×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Timberwolf (Firefox) Beta For AmigaOS

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-else-are-you-gonna-do dept.

Amiga 96

An anonymous reader writes "News from the world of AmigaOS that the Beta version of Timberwolf (a.k.a. Firefox) was made available last month." Timberwolf is a port of Firefox to the AmigaOS (the name change is for similar reasons to Debian's use of Iceweasel name) and has been under development for quite some time. The AmigaBounty project page has screenshots and even more info for those interested. There's a video of the browser in action, but beware of the cheesy soundtrack.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

96 comments

T-t-t-t-t-t-tiiiiim-beeeerrrrr (2, Interesting)

Niedi (1335165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268213)

Great, now I'll have that Timberwolf tune stuck in my head for the next couple of days.
For all who don't know what I'm talking about:
http://frededison.free.fr/ [frededison.free.fr]
or Thomas Timberwolf on youtube...

Re:T-t-t-t-t-t-tiiiiim-beeeerrrrr (1)

Sipper (462582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271123)

Great, now I'll have that Timberwolf tune stuck in my head for the next couple of days.

For all who don't know what I'm talking about:

http://frededison.free.fr/ [frededison.free.fr]

or Thomas Timberwolf on youtube...

Hahah! Now I'm going to have that stuck in my head for the next couple of days. ;-)
But seriously, thanks -- nice link.

Aren't they all betas? (-1, Troll)

epte (949662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268263)

Firefart releases like every week now, right?

Re:Aren't they all betas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39269031)

It used to be every week, now it's every time a successful compile happens.

Fuck weeklies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270613)

Fuck weeklies, Nightly FTW.

Re:Aren't they all betas? (3, Funny)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270821)

So does that mean Amiga users will be getting latest & greatest updates every 8 weeks? Is Timberwolf on v11 already?

Does the Amiga OS (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268265)

have any inherent advantage over other modern OS?

I get people like to do this stuff for fun and nostalgia. That's fine. It's just been so long since I have used an Amiga I can't think of anything today that it does better then Win7/OSX/Linux

Re:Does the Amiga OS (5, Informative)

realmolo (574068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268409)

No, no advantage.

It's still a very *efficient* OS, but it lacks about a zillion features that any modern OS has. Protected memory, for one.

But for day-to-day use? It's pointless and stupid. You can't do anything with AmigaOS that you can't do faster and better (anc cheaper- modern Amiga hardware is ridiculously expensive) on Linux, MacOS, or Windows.

Still, AmigaOS has a lot of neat features. It's still very well-designed, and it's interesting to think about what it would be like if it had sold well enough to become a viable alternative.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268543)

Oh, no argument form me on the design. I though maybe there was a file system property I had forgotten about.

Thanks

Re:Does the Amiga OS (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39269205)

Last time I checked you couldn't get a PC virus to run on an Amiga.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (4, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271191)

Last time I checked, you cant get a PC virus to run on a potato either.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271553)

Last I checked I can't do my on-line banking on a potato. But I can on my Amiga... (safer then even your mac =p)

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272405)

Last time I checked, you couldn't eat an Amiga. Just saying...

Re:Does the Amiga OS (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272525)

Safer purely due to security through obscurity... AmigaOS has virtually no security features, it doesn't even have a concept of users or of protected address space so a vulnerability in any userland application is effectively a kernel level exploit.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272539)

You can get an AI to run on a potato, though.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272767)

I can't get my PC to guru meditate.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (4, Interesting)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39269695)

it's interesting to think about what it would be like if it had sold well enough to become a viable alternative.

There is a good chance that it would look nothing like the OS we used on legacy Amiga hardware.

The reason the OS was so bloody fast was because it used a flat non-protected memory space. IPC was often done by passing pointers via registers. You could eavesdrop into any other task's memory space, even if its memory was not flagged with MEMF_PUBLIC. The majority of the kernel ran outside of 68K supervisor mode with function calls being made via a jump table as opposed to a software interrupt.

One of the largest complaints about desktop multitasking operating systems of the 80s and 90s was that they crashed too much. That was a huge complaint with Windows 95 and was also a common complaint with AmigaOS. To continue being a viable OS, AmigaOS would have needed memory protection bolted on at some point.

Using a fully virtualized protected memory model like UNIX and NT would have been incompatible with the foundation of AmigaOS since it would break IPC. You'd need stick with a flat address space, simply marking some memory sections as R/O. Program code sections could be R/O for everything except the kernel (that'd prohibit self-modifying code, but SMC was already incompatible with the data cache in 68020+ processors). Tasks could then allocate private memory, public memory or even semi-private memory by granting limited R/O or R/W access to other tasks.

Main problem I see with that route is that you'd bump into the 4GB barrier much faster than fully virtualized memory models, especially since a large chunk of that 4GB would also be allocated to memory mapped hardware and other PCI peripherals. You'd need a processor with a 48-bit or 64-bit memory address space sooner than later.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (3, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270931)

Since 64-bit CPUs are now common (except ARM), I'd think they could leapfrog 32-bit, and go directly from 16-bit to 64 bit and be there on PPC or MIPS. Do something like using the top (or bottom) half of the address space as reserved for the R/O, and leave the other half there for the memory to grow. That would still give the user up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 bytes to address. In fact, they could even toss in some compatibility features w/ the old 16-bit Amiga DOS.

But I only see the point if some computer manufacturer bundles it w/ a new computer that can't run Windows, such as a MIPS or PPC based computer. No point in having this to port it to PCs - there are already too many alternatives for PCs, and as others have noted above, there is no reason to prefer it to Windows7/OS-X or any of the Unixes.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271069)

But I only see the point if some computer manufacturer bundles it w/ a new computer that can't run Windows, such as a MIPS or PPC based computer. No point in having this to port it to PCs

Ahhh, nothing more refreshing than AmigaOS elitists and their hardware snobbery. AmigaOS might actually have more than 5 users right now if they had done a port to x86, but then that would have upset the snobs because the unwashed plebes would be able to run their holy OS. And they can't standard for that to happen.

What about AROS? (3, Informative)

csirac (574795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272207)

AROS [sourceforge.net] is AmigaOS 3.1+, with extra bits, re-implemented as a portable OS (not just x86, but ARM, 68k, PPC). AROS is/was for users, by users, without (scant!) profits getting in the way of rational decision-making.

The reason the various zombie shells of Amiga, Inc. and its contractors/IP licensees never did an x86 port is because by the time the AROS guys were actually doing it, the Amiga market was so small that monetizing such an effort would have been impossible without proprietary hardware in the first place.

I'm glossing over the fact that PPC was technically also a much easier challenge than going x86, but I think that's the reality: there always seemed to be more money in what was left of the retail/reseller network for hardware, than software.

I'd also like to point out that AmigaOS had virtual memory, even in the classic 3.x OS with add-ons, and many popular software packages were written to be "VM friendly". Also, AmigaOS 4.x has protected memory, but the implementation has some interesting twist which I forget the details of (but seemed a good compromise to transition AmigaOS 3.x apps into the new protected-memory world).

