> "MUI-OWB" as they persist in calling it for some reason

I think this reason is rather easy to explain:
It's "OWB" because that's the abbreviation of both "Odyssey Web Browser" (OWB v1.14+) and "Origyn Web Browser" (OWB v1.13 and below, which the OS4 version belongs to being v1.9). That should explain the "OWB" part. The "MUI" part is not hard either. Just "OWB" (as well as "Origyn" btw.) wouldn't offer any nominal distinction from the Reaction-based Origyn Web Browser ("RA-OWB"), hence the "MUI" prefix for the MUI-based version. If you now put "MUI" and "OWB" together, you end up with "MUI-OWB". Simple :-)

> IIRC Stefan Stuntz actually did put an offer to Hyperion of licensing MUI at
> some point (like almost a decade ago), but it was turned down.

...by Ralph Schmidt, that is. You can re-read the story there:

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3234&forum=14

> Stefan Stuntz [...] made a re-entry and started to work on MUI 4 [...]. [...] Probably
> some money were involved from the MorphOS team for this "return of the Stuntz".

*Some* Genesi (or Thendic-France) money might indeed be the proper choice of words here ;-)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080719142959/http://www.morphos.net
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2005-01-00108-DE.html

Quote:

I wonder how much Hyperion would have to pay Frank for an OS4 version of CyberGraphX

Quote:

AFAIK at least one of the reasons (probably the biggest reason) to the renaming of the browser Odyssey (06-Aug-2011) was to avoid the confusion with "the other" OWB's.

The OWB available from Joerg Strohmayer for example, is the Sand-Labs "Origyn", while "Origyn" was effectively no longer present (at least not in a significant way) in Fab's browser, even *long before* the actual name change (for all I know, this could very well be true for the v1.9 (ported to OS4) and earlier as well)! This comment is from 03-Jul-2011/v1.12:

"And the original OWB from sandlabs/pleyo is nothing else than a SDL backend for gfx/events, a different build system and a reorganization of the platform-dependant files. The SDL implementation was obviously dropped to get something usable and "fast". And since OWB project is dead, i synchronize webkit myself.

So in practice, i almost don't have anything from the original OWB project anymore, since WebKit is a very active project where lots of things change very frequently (including build system)."

So while there wasn't any "Origyn" left in Fab's browser, people would still mix it up with OWB (as in Origyn Web Browser) because of the name.

"let my state out that i dont have anything agenst owb on os 4,1 i have itm i use it.
i love it.
but morphos versions of software doesnt run on os 4.1 as fare as i remember there stopped make owb for os 4.x and still make owb for morphos with make it a news for morphos,
wasnt ther talk about that the morphos version clould run youtube and that the coder didnt want to do an os 4,x port"
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=33308&forum=28#604168

"some times i do live under an rock.
i didnt think that owb for morphos would have any relation to os 4.x version.
i call timberwolf the final solution becuse its the most coverd full scale browser that will bring amiga standart up agen.
i dont understand it ether the morphos os like 1.? and os 4.x is 3.X but morphos version is still an better solution then the os 4.x ver, is."
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=33308&forum=28&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=0#604206

Joerg Strohmayer's browser (or any other Origyn Web Browser) is *not* the same as Fab's browser, even though they shared the name. The unofficial "MUI prefix" (i.e. "MUI-OWB", or "MOS-OWB" or "MorphOS OWB" or "OWB for MorphOS" for that matter) never really helped and suggests that the only/main difference would be a Reaction vs. MUI GUI, or an OS4 build vs. a MorphOS build, that it's basically the same good old OWB, totally hiding/neglecting the fundamental differences between them, that they are two entirely different programs.

Calling the browser Odyssey (as I thought was its official name since 06-Aug-2011), plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less, would easily have cleared up any confusion. Also when talking about the existing version or potential new versions of it on OS4.

But the OWB-confusion still goes on, and as soon as "OWB" is mentioned it has to be explained (completely unnecessary) that more than one browser has this name, it has to be pointed out what browser is really discussed, and that there really is a difference between them...

