>>> 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?

> I have no problem abandoning the name if it ends the confusion between these two
> software packages. The fact that we have common naming [...] only leads to confusion.

I doubt renaming it to "MorphOS User Interface" wouldn't lead to confusion as it would still be called "MUI" most of the time.

> AmigaOS users apparently have no problem borrowing whatever they need

If they have a proper license, as they say, I surely wouldn't call it "borrowing". So far it's debatable what's apparent and what's not.

>If they have a proper license...

And so far we only have their word on this.
All it would take is a comment from S.S., to be assured this isn't BS.

But so far, no comment.
I know he's off somewhere on his bicycle, but if he really is still a team member, why has he been silent about this?

> so far we only have their word on this.

As we have only Henes' word on the contrary.

> All it would take is a comment from S.S., to be assured this isn't BS.
> But so far, no comment.

This could be interpreted as Stuntz having no problem with MUI for OS3/OS4, which in turn would speak for the existence of a proper license.

> if he really is still a team member, why has he been silent about this?

I'm waiting for geit to answer this :-)

Quote:

Which confusion?

Are there any cross-platform projects using MUI5 (or however it might be called)? Most projects are for one of the platforms today, even applications with free sources are forked today, few are interested in porting software between platforms. The MorphOS team with MUI had the chance to set the GUI toolkit standards but they decided not do so (that would have required porting MUI but they wanted to keep it exclusive to MorphOS). Today it is only violating "honor" of MorphOS fans because they use the same naming as on MorphOS. In reality it is not relevant...

@Connor

nobody in the OS3 community will blame anyone... most existing 68k software is based on MUI 3.8, in fact there is no 68k software needing newer versions. Even outside 68k there is not much software needing MUI5 at all and if the software is exclusive to MorphOS anyway. You guys are creating a problem where none exists. To me it looks more like you are insulted because by imitating MUI5 (including naming) someone is violating your superior feeling... enjoy your platform and ignore the other project. Best would be if MorphOS team would support other platforms with compiled binaries of MUI but of course that will not happen.

I seem to get conflicting information. On the one hand MUI 4/5 is supposed to be an MorphOS exclusive, developed by the original author (Stuntz), but on the other hand Stuntz then gave away the source code in 2009 to the informal MUI Team to do what they want with it. And then gets surprised that they released MUI 4. It doesn't make sense.

As I understand the discussions and posts they got legal access to 3.9 but there are claims that they used a MUI 4 beta source snapshot instead they also had access to at that time.

Quote:

Obviously you believe our development team should share something they PAID for with the OS4 community.
And as to confusion, it should be obvious to the unbiased, MUI4/5 under OS4 is not the equivalent of the MorphOS package (for which Stuntz is still considered an active developer).
As to cross porting, you have our version of OWB, where are the OS4 packages we might benefit from? Oh yeah, your developers don't reciprocate.
And you think YOU'RE setting the GUI standards (by cloning our user interface)? Reaction may have more of the Amiga look and feel, but Ambient was designed to be BETTER than the standard Amiga interface. And, btw, while our support of OpenGL could definitely use an upgrade, yours is virtually useless.

This has nothing to do with honor. Its about intellectual property rights. We were here first, we have a proprietary OS, and you are simply copying anything from it you find appealing.

You like to take pot shots at our community as if somehow we are the instigators of all this friction.
I can assure you that everyone here could not care less, unless they are attacked, ripped off, or abused.

We're both focused on offering an upgrade path to AmigaOS 3.1, so your dismissive comment about what is relevant is immaterial. You represent the competition, and if you are copying us, obviously we must be doing something right. That's relevant.

Quote:

I am Aros supporter...

And you benefit of the work of Deadwood who is developer on Aros (neither MorphOS nor 4.X). You seem to put anyone not sharing the views here in 4.X camp but you are wrong there, I could not care less about 4.X but also not about MorphOS. BTW the only competitive port of OWB is on Aros (X86), I do not need to remind you about JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones. If you read my comments carefully again you would understand that the MorphOS team missed the chance to set the standards, now there are none. Most software is for only one platform, in cases sources are open most projects are even forked unfortunately. Competition? Competition would mean you win new users from other camps or from outside, is that anywhere the case? People have their preferences, they would never change to a different platform even if that platform is better. And new users from outside? Stay serious...

I would not have used the same naming as MorphOS team to avoid this discussions but perhaps they like to provoke and people in MorphOS camp (mostly users not the core developers) feel hurtened in their soula and bite. It is really a silly discussion popping up every couple of months now.

> Are there any cross-platform projects using MUI5 (or however it might be called)?

Hollywood's MUI Royale plugin, for instance, which is the software connor referred to in comment #233. So in effect every cross-platform software that is created with Hollywood's MUI Royale.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7808&start=40#98202

> most existing 68k software is based on MUI 3.8

Most existing 68k software is not based on any version of MUI :-)

> As I understand the discussions and posts they got legal access to 3.9 but [...]
> used a MUI 4 beta source snapshot instead they also had access to at that time.

