> X1000 is obsolete with no CFE updates (even there are bugs to fix)

From A-Eon Core Linux team member Darren Stevens 2 days ago:

"Patching the firmware [...] is not an option for the following reasons: It was modified by a 3rd party, and we don't have a copy of the source. [...] At least one machine suffered damage during a firmware upgrade attempt, many people will be unwilling to reflash their system if an upgrade is produced."
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-August/148168.html

Or in othet words: The stupid knows no limit.

Addendum:

>> how did Jens and Thore come to be in possession of unauthorised sources for MUI,
>> who supplied the sources?

> See link in comment #129 (as written in comment #175) for the story as told by a
> MorphOS team member.

Another different version of the story (based on early MUI4.0, sources provided by Stuntzi):

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=974487

Quote:

As a former moderator at both Amiga.org, and AmigaWorld.net, I can verify that neither A-Eon, or AmigaKit owners, or officers, have directed moderators to censor any threads, and they stay out of moderation actions, unless one of the moderators for those sites asks for help, in the form of an opinion from Matthew Leaman, or Trevor Dickinson. Matthew and Trevor don't have the time, or the desire to get involved in how moderation is being performed on either site, unless one of their moderators is acting in a way that might harm the perception of either site, and therefore reflect badly on both A-Eon, and AmigaKit. (There is no such entity as "A-Eonkit")

Your accusations are more like the ravings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, than rational comments by a user of the superior MorphOS, who don't need to worry about what users of a certain less performing OS say or do. I think you would do better to stick with the argument aimed at the people actually doing the wrong doing, the programmers who have created and maintain MUI4 for AmigaOS4.

Just my 2 cents

> the programmers who have created and maintain MUI4 for AmigaOS4

...and MUI5 since recently :-)

Quote:

Nobody will ever forget what AmigaWorld did, or that it allowed Hyperion and Eyetech to have secret forums and pressure mods to censor. Once a whore, always a whore.

Quote:

You've got to be kidding!

You honestly expect the new owners of Amiga.org & AmigaWorld.net to be responsible for, and to repeat the bad actions of previous owners of those sites? Come on, act like an adult, not a childish fool.

Quote:

yep

Quote:

Sorry, I didn't realize I was replying to a 12 year old. I'll remember to adjust my responses appropriately from now on.

@amigadave

It's a forum culture thing that people like eliyahu is nurturing and cultivating. The old amigaworld ways. The dark ages. People he finds annoying gets banned, topics he doesn't feel is beneficial for "the cause" gets closed down and swept under the carpet. The result is that the AmigaOne/Articia S is flawless, €3000 AmigaOnes makes sense and buying one "helps the Amiga Future", the Hyperion bankruptcy was just a misunderstanding and never really happened anyway, and Thore Böckelmann and Jens Maus are heroes. The forum owners "AeonKit" (two bankrolls but one Matt Leaman) obviously wants it this way, they approve it, else they wouldn't let him continue.

But this is Off Topic.

Quote:

Do as you wish, think as you want, but AmigaWorld is indelibly and permanently stained by its past misdeeds, and you by association have also been forever stained. It is a site with now zero credibility and will never have any more than zero credibility, and if in any situation you realise that nobody believes you or trusts you, then that's probably why. What wouldn't pass for a crackpot conspiracy theory anywhere else is automatically believable when applied to AmigaWorld, because it really was that corrupt and unpleasant. Have a nice day.

Well Dave,
I haven't dealt with AmigaKit before, but my first purchase was a complete fail.
I purchased a Cocolino PS2 to serial adapter and it simply does not work on my CD32.

Matt has sent me back a response that reads in part "The mouse port is a funny thing. It operates on a finite line. So the extra circuit stuff in cocolino is drawing more current and this will be causing issue.
You will end with the same issue with every mouse. Unless its a proper Amiga mouse (no adapter)."

So, basically "it doesn't work".

Not real reassuring considering who is going to be selling the X5000.

Quote:

I wasn't aware that AmigaKit was the developer of the Cocolino mouse adapter, or that it could also work connected to a serial port. I purchased one of them and have used it several times connected to my mouse port, to allow the use of a PS2 mouse, instead of an Amiga mouse, but have not used it in years, since most of my Classic Amiga systems have USB ports now, or I use original Amiga compatible 9-pin mice, of which I have many different models.

