19-Apr-2024 09:17 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 327 items in your selection (but only 27 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 327]
[News] Strong Genesi presence at AmiwestANN.lu
Posted on 29-Jul-2003 17:41 GMT by Daniel Miller327 comments
View flat
View list
In the Genesi presentation on Sunday, Matt Sealey got up and did a passionate job explaining all the great things that are available and coming for MorphOS. The other Genesi speakers did an excellent team presentation that showed off the great benefits and many positive attributes of MorphOS on the Pegasos. My early reporting for Amiga-News.de related the story of Saturday's Genesi presentation, which went poorly due to technical problems unrelated to the abilities of MorphOS or the technical excellence of the Pegasos. The problems owed more to configuration and hard-drive settings, and the Genesi team stumbled a bit because of that. Conversely the OS4 presentation, done on a A4000 (OS4 has yet to be demonstrated on an Amiga One), went very well. In all cases those reports dealt only with Saturday. The Genesi presentation on Sunday went smashingly, and they showed a lot of teamwork and frankly they recovered completely from Saturday I wrote the Saturday's report as a journalist, not a MorphOS advocate. I don't like it being portrayed the way it has been on ANN in the post by anonymous AM. My article was not about the stupid OS4 vs. MorphOS war, it was about Amiwest on Saturday. The MorphOS presentation on Sunday kicked ass. I am sorry I wasn't able to report on it later Sunday, being on the road. It is a bit of an injustice that so called advocates are the ones who do a lot of the reporting, leaving Internet readers hostage to their prejudices. I tried to stay away from that in my reports. In the Genesi presentation on Sunday, Matt Sealey got up and did a passionate job explaining all the great things that are available and coming for MorphOS. The other Genesi speakers did an excellent team presentation that showed off the great benefits and many positive attributes of MorphOS on the Pegasos. Bill Buck spoke very well also. Genesi made a lot of friends on Saturday and Sunday, and showed that they 100% earned their place in the Amiga community, where they belong. They have an almost complete solution that is so far more advanced than OS4 that it is not even funny. The OS4 presenter did a great with the presentation but as far as the actual product there is absolutely no comparison. Maybe someday Hyperion and partners will produce something to compae with MorphOS and Pegasos but not yet, and this fact was clear to anyone who attended Amiwest. I wish ANN would adopt a policy of not letting anonymous posters leave news stories. The article as characterized by AM is an oversimplification and really is a distortion. Let's leave the MorphOS-OS4 war behind for once. At Amiwest we did.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 301 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Nicolas Sallin on 02-Aug-2003 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 295 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
On 04-Nov-2001 17:15:33, you wrote on ANN about MorphOS Team "recompiling OS3.0/3.1 source-code".
That was three months after you announced you would send a "nice cease and desist order pretty soon" or we would all go "explain [our] claims before a court of law".

For two to three years now, you are threatening your direct competitor and trying to convince customers should avoid using his illegal (what a lie!) product.
You still refuse to proove your accusation. You still refuse to sue your competitor. You still claim you will do it. You still claim he should expect a bad surprise "soon".

Don't you think it's completly ridiculous ?
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 302 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Aug-2003 12:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 250 (Fabio Alemagna):
>As said, this is not about opinions.

and yet again, this is YOUR opinion. I see you have a hard time understanding this simple fact.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 303 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Aug-2003 12:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 260 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
As previously said, it was a metter of opinion
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 304 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Aug-2003 12:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 291 (Fabio Alemagna):
Why the ehck should he apologize for something he's right about?
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 305 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Aug-2003 12:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 294 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Unfair competition because both OSs run the same SW? LOL, ever heard about _compatibility

You're putting words in his mought and you know jack shit of law, although you seem to be an expert in everything, but that's normal at your age
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 306 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 02-Aug-2003 13:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 293 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
> I find it ridiculous that people are trying to deny me that right whilst

Then DO something about it instead of pissing and moaning about it. Of course, you would have to have proof of that to take to court. So I can understand why you don't want to take it to court.

> they'll happily go along with Bill Buck trying to discredit my professional
> qualifications both in private and publicly.

You and I both know you could very easily confirm your an honest to God lawyer. Just scan in your law degree, your certification(s) (Belguim does have some sort of third party certification board, like the US/UK Bar Association?) to be a lawyer in your own country, and the up to date paid licenses showing your profession. That should satisfy everyone's question about your lawful status as a practicing attorney.

Dammy
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 307 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by redrumloa on 02-Aug-2003 13:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 288 (Bill Hoggett):
> He should either tell us what proof he has to formulate his opinion or else
> shut up about the issue completely.

