What's the deal with NG Amiga OS's?

[Daedalus]

Eh? I thought Blackberry had ditched QNX in favour of Android as a last-ditch effort to save the company... They might still support their QNX phones, but I don't think it's doing anything to keep them alive.

Edit: Yep, current lineup seems to be all Android: https://blackberrymobile.com/uk

[Gorf]

No Blackberry ditched phones - they only let others sell Android phones in their name.

What Blackberry offers and where they earn some money are mainly two things:
1) Emails, messaging and communication service solutions for companies.
2) embedded and automotive solutions (QNX)

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Gorf

In deed it makes almost in any case more sense to keep it open.
And that is why all AmigaOS-like operating systems should be open source

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

Definition of "Operating Sytem":

1. the low-level software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks and controlling peripherals.

Wikipedia:
"An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs."

The operating system provides a well-defined interface to device drivers and application code, so there should be no reason to screw around with or even look at the source code. If you want to 'port' an OS to incompatible hardware then you should only have to reproduce the interface, not the underlying code (which would probably have to be highly modified anyway).

Making the OS open source just encourages lazy developers to create dozens of buggy versions that are not compatible with each other - for no good reason. Things are bad enough now, but just imagine a dozen different versions of AmigaOS4 tweaked to suit the whims of their makers, all with subtly different interfaces and bugs that make running applications on them a nightmare and developing software even worse.

IMO the main problem with modern OS's is that they try to do too much. Far from just being 'the low-level software that supports basic functions such as scheduling tasks and controlling peripherals' they now include multiple GUI frameworks, scripting languages, compilers and utilities that should be OS-agnostic applications. Then lazy developers hook into all this stuff, creating a mess of interacting dependancies that are difficult to work with and impossible to eliminate.

The OS should be like the hardware - immutable, reliable, and a closed box as far as user interaction and software development is concerned. Open source goes against these principles. Open source will make the Amiga market even more fragmented than it is now. Open source will make it even harder for developers to produce code for different Amiga and 'AmigaOS-like' platforms.

Open source does have some theoretical advantages, but are they in practice?

1. "It's Free!" Most users don't have the time, patience or skill to compile from source, and the equipment to do it may not be cheap either. If you are limited to running a pre-packaged OS then it might as well be closed source (which can still be "Free").

2. "I can tweak it to suit my requirements". See 1. (and a good OS should be sufficiently accessable that you can 'tweak' whatever you want without modifying the source code).

3. "Open source is more reliable because anyone can find and fix bugs in it". But not just 'anyone', and maybe this produces more bugs as too many hands get at it.

2. "Open source will be developed faster and further because more people can contribute". 20 years later...

Note: I am not against open source - all my hardware and software projects are. But an OS is more than just a project, it's a platform that needs to be solid and reliable and stable to attract the development required for widespread adoption. And that requires a dedicated team of developers who receive sufficient incentive to do the job properly - which is why I would rather pay for a solidly backed proprietry OS than advocate for an open source replacement.

[Gorf]

IMO the main problem with modern OS's is that they try to do too much. Far from just being 'the low-level software that supports basic functions such as scheduling tasks and controlling peripherals' they now include multiple GUI frameworks, scripting languages, compilers and utilities that should be OS-agnostic applications. Then lazy developers hook into all this stuff, creating a mess of interacting dependancies that are difficult to work with and impossible to eliminate.

This is quite true.
(And we have to admit, that e.g. apple is doing no bad job here: the os is streamlined down to one API (old ones get deprecated fast), one GUI and one IDE and so on...)

Making the OS open source just encourages lazy developers to create dozens of buggy versions that are not compatible with each other - for no good reason.

That is always the first argument contra OSS...
But still there is just one Linux, which is open source, and three closed source variants of AmigaOS (3.x, 4.x, MOS)
So it seems, that is not what happens in reality.

The OS should be like the hardware - immutable, reliable, and a closed box as far as user interaction

Nope. That is a poisoned approach.
You can only do that, if you have
a) a company with a lot of money and enough developers
b) access and rights to all pars of your OS

But we don't - we need be able to adjust the os to new hardware, new architectures, multicore etc.
And only AROS provides some of these adjustments and it only does because it is open source!
It could use the capable OS-programmers, that are wasting their talent with old PPC hardware...

If you have no huge in house developer army, you need all the hobby developers have a look inside - let them see how the OS works, let them play around, let them find an fix bugs and make improvements ...

1. "It's Free!" Most users don't have the time, patience or skill to compile from source, and the equipment to do it may not be cheap either. If you are limited to running a pre-packaged OS then it might as well be closed source (which can still be "Free").

