You do not know that YET, and you do not know what modifications could be made
to maintain such a compatability (not necesserily to the OS).
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 330 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 06:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 326 (Janne):
>OK. That kind of makes it crystal clear to me. :-) If it ain't official Amiga,
>it is no good for you. Yes, got it. That's the ticket. I hope I never feel
>that way about any solution... kind of keeps your mind closed, now doesn't it?

Oh no, that is NOT what I'm saying. I was merely concluding that it wasn't "Amiga" without reflecting over wether it would be a good thing or not.

Now, if I would consider switching to another platform, I promise you I will consider ALL non-Amiga alternatives, though I will most likely end up with a plain and cheap PC for everyday use. Is that open minded enough for you?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 331 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 06:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 329 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Do you realize what the odds for the AmigaOS4 API to be compatible with MorphOS would be? Rather slim, don't you agree?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 332 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 06:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 329 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Besides, that would require more reverse engineering (or emulation) and always one step behind for MorphOS. I doubt Genesi is willing to give AmigaOS4 this advantage and I find it more plausible that they will sooner or later let the MorphOS APIs evolve and make progress on it's own, don't you think?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 333 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 30-Jul-2003 06:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 332 (samface):
Ehm, if an application doesn't use the API extensions (will be quite common at first), it shouldn't require any hard efforts to make it run on both systems.
BTW, you always seem to look at things from an OS4 perspective and MOS lagging
behind, you totally ignore the fact that there are already MorphOS products and
that they would surely benefit OS4 if they can run there too.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 334 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 06:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 326 (Janne):
>You are giving way too much power to a single corporate entity in my books.
>Five million bought them a technology and a brand. It didn't buy us. Well, at
>least it didn't buy me.

Yet the likes of you are clinging on to the name. You want to be associated with the brand but not the company owning it. I'm sorry but the brand and the company owning it is a one package deal. And no, the brand never was a common term for anything else than Amiga products. It's only as of late that because a certain alternative platform has been parasiticly marketing their product with the brand that people has started to use it as such. Before their arrival, there was no such thing as an "unofficial" Amiga OS nor hardware. Not even the Draco was refered to as an Amiga, just a plain and simple AmigaOS compatible.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 335 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 06:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 333 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
I ignore those facts because they are not relevant to me as an Amiga user. You could just as well be talking about the latest features in WindowsXP for what I care.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 336 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 30-Jul-2003 07:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 334 (samface):
>Oh no, that is NOT what I'm saying. I was merely concluding that it
>wasn't "Amiga" without reflecting over wether it would be a good thing or not.

OK. Good to hear that.

As for the Amiga part... For you it isn't. For business reasons for Amiga Inc. and partners it isn't. In trademark and exact technical terms it isn't Amiga. But for a good many people it continues to be "Amiga". That is the point I am making. And I am of the opinion that those people are not wrong, they are merely using a familiar word to call something that is pretty much like the original meaning of the word - and thus are expanding the meaning of it. This is also how language pretty much evolves. People choose what words stick and what don't, not some official language agencies.

>Before their arrival, there was no such thing as an "unofficial" Amiga OS nor
>hardware. Not even the Draco was refered to as an Amiga, just a plain and
>simple AmigaOS compatible.

Yet in my books, and the books of many Amiga publications, the Draco was very much an "Amiga". You are the one "nitpicking" (to quote an earlier comment from you) when saying otherwise. This has nothing to do with earlier Genesi marketing for me, nor in a wish to be associated with "Amiga" for the sake of the name. All I'm saying is, that these new alternative solutions simply expand the meaning of the word "Amiga" for many people, whether you, I or anyone likes it. Thus the term generic. You can compare MorphOS to Windows XP for all you like, but AmigaOS and MorphOS continue to be far closer than MorphOS and Windows XP.

I am not at all saying I approve of all past Genesi marketing efforts. This is not at issue here, yet you continue to bring it up. I think the AmigaOne name on Google, and the personal names, were unnecessarily controversial. Well, they wanted controversy there and certainly got some. Same goes for some early marketing material I have seen. Promoting the API and application compatibility should have been the extent of it. You don't see me arguing you there and luckily this is the way they are now going about things.

Having said that...

Brand identity is not what a company makes of it, it is what becomes of the identity in the eyes, ears and hands of the public. Many factors contribute to it. Brand, according to one definition is "the sum total of all that is known, thought, felt and perceived about your company, service or product". So, if enough people think, feel and perceive the "Amiga" to be more than Amiga Inc. defines it to be, it is still how those people see the brand. This, indeed, is what has lead to the degeneration and generalization of many trademarks.

