Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 1st May 2005 18:37 UTC
Morphos MorphOS version 1.4.5 is now available. This is hopefully the last bugfix update before the next full release, and solves many bugs and problems with the previous releases.
Order by: Score:
great
by 2501 on Sun 1st May 2005 19:14 UTC

it seems that morphos is doing a A LOT BETTER than Amiga. the amiga east show was cancelled because lack of money. MorphOS community continues growing and Amiga still silent. I think MorphOs will replace Amiga OS. Even BeOS is making a comeback from the ashes.

it is nice to see other alternatives besides Mac and Windows.

-2501

Hmm....
by Brostenen on Sun 1st May 2005 19:26 UTC

Only a month with 1.4.4

This is telling me that they are not trying to release bugfree software for the masses... (basically in the same alley as windows).

Hopefully Amiga OS 4 will be free of the same amount of bugs as other systems....

Re: great
by Don Cox on Sun 1st May 2005 19:37 UTC

I think it is possible to be pleased that MorphOS is making progress without making nasty comments about other OSes.

It is indeed nice to see alternatives. Choice is good.

v That's a shame
by Nate on Sun 1st May 2005 19:42 UTC
v RE:That's a shame
by Eugenia on Sun 1st May 2005 19:44 UTC
v Disgruntled employees don't make something illegal
by MacTO on Sun 1st May 2005 19:47 UTC
A little note!
by Anonymous on Sun 1st May 2005 20:00 UTC

Please accept my pardon but for people interested in the old Amiga spirit take my advise.

Stay away from it as much as you can.

While MorphOS indeed is a very nice and promising Operating System with some Amiga spirit, it otoh went through a lot of problems in the recent past which caused plenty of users and developers to resign due to bad organization, eliteist attitude towards the community, lack of help or documentation in regard of development and problems getting the source codes of the open source parts used inside the Operating System.

On request the responsie is that the code has magically disappeared, got lost, got deleted or needs further polish or simply where the request for it is being ignored or turned into a flame fest which ends up like you would be the cause of trouble or want to kill off MorphOS.

Like me there was plenty of people outside who heard about MorphOS and though that it might be the big comeback of the Amiga but the close source aspect of this Operating System and the tiny niche market it serves only raises the question of a developer whether support returns a good ROI, quite questionable because there where big problems inside the development team that caused some key members to leave the boat.

The time for MorphOS was better imo when GENESI still had something to say about it (I want to speak out my thanks to Bill Buck and Raquel Velasco here) the Operating System with the Hardware was quite a promising way forward but all the trouble inside this eliteist, highly inflamatory, insulting community even caused them to look elsewhere for better marketing of the product so they chose Linux as logical consequences.

I don't want to make MorphOS look bad, no it definately isn't, the aim of this tiny and really fast Operating System is quite good and it was about damn time that someone continued with the Amiga somehow. But I also want to warn interested people that the source of many included components might be of question, that problems that used to happen can easily come back again and people involved in the Amiga community can be of true damage to your health.

If you want to spent your money on the Pegasos computer the please do so, it is really a fine machine and together with Linux or MOL (Tiger) it simply kicks arse. Make yourself know that you'd better keep looking out for a more promising Operating System, one that is supported by a large community of developers, where you can get the sources for, where you feel home and enjoy the fun.

Thank you very much for your time spent reading this. Whatever you want to make out of this advise is up to you, stay tuned.

RE:Hmm....
by uteck on Sun 1st May 2005 20:04 UTC

You are bit overly critical of them. Having a bigfix this early means that they need a better beta process with more diverse users and hardware. It is a good thing they got one out so soon as it proves that they are capable of fixing bugs in a timely manner.

Would you rather have them wait 6 month to issue a fix? Cranking out an OS is not good enough now days. You need to support it after it is realeased, and the MorphOS people have proven that they have both aspects. What good is OS-Forever if it will only run Duke Nukem Forever?

re: legality ?
by mini-me on Sun 1st May 2005 20:30 UTC

I thought the status of morphOS was in dispute because of the non-payment of programmers.

AMIGA
by EyeAm on Sun 1st May 2005 21:32 UTC

MorphOS and Amiga OS 4.x both are on PPC--something my computer won't be using--but it is good to see that the enthusiast/hobbyist community perseveres.

It is only wise for OS creators to write good code first, and then test it themselves, before releasing to beta testers (ideally, the last line of defense against bugs and criticism); and before releasing an OS publicly. Amiga OS has been beta-testing for some time, and still has not been released--I assume because of the very reason that they want to make sure it isn't released with bugs (ideally), which they would then have to fix in numerous tiny versions (1.4.3.2.1.9.x.ad.nauseum) or with as few as possible. ;)

I, myself, have gone the way of x86-64 (i.e., AMD64), the direction I had hoped Amiga would have gone (with an OS built on an exokernel for greater speed and flexbility). There, I will be able to run Amiga software at speeds of 8 to 16 times faster than what the forthcoming Amiga OS will be able to. 80 to 160 times faster on exokernel. It's kind of funny in a way: emulation faster than what the native OS can do/support. ;) Embarrassing for some, to be sure.

I wonder how long before there is a UME (for emulation of MorphOS), or MorphForever software for the rest...well, majority of the world.

Re: Anonymous
by Nicholas Blachford on Sun 1st May 2005 21:53 UTC

It's true there were some internal problems in the team and even I thought for a while that things were going to end.

However, the fact they are now making releases shows that these differences have been resolved.

Things aren't perfect with the way they do things but that's hardly unique, the same could be said of every OS on the planet.


As for source code it would help if would actually say what you're talking about, otherwise it just looks like you're talking smoke and mirrors.

Re: great
by MikeB on Sun 1st May 2005 22:03 UTC

@ 2501

Do you have any proof that AmigaEast was being funded by the AmigaOS4 team? Don't think so! This was going to be a *new* event. I was planning to be there as well and so I am sad to see this cancelled. But the yearly major Amiga events AmiGBG in Sweden and AmiWest is California are still ongoing for this year (and attending last year's events was a lot of fun for me and IMO are well recommeded for Amiga enthusiasts!):

http://www.sacc.org/amiwest/
http://web.kicker.nu/

IMO AmigaOS4 is making great progress and I am happy to see that the MorphOS team are picking up things as well. :-) Would be nice to some day finally see the hostilities from people like you come to an end though...

@Nicholas Blachford
by Anonymous on Sun 1st May 2005 22:57 UTC

> As for source code it would help if would actually say
> what you're talking about, otherwise it just looks like
> you're talking smoke and mirrors.

