> 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 ]

Quote:

Source

#6

> HAL or not, ExecSG does have to be adapted for every new piece of hardware.

Correct, a HAL is basically about encapsulating the hardware-dependent parts of the kernel instead of having them scattered around. What you were incorrect on, though, was your implication that the existence of a HAL means that adaptation wasn't necessary. I don't recall Hyperion or the Friedens claiming or implying such thing.

> I'm not interested in your or Hyperion's sophistry of what a HAL is or not.

Interested or not, it's simply a technical term that doesn't mean what you think it means.

Now Trevor denies A-Eon has bought ExecSG. By Amiga standards, that probably means he's either licensing it or he bought it personally.

Truth has never been a big priority in Amigaland. I fart on the lot of them.

Not only unpaid, but also actually paying! And others have been in a far worse situation! (While obviously keeping up appearance...)

https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=43167&forum=2&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=0#822423

Quote:

> Now Trevor denies A-Eon has bought ExecSG. [...]
> that probably means [...] he bought it personally.

Yes, see comment #735.

Quote:

Not being able to read/write German, and not a usual visitor of www.amiga-news.de, who is the member there that is making those statements about Trevor, A-Eon, Colanto and ExecSG, quoted above? Do we know who the real person is, that posted those comments? Or are they just like much of the speculation posted here and everywhere on Amiga forums?

Within all of this colossal "F"ed up mess of litigation has anyone else besides me considered the question of just how much of the hundreds of thousands of Euros that Ben Hermans claims he is owed for the acquisition (theft) of AmigaOS4, and the additional money he claims he is owed, due to "contributions" he has made since its acquisition, are actually inflated or exaggerated fees for his legal services, making me wonder exactly how much actual "CASH" currency Ben Hermans has ever spent on Hyperion Entertainment, out of his own pocket, so to speak? He claims to be owed some crazy amount of currency from Hyperion Entertainment, but I doubt that much of that claim is actual currency that he has put into the company, and is instead, just his legal fees for time he has spent preparing and filing legal documents (perhaps at a higher than normal hourly rate). It is rather obvious that Hyperion has spent more time and effort fighting legal battles, than it has paid programmers for developing AmigaOS4.

I have no idea what is going on between Colanto/C-A Acquisition, and A-Eon/Trevor Dickinson, but I hope that every developer/programmer who is still interested in creating anything for the Amiga community realizes that Colanto and A-Eon are much, much more likely to pay them for their hard work, than Hyperion Entertainment ever has, or ever will. I really don't understand how anyone could continue to work for, or with Hyperion, or any company that has any ties to Ben Hermans, but that is just my personal opinion, from a person who gets his information primarily from Amiga forum posts, so what do I know.

Edit: I am a little surprised, and greatly relieved that the Frieden Bros didn't get screwed by a BH created contract that could have taken their ExecSG from them. They made a huge mistake ever working for Hyperion in the first place, but at least they didn't compound their first mistake with a second mistake, and they were able to retain ownership of their work.

[ Edited by amigadave 17.03.2019 - 09:19 ]

Quote:

Better wait till the fat lady starts singing......

@amigadave

The only link from my post #747 is Trevor's official statement to me from yesterday.

I think you meant to address the link Andreas offered?

#6