Even with protected memory enabled, it sure as hell boots faster and starts apps quicker than the shiny new Asus laptop I bought last year...

Re:What about AROS? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272559)

Actually, the old PREP boxes would have been a good target for AmigaOS, once Apple dropped support for it, and Be disappeared. In fact, those PREP boxes from Motorola and Umax would have been good for these 2 platforms, and might have even continued.

Re:What about AROS? (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272597)

Yes, the blatant attempts at profiteering were the final nail in the coffin for the Amiga...
Back when i had a (relatively highend) Amiga, in order to connect it to the internet i would have needed to buy a tcp stack, and then buy a browser, even things like ftp, irc and telnet clients had a price tag attached! Even MS and Apple don't charge extra for basic things like that.

And AmigaOS 4, not only expensive in its own right (even free niche os's have trouble gaining traction, what hope does an expensive one have?), but it's also tied to proprietary hardware that is insanely overpriced, under specced and not widely available.

Put it this way, lots of people are willing to try AROS, its a free download and will run happily on hardware that the vast majority of people already have at their disposal. It will run happily on old hardware which you may have laying around, can boot as a livecd so as not to affect your existing installation and can run inside of common virtualization software. You've nothing to lose, and anyone can try it.
Contrast that with AmigaOS 4, you have to pay several hundred EUR (last i checked) for the hardware, plus an additional 100+ for the copy of AmigaOS, and then if you don't like the OS or find that it doesn't suit your needs all you have to show for it is a very slow linux box.

Point of fact on "profiteering" (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39273347)

Yes, the blatant attempts at profiteering were the final nail in the coffin for the Amiga...
Back when i had a (relatively highend) Amiga, in order to connect it to the internet i would have needed to buy a tcp stack, and then buy a browser, even things like ftp, irc and telnet clients had a price tag attached! Even MS and Apple don't charge extra for basic things like that.

At time time (due to Commodore's bankruptcy) there was no first party networking stack, browser etc. so all these had to be provided by third parties, hence most of these things being commercial or shareware. Don't you remember when you had to pay for Netscape or IE on PC? And the big fuss everyone made of Microsoft bundling their browser with Windows?

Re:Point of fact on "profiteering" (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39286555)

Windows and MacOS also had no default TCP stack in those days, and yet free stacks were available... Even "demo" versions would function, while demo versions of the amiga stacks would disconnect you after 30 minutes.
You also had completely free operating systems such as bsd and early linux versions, which included a tcp stack by default.

Netscape was available for free to non commercial users, IE was available for free too (even for non windows users on macos, solaris and hp-ux)...

Also the "evaluation" versions of netscape were fully functional and did not try to blackmail you into paying by shutting down after 30 minutes. You could buy them on cd or floppy, along with telephone support... An option many people took up because downloading was very time consuming on slow dialups.

It'a also worth noting that netscape and ie were both years ahead of any of the native amigaos browsers, to the extent that a better and cheaper browsing experience could be had by emulating a mac on the amiga and using that for browsing.

Let's also consider irc clients, the biggest windows client mirc is shareware, yet you only get a nag screen on startup and the software is fully functional without registering... the amiga equivalent, amirc, also disconnects you after 30 minutes rendering it completely unusable. it also appears to have several undocumented features allowing other users on irc to remotely check your registration key (a clear invasion of privacy) and possibly do other nefarious things in an attempt to discourage pirate copies.

there was also a highly elitist atmosphere, where anyone suspected of running warez copies of amiga software were often publicly attacked and/or turned away from amiga related sites and irc channels. there were many people who simply could not afford the ridiculous prices charged.

The effect this profiteering and gouging had, was to drive even more users away from the amiga. For the price of a complete set of internet tools on the amiga, it was possible to purchase a perfectly capable x86 system running windows or linux.

Myself at the time, being still at school with no source of income i was simply unable to purchase the software, and became sick of the constant attacks when using pirated copies. I thus had no choice but to install linux on the amiga and use this for quite some time until i was able to afford an x86 based replacement machine. Had it been usable and affordable, i would likely have continued using amigaos for quite some time.

Having recently taken the amiga out of storage to play with, the situation is even more ridiculous... Not only does all this software still enforce the 30 minute timeouts and nag you to purchase it, but you now cannot purchase it even if you wanted to!

And it seems this trend continues, the port of firefox discussed in the article is only going to release the bare minimum of sourcecode required to satisfy the mozilla license, and will withhold everything else. What exactly is this supposed to achieve?

Re:Point of fact on "profiteering" (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39290381)

Windows and MacOS also had no default TCP stack in those days, and yet free stacks were available... Even "demo" versions would function, while demo versions of the amiga stacks would disconnect you after 30 minutes.
You also had completely free operating systems such as bsd and early linux versions, which included a tcp stack by default.

At that point the Amiga user base was so small it's lucky there were usable stacks at all, no way a 3rd party company could make money releasing a free stack and not enough free software enthusiasts to release a decent free stack.

Netscape was available for free to non commercial users

At release Netscape was only supposed to be free for education and charity users, but yeah reading some more about it sounds like they were pretty loose with it. Again compared to Amiga's tiny tiny user base how would a commercial software company make anything free for non-commercial developing for Amiga given there were pretty much zero commercial users at that point?

there was also a highly elitist atmosphere, where anyone suspected of running warez copies of amiga software were often publicly attacked and/or turned away from amiga related sites and irc channels. there were many people who simply could not afford the ridiculous prices charged.

Yeah everyone was pretty desperate to keep the platform alive, including the few commercial and shareware devs left. If there were no commercial devs would anyone have released a TCP stack etc for free?

The effect this profiteering and gouging had, was to drive even more users away from the amiga. For the price of a complete set of internet tools on the amiga, it was possible to purchase a perfectly capable x86 system running windows or linux.

What rubbish, you could get a complete suite for about £60-80, not free but hardly gouging. Big items like TCP stack and Browser were always commercial, but there were plenty of usable free and bundled apps for everything else. Maybe if you bought literally every shareware internet tool available you might get up to the cost of a decent PC...

Without those commercial devs where would that software have come from? Microsoft could release free stuff because they already had a huge revenue stream (plus they wanted to undermine competition), Windows developers could release free for personal use stuff because the rest of the market was huge. Linux got a lot of free software because it had a huge free software enthusiast userbase.

Having recently taken the amiga out of storage to play with, the situation is even more ridiculous... Not only does all this software still enforce the 30 minute timeouts and nag you to purchase it, but you now cannot purchase it even if you wanted to!

Well duh, that's true of every single limited demo for no-longer available software. Authors could have released free version as abandonware but there's nothing to say they have to. Maybe now we have a huge FOSS scene we're feeling a bit entitled to free software in our old ages?

