Slashdot Mirror

dear reader the gnome armageddon has started,

first of all i want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it. belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language. even if you don't care at all for gnome, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.

on the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the gnome community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.

many of us like the gnome desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. gnome is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of u*nix. only to name some of its advantages.

unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of gnome. the core development team somehow got the idea of targeting gnome to a complete different direction of users. the so called corporate desktop user. in other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting gnome on their computers.

having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like redhat, ximian and sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. so far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.

some of the new ideas, features and implementations such as gconf, an evil windows registry like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that gnome leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. these are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.

you may imagine that users got really frustrated because their beloved gnome desktop matured into something they didn't want. during the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more, more and more emails arrived on the gnome mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME.

but the core development team of gnome don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. the reply they give is mostly the same. users should either go and 'file a bug' at bugzilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated.

if you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. the core development team actually don't care fo

OSnews has posted another flamewar for you to flame! If you are not a resident of europe and you find this article boring, then come and flame us

He said he had limited, experiance, not no experience. And with bill gates confession that five percent of windows systems crash more than twice a day the chances of him knowing all two well the habit that MS systems have of failing

and don't tell me that KDE never crashes

Why would a survey device with the job of simply recording data use KDE, or for that matter GNOME, or even X? Somehow I seriously doubt that KDE's crashing effects this thing in the slightest.

Back in the days when I used KDE I saw it crash a number of times (not as frequently as most MS user interfaces I have used), but even if they were running KDE they cirtainly woudn't be stupid enough to have the data monitoring program running on top of it, and so therefore the mission critical application would continue to run perfectly. This is not as much of an option for windows setups when a UI failure or a falure of a non-essential subsystem can take down the entire system.

On a related note, does anyone know what happened to YellowTab Zeta?

OSnews did a Review recently, and is generally a good place to get information on Zeta.

ack...slashdot plaintext still requires escaping lesser-than signs...sorry for the broken post. :-(

My biggest annoyance with Linux (and other *nixen) has been X11. Admittedly, XFree86 is a fantastic piece of work and it offers great compatibility with every other version of X out there, but at the same time there are so many things wrong with it.

First off, it's slow. Plain and simple. It takes a long time to start up, and drawing operations seem very inefficient - ever tried to watch a movie? I realize that this is a side-effect of X originally being intended to be used over a network, but I have two arguments against this. First off, it would be better to have a snappy graphics subsystem running locally, with an optional networked system on top of it. Secondly, the protocol used by X11 can't be too efficient; at least, TightVNC uses less bandwidth. I think PicoGUI gets it right. The startup time could probably be reduced a bit by using the OS's keyboard etc. drivers - which would also save users from having to configure them once for the OS and once for XFree86.

Secondly, XFree86 is huge. Several megabytes get you a graphical subsystem with keyboard and mouse support - but we already have all of these in the kernel. The kernel framebuffer does just fine on my < 4 MB 486, now try to get XFree86 running on that. Okay, X11 offers a lot more functionality, but often you won't need that - how many people run their X server and clients on the same machine?

Configuring XFree86 can be a real nightmare. Fortunately, starting from 4.0 there's a VESA driver, so now one can be reasonably sure that it works with any modern graphics card. However, the last 4 times I installed XFree86, it wouldn't work with 32 bits color depth. I know I need to configure with depth 24 and fbbpp 32, but the installers I've seen never got it right by themselves.

Finally, I would like to say that I am happy enough to have XFree86. I just wish it would be better. I also know that some have said that XFree86 can be quite fast if programmed right, but the fact remains that I can't watch movies under XFree86 that run smoothly under Windows on the same machine, and Opera/Windows blazes away whereas Opera/Linux is ``merely'' fast.

Bear in mind the first web servers in the early days of the web were probably running on something of a similar CPU power to a 386.

There was a NeXT-feature on OSNews recently. You can even still download WorldWideWeb.app, Tim Berners-Lee's browser for the NeXT. Maybe it is even possible to compile it with GNUStep or on OS X. I don't know if it would be legal, however, the sources do not contain any license information.

Seems like all is well, for now anyway.

Seems like all is well, for now anyway.

that this guys chief writing influences seem to be Dr. Seuss books? Not to mention the really bad puns. Nice coverage of the show in my eyes though, as I've never been to any type of tech convention and it was cool to see what happens when nerds congregate.

interoperability between its DEs. I think that says a lot here:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3064

Friedman is a well-known Mono propagandist, as has been covered in /. before (based on this article).

