AmigaOS 3.1.4 withdrawn from market after Amiga

[gulliver]

Originally Posted by grond

To do that I would have to sign a NDA and tie myself to Hyperion. I'm not going to do that. So, yes, your control, because you did it.

No, it is just about rules. Wherever you go and whatever you do you are expected to follow certain rules, and this applies to open source too.

Signing an NDA is a pretty common practice in the software industry.

Originally Posted by grond

It's not about producing something without bugs although having produced that one obviously hurts you a lot. It's about being able to fix other people's bugs. And I have demonstrated that I have done that before. The point still is: an open-source development model would be better than the closed-source one.

No, it is just different, not better and there are lots of examples both in and outside the amiga landscape.

Originally Posted by grond

Yes. People can rant about commercial products as much as they want, no? If it were open source, you could just say: go fix it yourself if you think you can do it better. But expecting people to stop critisising your work, sign an NDA and contribute to a commercial product for free is a bit too much. You put yourself into a position where you are found responsible while others cash in on your work. Must be a very comfortable situation for Hyperion selling bugged software. I mean, even better for them, now they can sell the product and then the bugfixed update (which will, of course, come with other new fixes and features so nobody can say they make people pay for the bugfix of a bug that never should have happened).

Everything you do wether open source or not requires working hard and following a set of rules. If it is too much then you don't do it and move on to whatever your interest or will is.

And then the argument of bugged software? And an update that is supposed to be payed? And a conspiracy to generate bugs? Really? Where does all this come from?

Originally Posted by grond

What I don't like is your attitude about how open-sourcing AmigaOS would be worse than the current situation.

Open sourcing is not a panacea, is just another source model with advantages and disadvantages, not a solution by itself.

[grond]

Originally Posted by gulliver

No, it is just about rules. Wherever you go and whatever you do you are expected to follow certain rules, and this applies to open source too.

So you are saying I'm an anarchist. (of course, you are not)

Signing an NDA is a pretty common practice in the software industry.

So you are saying I don't know the standards. (of course, you are not)

Everything you do wether open source or not requires working hard and following a set of rules. If it is too much then you don't do it and move on to whatever your interest or will is.

So you are saying I'm lazy and playful . (of course, you are not)

And then the argument of bugged software? And an update that is supposed to be payed? And a conspiracy to generate bugs? Really? Where does all this come from?

I wasn't saying anything about a conspiracy just like you weren't saying anything of the above. See how this works? I merely pointed out that it is very comfortable to Hyperion that there is this new bug. I bet that there will be a 3.1.4.1 with both a fix to this bug AND new features/fixes and that this will cost money. However, it wasn't so much about the money but about how this particular closed-source model (work for free, Hyperion decides when to publish) has a lot of disadvantages over an open-source approach.

Open sourcing is not a panacea, is just another source model with advantages and disadvantages, not a solution by itself.

And this is just blabla.

Just to clarify my point: I do have a lot of respect for ThoR's knowledge, abilities and work. I just wish he was a wiser person and that he had chosen to support AROS rather than lock himself into that mess.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by grond

To do that I would have to sign a NDA and tie myself to Hyperion. I'm not going to do that. So, yes, your control, because you did it.

Err, whoever creates a component is under control of the component. (Do I need to say "vampire") But I did not create all components of 3.1.4. So, if you want in control of something, you need to do something. It's really that simple.

Originally Posted by grond

an open-source development model would be better than the closed-source one.

For which definition of "better" or "worse"? It depends on what the constraints are and it depends on what you want to do. I suggest to go ahead then and contribute the vampire/appollo/68060 IP core to "OpenCores". Would this be doable? It seems the next logical step in your line of thinking.

Originally Posted by grond

Yes. People can rant about commercial products as much as they want, no? If it were open source, you could just say: go fix it yourself if you think you can do it better.

You can still write software yourself. Who's stopping you, frankly? Don't like the shell? Write one.

Originally Posted by grond

You put yourself into a position where you are found responsible while others cash in on your work. Must be a very comfortable situation for Hyperion selling bugged software.

Every software has bugs. Is that any new for you? Now, someone has found a bug. Big surprise.

