What IS the Amiga SDK

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Troy Bourdon

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If its an OS
can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I read the little
blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was "Hosted on Linux". What the heck
does that mean? It also said it includes the "revolutionary Amiga Foundation
Layer." What is that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this
Virtual Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.


Timothy Rue

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
On 13-Jun-00 20:59:38 Troy Bourdon <bou...@home.com> wrote:
TB> What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If
TB> its an OS can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I
TB> read the little blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was
TB> "Hosted on Linux". What the heck does that mean? It also said it
TB> includes the "revolutionary Amiga Foundation Layer." What is
TB> that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this Virtual
TB> Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.


Something Done, K?


---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
Search email/name @ http://www.dejanews.com for other puzzle parts/posts.


Eelke Blok

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to

Troy Bourdon wrote:
>
> What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If its an OS
> can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I read the little
> blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was "Hosted on Linux". What the heck
> does that mean? It also said it includes the "revolutionary Amiga Foundation
> Layer." What is that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this
> Virtual Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.

The nice thing about the Amiga Virtual Processor scheme is that the
Virtual Processor can be introduced at just about any level in a system
stack. It could be implemented in hardware, to be at the very bottom. It
could run in software just above the actual processor. And it could run
as an application on a "host" OS. The latter is the solution taken for
the SDK. The host OS is Linux. The "revolutionary Amiga Foundation
Layer" is probably the name the copyrighter gave to the new "AmigaOS",
so the VP combined with any other components to make up the new Amiga
operating environment. I doubt it has anything to do with the classic
Amiga (as I am assuimg you meant, because you mentioned emulation), that
is much further down the road than where they are now (I'd say it is one
of the last things to be implemented, while at this moment there is very
little apart from the VP in te SDK).

Cheers,

Eelke
--
Eelke Blok, student Electrical Engineering, University of Twente
http://home.student.utwente.nl/e.blok ICQ: 19514933
Amiga-page: http://home.student.utwente.nl/e.blok/amiga
"Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now!" - Elwood Blues

MERLANCIA

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
The SDK is the Development Env and toolset. You need Redhat on your system to
use it.

Arc Wave

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
In article <eGB15.496$MU1....@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,

"Troy Bourdon" <bou...@home.com> wrote:
> What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If its
an OS
> can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I read the
little
> blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was "Hosted on Linux". What
the heck
> does that mean? It also said it includes the "revolutionary Amiga
Foundation
> Layer." What is that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this
> Virtual Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.
>

Good question.

I am not mad, just wondering why the heck there are no REQUIREMENTS
posted on VENDOR sites stating:

(example only, may not reflect *real* requirements)
"Requirements: Pentium II/III or AMD K-series/Athlon, Matrox G450/400
for 3D or any other card for normal 2d video, 20mb free space ?, RedHat
6.x (1 or 2), 128mb of memory in system"

Instead its "Amiga SDK hosted on Linux." It makes it sound like anyone
running Linux, even 386, 486, 586, DecAlpha, Sparc processors can run
it.

For the record, it's x86 on RedHat Linux (certified). You may be able
to run it on other Linux distributions, but you are on your own if you
do. Plus you will need a Matrox G450/400, if you don't want to worry
about your "video card" being supported.

Short answer:

Amiga SDK is a software development kit that suggests the following
requirements be met: Redhat Linux 6.1 or .2 for x86 and a Matrox
G450/400 card. If your not a developer, don't bother buying it. The
kit is used to produce/test software for the Amiga Operating Environment
(used in computers, cell phones and other devices).

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Troy Bourdon

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
So when I boot Linux can I run this VP from the command line? What happens
after that? Do I get a new Amiga Desktop similar to running startx. If not,
what would I use the SDK for? I'm just trying to envision what this SDK is
all about. My point of reference are things like Sun's JDK or some of
Microsoft's SDKs. These are libraries that allow me to write/extend
applications that run on the hosting OS. I wish there was more information
about this. It looks very interesting but I don't want to spend $100 for
something that I don't really have a conceptual handle on.

"Eelke Blok" <e.b...@student.utwente.nl> wrote in message
news:39471B64...@student.utwente.nl...


>
>
> Troy Bourdon wrote:
> >
> > What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If its an
OS
> > can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I read the little
> > blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was "Hosted on Linux". What the
heck
> > does that mean? It also said it includes the "revolutionary Amiga
Foundation
> > Layer." What is that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this
> > Virtual Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.
>

Alexander Chaney

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
Troy Bourdon <bou...@home.com> wrote:
: What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If its an OS
: can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I read the little
: blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was "Hosted on Linux". What the heck
: does that mean? It also said it includes the "revolutionary Amiga Foundation
: Layer." What is that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this
: Virtual Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.

No GUI environment, mostly a UNIX-like shell environment. Major
potential, but I suspect that because Amiga have been VERY unclear as to
what you are actually getting, that they should expect a ton of returns
and disappointed people.

I fully understand that this is aimed at developers, but I suspect that
the curious will buy and be slighty upset.

People like myself may be thrilled. I'm not a commercial developer nor do
I know Java well, but I do see it as a great way to not unly learn and
play with Java, but I get to see for an OS is brought together over time.
I also fully expect most if not all the GNU tools being ported to the
system.

The other issue is that you need to be a little bit Linux savvy. Not a
bad thing in my way of thinking, but something to consider.

I was initially pissed at the half-baked product they are delivering, but
now I'm a bit excited because of the learning potential. However, I will
be crazy pissed if they suddenly drop the thing before finishing the
complete product like Prodad did with P.OS.

-Alex

bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> writes:

>It is a Developer CD to allow developers to get started porting and
>programming to the new Amiga operating environment.

Which begs two questions:

a) What will the "new Amiga operating environment" be, and
b) What is on the friggin CD?

Surely you don't expect people to buy the cat in the bag?

It seems fairly obvious that the CD contains the gcc-derivative that
generates VP code (BTW --- wasn't the source to that supposed to be
available for ftp several months ago?), and a VP runtime environment
(i.e. the JIT compiler).

Now, that alone would be pretty useless --- if a developer wants to write
a C program, linux comes with a perfectly good C compiler that will create
native code. That code has the added advantage of running in an MP system,
so that debugging is a lot easier than when running it on a non-MP VP system.

So, is there anything of the Amiga Foundation Layer on the CD? If so, how
complete is it? How committed is Amiga to not changing it, thus obsoleting
the development investment? And how does it talk to the display --- through
X, the framebuffer device, GGI, DRI? Is the C-to-VP compiler a VP executable,
or a native one?

Any documentation? If so, what format? Whatever format, any VP readers for
it included?

What are the requirements? Can I use a Celeron? Can I use a CD-ROM on a
remote machine? Is keyboard/mouse handled through linux, or does it come
with its own drivers?

What is the target machine for potential development? There isn't much point
porting emacs to a cell-phone, but there also isn't much point porting
"snakes" to a desktop machine. Would a port of TeX be useful? LyX? Elm?
vi? Quake? MPG123? mySQL? Cdda2wav? Innd? Mess? Frodo? Apache? WuFTPd?

Does the stuff on the SDK deliver on the 2 month old press release that
claimed the Amiga "has provided Linux developers with a new and exciting
way to create incredible multi-media titles, and games for Linux"? If so,
what does that mean --- what media is supported? If not, when will Amiga
deliver on that announcement --- which, after all, was made in the
present perfect tense?

And when will the developer site finally go live? After all, 8 days ago,
a whole number of features were listed that were supposed to be added
"During the next week".... The week is over, and nothing has changed.
Also, how can you write "Amiga SDK ships" on the developer site when in
fact, the SDK won't actually ship for another week? And why is nobody
at least maintaining the list of SDK dealers? I mean, the selection of
dealers is certainly interesting to start with (I particularly liked the
one that specialized in Adult CD and DVD ;-), but quite a few of the links
to their homepages are simply broken....