The rest of the comments above appear to follow the "let's play dumb" ploy that's been a distinctive feature of the Mono program from the outset. Three years after starting, there are still no concrete objectives listed on the project site. Can I really port my Dotnet application to Linux? Gee, that's a tough one - we'll get back to you...

The Mono vs. Java comparisons in particular are almost desperate in their attempt to mislead. All these statements have been refuted numerous times before on /., but it's clear that we're not dealing with people that can respond intelligently to objections, instead we're in the "Mono groundhog day" zone. Here, proponents are obliged to constantly restate discredited arguments in the hope that there are at least some new readers out there who are naive enough to be drawn in to their cloner "community".

FACT: Java has 3 million developers now, and is continuing to grow rapidly, both on the server side and now on the client side. (Millons of phones now support a JVM compared to... well, are there any Dotnet phones?)

FACT: Most of Dotnet is patented and not standardized. Anyone still resorting to the assertion that Dotnet is open because the C Sharp language is standardized is either hopelessly out of touch or being deliberately deceptive.

FACT: All of the Java platform is available on a free license for open-source developments, including the test suites. This is what the Kaffe people use. Nothing comparable exists for Dotnet whatsoever.

FACT: Java development happens under the JCP, an open process with a number of big players involved, not just one company.

The bottom line is that Java is, and has been for some time, a far better platform for Linux development than Mono. There are three very high quality commercial VMs freely available (from BEA, Sun and IBM) and dozens more for specialist platforms, plus of course an open-source implementation.

For some of us, hearing the latest Mono annoucement about how it's bringing some great new feature to Linux just a cause for amusement, since typically that feature has been available with Java for years. (One example comes from Friedman again, who mentioned the exciting possibility of Javascript on Mono "soon". Needless to say, Rhino, Javascript on the JVM project, has been around for some time (5 years to be precise)..

Others, apparently, are taken in by this nonsense and genuinely believe that they are adding features and helping open source by extending the reach of the Microsoft environment. It's time people woke up and realized that they are doing OS no favors, in fact, are likely to do it positive harm, to say nothing of the risk to their employers and associates.

Time for you to all join in the latest flamewar from Eugina

The Very Verbose Debian 3.0 Installation Walkthrough

This will give you a minimal but extremely stable install. If you want newer stuff you can shift to "testing" or "unstable". Unless your are doing cutting edge stuff, this install is bulletproof!

Most of the SCO FUD comes during weekday office hours.

Slashdot and other OSS advocates sites should post the anti-FUD and anti-SCO stories, especially after close of business on Friday. That way, with luck, they lead the news listings on google for the whole weekend, like the story about tide turning against SCO already has.

Redhat has announced that the 2.4 kernel has a HUGE remote exploit (Open BSD turns in its grave)

Linux is now officially screwed, first Debian, Then SCO, now this!

Lunix is unsecure!

But Slashdot^H^H^^H^H^H^HGNAA adverts won't report it because they are deluded by the penguin proprogranda!

I submitted this story and it was REJECTED! if i replace linux with WINDOWS it would get ACCEPTED just like a anti linux joke gets -1,flamebait and a microsoft joke gets 5, funny.

Well give it up because Linux sucks more

You say "september 2003" - if you can arrive just a hair earlier, try and get yourself out to the Burning Man festival in the barrenest, emptiest part of Nevada. For more info, see Burning Man or "Burning Man" search @ Google.

That kitchen computer is a work of art.
Does anyone have more info on that?

dear reader the gnome armageddon has started,

first of all i want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it. belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language. even if you don't care at all for gnome, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.

on the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the gnome community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.

many of us like the gnome desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. gnome is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of u*nix. only to name some of its advantages.

unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of gnome. the core development team somehow got the idea of targeting gnome to a complete different direction of users. the so called corporate desktop user. in other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting gnome on their computers.

having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like redhat, ximian and sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. so far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.

some of the new ideas, features and implementations such as gconf, an evil windows registry like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that gnome leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. these are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.

you may imagine that users got really frustrated because their beloved gnome desktop matured into something they didn't want. during the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more, more and more emails arrived on the gnome mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME.

but the core development team of gnome don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. the reply they give is mostly the same. users should either go and 'file a bug' at bugzilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated.

if you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. the core development team actually don't care for the complaining home user. it's more important for

Eugina has released some screenshots of the New Redhat Severn desktop.

By that logic, SCO has no case. To most people, if it isn't Windows it doesn't exist.

They could throw out some nice, Judge-convincing BS like "We only made these files available via the 'FTP' program, which is only for highly advanced technical individuals such as corporate IT managers, for the convenience of our paying customers. It was not intended for download by unlicensed individuals, and in fact doing so constitutes hacking as per the terms of the DMCA..."

