Unless the developers have retained at least one of each platform they have ported to, I imagine it is difficult to assure that all previous systems work with each revision change.

Quote:

Quote:

Are you out of your mind?
You want to change API to not binary compatible and there still will be problems with software porting?
New system should be based on UNIX.

Quote:

MorphOS will *never* go POSIX/UNIX/whatever, anyone with knowledge of the MorphOS developers past view on this knows perfectly well that there isn't even a point in asking this question! It will never happen, and why should it? Sure, there will be some additions to the API, and some changes in rules and assumptions that affects applications environment, like no app will be allowed access to memory outside its allocated space, and that different parts of the system, and different parts of any threaded applications, can be executed on different CPU cores in an asynchronious manner unlike today. Etc, etc. But MorphOS was never about POSIX, never about making another Linux. My experience from past discussion from the MorphOS team, is that they would rather drop it and walk away than going in that direction. They are making *their own* operating system!

Quote:

The new system will be based upon MorphOS, I think this is a fair and realistic assumption.

Quote:

Knock yourself out. ;)


http://repo.arixfoundation.com/downloads/

Quote:

No,it should NOT.
That would result in a monolithic kernel, far lower startup
times, and and OS with no differentiation from all Linux distros.

If you want a UNIX base, use AROS hosted.
Don't request corruption of our OS.

Basing MorphOS_x64 on linux is the easiest and most obvious way
While we're at it replacing MUI with QT/GTK is the easiest and most obvious way
Compared to Wayland CGX is crap anyway

And now, the name "Morph_OS" just sounds stupid, lets replace it with something sensible.

I propose "Bluehat Linux" !!

While i also don't want it to use a *ix kernel, the idea is not too stupid again. I think Amithlon and the never released Umilator have shown a way to use a Linux kernel for the base job and still keep it Amiga. But I don't favor such a solution. I want the real thing.

But I would pretty much welcome some drivers optimized for a virtual machine like vmware, parallels or qemu.

Using Linux kernel doesn't have to make it another Linux distribution. Look at OS X: the fact it's partially based on BSD kernel doesn't make it a BSD clone.

The same would go for Linux. I don't understand these false assumptions...

Of course, the way that AROS chose of being hosted make it this way, but it doesn't have to be.

[ Edited by Leo 07.05.2016 - 22:40 ]

Quote:

The voice of "reason" finally! I agree that MorphOS could be based on parts of Linux, without making it just another Linux distro. With recent progress on AROS, or more specifically, AEROS, it runs fairly well and doesn't seem like a "hosted OS". Maybe we will be able to claim that MorphOS for x64 is Amiga and Linux done right!

Wouldn't it be a great thing for the MorphOS Dev. Team, and all MorphOS users, if MorphOS for x64 could take advantage of most, or all of the Linux drivers for x64 hardware, AND be able to run Linux programs (perhaps with a wrapper, or some other tweak)? I say yes! YES!

If the MorphOS Dev. Team went this direction, it would save them months, if not years of coding work, and I am confident they can pull it off in a manner that acts like our existing PPC MorphOS3.9, by hiding all user action parts of Linux they use, and replace it with the MorphOS GUI and organization we are all used to and appreciate from our background with Amiga computers. Even if the MorphOS Dev. Team completely changes lots of things that Linux distro's currently use, or have set up a certain way, MAYBE they can still take advantage of Linux drivers, and development tools (perhaps with modifications), and make it easy to run Linux software, or make it easier to port Linux software to MorphOS for x64.

It will be slower, but someone already pointed out that MorphOS for x64 will be slower no matter what they do, because they will be adding memory protection and hopefully SMP. I believe that the speed of MorphOS for x64 will still seem faster, due to the faster hardware we will be running x64 MorphOS on. An i7 CPU is how many times faster than a 2.7GHz G5? 10x, 20x 50x???

The MorphOS Dev. Team can work with the AROS developers and take what ever is worthwhile, (if anything) and return perhaps some improved parts back to the AROS programmers and users, if that is possible.

To my mind, this is the only logical way forward, which would help us stay close to the leading edge of other computer platforms, and also allow faster updates to new hardware, when the initial x64 hardware choices are no longer available. If the MorphOS Dev. Team write all of their own drivers from scratch every time they need to update to newer hardware, it will limit us to fewer choices, and take tons more time, every time the existing hardware becomes unavailable (and in the land of Intel PC's, that seems to happen really fast, like 18 to 24 months).

This route may also entice some Linux programmers to join our ranks, since the development tools should be familiar, if not exactly the same tools.

[ Edited by amigadave 07.05.2016 - 16:29 ]

I'm not saying they should go for Linux (or any other open source modern kernel), what I'm saying is that going Linux as the kernel doesn't mean you cannot write an OS that doesn't feel like an Amiga and retains Amiga-like features (MUI, Datatypes, Volumes,...).

That said, I'd be surprised if they went that way.

Thought I would let this get bounced around a bit, as my inital response was tainted by my emotional reaction to this idea.

OK, so why not?
Because, unlike UNIX or Linux, our OS currently uses (quite sucessfully) a microkernel.
This feature is relatively uncommon as it is most commonly found in OS' used in process control applications.
It's compact and efficient as opposed to the Linux kernel (which grows in size with each revision).
And microkernel based OS' are inherently more stable as features that in Linux are incorated into the kernel are often placed outside the kernel in a microkernel OS (where they are less likely to crash the system).

