scrAb_,
Quote:

I knew there had to be a few others.
I was aware of Amiga, but man that stuff was expensive.
And I was sell other 68K hardware.

So, we have a curious experience in common.
We're using an OS with Amiga OS design elements and improvement without past Amiga experience.

What did you think about the learning curve?
I feel right in.

@Jim

So far no particular problems, except maybe for some MUI settings.
Anyway I'm a newbie here, lately I need some help to disable the usb drive automount at boot.

> I'm really glad you kicked in the support where you did, because when I think of the
> things on my wish list R300 3D drivers, G5 support [...] are a at the top of the list.

Comments from a MorphOS Team member (Google translations):

"Now money for 3D drivers and G5 port is donated. Things that would have come anyway, even if it were only happens with 3.4 or so."
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/276688.html

"I'm not angry about the G5 port. Had planned anyway. Just not now."
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/276709.html

I think these comments are interesting because while the MorphOS Team made no secret of their R300 3D plans, the port to G5 had publicly been portrayed as something yet to be decided for/against.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Since you used ugly google translation and posted without the context, there are some things I should set straight.

It is right. There wasn´t any official announcement of the G5 port until the bounty appeared. I have no idea who would have ported MorphOS to the G5 without the bounty and when or if it would have happened. There are only very few people within the MorphOS Team which are able to do such low level things. Who knows what happens when a G5 gets into the right hands at the right moment. That is how things worked before. I should have used "planed" not planed, there. My fault.

I might also be a bit unclear about the 3D and G5 bountiy itself, as my comments were about bounties in general and not about the G5 bounty in specific. Somehow recently everyone seems to think bounties are the MorphOS savior. Thats why I mentioned also the 3D and even old long forgotten stuff like the Netstack and Packet Manager bounty. The last two were a waste of developer time and money. That´s why I asked for some thinking before setting up new bounties, which recently happens quite often.

Releated to this, in some other posts (no clue where, but AW will find out) I mentioned that money does not necessarily create more MorphOS development time. It does for sure not work if you have a fixed eight hour day job, but may work fine for a freelancer. That is what the people should keep in mind before raising bounty flag to speed up things.

Bigfoot did a great job - not only with his recent work - and if the bounty money is helping him to concentrate on MorphOS this is good for everyone. I am the last person who blames someone for getting money for good work. There is no doubt that this bounty/money gave MorphOS a huge boost, even if I think (< personal oppinion) it caused a delay for the upcoming 3.2 version of MorphOS. On the other side stuff planned (without "" this time) for future updates like 3D is already done by then.

My oppinion was and is unchanged. I don´t see a point in such fast hardware without propper software. The only reason I see is to prepare a solid and available hardware base to cover the years while MorphOS gets prepared for a real platform swap. MorphOS does need users, but to get them we need quality Software in the first place and not up to date hardware. Binding developers to driver programming just to keep the system running on such hardware downgrades MorphOS to being a tech demo. Nothing more. Anyway, with the G5 systems, we reached the end of the flag pole (bonus live <- NSMBU), so we´ll hopefully get some applications in the future.

Geit

[ Edited by geit 19.02.2013 - 12:36 ]

>> "Now money for 3D drivers and G5 port is donated. Things that would have
>> come anyway, even if it were only happens with 3.4 or so."
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/276688.html
>>
>> "I'm not angry about the G5 port. Had planned anyway. Just not now."
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/276709.html

> there are some things I should set straight. [...] I have no idea who would have ported
> MorphOS to the G5 without the bounty and when or if it would have happened.

I read this as a retraction of the above-quoted comments you made on amiga-news.de. I think you should post this retraction there as well, as not all readers of amiga-news.de follow MorphZone.

> I should have used "planed" not planed, there. My fault.

Apart from the unclear implications of ""planned"" vs. "planned", what about your "G5 port [...] would have come anyway" comment?

> my comments were about bounties in general and not about the G5 bounty in specific

I think it's easy to see that your comments that I quoted were about the G5 bounty specifically. I mean, it's in the quotes, right?

> recently everyone seems to think bounties are the MorphOS savior.

I don't.

> old long forgotten stuff like the Netstack and Packet Manager bounty.
> The last two were a waste of developer time and money.