And what happened to all those big-name partners? Corel seems to be so
excited about "Amiga" that they released exactly zero press releases.
Same with Sun. Same with just about any other company hinted at in
St Louis, except for Tao and Espial.


So far, Amiga has "announced", "released" and "shipped" an SDK, which
mysteriously is still unavailable. I would call up my local SDK dealer
and ask them, but alas, the one in Syndey doesn't seem to exist, and
the one in Melbourne is only open for business for 3 hours every 14
days.....

This is getting truely ridiculous. May I suggest you guys either get your
act together, or do the decent thing and let the Amiga name die with as
much dignity as it still has?

Bernie


--
Among my most prized possessions are the words that I have never
spoken.
Orson Rega Card

JFW

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:24:51 -0500, Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> wrote:

>It is a Developer CD to allow developers to get started porting and
>programming to the new Amiga operating environment.

Gary, Tao is in serious non-compliance of the GPL. You guys committed
to making the gcc source code available via ftp over a month ago, yet
to date it's still not available. Is there ANY intent to bring
Amiga/Tao into necessary compliance with the GPL for their GCC in the
near future?

For a company who's primary business is licensing their IP, it's
really unprofessional of Tao to treat others' IP licenses with such
disregard.

jfw


Coz

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
Gary Peake wrote:

>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:09:20 GMT, "Troy Bourdon" <bou...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >So when I boot Linux can I run this VP from the command line? What happens
> >after that? Do I get a new Amiga Desktop similar to running startx. If not,
> >what would I use the SDK for? I'm just trying to envision what this SDK is
> >all about. My point of reference are things like Sun's JDK or some of
> >Microsoft's SDKs. These are libraries that allow me to write/extend
> >applications that run on the hosting OS. I wish there was more information
> >about this. It looks very interesting but I don't want to spend $100 for
> >something that I don't really have a conceptual handle on.
>
> It is a Developer CD to allow developers to get started porting and
> programming to the new Amiga operating environment.
> --
>
> Gary Peake
> Director - Support
> Amiga Inc.
>
> The Amiga Dream Team
>
> Catch "The Dream"
>
> --

Yup, but I do think the web site or any ordering ad should have a good
run-down on what's actually on the disc. I know, I know, yer paddling as
fast as you can. 8^)

Want me to write up a good description? Just send me the disc and... ;^D

Coz
--
If California falls into the ocean it won't be because of earthquakes.
It will be because the inmates have eaten the grout attaching
California to the US.

Coz

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to
Alexander Chaney wrote:
>
> bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
>
> : So far, Amiga has "announced", "released" and "shipped" an SDK, which
> : mysteriously is still unavailable.
>
> : This is getting truely ridiculous. May I suggest you guys either get your

> : act together, or do the decent thing and let the Amiga name die with as
> : much dignity as it still has?
>
> Damn, you stole all my thunder! I was ready for my bi-weekly brain
> meltdown, but you beat me to it.
>
> That's telling them.
>
> -Alex

The date is June 19th I believe. A piddly 5 days from now.

Coz

unread,
Jun 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/14/00
to

Craig H. Ganoe

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:37:16 GMT, Alexander Chaney
<ach...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>No GUI environment, mostly a UNIX-like shell environment. Major
>potential, but I suspect that because Amiga have been VERY unclear as to
>what you are actually getting, that they should expect a ton of returns
>and disappointed people.
>
>I fully understand that this is aimed at developers, but I suspect that
>the curious will buy and be slighty upset.

This is already happening.

>People like myself may be thrilled. I'm not a commercial developer nor do
>I know Java well, but I do see it as a great way to not unly learn and
>play with Java, but I get to see for an OS is brought together over time.
>I also fully expect most if not all the GNU tools being ported to the
>system.

I wouldn't for a while. I assume you will be expected to use the GNU
tools under Linux.

Craig


Craig H. Ganoe

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:24:51 -0500, Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:09:20 GMT, "Troy Bourdon" <bou...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>So when I boot Linux can I run this VP from the command line? What happens
>>after that? Do I get a new Amiga Desktop similar to running startx. If not,
>>what would I use the SDK for? I'm just trying to envision what this SDK is
>>all about. My point of reference are things like Sun's JDK or some of
>>Microsoft's SDKs. These are libraries that allow me to write/extend
>>applications that run on the hosting OS. I wish there was more information
>>about this. It looks very interesting but I don't want to spend $100 for
>>something that I don't really have a conceptual handle on.
>
>It is a Developer CD to allow developers to get started porting and
>programming to the new Amiga operating environment.

I believe that can be interpreted as don't buy it.

Craig


Alexander Chaney

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to

Troy Bourdon

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
Thanks Mr. Wave. That's the info I was searching for.

"Arc Wave" <arc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8i8c82$3l7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <eGB15.496$MU1....@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>,


> "Troy Bourdon" <bou...@home.com> wrote:
> > What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If its
> an OS
> > can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I read the
> little
> > blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was "Hosted on Linux". What
> the heck
> > does that mean? It also said it includes the "revolutionary Amiga
> Foundation
> > Layer." What is that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this
> > Virtual Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.
> >
>

Rudi Chiarito

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
JFW <jwi...@biff.com> wrote:
> Gary, Tao is in serious non-compliance of the GPL. You guys committed

Are they? Have you warned Richard Stallman or the FSF?

> For a company who's primary business is licensing their IP, it's
> really unprofessional of Tao to treat others' IP licenses with such
> disregard.

Have you read the GPL?

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.
You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

Do you know any of such recipients that have been forbidden from
receiving or getting source code, or haven't been shown the GPL terms?
Are you one of them, by chance?

The moment you (or anybody else) receive Tao's custom GCC and are
denied the sources, then you could talk about GPL violation - feel free
to ask Richard Stallman. That's not going to happen, though, because
the sources ARE going to be available (sorry to disappoint you).

Gary has had the sources for some time (as granted him by the GPL), he
didn't make them public because of practical reasons - he wasn't
obliged to, anyway. When the time comes, you will get your hands on
the sources. And the moment you read them, you'll be disappointed a
second time, because there isn't much to read (vpcc doesn't work the
same way as the "ordinary" gcc: the VP design demands a different
toolchain).

If you seriously think that Tao treats "others' IP licenses with such
disregard", then you're seriously wrong.

Have a nice day.

--
"We make a special art in an environment hostile to dreamers" (F.Zappa)
Rudi Chiarito SGML/XML, user interface, i18n Amiga Inc.
ru...@amiga.com http://amiga.com/

Eelke Blok

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to

Troy Bourdon wrote:
>
> So when I boot Linux can I run this VP from the command line? What happens
> after that? Do I get a new Amiga Desktop similar to running startx.

Eventually, I think that's the idea. I don't know whether the SDK
already does that, though, I haven't actually seen it. I only have an
idea of the technology Amiga is using.

milan

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to

Troy Bourdon <bou...@home.com> schreef in artikel
<gfX15.3088$MU1....@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>...


> Thanks Mr. Wave. That's the info I was searching for.
>
> "Arc Wave" <arc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

> > Amiga SDK is a software development kit that suggests the following


> > requirements be met: Redhat Linux 6.1 or .2 for x86 and a Matrox

RH Linux 6.1, 6.2 doesn't work yet.

Milan


milan

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to

Alexander Chaney <ach...@voicenet.com> schreef in artikel
<MEN15.143$S4.5...@news3.voicenet.com>...


> Troy Bourdon <bou...@home.com> wrote:
> No GUI environment, mostly a UNIX-like shell environment. Major
> potential, but I suspect that because Amiga have been VERY unclear as to
> what you are actually getting, that they should expect a ton of returns
> and disappointed people.
>
> I fully understand that this is aimed at developers, but I suspect that
> the curious will buy and be slighty upset.