If on the other hand, you are blaming AmigaKit for a product that does not work, instead of the person who invented it, and you have not asked for a refund from either AmigaKit, or the original inventor, I can't agree with your reasoning. I have purchased dozens and dozens of products from AmigaKit over the years, and have always experienced great customer service and products.

If eliyahu is acting over zealous and protective as one of the few remaining moderators on either website (when I was there, he was only a moderator of Amiga.org, not AmigaWorld.net), then I would point out specific instances of his behavior to both Matthew and Trevor, and ask for it to be corrected. Of course, acceptable behavior on forum sites is highly subjective, and maybe his actions are justified, I don't know, as I don't post to, or even read those forums any longer. When I was active there, I did not appreciate the number of members who actively tried to disrupt forum threads, and cause conflicts, where none should have existed. I don't miss either site, or the tedious task of trying to moderate the members there.

It is distressing that this site is growing more like those other sites in recent years, but I suppose it was inevitable that more bad behavior begin here, as more people add MorphOS as one of their Amiga inspired alternative OSes, and they come here for information and discussion.

[ Edited by amigadave 06.09.2016 - 21:33 ]

> I wasn't aware that AmigaKit was the developer of the Cocolino mouse adapter

It's an Elbox product:

http://www.elbox.com/products/cocolino.html

> If [...] you are blaming AmigaKit for a product that does not work, instead
> of the person who invented it, and you have not asked for a refund from
> either AmigaKit, or the original inventor, I can't agree with your reasoning.

I think it's been settled now:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71378

> when I was there, he was only a moderator of Amiga.org, not AmigaWorld.net

That's still the case.

Update:

>>> how did Jens and Thore come to be in possession of unauthorised sources for MUI,
>>> who supplied the sources?

>> See link in comment #129 (as written in comment #175) for the story as told by a
>> MorphOS team member.

> Another different version of the story (based on early MUI4.0, sources provided by Stuntzi):
> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=974487

This last version of the story has also been told a week ago by Jens Maus in a German forum. According to him, there are no legal issues with their MUI4 or MUI5 because they have Stuntz's permission. He says their MUI4/5 is based on MUI4 source code from 2009 which they got from Stuntz and for which they have his permission for further development.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=28869%23p28869
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=28916%23p28916

How did they get that?

> How did they get that?

Maybe as hexadecimal program listings printed on paper? I mean, how's the exact handover process relevant?

Quote:

I'm curious as to how they came into possession of this and what format it was provided in.
Stuntz has done us no favor letting this project use the same name and version number as our package, since the two packages are not compatible.
Perhaps in future versions we should consider renaming the user interface, as it has really become the MorphOS User Interface (still MUI) rather than Stuntz's Magic User Interface (after all, to the best of my knowledge, Stuntz had nothing to do with the development of MUI5 - even MUI4 is only partially his work).

>> how's the exact handover process relevant?

> I'm curious as to how they came into possession of this
> and what format it was provided in.

I'm still curious regarding the relevance of this.

> Stuntz has done us no favor letting this project use the same name and
> version number as our package

Strange, isn' it? After all, he's a current MorphOS team member according to the official website, which is an aspect another team member has emphasized as recently as one week ago.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=28908%23p28908

> Perhaps in future versions we should consider renaming the user interface,
> as it has really become the MorphOS User Interface (still MUI) rather than
> Stuntz's Magic User Interface

See Yasu's comment #180. What would be the point? Sounds to me like the 'Origyn Web Browser vs. Odyssey Web Browser' debate.

> to the best of my knowledge, Stuntz had nothing to do with the development of MUI5

According to the MorphOS team member mentioned above, MUI for MorphOS is still Stuntz's matter, to which other team members have merely contributed over the years.

The fun part is that the '5' isn't about MUI itself at all.

Quote:

The form of handover is totally relevant because it could clear up the whole story, the legality of the past releases and the future releases of Maus/Böckelmann (M/B from now on). There are so many different versions of this story around that we do not know the real one.

- Did they get it officially or not? From stuntzi or someone else?
- Under which conditions and which license?
- If “official”, why did he give right to create a second official version using the same name misleading people?
- OR did someone “unintentionally” send M/B a source archive?
- Or intentional although not allowed/”just in good will”?
- Or was it “dropped” somewhere and they got informed about it?
- Was it one single archive or a permanent access to the CVS? Did stuntzi (or someone else? Who then?) send them a single arichive with a version of an old MUI4 beta?