And it seems this trend continues, the port of firefox discussed in the article is only going to release the bare minimum of sourcecode required to satisfy the mozilla license, and will withhold everything else. What exactly is this supposed to achieve?

If they want to protect their little pet project they're within their rights to under the Mozilla license, they're still releasing it for free (beer).

Re:Point of fact on "profiteering" (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39291779)

At that point the Amiga user base was so small it's lucky there were usable stacks at all, no way a 3rd party company could make money releasing a free stack and not enough free software enthusiasts to release a decent free stack.

There are plenty of niche platforms with enough open source developers to write basic things like a tcp stack and often a lot more, see bsd, aros, syllable, minix etc.

Commercial development for a niche platform is even worse (which is why it almost never happens), with the customer base being so small there is very limited money in it, which means either ridiculous prices or severe corner cutting to reduce development costs...
The end result was that the amiga applications were not only far more expensive than equivalent applications on other platforms, but they were also massively inferior... I refer you to my earlier comment about running netscape under macos emulation on the amiga.

A niche platform simply isn't viable as a commercial concern, the only hope it has for survival or even growth is through being open and free. Had amigaos been open sourced, and ported to hardware that was actually available for purchase it could be pretty successful these days. There are various use cases where it would have been more suitable than linux due to its lower resource requirements and better responsiveness on slower hardware.

Yeah everyone was pretty desperate to keep the platform alive, including the few commercial and shareware devs left. If there were no commercial devs would anyone have released a TCP stack etc for free?

And in doing so drove users away...
Considering that free and open source tcp stacks already existed for linux and bsd, and as far as i know the commercial amigaos stacks were ported from bsd in any case... It's extremely likely that a free stack would have been ported (after all, aros has a free stack), and this would then have been available to everyone.

If they want to protect their little pet project they're within their rights to under the Mozilla license, they're still releasing it for free (beer).

"protect" ? protect from what? "protect" it from being ported to other platforms like aros? protect it from having bugs fixed by a third party? protect it from being updated when the original devs realise theres no profit in it?

Well duh, that's true of every single limited demo for no-longer available software. Authors could have released free version as abandonware but there's nothing to say they have to. Maybe now we have a huge FOSS scene we're feeling a bit entitled to free software in our old ages?

So now you have the situation where someone who purchases an old amiga for retro uses will not be able to network it. What's the use in that? I have an A4000 with an ethernet card which cannot be used in amigaos, i have to run linux on it which turns it into a linux box thats slower than even the lowest end embedded linux boxes these days.

You can't blame all that on the demo authors (1)

csirac (574795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39298217)

Sorry, but it's totally insane to blame the lack of free/open software on the 'profiteering' behaviour of the very few developers who were left.

You say that that these developers drove users away - what nonsense! What drove them (and by 'them' I now mean: potential freeware/open source developers) away was a total lack of leadership and utter neglect of the userbase by the various zombie shells which owned Amiga, including Commodore in its final years.

Under Commodore, Amiga missed many opportunities; not that competent management would necessarily have saved it, but C= didn't exactly give it a head start.

The lack of free software was a reflection of the health of the overall Amiga market: specatacular stagnation, deterioration and fragmentation (5 years between AmigaOS 3.1 -> 3.5?! WarpOS vs PowerUP? MorphOS? AROS?) of the tiny userbase and tinier still developer community, you must blame those that squandered their time in control of Amiga

Nobody forced freeware/open source developers to pay for their TCP stack or web browser. Nobody stood there and actively prevented them from creating free/open equivalents.

The simple fact is that if the Amiga platform had enough motivated developers to create free or even open software, it would have happened. But it didn't. You can't simply wish said developers into existence. They simply weren't there - the Amiga never really had a chance to develop an open source culture.

P.S. I seem to recall that AWeb was open-sourced, although probably still too many years after it would have had an impact.

Re:Point of fact on "profiteering" (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39299091)

The Amiga never had a big FOSS scene, it was always much more centred around small time commercial and indie devs, with little open source and virtually no first party support. Who would have open sourced Amiga OS? Commodore? The people who paid for the IP after Commodore went bust? Not really sure what use the source would be anyway as it was very tied to the hardware architecture.

Most FOSS enthusiasts were on other platforms or started their own (Aros etc.), if someone had wanted a free TCP stack on Amiga they would have written it but it just wasn't that scene so indie devs stepped in with shareware stacks. (btw Amiga OS has come with a full TCP stack since 3.9).

Accusing indie devs of profiteering and gouging would be like accusing Notch of gouging for not releasing Minecraft as free open source, it's their work and if people want to pay for it they will.

The current Amiga scene is probably still the same, hence most Amiga devs feeling more protective over there work than FOSS enthusiasts, especially with paid bounties for Amiga ports of apps like Firefox. You can't criticise the Amiga scene for not being something it never was.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271251)

I'd think they could leapfrog 32-bit, and go directly from 16-bit to 64 bit ... the old 16-bit Amiga DOS.

The Motorola 68000 was actually a 32-bit processor internally. Data registers were all 32-bits in width and the ALU performed math operations at that size. Address registers, including the stack pointer and program counter, were also 32-bits in width.

The only part of the 68000 that was 16-bits in width was its external data bus. It could perform 32-bit reads and writes, but had to do so using two fetches, one low and one high. The 68020 was the first processor of the family to have a full 32-bit wide external data bus.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272909)

The 68000 ALU was internally 16-bit, and it implemented 32-bit operations by performing two consecutive 16-bit operations (ADD and SUB only, they did not support 32-bit MUL). This was visible to the assembly programmer through the fact that 32-bit arithmetic operations took a couple of cycles longer than 16-bit operations. Other than that, the programmer could treat the 68000 as a full 32-bit CPU.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271891)

Actually... That's not entirely true. The most recent Amiga OS 4.xx has memory protection, and pretty much everything else you would come to expect of a modern day OS, It runs on a ppc expanded original amiga, or any of the ppc 'clones' of the amiga such as the (few) amiga ones, or the more recent acube sams, or the a-eon x1000.

Anyway, that's not even my point. Let me give an example of a case I was able to do something on an amiga (using an emulator!), that I couldn't do on my linux box, mac, or windows, at least as not as quick and easy for what I needed to do.

  You could really do some amazingly awesome things with arexx and the built in arexx port most applications supported. Granted it wasn't a perfect system, but, I really havn't seen anything like it since. A few years back, I needed a quick and dirty way to do a scripted browser crawl with screen shots, I needed to read from a db, crawl some sites, and be controlled in real time via pipe from another program, seriously, don't even ask) , and i needed it quick. After searching for a bit I really couldn't find a way to do this even in linux with out some insanely complex install of packages and setups, I needed total scripted control of the browser and be able to take snap shots in real time. I remembered arexx, and I have one heck of an install of os3.9 I like to play with using uae, complete set up with php ,perl, apache & mysql all installed, granted very old versions, but still usable, and after doing a little digging on the arexx port commands for aweb, within ~30 minutes I whipped up an arexx script to control aweb to do my bidding, (well add another 30 minutes of debugging some sync issues)

But within an hour, it worked great!. Exept aweb had trouble rendering alot of stuff. (but it was still impressive!)

