> Obviously Ambient would need some work to display the results of both processes

You mean Ambient running in one MorphOS system displaying the window of a process running in another MorphOS system with both MorphOS systems running side by side on the same hardware (through hardware hypervisor, Quark boxing or whatever)?

The later.
There shouldn't be any limitations inherent in Ambient.

I just don't see what Ambient would have to do with it ???

Updating TaskManager and CPU-Monitor-screenbar to display 2nd CPU useage might be usefull, but apart from that ?

2nd CPU-tasks will need some way to allocate memory from ABox-side and some methods to send/receive messages.

Those tasks wouldn't have any access to other system-resources like GFX-HW or the filesystem. Atleast not in an initial AMP-enabled MorphOS.

>Those tasks wouldn't have any access to other system-resources like GFX-HW or the filesystem. Atleast not in an initial AMP-enabled MorphOS.

What do you mean you don't see what Ambient would have to do with it?

Obviously, you realize the problems displaying output from code running on another cpu.
Your own post kind of points to that.

@Jim

Do you even know what Ambient is ???

Hint : It's neither a gfx-driver nor a GUI-toolkit.

Actually it is "just" a filemanager/program-launcher sitting far ontop of these 2....

The initial AMP system would be just as limited as PowerUP was back then, read AMP task would have no direct access to ABox-functions (except for those specially added for comminication).

Once that is working, one might consider rewriting CGX and other drivers for "QBox" and have ABox-apps access it through some virtual drivers (or the other way round, but IMO a 100% "QBox"-MorphOS should be the endgame).

On top of that one might port MUI (which would run alongside ABox-MUI) and eventually Ambient (which than wouldn't have any need for direct ABox-access).

As Kronos already mentioned. Ambient is just an Application like DirOpus or Filer.

You don´t need to launch Ambient at all to run MorphOS. You could just launch any other filer application or simply end boot process in shell.

I did that for example when placing my Efika inside my arcade system to autorun Fortis without any visible desktop launch..

Geit

More then slighty rude Kronos.

Of course I know what Ambient is.

Its a graphics shell.

And each of your posts has stated pretty much what I alread said.

That it may need to be modified.

And I don't see the point in running two versions of Ambient.

If we assume that users are always going to have Abox running.

But I really like your vision for this better.

>IMO a 100% "QBox"-MorphOS should be the endgame

A Qbox based system with no need for Abox, or where Abox accesses Qbox for some sevices?
Yeah, I like that idea much better.

/me cuddles Jim (hope thats better )

Ambient does not need to be updated, running an ABox-Ambient in an otherwise completly QBox-MorphOS is absolutly possible.

There is nothing in Ambient that would make sense to be updated in a PowerUP-kind AMP setup.

There is nothing to be updated in Ambient with a QBox that has access to (or controll over) GFX or the filesystem.

Once all these steps have been completed (aka "in the year 2525") it might make sense to recompile Ambient for QBox which will surely need some changes on the way.

So yes Ambient is 100% irrelevant for the current discussion about implementing AMP as a basis for a future QBox.

Kronos, I cede the point to you.
Well stated.

> "in the year 2525"

No that is funny.
Then again, its only 12 years.
I hope to still be using MorphOS then.

BTW - I prefer gruff to cuddles (especially if I need to be taken to school).

The only GUI I ever had access to source and influence on porting was Steve Adams Gwindows package (which my company ported to our OS-9 68K systems). Relatively crude in comparison to AOS' interface let alone Ambient.

Jim,
Quote:

Don't skip over those math lessons this time !!

Opps!
2525!
Chicago, right?
Damned American education system.

No, I do not expect to be here five hundred and twelve years from now.
I'm not sure I even want to know what things would be like by then.
At its current rate of acceleration, evolution will have turned us into something we would not recognize.

No Zager&Evans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKSCQ94bJUI

But I prefer the Laibaich version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpRjFSsteLc

Cool stuff!
Music from my childhood.

How old are you Kronos?