Well to his credit hasn't he done exactly that? I havn't heard Ben mention this at all in probably well over a year.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 308 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 02-Aug-2003 13:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 303 (Anonymous):
> As previously said, it was a metter of opinion

No it isn't. When accusing someone of unlawful behaviour you are not merely expressing an opinion. Ben Hermans is using his position and professional qualification to propagate a lie he is not capable of backing up with proof.

> Why the ehck should he apologize for something he's right about?

And you have seen proof that he is right, or are you lying as well?

This is a damaging accusation. Those making it should provide proof. Failure to do so indicates that no such proof exists, and the accusation is false and malicious in its intent.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 309 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by redrumloa on 02-Aug-2003 13:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 307 (redrumloa):
Whoops or not maybe I didn't read far enough down. I withdrawl my coment, I was never here:-D
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 310 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 02-Aug-2003 16:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 293 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Ben Hermans wrote:
> The problem is that people don't understand European copyright law
> nor do they understand German, French etc. laws on unfair
> competition.

Do you, Ben? Unfair competition, that would be something like running
around spreading rumours about your competitor's product being
illegal, wouldn't it?
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 311 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 02-Aug-2003 16:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 287 (Anonymous):
>Just out of curiosity, if I were in possession of the source code for
>a certain executable which undoubtable is a part of the KS3.1
>distribution, would that mean I could be in possesion of parts the KS3.1
>sources? And what does it imply about the person that gave me the source
>code?

No.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 312 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Aug-2003 18:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 311 (Nate Downes):
> No.

Huh? Care to elaborate your answer?
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 313 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by hammer on 02-Aug-2003 21:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 306 (dammy):
>You and I both know you could very easily confirm your an honest to God >lawyer. Just scan in your law degree, your certification(s) (Belguim does >have some sort of third party certification board, like the US/UK Bar >Association?) to be a lawyer in your own country, and the up to date paid >licenses showing your profession. That should satisfy everyone's question >about your lawful status as a practicing attorney.

One could check from the law professional bodies for the accreditation of the said person. IF the said person is a member of any professional bodies, they should have a record of this. This is a means of double cheeking the claims of any practising attorneys (i.e. for consumer’s protection).

PS; Oz POV....
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 314 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by whoosh777 on 02-Aug-2003 23:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 285 (Bernie Meyer):
@Berndt Meyer,re: automatic stack extension,It can be done fast on a shared memory Amiga situation!As long as there are no subtle flaws to my concept!The idea is based on the fact that stack memory cannot be passed from one task to another.stack memory can only be passed from a task to the OS eg for OpenWindow() you might pass a window title string to the OS with this string coming from the stack. The OS however will make a local copy I think?The only OS-legal way for 2 tasks to communicate memory is via AllocMem( , MEMF_PUBLIC) which cannot be stack memory.Stack memory is sort of public but only between task and OS.So what you do is that when a task is launched its stack is memory mapped to top of memory space: <--- growing mem map stack ---| top of memorythis stack is visible to the OS and *only* this task.(or bottom end depending on CPU)All other memory is allocated in a truly shared memory space from bottom of memory upwards.At task switch time *only* the top of memory is switched the bottom of memory is unchanged for all tasks.As all other memory is at the bottom end of memory the stacks can enlarge indefinitely (until they collide with the bottom end of memory growth).See any flaws with this concept?(perhaps there are, thought I would try my luck!)whoosh777
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 315 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 03-Aug-2003 00:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 314 (whoosh777):
The problem I see with your concept is that I do not believe your basic assumption is right....While it may be true that stack memory *should* not be shared between processes (I can't tell one way or the other), I think you will find that it *is* shared in real life.Take, for example, the very simple (and probably not quite correct, but you get the idea) code: int readIndex(char* name) { char fpn[MAXPATH]; char buf[1024]; int answer; File f; sprintf(fpn,"RAM:mydir/%s",name); f=Open(name); Read(f,buf,1024); answer=*((int*)buf); Close(f); return answer; }Both "buf" and "fpn" are allocated on the stack. Both get passed to the OS, so all is well, right? No, not really --- the OS passes them on to the filesystem; In the case of "buf", the filesystem then (usually) passes the address on to the device. All of those are separate processes. And all of them rely on being able to pass around addresses.And, of course, there is still "StackSwap", which will break your suggested scheme, too.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 316 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Bill on 03-Aug-2003 02:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 315 (Bernie Meyer):
Hey Bernie,

Just wanted to clarify why you heard "normal users" where not allowed to try the OS 4 beta. Ray, the person who owned the A4k and is a beta tester of OS 4, would not allow people to use his system. He reason was the NDA he signed to become a OS 4 beta tester. I can't fault the guy for honoring his word :)

I will fault Hyperion for not doing more to promote OS 4 at AmiWest. It was great Ben was able to attend in person but they really should have done more to ensure OS 4 was properly represented. Ray did a great presentation, but the issues with access, the condition of the machine and the condition of the beta install could have been done better.