  I would love to try this with Timberwolf, I hope they put in a fully functional arexx port.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39273275)

Wrong! OS4 doesn't have memory protection, no. Only a couple areas are write protected, but it doesn't help a lot in 99% of the cases. You just can't have memory protection in AmigaOS without breaking compatibility (which means the solution to keep compatibility is a virtual machine / sandbox).

Quit putting the first half-sentence in the title (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268663)

Does the Amiga OS have any inherent advantage over other modern OS?

This tends- justifiably- to be asked every time there's been a bit of Amiga "news" in the past few years (including that of the final release of Amiga OS 4, delayed for around 15 years).

If there *is* any major advantage, then no-one came up with one during any of those discussions.

Really, the Amiga OS nowadays is just a plaything for a few very hardcore hobbyists willing to pay for overpriced, underpowered custom hardware that isn't even directly compatible with the original Amiga anyway. Amiga OS (and the original hardware) was fantastic in its day, and beat the living heck out of MS-DOS and early Windows, but that was a long time ago. Anyone for whom Amiga OS/hardware compatibility was essential or even useful would have been forced to give up and migrate elsewhere by the late-90s at most. For that reason, even if one *could* upgrade it to a modern OS, it'd make more sense just to write a new OS from scratch- the "classic" core would just end up being legacy baggage that would please the Amiga obsessives because they could call it Amiga OS, but have little real world use beyond muddying the design.

(Sorry, didn't want that to sound like a dismissal of the genuinely innovative Amiga OS, but things have moved on too far now).

The Amiga IP seems to be a bit confusing, having been sold on several times, split and licensed (and the rights disputed), as well as the names having been used on things having apparently nothing to do with the Amiga (some mobile phone OS layer called "Amiga Anywhere" and even worse slapped onto some generic HTPC cases that reused the numbers of classic Amigas). F****** horrid, just let it go.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (3, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268931)

Speed. AmigaOS is bloody fucking fast and ought to be able to run rings around most OSes.

That's assuming you have equivalent hardware to your Linux system, which happens to never be the case.

And it's assuming you don't care that any of hundred tasks can write to any particular piece of memory, an assumption which usually isn't the case, though somehow in the 1990s I managed to get by with that, telling myself "run bugfree software, run bugfree software." Whether or not there's actually such a thing as bugfree software, or if Firefox could possibly be an example of it, I'll leave to Firefox hackers to advocate. (Good luck, guys, you're going to need it.)

And it's assuming that by "fast" you're not talking about the filesystems. The Amiga had some third-party filesystems that were pretty speedy for the time but somewhere around 2.4 Linux got into a league of its own.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270527)

there is the AMIthlon CPU Emulation allowing use of the original Amiga OS Classic on updated "modern" Hardware... and the speed difference of a 25MHz classic Amiga vs a modern 2.5GHz Dual-Core PC is still rather deceptive.

the 2.5GHz processor would be expected to boot faster than the 25MHz system, but in actual fact the 25MHz 68040 Classic Amiga A4000 will boot in 1 minute *or*less*...

where the 2.5GHz system has only just finished getting past the BIOS and Bootloader and starting a Linux or Windows kernel, AmigaOS has already completed running the Kickstart(BIOS equivalent), loading drivers, executing the startup-script and providing the Workbench(Graphical Shell) along with any other background tasks that are setup.

it may lack memory protection but then it doesn't worry about getting bogged down in virtualizations being stacked together.

as for the argument about "Memory Protection"... you need to define exactly what this means as on the x86 and amd64 architecture there is a full machine effectively given to each process and IPC uses copying of messages to my understanding (is this flawed? possibly) where the Amiga OS would need this handled as a default "memory is read-only by default until allocated" but this also runs into a problem of fragmenting the hell out of any memory tabling.

even the most recent Amiga OS 4.x keeps this speed difference including the addition of Virtualized Memory which I see as one step towards Memory Protection.

the FileSystems and system management on AmigaOS in general are still exceptionally quick due to design decisions that other OS are only just starting to adopt and re-arrange kernel materials to imitate afaiac.

I'll stick to enjoying computing instead of being dumped with a faustian deal of an OS.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270943)

the 2.5GHz processor would be expected to boot faster than the 25MHz system, but in actual fact the 25MHz 68040 Classic Amiga A4000 will boot in 1 minute *or*less*...

And my laptop and desktop come out of sleep in like 3 seconds. Whoop-de-doo for your Amiga.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271533)

before the HD on my A4000T died, it booted more like in 10-15 seconds. And that wasn't even a fast HD.

Of course it's fast (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39273379)

Of course it's fast, programs are virtually running on the bare metal with minimal OS features/interference to slow things down.

Fun to mess around with but these days hardware has caught up with features expected of a modern (complex) OS.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (2)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270897)

I find it more fun to just screw around with than the other computers I've got. I wouldn't suggest anyone else get one unless they're just 'into computers' and like messing around with stuff.

The one thing it does that I really, really wish Windows or OSX would do is its focus paradigm. Click to focus, but click does not raise window. It gives you the advantages of both click to focus - the focus stays where you want it even if you bump the mouse - and the advantage of focus follows mouse, that you can have a background window be the active one. Double-clicking a window raises it to the top.

I'd certainly pay a few bucks for a program to add that to my PC or Mac.

I do use my Amiga quite a bit - it's a 2009 model, with 800 MHz PowerPC and a gig of RAM - because the browser is good enough, my IM and email clients work fine, and it has most of the software I want to use. But I also have other computers, because some stuff the Amiga just won't do, or it's a pain in the butt to do with it.

My 'New Amiga' wasn't cheap, but it was in line with other pricey hobbies. A bit more than a launch-day Playstation 3, all told, got me a machine with no moving parts other than the DVD drive. So at least it has 'completely silent' as an advantage.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272661)

If you're running Linux, then there are several window managers which provide the behaviour you desire... I always used to run windowmaker with a focus follows mouse configuration, where only clicking on the titlebar would bring the window to the front.

The idea of buying an 800mhz (single core?) desktop in 2009 seems pretty insane... Sure there is a place for low power hardware, but only when it's cheap (eg look at raspberry pi)...

Having hardware that expensive ensures that no new users will ever take up the hobby, which means slow development, no economies of scale so the prices remain high etc...

Also if you read the article, they are doing the bare minimum to comply with the MPL... That is, they are releasing source code for any modified mozilla files, but won't be releasing any new files they create, and almost certainly won't be committing their work back to mozilla.
This means their port will always lag behind, you will have to wait for binaries to be provided, and won't be able to compile it yourself let alone make any changes or improvements.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39273775)

Is it any more insane than buying any other toy? I mean, toys are generally pretty useless. There are people who spend more than a car costs on bicycles. Is that insane? People regularly spend thousands of dollars on pretty rocks or pretty pictures that don't do anything at all. That seems more insane to me than buying a toy, but they must enjoy having them. At least I can play with the toy. I've had my money's worth of fun out of it, so it doesn't seem like a waste to me.

