- Home
- Discussion Forum
- AROS FORUMS
- Rants and Other Discussions
- ABIv1 vs ABIv11 and ABIv0, Branches, Upstream, Downstream, and other related items
ABIv1 vs ABIv11 and ABIv0, Branches, Upstream, Downstream, and other related items
OlafSchMember
Posted 19 hours agoFirst I think this thread derailed haevily in a kind of mud battle. If I were someone not knowing Aros and read this discussion I would not only not understand it, it would not motivate me to do something with Aros. It is harming.
Regarding discussion of different ABIs, I can only talk about the 68k branch. For some time there indeed was problem that errors were not fixed. Today this is totally different so every bug report is read and solved by Kalamatee. He is really doing a great job. I am at the moment changing my distribution from Deadwoods branch to the main branch. It has several advantages to me. Bugs are fixed and there is rapid development iike added CD32 support to 68k. Kalamatee has there huge responsibility because he has to examine the commits sent to him. General in my view all future distributions except those based on ABI0 (the old 32bit X86 platform) should be based on msin branch. By this it is tested a lot more than when distributions are based on static base. This also means after updating it you have to test included software. But it is worth the efforts and will accellerate the development of aros.
Regarding discussion of different ABIs, I can only talk about the 68k branch. For some time there indeed was problem that errors were not fixed. Today this is totally different so every bug report is read and solved by Kalamatee. He is really doing a great job. I am at the moment changing my distribution from Deadwoods branch to the main branch. It has several advantages to me. Bugs are fixed and there is rapid development iike added CD32 support to 68k. Kalamatee has there huge responsibility because he has to examine the commits sent to him. General in my view all future distributions except those based on ABI0 (the old 32bit X86 platform) should be based on msin branch. By this it is tested a lot more than when distributions are based on static base. This also means after updating it you have to test included software. But it is worth the efforts and will accellerate the development of aros.
5 users reacted to this post
amigamia, coffeecat, terminills, Argo, deadwood
amigamiaAdminWhile that is a perfectly reasonable choice for members of this site, as an administrator I have to keep decor and certain conversations from going rogue. That is why there is a TOA at registration.
1 user reacted to this post
miker1264
cdimauroMember@terminills: this is just a free forum where anyone can write (assuming that he/her is able accept and apply its policy): if you think that something is wrong you can reply and give your opinion and even reporting facts.
But you certainly can't pretend that the owner/admin of the site becomes the defensor fidei of "the faith".
Which "faith" is another big point of discussion. This site doesn't represent AROS but it ALSO represent AROS: it could be subtle to get, but that's exactly the case. As well as a git repo doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only one which represents AROS. AROS started around 30 years ago, and it had a lot of work and evolution.
Now, we've different ABIs. Which one is the "original" one which deserves attention is, again, very questionable due to AROS' history and how it evolved. I don't know which technical decisions keep them separated, but honestly speaking I'm not even interested because, as a user, my only concern is about getting the software that I like and use it.
AROS was an anarchic (!) o.s. since the beginning, it still is, and nobody has the right to claim which fork is The Only One. And people can call AROS whatever they like, as long as it gets back to the roots of this platform (e.g. using any fork).
If you feel that contributors aren't well represented, well, that's not the scope of the site owner neither of the entire community, but anyone is free to write about it (again, as long as the policy of the site are followed). And you're doing it, right?.
If some people "redirect" from v1 to v11, again nobody is a watchdog here that should catch it and provide actions. But the site is free and anyone can write his comment about it.
If some people think that some another site is obsolete and AROS is dead, but on the contrary finds that it's alive because the community on THIS site is very active and the distros of some users are valid, again, it's part of the reality: it means that the other sites should be updated (or upgraded?), but it certainly it isn't responsibility of THIS site and of its members to do anything about the other sites.
And maybe it's time to go to the TL;DR: perhaps is time to unify the fragmented community AND ABIs instead of wasting time on those discussions?
Nick and other developers and people can join this forum: nobody is stopping them. The whole AROS community could benefit from it.
NW: amigamia took the burden of getting the forum alive after that 4play has abandoned it for his personal reasons. He also saved the original archives, which are accessible in read-only mode, and thanks to his time (and money!) people can still have a look at all contributions that you were talking about.
But you certainly can't pretend that the owner/admin of the site becomes the defensor fidei of "the faith".