It is not the users we need - we need developer, developers, developers!
And for them we need a platform that is fun to play around with without signing any NDAs or worse.

2. "I can tweak it .....

It is not about tweaking, but about fixing bugs, adjustment to new hardware and new concepts.

3. "Open source is more reliable because anyone can find and fix bugs in it". But not just 'anyone', and maybe this produces more bugs as too many hands get at it.

At least someone can try!
We have countless abandoned closed source programs, nobody can fix or even port to MOS or Aros.
And for 3.x there are so many patches and tweaks around you could fill a book.
So it is closed source, but still all the bad things are happening!

4. "Open source will be developed faster and further because more people can contribute". 20 years later...

It became true. Linux has won. It is installed on far more devices than any other operating system and supports a wider range of hardware than any other OS.

But an OS is more than just a project, it's a platform that needs to be solid and reliable and stable to attract the development required for widespread adoption. And that requires a dedicated team of developers who receive sufficient incentive to do the job properly

But that is NOT possible for any Amiga-like OS. There is not enough money involved - not by far!!
The only chance is open source.
Hyperion and the MOS-Team are wasting precious time, instead of joining forces with AROS.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by Minuous

Just what I said, support for the features of OS3.5/3.9, eg. the V44+ API calls. ReAction is of course a part of the "actual APIs". Just because it isn't in OS3.1 has nothing to do with it. GadTools, ASL, locale.library, BOOPSI itself, etc. were not in AmigaOS once, that doesn't mean anything.

here you go again with your beloved "reaction" argument. aros is open. if it lacks anything to complete your picture you can add it. if its too bothersome then let it be.

the advantages and handicaps between aros and different versions of genuine amiga os or other offshots do not overlap, thats given. but fyi: as we speak aros is getting a lot of update particularly in m68k area. thats simply the labour of interest, not necessarily love, so the involved direct the course it takes.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by plasmab

The copyright owners aren’t interested in making money. It’s a trophy. “I own Amiga” etc. It will never be open. As much as I’d like it to be

thats my suspicion as well. i also (almost) share the opinion one should be fine with what commodore gave us in terms of hardware and software. at least as common denominator. everything beyond that should be considered an experimental option. that icludes aros (on amiga-m68k or elsewhere), os4, morphos, vampire, uae, terrible fire accelerators or whatever we work on. i dont think it dimnishes achievements in these areas.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Gorf

No Blackberry ditched phones - they only let others sell Android phones in their name.

What Blackberry offers and where they earn some money are mainly two things:
1) Emails, messaging and communication service solutions for companies.
2) embedded and automotive solutions (QNX)

Ah, gotcha. So QNX is really just their life support at this point.

[kolla]

Originally Posted by OlafSch

Did not test Reaction because closed source but assume it would too.

Hereby confirmed, Reaction prefs and OS3.9 HDToolbox run just fine on AROS/68k.

[kolla]

Other things working with AROS/68k, are Toni's pfs3aio, ThoR's LoadModule and PererK's icon.library. And Directory Opus Magellan 5.91 of course.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Gorf

It became true. Linux has won. It is installed on far more devices than any other operating system and supports a wider range of hardware than any other OS.

Desktop PC OS market share
Windows 82%
OSX 13%
Linux 1.6%

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Desktop PC OS market share
Windows 82%
OSX 13%
Linux 1.6%

So?
The desktop is dead....

By the way: Minix is now preinstalled on every new Intel mainboard as part of the ME.

As I wrote, Linux (and other open source software) is installed on far more devices: phones, tablets, servers, all supercomputers in the Top100, microcontrollers ....

It outnumbers MS and Apple in numbers of devices as well as in numbers of platform as well as in diversity of functionality.

So open source software definitively proved to be the more successful approach.

[tero]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Desktop PC OS market share
Windows 82%
OSX 13%
Linux 1.6%

And how many of them have dual-boot Linux/windows? And to which percentage is windows the mainsystem?
Never trust statistics.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by tero

And how many of them have dual-boot Linux/windows? And to which percentage is windows the mainsystem?
Never trust statistics.

Especially when they don't support your narrative.

Originally Posted by Gorf

The desktop is dead....

No, it isn't.

Linux (and other open source software) is installed on far more devices: phones, tablets, servers, all supercomputers in the Top100, microcontrollers ....

Only a few 'System-On-Chip' microcontrollers are capable of running Linux properly (you can run Linux on an 8 bit AVR, but only as a joke). And the phones and tablets are actually running Android or Chrome OS which are produced by Google, not a bunch of amateurs doing it in their spare time (the core OS itself may be 'open source' but Google makes a lot of money out of deploying it).