The AmigaOS does have a GUI, provided by Intent, fully customizable. You
start the AmigaOS from a normal Linux desktop.

Milan


JFW

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
On 15 Jun 2000 05:32:30 GMT, Rudi Chiarito <ru...@amiga.com> wrote:

>JFW <jwi...@biff.com> wrote:
>> Gary, Tao is in serious non-compliance of the GPL. You guys committed
>
>Are they? Have you warned Richard Stallman or the FSF?
>
>> For a company who's primary business is licensing their IP, it's
>> really unprofessional of Tao to treat others' IP licenses with such
>> disregard.
>
>Have you read the GPL?

Yes, and beyond just the "GPL for Dummies" section in the beginning
(which all of your quotes are from, and which the GPL itself notes IS
NOT the actual terms of the GPL).

Try looking at the relevent parts of section 2 and 3 (A in each,
IIRC). This has all been discussed in depth before, particularly that
the GPL means _ALL_ third parties when it says "third parties" (eg Tao
DOES NOT get to redefine "third parties" as just "people whom purchase
licenses from us").

>"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis
>or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.
>You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
>And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."

Thats from the preface, which even the preface itself states is not a
binding analysis. Try reading the actual terms in sections 2 & 3.

[snip]

>The moment you (or anybody else) receive Tao's custom GCC and are
>denied the sources, then you could talk about GPL violation - feel free
>to ask Richard Stallman. That's not going to happen, though, because
>the sources ARE going to be available (sorry to disappoint you).

Bzzt, that's a redefinition of "third party" which the GPL
specifically forbids you from doing. Third parties are ANY third
parties. Next time read more than the GPL preface (at least read
parts which don't gleefully self-announce "I am NOT a binding part of
the GPL" <grin>).

>Gary has had the sources for some time (as granted him by the GPL), he
>didn't make them public because of practical reasons - he wasn't
>obliged to, anyway. When the time comes, you will get your hands on
>the sources. And the moment you read them, you'll be disappointed a
>second time, because there isn't much to read (vpcc doesn't work the
>same way as the "ordinary" gcc: the VP design demands a different
>toolchain).

Gary publically committed to a date by when the sources would be
available by ftp. That date has come and gone long since. You're
welcome to believe what you want regarding the terms of the GPL, but
there's plenty of precedent (the NeXT GCC modifications, for one)
showing that their obligation to provide source extends beyond their
licensees to ALL third parties (e.g. everyone).

jfw


Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to

So what recourse do "third party" have under GPL if Tao/Amiga fail to release
source code by a reasonable time period?

--
: damo...@TheNostromo.cx : Bruce Morrow, a man before and after his time :
: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the :
: United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." :
: - Samuel Adams : Morrow Project Science - Postholocaust Party Animals

Rudi Chiarito

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
JFW <jwi...@biff.com> wrote:
> Try looking at the relevent parts of section 2 and 3 (A in each,
> IIRC). This has all been discussed in depth before, particularly that
> the GPL means _ALL_ third parties when it says "third parties" (eg Tao
> DOES NOT get to redefine "third parties" as just "people whom purchase
> licenses from us").

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software.

Please note (also in the list of freedoms just below that excerpt) that it
always mentions the USERS' freedom. I don't see any mentions of rights for
people who don't use (i.e. haven't got) the software.

Isn't that enough? Well, I'll have Richard Stallman explain it to you.
This is from a recent interview, which you can find in its entirety at
http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml

Bruce: There's also the problem of Application Service Providers, who
make a work available for people to use without distributing it, and
thus would be under no obligation to make the source code of their
modifications available. Do I have to see my GPL work abused that way as
well?

RMS: I too feel these servers are not playing fair with our community,
but this problem is very hard to solve. It is hard for a copyright-based
license to make a requirement for these servers that will really stick.
The difficulty is that they servers are not distributing the program,
just running it. So it is hard to make any conditions under copyright
that affect what they can do.

I had an idea recently for an indirect method that might perhaps work.
I'd rather not talk about it until our lawyer figures out better whether
it can really do the job.

Had your own interpretation of "third parties" been correct, both the
question and the answer wouldn't have been necessary at all. Those service
providers wouldn't "be under no obligation to make the source code of
their modifications available". But as RMS himself admits, they are.

Are you happy now?

Alexander Chaney

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
Coz <COZ...@pacbell.net> wrote:

: The date is June 19th I believe. A piddly 5 days from now.

You're right, but I've gotten kinda used to bitching and moaning out loud.

Let's all just hold tight for a few more days, but let another month or
two slip and I'll be back in fighting trim.

-Alex

Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
Ralph Schmidt wrote:

>
> On 06/15/00, Randy Vice wrote:
> >So what recourse do "third party" have under GPL if Tao/Amiga fail to release
> >source code by a reasonable time period?
>
> Notifying Stallman and the Linux mob on slashdot will be punishment
> enough for any company not following the GPL:-)

LOL! Release the code or get /.ed. Wait, isn't that considered cruel and
inhuman punishment?

Coz

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to

So will I, I suppose. Well, slippage in computers is almost an unalienable
right... So maybe I'll be patient once again. I can always kick my cat.
8^)

Rudi Chiarito

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
> Of course, the GPL only applies to works that are being distributed. In
> the scenario of ASPs, nobody but the company that made the changes ever
> gets the program, in either source or binary form. The only thing that
> ever leaves the company's machines is date *generated* by the modified
> apps.
> Now, that's not what Tao is doing --- Tao has delivered software to
> Amiga (i.e. they have distributed their software outside their own
> company).

False. I might change the program and deliver it to the company hosting my
website. Isn't that distributing the software outside one's company?
Wouldn't GPL apply? Where do you draw the distinction between distributing
software outside one's company or not? Is handing the program to a
contractor considered distributing it inside or outside the company? And,
most importantly, where in the GPL are those distinctions made? Are they
real or do they exist only in your mind?

> It's also not what Amiga are doing --- Amiga has delivered an SDK to
> Milan Polle, which too constitutes a distribution outside their own
> company.

Milan's SDK has a specific package containing the GPL tools (jove, less,
make, zip, unzip, vpcc1, vpcp1, vpcpp), which also includes the GPL
license in a text file (as required by the GPL itself). Milan has the
freedom to ask Amiga for the sources if he sees fit, as granted him by the
license that HE has received. He might even upload those sources to e.g.
Aminet if, again, he wants to. On the other hand, YOU haven't received the
package, so you haven't received the license and thus you haven't got his
freedom (no matter how twisted your interpretation of the GPL is).

Section 0 of the GPL says

'Each licensee is addressed as "you".'

It doesn't say 'as "you" or "any third parties"'. As the license applies
to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
difficult for you to understand?

With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
have said in the past.

bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Rudi Chiarito <ru...@amiga.com> writes:

>Isn't that enough? Well, I'll have Richard Stallman explain it to you.
>This is from a recent interview, which you can find in its entirety at
>http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml

> Bruce: There's also the problem of Application Service Providers, who
> make a work available for people to use without distributing it,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Had your own interpretation of "third parties" been correct, both the
>question and the answer wouldn't have been necessary at all.

Of course, the GPL only applies to works that are being distributed. In


the scenario of ASPs, nobody but the company that made the changes ever
gets the program, in either source or binary form. The only thing that
ever leaves the company's machines is date *generated* by the modified
apps.

Now, that's not what Tao is doing --- Tao has delivered software to
Amiga (i.e. they have distributed their software outside their own
company).

It's also not what Amiga are doing --- Amiga has delivered an SDK to
Milan Polle, which too constitutes a distribution outside their own
company.

Note also how the GPL uses the term "recipient" when referring to the
people you distribute your program *to*, and "all third parties" when
referring to, well, everyone.