Which "faith" is another big point of discussion. This site doesn't represent AROS but it ALSO represent AROS: it could be subtle to get, but that's exactly the case. As well as a git repo doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only one which represents AROS. AROS started around 30 years ago, and it had a lot of work and evolution.
Now, we've different ABIs. Which one is the "original" one which deserves attention is, again, very questionable due to AROS' history and how it evolved. I don't know which technical decisions keep them separated, but honestly speaking I'm not even interested because, as a user, my only concern is about getting the software that I like and use it.
AROS was an anarchic (!) o.s. since the beginning, it still is, and nobody has the right to claim which fork is The Only One. And people can call AROS whatever they like, as long as it gets back to the roots of this platform (e.g. using any fork).
If you feel that contributors aren't well represented, well, that's not the scope of the site owner neither of the entire community, but anyone is free to write about it (again, as long as the policy of the site are followed). And you're doing it, right?.
If some people "redirect" from v1 to v11, again nobody is a watchdog here that should catch it and provide actions. But the site is free and anyone can write his comment about it.
If some people think that some another site is obsolete and AROS is dead, but on the contrary finds that it's alive because the community on THIS site is very active and the distros of some users are valid, again, it's part of the reality: it means that the other sites should be updated (or upgraded?), but it certainly it isn't responsibility of THIS site and of its members to do anything about the other sites.
And maybe it's time to go to the TL;DR: perhaps is time to unify the fragmented community AND ABIs instead of wasting time on those discussions?
Nick and other developers and people can join this forum: nobody is stopping them. The whole AROS community could benefit from it.
NW: amigamia took the burden of getting the forum alive after that 4play has abandoned it for his personal reasons. He also saved the original archives, which are accessible in read-only mode, and thanks to his time (and money!) people can still have a look at all contributions that you were talking about.
Edited by cdimauro on 06-09-2026 02:22, 1 day ago
3 users reacted to this post
sonountaleban, ntromans, miker1264
terminillsMember
Posted 19 hours ago@cdimauro - @terminills: this is just a free forum where anyone can write (assuming that he/her is able accept and apply its policy): if you think that something is wrong you can reply and give your opinion and even reporting facts.
But you certainly can't pretend that the owner/admin of the site becomes the defensor fidei of "the faith".
Which "faith" is another big point of discussion. This site doesn't represent AROS but it ALSO represent AROS: it could be subtle to get, but that's exactly the case. As well as a git repo doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only one which represents AROS. AROS started around 30 years ago, and it had a lot of work and evolution.
Now, we've different ABIs. Which one is the "original" one which deserves attention is, again, very questionable due to AROS' history and how it evolved. I don't know which technical decisions keep them separated, but honestly speaking I'm not even interested because, as a user, my only concern is about getting the software that I like and use it.
AROS was an anarchic (!) o.s. since the beginning, it still is, and nobody has the right to claim which fork is The Only One. And people can call AROS whatever they like, as long as it gets back to the roots of this platform (e.g. using any fork).
If you feel that contributors aren't well represented, well, that's not the scope of the site owner neither of the entire community, but anyone is free to write about it (again, as long as the policy of the site are followed). And you're doing it, right?.
If some people "redirect" from v1 to v11, again nobody is a watchdog here that should catch it and provide actions. But the site is free and anyone can write his comment about it.
If some people think that some another site is obsolete and AROS is dead, but on the contrary finds that it's alive because the community on THIS site is very active and the distros of some users are valid, again, it's part of the reality: it means that the other sites should be updated (or upgraded?), but it certainly it isn't responsibility of THIS site and of its members to do anything about the other sites.
And maybe it's time to go to the TL;DR: perhaps is time to unify the fragmented community AND ABIs instead of wasting time on those discussions?
Nick and other developers and people can join this forum: nobody is stopping them. The whole AROS community could benefit from it.
NW: amigamia took the burden of getting the forum alive after that 4play has abandoned it for his personal reasons. He also saved the original archives, which are accessible in read-only mode, and thanks to his time (and money!) people can still have a look at all contributions that you were talking about.
You’re right tldr… however I will correct you flat out ABIv1 is not a fork it is a branch of the original repo it dates back to the CVS era it did not happen after the git conversion and it’s been well documented for almost 20 years.
As for ownership the original owner never relinquished his ownership he merely stopped committing and said he no longer had time for the project also well documented in the mailing list archives.
So again do not claim something as a fact when you are merely guessing.
Proper attribution doesn’t hurt either project if anything it shows a healthy relationship. It’s not Deadwood incorrectly attributing other people’s work he is quite clear about it. It’s certain community members who blur the lines that cause the issues.
