Forums - All Posts - The Amigans website

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (Rogue)

Bottom

« 1 ... 18 19 20 (21) 22 23 24 ... 27 »

Rogue

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/15 14:20 #401

Quite a regular

@ikir

Quote:

ikir wrote:
@Rogue & tfrieden

Yes i know, you have done already a lot!

I'm just saying that it could be a driver issue as well, since some users experiencing the problem and other not.

"It could be"... It could be cosmic rays as well. As long as nobody tries to find out what it is, even IF it is a driver issue, nothing is going to happen. Simple as that. As long as nobody can point me to a problem in a driver I am not going to look at them.

It does not solve the basic problem anyway - too many people complain, too little people try to do anything about it. I am not going to go through the work of trying to fix a driver issue that might not be a driver issue to begin with.

Quote:

There is a guy working on it but he doesn't have an OS4 capable machine, i'm sure when OS4 will be released with some hardware, he will work on a fixed port.

Yeah, that is also often quoted as a problem, but there *are* people out there with OS 4 capable hardware, and still all I see is mostly complains and very little action.

Quote:

BTW i had a Radeon 9250 64bit, before a radeon 9200SE, same problem. I don' have anything, it happens with a clean OS4 installation and i usually don't install anything strane on my sistem. I had 512MB, since i don't have my A1 anymore i can't test anything now.

Even that does not "prove" anything. If the problem only occurs on R200-hardware, that might be a driver issue. As soon as it occurs on Voodoo and/or R100-hardware, it is very unlikely that it is a driver issue.

But again, *I* am not going to look at Quake 3 anymore. If someone else does it, fine. If someone needs access to the latest MiniGL, write me a private mail. But unless someone actually DOES something other than complain about it, nothing is going to happen, and sorry, I have my hands full.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/10 12:46 #402

Quite a regular

@nubechecorre

Exactly what is needed... more people asking for something.

Why is it that everybody seems to want and nobody seems to make?

And before you say "I cannot program": If you don't then try to encourage the people that can instead of just asking and demanding. Offer a bounty for example.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: Quake 3 HELP

Posted on: 2007/10/8 11:01 #403

Quite a regular

@nubechecorre

Quote:

nubechecorre wrote:
@ikir

We need good 3d driver, we need 3d libraries and we need quake 3 and it must be rewritten.. not a quick and dirty port..

Hope that 3D did good progress ... hope that the Friedens could make something..

Hope...

The 3D drivers are up to the task of running Quake 3, and MiniGL has everything needed for Quake 3 as well..

The problem is that no one ever took the source code and looked at it. They rather write mails to Thomas or me asking for the job to be done.

So I am sorry to say, we don't need anything but some programmer that takes care of it. All we get is complaints.

THAT seems to be the major problem to me.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: Hi from Pianeta Amiga!

Posted on: 2007/9/27 11:51 #404

Quite a regular

@Billsey

Quote:

Billsey wrote:
Is it because they own the IP and actually want to paid for it?

I wanted to stay out of this but just this one thing: Before you claim to have the ultimately balanced and neutral view on it, please consider that it is THE COURT and not your decision who owns the IP. The judge will decide whether Amiga Inc's claims are justified or not. NOT you.

I for one know for sure (and have an E-Mail from Bill McEwen confirming it) that the IP of ExecSG belongs to Thomas and me, not anybody else.

Thanks for reading, this is ALL I have to say on the topic.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: Hyperion's general Amiga-products -page

Posted on: 2007/9/27 11:42 #405

Quite a regular

@orgin

Yeah, the server is down. Yesterday, the mysql server could suddenly no longer connect, and when I tried to restart the web system, it wouldn't start.

Currently looking into it.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: What do we think of this?!

Posted on: 2007/9/15 1:26 #406

Quite a regular

@Snuffy

Quote:

Snuffy wrote:
Hi @Rogue

If OS4.0 Classic went on sale today, where would I get the Amiga computer to run it? My A1200 is way out of date (mostly stock). EyeTech is out of the picture as a hardware source aren't they?

