What does the Amiga community need?

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by clebin

Do expect him to enforce the NDA to prevent those programmers working for Cloanto though.

That's assuming any of us wanted to work for Cloanto in the first place. I certainly don't.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by clebin

You know as well as I do that what you describe is a million miles away from open-source.

It's not open source, I do not claim that. All I'm saying is that if you want to develop for AmigaOs, you can.

Originally Posted by clebin

You're fine with that arrangement, but you can't expect everyone to be fine with it.

First, I am not an AmigaOs developer, I took a choice. You have a choice, too.

Originally Posted by clebin

And let's say Cloanto win the court-case and block sales and further development of OS 3.2.

Sounds silly stupid to me, more like an attempt to shoot in their on feet. But even if they would, existing installations will not vanish.

Originally Posted by clebin

Do not expect Ben Hermans to allow any of that work to be used by Cloanto or anyone else.

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. If Hyperion is bankrupt, the rights are at whoever manages the bankrupcy, so it wouldn't be up to Ben to decide. If there are rights... If not, why bother?

Originally Posted by clebin

In that scenario, you'll find it very difficult to defend your current viewpoint.

I'm not sure what you are implying. My view point is "it's not going to happen", and "I don't bother about open source", and "if you want, you can". So what's to defend here?


If you want to develop "open source", you can do that of course. Go AROS, that's fine with me, but please don't count on me. I would not expect that anything will go "open source" by anyone. AmigaOs was already a minefield when CBM left. With components such as the narrator.device or ARexx.

Originally Posted by clebin

There are other potential outcomes, but I think you're rather glossing over how precarious the legal situation is. Which is exactly why open-source is required. Deep down, I think you must know this.

By "required" you seem to imply that this would be somehow possible, with the original sources. I doubt that - "required for what"?. Also, you seem to believe that this is the only form of development, which I also doubt.


So, no matter what you seem to imply: This is not going to happen - not because "nobody wants it enough" but because "there are already more than enough problems", and this does not solve a single one. It creates just more problems - on the legal end, and on the application end.

[clebin]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

"required for what"?

For long-term sustainable development. For the security of any work that's put into the OS. Maybe you're settling for too little, given this:

Sounds silly stupid to me, more like an attempt to shoot in their on feet. But even if they would, existing installations will not vanish.

Oh, well that's ok then. /s

OS 3.2 could end up as a dead-end just like OS 3.9. All the post-Commodore source code lost forever, once again. Sorry, but there's no positive spin about existing installations. The devs have plans beyond 3.2 and this would be a truly terrible outcome.

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. If Hyperion is bankrupt, the rights are at whoever manages the bankrupcy, so it wouldn't be up to Ben to decide. If there are rights... If not, why bother?

There are potential outcomes which are very good for the Amiga community. I dearly hope that we see one of them.

I'm not sure what you are implying. My view point is "it's not going to happen", and "I don't bother about open source", and "if you want, you can". So what's to defend here?

The position of being the dog with the coffee in the burning room, saying "this is fine".

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by clebin

For long-term sustainable development.

Hold on, no. What is required for long-term sustainable development is a stable situation. "Open source" is just a development model, and it does not solve that. Rather, a stable situation would be required to even consider this model. You seem to confuse one with the other. The problem is there already, and it doesn't magically go away by "Open source". Rather the reverse, more problems would need to be solved.

Originally Posted by clebin

OS 3.2 could end up as a dead-end just like OS 3.9.

Not sure where the "dead part" is. 3.1.4 already included most of the contributions of 3.9 except reaction. That was solved in 3.2, so we are on-par again.

Originally Posted by clebin

All the post-Commodore source code lost forever, once again.

You are again confusing something. No *code* is lost. It's perfectly secure on subversion, with a new and revised build system even. The problem of "who owns the code" does not go away, no matter what the development model is, and *that* is the problem. Not the "is it open source" question.



You seem to believe that somehow, somewhat this problem is fixed, just by someone slamming "open source" on it. Quite the reverse. Solving this problem would be *required* to make it open source, but not even this problem, but even more problems, namely get nowadays the agreement of its contributers to make their contributions open source.


Instead of solving the problem, you are making the problem worse by dreaming an open-source dream.

Originally Posted by clebin

Sorry, but there's no positive spin about existing installations. The devs have plans beyond 3.2 and this would be a truly terrible outcome.

So why would Cloanto want that, and why would open source solve that? A clear stable situation solves that, and that *may* *potentially* allow open source - in this order.

Originally Posted by clebin

The position of being the dog with the coffee in the burning room, saying "this is fine".