Yes, I do make bugs. Others make other bugs. Or even design errors, what is even worse. I'm unhappy about bugs, and I will fix what I did wrong, which is called "responsibility". As I always did, every single time. Not in the timely manner you might be used to, but that is an external constraint I cannot fix.

Originally Posted by grond

I mean, even better for them, now they can sell the product and then the bugfixed update (which will, of course, come with other new fixes and features so nobody can say they make people pay for the bugfix of a bug that never should have happened).

Could you please stop the conspiracy? My information is that the update will be free for all registered users.

Originally Posted by grond

I do appreciate your work. What I don't like is your attitude about how open-sourcing AmigaOS would be worse than the current situation.

This is a matter of taste, and a different discussion. Every development model has its merits and problems. If you are so single-sided, I'm sorry for you. I'm doing open source, closed source, depending on what the situation requires. This situation requires closed source.

But, see above, please be consistent: Open-source the vampire core. There are certainly talented people out there that want to contribute.

Gunnar doesn't want to? Well, that is an external constraint. Why, if you hate closed source so much, don't you pull yourself out of this development?

Same situation - you probably like it so much (and rightfully so) that you want to contribute no matter whether it is open or closed.

Originally Posted by grond

Of course, your constant out-of-context-ranting about the Vampire's lacking MMU, construction of how many unknown bad side-effect the reduced FPU precision of the Vampire might have, how your i5 is so much faster than a Vampire and so on was entirely positive criticism, right?

Excuse me, I haven't said a single time that this is a bad project, unlike Kolla who started a rant about whether this is "emulation" or not, a completely pointless discussion of creating noise and complaining for the terms of complaining.

It is absolutely not a bad project. It is probably the most stunning thing that happens, and I said that multiple times. I do not think that I said my i5 is faster (I don't even have one, only core2duos). Don't confuse me with Kolla. I fully understand that emulation cannot provide everything.

So, I'm sorry if you get this wrong, this is not intended. It is a bit disappointing that things do not move in a direction that would be useful for me, but such is live (or is it "control" of those who actually implement it? See above!)

Concerning the MMU: I told you (and others) that this makes the project unfortunately unsuitable for my use case, and I'm disappointed about it. I provided a minimum model (in terms of positive criticism) to Gunnar two years ago that is easier to implement than the fully fledged tree-based 68K MMU, and which would allow me to emulate everthing else needed to address my use case. I was ignored. If you try to make a contribution and are put down, then - you get negative feedback.

Concerning the FPU: Yes, if you want to do numerics, a partial limited FPU will have side effects and results may be different. But I also believe that I said (on amiga.org) that this is not such a major issue for me because I personally do not have a use case for it. Having a software trap for a full-fledged FPU emulation would certainly of advantage as it would allow you to apply it to even more use cases.

I believe I might have pointed you to a verification test for FPU precision, i.e. whether it satisfies the IEEE rounding guidelines (which do not come out of the dark). Did you go into this?

[grond]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

I do not think that I said my i5 is faster (I don't even have one, only core2duos).

Strange, here you clearly had an i5 equipped computer:

https://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread...ux#post1068672

And, due to the lousy search function of the a1k forum, I gave up searching after the first hit. I read your babble about your i5 many times.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

unlike Kolla who started a rant about whether this is "emulation" or not

I never did.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by gulliver

Signing an NDA is a pretty common practice in the software industry.

alright. so we are now in software industry. and it isnt any playful childish hobby anymore but a serious business by highest standards available and with all the formal consequences? remember that next time, when you bring up that it is just a good will initiative, very few people are doing in their spare time and none gets paid for it, therefore there are no responsibilities.

just reassures me not to let myself be talked into signing or taking part in anything alike. especially as if this was all just usual formalities with no practical consequences. and certainly i wouldnt pass such an argumentation to the public here and especially the potential volunteers.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by grond

Strange, here you clearly had an i5 equipped computer:

https://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread...ux#post1068672

And, due to the lousy search function of the a1k forum, I gave up searching after the first hit. I read your babble about your i5 many times.

to be honest, he doesnt say, he actually has an i5 there.

[SpeedGeek]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Out of the two options they are much better than CloneToo.

Really? An insolvent company which infringes on copyrights and trademarks, breaches a contract for financial gain, and then files a multi-party lawsuit claiming to be the victim is the better option? With that kind of thinking, the world is going to hell on a fast train...