Not that old (Zager&Evans)
Old enough (Laibach)

Myself?
A little older.
I remember the song, but at the time I was more into stuff like Deep Purple and Iron Butterfly.

Getting old enough to know what I want, and digging my heels to prevent being dragged into something more "modern".

Tried to adjust to a table, gave up, and went back to netbooks.

I like the year 252525 from Futurama... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ohxdLktbc

> At its current rate of acceleration, evolution will have turned us into
> something we would not recognize.

Evolution accelerates? I'd think that evolution has come to a slowdown given the fact that there's no real natural selection anymore but only (steady) sexual selection taking place. Or are you saying that mutations are increasing, due to increased exposure to nuclear radiation (Fukushima et al)? ;-)

You would think so, but natural selection isn't the only force involved in evolution.
In fact, I think classic Darwinian thinking relys too heavily on this concept.
Mankind's rate of evolution has definately speed up.
We've taken a couple of million years to reach our current state, but the last three homonid species (of which we are the sole suvivor) developed in only a few tens of thousands.
Human populations remained quite low until the development of what we consider modern civilization.
Then our population explodes.
What's next?
The scary prospect that we control how we develop. Enhancing or altering or own genetic makeup, the adoption of cybernetic additions (wired humans, computer enhanced, tied physicaly to the web).
Look at how much our technology has improved in only the last few. hundred years.
Would our ancestors from 500 years ago recognize us.
Would we be able o comprehend mankind's state 500 years from now.

No, we evolve.

[ Edited by Jim 03.03.2013 - 22:58 ]

> natural selection isn't the only force involved in evolution.

Yes, that's why I mentioned two more forces: sexual selection and mutation.

> Mankind's rate of evolution has definately speed up. We've taken a couple of
> million years to reach our current state, but the last three homonid species
> (of which we are the sole suvivor) developed in only a few tens of thousands.

From a cluster of cells to what we are now (= very big genetic change) in couple of million years, and during the last part within this time frame from the first Cro-Magnon to what we are now in 40,000 years (= very small genetic change). I can't see any acceleration there.

> Human populations remained quite low until the development of what we
> consider modern civilization. Then our population explodes.

That's cultural evolution, not biological evolution. Seems we're talking past each other.

> What's next? The scary prospect that we control how we develop. Enhancing or
> altering or own genetic makeup

Yes, that's how cultural evolution (genetic engineering) could lead to an alteration (but not necessarily acceleration) of the biological evolution in the future. But that's not (legally) happening now, thanks to ethics and appropriate laws.

> Look at how much our technology has improved in only the last few. hundred years.

That's cultural evolution again, not biological evolution.

> Would our ancestors from 500 years ago recognize us.

Definitely. We are a bit taller than them on average (there's no scientific consensus on the reasons), and we get much older than them (due to cultural evolution), but the rest of the physique is practically the same.

> Would we be able o comprehend mankind's state 500 years from now.

Physical state (biological) yes, state of mind (cultural) less so.

> we evolve.

True, in both the biological and the cultural sense. But I stand by my opinion, which is: While cultural evolution has been accelerating without doubt, biological evolution has come to a slowdown (not stagnation though) due to natural selection playing only a minor role today thanks to the cultural evolution.

The quality of our tools affects our ability to perform and affects our sucess in our in the real world.
Cultural and biological evolution are intimately intertwined.
One example, we eat much better than our ancstors.
As a result, average height, weight and longevity are increased.
Culture affects biology.

And what would you call the cybernetic creatures we are aleady evolving into?
Cell phones and other devices, instant access to the web and all its supplemental information?
No we are changing, physically, mentally, and socially.

And its a constant.

Some species seem unchanging.
A good example would be yellow perch in Europe and North America.
So little divergence there (one extra spine on the dorsal fin of the European variant) that they can readily interbred.
Yet they were seperated since the time the two continent touched.

In that same time span, two hominid species bred back into Homo Sapiens (or disappeared).
We just happen to be one of the more changable species.