Let's first start with APDF that comes bundled with MorphOS. APDF is based upon XPDF which is licensed GNU/GPL version 2. The sources of APDF as come with MorphOS (including MorphOS specific changes) are never released. Even begging for the code only returns silence (ignoring emails).

Ambient uses libpng and zlib both under an OSI approved license, the MorphOS specific stuff are kept a secret and not being returned to the community. The copyright notices that have to be there are in no way mentioned as required by the copyright writing.

The bundled Vera Bitstream fonts must have the copyright notice included as the copyright requires, they are not there.

FreeType2 library got ported into the Amiga specific loadable library format. The source code is sowhat kept a secret that the developer gonna die rather putting them out. I don't want to be refered to http://www.freetype.org/ to get the source, since the FreeType2 sources for MorphOS got altered.

IXemul library, headerfiles and other stuff, which is quite a big part of MorphOS is also released under the LGPL license and it's kept secret, even here developer better die than giving out the sources on request.

TinyGL library is put under an OSI approved license, though when asking for the sources to get a closer look on it the author refuses to hand them out with the excuse "you don't need them".

And here the key toys.
----------------------
Half of the MorphOS operating system is based on AROS source code (open source) and most of the stuff is barely returned to the AROS people itself or kept a secret. Ok AROS got the intuition stuff returned and a few other things but this is not the reflecting real changes that has happened. The amount of open source pulled into MorphOS raises the question whether these parts has to be offered as open source as well. But again the developers rather die than cooperating.

GCC, Binutils and the other specific stuff specially adapted for MorphOS are kept a secret, the sources are either lost or you are labeled as 'troll' because you asked for these changes. Not to mention all the other GNU Toolchain binaries where the sources disappeared magically. You are usually redirected to either http://www.gnu.org/ or the historical old and of course in no way source compliant versions on geek gadgets.

IPrefs, ASL as of recently are also GPL'ed things that barely get returned to the public since they are based upon open source code. The most hated Zapek, had to put the stuff out himself which got nearly everyone inside the MOS camp mad.

Please bear with me here, it's of course ok to use open source software inside your own projects and products and even some licenses allow to not release sources either, but above named licenses require you to offer the sources as soon as someone requests them. And this is definately in no way going to happen inside the MorphOS team, specially if we talk about stuff used inside the CORE.

The attitude and disrespect how the open source projects are being abused is in no way acceptable.

Exokernel
by Anonymous on Sun 1st May 2005 23:04 UTC

And why would an exokernel be 10 times faster than the current microkernel? I don´t see the logic

re:great
by 2501 on Sun 1st May 2005 23:29 UTC

@MikeB

My problem is that I am tired of waiting to see Amiga OS 4. It has been years and they are still working on it. Then, you see Zeta BeOS making an amazing comeback and Morph OS seems to
be doing a great job too. I know that all companies have problems, but customers get tire of waiting and finally they decide to switch to a different OS.

I mean, choice is good, but I don't want Amiga to die. Let see what happens. I will be watching! :-)

-2501

@ MacTO
by Nate on Mon 2nd May 2005 02:10 UTC

Well Mac, there is contractual obligation.

The code made by programmers is done under contract, if they are not paid for that work than that contract is being broken, therefore the code is owned soley by the person that made the code until such time as the contract is renegotiated, once broken you must make amends of a kind to prevent legal action.

There have been no negotiations, the people have simply been told they will get no money, thus the code is being used by people that do not own it.

And using code that you do not own would be against the law.

@Nate
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 02:24 UTC

> The code made by programmers is done under contract, if they
> are not paid for that work than that contract is being
> broken, therefore the code is owned soley by the person that
> made the code.

And of course you are wrong.

If I work for a company XYZ then everything I do for that company XYZ belongs to the company XYZ. If I'm not getting paid then this is something where legal action is required but still the work done belongs to the company XYZ and you can't easily delete, take, hide, encrypt or whatever your intend is with it because this would become another legal issue and the company who ows you money can now sue your butt for company damaging. They can easily turn the whole thing against you.

@Nate
by Alkis Tsapanidis on Mon 2nd May 2005 04:10 UTC

First of all, this release has nothing to do with Genesi, Genesi stopped supporting MorphOS after the MorphOS.net stuff. Secondly, the release is perfectly legal, it's made by the MorphOS, Zapek's parts are now opensource, the parts of Stefan Stunz (MUI) were secured through talks, there's no code used without the author's will.

@Anonymous

Read MorphOSBoot:Docs/LICENCES.TXT and MorphOSBoot:Docs/Licence#? for each individual packet. It's all there now. The Ambient and Ixemul sources are on the same FTP site as the 1.4.5 ISO. IPrefs and all AROS modules are given back to the AROS team *as soon as they are released to the public*. The IPrefs release on Zapek's site is just the source without any licence info, making it look as if it's public domain, it's probably a breach of the APL too.
The freetype stuff are on the same site that hosts the Amiga freetype port, the site of the developer. Anything zlib and libpng could and can (even before Ambient became open source) in Zapek's website. BTW, don't talk on behalf of the AROS team, Fabio Alemagna is in #morphos all the time, I don't see him burning the MorphOS developers on a stake. Handling of the GNU toolkit has been a mess indeed (IMHO) but I guess that it will be fixed with the next SDK update, just like all licence "problems" were rectified in the 1.4.5 release.

re:great
by MikeB on Mon 2nd May 2005 04:54 UTC

@ 2501

> My problem is that I am tired of waiting to see Amiga OS 4.

OK, but note that AmigaOS4 is already available as a pre-release for anyone interested and tired to wait and received some great reviews. IMO neither AROS, MorphOS nor AmigaOS4 are really ready for the general public yet. I won't argue with you about which of these projects has been making most of the progress or which is the most ready for the general public or has the most promising development roadmap, as it would likely turn into a flamefest. And in the end I wish all these projects well. :-)

I agree that yellowTAB's Zeta is great, it's based on a codebase from a great OS which was once owned by a billion dollar company. Hope to see it return to its former glory too.

http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9966

RE: MikeB
by nicholas on Mon 2nd May 2005 10:05 UTC

"I agree that yellowTAB's Zeta is great, it's based on a codebase from a great OS which was once owned by a billion dollar company."