Focus follows mouse with clicking titlebar bringing the window to the front is the exact opposite of what I want. I want focus doesn't follow mouse, clicking focuses, but clicking to focus does NOT raise the window to the top. The only WM I ever found that did that was AmiWM, which tried for the AmigaOS 2.X look-and-feel. And managed it, for the most part.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287663)

I prefer focus follows mouse, but it can be turned off. Clicking in a window should not bring that window to the front otherwise having the focus follow mouse becomes useless since any interaction with the window would bring it to the foreground...
The window should only come to the foreground if you click in a particular place, or if use a keyboard shortcut or modifier key in combination with a click... In essence, your requirements are the same as mine minus the focus following mouse.

As to hobbies... People generally ease into their hobbies, and increase their expenditure later. If the cost of entry is high, then very few people will take up the hobby at all. This is also why IA64 never took off among the hobbyist community, while linux and bsd based systems on exotic cpus like sparc, alpha and hppa are generally far more active - lowend old hardware can be bought for a pittance, whereas ia64 hardware was extortionate until very recently.

Also the amiga "community" as it were, does not operate like a niche hobbyist platform... They do very little to encourage new users or support existing ones. There really is no money to be made on commercial amiga ventures, and yet they persist in trying anyway.

Re:Does the Amiga OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39276529)

In other news, Firefox for OS/2 will be released next week, followed shortly by Firefox for CP/M.

Wait ... (2, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268279)

Do newer Amiga systems even have enough memory to handle the memory leaks in Firefox' add-on system?

Re:Wait ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271683)

No matter how many articles come out that show Firefox's memory management to be competitive there's always going to be clueless trolls like you that are stuck in an infinite loop. Trolls to say something stupid and trolls to mod it Insightful.

Why don't you tell Adam he doesn't know WTF he's doing: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-17-firefox-10-ubuntu,3129-14.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:Wait ... (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272917)

Sounds about right too - Chrome is incredibly memory-hungry in my experience.

Re:Wait ... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39287949)

I yet have to see a Chrome install that manages inflate to 2.5+ GB.

Re:Wait ... (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39300721)

2.5+ GB? Chrome will hit 25+ GB quite easily if you let it and have enough RAM installed - it's just that each individual process generally uses less than a gigabyte of RAM, so it's very difficult to see how much it's using in a standard task manager or Chrome's integrated task manager. (Chrome does track its total memory usage but that figure is tucked away in the "Stats for nerds" section.)

No worries of significant memory leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39273741)

I doubt people will use Timberwolf long enough for memory leaks to be a significant issue if this user's experience is common: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35175&forum=32&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=0#653060

Timberwolf? (2)

AarghVark (772183) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268297)

I do hope its the D variant with all the SRM's on it.

Re:Timberwolf? (2)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268631)

Does the output bounce around like the display that earned the MadCat its name?

Re:Timberwolf? (1)

AarghVark (772183) | more than 2 years ago | (#39269099)

Actually, it was the fact that it combined the armaments of both the Marauder (PPC's) and Catapault (LRM's) which caused it to be dubbed MadCat.

Re:Timberwolf? (2)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39269505)

According to the story, the first time they encountered one, the recognition system couldn't decide between MAD (Marauder) and CAT (Catapult). Reports of this event later lead to the new name.

Re:Timberwolf? (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39273107)

If I remember Lethal Heritage correctly, Mad Cat was designated by Precentor Martial that way exactly because it has got arms like a Marauder but shoulder missile launchers like the Catapult, so AarghVark might be correct.

So? (-1, Flamebait)

sammcj (1616573) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268345)

Honestly, Does anyone care about AmigaOS anymore? Hardly front page news worthy

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39268727)

Isn't one of the great things about the whole open source thingy that even the most niche systems are catered for?
I don't run AmigaOS but I still think this is mighty cool.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39268785)

I don't really care about AmigaOS, but I'd say the fact that it's Firefox-related definitely helps push it to front page material.

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39269207)

I care. I happen to like the amiga os, and wish a few more modern os's would take a lesson. (stackable, push/pull windows, a feature I greatly miss, dynamic ram drive, rad (bootabe ram drive), easy to use script control of most software, king-con (king con eats bash for breakfast), the amiga os has many great concepts that have been largely lost or poorly re-produced in other os's even to this day.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270209)

The fact you think to compare king con and bash, just illustrates how little you know of even the software you use.

You don't think modern machines can have ram based filesystems ? and having it reset proof like RAD is useful for what these days? In terms of the window management stuff you mention, I just assume you haven't used any other computers in the last 10 years.

Re:So? (1)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270953)

I use Windows 7 and Mac OS 10.6. If there's a way to push the topmost window to the bottom of the stack on either, please explain how to do it.

There certainly isn't a widget for it. Is there a keyboard shortcut or modifier-click that will do it?

The only X11 window manager I recall with that feature was one that was specifically trying for the Amiga Workbench look and feel, but I admit I haven't used an X11 based system in ten years.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271161)

Do explain to me how you can't compare kingcon to bash? They both are shells, only kingcon has an auto complete no other shell to date can even come close to matching. Combined with arexx scripting, kingcon has many advantages.

  Yes you can have ram based file systems, but I have yet to ever see a dynamic ram drive like the amiga had in any other os, they are always static.

      Do explain to me why booting out of ram for an instant reboot would not be useful?

    There is no other os to date that has the power of the amiga arexx port for scripted program control. Mac made an attempt with apple script, but that was rather a joke.

    And no, there is no other os, mac, linux or any version of windows that has the push/pull functionality the amiga os had, I really wish they did, as I miss it greatly.
    Apparently you have not used an amiga for a very long time. (ever?)

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271833)

Do explain to me how you can't compare kingcon to bash? They both are shells, only kingcon has an auto complete no other shell to date can even come close to matching.

Examples of how this wondrous autocomplete works better than anything else?

Yes you can have ram based file systems, but I have yet to ever see a dynamic ram drive like the amiga had in any other os, they are always static.

Linux has one, if by dynamic you mean "expands and contracts according to how much space is occupied".

Do explain to me why booting out of ram for an instant reboot would not be useful?

Uh, because almost nobody reboots all the time any more? Modern systems are more stable than that. I close my laptop when I'm done using it, and open it again when I want to use it, and it wakes up and is ready for me by about the time I'm done opening the lid.

If I actually have to reboot, it takes 15 seconds. But I only do that when updating the OS.