Bernie
--
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won't last out the year
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall

Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Rudi Chiarito wrote:

<snip>


> most importantly, where in the GPL are those distinctions made? Are they
> real or do they exist only in your mind?

<snip>


> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
> difficult for you to understand?
>
> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
> have said in the past.

My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
internship at, M$?

Craig H. Ganoe

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
wrote:

>Rudi Chiarito wrote:
>> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
>> difficult for you to understand?
>>
>> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
>> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
>> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
>> have said in the past.
>
>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
>internship at, M$?

Hardly. I'm sure Microsoft sends their people to "charm school" (as
it's often called in industry) before letting them loose on a public
forum like this related to their products. From present and past
posts by the amiga.com folk that post here, it is clear they have zero
background in how to present themselves in this forum and probably
shouldn't be posting here until they do.

Craig


Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Gary Peake wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
> wrote:
>
> >> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
> >> difficult for you to understand?
> >>
> >> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
> >> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
> >> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
> >> have said in the past.
> >
> >My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
> >internship at, M$?
>
> The constant slagging just to be doing it gets old. Our "lovely attitude"
> is always present for people who present a "lovely attitude" to us.

I realise you all are a new company and have alot to learn, but here is a tip
for doing business,
"The customer is _always_ right."

> The statement often made here "Amigans eat their own" comes to mind.

That would be the case if it was Compton vs. Vice thread, but it isn't. It's
about Amiga freaks vs. professionalism of Amiga.com. I've had my share of
biting my tongue in dealing with SOB customers, because my job(s) demand it.
You and your fellow employees have either to be plesant in dealing with the
customers, regardless if they think the customer is wrong or not, or just
don't post here. I realise that Borgland is a short distance away and it's
tough to get employees, but allowing M$ style treatment of customers is not a
good way to keep what little (if any customer base) is left.

>
> Funny how many here put up with and even exalted the great VisCorp, Gateway
> and others who made great marketroid talk and presented styrofoam models to
> the crowds, but when a few Amigans get together to really build new Amigas,
> suddenly we are pariahs out to dupe the community we have belonged to for
> the last ten plus years.

Funny things happen when you throw out the baby with the bath water. It gets
even worse when people seeing Amiga.com shutting it's windows and locking it's
doors to proper request. People start to wonder where they've seen this
before.

>
> We have all served our time in hell just like the rest of you here. Now we
> intend to build something new and better with all the spirit of the
> original Amiga that we can put into it. Come along for the ride or get left
> behind.

You've left this thread entirely now. It's about GPL violation and rude
amiga.com employee. How about slapping up a responce to this legal question
on amiga.com's site?

>
> You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Actually, I think we about lost it all and nothing to gain. Atleast there
will always be UAE.

Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
"Craig H. Ganoe" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
> wrote:
>
> >Rudi Chiarito wrote:
> >> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
> >> difficult for you to understand?
> >>
> >> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
> >> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
> >> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
> >> have said in the past.
> >
> >My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
> >internship at, M$?
>
> Hardly. I'm sure Microsoft sends their people to "charm school" (as
> it's often called in industry) before letting them loose on a public
> forum like this related to their products.

I'll have to take your word on M$ weasels, but I'd say it's frighteningly
close to M$ overall attitude of it's own customer base. I don't think
amiga.com gets it, if it's one thing Amiga freaks are not, is M$ style sheep
that will go with whatever M$ tells them they want in an OS.

From present and past
> posts by the amiga.com folk that post here, it is clear they have zero
> background in how to present themselves in this forum and probably
> shouldn't be posting here until they do.

Sadly, I must agree with you.

Rudi Chiarito

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx> wrote:
> My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
> internship at, M$?

Quite the opposite. You should know well that M$' policy is to be
extremely friendly in public (while stabbing you when you're not
looking). For an account of the "Microsoft Method", please refer to
http://www.jas.com/shame/shame/casestudies.html

Have you ever heard of this thing called 'sarcasm'? Is it prohibited by
law now?

In case you hadn't noticed, Mr JFW and Mr Meyer have repeatedly made
accusations over an issue on which even Richard Stallman has given up.
I hope you realize that it takes an extraordinary person or an
extraordinary effort to "out-stallman" Richard Stallman (no offence
meant to him). So, is THAT the "lovely attitude" I should learn from?

Feel free to ask people who know me or have dealt with me about my
attitude. I know many who have had no problems whatsoever with it. I do
know I am harsh at times, but it's never uncalled for (and that's my
problem, not Amiga's). I was probably born in the wrong part of the world,
where people are not obsessed with political correctness: when we are
gentle and friendly, we are gentle and friendly for real; we're not used
to fake it just because all we want is your money.

May I suggest you to please read Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions?
Or Marcus Valerius Martialis' Epigrams, from 2000 years ago?

--
"Stupidity is the basic building block of the Universe." (Frank Zappa)

Craig H. Ganoe

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:15:32 -0500, Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> wrote:
>Sorry Craig. Won't work, we have all been posting here at least as long as
>you have if not longer in most cases.

I've posted in the c.s.a.* groups as early as 1990, maybe before.
Back when there were four groups or so and I was around for the
vote when we expanded the groups into approximately the current
hierarchy. I didn't post much then just like I try not to post
much now.

I don't remember you until the last few years, but it's quite
possible that I didn't notice you because there were MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT people around that were worth listening to.

I personally don't want to be the one to ask these questions
or press these issues, but somebody needs to do it. Other people
agree with me on this and have posted similar questions. To your
credit, you haven't tried to answer any of these questions or
debate the issues. You just try to change the topic.

Since this is so scalable what's the performance of this on
a Palm Pilot type platform? Since it's so portable, is it
portable to that type of limited hardware environment? Would
the intent Java implementation have any better performance
and leave more free memory than the slow current offerings on
the Palm plaform?

If it is so fast and scalable and portable, why can't Amiga
commit to making this portable OS available on existing Amiga
platforms?

If not, then how does any of this have anything to do with the
original Amiga? If not, what are you doing to show your
commitment to the Amiga community?

These are the questions that I keep asking, but you don't
seem to want to answer those posts from me. Is it because
others and myself won't like the answers? Some of these
are yes/no questions. Is it easier to tell me that you've
been posting here as long or longer than me, than it is to
post honest answers about the issues? That's what I mean
when I complain about the style of your posting.

Craig


Coz

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Gary Peake wrote:

>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:31:01 GMT, ga...@vt.edu (Craig H. Ganoe) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Rudi Chiarito wrote:
> >>> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
> >>> difficult for you to understand?
> >>>
> >>> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
> >>> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
> >>> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
> >>> have said in the past.
> >>
> >>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
> >>internship at, M$?
> >
> >Hardly. I'm sure Microsoft sends their people to "charm school" (as
> >it's often called in industry) before letting them loose on a public
> >forum like this related to their products. From present and past

> >posts by the amiga.com folk that post here, it is clear they have zero
> >background in how to present themselves in this forum and probably
> >shouldn't be posting here until they do.
>
> Sorry Craig. Won't work, we have all been posting here at least as long as
> you have if not longer in most cases.
>

I have done approximately 50,000 <documented in call log databases>
technical support calls in the last 15 years. So I have had a fair amount
of dealing remotely with customers.

In my estimation Gary you do just fine. The occasional rampant nose hairs
and Eau de Gila Monster cologne notwithstanding, you are a fine example of
a company rep. I beam with approbation in your general direction.