So is Amiga OS4. :-D

RE: AMIGA
by Jupp3 on Mon 2nd May 2005 10:12 UTC

@EyeAm

>I, myself, have gone the way of x86-64 (i.e., AMD64),

It's your choice (and not a bad one)

>the direction I had hoped Amiga would have gone

And probably you're not the only one, who hoped that

>(with an OS built on an exokernel for greater speed and flexbility).

Not to mention most of backwards compatibility

>There, I will be able to run Amiga software at speeds of 8 to 16 times faster than what the forthcoming Amiga OS will be able to.

Ah, so you're working on AmigaOS 4 emulator now? (or that's what it sounds like)

It has been said many times in public, that AmigaOS4 will be PPC-only. So running OS4 software on any other platform would need emulation.

Makes me really wonder how fast PC you have, being able to emulate OS4 programs 8-16x faster...

So, the "average" speedup would be 12. If we consider just MHz (which we shouldn't), you would need 9600MHz PC.

And as emulation would be the only choice, your PC must be at least 2x that fast (in reality even more), which makes it >20GHz.

Just tell me. WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR PC?

>80 to 160 times faster on exokernel. It's kind of funny in a way: emulation faster than what the native OS can do/support. ;) Embarrassing for some, to be sure.

Yeah, "right"

10x speedup just by changing kernel architecture...

Normally kernel takes only a fraction of CPU power while the rest is used to execute various programs.

So, if the kernel (let's "round it up seriously" and say it uses 10% of CPU power) is changed so that it will use less CPU, how can the _programs_ (that normally (well, at least on AmigaOS & MorphOS) use majority of CPU time) run 10x faster?

RE: License Troll
by Sigbjørn Skjæret on Mon 2nd May 2005 10:20 UTC

"Ambient uses libpng and zlib both under an OSI approved license, the MorphOS specific stuff are kept a secret and not being returned to the community."

Ever even read the license?

"The copyright notices that have to be there are in no way mentioned as required by the copyright writing."

Tried About?

"The bundled Vera Bitstream fonts must have the copyright notice included as the copyright requires, they are not there."

The fonts are selfcontained, they include the full copyright notice.

"FreeType2 library got ported into the Amiga specific loadable library format. The source code is sowhat kept a secret that the developer gonna die rather putting them out."

Strange, why did we give them to AROS then?

"I don't want to be refered to http://www.freetype.org/ to get the source, since the FreeType2 sources for MorphOS got altered."

The FTL license doesn't require you to give away sources, yet we did give them to AROS, shocking, huh?

"IXemul library, headerfiles and other stuff, which is quite a big part of MorphOS is also released under the LGPL license and it's kept secret, even here developer better die than giving out the sources on request."

Poor guy, I guess he died when we put the sources right next to the MorphOS ISO then...

"Half of the MorphOS operating system is based on AROS source code (open source) and most of the stuff is barely returned to the AROS people itself or kept a secret."

Everything we are required to make available is made available, however that does not mean it will get merged into AROS mainline (as that might not necessarily be the direction wanted).

"The amount of open source pulled into MorphOS raises the question whether these parts has to be offered as open source as well. But again the developers rather die than cooperating."

We must all be dead then. ;)

"GCC, Binutils and the other specific stuff specially adapted for MorphOS are kept a secret, the sources are either lost or you are labeled as 'troll' because you asked for these changes. Not to mention all the other GNU Toolchain binaries where the sources disappeared magically."

Funny, I could have sworn the diffs were available at morphos.org (unfortunately your hero Zapek removed them for some reason). Anyway, they are available in a different form from Martin Blom (Amithlon patches based on our patches). I guess the reason you are being labelled a troll is because you are one.

"You are usually redirected to either http://www.gnu.org/ or the historical old and of course in no way source compliant versions on geek gadgets."

GeekGadgets isn't compliant either? Wow! So I guess by inheritance being compiled from the exact same sources from either gnu.org or GG we must not be either, thanks, that cleared everything up... ;)

"IPrefs, ASL as of recently are also GPL'ed things that barely get returned to the public since they are based upon open source code."

Strange, I could have sworn both IPrefs and ASL were APL, and as such part of AROS...

"The most hated Zapek, had to put the stuff out himself which got nearly everyone inside the MOS camp mad."

Yes, he "had to" put everything he could find on his HD available to the public, and apparently, judging from your comments, under wildly misleading and wrong licenses. I guess he "had to" steal copyrighted sources and put them up pretending they were Public Domain too... ;)

"Please bear with me here, it's of course ok to use open source software inside your own projects and products and even some licenses allow to not release sources either, but above named licenses require you to offer the sources as soon as someone requests them."

Except you seem to be very confused as to what is licensed how, maybe you should read the included LICENSES.TXT?

"And this is definately in no way going to happen inside the MorphOS team, specially if we talk about stuff used inside the CORE."

Weird, I must have been dreaming about us putting up sources on the FTP, and sending them by request earlier.

"The attitude and disrespect how the open source projects are being abused is in no way acceptable."

The only one with a bad attitude and a bundle of disrespect and abuse appears to be you, next time, be a little more prepared before you step into big doodoo, ok?


- CISC

@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 10:59 UTC

And this is exactly the problem. Half of your reply refers me to AROS but MORPHOS is a different project than AROS. The stuff that works under MORPHOS doesn't necessarily work on AROS and that's why I and probably others as well asks for the specific MORPHOS changes. The same applies for the offered GCC and BINUTILS version on http://www.morphos.net/ these versions are outdated and don't reflect the binary context of what's offered inside the SDK, let alone the VERSION shown is so far different that it requires a release of sources on it's own. You know that I know that and most of the open source zealots who read this will agree with me too.

These are the 'dirty' tricks that ZAPEK refers to, that you people try to avoid handing out the sources. There is no problems using open source code in MORPHOS and personally I find this a good thing to do too since it improves development. But it's shameful and moralic not acceptable if you people HARVEST through the open source world, get together what's useful and then trying all the 'dirty' trick that ZAPEK refers to, to find excuses to not cooperate with the people who initially wrote the software and probably spent months if not years of hot sweat into what they created.

The attentive reader of this article and the comments section should know who ZAPEK is. ZAPEK, alias David Gerber was one of the guys who closely worked together with LAIRE alias Ralph Schmidt (the founder and father of MORPHOS). Ralph himself stated not long ago that it makes no sense continuing MORPHOS because ZAPEK (David Gerber) left and from his words it was quite assumable that he held a high opinion about ZAPEK.

It's not like he is some wanker who came along, wrote 10 lines of code, started to whine and then got thrown out from the team, he was imo right after Ralph Schmidt the second or third important person. That's like our Miguel de Icaza or Havoc Pennington leaving GNOME or Steve Jobbs leaving Apple.

