There is fundamental difference between Windows and AmigaOS is that you usually want to run Linux+wine on a the same hardware you would run Windows. That's why wine is not an emulator. Whereas, in the case of vamos, the AmigaOS hardware is not a PC.
They explicitly states that in the link: "It will run typical console binaries that do not rely on user interface [...] This approach will not run any applications or games using direct hardware register access - for this use case a machine emulator like FS-UAE is the tool you will need..."
There's a lot of Amiga software that doesn't rely on direct hardware access.
Couple that with AROS providing implementations of all the important parts of AmigaOS, it'd be possible create something that supported the GUI as well. It's a decade+ since I did any work on the AROS source, so I don't remember how much work it might be to retarget the window rendering to open and update actual windows of the OS it runs on, instead of compositing to a window representing the full screen.
The caveat is that a lot of AmigaOS apps open their own "screens" (virtual desktops) and expect to be able to open windows on them, in which case you might end up with a bunch of full-screen sized windows anyway. Then you might as well run full AROS.
For that reason I think the limitation of this is probably fine: Use this for command line programs you want to run in your regular terminal, and just spin up AROS or FS-UAE to run programs with a gui. I can spawn AROS with a custom StartupSequence to "boot" right into FrexxEd (an editor co-written by the guy behind Curl) and have it spin up the entire OS and the editor faster than a typical Emacs session...
The comparison with WINE is quite apt, though. Although it is using a 68000 emulator, unlike WINE which is purely native code, it is taking the same approach to implementing AmigaOS as WINE took to implementing Windows: it offers the normal API entrypoints, and as soon as programs call into them, it takes over and does things natively.
VAMOS writes as few 68000 instructions into the emulator's memory as possible; as soon as the program calls an AmigaOS API, the emulator traps it and handles the implementation in Python.
...which is arguably the problem. Firefox. Thunderbird. That should be it. According to their own site, beyond that they have the browser app for mobile devices. A VPN service, an email-forwarding service, and MDN. Hardly 'many products'.
One could argue that the only product that really matters is the ability to have a default search engine. I checked out their Wikipedia[0] article and their financials table has a column dedicated to the percent of revenue derived from Google—81-95%, depending on the year.
It feels a little like when Microsoft invested in Apple back in the 90s. Microsoft needed Apple so they didn’t look like too much of a monopoly. Google has been funding Mozilla’s whole existence for at least 20 years. At first it may have purely been do dominate search, but at some point I think the incentives shifted to Google needing Firefox so they can claim they aren’t a monopoly in the browser space and competition exists.
You've clearly never built a product. One product alone requires a CEO. More than one, much more so.
And anyway you're factually wrong. They produce much more than what you listed, many of their undertakings are contributions to open-source, the development of web standards, underlying technologies that browsers (not just Firefox) use to render the web, etc.
You're being childish and somewhat absurdly so. Mozilla and Firefox are a large part of the reason the modern web is usable (in the technical sense - usability for the deaf and blind, screen readers, etc)
I was mostly just typing out what they had listed under 'products' on their pages. I'm aware of what Mozilla do, know folks there and that have been there.
They've been roundly criticised for adding 'products' of questionable value to their core userbase, rightly so in my opinion.
Yes, many of the projects have been failures -- just like at countless other companies -- but that doesn't change the fact that an organization needs a leader. Your original comment is still nonsensical.
Do you realize what 1.300.000.000$ is? Say you invest most of it in a safe way to get you inflation + 2%. That gives you 26.000.000$ every year. You can pay 100 engineers with this. Firefox is a browser. Sure a browser is complicated but 100 motivated and talented engineers is more than enough to make a good product if you focus on what matters.
How do you think they got that money in the first place? They've been growing this fund from $100MM in the 2010s to where it is now, by carefully managing and investing it.
Hilariously, you're here presenting something Mozilla has already been doing for nearly two decades like it's a new idea that only you have thought of. Yes, I realize how much that is: enough to cover their operating costs for like 2.5 years.
And sure, it's amazing how much an endowment can do if you give up and wipe out most of their staff and embrace magical thinking.
The point is that the organization is bloated because of the search money.
The sustainable way forward for Mozilla is to fire most of their staff, keep a reasonable number of engineers, and focus on building a solid privacy focused browser instead of trend chasing like they’re doing now. Reduce operational costs and live off of the profits on their investments.
Props for citing real numbers! I hope other people reading this thread are looking at your comment and understanding that this is how you make reality based comments. One tidbit I will add: that's more than they have ever spent on development historically, including after adjusting for inflation. IIRC it's about quadruple what they spent back when browsers were desktop only when they had their highest market share.
I think you're probably about as dead wrong as it's possible to be on this front. First they ship millions of new LoC to Firefox on a monthly basis so the engineering efforts are open for all the world to see.
Secondly, if more than half(!?!) was spent on, say, Pocket, or Fakespot, then you would see a rise and fall in spending coinciding with the onramp and closure of those programs over their lifetimes. But in reality we have seen a steady upward march in spending, and so the interpretation that passes the sanity check is that they fold these into their existing budget with the existing development capacity they have which is variously assigned to different projects, including(!!) Firefox, where again, their annual code output is monumental and rivals Google.
Again I have to note the blizzard of contradictory accusations throughout this thread. According to one commenter the problem is they are biting off more than they can chew and need to scale back all of the excessive Firefox development they are doing (and I recall previous commenters speculating that 30+ million LoC was not evidence of their hard work but "bloat" that was excessive and that they probably could cut a lot of it out without losing functionality). But for you, the obvious problem is they're wasting all that capacity on side projects and not putting enough effort in the browser.
I had the first Twingo model with that engine. Sure, reliability was exceptional, and it also felt nice to drive for a low power engine (55 HP). What wasn't exceptional however was fuel economy, which significantly increased the total cost of ownership of a car like the Twingo.
I think the car made it to almost 300000 km with the engine showing barely any sign of wear. Some parts broke down, and there was still regular maintenance, which, combined with poor fuel economy and state subsidies made it not economically viable to keep the car even though it still ran. The newer model we bought later didn't last as long, the engine was good but not as robust, but it was still worth changing because of fuel economy alone.
At no point we considered environmental factors, only cost, but they are tied, since better fuel economy means both lower costs and lower emissions.
So in the end, you we a engine that was reliable for sure but didn't meet modern standards in terms of running costs, emissions and performance. When the Twingo came out, the use of the Cléon-Fonte engine was generally considered a serious downside, and it was changed to the more modern and appropriate "Energy" engine shortly after.
reply