I hope they do better next time.

Bill "tekmage" Borsari
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 317 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 03-Aug-2003 09:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 306 (dammy):
dammy wrote:
> (Belgium does have some sort of third party certification board,
> like the US/UK Bar Association?)

Sure. In this case, I guess it would be the Order of Flemish Bars, see
http://www.advocaat.be

Trying to read Flemish gives me too much headache to be worth it, but
presumably they could be contacted if anyone's interested in what it
takes to call yourself a lawyer ("advocaat") in Belgium.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 318 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by whoosh777 on 03-Aug-2003 14:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 315 (Bernie Meyer):
@Berndt Meyerre: my automatic stack extension ideawhoosh777 doesnt give up that easily!The problem you point up can be easily fixed (I think),ie fixed by patching the OS, the rule I follow is that you can patch the OS but not the legacy-progs.See below,to the post:>The problem I see with your concept is that I do not >believe your basic assumption is right....fine, but *if* my "protocol" is followed then the mechanism is sound, do you agree on that?>While it may be true that stack memory *should* >not be shared between processes >(I can't tell one way or the other), >I think you will find that it *is* shared >in real life.>Take, for example, the very simple (and probably not quite correct, but you get >the idea) code: >int readIndex(char* name) >{ char fpn[MAXPATH]; char buf[1024]; BTW I always tell people (noone listens) *never* use aggregate data structures (arrays, structures,...) on the stack. aggregate data structures should always be dynamically allocated, statically allocated aggregates make code non-reentrant and stack aggregates lead to crashes if there are bugs.If aggregates are always dynamically allocated programs especially complex ones behave much better.:they also allow clever OS tricks like my suggestion,>int answer; File f; >sprintf(fpn,"RAM:mydir/%s",name); >f=Open(name); I think you meant f=Open( fpn) here, (typo),>Read(f,buf,1024); >answer=*((int*)buf); Close(f); return answer; }>Both "buf" and "fpn" are allocated on the stack. >Both get passed to the OS, so all is well, right? >No, not really --- the OS passes them on to the filesystem; >In the case of "buf", the filesystem then (usually) passes the >address on to the device. All of to>ose are separate processes. And all of them rely on being able to pass >around addresses.But I can fix this! simply make all OS processes have stacks in shared memory!An alternative is merely to hack Read thus:new_Read(f,buf,size){char *correct_buf;correct_buf = AllocMem( size , MEMF_PUBLIC | MEMF_CLEAR ) ;Read( f , correct_buf , size ) ;memcpy( buf , correct_buf , size ) ;FreeMem( correct_buf , size ) ;}easy-peasy patch,run through dos.library patching each function,could patch entire dos.library in a matter of days,:note the time overhead of this patch is insignificant to the time overhead of disk-transfer so it will barely affect performance.Similarly Open() can be patched thus:BPTR new_Open( name , mode ){char *correct_name ; int size ; BPTR ret;size = strlen( name ) + 1 ;correct_name = AllocMem( size , MEMF_PUBLIC | MEMF_CLEAR ) ;strcpy( correct_name , name ) ;ret = Open( correct_name , mode ) ;return( ret ) ;}there I've already patched 2 of dos.library functions on-line,OS3.0 dos.library has approx. 150 calls,I could patch 20 a day, => 1 week to patch the lot.:you dont even need the OS source code to do these patches>And, of course, there is still "StackSwap", >which will break your suggested scheme, too.I dont know what StackSwap() is, so I cannot comment.its not in exec.library (just had a look)surely other than OS calls any function that is called shares stack with our task?The only things which will break my scheme are badly written progs + badly designed OS submodulesany OS submodule that trusts memory passed to it by a task is badly designed.any prog that uses stack aggregates is a bad program,BTW delinquent progs can always be run with a traditional fixed stack.whoosh777
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 319 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by whoosh777 on 03-Aug-2003 15:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 318 (whoosh777):
@Berndt Meyerre: my automatic stack extension ideaBerndt said:>>Both "buf" and "fpn" are allocated on the stack. >>Both get passed to the OS, so all is well, right? >>No, not really --- the OS passes them on to the filesystem; >>In the case of "buf", the filesystem then (usually) passes the >>address on to the device. All of to>>ose are separate processes. And all of them rely on being able to pass >>around addresses.I said:>But I can fix this! simply make all OS processes have stacks >in shared memory!this particular fix needs some other things done in addition,this was an off-the-cuff fix so was imperfect, it needs in addition that task-switching be partly switched off: only task-switching to shared-memory-stack tasks, that way your filesystem processes can still view our tasks stack,==================================However I think my alternative fix via patching all dos.library functions is a much cleaner simpler method and also doesnt require the OS source code:I said:>An alternative is merely to hack Read thus:>new_Read(f,buf,size)>{>char *correct_buf;>correct_buf = AllocMem( size , MEMF_PUBLIC | MEMF_CLEAR ) ;>Read( f , correct_buf , size ) ;>memcpy( buf , correct_buf , size ) ;>FreeMem( correct_buf , size ) ;>}not this ignores for clarity the return value Read() produces,(not a big deal)>easy-peasy patch,>run through dos.library patching each function,>could patch entire dos.library in a matter of days,>:note the time overhead of this patch is insignificant >to the time overhead of disk-transfer so it will >barely affect performance.>Similarly Open() can be patched thus:>BPTR new_Open( name , mode )>{>char *correct_name ; int size ; BPTR ret;>size = strlen( name ) + 1 ;>correct_name = AllocMem( size , MEMF_PUBLIC | MEMF_CLEAR ) ;>strcpy( correct_name , name ) ;>ret = Open( correct_name , mode ) ;I forgot to free the memory!, so this also needs: FreeMem( correct_name , size ) ;>return( ret ) ;>}>there I've already patched 2 of dos.library functions on-line,>OS3.0 dos.library has approx. 150 calls,>I could patch 20 a day, => 1 week to patch the lot.>:you dont even need the OS source code to do these >patcheswhoosh777
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 320 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Nate Downes on 03-Aug-2003 16:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 312 (Anonymous):
It's as simple and direct an answer as possible. No. You are not going to play these word games on me.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 321 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Aug-2003 06:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 319 (whoosh777):
whoosh777: dos.library&filesystems is just one component sharing stack memory. Patching it is trivial compared to other problems.

