Oh come on Hyperion...

[BarryB]

[supaduper]

[ Show youtube player ]

[redblade]

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

They don't. Only this old files.

• Datatypes-45-4.lha (datatypes.library 45.4)
• FFS-43-20.lha (FastFileSystem 43.20)
• SCSI-IDE-43-24.lha (scsi.device 43.24)
• SetPatch-43-6b.lha (SetPatch 43.6b)

I always thought that SetPatch would be freeware for all Amigas as it patches the OS.

[Daedalus]

It depends on where that version came from. 43.6 wasn't a version released by Commodore, so if it's a case that it's a 3rd party unofficial version that was based on Commodore code without a licence, then you can understand how that might be a problem. Nevertheless, that version is still available on Aminet, so either Hyperion haven't spotted it there (unlikely), or they just want to restrict such releases to "official" channels.

[Mr-Z]

Hyperion stated more then once they aren't interested at 68k development at all in any way, instead they'll ask a hefty license fee of 5 figures when you want to develop an os3.x driver for Picasso yourself....
They seem to want to kill all development in Amiga 68K to get ppl over to OS4.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

It depends on where that version came from. 43.6 wasn't a version released by Commodore, so if it's a case that it's a 3rd party unofficial version that was based on Commodore code without a licence, then you can understand how that might be a problem. Nevertheless, that version is still available on Aminet, so either Hyperion haven't spotted it there (unlikely), or they just want to restrict such releases to "official" channels.

It was made and released by Amiga Technologies, so it's as official as a beta version goes.

[S0ulA55a551n]

Just a typical amiga user over re-action

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Mr-Z

Hyperion stated more then once they aren't interested at 68k development at all in any way

They did release a 3.1 ROM update.

instead they'll ask a hefty license fee of 5 figures when you want to develop an os3.x driver for Picasso yourself....

First off, that would depend on them owning Picasso96, which they don't. Secondly, if they did (as they might have with the IComp deal that seems to be on the rocks), the driver development would be free under that deal.

They seem to want to kill all development in Amiga 68K to get ppl over to OS4.

Kill all development? Really? OS development perhaps, but that's only natural considering their main product is the successor to the OS. Most other OSes drop support for previous versions after a number of years, it's understandable that Hyperion would do the same. If they want to drop OS3 and miss out on the substantial market of people still holding onto it, that's their own call.

[Aladin]

When OS4 support blizzardppc? (scsi)

OS4 is a joke

[wawa]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

They did release a 3.1 ROM update.

apparently because olsen really wanted, and they must owe him quite a lot, since if not him they would probably never be able to lay their hands on amiga os and the source code.

First off, that would depend on them owning Picasso96, which they don't. Secondly, if they did (as they might have with the IComp deal that seems to be on the rocks), the driver development would be free under that deal.

apparently they did not kept up to the agreement, simply left ic in the rain with it. one way or the other , this was pretty expactable and docments just once more that its just money to earn that matters, not 68k development.

Kill all development? Really? OS development perhaps, but that's only natural considering their main product is the successor to the OS. Most other OSes drop support for previous versions after a number of years, it's understandable that Hyperion would do the same.

its understandable, but it isnt worth support in my eyes.

If they want to drop OS3 and miss out on the substantial market of people still holding onto it, that's their own call.

where have you been all these years? they have dropped os3/m68k decades ago, and not silently. i really wonder, why you try to deny it.

[Olaf Barthel]

Originally Posted by wawa

apparently because olsen really wanted, and they must owe him quite a lot, since if not him they would probably never be able to lay their hands on amiga os and the source code.

The OS 3.1 update had to make sense, business-wise. It was not a stunt intended to casually annoy, irritate and wind up people.

About two years ago I learned at the Amiga 30 event at Neuss (Germany) that there was a growing interest in making hardware and software for the 68k Amigas again.

There was a genuine demand for developer material, too. Everything had gone out of print (ROM Kernel Reference Manuals, AmigaDOS manual, etc.), and only Haage & Partner were still making and selling small numbers of "Amiga Developer CD 2.1" CD-Rs.

This reminded me a lot of how I got started in making software for the Amiga, and right on the spot in Neuss I began talking to the people I knew, and those I met for the first time there.

This is where this started, and it's been slow going, unfortunately, but it did proceed one step at a time.

One of the parts of the puzzle, if you will, is the "puzzling" AmigaOS 3.1 update which nobody seemed to have asked for.

This operating system version has been neglected over the years to the point where everybody seems to have resigned to put up with its shortcomings.

This begins with the weird bugs in the shell commands, then there's the file system, the mass storage device drivers (scsi.device), the partitioning software (HDToolBox), the Installer tool and the installation process itself.

At the very least it would have been helpful to blow some of the dust off and make a new set of installation media that would not require you to jump through so many hoops to get a basic system installation working. Bugs which were fixable without turning over most of the operating system code along the way were addressed, too. I wish I could have done more about that, but there was eventually too little time to get everything right.

The recent AmigaOS 3.1 update is supposed to brush up what had been gathering dust for so long. The new Amiga hardware which was promised to arrive this and next year should not need to use "hand-me-down" versions of AmigaOS 3.1 (1994), AmigaOS 3.5 (1998) and AmigaOS 3.9 (1999), using drivers and utility software patched just so that it wouldn't crash or hang during installation, or fail to detect CF interfaces.

