| From: | Matt Sealey |
| Date: | 22 Apr 2001 at 22:52:38 |
| Subject: | Re: Common misconception (was Re: Voyager Image Decoders) |
Hello Andy
On 22-Apr-01, you wrote:
> Hello Steve
>
> On 22-Apr-01, you wrote:
>
>> In all honesty, I put 2+2 together and came up with 3.999999 i.e. pretty
>> damned close, which is where I understand MorphOS becoming AmigaOS
>> was.....until something changed that picture...
>
> For a start I honestly didn't think Amiga Inc. were interseted in the
> current OS, and I thought a PPC version would ever happen. Secondly I
> didn't think that Amiga would want to have anything to do with the morphOS
> team, after certain members' behaviour in public.
>
> It's really frustrating, theres this little gang, Vapor, MorphOS, MUI and
> some others, they're some of the most talented people in the entire
> computer market, and yet they go about acting like arrogant so-and-so's
> bitching about all over the place.
Hey. No way to talk about people like that. Learn the truth: it's H&P that are
the arrogant so-and-so's, and in fact the instigators of ever hostility
between MorphOS, Vapor, MUI and some others.
Just ask yourself.. who ripped off Ralph Schmidt's kernel and leveraged it
to create a new solution in an attempt to gain control over a software
market?
Who managed to buy distribution rights to NetConnect without consent
from the people who wrote and own 99.9% of the software? The same
for appp.device. The same for Genesis. I believe the latter case is still
ongoing, the former resolved only after months of shouting and crap
from H&P, and the first only because the owners really have better
things to be getting on with, like software development.
> Personally I don't rate H&P, I think they've cause more problems than their
> worth, but all this backstabbing and politics isn't helping anyone.
What backstabbing and politics? When someone is offering you a solution,
you do not say "oh, we'll test it and support it" and then write your OWN
solution that replaces their's using their development hardware.
> One thing I can't understand is that *IF* the MorphOS solution was
> technically superior then why didn't Amiga go for them?
Because - and this is the truth - H&P took Amiga to one side and
convinced them otherwise. Amiga asked MorphOS if they'd consider
it, but they'd have to work with H&P. MorphOS refused in the grounds
that they couldn't work with H&P under any circumstances.
If someone stole your puppy a few years back, then made friends
with your wife, they ran off together, and then said "you can have
the puppy back as long as I get to keep boning the wife", you'd
find it unacceptable too.
The fact is: H&P don't do any work on the OS that isn't inherently
replacable by any other developer on the planet, or actually DONE
by some other developer. Why do Amiga need them? Friendship, they
think keeping the linchpins of the market (developers) close to them
should they slip.
>> For quickest time to market and probably the best solution...only MorphOS
>> really makes any sense...who here believes 4.0, 4.2 will be on time,
>> development cycles being what they are?
>
> I honestly don't know. Nobody knows how much work had been done already.
> Seeing as the big deal is the ExecPPC, a 68K emulator which H&P has been
> reportedly been working on for some time (weren't the P5 G4's supposed to
> use it?) A lot of it could be done already, then again, maybe not.
The phase5 G4's and AmiJoe cards were apparently going to run something in
the vein of MorphOS - either an AmigaOS clone outright coded in-house (like
a commercial AROS), or some kind of emulation layer.. but nothing to do with
Haage & Partner. Remember MorphOS has been in development since before
Gateway even rumoured OS3.5.
ExecPPC has not been "running for some time" in any form except WarpOS
which has enough patches to exec.library to make a difference. The 68k
emulator is known to be lacklustre in performance terms compared to that
of MorphOS (which can hit 68060 speeds if it tries, H&P were going
on about how a G4 would be required to make that cmfortable level)
Thanks
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/