The bigger problem are linklibs and direct code inside application that does the same (parent & subprocess passing messages for example, and NO, you can't just copy the message in PutMsg & ReplyMsg, also some apps use direct pointers to stack data anyway).

You can't patch these by patching the OS.

Stack expansion will not work unless if the memory is mapped globally (and it will suck arse because you need to allocate fixed amount of it then, ie. estimate the maximum stack ever used).
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 322 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 04-Aug-2003 06:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 295 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
> Stick to what you know Fabio.
>
> Theft of source-code is impossible legally in most countries.

You yourself say "most", not "all". In Italy it's possible, for instance.

> Theft requires tangible, material things to be misappropriated.

Are credit cards numbers tangible? Don't think so, however, there exists such thing as "theft of credit card numbers", is there not?

> Source-code is not tangible.

But tapes are, and the voice spread around says that source *tapes* have been stolen.

> I also never claimed that anybody stole source-code or CD's containing
> source-code.

Oh, right... not CDs, TAPES.

> Get over it, you don't even understand the basics.

Oh, yeah, like you about unfair competition? You haven't hanswered to that one, how come?

> Like I said, I won't discuss it further.

Oh,sure, in fact you're still here :)
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 323 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 04-Aug-2003 06:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 302 (Anonymous):
> >As said, this is not about opinions.

> and yet again, this is YOUR opinion.

No, this is a FACT, or is any fact an opinion, in YOUR opinion? What are FACTS?

> I see you have a hard time understanding
> this simple fact.

Nope, sorry, that's your OPINION, not a "simple fact" :)
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 324 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 04-Aug-2003 06:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 305 (Anonymous):
> You're putting words in his mought

Nope, I just know what he refers to when he talks about unfair competition, since that is what he said at the time he first mentioned it.

> and you know jack shit of law, although you seem to be an expert in everything,
> but that's normal at your age.

And how do you know I know "jack shit" of law? I usually don't talk about things I don't know about, Ben instead does it very often.
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 325 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 04-Aug-2003 07:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 323 (Fabio Alemagna):
"No, this is a FACT, or is any fact an opinion, in YOUR opinion? What are FACTS?"

Facts are opinions written in capital letters. ;-)
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 326 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Matt Parsons on 04-Aug-2003 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 325 (Don Cox):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"No, this is a FACT, or is any fact an opinion, in YOUR opinion? What are FACTS?"

Facts are opinions written in capital letters. ;-)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And Vapourware is a product one cannot obtain. ;-)
Strong Genesi presence at Amiwest : Comment 327 of 327ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 05-Aug-2003 05:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 326 (Matt Parsons):
"And Vapourware is a product one cannot obtain. ;-)"

Not exactly. For instance, tomorrow's newspaper is not vaporware, nor are the English Crown Jewels. Vaporware is a product which has been promised with a lot of hot air and steam for a long time, but never becomes available. Instead, the steam just mysteriously disperses, leaving everyone looking around slightly bewildered.

The BoXeR would be a classic example.
Anonymous, there are 327 items in your selection (but only 27 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 327]
Back to Top