Clearly, for instance, the trademark or brand UNIX is not as differentiating and marketable as the word Windows from this perspective (lets forget popularity for a minute). UNIX has grown to mean so many products to so many people (some products not at all associated with the owner of UNIX), whereas Windows clearly points to a family of Microsoft products for all computer-literate people. This used to be the case for Amiga too, but may not be so in the future due to both intentional blurruying of the brand by official owners (AmigaDE and previous owners with their plans) and due to outside, unofficial influences that people themselves perceive as "Amiga" because of technical relevance.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 337 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 09:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 336 (Janne):
>they are merely using a familiar word to call something that is pretty much
>like the original meaning of the word

Which is why I'm trying to explain that it is not similar even if it does seem that way. I would do the same if you were a Lindows user that believes that his computer is a Windows computer. The term Amiga never was and should not be turned into a generic term, otherwise people will never be able to tell the difference between an offically licensed AmigaOS4 computer and a computer that won't even run the AmigaOS to begin with. If Genesi would want their computer to be an Amiga clone, they are free to sign up for the AmigaOS4 licensing terms any day. The same goes for anyone wanting to market their product as an Amiga clone.

Fact is that the Pegasos won't run the AmigaOS and therefore may not be refered to an Amiga clone. While MorphOS could be considered as an AmigaOS3.1 clone (if you disregard the technicalities), it still doesn't run on the same hardware as the AmigaOS which makes the statement that MorphOS would be an AmigaOS clone only a half true statement. This has actually nothing to do with protecting Amiga Inc.'s IP but is a matter of setting things straight in order to make the customer aware of what it is he is purchasing. If a customer asks for an Amiga and he gets a Pegasos, then he has been ripped off and will most likely get rather pissed at Genesi when he discovers that it actually won't run the latest AmigaOS applications such as Hyperion's next big game title, CandyFactory2 or the new PPC native IBrowse. I know, even if the are responsible for alot, not all of it can be blamed on Genesi. However, from the customer's point of view, it should be Genesi's obligation to inform the customer about this and the customer is always right, right?

>Brand identity is not what a company makes of it, it is what becomes of the
>identity in the eyes, ears and hands of the public.

About the product labeled with that brand, yes. However, that doesn't justify why it would be correct to label another company's product that has a brand of it's own with another company's brand. That is per definition a trademark infringement. I mean, if I think that a book written by John Doe is very similar to another book written by Stephen King, is it OK to label the book written by John Doe as a Stephen King book? No, that would infringe on both authors intellectual property. So, using Amiga as a generic term for anything similar to an Amiga is not only morally wrong, it's illegal. If you insist on the generic term argument, you would have to cancel Amiga Inc.'s rights to their trademark first. AFAIK, Amiga Inc.'s rights to their trademark is perfectly valid and "Amiga" hasn't been classified as a generic term yet. You could try getting a trial for your theory that "Amiga" would be a generic term, but until this has been settled with a resolution in your favor, I really don't think that you should keep abusing Amiga Inc.'s trademark like this. Defending it despite knowing that it is incorrect seems rather arrogant, if you ask me.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 338 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 10:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 334 (samface):
Yet the likes of you are clinging on to the name. You want to be associated with the brand but not the company owning it.

---
Maybe this is where you're missing the point. Some people consider Amiga to be a philosophy, a methodology, an object greater then the brand.


And no, the brand never was a common term for anything else than Amiga products.
---
And it never 'was' but it may be becoming that way. You don't like it fine we get it you need the Amiga stamp of approval. However, others encourage and want Amiga to be greater then a brand.


It's only as of late that because a certain alternative platform has been parasiticly marketing their product with the brand that people has started to use it as such. Before their arrival, there was no such thing as an "unofficial" Amiga OS nor hardware
----
UAE isn't an official product. It runs on unoffical Amiga Hardware. It does run the official Amiga OS.

So Draco was Amiga Compatible.... And you're having problems w/ calling things users Amiga Users if they use Amiga Applications. Whatever YOU don't need to support the use of Amiga in a greater sense then just a brand. But, others are going to.

Who wins? Time will tell.
I'm hoping that MorphOS will help push AmigaOS4 to become better. There's the idea of competition in the marketplace. It'll be interesting to see if such a small marketplace can actually survive in that sort of system.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 339 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 10:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 337 (samface):
>they are merely using a familiar word to call something that is pretty much
>like the original meaning of the word

Which is why I'm trying to explain that it is not similar even if it does seem that way. I would do the same if you were a Lindows user that believes that his computer is a Windows computer.