So the words of ZAPEK are in any ways reflecting some reality and can be considered of high value. It's regardless whether he is right or not or whether he made some mistakes or not but alone the statements he gave while releasing the source codes do ring a bell in my head where I say 'aha, exactly what this guy says is exactly what happened towards me'.

Quotes: "This is the AROS modified ASL for MorphOS. There are various changes done which never found their way back into AROS."

Quotes: "The infamous "C++ bugs" are also fixed. Note: contrary to some rumors spread by Joel Ehret (an amiga zealot and free software hater), this compiler produces working code and is being used for all builds for more than a year."

Quotes: "IPrefs comes from AROS and was heavily modified for MorphOS."

Quotes: "ixemul is LGPL, and that always was a problem within MorphOS, so little tricks were used to avoid providing the sources, like not answering mails, removing comments from the source, that kind of crap. These tricks are still used for the AROS parts."

Quotes: "Originally some AROS members had access to parts of the MorphOS CVS, but when I switched from pserver to ssh keys, I didn't bother making new keys. Since nowadays the CVS is gone, I provide the sources here for download."

You see, this guy ZAPEK the fu*ing hell knows what he is talking about and I bet my pants there is even more stuff that we hopefully will be made aware of really soon.

There is no problems using open source as stated above but the moralic behavior how this stuff is treated in the Amiga community is in no way acceptable.

@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 11:10 UTC

Oh I forget to add the reference link:

http://zapek.com/software/old.html

Click on the bottom MorphOS/AROS source links to read the statements made by Zapek.

Most people who came back from Linux to MorphOS (and who wanted to do some work) are used to open source for years and do feel like not being right in MorphOS and the practices used. On the one side MorphOS lacks a lot of people and developers who write serious code (no hackjoystuff) but otoh everything is done to get rid of those who joins due to such practices.

So what ? You wan't people working their tail off on new software, software to get real work done and offer real business solutions and otoh you do everything to scare them off faster than they arrived.

@ anonymous
by Michal Wozniak on Mon 2nd May 2005 11:39 UTC


> TinyGL library is put under an OSI approved license,
> though when asking for the sources to get a closer
> look on it the author refuses to hand them out with
> the excuse "you don't need them".

Please show me where in TinyGL licence it's mentioned
That source have to be included. Original source is
mentioned in library version string and when querying
it in OGL applications.

@Michal Wozniak
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 11:54 UTC

Kiero, let's put this into another view. Please without feeling offended now. The guy who initially wrote TinyGL worked his tail off on the software and offered his work without any bells and whistles or own interestes to the public so others can benefit from it.

While it might not be required to include the sources, don't you as person feel a little bit ashamed for simply taking his work, adding more stuff to it, do changes etc. and then do everything required to not give your modifications out ? It's not that may be required to do so or not, it's a moralic gesture and a sign or correctness.

There are other people working or using TinyGL in their OS or their projects who might be interested in your additions or you might be interested in their addition and you would definately save them hours if not days in fixing stuff if you would have them access to the code, the same way the initial author offered his stuff to the public with similar intend.

I have the feeling that not everyone in the Amiga/MorphOS community respects the 'way and spirit' of open source. They take what they get and find excuses why not to return anything.

It's not the question whether 'The license doesn't require me to include my modified sources' the answer should be 'Look the initial author worked his ass off for many months, I fixed a bunch of bugs and added some other stuff, here is the source have fun'.

The entire MorphOS went harvesting in the OS world but hardly try to give back. Either we the OS world members are to blame because we use some crappy license in hope that people do not infrigens it. Or you are to blame, because the community is so far different that they don't know what OS really is. Or they give a flying fuck in hope nobody is going to sue them for doing so.

That's why I personally think (having seen the MorphOS world, the slandering (http://www.ann.lu/ is representative for slandering) and other things that newcomers are better off of using a different Operating System. Even AROS in regards is better suited. It might be not as mature as MORPHOS but it's at least OS and people comply to the terms.

"And this is exactly the problem. Half of your reply refers me to AROS but MORPHOS is a different project than AROS. The stuff that works under MORPHOS doesn't necessarily work on AROS and that's why I and probably others as well asks for the specific MORPHOS changes."

It refers to AROS because that's where the sources are, either in a different tree (like intuition) because there were too many changes to merge, or in the main tree, with __MORPHOS__ #ifdef's...

"The same applies for the offered GCC and BINUTILS version on http://www.morphos.net/ these versions are outdated and don't reflect the binary context of what's offered inside the SDK, let alone the VERSION shown is so far different that it requires a release of sources on it's own."

Huh? The one recently uploaded by Zapek is *newer* than the one in the SDK. And the diffs that were available before Zapek removed them (why would he do that, hmmmm...) were identical to the ones used to build the SDK.

"You know that I know that and most of the open source zealots who read this will agree with me too."

You know that I know that you know what you did last summer, and I'm sure you can get some zealots to agree with that too.

"These are the 'dirty' tricks that ZAPEK refers to, that you people try to avoid handing out the sources. There is no problems using open source code in MORPHOS and personally I find this a good thing to do too since it improves development. But it's shameful and moralic not acceptable if you people HARVEST through the open source world, get together what's useful and then trying all the 'dirty' trick that ZAPEK refers to, to find excuses to not cooperate with the people who initially wrote the software and probably spent months if not years of hot sweat into what they created."

There are no dirty tricks except the ones instrumented by Zapek himself, but ofcourse he's not going to tell you that is he?

"So the words of ZAPEK are in any ways reflecting some reality and can be considered of high value. It's regardless whether he is right or not or whether he made some mistakes or not but alone the statements he gave while releasing the source codes do ring a bell in my head where I say 'aha, exactly what this guy says is exactly what happened towards me'."

So it never occured to you that he might be on a spiteful revenge-rampage, and his words cannot be trusted anymore? The hateful and untrue things he posts everywhere about everyone wasn't a big clue?

It's not exactly small "mistakes" he has made lately, more like severe crimes...

Quotes: "This is the AROS modified ASL for MorphOS. There are various changes done which never found their way back into AROS."

Like what?

"Quotes: "The infamous "C++ bugs" are also fixed. Note: contrary to some rumors spread by Joel Ehret (an amiga zealot and free software hater), this compiler produces working code and is being used for all builds for more than a year.""

