Terminills, we're just discussing this, i don't beg for anything; I've never asked anyone for anythingdon't get upset. I'm not a developer; I'm just a 73-year-old guy who enjoys playing around with AROS. Tell me what you want me to remove from Aros One, and I'll remove it!

[quote name=AMIGASYSTEM post=14122]@AMIGASYSTEM - Terminills, we're just discussing this, don't get upset. I'm not a developer; I'm just a 73-year-old guy who enjoys playing around with AROS. Tell me what you want me to remove from Aros One, and I'll remove it![/quote]

There was a quite simple solution… “sorry for the omission” and adding a couple paragraphs and links to the site about the actual main project.

But instead you doubled down.

Do not ever include Finalwriter Demo or otherwise in any of your distros.

No problem, Finalwriter will no longer be included in any version of AROS One. If you have any other software of yours, let me know and I’ll remove it.

I’m really sorry that a normal discussion made you angry. If I did something wrong or if the translation didn’t reflect what I meant, I certainly didn’t mean to offend you. Have a good evening.

[quote name=terminills post=14119]@terminills - [quote]

This site exists as a place for developers, AROS users (new and old), former Amiga users, and others to discuss the project. How is it any different from forums that came before it—aros-exec.org, ae.aros-exec.org—or the Discord channel?

How else would you expect people to give feedback, suggest ideas, report bugs, share new software, or discuss new developments without a forum? It's a site about AROS, so it uses the name AROS—that's so people aren't left confused about what it's for, not because it's trying to hijack anything.

Nobody here is hijacking the name. People are free to talk about AROS as long as it's done respectfully, without attacking anyone's personal preferences or opinions.

If I've misread your comment, I apologize—but I'm not sure what else you could have meant by it.
[/quote]

This site actively directs people away from AROS.org and the main AROS development branch.

I have nothing against Deadwood or his work. I know he puts considerable effort into it. However, his repository is his own fork; it is not the upstream AROS project or its main development branch. Hopefully, one day the separate fork will no longer be necessary and the work can be fully aligned upstream.

The problem is not that this forum uses “AROS” in its name. The problem is how it presents the project. ABIv1—the actual ADT main development branch—is conspicuously omitted from the site’s introduction and its general “Development Resources” article. That article presents ABIv0 and Deadwood’s ABIv11 as the available development choices, then directs developers to contact Deadwood while omitting the ADT repository, its GitHub issue tracker, pull requests, developer mailing list, and official contribution process.

The site’s introduction claims AROS support for x86, x86-64, m68k, ARM, and RISC-V, but fails to explain that ABIv1 is the upstream branch connecting those architectures. Most mentions of ABIv1 elsewhere on the site consist of people discouraging others from using it, customizing its nightlies, or basing distributions upon it.

That is what I mean by hijacking the name: presenting this as the general home of AROS while steering users and prospective developers toward one preferred fork and away from the actual upstream project. A forum for discussing AROS is perfectly reasonable. Replacing the public perception of upstream AROS with a fork is not.[/quote]


Actively directing people away from aros.org would mean this site telling users to avoid aros.org or to avoid ABIv1 specifically — but that's nowhere to be found. You're confusing chip architecture with ABI. As you acknowledged in your post, [i]"The site's introduction claims AROS support for x86, x86-64, m68k, ARM, and RISC-V"[/i] — that has nothing to do with ABIv0, ABIv1, ABIv11, or any other ABI version. To the general public, it's simply presenting which chip architectures AROS can run on.

Which ABI does what is a developer-level concern. ABIv11 is the work of Deadwood, which, in my opinion, has pushed AROS on x64 further than ABIv1 was doing at the time. Deadwood is a user on this site, just like you, and like him, you're free to post and advocate for ABIv1 if you feel it isn't getting the attention it deserves. No one is stopping you.

So instead of projecting negative assumptions and accusing this site or its members of misconduct, why not participate more constructively? You're free to express yourself, and if you feel something is heading in the wrong direction, you're welcome to voice your opinion — but direct attacks won't be tolerated, as they may violate this site's terms of service.

[quote name=amigamia post=14125]@amigamia - [quote name=terminills post=14119]@terminills - [quote]

This site exists as a place for developers, AROS users (new and old), former Amiga users, and others to discuss the project. How is it any different from forums that came before it—aros-exec.org, ae.aros-exec.org—or the Discord channel?

How else would you expect people to give feedback, suggest ideas, report bugs, share new software, or discuss new developments without a forum? It's a site about AROS, so it uses the name AROS—that's so people aren't left confused about what it's for, not because it's trying to hijack anything.

Nobody here is hijacking the name. People are free to talk about AROS as long as it's done respectfully, without attacking anyone's personal preferences or opinions.

If I've misread your comment, I apologize—but I'm not sure what else you could have meant by it.
[/quote]

This site actively directs people away from AROS.org and the main AROS development branch.