Coz
--

Skal Loret

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 16 Jun 2000, Coz posted this in comp.sys.amiga.misc, thus proving the
truth in the saying "There is nothing so wretched as a man on ether":

>> >>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you
>> >>do your internship at, M$?
>> >
>> >Hardly. I'm sure Microsoft sends their people to "charm school" (as
>> >it's often called in industry) before letting them loose on a public
>> >forum like this related to their products. From present and past
>> >posts by the amiga.com folk that post here, it is clear they have
>> >zero background in how to present themselves in this forum and
>> >probably shouldn't be posting here until they do.
>>
>> Sorry Craig. Won't work, we have all been posting here at least as
>> long as you have if not longer in most cases.
>>
>
>I have done approximately 50,000 <documented in call log databases>
>technical support calls in the last 15 years. So I have had a fair
>amount of dealing remotely with customers.
>
>In my estimation Gary you do just fine. The occasional rampant nose
>hairs and Eau de Gila Monster cologne notwithstanding, you are a fine
>example of a company rep. I beam with approbation in your general
>direction.

I agree. It seems like some people feel that any amount of prevarication,
stringing together of half-truths and occasional ad hominems are simply swell
as long as THEY do it, but should the tables be turned just a little, they are
greviously wounded and demand satisfaction post haste.

Perhaps some people need to fall back ten yards and look at their perspective
or lack thereof.

Sometimes I wonder if it's sic transit gloria mundi, .misc...

Oh yeah: Have you seen him since he started braiding his nose hairs? Stunning.

;')

--
__ __
___ / /__ ___ _ / / Skal Loret Team AMIGA
(_-< / '_// _ `// / sk...@notonyourlifespambreath.goes.com
___//_/\_\ \_,_//_/ "USENET is like a box full of puppies..."
"Live each day like your hair was on fire"-Zen Saying



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Greg Tallent

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Back on 15-Jun-00 13:14:20 Randy Vice damo...@thenostromo.cx Wrote:
> Ralph Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On 06/15/00, Randy Vice wrote:
>> >So what recourse do "third party" have under GPL if Tao/Amiga fail to
>> >release source code by a reasonable time period?
>>
>> Notifying Stallman and the Linux mob on slashdot will be punishment
>> enough for any company not following the GPL:-)

> LOL! Release the code or get /.ed. Wait, isn't that considered cruel and
> inhuman punishment?

Reading Tim Rue's post is cruel and inhuman enough... :)

<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|

Dream come true: being a beta tester for a brewery.


Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Greg Tallent wrote:
>
> Back on 15-Jun-00 13:14:20 Randy Vice damo...@thenostromo.cx Wrote:
> > Ralph Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/15/00, Randy Vice wrote:
> >> >So what recourse do "third party" have under GPL if Tao/Amiga fail to
> >> >release source code by a reasonable time period?
> >>
> >> Notifying Stallman and the Linux mob on slashdot will be punishment
> >> enough for any company not following the GPL:-)
>
> > LOL! Release the code or get /.ed. Wait, isn't that considered cruel and
> > inhuman punishment?
>
> Reading Tim Rue's post is cruel and inhuman enough... :)

Only if your silly enough to read his post in the first place. :-\

JFW

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
On 15 Jun 2000 21:13:54 GMT, Rudi Chiarito <ru...@amiga.com> wrote:

>Milan's SDK has a specific package containing the GPL tools (jove, less,
>make, zip, unzip, vpcc1, vpcp1, vpcpp), which also includes the GPL
>license in a text file (as required by the GPL itself). Milan has the
>freedom to ask Amiga for the sources if he sees fit, as granted him by the
>license that HE has received. He might even upload those sources to e.g.
>Aminet if, again, he wants to. On the other hand, YOU haven't received the
>package, so you haven't received the license and thus you haven't got his
>freedom (no matter how twisted your interpretation of the GPL is).

Section 2b of the GPL states:

"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."

Note the use of "all third parties" e.g. everyone. If Tao or Amiga
changes a GPL'd program and distributes it, they are obligated to make
the changed version of the program available to everyone at no charge.

Section 3 states the following:

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the
terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the
program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
accord with Subsection b above.)"

Again, note the use of the term "any third party" in subsection b.
This clearly states that not only must the altered GPL'd program be
made available to everyone, but also that the source code must be made
available to everyone either included (the subsection a case), or
available seperately (the subsection b case).

NOWHERE does the GPL allow the licensee to redefine "third party" to
mean _only_ entities who received the distribution.

>Section 0 of the GPL says
>
> 'Each licensee is addressed as "you".'
>
>It doesn't say 'as "you" or "any third parties"'. As the license applies

>to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
>difficult for you to understand?

No, and given that, the references to "all third parties" (2b) and
"any third parties" (3b) make the point quite clear.

Anyways, I'm tired of arguing this over and over. I tried to politely
indicate a failure in compliance. Tao noted this, and Gary went so
far as to publically state when compliance would be met. That never
happened, and now we get you rudely talking down to us.

I've reported the violation to FSF and /. and they can sort it out.
If you are correct, then there is no issue. If not, well, I did try
and resolve this nicely a number of times.

jfw


Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Gary Peake wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:31:01 GMT, ga...@vt.edu (Craig H. Ganoe) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Rudi Chiarito wrote:
> >>> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
> >>> difficult for you to understand?
> >>>
> >>> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
> >>> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
> >>> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
> >>> have said in the past.
> >>
> >>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
> >>internship at, M$?
> >
> >Hardly. I'm sure Microsoft sends their people to "charm school" (as
> >it's often called in industry) before letting them loose on a public
> >forum like this related to their products. From present and past
> >posts by the amiga.com folk that post here, it is clear they have zero
> >background in how to present themselves in this forum and probably
> >shouldn't be posting here until they do.
>
> Sorry Craig. Won't work, we have all been posting here at least as long as
> you have if not longer in most cases.
>

So your excusing Rudi's (and other Amiga.com employees) post based on how we
post on here in the past?
That sounds awfully lame to me. Guess professionalism is too much to ask now
adays from a company who thinks they own us since they own a few trademarks.

Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Rudi Chiarito wrote:

>
> Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx> wrote:
> > My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
> > internship at, M$?
>
> Quite the opposite. You should know well that M$' policy is to be
> extremely friendly in public (while stabbing you when you're not
> looking). For an account of the "Microsoft Method", please refer to
> http://www.jas.com/shame/shame/casestudies.html

You have to give them their due, they do it with professionalism.

> Have you ever heard of this thing called 'sarcasm'? Is it prohibited by
> law now?

When I'm am at work or in regards to my employment, I will publicly give
people respect, regardless if they deserve it or not. Regardless how badly
they are getting into my face they still recieve respect from me.



> In case you hadn't noticed, Mr JFW and Mr Meyer have repeatedly made
> accusations over an issue on which even Richard Stallman has given up.

Then post something to your company's page on this subject if it's so cut and
dry. Amiga.com will stand behind you, right?

> I hope you realize that it takes an extraordinary person or an
> extraordinary effort to "out-stallman" Richard Stallman (no offence
> meant to him). So, is THAT the "lovely attitude" I should learn from?

I do not know Mr. Stallman so I can not comment. OTOH, your attitude does
deserve comment.


>
> Feel free to ask people who know me or have dealt with me about my
> attitude.

The only way for people on here can really get to know you and Amiga.com is by
yours and other's postings.

I know many who have had no problems whatsoever with it. I do
> know I am harsh at times, but it's never uncalled for (and that's my
> problem, not Amiga's).

No, it IS Amiga.com's problem since your posting from Amiga.com on Amiga.com
issues, you are representing them as well as yourself.

I was probably born in the wrong part of the world,
> where people are not obsessed with political correctness: when we are
> gentle and friendly, we are gentle and friendly for real; we're not used
> to fake it just because all we want is your money.

It remains to be seen if your choice of employeers was justified or not in
regards to your core beliefs.

>
> May I suggest you to please read Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions?
> Or Marcus Valerius Martialis' Epigrams, from 2000 years ago?

So that justifies your behavior as a representative of Amiga.com on Amiga.com
issues?

