QNX or something different?

Bruce,

Stop accusing me of things I did not say, think or thought. In most of your messages I see a pattern where you respond to something I write, interpret it in a certain, mostly negative way and then attack me with that.

1) I never said, thought, imagined, insinuated that I would like to steal/use/copy code from QNX as source for another OS. Thats your interpretation and you attack me with that, questioning my morals and ethics. You simply took your interpretation as reality.
2) 'Oh, and "BSD is bloated so ..... alternative"' can only be interpreted as a negative attack on me. If you look at the BSD kernel or the Linux kernel, there is a lot of code that is used to manage diversity in hardware. On Amiga there is almost no diversity so you won't need a kernel that scans for an SCSI/IDE controller. Amiga has IDE. You don't need to scan for VGA, amiga does not have that. So code that seeks for stuff not in an Amiga can be considered bloat. It does not add value for you. If you want optimised code: bloat is not what you seek.
3) you are putting words in my mouth and then demand I explain myself. I Never said legacy is bad. Thats what you make of it, but I must justify myself. Otherwise you wouldn't ask "why.... ?".
4) I never thought hardware would be more performant with an optimised OS. No system will run 1 hz faster because of optimised code (perhaps its different with FPGA code, I don't know) but optimised performs faster because of smaller code or smarter algorithms.

So in short, respond to what you read, not to what you think I wanted to write. Thank you.

[BippyM]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Perhaps because of this?

Strange that somebody would have that attitude towards Amiga OS, then suggest using 'leaked' QNX code.

Oh, and "BSD is bloated so that's no alternative".

Where did he suggest using leaked code?

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Syntrax

2) 'Oh, and "BSD is bloated so ..... alternative"' can only be interpreted as a negative attack on me. If you look at the BSD kernel or the Linux kernel, there is a lot of code that is used to manage diversity in hardware. On Amiga there is almost no diversity so you won't need a kernel that scans for an SCSI/IDE controller. Amiga has IDE. You don't need to scan for VGA, amiga does not have that. So code that seeks for stuff not in an Amiga can be considered bloat. It does not add value for you. If you want optimised code: bloat is not what you seek.

For clarity, you said:

Linux/BSD is bloated so that's no alternative.

But Amiga has many different SCSI and IDE controllers, or are you wanting to ditch support for them because it's bloated? Similarly, you talk about "modern" solutions having things like RTG, but then you say that supporting VGA controllers is bloated. This is why you should make more of an effort to describe what you actually want, because it doesn't really seem like you know that yourself. The BSD and Linux releases for the Amiga are already stripped of support for hardware that doesn't exist, but they do include support for many different peripherals that do exist, even if your own Amiga doesn't have them.

Much of the perceived *ix bloat comes from a different approach to handling everything through a memory-protected model. This has a significant overhead on slower CPUs, but any alternative is likely to take a similar approach, including QNX. A single, shared memory map for all applications is one of the risks of the Amiga OS that you want to get rid of if you're building a new OS from scratch.

3) you are putting words in my mouth and then demand I explain myself. I Never said legacy is bad. Thats what you make of it, but I must justify myself. Otherwise you wouldn't ask "why.... ?".

Well, you did say this:

Aros uses Amiga API's which puts it at risk and has the legacy of an 30 years old OS, developed on limited hardware.

Are you trying to say that the risk from the Amiga API isn't a negative thing? You're talking about a "modern" OS but you want it to still run on Amiga hardware, which you yourself say is "limited"... Is that not a negative thing?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by BippyM

Where did he suggest using leaked code?

Originally Posted by Syntrax

QNX or something different?

Has the code for QNX been leaked of [sic] were there only nice screenshots for Amiga?

Syntrax expressed an interest in running QNX on Amiga hardware. Syntrax asked if the code for it has been 'leaked'. What other conclusion was I to draw?

[stevelord]

Originally Posted by Syntrax

On Amiga there is almost no diversity so you won't need a kernel that scans for an SCSI/IDE controller. Amiga has IDE. You don't need to scan for VGA, amiga does not have that. So code that seeks for stuff not in an Amiga can be considered bloat. It does not add value for you. If you want optimised code: bloat is not what you seek.

Putting aside the many Amiga IDE implementations, Amiga support for VGA (connectors, modes, output, chipsets etc) bloat doesn't come from including drivers for hardware you don't have. NetBSD (and other modern OSes) probe for hardware and load drivers at boot and when needed.