=====
Thanks to you for your noblility. However, a Lindows User doesn't believe her computer is a Windows computer. Likewise I doubt you'll find a MorphOS User that believes her computer is an Amiga computer.

I run Amiga Forever on my PC. I call it an 'Amiga' it's not the Amiga hardware but it's compatible with Amiga Applications and gets the job of my Amiga 4000 done at about 15x the processing speed.



While MorphOS could be considered as an AmigaOS3.1 clone (if you disregard the technicalities), it still doesn't run on the same hardware as the AmigaOS
----
AmigaOS4 is to be run on the CSPPC
MorphOS runs on the CSPPC
What's not the same in hardware?


If a customer asks for an Amiga and he gets a Pegasos, then he has been ripped off and will most likely get rather pissed at Genesi when he discovers that it actually won't run the latest AmigaOS applications
----
You're so funny good to see your sense of humor.


About the product labeled with that brand, yes. However, that doesn't justify why it would be correct to label another company's product that has a brand of it's own with another company's brand.
-----
I don't think anyone is truly arguing we brand the PegasOS/MorphOS as an Amiga. However, the group of users using that system use Amiga Applications and as such to some, not you but others, can be labeled as Amiga Users. You want to call them Amiga Application users fine.

BTW: You talk about brand infringement and give a copywright infringement example. They're not the same thing.



If you insist on the generic term argument, you would have to cancel Amiga Inc.'s rights to their trademark first
----
That's not true. People call tissues Kleenex they don't have to cancel the Kleenex trademark. People call cola and in some areas of the US soda as Coke and they don't have to cancel the Coke trademark. If a brand becomes general use it will negate the trademark. This is actually part of the Unix vs. Apple lawsuit right now. UnixTM owners are claiming Apple infringed on it's rights by calling MacOSX Unix w/o getting their stamp of approval. Apple's counter suit is that MacOSX doesn't need a stamp of approval for using Unix because Unix has become a generic multiuse term and Apple is using it as such.
Legally you do not have to cancel a trademark first. The owners of said trademark can lose their trademark ability if the term becomes general use.


Amiga Inc.'s rights to their trademark is perfectly valid and "Amiga" hasn't been classified as a generic term yet.
----
The trademark right is valid assuming Amiga Inc. is taking actions to protect said trademark. The trademark is right is valid if the public arena "Amiga" hasn't been classified as a generic term. Unfortunately, Amiga Inc. doesn't have to classify their term as generic but the public arena can do so.


I really don't think that you should keep abusing Amiga Inc.'s trademark like this
---
Yes we get you have a problem with Amiga being wider use then the TM usage by Amiga Inc. Amiga Inc has to do their part in this they have to PROTECT their TM.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 340 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 10:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 338 (Anonymous):
>And it never 'was' but it may be becoming that way.

AFAIK, Amiga Inc.'s rights to their trademark is still perfectly valid which means that it is an infringment of their trademark to refer to other products as Amiga products. If you want to get a trial for your argument that it would be a generic term, then go ahead. If Amiga Inc. would fail in defending their rights to "Amiga" as their trademark, then you would be correct. However, until then, simply proclaiming that your Volvo is from now on a Ferrari won't make it so, regardless if you think of your Volvo as a Ferrari. You are not beeing honest with yourself nor the people you manage to convince that your Volvo is a Ferrari, you know. You're living a lie in the hopes that doing so will make it true.

Wake up and smell the coffee, a few hundred Pegasos users won't make it a common term but a rather exclusive philosophy for your little club. The common definition of the word "Amiga" would be either spanish for a female friend or that old gaming computer that you put away somewhere in the closet more than a decade ago. I find it hard to believe that you guys would get your definition of the word approved.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 341 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 10:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 339 (Anonymous):
See comment #340.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 342 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 10:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 340 (samface):
AFAIK, Amiga Inc.'s rights to their trademark is still perfectly valid which means that it is an infringment of their trademark to refer to other products as Amiga products
----
Assuming Amiga Inc.'s trademark is valid it may be an infringement to refer to other products as Amiga products. Is Amiga Inc.'s TM valid? One the criteria the courts use is does Amiga Inc. protect their trademark. I've yet to see Amiga Inc. sue anyone with inappropiate use nor have I seen them bring anyone to court over trademark infringements. If a company fails to act to protect a TM they could lose it. However, the court system determines what the date of that loss it. Thus, if in 6 years Amiga Inc. sues someone over the use of Amiga and for 6 years they've done nothing and in the public use of the term has been generic, as seen by the court, then they could lose their rights to the trademark. However, the rights don't cease the date of the court decision forward the rights cease the date the courts decide in the past when their trademark was lost and unenforceable. Thus, on future cases they could sue for trademark infringements before said date but not after. It's a bit tricky to say the least. But, public use of the term and willingness for a company to protect their trademark come into play on the validity of their trademark.