No idea, I suppose there are still some available at E-Bay, although the prices are usually hair-raising.

That, however, is a problem Hyperion cannot solve.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: What do we think of this?!

Posted on: 2007/9/14 14:06 #407

Quite a regular

@IOWASURFER

Quote:

I sure hope so I really think if they do get 4.0 to the classic old users will be like wowoowowowwwwwwwwwwww

If "they" means "us" (i.e. the AmigaOS 4 team) then, well, AmigaOS 4.0 runs on the classic since day one. As a matter of fact, the classic version is older than the AmigaOne version.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.

Posted on: 2007/9/11 15:15 #408

Quite a regular

@Mikey_C

Quote:

Mikey_C wrote:
@Rogue

Aww! I wanted a pretend CD!

Well, in is quite easy:

1) Print out this SVG image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Compact_disc.svg

2) Cut out the shape of the CD.

3) Flip it over and write "AmigaOS 4.0 for Classics" with an orange felt pen on top of it...

There you go, your pretended AmigaOS 4.0 for Classics CD

(edit: typo)
(edit2: Why do I need to wait 30 seconds just to edit a small typo???)

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: There is hope for OS4 on the Classic.

Posted on: 2007/9/11 13:28 #409

Quite a regular

@Alkaron

There will be a real CD with box and all.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/9 12:44 #410

Quite a regular

@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:

If I were Billsey*, I'd complain I was the victim of a cheap shot.

Huh? Why would someone take offense on that? IMO (although this is totally off-topic) Religion is ALL about belief, belief without proof. Technical facts are about technical facts, and do not have anything to do with belief.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/9 12:42 #411

Quite a regular

@Reth

Quote:

Reth wrote:
@Rogue

Quote:
So, again, what good argument is there AGAINST MP, after so many arguments for MP?

I only have one: Make it within the next release/version and please do everything to get AOS4 released as soon as possible with no new features for the existent version.

An OS with everything a user/developer wants or can imagine is worth nothing if no potential user/developer is able to obtain it!

Bye

We are talking future here. Right now, any change of that magnitude is out of question.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/9 12:41 #412

Quite a regular

@Belxjander

ExecSG's HAL can be made to work with a virtualizer service, essentially making AmigaOS 4.0 a hosted system.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/5 19:27 #413

Quite a regular

@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:
We keep adding this, that, and the other, then we realize, "oh!, that's why they did this, that and the other (registry, say)" and before too long (at all) we have what THEY have, and I don't want to see that happen....

There is a huge difference between blindly adding features and adding features that are deemed essential. We could argue that "other systems already have a graphics user interface and web browser, so why should we have that", to which you would certainly say "because these things are essential"

Quote:

Heck, we've already got the huge disadvantage of OS bloat simply because PPC code is 50, to 250% bigger than the old compiles.

That is hardly an issue. The difference in code size isn't that big (admittedly there is a difference), and code size is rarely what makes the difference - a good PNG image collection is already bigger than most programs, not to mention game data files and textures.

The OS is bigger now than it was during 3.1, granted, but there is a WHOLE lot of more functionality in it that wasn't even REMOTELY available.

Quote:

In todays world of huge memories and HD space, so what, right? But, what about when we go 64 bit, won't the size balloon up again? Even the very same commands like "dir" and "list"? I don't know, I'm asking.

No it won't. And the point is that memory and harddisk space today IS bigger than it was (if you had a harddisk at all). The point is that the expectations have gone up too, today programs are more colorful, they look better, and they have much more functionality. I had used TASWORD II on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum to write texts, yeah that was possible but if you compare it to OpenOffice.org, the functionality does not even come remotely close to it.