In short, the kernel we currently use is OURS. It was created by core developer Ralph Schmidt. Its basic design is quite different than a Linux kernel
It is tight, clean and rather elegant.

I do NOT favor throwing away core features, that offer a benefit and differentiate us from the masses.

I could be biased, as the last operating systems I used on the 68K were microkernel based.
But, there was a big advantage to that in the '80s and '90s, and those bonuses are still there.
You will NOT hear me join a chorus of voices that would suggest we resort to such a cobbled together hybrid.


[ Edited by Jim 08.05.2016 - 11:08 ]

Quote:

Argh!
Why not just move to Linux?
You could just clothe it in a MorphOS theme and be done with it.

Why not base NG MorphOS on TempleOS instead?

AFAIK all the things needed for a modern kernel is already there in Quark. Sure, you get a lot more drivers in Linux, but will it still be it's own thing? I don't think so. I think it's the same reason why Haiku voted against going for Linux too. It would be less authentic and less original.

As I understand it currently the Quark microkernel is used to boot the hardware and host the A/Box and not much more which isn't too dissimilar to how Amithlon used the Linux kernel.

Assuming MorphOS NG will be more or less the mythical Q/Box that makes use of the advanced features Quark provides rather than just playing host to another OS like it does now, then there is always the ossibility of adapting Quark to be able to use Linux drivers in a similar fashion to the Genode OS.

http://genode.org/documentation/release-notes/14.11#Intel_wireless_stack

[ Edited by Intuition 08.05.2016 - 17:13 ]

> going Linux as the kernel doesn't mean you cannot write an OS that
> doesn't feel like an Amiga

You got entangled in your negations here :-)

Linux, TempleOS, Haiku, and GenodeOS, damn.

How about if MorphOS (NGNG) is based on...MorphOS?

Jim. for sure MorphOS should (and will) be based on MorphOS. But looking to alternative solutions may help to make thr right decisions. Evaluation of these solutions will give a vote on what to do and what not to do.
As far as I know the history and the developers I ampretty convinced they will not go for a Linux base. But if they eventually did, it would not be the end of the world or MorphOS would instantly beome YALD. It could stay pretty authentic.

That said I vote for not using a *nix kernel or an other alien kernerl, but let Laire et al do the real hard job themselves

Quote:

You'd not use MorphOS if they added the ability to use Linux drivers to the kernel?

Zylesea, this is one area where I feel we have a real advantage.
So my (cough, cough) 'mild' form of fanaticism is on display again.

Top to bottom, I am really fond of this OS.
It incorporates some of the best of our legacy OS with ideas that were very cutting edge at the time of its development.

AND a Linux kernel is philosophically the opposite of our current structure.

It scares me a little when people suggest we scrap concepts that are a)relatively unique and b)work really well.

Quote:

Jim, What I think Intuition and I are trying to say is NOT that we want to switch the kernel to Linux, but if possible, adapt the MorphOS kernel you are so fond of, so it can use Linux drivers. Maybe this is not possible, but until someone more knowledgeable than myself steps into this conversation and says what we are suggesting is about as possible as getting the AmigaOS4.x team and MorphOS team to join forces, I will continue to support the idea of incorporating Linux drivers into x64 MorphOS, to reduce the workload our developers have to do now and in the future.

It may very well be "pie-in-the-sky" dreaming, by the uneducated concerning OS design (myself), to suggest or wish for a new MorphOS that can somehow also use Linux drivers, and in a perfect world, magically also contain a wrapper, or some other coding to allow us to run Linux software.

I, like you, also do not wish to have MorphOS turned into anything resembling Linux, but if there is a way to accomplish the above without destroying what MorphOS has been based on from the beginning, it would be great to instantly have the entire Linux software library available, in addition to tools that make writing new MorphOS native software easier.

Like I said, this is probably impossible, but until I see it written, or hear it spoken from someone I know is likely to have the knowledge to answer this question, I'll remain ignorantly hopeful.

If I am going to dream, might as well dream big!

They really are radically different types of structure David.
Many elements incorporated into the Linux kernel don't need to be there.

Placing essentially all drivers above the kernel (as a microkernel OS would) just makes sense to me.

> Linux, TempleOS, Haiku, and GenodeOS, damn. How about if MorphOS (NGNG)
> is based on...MorphOS?

Nobody suggested future MorphOS should be based on Haiku or GenodeOS. And the TempleOS suggestion was an obvious joke.

@Amigadave

And what drivers would that be ?

The interesting parts of the GFX-drivers are in binary blobs and we allready have a quite good base here,

Basic stuff like IDE/SATA and network doesn't really change that much over time, so it's "just" a matter of adapting existing drivers (and choosing HW where those components are related to ones allready supported).

Only leaves the real basic stuff, scanning the device tree, setting up the northbridge and so on.
Don't think twisting a linux-kernel here will lead to optimal results.

> The interesting parts of the GFX-drivers are in binary blobs

Couldn't these be used on MorphOS/x86(-64) with Linux-compatible kernel as well?

Besides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_device_driver#Free_and_open-source_drivers

> and we allready have a quite good base here

Nearly as good as the Linux base?