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by wawa

to be honest, he doesnt say, he actually has an i5 there.

He wrote:
"Ach ja, mein Lappi mit i5 und Linux bootet schneller als der Amiga."
"By the way, my laptop with i5 and Linux is booting faster than the Amiga."

[Gorf]

You can still write software yourself. Who's stopping you, frankly? Don't like the shell? Write one.

Open Source Software is all about the benefits of NOT reinventing the wheel over an over again. It is about NOT having to write one peace of software again from the scratch only because you want to improve a minor detail in an existing solution.

You do know all that already, don’t you. But still you keep on making statements like this and accuse others of destructive rants

[grond]

Originally Posted by wawa

to be honest, he doesnt say, he actually has an i5 there.

"Ach ja, mein Lappi mit i5 und Linux bootet schneller als der Amiga."

=>

"Oh, btw, my laptop computer with i5 and linux boots faster than the Amiga."

EDIT: I should have refreshed before posting as I was interrupted and now Gorf had already written the relevant comment above.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Strange that *exactly you* bring the argument of things that things should remain untouched. Isn't change exactly what happens on a daily basis in OSS systems?

No, not at all, big changes are typically announced way ahead and there are typically long "grace periods" for transitioning from "old" to "new" methods. Also you may have heard of the concept "long time support" for those who dislike changes even more.

Now I dare to provide a new built-in shell feature such as pipes, and you make a ramble about it because you can no longer use an undocumented(!) inofficial(!) feature of Os 3.1 such as the PIPE command and two shell variables?

No, I complain about releasing a shell that breaks a well documented feature and quite necessary feature, reported to more or less official support forum more than two months ago, and still no fix in sight.

I complain about shell with experimental new features over the shell in 3.1, going straight to ROM and out in the wild, when it should have gone to L:Shell-Seg in the first place, for extended community testing.

I complain about using pipes in scripts producing requesters asking for "CONSOLE:", explained when I see how the new pipes are implemented.

I complain about the "digital download" of OS 3.1.4 not having any "release candidate" status at least for a few months before being burned to ROMs, sold and shipped.

I complain about Hyperion having a crazy software license agreement.

I complain about the new Norwegian locales being garbage, full of typos, mistakes and even Danish. I also complain about response I have received when offering to help with locales for both norsk bokmål and nynorsk.

I complain about not being able to resize windows beyond screen-size with intution.library v45, being told about usability issues that no-one seems able to demonstrate. I also complain a little about IControl prefs not being updated to turn off the "move outside screen" feature when intution.library v45 is present, and I asked about what other features Intution.library v45 offers, without getting any answer.

I complain about touting that CrossDOS is so much better than FAT95, when apparently, for many (maybe even most), it cannot replace FAT32. Being told that "nothing has changed since 3.1" and to "go read the OS 3.1 manual - this is an OS 3.1 upgrade!" (despite the OS being sold also to people who don't have OS 3.1 and/or manuals from earlier). Well, I have now quite thoroughly read Workbench 3.1 manual, chapter 11, dedicated to CrossDOS, and there is nothing about using CrossDOSFileSystem on anything else than floppy drives besides a mountlist entry for Zyquest drive (which did not have any magic letters). But being told "nothing has changed since 3.1" prompted me to look in the OS 3.1 sources ("gasp") and there it states quite clearly that MBR of MSDOS 4 and beyond, will not work. Correct? Outdated? I don't know.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by kolla

No, I complain about releasing a shell that breaks a well documented feature

As, for example, which? I mean, despite the one known bug. PIPE is not a documented feature, just to let you know.

Originally Posted by kolla

and quite necessary feature, reported to more or less official support forum more than two months ago, and still no fix in sight.

There is a fix. I don't make the timing. Are you in a hurry after waiting >10 years for an update?

Components are under test, we collect the bug requests receive, we fix them. It is *really* that simple. The update will be ready when it will be ready. If you want it earlier, become a beta-tester.

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about shell with experimental new features over the shell in 3.1, going straight to ROM and out in the wild, when it should have gone to L:Shell-Seg in the first place, for extended community testing.

You had a v45 shell in community testing for years...