Netstack bounty? Do you mean ezTCP/MOSNet, which was released almost 3 years before a TCP/IP stack was included in MorphOS?

> I don´t see a point in such fast hardware without propper software.

I think you were already told several reasonable use cases for existing MorphOS software on hardware that is faster than what we have now.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Exactly. It was created in the big gab between 1.4.5 and 1.5, which later on was changed to 2.0.

That is my point. It was known/shown and ignored that the upcoming MorphOS will contain a network stack. I demoed it myself several times during that time. It was for sure not 3 years before it was included. It just got released officially with 2.0.

Geit

>> Do you mean ezTCP/MOSNet, which was released almost 3 years before a TCP/IP stack
>> was included in MorphOS?

> Exactly. [...] It was known/shown and ignored that the upcoming MorphOS will contain
> a network stack. I demoed it myself several times during that time.

When was the first public demo of NetStack?

> It was for sure not 3 years before it was included. It just got released officially
> with 2.0.

Exactly, NetStack came only with MorphOS 2.0 in June 2008. No regular end user got it before that release. The first public release of ezTCP on the other hand was in September 2005 (last version was released in June 2006, btw). This means ezTCP/MOSNet was released 2.8 years (or almost 3 years, as I said) before NetStack. As a former ezTCP/MOSNet user I don't think your assessment that it was "a waste of developer time and money" is justified as I was happily using this MorphOS-native TCP/IP stack for almost 3 years when there was no official solution.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Which is funny, as recently people start installing an 68K stack again, so the need of native does not seem to be the real argument depending on the era one lives in.

Anyway, if the involved developer would have taken another bounty, we would have some useful application plus a network stack and not two netstacks.

Geit

> recently people start installing an 68K stack again

They do this because apparantly it's faster than the current native one, which you well know.

> so the need of native does not seem to be the real argument depending on
> the era one lives in.

True, that's why I'm not attempting to speak for others but only for myself when praising ezTCP/MOSNet :-)

> if the involved developer would have taken another bounty, we would have
> some useful application plus a network stack

...and not have had any native network stack between September 2005 and June 2008. I wouldn't have wanted to miss ezTCP/MOSNet during that timeframe, so I still think that bounty was a good thing instead of "a waste of developer time and money".

MOSNet had quite much value for users, me included. Of course ppl could have continued to use pirated MiamiDX copies or the legally suspicious Genesis network stack. But MOSNet was reliable and freely available. I as many other ppl used it pretty satisfied.
And I am sure it took off some pressure from the MorphOS team, too. The "crowd" had one thing less to moan about and the deliberate need for "1.5" was a bit less.
I think MOSNet is one of the outstanding examples that bounties actually can be good for all ppl. MorphOS team hasn't lost anythig, quite the contrary, users pretty annoyed by the long, long time between 1.4.5 and 2.0 had it easier to stay with MorphOS.

> MOSNet had quite much value for users, me included. [...] MOSNet was reliable
> and freely available. I as many other ppl used it pretty satisfied. And I am sure it
> took off some pressure from the MorphOS team, too. The "crowd" had one thing
> less to moan about and the deliberate need for "1.5" was a bit less. I think MOSNet
> is one of the outstanding examples that bounties actually can be good for all ppl.
> MorphOS team hasn't lost anythig, quite the contrary, users pretty annoyed by the
> long, long time between 1.4.5 and 2.0 had it easier to stay with MorphOS.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I knew I couldn't be the only one who can't make sense of geit's negative opinion of the ezTCP/MOSNet bounty.

I used Mosnet too, and it performed pretty good on my pegasos, as you all know the Mosnet bounty started off as EZtcp and was done by Krashan but aborted, dont know if Krashan was part of the core Mos team at that time, but it might seem as (then) resources was wasted on tcp/ip bounty if Krashan took the bounty for the personal reward and put other important Morphos development on hold ?

But i'm slightly clueless of Geits negativity towards Roadshow + the warnings about stuff might or will break, integration of prefs when everyone know that Netstack is the same ported stack from linux/freebsd, same config text files, but when Roadshow performs so well it runs circles(x2) around Netstack, i would assume it to be positive when something just works better and enhances the user experience instead of native 50k/s aminet downloads with Netstack.

> dont know if Krashan was part of the core Mos team at that time

He wasn't, if I'm not mistaken.