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=37801&forum=14

...and IMHO it doesn't help that even Fab himself seems to prefer calling it OWB. In a way it makes me wonder why he bothered with a name change in the first place, when apparently the only change he had in mind was going from one "O" to another "O" before the trailing "WB" and letting the confusion and mixups continue? Seems like it was nothing more than a bad joke, some kind of play with words?

But I can easily live with the OWB name as well, I don't really mind. At least *I* know the difference, and with the price tags of OS4 systems it's not like I'd risk coming anywhere near OS4 or Joerg Strohmayer's OWB, so I won't even have to use some made-up prefixes to differentiate the OWB name...

> AFAIK at least one of the reasons (probably the biggest reason) to the renaming of the
> browser Odyssey (06-Aug-2011) was to avoid the confusion with "the other" OWB's.

That would mean Fab's choice of "Odyssey" was quite poor as that didn't change the abbreviation "OWB" one bit. I remember that Fab said he wanted the abbreviation to stay the same (as opposed to what you seem to remember), hence the choice of another word beginning with "O", and that he wanted to distance his project from the "Origyn" name, not from the "OWB" name.

> "Origyn" was effectively no longer present (at least not in a significant way) in Fab's
> browser, even *long before* the actual name change (for all I know, this could very
> well be true for the v1.9 (ported to OS4) and earlier as well)! [...] So while there wasn't
> any "Origyn" left in Fab's browser, people would still mix it up with OWB (as in Origyn
> Web Browser) because of the name.

v1.9 was indeed the first version using WebKit directly, but you can't hold them responsible for Fab's apparently poor name choice, can you? Fab chose to name his browser "Origyn Web Browser" up to v1.13 and "Odyssey Web Browser" for v1.14 and above. And it was also Fab's choice that the new name had no impact on the abbreviation. Now go put name and shame on the one responsible for the confusion :-)

> The unofficial "MUI prefix" (i.e. "MUI-OWB", or "MOS-OWB" or "MorphOS OWB" or
> "OWB for MorphOS" for that matter) never really helped

I think it does help distinguishing Fab's Origyn Web Browser v1.9 from the other OWBs, e.g. Reaction-based Origyn Web Browser or the AROS Oxygen Web Browser.

> and suggests that the only/main difference would be a Reaction vs. MUI GUI,
> or an OS4 build vs. a MorphOS build, that it's basically the same good old OWB,
> totally hiding/neglecting the fundamental differences between them, that they
> are two entirely different programs.

That's much more suggested by the very same name "Origyn Web Browser" for Fab's browser up to v1.13 and the Reaction-based browser. You can't be seriously thinking that the "MUI" prefix is responsible for this.

> Calling the browser Odyssey (as I thought was its official name since 06-Aug-2011),
> plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less, would easily have cleared up any confusion.
> Also when talking about the existing version or potential new versions of it on OS4.

The "Odyssey" name was introduced with v1.14, so it should be clear that v1.9 isn't Odyssey but still called "Origyn". Fab clearly didn't rename his older releases subsequently. If you download Fab's v1.13 or older today, you can see that it is still called "Origyn Web Browser". And btw, the "About" window for v1.14 and newer reads "Odyssey Web Browser" as the official name, not just "Odyssey", that's why the "OWB" abbreviation is still valid, and deliberately so.

> IMHO it doesn't help that even Fab himself seems to prefer calling it OWB.

It's telling that you are able to see that but still manage to declare others (them?) responsible for calling it "OWB".

> In a way it makes me wonder why he bothered with a name change in the first place,
> when apparently the only change he had in mind was going from one "O" to another
> "O" before the trailing "WB" and letting the confusion and mixups continue? Seems like
> it was nothing more than a bad joke, some kind of play with words?

I suggest you to ask him directly about this.

> I can easily live with the OWB name as well, I don't really mind.

Yes, obviously ;-)

So anyway, MUI4 for Hyperion OS; as likely to happen as DirectX for Linux.