Quote:

How am I going to get AOS4.x running in a wristwatch if it needs 250 Megs of ram to start (hey, vista hit 3 to 6 gigs, right? and I'm sure every last assembler byte is necessary!!! )

The question is not whether something is possible or not, but rather, whether something is necessary or not. What purpose does it have to be able to run in a few kilobytes when all embedded devices come with several megabytes of memory? If there is no difference in price? The Arctic had 64 MB, plus a 32 MB ROM where the OS and a RAM disk was located with OS 4 on it and a few programs (we even had Turbo Calc and WBsteroids running on the thing). What good does it make to only use a fraction of the ROM? There was still plenty of free space anyway.

So the question is whether you think that adding a feature like MP will raise this footprint significantly. The answer is no it wouldn't. The additional features that the OS might get might, but certainly not the MP.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/5 19:09 #414

Quite a regular

@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:

I guess it's just the "romantic" in me.... I like it the way it was, we'd have the LAST "open" OS. Let's face it, you can't fight virii in any open system anyway* and that's what I was hoping we'd have (an open system).

This sounds like a "just because" argument, and it doesn't convince me.

For the record, I don't think being the last "open" OS is a quality but rather a problem. Why would it be desirable to have an "open" OS when "open" means "vulnerable to both malicious and dumb code"?

Quote:

I find it refreshing that even with SMP, STILL MP is not a requirement.

The reason is that neither has anything to do with the other. SMP is multi-processing, and can be done without regards to the memory protection; it just double the chance to run into a fatal flaw of software.

Quote:

Why am I against MP? Because I believe that it's possible to write SW in a no MP environment that isn't possible in an MP enviroment, and barring virii/malware, anything that is made in an MP environment can be done in a non-MP OS.

Well, belief is for Religion. I would rather have you name a useful program that would be made impossible by a system with memory protection.

Yes, it is true that you can do everything that you can do in an MP-environment in a Non-MP environment. You can also implement any algorithm conceivable on a Turing Machine, there are mathematical proofs for that as well. But at what cost? Would anybody in his right mind try to write any complex algorithm on a Turing or Random Access Machine? I don't think so.

MP does not offer any additional functionality in itself. In a world where there is only correct code and no malicious code, MP is not required, just as e.g. E-Mail security was not required in a time where the only people sending E-mail around where university professors and the odd student. In an internet like today where most of the bandwidth is used up by porn downloads and Spam mail, the security becomes an issue. The same goes for MP.

Quote:

Now imagine AOS4.x-UAE, all the SW has no idea that there is an "outside world".

When I sit down to compute, I want to be in "super-user" mode always (no passwords, levels of permisson, etc.).... access to anything, anytime. That is how it was and I don't see any real reason to have it otherwise.

Well I can tell you a reason. Any time you click on a link in a web browser, some idiot script kiddie might try to shove some malicious code onto your harddisk. A friend of mine recently had his kids looking at a porn advertisement page because a virus had changed his browser homepage to some porn website. That isn't funny. Now, usually changing your homepage can be done without a password, but a virus will not stop there. It will install a program that will misuse your machine to send out spam mail to others, and this is possible because you are in "superuser" mode and it can install any crap on your machine without even so much as a notification.

Now, if the system would ask for your permission to install a new program, you would be suspicious and would look at what it wants to install, and that would improve your system's stability as well as preventing others from getting spam mail from your machine.

Things go further. You might be the only one in your household using a computer. Others might not. If security is compromised on one system, chances are good that it spreads. What if your next-door neighbor suddenly chokes your internet connection because the house you live in has a common access point?

Quote:

Besides, THAT has already been DONE (crappily, I might add).

You should not judge a concept by its implementation. besides, the only reason why it does not happen frequently on the Amiga is that the Amiga is insignificant. Compared to the number of Windows system, it is simply not worth the effort.

So, again, what good argument is there AGAINST MP, after so many arguments for MP?

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/5 14:45 #415

Quite a regular

@Jurassicc

Quote:

Jurassicc wrote:
OS4 has vunerabilities that 3.X didn't and we should be prepared to deal with malware.