Perhaps your "talent" as well as other Amiga.com's be better spent over in
comp.os.tao.elate where it's more appropriate?

Charlie

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Tim, That was actually humorous!

Timothy Rue <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1002.199T917T12...@earthlink.net...
> On 13-Jun-00 20:59:38 Troy Bourdon <bou...@home.com> wrote:
> TB> What the heck is this SDK anyway? Is it an SDK or is it an OS? If
> TB> its an OS can I install it on my Pentium II 350 and boot to it. I
> TB> read the little blurb on Amazon.com and it said the SDK was
> TB> "Hosted on Linux". What the heck does that mean? It also said it
> TB> includes the "revolutionary Amiga Foundation Layer." What is
> TB> that? Is this some sort of emulation that runs on this Virtual
> TB> Processor that is running on Linux. I'm very confused.
>
>
> Something Done, K?
>
>
> ---
> *3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
> *~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
> Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
> Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
> Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
> Search email/name @ http://www.dejanews.com for other puzzle parts/posts.
>

Rudi Chiarito

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
JFW <jwi...@biff.com> wrote:
> Section 2b of the GPL states:

> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> under the terms of this License."

I read that as saying that the License applies to any party who accepts
it, not just the ones you pick. In order to accept it (accepting it is a
requirement for the License to be valid), though, you need to read it
first.

> Note the use of "all third parties" e.g. everyone. If Tao or Amiga
> changes a GPL'd program and distributes it, they are obligated to make
> the changed version of the program available to everyone at no charge.

Again, it's not THAT way.

> Section 3 states the following:

> "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

It says "ONE of the following".

> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
> physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
> copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the
> terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
> software interchange; or,

> Again, note the use of the term "any third party" in subsection b.

Sure, but 3. says "one of the following", NOT "all of the following".
So, subsection b hasn't got to be satisfied at any cost.

> This clearly states that not only must the altered GPL'd program be
> made available to everyone, but also that the source code must be made
> available to everyone either included (the subsection a case), or
> available seperately (the subsection b case).

"Any third party" does not occur in subsection a.

> NOWHERE does the GPL allow the licensee to redefine "third party" to
> mean _only_ entities who received the distribution.

Ok.
In order for the License to apply to you, you have to accept it
(this is stated in the GPL). How do you accept a license you haven't
read?

Glen Scott

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> wrote in message
news:073kksks9el5c4k68...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
> wrote:

> The constant slagging just to be doing it gets old. Our "lovely attitude"
> is always present for people who present a "lovely attitude" to us.
>

> The statement often made here "Amigans eat their own" comes to mind.
>

> Funny how many here put up with and even exalted the great VisCorp,
Gateway
> and others who made great marketroid talk and presented styrofoam models
to
> the crowds, but when a few Amigans get together to really build new
Amigas,
> suddenly we are pariahs out to dupe the community we have belonged to for
> the last ten plus years.
>

> We have all served our time in hell just like the rest of you here. Now we
> intend to build something new and better with all the spirit of the
> original Amiga that we can put into it. Come along for the ride or get
left
> behind.
>

> You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Nice one! That should tell them! I really can't believe the negative
attitude that runs through comp.sys.amiga.misc! As Gary says, we have a
bunch of guys running the show who are PASSIONATE about that Amiga. Why
some people are suspicious of this, I don't know. I for one am very excited
about the prospects ahead, and I can't wait to see the new Amiga OE in
whatever format.

Glen


Glen Scott

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to

johnny

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx>
>wrote:

>>> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is it so
>>> difficult for you to understand?
>>>
>>> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by Tao/Amiga to
>>> keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to get off scot free),
>>> you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any intelligent thing you might
>>> have said in the past.
>>

>>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you do your
>>internship at, M$?

>The constant slagging just to be doing it gets old. Our "lovely attitude"
>is always present for people who present a "lovely attitude" to us.

>The statement often made here "Amigans eat their own" comes to mind.

>Funny how many here put up with and even exalted the great VisCorp, Gateway
>and others who made great marketroid talk and presented styrofoam models to
>the crowds, but when a few Amigans get together to really build new Amigas,
>suddenly we are pariahs out to dupe the community we have belonged to for
>the last ten plus years.

>We have all served our time in hell just like the rest of you here. Now we
>intend to build something new and better with all the spirit of the
>original Amiga that we can put into it. Come along for the ride or get left
>behind.

I've got my ticket here Gary....80)
one thing bothers me though....who's this new VP of engineering??...from a

company that is (quote)... 'one that is large,and is in trouble,you
know'..... GOD HELP US not from Microsloth (tm) i HOPE!!!!! please Gary say it
aint so!!!

>--

>Gary Peake
>Director - Support
>Amiga Inc.

>The Amiga Dream Team

>Catch "The Dream"

>--


Alexander Chaney

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> wrote:

: Funny how many here put up with and even exalted the great VisCorp, Gateway


: and others who made great marketroid talk and presented styrofoam models to
: the crowds, but when a few Amigans get together to really build new Amigas,
: suddenly we are pariahs out to dupe the community we have belonged to for
: the last ten plus years.

Absolutely correct, you guys have at times been unfairly beaten up on. I
know I've done my fair share of Amiga hating and you are correct, its a
bit unfair. I think what started it was that abnormally long period of
silence. In retrospect, it wasn't as long as Gateway, but an idle mind
is the devil's workshop and when left alone, people like me can draw some
awful conclusions.

But it was mostly your own fault. You're unwillingness to still tell us
the roadmap of product development, etc, etc. There was a purchase
announcement followed by silence, then the TAO announcement followed by
deeper silence, the SDK announcement, but you won't give us a clue as to
what to start working on. Telling us that it runs on everything under the
sun is not the right answer because you won't be delivering everything
under the sun.

: We have all served our time in hell just like the rest of you here. Now we


: intend to build something new and better with all the spirit of the
: original Amiga that we can put into it. Come along for the ride or get left
: behind.

I'm on board. I'm glad you are in the position that you are, but don't
for a minute think that it takes you off the hook in any way. You guys
should love that people are paying such close attention to a non-product.
You guys didn't even deliver vapor yet. No hype, no vapor, no product
yet. I preordered something that I've never seen and for $99 no less.
That is almost unheard of.


: You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I stand to lose $99 for the SDK and $800 for the development box.

But it's all good, you guys keep doing what you do.

-Alex


bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
[Posted and mailed]

Rudi Chiarito <ru...@amiga.com> writes:
>bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote:

>> It's also not what Amiga are doing --- Amiga has delivered an SDK to
>> Milan Polle, which too constitutes a distribution outside their own
>> company.

>On the other hand, YOU haven't received the package, so you haven't


>received the license and thus you haven't got his freedom (no matter
>how twisted your interpretation of the GPL is).

OK, I'll play along with your weird view of the world, which says that
I can only demand source for this stuff if I actually have received the
binaries.

I have received the binaries, and the GPL was included with them. I received
the files directly from Amiga, Inc. You doubt it? Well, doubt away, but
I have.

[bmeyer@wombat tmp]$ ls -l /newdisk/amiga-sdk-gpl-utils-1.0-3.i386.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1692762 Jun 5 23:10 /newdisk/amiga-sdk-
gpl-utils-1.0-3.i386.rpm
[bmeyer@wombat tmp]$ sum /newdisk/amiga-sdk-gpl-utils-1.0-3.i386.rpm
58528 1654

So, I am a licensee as well as a third party. As you don't seem to have
a problem with acknowledging that licensees have a right to request the
source, I hereby request the source to the GPLed parts of the above
archive, in particular to everything contained in the

/usr/lib/elate/gplutils/lang/cc/bin/

According to the GPL, which your company included and acknowledged as
the license under which those binaries are distributed, you have the choice
of either sending me the source for a price no higher than that of
physically distributing it, or to make the source available via ftp,
just as the binaries were.