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about using pipes in scripts producing requesters asking for "CONSOLE:",

...which contained exactly this as a bug, a bug the "community" did not detect. Funny that you complain about that *NOW*, despite that being part of old code you had years to test with.

Now what? A bit late, probably.

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about the "digital download" of OS 3.1.4 not having any "release candidate" status at least for a few months before being burned to ROMs, sold and shipped.

I have no idea what this means. There are no public release candidates. If you want a release candidate, become a beta tester.

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about Hyperion having a crazy software license agreement.

The reasoning for that stems from the legal quarrel. I guess you probably talk to Hyperion about that, despite that I don't get your point at all. Despite the usual...

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about the new Norwegian locales being garbage, full of typos, mistakes and even Danish.

I asked you to report the strings as bug report, and I got nothing. I'm happy to update and fix - or rather forward to the translator, but I cannot do without input. Positivie criticism? You could make a change - you just don't want to. Look in the mirror - there is the problem.

Originally Posted by kolla

I also complain about response I have received when offering to help with locales for both norsk bokmål and nynorsk.

I told you how this works. Sources under NDA, please send strings in clear text and our translators take care of it.

What's so complicated by opening an editor, type in the faulty string and suggest a better translation? Is that any worse than editing a catalog file?

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about not being able to resize windows beyond screen-size with intution.library v45

This is intentional. Otherwise, you could resize images such that you cannot reach the window controls anymore, so you would be "locked out" under circumstances.

So, as it stands, this is not a bug, but a feature request, and no, I'm against this feature as I foresee that this may have bad side effects. It is a completely minor, and also potentially risky feature I'm not taking in last minute because it might break last minute.

It is interesting that there is no "thanks that I can now drag windows out of the screen" instead. How come that you are so negative all the time. No "hurray, there is something new!".

Originally Posted by kolla

I also complain a little about IControl prefs not being updated to turn off the "move outside screen" feature when intution.library v45 is present,

So you make a feature request, not a complaint. No, intuition V45 does not have that. Development of intuition V45 was put on halt and it is still to decide how to continue with it. It would require an extension, and I'm not taking in new features now. 3.1.4 is feature-frozen at this point. Actually, since last June.

Originally Posted by kolla

and I asked about what other features Intution.library v45 offers, without getting any answer.

I don't know where you asked, but I can answer: Windows without coordinates given in the tags open under the mouse (the prefs editors do this under V45, you probably did not even notice), and opening the screen borders for windows. This question should have been better directed to the Amiga.org thread on 3.1.4 features. That's it. There is nothing new in V45 otherwise. Well, except that this is all a SAS/C source now, which was a change indeed. Development stopped after we found the compatibility issues with CGfx.

Originally Posted by kolla

I complain about touting that CrossDOS is so much better than FAT95, when apparently, for many (maybe even most), it cannot replace FAT32.

There is one (long standing) bug that stops it from working with big FATs that goes back in time since ever. Strangely, it did not strike me with the USB sticks and disk images I tested with. Whatever the cause why it worked under test, that feature is also fixed.

Originally Posted by kolla

But being told "nothing has changed since 3.1" prompted me to look in the OS 3.1 sources ("gasp") and there it states quite clearly that MBR of MSDOS 4 and beyond, will not work. Correct? Outdated? I don't know.

MSDOS 4 is FAT16. CrossDos can talk FAT32 now. I believe I wrote that clearly. There is nothing you need to do to run that on.

And, after all, what is your point? Yes, there are bugs indeed. Thank you, I know. Look how lousy we are, we make mistakes. Is that what you want to hear? Do you feel any better now? I hope you have helped. You are a great guy, you can find bugs. You would, seriously, make an excellent tester, just that you don't want to. Your decision.

I'm cleaning up now. It will be ready. You get it when it is ready, no strings attached.

After reading all that: Thanks for the bug reports, though they would have been better reported to Hyperion so they can fit them into the database such that there is a better overview on the issues. Actually, by pure chance, I have them now, and I took care of what I could take care of. That is, software problems. I cannot fix Norsk translations without external help, and I cannot do anything about licensing terms and the development model, and I don't add features into a feature-frozen development branch.