That's the goal, but, as I mentioned, it's been slow going...

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Olaf Barthel

That's the goal, but, as I mentioned, it's been slow going...

Is there anywhere we can follow your progress with this? I recently was experimenting with new workbench.library files, and just wonder how many changes you have implemented in the official builds, and on all other stuff you have worked on.
For example:

One of the parts of the puzzle, if you will, is the "puzzling" AmigaOS 3.1 update which nobody seemed to have asked for.

Discussion on this board only seemed to have come to the conclusion that the only change was a copyright text or something, but was there more to it?

I personally am very interested in your work on 3.1 and hope I can use a new ROM coming out of this work on my Amiga soon.

[honx]

Originally Posted by Olaf Barthel

The recent AmigaOS 3.1 update is supposed to brush up what had been gathering dust for so long. The new Amiga hardware which was promised to arrive this and next year should not need to use "hand-me-down" versions of AmigaOS 3.1 (1994), AmigaOS 3.5 (1998) and AmigaOS 3.9 (1999), using drivers and utility software patched just so that it wouldn't crash or hang during installation, or fail to detect CF interfaces.

That's the goal, but, as I mentioned, it's been slow going...

does amigaos 3.1 included on aca500plus already benefit from this update?

[matthey]

Originally Posted by wawa

apparently because olsen really wanted, and they must owe him quite a lot, since if not him they would probably never be able to lay their hands on amiga os and the source code.

No sympathy for thousands of 68k AmigaOS users who refuse being forced down the PPC path but Hyperion is at least loyal to people who scratched their back?

Originally Posted by wawa

apparently they did not kept up to the agreement, simply left ic in the rain with it. one way or the other, this was pretty expectable and documents just once more that its just money to earn that matters, not 68k development.

I guess Jens didn't do enough back scratching.

It certainly looks like (limited?) continued 68k AmigaOS development was in the works but there was some disagreement about who owns what and then the recent positioning for leverage in negotiations.

Edit: I posted before reading Olaf "olsen" Barthel's latest post but it looks like I was on the right track. I trust him more than any of the other parties involved. Good luck in your negotiations Olaf.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by Olaf Barthel

The OS 3.1 update had to make sense, business-wise. It was not a stunt intended to casually annoy, irritate and wind up people.

i dont think i have been suggesting that your work on amiga kickstart has been intended to "wind up people". im actually trusting your genuine dedication and even if i was not i haven not been questioning that at all. same as i dont question that there is monetary interest on part of people you need to convince, and that this argument has lately become more significant and helped you leverage your agenda, while this all happened not because of the pure intentions of your "associates" but rather against their will, thanks to circumstances and other peoples independant work. at least that is how it looks from here. and nevertheless, the contribution you and thor have been allowed to deliver, is of a minimal effect, sorry to say. you may have corrected some errors in kickstart modules or libs, while the users who need much more than that are happily at hacking and patching in that stuff as they ever did.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by matthey

I guess Jens didn't do enough back scratching.

if i may quote out of context an explanation delivered elsewhere and with somone else in mind, he may have occured "impossible to negotiate" apparently similar as gunnar.

[matthey]

Originally Posted by wawa

if i may quote out of context an explanation delivered elsewhere and with somone else in mind, he may have occured "impossible to negotiate" apparently similar as gunnar.

I wouldn't say Gunnar is "impossible to negotiate" with. He is just very stubborn, opinionated and not open minded. I believe Olaf is dealing with similar personalities in his negotiations. You can't just buy these guys out either if one doesn't agree. That would be easy but these guys have a crazy way of valuing their intellectual property. AmigaOS 4 may have a negative value based on a negative cash flow (being able to see their balance sheet would be a big bargaining chip), Cloanto's AmigaOS 3 should only be worth a few times a low income yearly salary, A-Eon is probably lucky to break even while trying new marketing approaches, iComp could probably make more money for a different market and the Apollo guys obviously aren't getting rich. This group needs to work together but they have to find common ground too.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by wawa

apparently because olsen really wanted, and they must owe him quite a lot, since if not him they would probably never be able to lay their hands on amiga os and the source code.

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

apparently they did not kept up to the agreement, simply left ic in the rain with it. one way or the other , this was pretty expactable and docments just once more that its just money to earn that matters, not 68k development.

Again, I didn't say anything to the contrary. They're a company trying to make money, why would you ever think anything else, or why do you think I believe anything else?

where have you been all these years? they have dropped os3/m68k decades ago, and not silently. i really wonder, why you try to deny it.

Sometimes I do wonder about you - you seem to go out of your way to find arguments even where there are none. Strange hobby...

[grelbfarlk]

Yes we must thank the drama lovers for this non event and giving an outlet for people to post random tirades of all the real and imagined transgressions of Hyperion.

[ma693541]

Heinz Wrobel was the author behind SetPatch 43.6b and I uploaded it to ...net.net in the year 2000. The SetPatch date itself is 12.05.1997. So why Hyperion want's it off the net is funny for a SetPatch command for OS 2.X-3.X that is 20 year's old.