Unless reading security advisories from LinuxSecurity.com constitutes "hacking", I don't see that argument as particularily convincing. SCO posted the kernel on their FTP server May 9th. A Linux kernel developer told SCO about it a month ago. Links to the story were posted on many popular news sites. The code is still there.

OS X/Darwin is entirely optimized for ppc

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Mac OS X 10.3 Panther will not be a 64-bit OS (here's a more detailed article).
So much for ''entirely optimized for PPC''.

ppc Linux is a port from something else

But Linux already runs natively on 64Bit hardware. So do AIX, NetBSD, and other operating systems (even Windows), but not Mac OS X.

Something interesting: gcc on PPC doesn't generate code as good as Visual Age for C++ on PPC. Hopefully, as these machines become more popular gcc will become better on the PPC.

I found this article that talks about this

Why exactly does the Mathematica Preference panel include a switch for "Automatically Italicize Mathematica?

Gnome desktop usage shrunk 40% this year because of the horrible gnome 2.x desktop. They threwn out all the stuff that made gnome 1.x good and turned it into a horrible hybrid of MacOSX, Windows 3.1 and Eugina's mastubatory material.

Mac OS X : That stupid instant apply (which even applies in dangerous settings, for example you 'accidently' choose the wrong wallpaper and your boss comes in.

Win3.1 : Duh! That file dialog

Eugina : Look at the horrible fisher price gui she wrote for it.

So KDE Klaims Kictory kor khe kesktop!

-1, trollbait, flametopic, offdundant.

Also reports this. An intresting read indeed

You've probably just seen it on other sites since the news has been out for a while now.

OSNews has had it since friday

-cococoocachoo

Because CooCooCaChoo is worser than eugina!

An organization chooses SCO Openserver over linux.

Its something to think about.

It's time to piss off eugnina again! All trolls wanted to help

a) Most people don't like getting it up the ass from other mac fags.
b) Most people like mice with button*s*
c) Need I say more
d) You are a faggot

Your lampshade has been hax0red" (remember to check the moderated down comments too).

Nice try, troll. Apple has been using KJS as part of their JavaScriptCore framework for over a year now, and have been silently adding changes back without fanfare or press releases.

Yes, Apple publicly thanked KJS author Harri Porten, and TrollTech hired him.

Your point again was?

Potential connection between the advanced file system developed at Be Inc. (BFS) and Apple's new Finder for Panther:
Reference these two URLs for some background:
Tales of a BeOS Refugee
Windows on a Database - Sliced and Diced by BeOS Gurus
I think, in terms of the new Finder, it's time for a paradigm shift. First, note that Apple hired the guys mentioned in the articles above. Second, realize that the demo of "live" searches is most certainly because of the efforts of the BFS people. Third, realize that you could, in theory, never have to look thru another folder again. If you take some of the ideas the BFS people had, everything would be context-based. Having a database back-end to your Finder, with unlimited "meta data" (actually, the start of this, I beleive, was shown, in the form of labels), could provide, as one of the engineers put it, a kind of "google" interface to your data. Just some things to chew on while we watch the new Finder evolve.

My biggest complaint w/ debian is the slow release cycle. I'd like to be able to pin the newest KDE/gnome/whatever to stable and do an apt-get upgrade without breaking a million things. Last time I pinned kde 3.1 and updated I spent three days finding broken stuff and fixing it.

And yes, I am aware of the other debian-based distros that are more up to date, but they're all (to my knowledge) pay distros, and I am looking for something cheap/free.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3877

the article is analyzing if the recent announcements from Apple were innovation or simple catch up.

Somebody has hacked my loonix boxen and now my 19" screen can only display 639x481! Does any1 know how to fix. LOL thnx Euginea

Semi informative, but based on an artical I just read at osnews.com, not entirely accurate. Here's an excerpt:

There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V.

I'm not a guru on the subject matter, but in layman terms, as I understand it, *BSD doesn't have any System V code in it. The legal dispute in the early 90s did have something to do with trademark issues and the outcome was something like you can't reference BSD OS's as BSD UNIX or something like that. I'm sure there was more involved with the tradmark issues, but this was my layman understanding. BSD just can't use the name Unix.