And I very much doubt it would boot significantly faster out of a RAMdisk, anyways. Even if I didn't have a SSD, my OS (MacOS X) has a feature which caches every disk block needed to boot in a linear file. Early on during the boot, assuming none of the files cached in the boot cache has changed, it can simply slam the whole cache file into buffer cache (RAM) first thing, where it behaves more or less exactly like a RAMdisk. Copying the linear cache file from disk into RAM is much faster than the ordinary sequence of IOs since seeking destroys disk performance. (It's not uncommon for a HDD which can do 100MB/s or more linear to be reduced to less than 1MB/s if it has to seek very much.)

Basically, using a RAMdisk to accelerate boot is obsolete. Better ways have been devised. You're living in the past.

There is no other os to date that has the power of the amiga arexx port for scripted program control. Mac made an attempt with apple script, but that was rather a joke.

A joke which is used far more widely than AREXX ever was, seeing as how it's used extensively in an OS which probably now ships more units in 1 year than Amiga did in its entire lifespan.

What exactly is so magic about AREXX, anyways? I see unreconstructed Amiga fanatics like you claim this exact thing all the time, but none can ever describe what's better about AREXX ports.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272373)

Examples of how this wondrous autocomplete works better than anything else?

I can nav the entire drive without ever even typing anything. From the shell. If multiple matches exist, I get a nice gui popup listing of which I would like, and can again just tab thru, or select with mouse, There is no need to 'cd', it knows if you mean a directory or a program and it's case insensitive. Really, you have no clue how I wish other shells could be so insanely easy to use. Think I'm wrong? Here... https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=101010

Linux has one, if by dynamic you mean "expands and contracts according to how much space is occupied".

I stand corrected,

Do explain to me why booting out of ram for an instant reboot would not be useful?

Uh, because almost nobody reboots all the time any more? Modern systems are more stable than that. I close my laptop when I'm done using it, and open it again when I want to use it, and it wakes up and is ready for me by about the time I'm done opening the lid.

If I actually have to reboot, it takes 15 seconds. But I only do that when updating the OS.

And I very much doubt it would boot significantly faster out of a RAMdisk, anyways. Even if I didn't have a SSD, my OS (MacOS X) has a feature which caches every disk block needed to boot in a linear file. Early on during the boot, assuming none of the files cached in the boot cache has changed, it can simply slam the whole cache file into buffer cache (RAM) first thing, where it behaves more or less exactly like a RAMdisk. Copying the linear cache file from disk into RAM is much faster than the ordinary sequence of IOs since seeking destroys disk performance. (It's not uncommon for a HDD which can do 100MB/s or more linear to be reduced to less than 1MB/s if it has to seek very much.)

Basically, using a RAMdisk to accelerate boot is obsolete. Better ways have been devised. You're living in the past.

Really, your going to compare a laptop sleep mode to a desktop reboot? Weak. And it still can't match what I use to do on the amiga all the time. Oh sure, my ssd also boots in about 10 seconds. But my old amiga 2000 booted in 3 seconds from rad after the initial boot. . A feat my i7 with ssd still can't do. And the os is more than functional. The OS was small enough to fit only the most essential boot items into rad. A point you seem to be missing. A machine from the 80's can still beat the fastest machines around and really your going to argue that's not impressive? Ok, what ever.

A joke which is used far more widely than AREXX ever was, seeing as how it's used extensively in an OS which probably now ships more units in 1 year than Amiga did in its entire lifespan.

What exactly is so magic about AREXX, anyways? I see unreconstructed Amiga fanatics like you claim this exact thing all the time, but none can ever describe what's better about AREXX ports.

AREXX gave command and control over most of your applications. Most all amiga apps supported an arexx port. This allowed glueing together any program, even if they where where not meant to work together, using arexx as the glue, you could easily script commands to one program, say an image processor, tell it to process a batch of pics, then take that output and send it to another program for further processing. This is something you just can't do anymore. Not to the same extent arexx allowed. REXX is available for other platforms, but the amiga took it a step further by defining a 'message' port standard you could use to easily communicate from one program to another, something you would normally have to specialize two programs to be able to do. It also gave easy control over the entire GUI. From kingcon, I could script an arexx script in minutes to control my entire desktop. Pop up gui input selectors and data querys from external sources and dump that input back to the shell. A near seemless integration between desktop gui, command shell, and inter application control I have yet to see on a mac, windows or linux. I regularly use all 4 platforms. (that includes amiga os3.9 I still use to this day) I've been a software developer for over 15 years for a wide range of applications.. It's funny, You admit others claim the same thing all the time..but can't figure out why, because clearly you don't really know what your talking about, obviously you have never actually done anything like arexx scripting for the OS. If you did, I wouldn't even be having this discussion. As you would understand just how much control it gave over the os and your applications, that any fool who could script could easily do.

To sum it up... arexx gave seamless intergration between os/gui/prompts, shell, control logic and application to application control. In a few minutes I can control an amiga browser to browse a list of pages fed from an entirely different app, snap shot the page and send the snap shot to an image application (non dos), and give it instructions to do what I want. Can you do that? Do humor me. Show me how on another platform. (and do it without any extra packages, setups, or installing, and you have 1 hour). I say this because I've done all that in less then an hour using arexx and the amiga os.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39273729)

Good god, learn how to use quote tags so your replies aren't an incomprehensible mess.

I can nav the entire drive without ever even typing anything. From the shell. If multiple matches exist, I get a nice gui popup listing of which I would like, and can again just tab thru, or select with mouse, There is no need to 'cd', it knows if you mean a directory or a program and it's case insensitive.

Frankly, that's a bunch of worthless crap to me, and I am not impressed. I don't want a GUI popup when I'm trying to use autocomplete, it would literally slow me down. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I wasn't a fast touch typist, but I am. I don't want to have to take my hands off the keyboard all the time while using the shell, because the keyboard is the best and fastest interface for a shell.

And to top it all off, on the rare occasions where I do need to get a path from GUI to shell, since I'm using OS X I can literally just drag and drop any file or folder from the Finder onto a terminal window and it will paste in a complete path reference.

Really, you have no clue how I wish other shells could be so insanely easy to use. Think I'm wrong? Here... https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=101010

Doesn't change my opinion one bit, I'm afraid. Seriously, the only way I would use that kind of shell is if I could turn that behavior completely off, forever.

Really, your going to compare a laptop sleep mode to a desktop reboot? Weak.

Who said it doesn't work on desktops too? (It does, fyi.)

And it still can't match what I use to do on the amiga all the time. Oh sure, my ssd also boots in about 10 seconds. But my old amiga 2000 booted in 3 seconds from rad after the initial boot. . A feat my i7 with ssd still can't do. And the os is more than functional. The OS was small enough to fit only the most essential boot items into rad. A point you seem to be missing.

The point you are definitely missing is that it doesn't matter, because waking from sleep in less than 2 seconds flat beats rebooting silly. You don't have to reboot all the time. Seriously!

A machine from the 80's can still beat the fastest machines around and really your going to argue that's not impressive?