I have nothing against Deadwood or his work. I know he puts considerable effort into it. However, his repository is his own fork; it is not the upstream AROS project or its main development branch. Hopefully, one day the separate fork will no longer be necessary and the work can be fully aligned upstream.

The problem is not that this forum uses “AROS” in its name. The problem is how it presents the project. ABIv1—the actual ADT main development branch—is conspicuously omitted from the site’s introduction and its general “Development Resources” article. That article presents ABIv0 and Deadwood’s ABIv11 as the available development choices, then directs developers to contact Deadwood while omitting the ADT repository, its GitHub issue tracker, pull requests, developer mailing list, and official contribution process.

The site’s introduction claims AROS support for x86, x86-64, m68k, ARM, and RISC-V, but fails to explain that ABIv1 is the upstream branch connecting those architectures. Most mentions of ABIv1 elsewhere on the site consist of people discouraging others from using it, customizing its nightlies, or basing distributions upon it.

That is what I mean by hijacking the name: presenting this as the general home of AROS while steering users and prospective developers toward one preferred fork and away from the actual upstream project. A forum for discussing AROS is perfectly reasonable. Replacing the public perception of upstream AROS with a fork is not.[/quote]


Actively directing people away from aros.org would mean this site telling users to avoid aros.org or to avoid ABIv1 specifically — but that's nowhere to be found. You're confusing chip architecture with ABI. As you acknowledged in your post, [i]"The site's introduction claims AROS support for x86, x86-64, m68k, ARM, and RISC-V"[/i] — that has nothing to do with ABIv0, ABIv1, ABIv11, or any other ABI version. To the general public, it's simply presenting which chip architectures AROS can run on.

Which ABI does what is a developer-level concern. ABIv11 is the work of Deadwood, which, in my opinion, has pushed AROS on x64 further than ABIv1 was doing at the time. Deadwood is a user on this site, just like you, and like him, you're free to post and advocate for ABIv1 if you feel it isn't getting the attention it deserves. No one is stopping you.

So instead of projecting negative assumptions and accusing this site or its members of misconduct, why not participate more constructively? You're free to express yourself, and if you feel something is heading in the wrong direction, you're welcome to voice your opinion — but direct attacks won't be tolerated, as they may violate this site's terms of service.[/quote]



Since we're apparently claiming nobody here directs users away from ABI v1, here are some examples from this site.

[b]October 18, 2024 — Odyssey Web Browser 64-bit[/b]

AMIGASYSTEM responds to discussion of the official experimental ABI v1 SMP build by saying that it does not work for him under VMware and characterizes ABI v1 as effectively having almost no software.

[url=https://www.arosworld.org/infusions/forum/viewthread.php?rowstart=20&thread_id=1175]Odyssey Web Browser 64-bit[/url]

In the same thread, Amiwell79 states:

[quote]but owb will work on abiv11 not abiv1[/quote]

Deadwood immediately corrects this in the following post, explaining that Odyssey can work on any AROS variant, including ABI v1, provided somebody compiles and debugs it.

[url=https://www.arosworld.org/infusions/forum/viewthread.php?rowstart=20&thread_id=1175]Odyssey Web Browser 64-bit — posts #30/#31[/url]


[b]December 18, 2025 — Grub is broken on 32 bit x86 nightly[/b]

This one is particularly interesting because the user is actually trying to use the official ABI v1 nightly.

AMIGASYSTEM tells the user that ABI v1 is incompatible with the distributions and almost everything on AROS Archives and states:

[quote]There is no third-party software for AROS ABI-v1[/quote]

He then points the user toward ABI v0/v11 builds instead:

[quote]You could try these Nightly Build here[/quote]

[url=https://www.arosworld.org/infusions/forum/viewthread.php?pid=10340&thread_id=1748]Grub is broken on 32 bit x86 nightly — post #4[/url]

This isn't merely someone saying that they personally prefer ABI v11. A user arrived using the official ABI v1 nightly and was actively directed toward another ABI.


[b]December 19, 2025 — same thread[/b]

After the claim that ABI v1 has no third-party software is challenged, AMIGASYSTEM changes the argument to there being relatively too little software for ABI v1 compared with ABI v0/v11 and uses that as the reason for not producing an ABI v1 AROS One.

[url=https://www.arosworld.org/infusions/forum/viewthread.php?pid=10340&thread_id=1748]Grub is broken on 32 bit x86 nightly — post #7 onward[/url]


[b]December 19, 2025 — same thread[/b]

AMIGASYSTEM again argues against an ABI v1 distribution and says that he previously created an ABI v1 AROS One but abandoned it because there was no software.

[url=https://www.arosworld.org/infusions/forum/viewthread.php?pid=10340&thread_id=1748]Grub is broken on 32 bit x86 nightly — post #10[/url]


[b]And here is the important part: the redirection actually worked.[/b]

After being told the above, Build-0-Matic says:

[quote]OK, so I'm now on the hunt for ABIv0[/quote]

He subsequently reports downloading ABI v0 and getting it working.