See, this is what I'm talking about, he lashes out at people for no apparent reason, does this sound sane to you (and yes, the compiler he released is broken, Piru and I personally fixed several problems with it since then, there's a reason it wasn't released yet)...

Quotes: "ixemul is LGPL, and that always was a problem within MorphOS, so little tricks were used to avoid providing the sources, like not answering mails, removing comments from the source, that kind of crap. These tricks are still used for the AROS parts."

I personally sent out sources to everyone who requested it, and now they are available right next to the ISO...

"Quotes: "Originally some AROS members had access to parts of the MorphOS CVS, but when I switched from pserver to ssh keys, I didn't bother making new keys. Since nowadays the CVS is gone, I provide the sources here for download.""

Strange, I didn't know the CVS *owner* could create keys for the *users*...

"You see, this guy ZAPEK the fu*ing hell knows what he is talking about and I bet my pants there is even more stuff that we hopefully will be made aware of really soon."

I'm sure he'll stuff you as full of lies as he can so you can continue to troll "anonymously" on public forums, after all the guy wants nothing more to do with MorphOS, right?

"There is no problems using open source as stated above but the moralic behavior how this stuff is treated in the Amiga community is in no way acceptable."

I fail to see your point, and reading about "moralic behaviour" from you is kind of laughable.


- CISC

Re: RE: AMIGA @ Jupp3 (IP: ---.pponetti.com)
by Megol on Mon 2nd May 2005 12:09 UTC

Don't try to make any sense of that comment, EyeAm doesn't understand how computers work and he doesn't understand the differences between exokernels and "traditional" kernels.

@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 12:23 UTC

To make the reply short:

> I personally sent out sources to everyone who requested it,
> and now they are available right next to the ISO...

They are ? That would of course be an improvement but since my forced unregistration from receiving further updates of MorphOS (which made me quite unhappy by the way) I of course can't speak about it being true or not. Maybe some impartial MorphOS user can confirm this ? If you MorphOS developers have changed mind in this direction then it's a huge benefit for everyone and of course in the means of own interest to do so.

v RE: oGALAXYo
by Sigbjørn Skjæret on Mon 2nd May 2005 12:37 UTC
Re: RE: AMIGA @Megol
by Jupp3 on Mon 2nd May 2005 12:58 UTC

>Don't try to make any sense of that comment, EyeAm doesn't understand how computers work and he doesn't understand the differences between exokernels and "traditional" kernels.

Yes, that's one of the two possibilities I can think of. The second one being obviously that, he's just trolling.

Earlier I thought that it would be the first one (like you described), but after being explained many times, "why it can't and won't work like that", he still keeps on about that "10x speedup for all tasks", which -obviously- suggests the second possibility.

@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:02 UTC

> Well, when you publically brag about pirating MorphOS 1.5
> betas (and spread them under the cover of fake warez
> groups), stealing copyrighted sources (and bragging about
> backing them up for all eternity afterwards), what can you
> expect? But ofcourse, I'm sure you are morally in the right
> to do this since we're all just a bunch of open-source
> hating thieves and liars, right?

Jesus Christ. I had exactly a similar talk with Tokai a couple of days ago.

PART ONE
First of all about Zapek releasing the GPL'ed source parts of MorphOS. I was quite happy about that and saw this as normal gesture (my personal opinion). Since coming from the OS world makes this thing so what normally, people write OS stuff and release the sources. People take OS stuff, modify it and on request or on purpose release the sources as well. If you deal with these things for the past 10 years then you get used to that and call it a normal process.

I didn't knew that it offended you people so much that Zapek released the OS stuff. That's why I am refering to Zapek's comments on his site because that reflects the impression I got from the MorphOS people. Harvest everything there is from the OS world and not returning it.

I assumed that the other bits he released were under the same license. So I don't understand how this justyfies an unregistration from further updates of MorphOS. And I didn't know how releasing OS to the public can offend people so much, simply read ANN.lu and you see how much pester people wish on Zapek's head because he has done so. And those who wishing him all the pester on his head still have nerves using Ambient.

PART TWO
Now for the MorphOS 1.5 thing. First of all, it would have been wonderful to have MorphOS 1.5 and I'd would be happy if this really was the case. But unfortunately all I have is MorphOS 1.4.2 and the few extra bits released like small library updates, the few CLI tool updates from PIRU that I got.

And that is all I have, no more no less. That's another of this strange behaviors in the Amiga and MorphOS world that makes me sick. You people accuse, slander others wery fast and play yourself up like lawyers (the attentive reader should spent a couple of days on http://www.ann.lu/ to understand what I mean).

MorphOS 1.5 was demonstrated on a couple of shows, MorphOS 1.5 features has publicly been put up on http://www.morphos-news.de/ so everyone could read it. Dozens of AVIs have been floating around publicly from people having done them about MorphOS 1.5 and last but not least a lot of propaganda and stuff carried from mouth to mouth on IRC servers being excited about the new features of MorphOS 1.5 and wanting to tell them from one person to another.

PART THREE
> (and spread them under the cover of fake warez groups)

This my friend is quite criminal. It's not only a regular slandering or offensive criticism. This is highly criminal attempt post by you in the public. And this is exactly what drives people away from MorphOS or Amiga in general.

Q: Why am I using Linux and all the OS stuff for the past 10 years now ?
A: Because I don't want any warez. So why should I warez MorphOS 1.5 and by the way how can I warez something that doesn't exist in the public, hasn't been sold, hasn't been offered. If it got leaked then find the root of the problem and don't accuse loyal members of your own community.

AMIGA on Exokernel
by EyeAm on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:09 UTC

Quoting Megol (who does not know me)
"Don't try to make any sense of that comment, EyeAm doesn't understand how computers work and he doesn't understand the differences between exokernels and "traditional" kernels."

I absolutely do understand how computers work, and I absolutely do understand the differences between the 'exokernel' and what you call 'traditional' kernels (I'm assuming here that you know enough to be considering 'monolithic kernels' and 'microkernels' there, with your reference to 'traditional'). ;)

Fact: If the Amiga OS were rewritten as a 64-Bit operating system to run on x86-64 architecture, and with an exokernel structure, it could effectively increase its speed to be 8 to 16 times faster than current Windows, Linux or MAC OS versions and 80 to 160 times faster than the fastest Amiga Classic machine/OS. Additionally, the doorway would be opened for full backward compatability with every Amiga OS version and Amiga software title (not to mention that of other OSes).