But this is all irrelevant because I was talking about Amiga operating systems. Where Linux has managed to get in 27 years (with a huge community and the backing of many big players) is irrelevant to our market. We don't have a Google or IBM to fund development of Amiga OS, just a tiny group of enthusiasts wasting their time on a dead platform. AROS has been in development for 23 years and still not even equaling classic Amiga OS, let alone surpassing it. It only took Commodore a few years to develop the original Amiga OS from scratch, so what's taking them so long? The obvious answer is:- no financial incentive.

In the 90's many of us spent thousands on Amiga hardware and software because we had to if we wanted it. The situation is still the same today. We need to support the few people who are willing to put in the effort required to produce commercial quality stuff, and that means not expecting them to give it away for free.

[Samurai_Crow]

@Bruce Abbott

Your synopsis of AROS is slightly flawed in two ways: There are bounties to support the addition of new features to AROS but not to write full documentation or debugging. The main lack in AROS compared to AmigaOS 3.1 is chipset support because it was designed to run on systems with graphics cards and sound cards from day one while AROS 68k didn't arrive until a few years ago and therefore was not a priority to support a real Amiga.

[utri007]

It is allways annoying, when people discuss what others should do with their time and property.

It is allways bit annoying when people dream some kind of comeback of Amiga computers.

Amiga OS is hobby OS, nothing more nothing less, it woun't ever again be mainstream OS.

Just be happy what you have and support your favorite OS.

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Desktop PC OS market share
Windows 82%
OSX 13%
Linux 1.6%

But who uses desktops these days. Give me the desktop vs tables numbers.

[wawa]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

AROS has been in development for 23 years and still not even equaling classic Amiga OS, let alone surpassing it.

i just for the first time isntalled aros pc version along with odyssey web browser "natively" in vmware player. and im baffled myself. next time i will come over here browsing and posting from it. it doesnt really fall far behind opera im now on or whatever i would be using otherwise.

so please be my guest and do that with your plain os3.1, which by the way i really like, if you insist that aros doesnt even catch up with it.

(note that im working on compiling odyssey for ppc and m68k as well, which both already works, just the binaries dont yet fully take off on both platforms)

[puppypc]

Originally Posted by plasmab

But who uses desktops these days. Give me the desktop vs tables numbers.

please, plasmab. do research for yourself. Marketshare is still 75% desk users, and only 20% table users with the other 5% resting the entire PC case, keyboard, and monitor on their laps.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

No, it isn't.

desktop PC market is globally declining --> "It's dead, Jim!"

Only a few 'System-On-Chip' microcontrollers are capable of running Linux properly

Most micro controllers aren't 8bit anymore.

But this is all irrelevant because I was talking about Amiga operating systems.

where open source is even more important, due to overall less developers and only marginal involvement of businesses.

We don't have a Google or IBM to fund development of Amiga OS, just a tiny group of enthusiasts wasting their time on a dead platform.

So it is crucial that they all start to come together, and join forces in an open project.

AROS has been in development for 23 years and still not even equaling classic Amiga OS, let alone surpassing it.

It surpasses it in terms of supported platforms, memory protection and multiprocessing.

It only took Commodore a few years to develop the original Amiga OS from scratch, so what's taking them so long? The obvious answer is:- no financial incentive.

and what is taking MOS and AOS4 so long? No drivers, only outdated architectures, no multicore ....
Right: there is also no money!
So a closed source approach makes obviously even less sense.

In the 90's many of us spent thousands on Amiga hardware and software because we had to if we wanted it. The situation is still the same today.

People spending thousands on overpriced and totally outdated PPC hardware with lacking driver support ... instead of supporting open software, that runs on modern hardware.
Yes: sadly not much has changed.

We need to support the few people who are willing to put in the effort required to produce commercial quality stuff, and that means not expecting them to give it away for free.

That is why you should support AROS developers by e.g. bounties or direct donations.

(If you find over 2000 people, that are willing to spend 2k to 3k per OS-license, than we can start to talk about "commercial quality stuff" - but even than it is no sustainable business model)

[plasmab]

Originally Posted by puppypc

please, plasmab. do research for yourself. Marketshare is still 75% desk users, and only 20% table users with the other 5% resting the entire PC case, keyboard, and monitor on their laps.

Not sure how much I trust the numbers I see quoted. But Maybe. But Microsoft laid off 18000! Programmers... and I don’t see there being a lot of desktop uptake in future. It’s got a long way to go but desktop is circling the drain.