If you feel like you're being attacked it's probably worth asking yourself why that might be.

[Thomas Richter]

Actually, AmigaOs has a lot of bloat if it comes to graphics.This is due to poor design decisions that have been made in the beginning, and it was a big attempt to work around them. If you look into graphics, then all the GfxAssociate() nonsense is only there because Amiga documented structures like ViewPort, View, RasInfo, etc... Thus, to extend these structures, graphics adds another software abstraction layer around that.

Then, RTG came along, and essentially re-implements many of the core-level functionalities of graphics *just again*. IOWs, an Amiga running on a graphics card carries two levels of bloat around. A wrapper around legacy software structures, and another RTG layer around the native graphics system. Essentially, some functions are duplicated in the system, native graphics, and RTG graphics yet again.

In the end, RTG is still faster than the blitter, but if you want to point at bloat, don't point to NetBSD. Point to "poor software engineering" in AmigaOs.

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Syntrax expressed an interest in running QNX on Amiga hardware. Syntrax asked if the code for it has been 'leaked'. What other conclusion was I to draw?

I agree, "leaked" is the wrong word. But you persist in keeping the interpretation that code is source code. Again: your interpretation.

Running an operating system does not equate to stealing/copying or using parts of the operating system as a source for a new OS. You jumped too the conclusion that I would steal/copy or use the code of QNX as source for a new OS, just because it is an example, or because "just trying it" could have been fun. Thats you're conclusion and you attacked me with that. What you could have thought? Well how about ASK. You skipped that because you already figured out, what I was thinking. Not. Jumping to conclusions.

@Daedalus, If BSD / Linux on 68K has been stripped, I stand corrected. My point being, that sarcasm is not required. Just a good argument.

The Amiga API is a legal mine field, that is a risk, sure. Whether it is bad or not depends on what you hope to achieve. Is running a more modern operating system on Amiga which limits it from a technical perspective a negative thing. No. If I wanted 4 GHZ performance on 5 monitors, I would use my PC for that. Amiga software regardless of the OS will always be limited by the hardware. You know that when you start a 30 year old machine.

@stevelord, that question is a lousy way of saying: you caused it yourself, that's how it reflects on me. It's ignoring that where two people have an argument, two people are to blame because you can also try to understand the other.

I've been trying to stay polite and correct. If you've got a better argument, sure "you win". My point stays: contrary to Bruce's statement I never intended, wrote, said, insinuated, thought to use QNX source code or Binary code as a start for an alternative operating system, so his argumentation about my questionable ethics stems from his idea of what I thought, not what I really thought.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Syntrax

The Amiga API is a legal mine field, that is a risk, sure. Whether it is bad or not depends on what you hope to achieve. Is running a more modern operating system on Amiga which limits it from a technical perspective a negative thing. No. If I wanted 4 GHZ performance on 5 monitors, I would use my PC for that. Amiga software regardless of the OS will always be limited by the hardware. You know that when you start a 30 year old machine.

An API isn't a legal minefield; it's the trademarks and IP that are the Amiga issues. You're the one with the mysterious goals, so I'm assuming you perceive this risk as negative? And following from that, you're saying legacy is a negative thing?

Again, what is it that you're looking for? It sounds like you want a modern OS on modern hardware, yet still running it on Amiga hardware. Why would this hypothetical modern OS and software not be limited by being made to run on the very same hardware that limits Amiga software?

[BippyM]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Syntrax expressed an interest in running QNX on Amiga hardware. Syntrax asked if the code for it has been 'leaked'. What other conclusion was I to draw?

You're actually wrong. He has asked a question, and nothing more!

[stevelord]

Originally Posted by Syntrax

@stevelord, that question is a lousy way of saying: you caused it yourself, that's how it reflects on me.

No. You're not really being attacked as such. You're just coming out with a lot of stuff with no understanding of the subject matter. Instead of going, "Ah, right, my bad" you're doubling down and arguing semantics with people. That's why people are calling you out for it. Try not doing that on other threads. You'll get better results.



In answer to your original question source code roughly from the period is available from when QNX open sourced, but that was after all the talk of QNX on Amiga. Not an Amiga-specific version, but there should be some backups from the time knocking around online and there was probably some point some support for ColdFire. You might be able to sneak it out from the QNX svn if you can get access.


Jope mentioned what happened with binary code, so I don't need to repeat it.