Quote:

You are completely wrong, I also remember this. And as usual you seem to miss the whole point by a mile or so, you always fail to see (or at least understand) the *message* behind the text (and no, not only in my posts).

Changing a name of an application in order to simplify references to it in relation to completely separate applications, and to avoid confusion and unnecessary explanations as soon as someone mentions it (or the other application with the same name), becomes a completely pointless exercise if you use the abbreviation *as a name* (instead of the proper name) as soon as you make references to it, especially so when the abbreviation equals to both the old name and the name of the other application you wanted to distance from.

Typing "Odyssey" isn't particular difficult, it's not a particular long word, it's not difficult to remember. There is *no need* to use abbreviations at all on that one, instead you could use the proper name directly, especially since the proper name has the benefit of avoiding confusion with the other, different application, which pretty much was the point in bothering with a new name in the first place. By using the abbreviation "as a name", instead of the *proper* name (regardless of version number, that's irrelevant), brings us back to square one, where people has to invent prefixes like "MUI-OWB" or "MOS OWB" or "OWB for MorphOS" to tackle the confusion, and it will always leave a few more or less ignorant people in the belief that "OWB on MorphOS" is a fairly useless browser since this is how "OS4-OWB" is.

That's all!

Now please don't make a mountain out of a molehill on this, Andreas!

Wow. That was a depressing read.
Does everything in the Amiga community have to be disfunctional?
I mean, is it some kind of requirement?

I take it that was rhetorical Jim? ;)

>> I remember that Fab said he wanted the abbreviation to stay the same
>> (as opposed to what you seem to remember)

> You are completely wrong

I don't think so. The only explanation as to why Fab chose another word beginning with "O" is that he wanted to keep the "OWB" abbreviation.

Btw:

"Posted By: takemehomegrandma [...]
Fabien Coeurjoly has now released version 1.14 of his web browser, and also changed its name to Odyssey. Here are the highlights of the release: [...]
Changed the name to "Odyssey Web Browser". Like it or hate it, but you can still call it OWB, anyway. :)"
https://morph.zone/modules/news/article_storyid_1882.html

> I also remember this.

You remember what? That "probably the biggest reason [...] to the renaming of the browser Odyssey (06-Aug-2011) was to avoid the confusion with "the other" OWB's"?

> you seem to miss the whole point by a mile or so

Let's see. Your point I was arguing was this: ""MUI-OWB" as they persist in calling it for some reason". Here you clearly criticize "them" (which is OS4 people as usual with your nonsense "messages") for calling the browser a name which you *later on* in the discussion admit has been coined by the author himself. Sane people would detract their imbecile accusations as soon as they learn of the truth, but you manage to keep the accusations up and *at the same time* admit that the responsibility for the confusion lies with the author. To me as a layman this sounds like a case of cognitive dissonance.
On top of that, you play dumb by pretending that you don't know the reason for calling the browser "OWB" but you *later on* show that you clearly know the reason.

> you always fail to see (or at least understand) the *message* behind the text

You seem to fail at grasping a simple concept: to prove that your "message" is the usual bollocks it's necessary to reveal the single points your "message" is based on as the nonsense they are.

> Changing a name of an application in order to simplify references to it in relation
> to completely separate applications, and to avoid confusion and unnecessary
> explanations as soon as someone mentions it (or the other application with the
> same name), becomes a completely pointless exercise if you use the abbreviation
> *as a name* (instead of the proper name) as soon as you make references to it

You still don't get it, despite the fact that I explained it to you in plain and proper language. The full and proper name of OWB v1.9 is "Origyn Web Browser", as that's what its "About" window reads on both MorphOS and OS4. How would using that full and proper name help any distinction?

> especially so when the abbreviation equals to both the old name and the name of
> the other application you wanted to distance from.

Can you once and for all name the one(s) you think are responsible for "OWB" being the abbreviation of both the old and the new name? Is it "them" who "persist in calling it ["MUI-OWB"] for some reason"?

> Typing "Odyssey" isn't particular difficult, it's not a particular long word,
> it's not difficult to remember.

