Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Help / Re: Booting problems
« Last post by ncafferkey on February 22, 2019, 06:46:40 PM »
IMHO thereís no harm in trying out AROS on random systems you have around, as long as you realise itís likely to be more frustrating than buying a recommended system.

Anyway, did the photo come from an ABIv1 or v0 build, or from Icaros? Either way, try the noacpi and/or sysdebug=all GRUB options.
12
Development (General) / Re: ABI V1
« Last post by wawa on February 22, 2019, 10:40:14 AM »
but what would improve if we called the current state a finalized abi v1?
13
Development (General) / Re: ABI V1
« Last post by o1i on February 22, 2019, 09:38:41 AM »
Staf was the driving force behind ABI V1. He set some extremly ambicious goals for ABI V1 but was just one person. Somewhere around 30% of the way he lost energy to continue. This has been the state from circa 2014/2015. In this light I think calling ABI V1 done is not correct.

What I would suggest to remaining active developers is to vote on communicating that ABI V1 effort is stopped and that X86_64 will from now on maintain source and binary compatibility.

That is what I meant. Of course not all original v1 goals have been reached, so you are right. In the end the difference is just how you name it, the fact remains the same, a stable x86_64  with current features.

But I am not the one to decide here.
14
Development (General) / Re: ABI V1
« Last post by wawa on February 22, 2019, 12:43:44 AM »
@deadwood
btw, as i already said it might bve beneficial if yo joined us, if not as contributor, then in an advisary role. and i measn not especially aros but looks like we have another contributor from os4 camp (jaokim) to work on common odyssey source. since you have experience with it, there might be issues probably of all accesible people only you could answer. kas1e is also there but mostly busy with os4 sdl, ao there aint that much interaction.
15
Development (General) / Re: ABI V1
« Last post by wawa on February 21, 2019, 11:26:45 PM »
currently the driving force behind abi v1 development is still nick. michal is the second most active contributor, even if mostly in arm be target area.
i think its for those two people and neil to tell how this is to be handled. anyhow nick is actively setting up the tasks to complete for abi v1 and him and michal are constantly discussing that stuff on slack. there is also a number of other aros developers, contributors and sympathisants providing now and then valuable feedback and offering their ressources, like marlon, who has set up a build server for aros m68k tailored distribution.

so things are not that bad, just because the developers may not be posting here all the time. as i always say, yoiu may simply follow the commit logs to aros svn repository to see what progress there is.
16
General Chat / Re: General fund
« Last post by Troopy on February 21, 2019, 08:39:53 PM »
np's

also iirc I was donating £5 a month to the old fund, by all means move it to the new fund or spend it as part of the old fund on anything aros/give it to any one of the developers
17
Development (General) / Re: ABI V1
« Last post by deadwood on February 21, 2019, 06:24:36 PM »
Staf was the driving force behind ABI V1. He set some extremly ambicious goals for ABI V1 but was just one person. Somewhere around 30% of the way he lost energy to continue. This has been the state from circa 2014/2015. In this light I think calling ABI V1 done is not correct.

What I would suggest to remaining active developers is to vote on communicating that ABI V1 effort is stopped and that X86_64 will from now on maintain source and binary compatibility.
18
Help / Re: Booting problems
« Last post by dizzy on February 21, 2019, 05:22:54 PM »
Your experience with AROS would really be more productive if you sticked with supported hardware.
Which means: FIRST I read what hardware works, THEN I get the hardware that works and IN THE END I install AROS onto it. NO vice-versa.
That's not excatly the way I go around with AROS. I once had a motherboard that would not boot, it turned out that our ata/ide driver reseted the drive not once but twice, resulting in no boot. I think it was my first commit to the repo. If it was not fixed then not a lot of AROS booting would happen nowadays.
19
Help / Re: Booting problems
« Last post by paolone on February 21, 2019, 02:19:58 PM »
Your experience with AROS would really be more productive if you sticked with supported hardware.
Which means: FIRST I read what hardware works, THEN I get the hardware that works and IN THE END I install AROS onto it. NO vice-versa.
20
Development (General) / Re: ABI V1
« Last post by terminills on February 21, 2019, 12:55:18 PM »
Yes there's activity, and there has been activity for years. But in terms of the original question, an updated gcc won't make the transition happen anytime soon. There's also libs and drivers that need to be done, not to mention the ABI itself.

In the mean time, perhaps we should focus on other things, radeon drivers? sata handlers? python? etc, etc, etc.

Saying there's no almost no activity is 100% wrong.  Which is my point.  However an updated development environment does help speed up the transition as it helps find bugs.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10