>"it's a good thing to have a similar behavior on all three platforms when you come to MUI."

I'd agree that it is not worth worrying about and will benefit all.

But our version has been enhanced since Stuntz worked on it.
Claiming you have the same thing with a crude hack is annoying.

@Jim

do we know for certain the level of compatibility between MUI4 on AOS4 and MUI4 on MOS? i realize thore and jens couldn't have had access to the MOS sources, but i wonder the degree of compatibility at the API level. i do think, though, it should be made clear to my fellow AOS4 users that, at best, we have MUI4 4.0, not version 4.2 which is what i have on my MOS 3.3 installation.

i will say i do like being able to configure things more easily under the "new" MUI4. i can make MUI applications "look" more like non-MUI applications on my AOS4 installation.

-- eliyahu

Quote:

That is out of our hands.
And really only concerns the users of OS4.
Plus, they don't need the source to re-create how it works.
Our developers didn't need OS3.1 source, just skill.

>> do we know for certain the level of compatibility between MUI4 on AOS4
>> and MUI4 on MOS?

> That [...] really only concerns the users of OS4.

...which eliyahu belongs to, which in turn might explain why he is concerned ;-)

> Plus, they don't need the source to re-create how it works.

You *can* reach 100% compatibility in a reimplementation, yes, but that doesn't mean it has actually been achieved with the OS4 version of MUI4. The question about the compatibility level is a valid one, I think.

Quote:

Even if compatibility would indeed be an exact 100%, it won't be the same product (as you said yourself), so let's call it OS4-MUI4 or whatever and hope that the compatibility *is* an exact 100% so that we won't have a new OS4-SFS "bastard fork" situation (although the effects of this should be far lesser when it comes to something like MUI than SFS, especially for end-users for which it should be close to non-existent). So while the naming can be a bit provoking and/or confusing, let's not exaggerate the implications of it. And who knows, maybe this could result in some OS4 developers finally forgetting about the "Reaction" abomination once and for all, which could possibly benefit the rest of the "NG" world by increasing the possibilities of cross-porting of their apps, who knows?

(Edit: Can't come to think of one single current OS4 Reaction app I'd want though, but maybe some future one? Perhaps?)

> hyperion paid for it

...or not:

http://www.amigans.net/modules/xforum/viewtopic.php?post_id=86246#forumpost86246
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=20422%23p20422

Quote:

So if I understand this correctly (second link makes my brain ache!) Hyperion intentionally distributed a pirated copy of MUI4 to their customers just to provoke a reaction from Stuntzi?

Quote:

As much I like to nail something like that to Hyperion....

The guys maintaing the OS4-MUI did release that onw their own, maybe they just forgot to compile the keyfile-check, maybe they thought that Stuntzi was long gone, maybe that their contributions to the code ouweigh his and MUI so somehow became theirs,maybe....

Still quite a funny trainwreck.

Quote:

So the OS4 update mechanism isn't controlled by Hyperion? Interesting.....

Has Stuntzi made any public statements about this debacle?

I was previously under the impression that MUI4 had been bought by the MorphOS Team at some point and now belongs to them, but I'm not sure why I had this idea.

So, if I read all this correctly, the package still requires a key from Stuntzi to work correctly?
Too funny.

Quote:

Would be even funnier if he refuses to issue any for OS4.

Quote:
Hyperion is known for not having controll over even the most basics things (updates that completley fail on user HW, websites down for weeks every few months ....).
Quote:

AFAIK&R:
- laire got the MUI3.8 sources sometime in 2001 and ported them to PPC
- this was released as MUI3.9 for MorphOS0.4 and went back into Stuntzi's SVN/CVS/?
- in 2002 Hyperion bought a copy of those 3.9 sources with the provision that any binary made from them would still require a keyfile
- Stuntzi was just like a bunch of other MorphOS developers hired by Genesi/Thendic
- that didn't end so well
- ca. 2005 Stuntzi started work on MUI4
- from 2007 till now MUI has been advanced by some MorphOS-team members to 4.2 with some input from Stuntzi

- ca 2012 some OS4 contributors started retrofitting MUI4.x features into the MUI3.9 source tree (wether that was in the scope of the contract with Stuntzi is unknown)

Dates are just rough guestimates.


[ Edited by Kronos 19.01.2014 - 08:56 ]

Quote:

So in the end, we don`t know do they have legal permission,
its not the same version as in MOS 4.2,
but yet they did something good for OS4, finally.

With OWB (Odyssey), MUI and UAE-JIT seems its all someone elses work and community effort these days, but yet an Amigan spirit lives.

With so many shared components AmigaOS 5 united seems inevitable more then ever.

Quote:

I cringe of brain ache as well, can't believe I'm actually reading this! But things like this has been done by "them" before ("them" beeing both Hyperion and third party OS4 developers).


Quote:

Yes, as Christoph Gutjahr said, this was never an OS4 update but a *third party* app released as such ('Xmas update'), probably because nothing else was available. "Got to keep the potential X2000 customers happy."

"given the state of the project, they can't be too picky about what they offer as 'updates':

Timberwolf dead? Gallium/SMP only existing in the heads of some wannabe leaders? The W3D drivers that Trevor had "hoped to have ready" for AmiWest 2012 still not released?

MUI4 at least gives the impression of progress."


Quote:

Embarrassing is what it is! That post by "tommy sammy" linked to above is astonishing, what it says is that Stefan Stuntz only developed MUI between 1992-2006, since then MUI4 is copyrighted/developed (2006-2013) by "the MUI4 team". So I agree with you, maybe they conveniently "believed" that MUI was abandonware or whatever, maybe they conveniently "thought" that their contributions to the MUI project was greater than Stefan Stuntz's, so maybe they argued that because all of this, MUI4 had now become the property of "the MUI4 team"/OS4/the reeel!!1! or whatever.

http://www.sasg.com/mui/:
Magic User Interface, Copyright © 1992-2013, Stefan Stuntz

(Page last updated: 29-Aug-2013, 08:25:45)

They should be ashamed, but I doubt they are capable. A train wreck it is indeed.


Quote:

First it didn't apparently, but after a recent update the key file check has been re-introduced into OS4-MUI. This after Stefan Stuntz contacted them (after OS4-MUI had been released) and made clear to them that MUI is *his* property.

[ Edited by takemehomegrandma 19.01.2014 - 11:06 ]

Quote:

Well, I suppose that this is *one* interpretation of the situation...

Unity with what?

The worst Linux ideas and leftovers of AROS/MorphOS?

Quote:

BTW, the calendar has now switched to the year 2014...

I wonder what the true believers would have to say if the next MorphOS update came with a copy of the 3.1 bundled with E-UAE "Just to see if the copyright holder complains"?

i don't suppose anyone here has considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, this was done with stuntzi's approval?

-- eliyahu

Quote:


You mean 1st removing the need for a keyfile and then adding it back in a week later ?

No, haven't considered that....


As for wether those people have the right to develop "their" MUI further and change the version-number .... *shrug* .... can't say that I really care much.

Quote:

Kuntz, lol.

Quote:

It wasnt.

How about a Morphos bounty for MUI 5?
Kamelito

Quote:

Oh my, AOS5 again.
Such recurrent optimism.

Quote:

????????????

How about you listing what you think is missing in MUI4.2 ?