Please let me know in a timely manner which of those two methods of
GPL compliance you choose.

Bernie

P.S.: I see that you have since withdrawn the above file from distribution.
However, as you are surely aware, that does not free you from your
obligation to supply the source for the binaries you *did* distribute
earlier today.

--
Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with
what happens to him.
Aldous Huxley
English novelist, 1894-1963

bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
Rudi Chiarito <ru...@amiga.com> writes:

>In case you hadn't noticed, Mr JFW and Mr Meyer have repeatedly made
>accusations over an issue on which even Richard Stallman has given up.

So Amiga, Inc. sees themselves as an application service provider? Gee,
and I thought you were trying to sell a CD with software on it. Let
me look at amazon.com again --- yep, you are.

>I hope you realize that it takes an extraordinary person or an
>extraordinary effort to "out-stallman" Richard Stallman (no offence
>meant to him). So, is THAT the "lovely attitude" I should learn from?

You mean an attitude that expects people to not only use the rights given
to them in a license, but also the obligations placed on them in the
very same license?

You are free to not accept any of the obligations placed on you by the GPL,
but then, you'll have to look for a different compiler to base your system
on, because you will also not be granted any rights to use the gcc code.


Seeing as Amiga, Inc. seems to steer towards being a software company, one
would think that adherence to software licensing terms would be important
to you guys. I wonder whether your attitude will be equally relaxed when
people out there start ripping off *your* hard work.

Bernie
--
As a woman, I find it very embarrassing to be in a meeting
and realize I'm the only one in the room with balls
Rita Mae Brown

Timothy Rue

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
On 16-Jun-00 13:22:54 Skal Loret <sk...@notonyourlifespambreath.goes.com> wrote:
SL> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

SL> On 16 Jun 2000, Coz posted this in comp.sys.amiga.misc, thus
SL> proving the truth in the saying "There is nothing so wretched as
SL> a man on ether":

>>> >>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did
>>> >>you do your internship at, M$?
>>> >

>>> >Hardly. I'm sure Microsoft sends their people to "charm school"
>>> >(as it's often called in industry) before letting them loose on a
>>> >public forum like this related to their products. From present
>>> >and past posts by the amiga.com folk that post here, it is clear
>>> >they have zero background in how to present themselves in this
>>> >forum and probably shouldn't be posting here until they do.
>>>
>>> Sorry Craig. Won't work, we have all been posting here at least as
>>> long as you have if not longer in most cases.
>>>
>>

>>I have done approximately 50,000 <documented in call log databases>
>>technical support calls in the last 15 years. So I have had a fair
>>amount of dealing remotely with customers.
>>
>>In my estimation Gary you do just fine. The occasional rampant nose
>>hairs and Eau de Gila Monster cologne notwithstanding, you are a
>>fine example of a company rep. I beam with approbation in your
>>general direction.

SL> I agree. It seems like some people feel that any amount of
SL> prevarication, stringing together of half-truths and occasional
SL> ad hominems are simply swell as long as THEY do it, but should
SL> the tables be turned just a little, they are greviously wounded
SL> and demand satisfaction post haste.


hahaha, and just think, you can't check the public archives, even if they
were all currently available, because Gary doesn't allow his post in
there.

But there are those of use who do have them in our own archives...

And Know the abundant amount of BS being spun now...


SL> Perhaps some people need to fall back ten yards and look at their
SL> perspective or lack thereof.

SL> Sometimes I wonder if it's sic transit gloria mundi, .misc...

SL> Oh yeah: Have you seen him since he started braiding his nose
SL> hairs? Stunning.

SL> ;')
SL>

Timothy Rue

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
On 16-Jun-00 06:24:02 Gary Peake <ga...@amiga.com> wrote:
GP> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:58:05 GMT, Randy Vice
GP> <damo...@thenostromo.cx> wrote:


>>> to licensees, it applies to "you", not to "any third parties". Is
>>> it so difficult for you to understand?
>>>
>>> With such Ruesque claims about this presumed conspiracy by
>>> Tao/Amiga to keep the GPL sources secret (and the presumed hope to
>>> get off scot free), you and JFW are, in my eyes, making up for any
>>> intelligent thing you might have said in the past.
>>

>>My, such a lovely attitude for an Amiga.com person. Where did you
>>do your internship at, M$?


GP> The constant slagging just to be doing it gets old. Our "lovely
GP> attitude" is always present for people who present a "lovely
GP> attitude" to us.

GP> The statement often made here "Amigans eat their own" comes to
GP> mind.

GP> Funny how many here put up with and even exalted the great
GP> VisCorp, Gateway and others who made great marketroid talk and
GP> presented styrofoam models to the crowds, but when a few Amigans
GP> get together to really build new Amigas, suddenly we are pariahs
GP> out to dupe the community we have belonged to for the last ten
GP> plus years.

But there are exceptions right? Me for example, I'm worth a double
standard huh?

GP> We have all served our time in hell just like the rest of you
GP> here. Now we intend to build something new and better with all
GP> the spirit of the original Amiga that we can put into it. Come
GP> along for the ride or get left behind.

Yea? and the charge for a ride on the bandwagon is?

GP> You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Magic hair tonic that slove all illness comes to mind...


---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<

JFW

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
On 16 Jun 2000 22:32:31 GMT, Rudi Chiarito <ru...@amiga.com> wrote:

>JFW <jwi...@biff.com> wrote:
>> Section 2b of the GPL states:
>
>> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
>> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
>> under the terms of this License."
>
>I read that as saying that the License applies to any party who accepts
>it, not just the ones you pick. In order to accept it (accepting it is a
>requirement for the License to be valid), though, you need to read it
>first.
>
>> Note the use of "all third parties" e.g. everyone. If Tao or Amiga
>> changes a GPL'd program and distributes it, they are obligated to make
>> the changed version of the program available to everyone at no charge.
>
>Again, it's not THAT way.

What way? Those are the precise words of the GPL. There is no other
way to interpret the term "third party" (it's VERY clearly defined in
the GPL).

>> Section 3 states the following:
>
>> "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
>> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
>It says "ONE of the following".
>
>> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
>> to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
>> physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
>> copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the
>> terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
>> software interchange; or,
>
>> Again, note the use of the term "any third party" in subsection b.
>
>Sure, but 3. says "one of the following", NOT "all of the following".
>So, subsection b hasn't got to be satisfied at any cost.

It does if you are not satisfying any of the other conditions. One of
the following means _one_ of the following. IE not "none or one of
the following". You are not complying with ANY of those terms.

>
>> This clearly states that not only must the altered GPL'd program be
>> made available to everyone, but also that the source code must be made
>> available to everyone either included (the subsection a case), or
>> available seperately (the subsection b case).
>
>"Any third party" does not occur in subsection a.

That's correct. But the 3a case falls under the section 2 case of
making the program available to "all third parties".

You can play these semantic games all you want. Let's let the FSF and
/. determine the practical relevence, shall we?

I just want it on the record that I went out of my way to present
these compliance issues in an in-community manner, was told there
would be a solution (Gary's committment to ftp source availability),
which was reneged on by Amiga and Tao. I made every effort to try and
keep this from being ugly.

It was only after Amiga/Tao continued to violate the GPL that I
escalated this to the FSF and Slashdot.

>> NOWHERE does the GPL allow the licensee to redefine "third party" to
>> mean _only_ entities who received the distribution.
>
>Ok.
>In order for the License to apply to you, you have to accept it
>(this is stated in the GPL). How do you accept a license you haven't
>read?

Are you really sure this is the tact with which you want to approach
this issue? Are you really implying that Tao/Amiga was unaware of the
restrictions of the GPL when they chose to modify the GCC source code?