Edited by terminills on 06-09-2026 05:13, 1 day ago
sonountalebanMember
Posted 19 hours ago
NW: amigamia took the burden of getting the forum alive after that 4play has abandoned it for his personal reasons. He also saved the original archives, which are accessible in read-only mode, and thanks to his time (and money!) people can still have a look at all contributions that you were talking about.
When I left that forum in 2017-8, I remember it seemed to me that most core developers (including Kalamatee) gave up with the only Paolo from Icaros carrying the AROS bandwagon alive at some point.
Yeah, the v1 guys need, if I'm allowed to say this, to have a more pro-active public relations, possibly writing news here as often as possible if they don't mind. For example, publish monthly future plans/milestones as Deadwood does with his v11 and so on. Putting the v1 software in arosarchives.os4depot.net, because one from outside can conclude easily the v11 is supported by a community while the v1 looks more an "exercise" just to experiment things like SMP or RISC-V porting.
That said, I can't wait to see a stable SMP support - I understand the v1 is the only one branch can have this feature. Surely I'll jump on that ship when that it will happen, SMP is very crucial for any kind of modern OS and I believe likely most people agree with this.
Edited by sonountaleban on 06-09-2026 09:49, 22 hours ago
terminillsMember
Posted 19 hours ago@sonountaleban -
NW: amigamia took the burden of getting the forum alive after that 4play has abandoned it for his personal reasons. He also saved the original archives, which are accessible in read-only mode, and thanks to his time (and money!) people can still have a look at all contributions that you were talking about.
When I left that forum in 2017-8, I remember it seemed to me that most core developers (including Kalamatee) gave up with the only Paolo from Icaros carrying the AROS bandwagon alive at some point.
Yeah, the v1 guys need, if I'm allowed to say this, to have a more pro-active public relations, possibly writing news here as often as possible if they don't mind. For example, publish monthly future plans/milestones as Deadwood does with his v11 and so on. Putting the v1 software in arosarchives.os4depot.net, because one from outside can conclude easily the v11 is supported by a community while the v1 looks more an "exercise" just to experiment things like SMP or RISC-V porting.
That said, I can't wait to see a stable SMP support - I understand the v1 is the only one branch can have this feature. Surely I'll jump on that ship when that it will happen, SMP is very crucial for any kind of modern OS and I believe likely most people agree with this.
You are quite mistaken. AROS development did not stop during that period. Paolo was a distribution maintainer. He produced almost none of the underlying operating-system code. Keeping Icaros visible is not the same thing as “carrying the AROS bandwagon alive” while the core developers supposedly gave up.
Do not confuse activity on public forums with active development. The fact that you weren’t seeing developers posting news does not mean they weren’t writing code.
In fact, there’s a rather obvious problem with the claim: had ABIv1 development stopped as you’re implying, Deadwood would have had nothing new to backport from it.
And again, lack of proper attribution is precisely the issue here. You keep pointing to all of this great work Deadwood has done, and there is no question that he has done a lot. But his work does not exist in a vacuum. It stands on the shoulders of the developers who created the code he was then able to port or backport to ABIv0 and ABIv11.
That isn’t taking anything away from Deadwood. Giving the original developers credit for writing something does not somehow deprive the person who later ports it of credit for the port.
Nobody has ever said you cannot use whichever branch you want. Nobody has said you cannot prefer ABIv11 or appreciate Deadwood’s work. The issue is this repeated rewriting of AROS development history in which upstream was supposedly dead, nobody was doing anything, and then Deadwood appeared and did all of this work.
That simply isn’t what happened.
Worse, this thread has already caused developers whose work you’re happily using to ask, “Why should I bother when somebody else gets credit for my work?”
So sure, keep circling the wagons. Keep dismissing the developers producing the upstream work while simultaneously praising the downstream results derived from it.
Just don’t act surprised if eventually the tap you’re drinking from runs dry.
enhancements that ABIv11 itself gained from upstream work this year alone:
* USB 3 / xHCI support
* PCI / PCI IRQ-routing improvements.
* AHCI/storage fixes and improvements
* ACPICA/ACPI Improvments.
* Poseidon/USB-stack fixes beyond xHCI itself. USB-stack work, not merely the xHCI driver.
* Kernel/platform fixes.
* Libraries, datatypes and system-component fixes..
Edited by terminills on 06-09-2026 12:13, 19 hours ago
arosbeginnerMember
Posted 4 hours agoI read this interesting discussion and I believe everyone is passionate about aros.