In regards to the ATT code fragments, the only ATT code that made it into BSD was pre System III and System V. And maybe it was the case that some BSD code did filter into System V, that I don't know. I just assume that BSD code has pretty much found it's way into every OS on the market. Maybe they haven't gotten credit for everything, but I assume anything to do with a TCP/IP stack was derived directly or indirectly from BSD. Probably a gross assumption, but again, I'm not an expert on the subject matter. Now, in the case of the ATT code that did make it into BSD, there probably was a "don't sue me, and I'll stop sueing you" agreement. System V may have some BSD code, but as far as I know, BSD doesn't have any System V code. The code that did make it into BSD was released under a BSD style license from Novel, and I assume that was part of the settlement.

Your reference may indeed have some facts, but I encourage you to read the osnews interview I mentioned. Or not...With so much misinformation on the net, it's hard to know what the complete story is on anything. In regards to BSD history tho, I found the above reference to be very informative. I would not *fully* trust an editorial from any publication.

One thing that was interesting about that interview was they (the FreeBSD core members) had the same uneasy feeling about what SCO might try next. Althought they seem quite confident that there's no illegit code in *BSD, and they seem to have the history to prove it, they too feel SCO just might try anything. They also make the comment that they hig

Semi informative, but based on an artical I just read at osnews.com, not entirely accurate. Here's an excerpt:

There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V.

I'm not a guru on the subject matter, but in layman terms, as I understand it, *BSD doesn't have any System V code in it. The legal dispute in the early 90s did have something to do with trademark issues and the outcome was something like you can't reference BSD OS's as BSD UNIX or something like that. I'm sure there was more involved with the tradmark issues, but this was my layman understanding. BSD just can't use the name Unix.

In regards to the ATT code fragments, the only ATT code that made it into BSD was pre System III and System V. And maybe it was the case that some BSD code did filter into System V, that I don't know. I just assume that BSD code has pretty much found it's way into every OS on the market. Maybe they haven't gotten credit for everything, but I assume anything to do with a TCP/IP stack was derived directly or indirectly from BSD. Probably a gross assumption, but again, I'm not an expert on the subject matter. Now, in the case of the ATT code that did make it into BSD, there probably was a "don't sue me, and I'll stop sueing you" agreement. System V may have some BSD code, but as far as I know, BSD doesn't have any System V code. The code that did make it into BSD was released under a BSD style license from Novel, and I assume that was part of the settlement.

Your reference may indeed have some facts, but I encourage you to read the osnews interview I mentioned. Or not...With so much misinformation on the net, it's hard to know what the complete story is on anything. In regards to BSD history tho, I found the above reference to be very informative. I would not *fully* trust an editorial from any publication.

One thing that was interesting about that interview was they (the FreeBSD core members) had the same uneasy feeling about what SCO might try next. Althought they seem quite confident that there's no illegit code in *BSD, and they seem to have the history to prove it, they too feel SCO just might try anything. They also make the comment that they hig

No more excuses. Use the best tool kit, and not that steaming pile of crap (and the c in crap is the file dialog) GTK!

M. Warner Losh : The code was *NOT* derived from System V, but rather from Unix 6th and 7th edition, as well as 32V. Only the copyrights were similar to those used in System V source files. The code in question was merely blessed by USL and acknowledges as originating there by the Regents. Read here.

There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V.

In other news, world-class journalistChristiane Amanpour has announced a new SourceForge project, AmanpourOS. It will include a realtime kernel, POSIX and Win32 compatability, a full suite of GNU tools, and of course a Journalling File System called CNNFS (CNNFS is Not aNother File System).

When asked how much code she had available on her project site presently, she replied "Code? Oh, I haven't written any code, really. All I did was get a sourceforge project up and secured an OSNews interview with Eugenia Loli-Queru. But that's the power of Open Source. These geeks, for whatever reason, seem to be obsessed with me, or any girl who has anything to do with computers, really. If they will slave away for millions of man-hours for Linus, just think what motivation my leadership can provide! Why the benefits in sheer x-ray and slideshow technology alone are simply staggering!"

SCO CEO Darl McBride, however, was clearly upset over the announcement. "What Ms. Amanpour is doing here is clearly wrong, violates contracts, SCO Intellectual Property, the USAPATRIOT Act, and any sense of human decency," McBride snarled as he slammed a playbook lent him by Hillary Rosen of the RIAA down on the table. "This blatantly contradicts prior agreements we feel we had with Ms. Amanpour as set down during dinner da - I mean meetings we may or may not have had as early as ten days before she is going to say she started this project, whenever that is."

Mr. McBride then turned his attention to suing the Netherlands over a violation of SCO's ownership of the idea of windmills. "And we are still looking for this infamous pirate De La Mancha, aka, Don Quixote. I have important leads from an informant named Dulcinea who says he has been stalking her in on the internet for centuries. With her testimony and that of Sancho Panza, we should soon put an end to him." McBride rubbed his hands together with great zeal and droooled at the prospect as we slipped quietly into the night, never to return to the quiet Maryland Mental facility where he now resides.