BTW, Amiga OS should be supporting 1 Terabyte of memory by now. And of course the latest standards: PCI Express; SATA (150mb/sec; soon enough to be followed by 300mbs/sec, etc.); Blu-Ray Disc (27GB of storage per disc; soon enough to be followed by 150GB, etc.). (and I hope it does not bother with XEN--that is more suited for a short-term Linux fix, I think).

--EyeAm

The story is not over...
by bbrv on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:15 UTC

MorphOS is a great development. Most of the core team are responsible, dedicated and talented developers. We have posted a few of relevant items about the situation.

1. http://www.genesi.lu/morphos_statement.php

2. http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=...

3. http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2005/04/mighty-mighty-morphos.html

We still have high hopes that the development will bring eventual benefit to those responsible for its advancement. The remaining MorphOS-Team deserve it. We still promote MorphOS and will be presenting it here:

http://www.freescale.com/FTF

One way or another we will cultivate commercial success for MorphOS. It is much closer now than it ever was.

R&B

@anonymous.
by Michal Wozniak on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:21 UTC


No, i don't feel a need to release a sources. It doesn't contain almost any code from original project. I worked my ass to bring it to the shape it's in now (worked on this project for two years probably). It's also closely tight to MorphOS 3D api so nobody would benefit from it. If someone fell i can help him solving problems with original tinygl then he can contact me. It would be much more helpfull than released source. And don't tell me about my sense of morality please.

v RE: oGALAXYo
by Sigbjørn Skjæret on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:31 UTC
@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:34 UTC

> Then why on earth would you brag about having it in public?
> Was it all just lies, or is it all just lies now to try to
> salvage your image?

Care to back this one up ? Where on earth did I say 'I own a warezed copy of MorphOS 1.5'.

@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:36 UTC

> If you don't want any warez, why are you member of a warez
> group?
>
> It doesn't matter where the root of the problem is, you are
> just as guilty of spreading it even if someone else did it
> first.

Which warez group am I a member of ? I haven't been dealing with scene since I left Amiga 1996 and continued working on Linux related stuff. Your comments are quite insulting and not backed up in any ways. And yet you even spread more lies.

v RE: oGALAXYo
by Sigbjørn Skjæret on Mon 2nd May 2005 13:52 UTC
@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:08 UTC

> Hmmm, strange, no comments on my other replies?

I am tired replying to bullshit. Except the stuff that tends to personally attack me. But yoh have given a good demonstration to the public how the tone is within the Amiga community.

> So you deny atleast having been a member of Resistance?
> http://www.resistance-hq.com/members.php

As you rightly pointed out having been. Do you know how many years this was ago ? Being a member of that group doesn't necessarily imply that I was a warez harvester or have any pirate relationship to them. You even have people from Digital Corruption working on MorphOS, those who released AmigaOS 3.1/3.5 sources from Haage&Partner 1996 on all major Bulletin Board Systems. Do I stress about that fact ? I don't even know if those from said group had anything to do with warez or not, not that I care or accuse anyone either.

Re: @CISC
by Andrea Maniero on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:20 UTC

>> I personally sent out sources to everyone who requested it,
>> and now they are available right next to the ISO...
>
> They are ? That would of course be an improvement but since
> my forced unregistration from receiving further updates of
> MorphOS (which made me quite unhappy by the way) I of course
> can't speak about it being true or not. Maybe some impartial
> MorphOS user can confirm this ?

Yes, they are. Dunno if I qualify as impartial user, though. As for the "elitism" in this community, I don't know of anyone but you who was unregistered. And that happened after quite a lot of bad attitude from your part (like saying publically that MOS was dead and the only good actions came from zapek, even when he distributed copyrighted code... and as you see, he was the main reason preventing new MOS releases, that now ARE happening - not that I'm telling who's right and wrong here). And you're not making things easier. Although I'd like if you could be given access again, if it would lead to a decrease of your lenghty posts ;)

Kind regards,
Andrea

RE: oGALAXYo
by Sigbjørn Skjæret on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:25 UTC

"I am tired replying to bullshit."

Interesting, seems pretty fact-driven to me, and I notice you reported my posts as abuse to, got something to hide?

"Except the stuff that tends to personally attack me. But yoh have given a good demonstration to the public how the tone is within the Amiga community."

Consise, to the point and accurate replies based on facts? Quite opposed to yours I might point out. ;)

"As you rightly pointed out having been. Do you know how many years this was ago ?"

No, why don't you tell me, also, maybe inform us of what other groups you might have been a member of since?

"Being a member of that group doesn't necessarily imply that I was a warez harvester or have any pirate relationship to them."

It doesn't mean you didn't either, and I think there are pretty definite records that you did...

"You even have people from Digital Corruption working on MorphOS, those who released AmigaOS 3.1/3.5 sources from Haage&Partner 1996 on all major Bulletin Board Systems. Do I stress about that fact ?"

Didn't you just now? ;)

"I don't even know if those from said group had anything to do with warez or not, not that I care or accuse anyone either."

Hmmm, so why did you specifically mention the above sources then? Sounds like an accusation to me...

Oh, and BTW, someone kindly pointed out a link to me where you (again, "anonymously") brag about having 1.5 -> http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/thread/AN-2005-03-00122-D... (comment #14 and others)...


- CISC

@Guruman
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:36 UTC

> saying publically that MOS was dead.

Almost everyone I know said that simply dive on Ann.lu and for the first moment (1.5 years no official statement from the MorphOS team) it was assumable that this was the case. Not to mention about the released IRC inverview with Ralph Schmidt, the stuff Zapek posted and what everyone else said many of us came to that conclusion. Now don't behave like you would exclude yourself from that afterwards.

> good actions came from zapek, even when he distributed
> copyrighted code...

Actually I for my own found it a good 'action' from Zapek releasing Ambient under GNU/GPL it leads towards a better ambient and many skilled programmers are working on it again as you can see http://morphosambient.sourceforge.net/ here. Now if that wasn't a good action then I don't know. What else would have come bundled with MorphOS then ?

For the rest of the stuff. When I got removed my privileges of further registrations of MorphOS. Exactly speaking from that time. Zapek only released IXemul which was GNU/LGPL licensed. This was the first thing I looked at and I also saw libNIX which he has given away. Now coming from the Open Source world I do see this as good thing too. Didn't knew that I stepped on someones tooth with that. No I wasn't made aware of the false fact that GNU/LGPL'ed software can be a copyright violations, specially when released Open Source, which the intent of the license is.

> the main reason preventing new MOS releases, that now ARE
> happening - not that I'm telling who's right and wrong
> here.