[url=https://www.arosworld.org/infusions/forum/viewthread.php?pid=10340&thread_id=1748]Grub is broken on 32 bit x86 nightly[/url]

So this isn't a hypothetical argument about whether comments might discourage ABI v1 use.

A user came here using the official ABI v1 nightly, was told that there was essentially no software for it, was pointed toward ABI v0/v11 instead, and subsequently went looking for ABI v0.


[b]To be clear:[/b]

I'm not counting every post where somebody simply says that they use or prefer ABI v11. People are free to use whatever they want.

I'm specifically talking about posts where users are discouraged from using ABI v1, told software isn't available for it, told software only works on ABI v11, or are directly pointed toward ABI v0/v11 instead.

So the claim that nobody here is against ABI v1 or that nobody is steering users away from it simply doesn't match what has actually been posted on this site.


[b]There is also a second problem with steering users away from ABI v1: it creates a distorted picture of who actually did the work.[/b]

We can see an example of that in this discussion, where the advancement of AROS on x86-64 is being broadly attributed to Deadwood and ABI v11.

To be clear, Deadwood has done substantial work and deserves credit for the work he actually did. This isn't an attempt to take anything away from him.

The problem is that a large amount — arguably the lion's share — of the x86-64 development being attributed to Deadwood was actually done upstream by Kalamatee/Nick Andrews.

The upstream commit history is there for anyone to examine.

Nick's x86-64 work goes back years and covers a huge portion of the platform development: x86-64 build support, toolchain work, SMP, kernel development, interrupt handling, memory management, modern PCIe/hardware support and the continuing work required to make AROS operate properly on modern multicore x86-64 systems.

That distinction matters because ABI v11 did not spring into existence independently and then somehow advance x86-64 AROS in isolation. It is a fork of AROS and necessarily contains and benefits from upstream AROS development.

Now combine that with users being actively steered away from ABI v1.

If users are repeatedly told that ABI v1 has little or no software, that applications only work on ABI v11, or are directed toward ABI v0/v11 instead of the official builds, those users are much less likely to see the upstream development as it happens.

The result is a rather predictable feedback loop:

[quote]
Steer users away from upstream.
Users don't see upstream development.
Upstream work is incorporated downstream.
Users encounter it downstream and credit the fork.
The fork is then described as being further ahead.
That claim becomes another reason to steer users away from upstream.
[/quote]

Eventually you end up with exactly the misconception demonstrated here: the lion's share of years of upstream x86-64 development gets casually attributed to the downstream fork and its maintainer.

Again, this isn't about denying Deadwood credit.

[b]Deadwood deserves credit for Deadwood's work.
Nick deserves credit for Nick's work.[/b]

And if we're going to discuss which branch "pushed AROS on x64 further," then we should look at who actually wrote the code rather than simply attributing everything found in ABI v11 to ABI v11.

If the stated goal is eventually having "just one AROS," actively steering users away from upstream while simultaneously attributing upstream development to the fork seems like a very strange way of achieving it.

Terminills, first of all, I want to point out that I’m using a translator because I don’t know English, and a lot of what’s written here isn’t my exact wording but rather the translator’s interpretation…

If a user tells me that AROS ABiv1 won’t start in VMware, and after testing it I confirm this, what should I say to that user? And if the user then tells me that the new ports and the new software released for v11 don’t work on v1, what should I tell them?

OK, looks like I managed to get you to open up and explain in detail what you could have done in the first place. Perhaps I would have used a better and more constructive tone and less attacking one.

You accused this site being responsible for steering away users from aros.org and/or ABIv1 when you really meant was for specific posts by certain members.

Please keep in mind, this is a forum site where members are free to join to discover aros, share ideas, experiences, software, etc. etc. and in the mix sometimes users came up with an incorrect view or a misconception about AROS.

As I said earlier, you have the power to correct them and explain (or better "prove") that what they are posting in here is incorrect or not based on facts. You are a member of this site just as they are. And if you feel that this site doesn't work for you in conveying your message to the masses, you are more than welcome to post a statement on aros.org that explains what is ABIv1, ABIv11, ABIv0 and who does what, who is responsible for whatnot.

[quote name=AMIGASYSTEM post=14127]@AMIGASYSTEM - Terminills, first of all, I want to point out that I’m using a translator because I don’t know English, and a lot of what’s written here isn’t my exact wording but rather the translator’s interpretation…

If a user tells me that AROS ABiv1 won’t start in VMware, and after testing it I confirm this, what should I say to that user? And if the user then tells me that the new ports and the new software released for v11 don’t work on v1, what should I tell them?[/quote]

Well the correct response would have been to explain where the AROS bugs are reported… that was a perfect example you told him not to use ABIv1 … I reported the bug to kalamatee and the bug was squashed in less than 24 hours. Nothing is constructive by ignoring bugs and steering people towards your preferred platform.

As for software … quite simple not there’s no software for but instead explain the difference.. you’re creating a self fulfilling prophecy.