On a classic you had to open the case to get at the roms. It can be done with a system friendly script under OS4, even unprotecting said write-protected files.

I am sorry, but this is an absolutely constructed argument. FWIW, the AmigaOS 4 bootloader creates a ROM copy that does nothing but reset the PowerPC and goes to HALT. It's easy to remap the ROM and patch it, or use SetFunction to override functions - as a matter of fact, this is exactly what SetPatch does. And if in doubt, you can just install a ROMTAG with a higher version number.

So this is not a vulnerability of AmigaOS 4.x more than it ever was on 3.x

Quote:

I was thinking something of an option in DOS prefs or Workbench prefs to protect system settings.
Malware or the user would not be able to delete, modify essential system files, allow to write to rdb or remove the slb or alter filesystems.

How would that help? Without memory protection, you cannot protect anything because everything is open.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/5 14:41 #416

Quite a regular

@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:
Besides, this leaves us free with an OS that is game dedicated (very lean), for instance, that other overhead, is it needed for games? Do many people multi-task (run a messageboard, fileshare, render?) when playing NeverWinter Nights or Quake or Everquest?

Well, usually I have MSN and Skype running even while I play. You should not confuse user programs with system programs, though. There are services running that are independent of the game you are running in the foreground. Even on the Amiga this is the case. You don't want to shut down all programs while playing a game - for example, if you have a cron program running in the background, you don't want to be required to shut it down.

Again, I would really like to know what it is exactly that you dislike about MP.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/5 14:37 #417

Quite a regular

@Atheist

Quote:

Atheist wrote:

1) We don't have the CPU (680x0)

We already don't have the CPU right now, and plainly, no one will notice what CPU there is, be it a 680x0, PowerPC, or x86. Old software is emulated. (and before this debate starts again, I don't oppose an x86 port)

Quote:

2) We don't have the custom chipset (OCS/ECS/AGA)

Not a big loss if you ask me. If you really need it, use UAE, but normally, graphics cards are ultimately more powerful anyway.

Quote:

3) and ALSO we lose all old SW (Aminet....whooossshhhh!)

Why would we? Did MacOS X loose all MacOS 9 software? Did Windows XP loose all Window 98/3.1 software? No they didn't. At the very least you could still use UAE, but that will not be needed because there will be the possibility to run the old software, just in a virtualized environment, much like, as I pointed out elsewhere, the ability of the Mach kernel to run multiple OSes at the same time.

Quote:

So, what's the difference between "AOS4.x" and AROS? Oh, besides a quad-core x86 at 2.4 GHz FULL system costing a mere US$1,700????

Apart from the fact that AmigaOS 4.x offers more functionality than AROS, what exactly do you think *should* be different? Support for an old CPU? Instability? I don't think so.

Quote:

I think a branching is needed... Two versions of AOS4.x, one with MP and resource tracking, and a "fun" one, without.

For one thing, branching is not going to happen because it requires almost twice the development resources, and the two branches would be totally incompatible to each other anyway, which would incite an additional split, producing two incompatible lines of software. I don't think that makes sense...

Besides, who says that MP takes the fun out of computing? I don't really get that.

Quote:

I do NOT think those things, but I still think there is a place for the "old ways" and also DON'T believe that SMP is ONLY possible with an MP'd OS. There have to be other ways of doing things, and "Amiga" is ALL about that. Doing it different,... Mac DOESN'T own that one*, sorry.

SMP does not have anything to do with MP. SMP is perfectly possible without. However, I still do not get why you think that MP is going to be any sort of hindrance.

So far, I haven't seen one single argument against memory protection, mostly because, bluntly put, there is none.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/4 14:17 #418

Quite a regular

@LiveForIt

Quote:

LiveForIt wrote:

I don?t think malware is best argument for MP, because most of viruses on Windows are in fact normal programs, and system friendly scripts, if malware comes we most start to think about virues killers, and how they can be integrated part of the OS code, for example is possible ban programs form starting?