If you want to get a trial for your argument that it would be a generic term, then go ahead.
----
Unfortunately, this isn't necessary. Amiga Inc. is charged with protection of their trademark. I don't have to go to court to find it a generic term. Amiga has to take continual legal actions to protect said trademark. Now in the future if they sue someone at that time and for that case it could be argued it's a generic term. While someone could go to court to have a ruling in it's finding it's unlikely to happen. The case of TM validity and rights need to be driven by Amiga Inc.


Wake up and smell the coffee, a few hundred Pegasos users won't make it a common term but a rather exclusive philosophy for your little club
----
Either they could be right or you could be right... Time will tell.


I find it hard to believe that you guys would get your definition of the word approved.
-----
Once again it's not up to 'us guys' to get our definition approved. It's up to Amiga Inc. to protect. Amiga Inc must bring 'us guys' to court or sue companies that are using the word counter to the desires of Amiga Inc. They must actively protect their rights. This is the only way to stop unapproved uses and push that Amiga isn't moved into the general use arena.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 343 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 11:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 339 (Anonymous):
>they have to PROTECT their TM.

True. However, just because it's important to protect yourself from loosing your wallet, does that justify stealing wallets? No. In other words; you should let Amiga Inc. take care of their own business and start focusing a bit more on your own part of the misconceptions in the former Amiga community.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 344 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 11:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 340 (samface):
I hope you're getting it.

Either - I can Amiga Inc. to court to rule Amiga as generic. This is what you're saying must be done. It's an option but highly unlikely to happen an no one would press this issue due to $$ and time.

- Amiga Inc. must take companies to court to protect their TM. Highly more likely to happy. (Well assuming Amiga has the money/time to protect their TM). Then the issue of does the TM owning company meet the appropriate protections and has Amiga become generic in the intermin comes into question. This is the more frequent item that happens. Thus, Amiga Inc. get off your ass and press some of your TM.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 345 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 11:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 342 (Anonymous):
Besides, protecting your IP doesn't neccessarily mean having to go to court. Amiga Inc. managed to get the MorphOS team to remove all AmigaOS dependant parts from MorphOS before it's official release as well as everything implying that MorphOS would be an Amiga product from their website without going to court. Genesi is obviously not prepared to dispute Amiga Inc.'s rights to the IP, which of course is a good thing. If an issue is possible to be settled outside of the courtroom, then the better for everyone involved. Furtermore, I do believe Ben Hermans mentioned something about filing a lawsuit against Thendic-France this september, let's hope that will settle a few issues once and for all.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 346 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 11:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 345 (samface):
Besides, protecting your IP doesn't neccessarily mean having to go to court. Amiga Inc. managed to get the MorphOS team to remove all AmigaOS dependant parts from MorphOS before it's official release as well as everything implying that MorphOS would be an Amiga product from their website without going to court

----
I didn't say court was the only way. Amiga Inc. must actively protect their TM and IP. Companies always have the power to make agreements and negotiations out side of the court system. If a TM case gets to court the existence of evidence that TM and IP protects have been pursued will be use.


If Amiga Inc. is finally taking actions to protect IP great!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 347 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 11:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 346 (Anonymous):
>If Amiga Inc. is finally taking actions to protect IP great!

They never stopped protecting it to begin with. However, sometimes you need to await certain triggering factors before taking action in order to make your case rock solid. But then, I'm not going to speculate anymore, let's just wait and see what happens in september.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 348 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Stephane Desrosiers on 30-Jul-2003 12:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 345 (samface):
Samface wrote:
> Furtermore, I do believe Ben Hermans mentioned something about filing a
> lawsuit against Thendic-France this september, let's hope that will settle a
> few issues once and for all.

You mean this: http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1057962307&category=news&start=1&43#message40 ?

I can't say what the lawsuit is about, but I thought it was to have Bill Buck stop calling Ben a "Legal Clerk"... Does this have anything to do with AmigaOS? I didn't think that was the intention but then again, I'm not Ben Hermans. ;)

[and thus ends my only contribution to this thread...]
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 349 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by - GALAXY - on 30-Jul-2003 13:02 GMT
SamFace, do you have a life by the way ? Go out and find a Girlfriend.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 350 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by cahva on 30-Jul-2003 13:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 349 (- GALAXY -):
No Galaxy, didnt you know that samface is a bot?
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 81 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
Back to Top