Why yes, I am, because it's dumb to wank about how fast 1980s computers booted. See, I'm actually aware of why they could boot fast in the first place -- it amounts to their operating systems being almost unbelievably primitive by modern standards, and especially not needing to support a diverse array of hardware with strong abstraction layers. Oh, and there's that little matter of some of them (Amigas and Ataris in particular) being able to rely on most of the OS code residing in ROM memory which was 100% as fast as RAM, so there was literally no need to "boot" it. Turn on the power, it's already there.

Times have changed. We expect our operating systems to do just a little bit more and get updated more often than a 1980s OS which had to fit in 1MB of RAM (or less) and a few hundred K of ROM. The features we now expect and rely on have a cost, and only people hopelessly stuck in the past moan about it and act as if the cost is not justified. And go around pretending that there are not valid ways to work around some of the costs, such as not rebooting because your OS won't fall over and crash if you look at it hard any more. (Something you Amiga-is-better types never like to talk about for some reason...)

AREXX gave command and control over most of your applications.

So does Applescript.

Most all amiga apps supported an arexx port.

Most all Mac apps support an OSA port. (same thing as an AREXX port, more or less)

This allowed glueing together any program, even if they where where not meant to work together, using arexx as the glue, you could easily script commands to one program, say an image processor, tell it to process a batch of pics, then take that output and send it to another program for further processing.

Guess what you can do with Applescript?

In a few minutes I can control an amiga browser to browse a list of pages fed from an entirely different app, snap shot the page and send the snap shot to an image application (non dos), and give it instructions to do what I want. Can you do that? Do humor me. Show me how on another platform. (and do it without any extra packages, setups, or installing, and you have 1 hour). I say this because I've done all that in less then an hour using arexx and the amiga os.

MacOS X, Applescript. 100% built in. Automator (also built-in) makes it even easier to tie everything together. I'm not going to spend an hour on it, sorry.

Sorry to say it, but I've seen your type before, and you don't seem to have anything fresh. Just the same old vague claims of total Amiga superiority, followed by completely unimpressive examples when challenged.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39274867)

Frankly, that's a bunch of worthless crap to me, and I am not impressed. I don't want a GUI popup when I'm trying to use autocomplete, it would literally slow me down. Maybe I would have a different opinion if I wasn't a fast touch typist, but I am. I don't want to have to take my hands off the keyboard all the time while using the shell, because the keyboard is the best and fastest interface for a shell.

And to top it all off, on the rare occasions where I do need to get a path from GUI to shell, since I'm using OS X I can literally just drag and drop any file or folder from the Finder onto a terminal window and it will paste in a complete path reference.

Yes, the amiga had drag and drop to it's shell long before the Mac did. No, I never have to take my hands away from typing, even with the gui popup. Your still not really grasping how easy the auto complete fills in compared to any other shell I have used. I'm faster on kingcon than anything else. And I don't care if your not impressed. It's feature I love , and no other shell makes usage so simple.

The point you are definitely missing is that it doesn't matter, because waking from sleep in less than 2 seconds flat beats rebooting silly. You don't have to reboot all the time. Seriously!

Yes, actually it does matter. Ever do a clean windows install? Reboots galore. Hey it's great we have ssd's now, but I deal with old machines all the time, waiting and waiting for reboots. You can claim all you want it doesn't matter. Maybe for what you do on a daily basis it doesn't. To me it does.

MacOS X, Applescript. 100% built in. Automator (also built-in) makes it even easier to tie everything together. I'm not going to spend an hour on it, sorry.

Sorry to say it, but I've seen your type before, and you don't seem to have anything fresh. Just the same old vague claims of total Amiga superiority, followed by completely unimpressive examples when challenged.

No, I never said the amiga was completely superior. It just has some features I like. Many of those features you love on your mac. The amiga was doing it first.
I've used apple script plenty, maybe it's just my opinion, but Sorry, it sucks. And I know many others with the same opinion. It's a good try though, more so then what you can do with windows, I'll give it that.

Re:So? (1)

Daniel Klugh (1935646) | more than 2 years ago | (#39274499)

Sounds like 4DOS.COM for MS-DOS from the 90's. It was a replacement for the command processor ("COMMAND.COM"). You could type:
SET FILECOMPLETION=CD:DIRS;EDLIN:DIRS TXT DOC CFG;GIFCHECK:DIRS GIF
and typing "CD " and then CONTROL-TAB would give you a list of directories. For EDLIN it would also show text files. For GIFCHECK it would show directories and GIF files.
And when I type CD TOME it knows to swtich to \GAMES\ANGBAND\TOME.
(if I use CDD instead it even changes the currently loggged drive to C:)
If I type CD COMM\*A*.* it would look for a directory (in the directory-tree database) with a "A" anywhere in the filename and any extention whose parent directory is named COMM.

And, if you were using NDOS from Norton Utilities, then you were using 4DOS. Try it out at <URL:ftp://ftp.jpsoft.com/4dos/> [jpsoft.com].

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39275277)

Yes, that's very similar, but with out the gui aspects. (And it wasn't even necessary to type 'cd', it understood the difference between a directory and a file.)

Re:So? (1)

Daniel Klugh (1935646) | more than 2 years ago | (#39273307)

My 1979 Atari computer (HCS) has "recoverable" RAM disks. But that's because the device drivers/handlers that I use just don't bother to build a new file system (MyDOS) or else they only do so when they can find no existing one (SpartaDOS X). It's the same with the Amiga's "Executive Multitasker" and AmigaDOS as well. I can't imagine how your choice of OS would make any difference as RAM disks are handled by the device handler rather than the the OS itself.
(except for Linux; and even it supports FUSE!)
The same for "RAM:" style file systems. I even remember something like the for MS-DOS.

And the FVWM window manager for X supports pushing a window to the top/bottom of the window stack. I had it set so that the right mouse button on the title bar moved a window to the top of the stack; or, in the case that it was already at the top, to the bottom. I did this because in imitation of the Amiga.
(except it's a special "gadget" instead of the title bar on the Amiga)
Once again that's the job of the window manager and not of the OS.

Why would someone want to build these kinds of things into the OS?

Re:So? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272705)

X11 based systems have thousands of window managers, some of which behave exactly like you describe and there are so many possibilities you can find one which exactly suits your needs.
Dynamic ram drive? Try /dev/shm on linux, or /tmp on solaris.
RAD:? Modern computers don't need to reboot anywhere near as often as amigaos did, even windows is pretty stable these days so the utility of a reset resident ram drive is fairly limited. And then you have flash drives, and you can even get pcie cards with a load of ram on them for very fast storage.

King con is a shell handler (ie a terminal emulator), bash is a shell... King con is more like xterm and you can run all manner of shells in it (tho i dont believe bash was ever ported to amigaos due to the lack of fork()?)... The two are not directly comparable, and bash is far more powerful than the standard amigaos shell scripting language.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272797)

Yes, bash was ported to the amiga. http://aminet.net/package/dev/gg/bash-src
And no kingcon is not like xterm. It is a direct replacement of the amiga console device. http://aminet.net/package/util/shell/KingCON_1.3

I've only come across one x11 manager that tries to emulate the amiga desktop, and it does a poor job. Sorry.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39275325)

No. that is a link to the source. There is no working port for 68k amigaos due to no real fork() and porting bash would be some hefty work to emulate that by copying all structures to a new process etc etc (read the ixemul documentation). Funny that I know more about the Amiga (and programming it) than you and manage to be realistic about capabilities. I have a bunch of Amiga computers here. I also enjoy the demoscene on the Amiga and other old machines, but you are fooling yourself about how well it really stands up against modern systems.