This makes huge differences and creates questions like:
- Was that onoly for the purpose of getting OWB to work or to do with it whatever they want?
- Did he (or someone else) give M/B access to the CVS? Where they allowed to use versions later than the archive that they got (in case they got one)?
- Do they still have access to the CVS? If so, why?
- Did stuntzi grant them the right to create an (official?) MUI fork (knowing or accepting to become incompatible) based on this single beta archive or based on any other distribution like the CVS repository?
- Or … or … or …?

These are all different distribution channels of “they got the MUI source” and this is why Yasu’s question is so relevant. But how it was? Eeveryone says different, so only stuntzi could clear this up and tell how he did it and what his purpose/what license/right he gave out. Only then we could understand what happened and why this conflict came up.

Quote:

And even worse: it led to at least one developer asking the official MUI team to implement features the way the unoffical team did it, so to break the official MUI the same way as the unofficial one was broken. So it confuses everyone using MUI no matter if on OS3, OS4 or MOS.

Maybe he didn't expect all this to come out.

Quote:


That would be stupid and once more worse than now. Giving up the name because someone else got another license to develop conflicting versions would look like “they (MorphOS team) gave up on MUI, now the “MUI for AmigaOS” team is the official maintainer of MUI and all versions that they publish are official, so what they do or say must be correct”. Especially OS4 and OS3 users would rely on this and in the end that would even lead to people blaming the MorphOS team for creating incompatible versions although it is the other way round. And users or developers from OS3 or OS4 would maybe even more often ask the MorphOS team to implement features in MorphOS the way they work In M/B MUI. It would also lead to changing the official product description to change to a sentence like “MorphOS uses the MorphOS User Interface, formerly called Magic User Interface” or “ … compatible with Magic User Interface until version MUI5 beta x.y”. That would be the worst signal the MorphOS team team could send out. It would even support the license and compatibility break of the OS4MUI team as a kind of agreement and acceptance.

Another problematic thing is that MUI is also a part of the official OS4.1 of Hyperion: http://www.hyperion-entertainment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:amigaos41update3&catid=36:amigaos-4x&Itemid=18

>>> How did they get that?

>> how's the exact handover process relevant?

> The form of handover is totally relevant because it could clear up the whole story

It seems we're talking past each other. I've been thinking Yasu's question refers to this part of my posting: "MUI4 source code from 2009 which they got from Stuntz", which would mean that he wants to know how they got the 2009 MUI4 source code in the context of the story as told by Jens Maus. And in the context of his story, the exact handover process shouldn't matter one single bit.
I may of course have wrongly assumed that Yasu's posting was made in context of my posting :-) I assumed as such because asking this question without context (after all, he didn't refer to any prior posting) wouldn't make sense.

> There are so many different versions of this story around that we do not know the real one.
> [...] Eeveryone says different

I'd say it's either Henes' (as representative of the MorphOS team, which also Stuntz is said to be a member of) version or Jens Maus' version. There's no reason to assume that anyone else (except Stuntz himself, who so far has decided to remain silent) has better information.

> Did stuntzi [...] send them [...] a version of an old MUI4 beta?

...or a then-recent (= 2009) non-beta MUI4 version?

> Where they allowed to use versions later than the archive that they got
> (in case they got one)?

There's no indication they used versions later than the archive that they got (in case they got one).

OK, I sometimes forget how linear your logic is Andreas.

As far as renaming the user interface goes, I have no problem abandoning the name if it ends the confusion between these two software packages.
The fact that we have common naming and revision numbers for for incompatible products only leads to confusion.

And AmigaOS users apparently have no problem borrowing whatever they need to re-implement something we've already done, so giving us a additional layer of propriety (even if its only in the name) can't hurt.

>> Perhaps in future versions we should consider renaming the user interface,
>> as it has really become the MorphOS User Interface (still MUI) rather than
>> Stuntz's Magic User Interface

> That [...] would look like “they (MorphOS team) gave up on MUI, now the
> “MUI for AmigaOS” team is the official maintainer of MUI

As Jim wrote, "MorphOS User Interface" would still be MUI :-)

> MUI5 beta x.y

Is MUI5 for OS4/OS3 denoted as "beta"?

> the license [...] break of the OS4MUI team

So we know already which version of the story is true?