That's another topic and I of course agree here with everyone else. Though you people do have a harsh view of Open Source software and you quickly assume people want the death of MorphOS in any ways just because something got released as such. As much as I heard people wishing the pester towards Zapek because he released Ambient under GNU/GPL wanting to kill off MorphOS etc. I think both sides are quite overreacting here and we the ordinary users get the bill for internal problems. I was just the person who was there on the wrong time in the wrong place. I seriously couldn't understand how people can get upset so much because the sources of already GNU/LGPL'ed software was put online. This is not the expected behavior a Open Source user/developer like me is used to.

You people should walk towards each other and work better together, clear problems up, inform people and maybe get a more open arms towards Open Source software and respect the work that has been done by people before you.

@CISC
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:48 UTC

> Oh, and BTW, someone kindly pointed out a link to me where
> you (again, "anonymously") brag about having 1.5

Yeah anything new inside that comment and the others ? Nothing spectacular either. All the things pointed out there has been known for a long time and dozens of people who went to shows or had betas reported about MorphOS 1.5 and what it does, saw AVI's know about it. The libraries used are nothing new, the transparent mouse was nothing new there was even an AVI about it, the 3d stuff was nothing new, the Screensavers everyone talked about when I ported Blanker from AROS to MorphOS celebrating how creat the new Screensaver system inside their beta was and that it's not required to have Blanker and and and. You only need to be quite attentive and keep up with whats written where and said from whom.

AmigaNews.de is known for people commenting there using imaginary nicknames or anonymously. Simply read various articles and comments given by people. What do you expect if the team there doesn't care about such an attitude.

But regardless of that, you came only up with weak accusations, nothing in real hands. The usual crap Amigans and MorphOS people spread on ANN.lu and other places, bashing people without anything in hands. People keeping logs and even dig out old comments someone said 1993 only to show them 2005 how wrong they were and that the stuff they said 1993 is differently than 2005 and accuse them to be liars. I mean how more sick can it get ?

RE: great
by Johan Krüger-Haglert on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:50 UTC

"it seems that morphos is doing a A LOT BETTER than Amiga. the amiga east show was cancelled because lack of money. MorphOS community continues growing and Amiga still silent. I think MorphOs will replace Amiga OS. Even BeOS is making a comeback from the ashes."

I think the current AmigaOS4 development is better than expected, anyway, these current troubles between Genesi and the MorphOS team might be good in that it might turn out into MorphOS beeing ported to other hardware, maybe even open-source, who knows. On the other hand, would it be possible? Is MorphOS becomes a success, will it be "legal"? Are there any proprietary(?) functions/code in the os? Do they (the morphos team) own it all? Can they do whatever they want?

RE: Hmm....
by Johan Krüger-Haglert on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:52 UTC

"Only a month with 1.4.4

This is telling me that they are not trying to release bugfree software for the masses... (basically in the same alley as windows).

Hopefully Amiga OS 4 will be free of the same amount of bugs as other systems...."

Linux stays on each version for how long? This is only telling me they are makeing improvements. And even if AmigaOS4 have less bugs it won't be very stable due to for example no memory protection.

re: legality ?
by Johan Krüger-Haglert on Mon 2nd May 2005 14:55 UTC

"I thought the status of morphOS was in dispute because of the non-payment of programmers."

I think it's the developers/programmers which releases 1.4.5, not the company.

When will osnews support threads? Things like these might already be answered but I don't want to read 30+ comments first to find out.

RE: oGALAXYo
by Sigbjørn Skjæret on Mon 2nd May 2005 15:09 UTC

"People keeping logs and even dig out old comments someone said 1993 only to show them 2005 how wrong they were and that the stuff they said 1993 is differently than 2005 and accuse them to be liars. I mean how more sick can it get ?"

So, you ask for proof, and when it's presented to you the ones providing them are sick for keeping logs (newsflash BTW, public forums keep logs by nature)...

"Actually I for my own found it a good 'action' from Zapek releasing Ambient under GNU/GPL it leads towards a better ambient and many skilled programmers are working on it again as you can see http://morphosambient.sourceforge.net/ here. Now if that wasn't a good action then I don't know. What else would have come bundled with MorphOS then ?"

Hardly anyone disputes that.

"For the rest of the stuff. When I got removed my privileges of further registrations of MorphOS. Exactly speaking from that time. Zapek only released IXemul which was GNU/LGPL licensed. This was the first thing I looked at and I also saw libNIX which he has given away. Now coming from the Open Source world I do see this as good thing too. Didn't knew that I stepped on someones tooth with that. No I wasn't made aware of the false fact that GNU/LGPL'ed software can be a copyright violations, specially when released Open Source, which the intent of the license is."

Here we go again, MorphOS libnix *is* *not* open-source, it has its roots in old Public Domain sources, you were told this repeatedly.

"That's another topic and I of course agree here with everyone else. Though you people do have a harsh view of Open Source software and you quickly assume people want the death of MorphOS in any ways just because something got released as such. As much as I heard people wishing the pester towards Zapek because he released Ambient under GNU/GPL wanting to kill off MorphOS etc."

Again, who? Like I said before, the people who are flaming Zapek isn't flaming him for releasing Ambient sources, but for his other hostile actions towards MorphOS and anyone related to it.

"I seriously couldn't understand how people can get upset so much because the sources of already GNU/LGPL'ed software was put online. This is not the expected behavior a Open Source user/developer like me is used to."

You forget quickly, how many times do I have to tell you that the open-source software is not the issue here, but then again, it seems like you *want* to make it the issue, because it's all you got to go on...

"You people should walk towards each other and work better together, clear problems up, inform people and maybe get a more open arms towards Open Source software and respect the work that has been done by people before you."

We have no issues with open-source, we only have issues with postings like those made by you here that only have one purpose; propagating as much lies and disinformation about MorphOS as possible, both in public and privately.


- CISC

@CISC (pointless discussion)
by Anonymous on Mon 2nd May 2005 15:23 UTC

CISC, I am sorry for this argument online between us. It does MorphOS and the userland community no good. Let's take this discussion private. MorphOS has great potential. The same goes for OS4, AROS and everything and anything else associated with this thread that does nothing to further each of these efforts.

Regretfully.

RE: Exokernel @EyeAm
by Jupp3 on Mon 2nd May 2005 15:59 UTC

>Fact: If the Amiga OS were rewritten as a 64-Bit operating system to run on x86-64 architecture, and with an exokernel structure, it could effectively increase its speed to be 8 to 16 times faster than current Windows, Linux or MAC OS versions and 80 to 160 times faster than the fastest Amiga Classic machine/OS.