Frankly, I if I look behind all your complaints, I believe the issue is not really about the bugs. The issue is that you are, apparently, not happy with the way how software is developed here. You want more influence and contribute. That's all fair, and the door is open if you really want to (frankly, I doubt, but hey, here we go!). There is the NDA thing, but that's how it works - I cannot offer anything else beyond that because I'm not in the position of changing the rules.

Updates are bundled, and shipped as soon as they are considered to be successfully tested. This works different than in my "usual terms" where I just upload the next release to Aminet as soon as someone finds an issue. So yes, different model, different rules, different timing, probably not to your liking.

But if you don't like the model - why did you buy in first place, instead of, say, develop some open source software yourself?

[AMIGASYSTEM]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

This is intentional. Otherwise, you could resize images such that you cannot reach the window controls anymore, so you would be "locked out" under circumstances.

Sorry if I intervene, in my opinion the work of intuition V45 is incomplete, the windows on the left side can not be moved, regarding the width and length of the windows I do not find any problem with PowerWindows, see link video attached

http://eab.abime.net/zone/Test-%20PoweWindows.avi

[Gorf]

This is intentional. Otherwise, you could resize images such that you cannot reach the window controls anymore, so you would be "locked out" under circumstances.

How?

As AMIGASYSTEM pointed out I do not see how this could be happening - ever.
(Finder on MacOS allows this as well ... no problems)

P.S.: not really asking for that feature, but simply trying to understand the motivation for the restriction.

[OlafSch]

Originally Posted by Minuous

@Steril707:

No, it's not enough. I have zero interest in OS3.1 or any clone of it.

Hmmm

What are you doing here then?

[McTrinsic]

Well, why do you buy a product to complain about it? What’s more, you could have waited for reviews of other users. And you complain about a big that you have resolved.

And if you didn’t buy it then why complain.

Originally Posted by kolla

No, not at all, big changes are typically announced way ahead and there are typically long "grace periods" for transitioning from "old" to "new" methods. Also you may have heard of the concept "long time support" for those who dislike changes even more.



No, I complain about releasing a shell that breaks a well documented feature and quite necessary feature, reported to more or less official support forum more than two months ago, and still no fix in sight.

I complain about shell with experimental new features over the shell in 3.1, going straight to ROM and out in the wild, when it should have gone to L:Shell-Seg in the first place, for extended community testing.

I complain about using pipes in scripts producing requesters asking for "CONSOLE:", explained when I see how the new pipes are implemented.

I complain about the "digital download" of OS 3.1.4 not having any "release candidate" status at least for a few months before being burned to ROMs, sold and shipped.

I complain about Hyperion having a crazy software license agreement.

I complain about the new Norwegian locales being garbage, full of typos, mistakes and even Danish. I also complain about response I have received when offering to help with locales for both norsk bokmål and nynorsk.

I complain about not being able to resize windows beyond screen-size with intution.library v45, being told about usability issues that no-one seems able to demonstrate. I also complain a little about IControl prefs not being updated to turn off the "move outside screen" feature when intution.library v45 is present, and I asked about what other features Intution.library v45 offers, without getting any answer.

I complain about touting that CrossDOS is so much better than FAT95, when apparently, for many (maybe even most), it cannot replace FAT32. Being told that "nothing has changed since 3.1" and to "go read the OS 3.1 manual - this is an OS 3.1 upgrade!" (despite the OS being sold also to people who don't have OS 3.1 and/or manuals from earlier). Well, I have now quite thoroughly read Workbench 3.1 manual, chapter 11, dedicated to CrossDOS, and there is nothing about using CrossDOSFileSystem on anything else than floppy drives besides a mountlist entry for Zyquest drive (which did not have any magic letters). But being told "nothing has changed since 3.1" prompted me to look in the OS 3.1 sources ("gasp") and there it states quite clearly that MBR of MSDOS 4 and beyond, will not work. Correct? Outdated? I don't know.

[SpeedGeek]

Originally Posted by malko

Hmm... two sentences and already a personal attack. It promises good arguments from you .

WOW! If my suggestion that your English is not good enough to realize that two different words can have essentially the same meaning is a "Personal Attack" then anything I write here will most certainly offend you. So, Please don't read any further...

