Quote:

Hyperion Fires Team Lead and Core Developer

#6

And Hyperion asked thor if he wanted to do an ExecSG-replacement....

Popcorn popcorn and shares in the popcorn industry!!!!

I haven't read much these speculation threads, or taken part in them, but now when Hyperion seems to fall apart, and Cloanto is building a new Amiga imperium and trying to gather everything under the same roof, it just crossed my mind that could MorphOS get closer relationship with the official party and get more awareness/popularity/attractivity by that?

I think Mike is an open-minded and friendly guy, and appreciates and wants to preserve everything Amiga related. I met him last year in our user group event and he briefly asked me what I think / how I rate the NG operating systems, and I of course told him my honest opinion of the situation after I have been testing/using all three of them.

If we'd go totally wild in speculation, how about being AmigaOS 5? :D

Quote:

Rather not.

Quote:

No, no and NO!!

Quote:

Sorry to keep suggesting edits. heh.

Which followed this post:

Trevor Dickinson has confirmed to have bought ExecSG in the AF.

#6

What is being fired when you don't get paid anyway? Losing access to the company mail account?

"Hey Thor, do you want to come code ExecSG for us? We can't pay you anything, we'll treat you like shit, force you to sign NDAs that will end up in you humiliated in public, we'll own all your work (past, present and future), you'll be doing all the support without our help, and we'll fire you if you talk to anyone we don't like. You'll also be paying to go to any Amiga meetings from your own pocket, and you will NOT be allowed access to the company car. But you'll be able to tell everyone what you did for the Amiga - but all announcements and public posts MUST be checked and allowed by us first. Breaking the NDA in any way (even if we change it later) will result in ruinous legal action."

Sounds like a great offer. Can't imagine why he would hesitate.

[ Edited by KennyR 16.03.2019 - 12:54 ]

>> ExecSG is rumoured to have been purchased by A-Eon off the Friedens.
>> Edit: changed "known" to "rumoured"

> Sorry to keep suggesting edits. heh. Which followed this post:
> Trevor Dickinson has confirmed to have bought ExecSG in the AF.

Okay, if AF reported it, it can be called "known" I guess :-) For some, Mike Battilana's statement on the matter (see links in comments #689 and #695) might have been sufficient, though ;-)

Quote:

Source: amiga-news.de
Quote:

Quote:

It might make me more unpopular to be objective, but...

Purported email content text overlayed on a podcast from a 3rd party admittedly new to this amiga stuff..
Not to mention I never saw/heard anyone say he had permission to post Mike's mails, although some would assume so.
And 3rd parties making "announcements" for principals?
A-eon purchaser - Hyperion seller. I also would have preferred a statement from one or both of the actual parties involved, as in a joint press release. ha! Nevertheless, the issue is moot now.

Sorry, but this way of issuing "emails" seemed a bit too much of a counter to the Jens and his "these weren't meant for..." affair.

#6

> A-eon purchaser - Hyperion seller.

No, Frieden brothers seller. ExecSG wasn't Hyperion's property.

Quote:

(1)That's not the point of my post

(2)So you think Trevor negotiated to finalize this through the Friedens? ouch.

#6

>>> A-eon purchaser - Hyperion seller.

>> No, Frieden brothers seller. ExecSG wasn't Hyperion's property.

> That's not the point of my post

You claimed it (see quote), I objected to it :-)

> So you think Trevor negotiated to finalize this through the Friedens?

I think he purchased ExecSG from the Friedens. Else someone else would have had to purchase it from them in between, to which I've seen no indication. If you have anything else on this, I'd be interested to read it :-)

Quote:

No. The point was that 3rd parties not involved on either side of said transaction should not be announcing it before one of those involved.

As to the other...patience.

#6

I'm still wondering if HyperBros did ExecNG as a clean implementation of Exec (as MorphOS and Aros did), or they had access to OS sources and ExecNG wouldn't be created without it.

>>>>> A-eon purchaser - Hyperion seller.

>>>> No, Frieden brothers seller. ExecSG wasn't Hyperion's property.

>>> That's not the point of my post

>> You claimed it (see quote), I objected to it :-)

> No.

;-)

>> I think he purchased ExecSG from the Friedens. Else someone else would
>> have had to purchase it from them in between, to which I've seen no
>> indication. If you have anything else on this, I'd be interested to read it :-)

> patience.

I'm curious :-)

> I'm still wondering if HyperBros did ExecNG as a clean implementation
> of Exec (as MorphOS and Aros did), or they had access to OS sources
> and ExecNG wouldn't be created without it.

