So it seems HYPErion made some minimal changes to OS3.1 and is selling it.

They aren't calling it AmigaOS3.1 though, they are calling it Workbench 3.1 (and Kickstart 3.1). This is getting confusing now. I thought the Workbench name was owned by Cloanto? I thought OS3.1 was actually owned by Cloanto also! I thought HYPErion only had a license to the old code, but not to sell individually? Maybe not?

Hasn't Cloanto/A-Eonkit already started selling a slightly updated OS3.1? How does the HYPE version compare? Is the HYPE version even legal?

My brain hurts. Seeing a HYPErion copyright on OS3.1 is pretty shit too

Cloanto and Hyperion always had good relationships. I think everything is perfectly legit, while you might not like it.

Kind regards,
Andrea

I hope this isnt just a way to make a quick buck. but in OS4 land this is business as usual. look at PPaint, Multiview...
i'd love to see an updated 3.1 kick with >4GB support

Quote:

From the mentioned "feature list", I'm not impressed. Highlighted features include replacing the check mark with a boing ball and updated copyright information!

Quote:

I think they're taking the opportunity to to make some sales from the emulation and FPGA market than to create an update for people with 3.1 already. I don't think they're trying to create the illusion of it being something else. It's not like they called it 3.2.
It makes sense for a cash strapped company like Hyperion to make use of IP they have access too. You'll recall that the A-EON 3.1 ROMs that various dealers now sell are licensed from Hyperion. Jens also got a license from Hyperion to bundle 1.3 and 3.1 ROMs with the ACA-500 and future accelerators and the deal also grants him access to the source code for the IDE driver.

Quote:

I understand all that, but this raises a bunch of questions.

Don't Cloanto actually own 1.0-3.1 with Hyperion only having a limited grandfathered license? Haven't Cloanto pretty much covered the market with digital versions, and licensed to A-Eonkit for physical versions? Now Hyperion are also selling a digital version? Their license allows them to sub-license? Wouldn't this cannibalize on sales from Cloanto/A-Eonkit? I guess we'll find out soon enough if Cloanto is on board with this. They have no problem defending their IP. If we hear nothing, all parties are in agreement.

From a user/consumer perspective this creates a whole lot of confusion.

On one hand you have an "enhanced" OS3.1 from Cloanto/A-eonkit, but it is still called 3.1.
On the other hand you have an "enhanced" OS3.1 from HYPErion, but it is still called 3.1

So there are now at least 3 versions of AmigaOS 3.1, even though by naming they are just calling it Workbench 3.1. Each version has nuances the others don't.

If all parties are on board with what each other are doing, why the disconnect? Why not change the numbering even slightly? Obviously it not a big enough change for even 3.2, but maybe 3.101?

[ Edited by redrumloa 14.10.2016 - 00:01 ]

Quote:

That would entirely fit with the distribution method.
Had they been targetting Amiga (hardware) users then the distribution of kickstart would be (at least optionally) on a physical medium.

Targetting 68K is - the platform with 10.000-100,000 rather than a few hundred - makes far more sense if one is trying to keep Hyperion afloat. Having at least one active income stream is more sane than the previous position, and a complete U-turn on Hyperion's previous customer relationship strategy (buy PPC or die!).

I would guess that was one of Costel's initiatives.

[ Edited by boot_wb 14.10.2016 - 08:51 ]

>> the A-EON 3.1 ROMs that various dealers now sell are licensed from Hyperion.

> Haven't Cloanto [...] licensed to A-Eonkit for physical versions?

There seems to be a disagreement here.

> Obviously it not a big enough change for even 3.2, but maybe 3.101?

Starting above revision 9, there'd be 91 revisions missing in between. If we take into account Cloanto's 3.X (capital 'X' interpreted as '10'), there'd still be 90 revisions missing.

I would also like to know who owns what. I too thought Cloanto owned the 3.1 IP.

Also, is it based on the rewritten code or the original one? If the former is true there is a bigger risk of it being buggy.

> is it based on the rewritten code or the original one?

"The new versions [...] have have been re-built from the original source code"
http://www.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php/news/1-latest-news/173

(also quoted in the amiga.org posting linked in posting #1)

What exactly does that mean? Did they rewrite it in all of the weird outdated programming languages? Aren't those compilers really difficult to get a hold on too?

Or does it mean that since there is a rewrite in C, using it would technically be the same as "the original source code"?