Why do you expect others to use the name "Odyssey" for a browser that's cleary been named "Origyn Web Browser" by the author?

> There is *no need* to use abbreviations at all on that one,
> instead you could use the proper name directly

How would using the proper name "Origyn Web Browser" help?

> especially since the proper name has the benefit of avoiding confusion with the
> other, different application

How does the proper name "Origyn Web Browser" avoid confusion with those other, different applications?

> which pretty much was the point in bothering with a new name in the first place.

The new name "Odyssey Web Browser" was introduced with v1.14. The current OS4 version, which you were criticizing the inofficial name usage of, is a port of v1.9, so still "Origyn Web Browser" (see "About" window, regardless of OS). I explained that to you already, but "for some reason" you don't want to get it.
And how do you suddenly know what Fab's point in renaming was when in your previous post you were still wondering about it?

> By using the abbreviation "as a name", instead of the *proper* name [...], brings
> us back to square one, where people has to invent prefixes like "MUI-OWB" or
> "MOS OWB" or "OWB for MorphOS" to tackle the confusion

Using the proper name "Origyn Web Browser" for v1.9 wouldn't change that.

> regardless of version number, that's irrelevant

No, it's not. If I start OWB v1.14 or above, the "About" window reads "Odyssey Web Browser". With versions below it reads "Origyn Web Browser". Why should anyone believe you of all people that the version number is irrelevant when the program itself says otherwise based on the author's decision?

> Now please don't make a mountain out of a molehill on this, Andreas!

I'm merely replying to your nonsene. Stop it, and my replies will stop as well.

But Jesus H. Christ, Andreas!

I think you'd better post some URL's now. Preferably a link to a link.

Or a link to a link to a link.

That would be good.

Thanks!

> But Jesus H. Christ, Andreas!

I'm afraid you can't impress me with religious remarks. I trust in facts more than in believes :-)

> I think you'd better post some URL's now. Preferably a link to a link.
> Or a link to a link to a link. That would be good.

Have you missed my link to the article about cognitive dissonance at Wikipedia? I don't know how more links would help with the topic at hand, but if that's what you need to weasel out I think I can help you. Which links do you want exactly?

> Thanks!

You're welcome :-)

OMG ;P that was a big waste of time.

Just one thing, why would we call anything be anything else but its real name ?
So what ever fab has decided is the name, will stay the name for all time.
Its like saying what ever you made, i can decide to rename...

All Aboard Fail Boat, Lets Set Sail For FAIL!

X

> why would we call anything be anything else but its real name ?

Exactly. There's no point in using the name "Odyssey" for a browser clearly named "Origyn Web Browser". If you were more referring to the use of abbreviations, I think the primary motivation is language economy. I don't see anything bad in using abbreviations, especially if it doesn't cause any more ambiguity than using the "real name" would.

> So what ever fab has decided is the name, will stay the name for all time.

Exactly. OWB up to v1.13 will always be "Origyn Web Browser", no matter how later versions are named.

> Is that the same Steven Solie that also promised an OS4-netbook ?

It may also be the Steven Solie who "has re-written the "C" language to make it more Amiga efficient" ;-)


Edit: It has now been edited.

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 19.10.2013 - 01:34 ]

Quote:

My God these people are morons.

The blind led by the blind!

Quote:

Quote:

Comment 7 (from Samo79, OS4 betatester)

(Google translation)


[ Edited by boot_wb 17.11.2013 - 13:39 ]

"These go to eleven..." - Nigel Tufnel

Oh well, at least sometimes the OS4 community is good for a laugh.

Why not just port ReAction, which has been the official GUI since 1999, instead of always stressing about MUI?

Quote:

- Because it's too limited and awful to code with. Name us a couple relevant apps that are more than simple prefs editors or frontends? I can only think about Aweb itself... And maybe that OS4 dev tool. Anything else? Weird, isn't it?

- Because MUI is the official toolkit in MorphOS, why should one bother about ReAction, when there's almost no app needing it anyway? And if one really wants, he can always install ClassAct classes on MorphOS anyway.