But that's all I can do with the situation we have. Four years ago, many people complained that "AmigaOs for 68K was taken hostabe by Hyperion", and "we need some development on 68K". Now, some development is happing. On AmigaOs, on P96, on many other projects. I would call this "quite an improvement". Compare that to what all the "But I want it open source!" people achieved.


The situation is certainly far from perfect, but there is something in the hand of the users. If you want to help working on AmigaOs, there is something concrete you can do. Or lament about open source. Well?

[clebin]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

But that's all I can do with the situation we have. Four years ago, many people complained that "AmigaOs for 68K was taken hostabe by Hyperion", and "we need some development on 68K". Now, some development is happing. On AmigaOs, on P96, on many other projects. I would call this "quite an improvement". Compare that to what all the "But I want it open source!" people achieved.

They built AROS. And if more people had supported AROS over the last 20 years, instead of saying "we've got OS 3.9, it's fine.", "we've got Amithlon", "we've got OS 4" etc etc they'd have achieved a lot more. Instead the majority stuck with the proprietary stuff until they got screwed over or frustrated, and left the Amiga scene.

That's the point - not the specifics of what is open-sourced and how, but how open-source would helped the Amiga community. That doesn't have to mean a rainbows and unicorns pipe-dream. This thread was "what does the Amiga need", someone piped up with this perfectly valid opinion about the need for open-source and you completely dismissed it, saying that there's no need for this aspiration as what we have is fine. That's what I object to.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by clebin

They built AROS.

Fine for them if they want to. Not my taste.... However, if you think this is the way to go, by all means, do.

Originally Posted by clebin

And if more people had supported AROS over the last 20 years...

And if a lot more people had supported AmigaOs in the last 20 years... Now, what? "Open source" is not a requirement for that. Personal engangement is.

Originally Posted by clebin

That's the point - not the specifics of what is open-sourced and how, but how open-source would helped the Amiga community.

Indeed. Doing something helps - and the 3.2 Devs do, and I also do.

Originally Posted by clebin

That doesn't have to mean a rainbows and unicorns pipe-dream. This thread was "what does the Amiga need", someone piped up with this perfectly valid opinion about the need for open-source and you completely dismissed it,

Correct, because "open source" does not solve anything. That's a choice of a development model. Getting something concrete done does. So - if that's AROS for you? Fine with me. Instead of lamenting, go do something.


Hence: What the Amiga "community" needs is not "open source", but "people that do instead of talk".
See the difference?

[Radertified]

What does the Amiga community need?

Less fighting. Accept that everyone has differing opinions on what the Amiga is and how it should continue.

[clebin]

Originally Posted by Radertified

What does the Amiga community need?

Less fighting. Accept that everyone has differing opinions on what the Amiga is and how it should continue.

Hehe. Yes.

[clebin]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Hence: What the Amiga "community" needs is not "open source", but "people that do instead of talk".
See the difference?

That’s not the same discussion that we’ve been having. I don’t disagree though and I salute you for your work, I really do.

[Thomas Richter]

No, it's not. It was "what do you actually want", and all I personally want is just a stable system that is close to 3.1, mildly updated, for an interesting museum piece with museum software. I already have an open source Os on much capable hardware, thank you, I don't need another less capable system on less capable hardware.

But, again, that's all your choice provided you respect the rights and the will of other developers.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Hence: What the Amiga "community" needs is not "open source", but "people that do instead of talk".
See the difference?

I agree with clebin about open source in general, hence my "magic wand" remark on page one of this thread.

But I'm not here to argue about that. I got triggered by your overuse of one of my pet peeves, which is that old "go do something" chestnut. It pops up occasionally in similar arguments and is really getting my dander up for the virtue of being extremely obstinate and unreasonable.

Because the obvious implication is that old gits such as myself, who usually have some sort of rather busy family/work life and very little time for the hobby itself as it is, should suddenly drop everything and spend a few years learning coding/design/electronics/etc skills, so they can stop "lamenting" and contribute to some stuff. Stuff which folks like you have talent for and often a lifetime of experience with. It's a totally feasible, making sense scenario, right?

I'm sorry, but it's just not going to happen, which is something that you and others using this tedious "argument" know perfectly well. But it also doesn't mean we somehow should lose the right to voice an opinion on a given subject. People contribute to the scene in various ways. Some work on other projects, some spend money, some give feedback, whatever... some don't even do anything but "lament" on forums - and guess what, that's perfectly fine too. It takes all sorts, etc...

[saimon69]

@dreadnought

You forgot that when you actually contribute same people that complain will 5h17 all over your contribution because does not fit their very high standards of coding/result/quality/etc.

But still, i continue to endorse the existence of AROS and its 68k incarnation as plan 'z' if the IP disputes reach a deadlock and to have something that 'kinda work' but cannot be stopped by lawyers that easily; we cannot use the Amiga name of course but for the rest should be clean