Yes, a fact. How nice.

Fact: My C128D can outperform ANY computer in the world with supermegahyperkernel architecture by at least 1600x.

What? I need a proof?

Why? Didn't I just tell that it's 1600x faster?

Okay... you prove your "fact" first ;)

v Re: oGALAXYo regretting online "argument"
by theguide on Mon 2nd May 2005 16:38 UTC
Re: Hmmm
by Don Cox on Mon 2nd May 2005 17:58 UTC

"And even if AmigaOS4 have less bugs it won't be very stable due to for example no memory protection."

It does have some memory protection. Not as much as Linux, of course, but more than earlier versions of AmigaOS.

ahem
by Eric White on Mon 2nd May 2005 18:01 UTC

MorphOS is not open sourced like Linux and 90% of code is closed. It uses parts of AORS for Intuition, AmigaDOS and other sublibraries but AROS parts are not under GPL. AROS uses APL which is not same thing.

You should not confuse MorphOS with Amiga/Amiga Inc because it has nothing to do with the original Amiga 500. While it is true it can run few games designed for Amiga 500 it is not an amiga.

The bottom line: MorphOS has more common with OSX and Windows and Linux than Amiga 500.

Re: ahem
by Alkis Tsapanidis on Mon 2nd May 2005 20:38 UTC

First of all, the Amiga 500 is not the original Amiga. Apart from that, the whole Amiga thing is about AmigaOS nowdays, NOT the hardware. MorphOS is fully compatible with AmigaOS 3.x software that do not use the chipset (absolutely not "some games", next to no games run, due to the lack of the Amiga chipset). Absolutely the same is valid for AmigaOS4.x, no software that requires the Amiga chipset works. Oh, and the difference between MorphOS and OSX and the like is that MorphOS has the AmigaOS look'n'feel (on steroids, using MUI for *everything* and eyecandy everywhere), has the AmigaOS3.x API as its native API (plus *MANY* extensions and new APIs), is compatible with Amiga applications not using emulation (apart from the 68k emulator) but because of the previews points and of course comes from many of the developers that kept AmigaOS alive during the dark times of no-AmigaOS development. MorphOS is not AmigaOS nor is it "Amiga" (of course) but it's VERY closely related to it.

Re: @Guruman
by Andrea Maniero on Mon 2nd May 2005 22:26 UTC

>> saying publically that MOS was dead.
>
> Almost everyone I know said that simply dive on Ann.lu
> and for the first moment (1.5 years no official statement
> from the MorphOS team) it was assumable that this was the
> case. Not to mention about the released IRC inverview
> with Ralph Schmidt, the stuff Zapek posted and what
> everyone else said many of us came to that conclusion.
> Now don't behave like you would exclude yourself from
> that afterwards.

Honestly, I never thought it was the case. I know MorphOS development is not money driven but, instead, is mostly a matter of passion for many of its developers. That's how it started way back, and it's how it developed, until Thendic/Genesi came into the picture pouring some money for a limited time. Anyway, even back in those days when we didn't have any update, you could talk to the devs, who would have told things never completely stopped.
And even in the infamous IRC log you could read the position of various devs, wanting to release (even against Ralph's will - now all of this has changed and noone is opposing to new releases).

>> good actions came from zapek, even when he distributed
>> copyrighted code...
>
> Actually I for my own found it a good 'action' from Zapek
> releasing Ambient under GNU/GPL it leads towards a better
> ambient and many skilled programmers are working on it

That's for sure. I think we're all grateful for this. Heck, I'm using one the latest Ambient builds on my Pegasos. I was referring to other source he released just to damage the project and his former "co-workers".

> I looked at and I also saw libNIX which he has given
> away. Now coming from the Open Source world I do see this
> as good thing too.

The point is that, according to many sources, MorphOS libNIX is not GPLed, and was not an exclusive work from zapek, who released the sources anyway. And you cheered in front of those who were offended by such release, in a very explicit and "rude" manner.

> Though you people do have a harsh view of Open Source
> software

On the contrary, I quite like OS. I think we'd have much less to play with if it didn't exist. And that's even more true for an alternative OS like MOS is. It's also a way to advance SW when someone doesn't want or can't to take the responsibility to mantain it, or like the idea that everybody can work on it and nobody "owns" it. However I see some space in this world for commercial and closed source software as well, which is not evil as long as the devs keep on taking care of it.

And about the community, I dislike the way you've been treated sometimes. However you've got to admit that sometimes your attitude just mirrors the one you despise: never leaving an argument, and often writing long and controversial comments...

Back to the topic: I'm glad we had an update after just one month since the last. I like the fact that newer components like Poseidon 2.2 and Ambient 1.41 found their way into the official distribution, and I like the fact that bugs were cured in such a short time. I didn't have any problem since I installed it (of course I'm going to find bugs, that's part of the fun).
So, thank you to everybody involved in the 1.4.5 release.

Kind regards,
Andrea

What the hell ?
by Nowee on Mon 2nd May 2005 23:19 UTC

Zapek did his duty.

What the team thinks and what happens behind the Morphos scene isn't meant to be public.

I've been accused in public, too, not so long ago, for about pretty much everything : lowering motivation by asking for a roadmap, protection of the work and a better concertation, abusing some social system (sic), leaking, talking too much, being paranoid, maybe more.

To be honest, getting into public confrontation only shows one thing : the disorder behind the flashlights of the scene.

Who will be the next and what will be the scale of the retaliation ?ç

Re: anonymous
by Nicholas Blachford on Tue 3rd May 2005 11:12 UTC

Kiero, let's put this into another view. Please without feeling offended now. The guy who initially wrote TinyGL worked his tail off on the software and offered his work without any bells and whistles or own interestes to the public so others can benefit from it.

While it might not be required to include the sources, don't you as person feel a little bit ashamed for simply taking his work, adding more stuff to it, do changes etc. and then do everything required to not give your modifications out ? It's not that may be required to do so or not, it's a moralic gesture and a sign or correctness.


So you're arguing about code not being released when it doesn't have to be?
Not all licenses are the same as the GPL you know.

If the developer/s wanted the source to remain open don't you think they would pick a license which requires it?
Some people pick licenses like BSD or MIT quite specifically because they want to allow others to use it as they see fit.

it's a moralic gesture and a sign or correctness.

Morality has nothing to do with this.
Correctness is obeying by the terms of the license - as has been done here.