Re:So? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39285767)

That archive contains (very old) sourcecode for bash, you can download it from gnu.org too assuming they haven't removed such old versions. You won't be able to get it compiled and running on amigaos, no idea why someone would want to mirror old non amiga sourcecode on aminet either.

It seems like kingcon merges some of the functions of a terminal with that of the shell, while unix keeps them in separate apps. From its readme, the features it provides have long been provided by x11 terminals such as konsole or gnome terminal.

Also you have to ask yourself, after you've installed kingcon to replace the console device, and various other modifications... how much of the original amigaos are you actually using?

It's unlikely anyone would want an x11 window manager that explicitly emulates the amiga desktop (and what desktop would you emulate? most amiga users tended to modify the default workbench quite heavily)... Once you take off your rose tinted glasses you will realise that while it may have a few nice features, not to mention the fact your clearly familiar and comfortable with it, it is by no means the best interface out there and also has its fair share of deficiencies.
What you talked about was "stackable, push/pull windows" which several window managers can provide when configured accordingly. While i prefer this behaviour, i would not sacrifice virtual workspaces (no, "screens" provided by amigaos are not the same) among other things to use amigaos. The x11 model lets you pick and choose the best features.

source code license (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39268491)

"The source code of the port will be made available only as far as the MPL requires it, i.e. all modified source code files will be available for interested parties, but new files will not. This is in accordance with the requirements of the Mozilla Public License. "

that's the true amiga spirit when it comes to source releases. Release as little as possible. Got to make sure no-one else running any machines "similar" to the AmigaOS could possibly benefit from their work.

Re:source code license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270097)

I'm sure all of the 4 people in the world who still use AmigaOS are pleased.

Amiga OS4 (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268945)

which requires a power pc accelerator, so if I take my 3000, spend a pile of money for a obsolete power pc card, and a pile of money for obsolete ram, I can run firefox on something I already know it sucks balls on?

I have a powermac 9600/300 with a pile of ram in it, a much better motherboard and chipset, faster video and disk I/O and guess what? Iceweasel is painfully slow in debian, classzilla is painfully slow in mac OS9, and if you want anywhere reasonable speed you have to drop down to a very basic geko engine browser, and then its like 45 seconds to load slashdot with no javabloat ... or just use a text browser, maybe one with image support like links2.

Re:Amiga OS4 (1)

raddude99 (710064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272717)

which requires a power pc accelerator, so if I take my 3000, spend a pile of money for a obsolete power pc card, and a pile of money for obsolete ram, I can run firefox on something I already know it sucks balls on?

Obsolete ram is actually quite cheap if you check ebay. And if you're so worried about price you probably missed this story: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/10/23/2312219/hyperion-promises-an-amigaos-netbook [slashdot.org] where Hyoperion is working on a low-cost PPC Amiga Netbook to run AmigaOS 4.x on

I have a powermac 9600/300 with a pile of ram in it, a much better motherboard and chipset, faster video and disk I/O and guess what? Iceweasel is painfully slow in debian, classzilla is painfully slow in mac OS9, and if you want anywhere reasonable speed you have to drop down to a very basic geko engine browser, and then its like 45 seconds to load slashdot with no javabloat ... or just use a text browser, maybe one with image support like links2.

You're kinda missing the point,just because OS9 is so slow doesn't mean that AmigaOS will be. I've used PPC Amiga machines (expanded old 68k machines not the newer pure PPC machines) to load slashdot, and they did it way faster than 45 seconds.

Re:Amiga OS4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39273179)

Hyoperion is working on a low-cost PPC Amiga Netbook to run AmigaOS 4.x on

"Low cost" will be relative. I'm still willing to bet that it'll be grossly overpriced compared to commodity x86 hardware (*) ((and even to what they *could* charge if they weren't overpricing to exploit a captive audience).

(*) Yes, I appreciate that in its heyday, Amiga owners rightly hated the kludgey, unclean design of the x86, but the cost and power advantages of modern "x86" designs grossly outweigh the negativities. Of course, as was said elsewhere, the main reason the "official" Amiga OS 4 doesn't run on x86 is that grossly overcharging for underpowered proprietary hardware is the best way they can monetize the OS.

leave us be (2)

amigabill (146897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39269747)

AmigaOS today is for people that are obsessed with it. Either you are, and enjoy it, or you are not, and don't care. It can be a useful platform, though yes it does have some limitations today. I don't know why people post Amiga stuff to the non-caring Slashdot etc. sites. Move along and let us enjoy our hobby, we obsessors don't need your counseling and it won't bring us to our senses anyway.

Re:leave us be (3, Informative)

styrotech (136124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270919)

No way! I haven't used an Amiga for 15-20 yrs and probably never will again, but I still have a soft spot for it and like to occasionally hear about what's happening with its latest incarnations.

After all it is very nerdy news, and that's what we're here for right?

Re:leave us be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270959)

Here here Amiga brother! Now let me take a Viagara so I can get my wrinkly dick up to masturbate to my low res porn in a few hours. These youngens should get off our lawns!

Re:leave us be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271077)

Can I jizz in your neckbeard?

-Fellow Amiga brethren

Re:leave us be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39273635)

The greatest tragedy of AmigaOS, BeOS and TOPS20 (among others) is that there are innovations in those OS's that either are totally lost or lost then reinvented after some number of years.

fa6o8z (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39269951)

'You see, even ARGUED BY ERIC of the waaring And Easy - only Out of bed in the A super-organised which don't use the

Closed source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272483)

While Friedens (the authors of the port) they "don't care about other (Amiga-like) platforms", they in fact care about them very much, so far, they do everything they can (license-wise) to prevent it from being ported to ANY other platform, by keeping as much of it closed source as possible.

Of course there's WebKit-based OWB / Odyssey, which, unlike TimberWolf, uses native GUI toolkit (Of course on OS4 the "official" one is reaction, but many apps use MUI as it's simply so much better)

Music in the demo video is so Amiga! (1)

drx (123393) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272791)

I ROFL'd when watching the video. Totally reminds me of playing Outrun on the classic Amiga. Thumbs up!!

Alternative approach (1)

eyeoftheidol (651095) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272857)

Timberwolf on the X1000 can't compare (yet) with Firefox on Wintel, but it's fun (and other browsers are available on the Amiga, including those running under AmiCygnix [YouTube [youtube.com]]). And this is a work in development. The more alternatives there are to the mainstream OSes, the better!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...