The biggest issue with Windows XP is that most normal users are logged in with an account that has admin rights. That means that any program started by users automatically CAN wreak havoc on the system. On MacOS X, security is more tight and you need to enter a password even if you have admin rights on your user.

Under AmigaOS, there is nothing like a superuser or Administrator, and no file is really protected by any means, so any malware started inadvertently by a user will have the fullest control over the system.

Quote:

And is it possible too to implement some kind control service that updates the list of known viruses.

The best argument for MP I think is to detect bugs, improve stability.

System Security is a big issue, and MP will help with that. As such, security is a very important argument for MP. Just imagine an Amiga as a workstation at a public place (a university or a library), you certainly wouldn't want someone to impersonate you to get a book from a library and never return it. While memory protection isn't the only requirement for it, an effective protection is not possible without it.

Of course, the possibility to prevent renegade programs from taking out a system is equally or even more important.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: The Memory Protection Debacle

Posted on: 2007/9/3 14:14 #419

Quite a regular

Honestly, I am not quite getting what this thread is about.

The question whether memory protecting is needed or not is easy to answer. Yes it is.

Why?

Well I remember the discussion on the old Amiga DE mailing list I had with some of the devs there claiming that memory protection is only for lazy programmers. I find this a very narrow-minded view. Let's face it, there is a not-so-tiny group of people out there whose only purpose in life is the destruction of data, or shoving some advertisement crap up your -insert arbitrary body part here-.

The number of spyware/adwere/trojans/viruses are staggering. So far, AmigaOS has mostly been spared because of the "don't-care" factor - most people these days are using Windows, so that is the prime target.

Any operating system aiming at growing its market has to take a few things into consideration. One is that with success comes viruses, trojans, and other malware. On a system that is mostly open, like AmigaOS, the door is open so wide that any precautions in e.g. a web browser are wasted time - they can easily be overwritten. Any malicious code can do anything to the system as long as there isn't strict memory protection in place. For that very reason, and a few others, memory protection (in the sense of FULL memory protection) is a feature that AmigaOS will inevitably get in the not-too-distant future.

Another aspect ("lazy programmers") is the ease of debugging. If a program does something illegal, it does something illegal. Period. Whether a NULL pointer access is going to be fatal or not is irrelevant, such behavior is illegal and MIGHT compromise the stability of the system. Therefore, it is mandatory that such illegal accesses can be found and eliminated. You might argue likewise that only lazy programmers need a debugger - after all, there is nothing you couldn't do with a few well-placed printf()'s.

The bottom line is, any discussion about memory protection is moot. There is not the slightest doubt that memory protection will be implemented in one of the future versions of AmigaOS. I don't believe in software solutions for this like safe languages because it enforces the selection of programming language onto a programmer, which I personally would find pretty insulting. Given the ability of a single program on AmigaOS taking down the entire system, there is no doubt that this is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Anyway, just my two euro-cents on he topic.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Rogue

Re: Whdload for OS4 on P5-cards?

Posted on: 2007/9/2 22:07 #420

Quite a regular

@Wepl

Quote:

Wepl wrote:
The current WHDLoad cannot work under AOS4 because it wont work inside 68k emulation. It takes over the operating system...

That need not necessarily rule it out. The emulator is mostly independent of the OS (at least the interpreted one), it's basically just a tight loop.

It really mostly depends on what it is doing...

Quote:

Technically it should be possible because the hardware is present (CSPPC/BlizzardPPC only).

The question is if AOS4 offers a way to use the 68k cpu. As long as I have no AOS4 I cannot do any investigations. We will see what the future brings.

There is no way that you can actually use the 68k anymore. The boot loader patches a rom routine that puts the CPU into a HALT so it doesn't use memory cycles.

Seriously, if you do want to contact me write me a mail. You're more likely to get a reply then.

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 ... 18 19 20 (21) 22 23 24 ... 27 »