Remember its not just natural selection and cultural evolution.
There's also random genetic drift, mutation, and population mating structures influencing evolution(although the last could be lumped in with culture)

Personally, I coming to believe that evolution may be more proactive then previously thought.
That oganisms change in order to better suit their habitats.
Not selected, change suited to improve.

>True, in both the biological and the cultural sense. But I stand by my opinion, which is: While cultural evolution has been accelerating without doubt, biological evolution has come to a slowdown (not stagnation though) due to natural selection playing only a minor role today thanks to the cultural evolution.

A fairly good summary.
My point, we are influencing biological change and our technology may change us physically and mentally.
It kind of scares me.


[ Edited by Jim 04.03.2013 - 00:43 ]

> Cultural and biological evolution are intimately intertwined.

I'm still not convinced, until humans become subject to genetic engineering, or until we change the climatic conditions (or amount of nuclear radiation) on our planet in such a large scale that certain ethnicities or individuals have a better chance to survive than others due to their genetic make-up.

> we eat much better than our ancstors. As a result, average height, weight
> and longevity are increased.

As I said, the reasons for the height (and thus weight) increase are still being debated by scientists. The increased longevity is due to better nutrition and medical care, yes.

> Culture affects biology.

Yes, but you were not talking about biology in general but about biological evolution (= change of genetic make-up). That's not affected by the cultural evolution unless we start to use genetic engineering to manipulate the genetic make-up of human beings.

> what would you call the cybernetic creatures we are aleady evolving into?

Pure cultural evolution. After all, the child of parents with hip replacements doesn't get born with a titanium hip, does it?

> Cell phones and other devices, instant access to the web and all its supplemental information?

Cultural evolution.

> we are changing, physically, mentally, and socially.

Our genetic make-up doesn't change for those reasons, so they don't constitute biological evolution.

> A good example would be yellow perch in Europe and North America. So little
> divergence there (one extra spine on the dorsal fin of the European variant) that
> they can readily interbred. Yet they were seperated since the time the two continent
> touched. In that same time span, two hominid species bred back into Homo Sapiens
> (or disappeared). We just happen to be one of the more changable species.

The fact that other species have changed very slowly or not at all doesn't prove that our biological evolution accelerates. It could very well be decelerating.

> Remember its not just natural selection and cultural evolution.
> There's also random genetic drift, mutation

Again: It was me who mentioned mutation first as a factor for biological evolution. And I also mentioned sexual selection as a factor for biological evolution. So yes, it's really just biological evolution (with factors like natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, genetic drift and others) and cultural evolution, nothing else. You seem to be slightly confused about the concepts when you don't group forces like natural selection, genetic drift and mutation together in the same group called biological evolution.

> population mating structures influencing evolution(although the last could be
> lumped in with culture)

If it has influence on the genetic make-up, it's biological evolution. If it hasn't, it's cultural evolution.

> I coming to believe that evolution may be more proactive then previously thought.

Cultural evolution yes, biological evolution less so.

> That oganisms change in order to better suit their habitats.
> Not selected, change suited to improve.

If the habitat changes (climatic change or whatever), the individuals that are adapted worse die before they get the chance to reproduce (= natural selection). The remaining individuals with the suited genetic make-up continue to reproduce and thus re-increase the population, which then as a result has a slighty different genetic make-up than before. There's no proactivity about that change. It's all about selection.

> we are influencing biological change and our technology may change us physically

...which isn't usually a case of biological evolution, which happens solely in our genes.

That is the part that worries me.
Natural selection picks those best suited to move forward.
Our ability to meddle with our own make up could lead to even more disfunctional/psychotic humans.

In 2525 we won't have MorphOs
- All the Amiga die hards have died by then
- Current trend on dumbing down computers and software has continued and a WIMP will be something like dinosaurs
- Humans have probably caused a major disaster that might or might not have resulted in our species death

Besided that, I think MorphOs simply needs more developers and a few kick ass applications and we'll be settled for a few more decades.