From: "fleecy" Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: ICOA and PPC debate? Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:43:34 -0400 Organization: NetREACH InterNetNews Lines: 106 Message-ID: <34462816.DCE642E7@netreach.net> References: <620akn$1j6@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca> <620ucd$80o$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <622jma$q63@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca> <622qun$3v2$2@croci.unipi.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-207-097.netreach.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Path: 195.95.96.10!news.unisource.be!planetinternet.be!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.ecrc.net!206.229.87.10.MISMATCH!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-dc-26.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tahiti.netreach.net!usenet >Hello All, Hi George 8-) >With the recent release of the Power UP boards from Phase 5 and >the fiasco that followed, something has to be done. Realising >that others will likely follow in Phase 5 footsteps and release PPC boards, >and the Amiga OS has a good chance of being ported to PPC [still], some sort of >standard has to be set *now*. > >I think this situation is the idea proving grounds for the ICOA. After all >it is one of the main reasons for their formation, to establish SW standards >for developers to use. This should of course be done with Amiga Inc.'s blessing. >By standing on the sidelines, things will only get much worse in the >coming months without some sort of standard. Very true. One of the main raisons d'etre of the ICOA is to set standards. However, this is where there is reason for a set of common standards that are to be embraced by a good majority of developers. As is happening at the moment, P5 have produced a proprietary board design, provided one SW solution and H&P have provided another. P5 (presumably) wish to make money through the sale of HW and SW for their pUP solution whilst H&P wish to present their own SW solution for the P5 HW. In such a case, the ICOA cannot intervene directly, since there is a conflict here. We can recommend that everyone come to a healthy agreement, and that the ICOA help in the arbitration, and maybe even set up a WG to push and develop a set of standards for the pUP boards. Whether the two companies wish to go down that route is upto them. The pUP is a custom solution that has taken considerable investment and which is presumably why P5 are miffed since they want to recoup their investment and max the performance of their HW. Now P5 could say to the ICOA, here are the specs for our board. We want the board to be used by the whole community and we think the best way for this to happen is for the ICOA to become the standards body for the APIs. Then H&P, P5, and other ICOA members could work on them together. However, the ICOA is not the Borg - if a company wishes to offer its proprietary technology to us for the benefit of the whole community then that is fine, but the ICOA cannot and will not move to force a company into making such a committment. P5 is perfectly within its right to control its own technology. H&P is perfectly within its right to provide an alternative SW solution. P5 is perfectly within its right to keep changing elements of its HW to render the H&P solution inoperable and H&P is perfectly within its right to patch its SW solution to make it work again. The effects of this on the market and the community is a matter for personal judgement. Of course, as Ben Hutchings has pointed out, the ICOA does not yet exist as a formal organisation and so would not be able to do much on a formal level. Informally, the TSC and the mailing list members would be delighted to offer whatever services they can to resolve this issue and move the Amiga forwards.. If others do release PPC boards, then the issue changes considerably since if there are multiple vendors providing HW, then both they and the rest of the community (developers and owners) would want to see a common set of APIs allowing for any PPC enhanced application to run on any board and that is precisely where the ICOA is designed to fit in, a forum for co-operation in mutually beneficial situations. Right now, with P5 being the only vendor, they don't have to co-operate with anyone. As to the status of the ICOA, we are in constant talks with Jeff, Marilyn (the HR - read "everything") and the GW2K lawyer. The website is moving ahead and the new revision should be up by the end of October. As soon as we are legal, the doors will be opened for developers and then, when the ICOA is moving forwards, for affiliate (user) members who want to keep track of what is going on (for a price of course ;-)) ** This is not an official TSC or ICOA statment - merely a personal reply** === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === fleecy moss, fleecy@netreach.net. http://www.netreach.net/~fleecy/ TSC member (ICOA) http://www.lapcopaintball.com/icoa/ === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa === baa