Constructively, we can achieve something better, and the question, without any intention of starting a row, is: Terminills, what do you propose for this abiv0, v1, and v11 situation? Perhaps now is the time to create a single workspace with deadwood?
As a beginner, what's stopping abiv11 from merging into abiv1?
I also think we should open a discussion about the license, because I think it's a shame that the Apollo OS updates haven't been uploaded to the Aros Development Team GitHub, or at least that's what I think.
I also think other updates on the A600GS deserve sharing, if, as it seems, Aros is 90% up and running.
Thanks for sharing.
Constructively, we can achieve something better, and the question, without any intention of starting a row, is: Terminills, what do you propose for this abiv0, v1, and v11 situation? Perhaps now is the time to create a single workspace with deadwood?
As a beginner, what's stopping abiv11 from merging into abiv1?
I also think we should open a discussion about the license, because I think it's a shame that the Apollo OS updates haven't been uploaded to the Aros Development Team GitHub, or at least that's what I think.
I also think other updates on the A600GS deserve sharing, if, as it seems, Aros is 90% up and running.
Thanks for sharing.
Edited by arosbeginner on 07-09-2026 03:51, 4 hours ago
terminillsMember
Posted 2 hours ago@arosbeginner - I read this interesting discussion and I believe everyone is passionate about aros.
Constructively, we can achieve something better, and the question, without any intention of starting a row, is: Terminills, what do you propose for this abiv0, v1, and v11 situation? Perhaps now is the time to create a single workspace with deadwood?
As a beginner, what's stopping abiv11 from merging into abiv1?
I also think we should open a discussion about the license, because I think it's a shame that the Apollo OS updates haven't been uploaded to the Aros Development Team GitHub, or at least that's what I think.
I also think other updates on the A600GS deserve sharing, if, as it seems, Aros is 90% up and running.
Thanks for sharing.
ABIv0 is dead as far as the main project is concerned. While I personally would view it as a waste of time in 2026 if someone wanted to extend it like Deadwood had in the past they can just know it wouldn’t be an officially sanctioned extension.
As for Deadwood working on any specific project that is his choice… he could take AROS create Deadwood’s super duper ABI 180,000 OS if he wants. That is never the issue.
But just like any other open source OS there’s a license and guidelines for using the name.
Abiv11 is incompatible with abiv1 and technically in many ways for lack of a better term out of date. As for the license APL is a soft copy left license because its file level. And while it would be appreciated if fixes were committed sometimes they are either incompatible or in a different direction than mainline chose so instead many simply rather make the source available and it can be cherry-picked.
Edited by terminills on 07-09-2026 05:56, 2 hours ago
OlafSchMember
Posted 2 hours ago@arosbeginner - I read this interesting discussion and I believe everyone is passionate about aros.
Constructively, we can achieve something better, and the question, without any intention of starting a row, is: Terminills, what do you propose for this abiv0, v1, and v11 situation? Perhaps now is the time to create a single workspace with deadwood?
As a beginner, what's stopping abiv11 from merging into abiv1?
I also think we should open a discussion about the license, because I think it's a shame that the Apollo OS updates haven't been uploaded to the Aros Development Team GitHub, or at least that's what I think.
I also think other updates on the A600GS deserve sharing, if, as it seems, Aros is 90% up and running.
Thanks for sharing.
The ApolloOS fixes partly were integrated with Deadwood and then propably also on main branch. At that time I did not follow main branch that carefully so cannot remember. I cannot judge if all ApolloOS commits are public available of course. One problem is, ApolloOS is pure dedicated to Apollo hardware so they made bigger changes to Aros, partly even cutting existing functionality. By far not everything can be applied to Aros. If you think a fix is missing then you could report it in bugtracker with link to it. I am pretty sure Kalamatee would at least look at it.
You can view all discussion threads in this forum.
You cannot start a new discussion thread in this forum.
You cannot reply in this discussion thread.
You cannot start on a poll in this forum.
You cannot upload attachments in this forum.
You cannot download attachments in this forum.
You cannot start a new discussion thread in this forum.
You cannot reply in this discussion thread.
You cannot start on a poll in this forum.
You cannot upload attachments in this forum.
You cannot download attachments in this forum.
Users who participated in discussion: amigamia, terminills, AMIGASYSTEM, cdimauro, miker1264, OlafSch, arosbeginner, Deremon, olivier2222, sonountaleban