> Did they rewrite it in all of the weird outdated programming languages?

"Re-built" means "recompiled", not "rewritten". And it were more like different dialects (for different compilers) of the same language rather than different languages.

> Or does it mean that since there is a rewrite in C, using it would
> technically be the same as "the original source code"?

Yes, I guess "original source code" in this context means Olaf "olsen" Barthel's ANSI C port. I see now that this is probably what you meant with "rewritten code" in your previous posting.

Yes, exactly. And rewritten code means more risk of bugs and incompatabilities. The Cloanto updates of 3.1 seems to have suffered from it.

Don't the code have to be rewritten if you update it? A pure recompile should mean the original (or maybe the C version) being compiled without any change. No?

Quote:

Indeed. Original sources rewritten in another language to achieve the same API's and functionality (kind of like MorphOS, minus the fact that MorphOS developers didn't have access to those original sources). In other words, the same ported and cleaned 3.1 sources that allegedly was once used as a foundation for OS4, but now compiled for 68k.

To reconnect with Yasu's question above: In my books, the Cloanto 3.1 binaries are original 3.1 binaries (with a handful of exceptions). They are the same, hence they work exactly the same. The Hyperion 3.1 binaries however are not the original binaries. They are new ones, based on rewritten/ported sources, a fact that can have two outcomes: 1) They don't "feel" genuine from a retro nerds or preservationists point of view (especially not with that boing ball instead of the check mark), and 2) the small differences could (not saying they will, but potentially they could) introduce slightly different behavior and maybe even incompatibilities issues (impossible to predict, depending on SW/applications used etc).

@Thread - I cannot care less. Yet another topic slandering hyperion? It's getting boring.

@pampers

Some of us have an interest in 68k Amiga's as well, not just MorphOS. This is IMHO a highly relevant topic, given the upcoming Commodore A1200 Reloaded (this one has awakened a renewed interest in 68k Amiga in me at least), and that Individual Computers supposedly has licensed the OS from Hyperion, not from Cloanto.

Quote:

It does? In what way?

I have heard some people having issues with the 3.X ROM, but that the Cloantos Workbench 3.1 would be bug ridden is news to me. AFAIK, most files are completely untouched from Commodore days, as opposite to the Hyperion version. You have any more info on this?

>> "Re-built" means "recompiled", not "rewritten".

> Don't the code have to be rewritten if you update it?

The source code of the very few updated components would have been updated, not necessarily rewritten (of course we can argue which percentage of the source code of a component would have to be altered in order to be classified as a rewrite of said component). Everything else has likely been left untouched from olsen's port.

Quote:

I think they should have.

> Original sources rewritten in another language

As I said, not another language, but another (more modern) dialect of the same language.

> In other words, the same ported and cleaned 3.1 sources that allegedly
> was once used as a foundation for OS4

...and AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 before that.

> The Hyperion 3.1 binaries [...] based on rewritten/ported sources [...]
> can have two outcomes: [...] 2) the small differences could [...] introduce
> slightly different behavior and maybe even incompatibilities issues

AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 are quite backward compatible :-)

Actually, this looks like a sound business idea to me.
Their license should give them the right to develop derivatives of 3.1, and pursuing the legacy market should offer them additional opportunities.

Quote:

Fair enough but my point was different. This topic might be (and already is looking at the title) another occasion to slander hyperion and I'm just tired of another topic where people throws BS on them (like X5000 topic). This forum is more like aw.net these days. It doesn't help to our community at all.

Quote:

+1 ;)

A rabid hatred of Ben Hermans isn't going to change the composition of our community.
And OS4 isn't going away.
Further, with their developments in Radeon HD video card drivers and OpenGL ES they are gaining ground on us.
So we can talk about the future as much as we like, or our supposed superiority, but the real choice comes down to promoting further development of MorphOS or giving up.
I, for one, am not in favor of the latter.

AND...if I needed a legitimate copy of 3.1, I'd be willing to buy it from Hyperion.

Quote:

Slander? Discussing a product for a market many or most of us are in is slander?

I already have Amiga re-implementation (Turbo Chameleon), and there is a small chance I may be interested in another (Commodore A12000 Reloaded).

Just because you could care less doesn't mean the rest of us don't care.

Quote:

HYPE don't have access to 3.5 and 3.9 sources. These days 3.5 is just ignored and 3.9 is considered an illegal pirate release. Neither are considered canon.