That's what one side claims. For the claims of the other side see comment #226.

Quote:

I was not precise enough

most 68k software is not based on any GUI toolkit or use what was available in the original OS. But because there was only one OS anyway porting it to other platforms was not necessary at all

most software that is available on more than one (amiga) platform today uses MUI

> Stuntz [...] then gets surprised that they released MUI 4.

Source?

> Its about intellectual property rights.

Only if you believe one version of the story and dismiss the other version. Does this mean you know already which version is true?

> you are simply copying anything from it you find appealing.

Licensing the source code of a specific version of a software product and attempting to reimplement changes others have made to that source code wouldn't be "simply copying".

> everyone here could not care less, unless they are attacked, ripped off, or abused.

Just for the record: I've been neither ;-)

> You represent the competition

In essence, this statement about AROS is correct ;-)

> you benefit of the work of Deadwood

MorphOS *will* benefit from it, hopefully.

> JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones

OWB for MorphOS/OS4 doesn't have any JIT, so there are no JIT benchmarks of OWB on these platforms to compare with anything.

> It is really a silly discussion popping up every couple of months now.

Indeed, and therefore it would help to clarify once and for all whether the source code MUI4/5 for OS3/OS4 is based on was acquired in a legal or an illegal way. We already know Henes' and Maus/Böckelmann's conflicting versions of the story. Now only Stuntz must come out of hiding (or biking) :-)

Quote:

bingo!
We just need a statement from the individual this team claims they licensed the code from.

Quote:

The fact he hasn't could be interpreted by some to mean he really doesn't give a shit what we think ergo he doesn't care about Morphos or its users.

Fair enough if that is the case.

[ Edited by Intuition 09.09.2016 - 19:21 ]

@Andreas

User do not care why a platform has no JIT, they simply want to use modern websites

so of course you can compare platforms even if some have no JIT, of course the results are not beneficial for those

>>> JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones

>> OWB for MorphOS/OS4 doesn't have any JIT, so there are no JIT benchmarks
>> of OWB on these platforms to compare with anything.

> User do not care why a platform has no JIT [...]

Absolutely, I said nothing to the opposite.

> so of course you can compare platforms even if some have no JIT

Of course you can compare platforms, but it should be obvious that you can't compare JIT benchmarks of OWB on MorphOS or OS4 when there's no JIT. You simply cannot benchmark something that doesn't exist.

IMHO, as far as the general public is concerned, it's entirely a naming issue.

Copyright issues is down to the involved parties to sort out, and if they don't care to protect their IP or if they decide to share sources or whatever, it's entirely their call.

But naming confusion concerns people in the "user space" (like developers in this case). Naming this "MUI5" is like releasing MorphOS or AROS using the "AmigaOS4" mark (registration aside) in parallel to Hyperion's published OS. Although many similarities in API, there are differences that makes them *not* directly interchangeable, even incompatible. It's not the same thing. So using the same name is indeed confusing, and a rather dicky thing to do, when done so deliberately as in this case. Same when MorphOS devs shared SFS sources to open up for an updated Workbench 3.x port, and off they ran to create an incompatible OS4 port, released using the same name. There are many documented cases of confusion (and possibly lost data?) because of this.

And maybe you should meditate a bit over jacadcaps statement above (which is only a confirmation to several hints by other MorphOS developers, in this thread and others): "The fun part is that the '5' isn't about MUI itself at all."

Maybe the joke will be on Böckelmann & Maus expense in the end...?

Quote:

Yes, a browser running on a 2016 (or 2006 for that matter) x86 platform using JIT will perform way, way better in JS than a non-JIT browser running on a by comparison decade older PPC platform. No need for benchmark on that one, I'd say, or even debate...

Quote:

That's a rather odd way to frame IP theft.

[ Edited by redrumloa 09.09.2016 - 19:36 ]

Quote:

I think he doesn't care much about this.cycling shifts other interests (speaking off own experience). If I read right (albeit my bike preferences (i prefer asphalt and thin tires) are different from his (thick tires and rocks, Stones and mud) i pretty much enjoy his bike touring Blog), he should be home (or very close to home) now after cruising the Alps again for the last few weeks. Maybe there is a Chance to ask him about mui now.

>>>>> JIT-benchmarks comparing non-X86 platforms with X86/X64 or even smartphones

>>>> OWB for MorphOS/OS4 doesn't have any JIT, so there are no JIT benchmarks
>>>> of OWB on these platforms to compare with anything.

>>> of course you can compare platforms even if some have no JIT

>> Of course you can compare platforms, but it should be obvious that you can't
>> compare JIT benchmarks of OWB on MorphOS or OS4 when there's no JIT. You
>> simply cannot benchmark something that doesn't exist.

> Yes, a browser running on [...] x86 platform using JIT will perform way,
> way better in JS than a non-JIT browser running on [...] PPC platform.
> No need for benchmark on that one, I'd say, or even debate... ;-)

Yes, JIT is obviously faster than non-JIT, yet you can't compare JIT benchmarks of OWB on MorphOS or OS4 because there's no JIT there.