Rudy, whatever. You guys are digging your own graves on this issue.

jfw


Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
JFW wrote:

<snip>

>
> You can play these semantic games all you want. Let's let the FSF and
> /. determine the practical relevence, shall we?

Still haven't seen your article on /. yet but as I understand it, /. articles
take time to get posted. How long does it usually take for FSF to get back on
a GPL complaint?

>
> I just want it on the record that I went out of my way to present
> these compliance issues in an in-community manner, was told there
> would be a solution (Gary's committment to ftp source availability),
> which was reneged on by Amiga and Tao. I made every effort to try and
> keep this from being ugly.
>
> It was only after Amiga/Tao continued to violate the GPL that I
> escalated this to the FSF and Slashdot.

I'm just suprised you didn't get it after Gary said it would be made available
to you. Any idea why Amiga/Tao is so reluctant in turning the source code
over?

>
> >> NOWHERE does the GPL allow the licensee to redefine "third party" to
> >> mean _only_ entities who received the distribution.
> >
> >Ok.
> >In order for the License to apply to you, you have to accept it
> >(this is stated in the GPL). How do you accept a license you haven't
> >read?
>
> Are you really sure this is the tact with which you want to approach
> this issue? Are you really implying that Tao/Amiga was unaware of the
> restrictions of the GPL when they chose to modify the GCC source code?
>
> Rudy, whatever. You guys are digging your own graves on this issue.

If your article gets published on /., they may come to realise their mistake
when the hords come a knocking...

Ray Akey

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx> wrote in message
news:394B9B8C...@thenostromo.cx...

> If your article gets published on /., they may come to realise their
mistake
> when the hords come a knocking...

I sometimes wonder why you people must be so negative and act so
pseudo-repressed.

First of all, we as a company are very busy getting things done. YES,
imagine that, we DO work.. WOW!
Second, the **GPL sources for the Amiga SDK have now been posted to the
/pub/gpl/amiga-sdk-gpl-util-src/ dir at amiga.com**.
Third, learn some patience. I am the person who is putting the stuff on the
FTP and it takes time to get some things done. There is a "pecking order."
We (Amiga Inc.) are not a one-man company where one person can just throw it
all together and post it without repercussion.

Randy, of all the people posting in this thread, I'd have thought better of
you, having known you for some years through our common CNet Amiga
association. :(

..the opinions expressed above are mine damnit. My employer has more couth.
:)

Randy Vice

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
Ray Akey wrote:
>
> Randy Vice <damo...@thenostromo.cx> wrote in message
> news:394B9B8C...@thenostromo.cx...
> > If your article gets published on /., they may come to realise their
> mistake
> > when the hords come a knocking...
>
> I sometimes wonder why you people must be so negative and act so
> pseudo-repressed.
>

It's the "Mushroom Effect" plus someone from your company likes to talk down
to people.

> First of all, we as a company are very busy getting things done. YES,
> imagine that, we DO work.. WOW!

Glad to hear it.

> Second, the **GPL sources for the Amiga SDK have now been posted to the
> /pub/gpl/amiga-sdk-gpl-util-src/ dir at amiga.com**.

Ray, I'm also glad to hear that it's finally up. With the remarks posted by
your co-worker, Rudi, I had thought after reading his replies to JFW that is
was going to require legal action and public support for Amiga.com to supply
those who have demanded the src via GPL license.

> Third, learn some patience. I am the person who is putting the stuff on the
> FTP and it takes time to get some things done. There is a "pecking order."
> We (Amiga Inc.) are not a one-man company where one person can just throw it
> all together and post it without repercussion.

IIRC, JFW had requested those src files in excess of 30 days of my posting
this reply to you. Pity he felt he had no other option then to contact FSF
and /. to gain access to those files. I'm sure everyone would have been much
happier if a quick explanation had been recieved from Amiga.com that the delay
was due to workload and not an attempt of legal weaseling on license wording.

> Randy, of all the people posting in this thread, I'd have thought better of
> you, having known you for some years through our common CNet Amiga
> association. :(

First of all Ray, I had no idea, until now, that the FTP site was your
responciability nor it was under your control (excluding whatever management
chain you are currently in) to post those files. The most I had known of your
duties at Amiga.com was the developer database and replacing that poor excuse
of a search engine. Had I known it was your call, I would have remained
quiet, if not defended you, out of my respect for your coding and friendship.
Second, if your fellow employees would have issued a statement in behalf of
you and or your company that the initial agreement was going to be executed as
man power permitted, I doubt anyone, including JFW, would have bitched about a
GPL violation to FSF or /..

>
> ..the opinions expressed above are mine damnit. My employer has more couth.
> :)

--

Keith Blakemore-Noble

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
On or around Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:04:26 GMT, Ray Akey wrote something
about "Re: What IS the Amiga SDK"...

> Second, the **GPL sources for the Amiga SDK have now been posted to
> the /pub/gpl/amiga-sdk-gpl-util-src/ dir at amiga.com**.

Nice one :)

Now let's see what pathetic lame excuses Vice, JFW, the Senator et al
can come up with for a whole new set of baseless whinging.

You know, it would be interesting for you to check your access logs and
see if those who were bitching about nothing actually ever DO download
the entire sources that they felt were absolutely necessary to make
their lives liveable, or whether they were just moaning for the sake of
it...

As for JFW's empty bluff of threatening to alert the mindless yobs who
nowadays inhabit slashdot, it's interesting to see that either hey was
just bluffing, or else the editors at slashdot chose not to post his
mindless ranting. Wonder why...

A note to those who were whinging about nothing - I am not expressing
any opinion on either Amiga Inc, their plans, the SDK or anything else
of that nature. So don't bother with your predictable flames about me
being yet another Amiga sympathiser (which I can hear you typing
already).

JFW

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:11:31 GMT, "Keith Blakemore-Noble "
<Ke...@Blakemore-Noble.net> wrote:

[snip]

>As for JFW's empty bluff of threatening to alert the mindless yobs who
>nowadays inhabit slashdot, it's interesting to see that either hey was
>just bluffing, or else the editors at slashdot chose not to post his
>mindless ranting. Wonder why...

Because it's some 400-deep in their queue, perhaps?

Oh, and love the gratuitous personal attacks. They stand in testimony
of your ability to debate the issue on it's merits alone.

jfw


Ray Akey

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
Keith Blakemore-Noble <Ke...@Blakemore-Noble.net> wrote in message
news:P2.L2.J82KKl...@Blakemore-Noble.net...

> Now let's see what pathetic lame excuses Vice, JFW, the Senator et al
> can come up with for a whole new set of baseless whinging.

Those who choose to whine can do so all they want as they have been for the
past X years in this newsgroup.

> You know, it would be interesting for you to check your access logs and
> see if those who were bitching about nothing actually ever DO download
> the entire sources that they felt were absolutely necessary to make
> their lives liveable, or whether they were just moaning for the sake of
> it...

Trust me, it is my job to maintain and back up logs and scan for
exploit/hack attempts, etc. I know just who is doing what, and when. But
it is not in anyone's best interest to post it here. ;)

> As for JFW's empty bluff of threatening to alert the mindless yobs who
> nowadays inhabit slashdot, it's interesting to see that either hey was
> just bluffing, or else the editors at slashdot chose not to post his
> mindless ranting. Wonder why...

I hope he does. Amiga.com getting /.ed wouldn't be a bad thing. It would
only bring more attention to us. Attention is always good, no matter what
kind. Famous or infamous, getting /.ed would do us more good than harm. :)

> A note to those who were whinging about nothing - I am not expressing
> any opinion on either Amiga Inc, their plans, the SDK or anything else
> of that nature. So don't bother with your predictable flames about me
> being yet another Amiga sympathiser (which I can hear you typing
> already).

Most know me as a non-sympathizer