- Is ReAction even "official"? I really wonder how one can consider 3.5/3.9 official. Piracy is also declared an official AmigaOS standard since they included a pirated TCP/IP stack then?

Quote:

Yeah, Please, ask Hyperion to release the source code of Reaction. I don't know if Hyperion wants some cash for it but maybe 500$ will be ok considering its complexity.

Without Mui MorphOS wouldt exist...

No mui = LOL

>Because it's too limited and awful to code with. Name us a couple relevant apps that are more than simple prefs editors or frontends? I can only think about Aweb itself... And maybe that OS4 dev tool. Anything else? Weird, isn't it?

Well, I wouldn't call a program like AmiArcadia a simple prefs editor or frontend, it's AFAIK the most feature-complete emulator existing on MOS. With the possible exception of ports of generic multi-host emulators such as MAME.

>Is ReAction even "official"? I really wonder how one can consider 3.5/3.9 official. Piracy is also declared an official AmigaOS standard since they included a pirated TCP/IP stack then?

So someone made some libellous and presumably false allegation against H&P. Odd that it never went to court then if there was any substance to it. If they were a bunch of pirates do you really think they would have been running the Amiga No Piracy campaign? Various such allegations are always floating around the community in regard to most Amiga-related companies. Should I therefore believe the allegations floating around about Genesi stealing the AmigaOS 3.1 source code? According to your logic, I should. (Perhaps this explains the lack of OS3.5/3.9 support in MOS...) But I prefer to wait for hard evidence before jumping to conclusions.

H&P were licenced by Amiga to produce these as official OS versions, so of course they are official. Anyway if one component of an OS is found to be in breach of some licence/contract, that doesn't mean the entire OS is suddenly unofficial. Eg. to use an example from a different platform, DoubleSpace technology in MS-DOS 6.0. According to such logic MS-DOS 6.0 is therefore unofficial...

>Yeah, Please, ask Hyperion to release the source code of Reaction. I don't know if Hyperion wants some cash for it but maybe 500$ will be ok considering its complexity.

I guess compared to something overly complex and bloated like MUI it's simple, yes. I doubt Hyperion would want to sell a key technology like that to their main rival. However it maybe be possible to acquire ReAction source from H&P or from the original developers. (In fact perhaps H&P has uploaded it to some warez site, after all they are just a bunch of pirates supposedly.) Frankly there seem to be only minor improvements in the OS4 ReAction compared to the OS3.9 ReAction.

[ Edited by Minuous 13.12.2013 - 21:40 ]

> someone made some libellous and presumably false allegation against H&P.
> Odd that it never went to court then if there was any substance to it.
> [...] Various such allegations are always floating around the community
> in regard to most Amiga-related companies. [...] I prefer to wait for
> hard evidence before jumping to conclusions.

Read there directly from the horse's mouth:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050221085432/http://www.guru-group.fi/~too/amitcp.txt
http://www.amigahistory.plus.com/amitcp392.txt
http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2000-12-00114-EN.html

> Should I therefore believe the allegations floating around about
> Genesi stealing the AmigaOS 3.1 source code?

You can easily deduce these allegations as nonsense (unless they involve a time machine in Genesi's possession):
- MorphOS development start: 1998
- initial MorphOS release: 2000
- incorporation of Genesi: 2003

> Perhaps this explains the lack of OS3.5/3.9 support in MOS

There is an easier explanation:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=9641&start=28

> it maybe be possible to acquire ReAction source from H&P or from the
> original developers. [...] there seem to be only minor improvements
> in the OS4 ReAction compared to the OS3.9 ReAction.

I don't know about the ReAction enhancements in OS4, but licensing an old ReAction version for MorphOS would surely result in a situation similar to the current MUI situation, only with the two operating systems reversed.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38546&forum=14

Wow, MUI, Odyssey, a little more work and they'll have....a slightly slower version of our OS (without Reggae, TinyGL, etc.).

I thought we were the party accused of copying.