Originally Posted by malko

I really don't see what you want to show with a news taken from Hyperion's site. As a "juror" (how you call yourself) do you consider that a news taken from a commercial site has any legal value ?
I have heard that US right is different from CH right but... is it really that much ?

What kind of legal implication do you want to link to a "marketing announcement" posted on a commercial site as an announcement's sole purpose is to inspire the defined audience the wish to learn more and to get engaged with the product you want to sell.
Furthermore, what from this 2009 announcement do you consider relevant enough that can still apply in 2019 ? It's not a contract, it's not an signed agreement. It's a news posted in a commercial site.

Are there any customers who have been fooled by the 3.1.4 OS release regarding this 10 years old news ?

Just to mention two example, are you going to sue your favourite soda brand because it's refreshing only because you took it out of the fridge or merged it with ice-cubes ? or your favourite fast-food because what is in your tray is far from being identical with the nice and attractive picture that is behind the cash counter ?

Again, if US right is different, you are welcome to let me know.

Look at this one and tell me from which company it is (I have replaced a name by "xxx" to challenge you) :

BEAUTY, EXCELLENCE, EASE OF USE, POWER, PRODUCTIVITY, NEW FEATURES, UNIVERSE... whaaaaa...
So, what kind of legal implication do you want to link to that ? It's an announcement, it's marketing. No difference with the news you quoted.

Regarding marketing announcement, I quite like this citation which is attributed to a former French president :


So let's wait the jurors' decision (in their soul and conscience).

USA is certainly not the same as France (you got that right). A marketing announcement from 2009 is not a contract but can be considered as evidence in court of a parties understanding/interpretation of the contract they agreed to in 2009 but now dispute in 2019 (so you didn't get that right).

Yes, the jurors will decide this case, and they will consider the contract and all the evidence related to the conduct of the parties of the contract.

The customers who purchase OS 3.1.4 really don't care if it's legal or illegal, old or new, better or worse, more or less bugs, etc. They just want an update anyway they can possibly get it. So why do you expect them to be concerned with a marketing announcement?

[Minuous]

@OlafSch:

Maybe I should have been clearer: I am interested in the post-OS3.9 parts of OS3.1.4, just not in OS3.1(.0) and therefore AROS, just like I'm not really interested in developing or using, for example, OS1.1; they are obsolete and lacking in functionality.

[malko]

Originally Posted by SpeedGeek

USA is certainly not the same as France [...]

Oups, you didn't get that right... May I suggest that your geography is not good enough ? CH is close from FR but is not FR.
Neither is it SE, nor BE (which are statistically the countries most often referred to as CH by the US).
[ Show youtube player ] (filmed 6 month ago )

[...] A marketing announcement from 2009 is not a contract but can be considered as evidence in court of a parties understanding/interpretation of the contract they agreed to in 2009 but now dispute in 2019[...]

The lawyer can indeed add it as an exhibit to the file. Depending on the strength/weakness of his argument, put it forward more or less often.
However, the main evidence remains the agreement that the parties have signed and a news cannot have a prevalence over it.
Why ? Because it's a fact that it is difficult for non-lawyers to fully understand a contract/agreement. This is the reason why these things are written by lawyers in a specific format. You have to be used to these things and practice them.
So, at the end, in order for information to be accessible to everyone, complicated texts of agreements are shortened/adapted/rewritten, in a format that can be understood by the vast majority of people, and then posted in a news (a marketing announcement which corresponds to current priorities of the company).

[...] Yes, the jurors will decide this case, and they will consider the contract and all the evidence related to the conduct of the parties of the contract.[...]

Except that the news that you put forward is a non-exhaustive and simplified version of the terms present in the agreement.
Also no words were changed in the agreement during all this time, so it's not because, for whatever reasons (not the current strategy line, not enough resources, prevent people asking things, etc.), a party has announced/focused his work on a specific part of an agreement during many years that this same party cannot announce/focus his work on another part of the same agreement many years later.

Of course, all of this is purely theoretical and none of us are lawyer. Furthermore, as a non native UK speaker, I can easily misinterpret the meaning of a sentence, especially if it is written in a legal language...

Waiting the case to be decided, I will continue this nice retro-computing hobby .

Regarding the above link, maybe kids should be sent to the court as jurors .