On the subject of what rumors have been pulled by Apple legal, squiggleslash writes:

Those stories were about the iChat videoconferencing thing though weren't they? (Think Secret didn't change the URL names or titles - one of the URLs was http://www.thinksecret.com/news/videoconf.html)

Actually, stories about G5 Macs have also been pulled from www.macbidouille.com, as has www.macrumors.com and www.osnews.com and tech-report.com. All of these were about 64-bit offerings being shown at WWDC.

Now, whether Apple Legal had these pulled because they were accurate, or merely scurilous but potentially hurting hardware sales, is another question.

I've seen a release from Hyperion Entertainment that stated QNX RTOS had context switching times of 40 microsecons. In the same paper, it asid MacOSX was around 400.

The announcement was that AmigaOS4 PPC on a 600Mhz AmigaOne had around 4 microseconds, give or take a few micro. Im not sure how correct my figures were, but AmigaOS turned out a little better...

I wonder if theres room for more playsers in this niche.

Good article.

The advantage to context menus is that you don't have to mouse all the way to the top of the screen to access a menu to do something. Thus there is less movement. Further there is a visual clue since it is an object you are clicking on. Right clicking or Ctrl-clicking provides a list of actions you can do with that object. Since there is a menu, this clearly is visual.

While you may not like context menus clearly many people do, just as they like scroll wheels. Don't make the rest of us suffer because of your preferences.

It's not stupid to complain about how badly implemented a feature of the Finder is. Sometimes it is better to leave something off than do a half-assed job of it. If you implement a feature then you are responsible for how that implementation is done. And the fact is that, as with so many things in the Finder, a little forethought in programming could offer a huge speed increase. As I mentioned a little caching could dramatically improve the speed of the context menu.

As for your complaint about context menus in the Finder but not open/close dialogs, I agree that is a problem. I'm confused at how you see this a problem with context menus and not the poor programing of the team who does open/close dialgos. As for why clicking on the desktop and an empty space in a window is different. Obviously (and visually) they are different objects.

As for the rumor about the Nautilus team, what is your source that it isn't true? It's been widely reported. Further I am very sure that Pavel Cisler who worked on both Nautilus and the BeOS tracker is working on the Finder.

See this OS News article.

As for "everybody else uses it and has no complaints to speak of." Have you visited any OSX forums?!?!? The Finder is griped about more than all else in OSX combined.

Actually not, go read a brief review here of Win2k3. Everything MS starts up REALLY fast like just a couple seconds. Just to throw a wrench in the "MS preloads IE and WMP", OpenOffice loads in about 7sec. Stability wise, who knows how it will be. Probably on par with XP, so it will be fairly stable. The article used an AMD XP 1700+ with 768MB of ram. No doubt, the 768MB of ram is what is really helping. But that's no too shabby though.

Maybe in a about a year or so, 1GB of ram will be fairly common on standard desktop machines you can buy from BestBuy, Dell, ...

There seems to be some confusion with regard to which OSes/solutions this effort is directed at. Currently there are 4 main 68k Amiga compatible solutions DiscreetFX would like to see supported. For two first one listed below PPC native versions would be preferable:

1) AmigaOS4

This is the official new AmigaOS developed for classic Amigas upgraded with PPC accelerators and new AmigaOne computers which are being sold with G3 and G4 processors.

Some of the latest but still unfinished screenshots of AmigaOS4:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?sto ryid=560
AmigaOne motherboards can already be bought in combination with Linux at the following dealers (AmigaOS4 will be delivered for free as soon as it is finished): http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/dealers.php

With MOL MacOS X can also already be used with this system (as well as with the Peg below):

http://www.anythingamiga.com/XEPics/x2.jpg.html

2) MorphOS

Its ABOX environment is a re-implementation of version 3.1 of the Amiga operating system. The re-implemted Exec kernel is hosted on top of a Quark microkernel. The OS is fast and responsive and currently runs with G3 Pegasos motherboards. Interested people will have to wait for the Pegasos II, which is planned for release in September. An interesting review can be found at OSNews:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3589

3) AROS

An open source project intended as a multi-platform re-implementation of version 3.1 of the Amiga operating system. Most of the development takes place on x86 computers. Much of the source code was used for MorphOS. http://www.aros.org/

4) UAE, Amithlon and other 68 AmigaOS emulators

AmigaOS XL: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=604
Amiga Forever: http://cloanto.com/amiga/forever/