Given that the Friedens had access to the 3.1 sources (which surely nobody will deny), I wonder whether ExecSG could be called a proper clean-room reimplementation even in case they didn't really look at the 3.1 exec code. This is how it is typically done after all:

"Typically, a clean-room design is done by having someone examine the system to be reimplemented and having this person write a specification. [...] The specification is then implemented by a team with no connection to the original examiners."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Quote:

I believe we both tend to respect the opinions of others. I also think we both put some value on the circumstantials we exchange. In the latest case of ownership (execsg), we were also fortunate to be able to cite a statement from a trusted source.

So, I'd like to start by asking your opinion.

Trevor/A-Eon have been quick to post AmigaWorld News articles when they aquire something new. Forum threads even accentuate this proud ownership by stating such things a 2nd time to be sure people are aware.
If we are to believe that -this- transaction of somewhat greater magnitude than prior purchases was finalized, then I'd like to know what you consider a valid reason for the uncharacteristic delay in announcing the purchase and any intentions of how they would exploit its use.

Thank you.

#6

Quote:

The answer, from Hyperion at least, has always depended on who asks.

If the asker is an Amiga guy who wants a spiritual connection to the OS, then the answer will be that they used 3.x OS sources. If it's a lawyer asking, then of course it had nothing to do with 3.x source and was totally from scratch...

To be fair, the Friedens said the idea of using old sources in OS4 was nonsense last time I read them say anything about it (which is long gone, I'm afraid, so no links). More tellingly, when Gelb was coding software for AmigaZeux and trying to get it running on OS4, there were functions that were compatible with the autodocs but did not apply older AmigaOS bugs, hence they didn't work as expected in OS4. Early versions of MorphOS had the same issue. I strongly suspect ExecSG was a clean implementation based off autodocs and not sources.

> Trevor/A-Eon have been quick to post AmigaWorld News articles when they aquire
> something new. Forum threads even accentuate this proud ownership by stating such
> things a 2nd time to be sure people are aware. [...] I'd like to know what you consider
> a valid reason for the uncharacteristic delay in announcing the purchase

A valid explanation could be, as a comment on amiga-news.de claims, that not the corporate entity A-Eon purchased ExecSG but the natural person Robert Trevor Dickinson himself did.

Quote:

Funny you should mention that.
You might recall Ben's denial about an offer to purchase Hyperion?
Usual semantics applied by mentioning A-EON and not Trevor by name to indicate to the casual reader that no offer had been made at all...

#6

> The answer, from Hyperion at least, has always depended on who asks. If
> the asker is an Amiga guy who wants a spiritual connection to the OS, then
> the answer will be that they used 3.x OS sources. If it's a lawyer asking, then
> of course it had nothing to do with 3.x source and was totally from scratch...
> [...] the Friedens said the idea of using old sources in OS4 was nonsense
> last time I read them say anything about it [...]. [...] I strongly suspect ExecSG
> was a clean implementation based off autodocs and not sources.

Regarding ExecSG specifically (in contrast to other OS4 components), the stance from Hyperion and the Friedens was always, no matter who asked, that it's a from-scratch reimplementation. Else it couldn't have been solely the property of the Friedens.

"Exec SG [...] is a reimplementation of the original Exec, written in C and placed onto a hardware abstraction layer so that it ports easily from one hardware to the other [...]. [...] ExecSG will be a complete re-implementation. [...] SG will get a lot of new features, new library concept, Hardware abstraction layer etc."
http://anna.amigazeux.org/detail.php?category=news&file=1006875646.msg

Quote:

While I have no doubt that ExecSG is indeed a clean implementation, keep in mind that this press release was in November 2001, and much of it was just speculation. What the OS4 developers planned and what they eventually did were very different things indeed.

What's also interesting about that old ANN link is that they describe ExecSG as sitting on top of a HAL (not including UBoot).

I'm pretty sure that this didn't eventually happen, and ExecSG had to be adapted for every new piece of hardware. Which means the code, assuming the Friedens even sold it, will have an interesting list of all the hardware projects OS4 was ported to or intended to be ported to. More egg on face for Hyperion if so.

> they describe ExecSG as sitting on top of a HAL [...]. I'm pretty sure that this didn't
> eventually happen, and ExecSG had to be adapted for every new piece of hardware.

Whether it's really there or not, the existence of a HAL in ExecSG wouldn't mean that ExecSG wouldn't have "to be adapted for every new piece of hardware". Of course it would have to, namely the (smaller) HAL part of it. What wouldn't have to be adapted is the (bigger) part of ExecSG that sits atop the HAL. That would be the whole point of a HAL.

Btw, Ben Hermans in November 2002:

"Exec SG now stands at 42000 lines of code, 4000 of which are PPC ASM located in the HAL."
http://anna.amigazeux.org/comments2.php?show=1036519888&number=63#comment

Quote:

It's irrelevant, as HAL or not, ExecSG does have to be adapted for every new piece of hardware. I'm not interested in your or Hyperion's sophistry of what a HAL is or not.

[ Edited by KennyR 16.03.2019 - 21:34 ]