bryan@ihnet.UUCP (b. k. delaney) (01/10/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Until there is a net.micro.atari.source I will post ALL sources for the 520ST to net.micro.atari and net.sources Also it is not uncommon for binarys to be placed in the public domain !!!!!! Bryan DeLaney ihnet!bryan
turner@imagen.UUCP (D'arc Angel) (01/13/86)
> > Also it is not uncommon for binarys to be placed in the public domain !!!!!! > > Bryan DeLaney > ihnet!bryan > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ lineater, \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ really ??? name a few, like AT&T? UCB? Mark of the Unicorn? Gosling? hmmmmm, the mind boggles at the concept -- god bless Lily St. Cyr -Rocky Horror Picture Show Name: James Turner Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-9400 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner CompuServe: 76327,1575
Denber.wbst@XEROX.ARPA (01/13/86)
"Until there is a net.micro.atari.source I will post ALL sources for the 520ST to net.micro.atari and net.sources" No - don't do it! *Pleeeeze* don't do it. I read my mail on a Dandelion on a 10 meg Ethernet and I find that one 68K file (that I can't even use) slows down mail retrieval noticably. What about all those poor people trying to get by with 1200 or (gak) 300 baud modems? On another subject, I upgraded my 400 to 48K with no problem. My Indus drive arrived last week and it is quite an impressive piece of hardware. My only (minor) complaint is that despite the metal case it seems to leak a lot of RF. It took a bit of cable twiddling and box moving before finding an arrangement that produced a herringbone-free screen. - Michel
rtb@ihlpm.UUCP (Todd) (01/14/86)
> > > > Also it is not uncommon for binarys to be placed in the public domain !!!!!! > > > > Bryan DeLaney > > ihnet!bryan > really ??? name a few, like AT&T? UCB? Mark of the Unicorn? Gosling? > hmmmmm, the mind boggles at the concept > > -- Yes - really. My old IBM BBS was chock full of binary only programs (with no source available). Some were Freeware and some were just plain public domain. So is the ST BBS I currently log onto. Megaroids is being freely distributed by most ST BBS's. The source is available for $25 from Megamax.
info-atari@ucbvax.UUCP (01/16/86)
Where did you get the info on how to upgrade the 400 to 48K?
turner@imagen.UUCP (D'arc Angel) (01/16/86)
> > > > > > Also it is not uncommon for binarys to be placed in the public domain !!!!!! > > > > > > Bryan DeLaney > > > ihnet!bryan > > really ??? name a few, like AT&T? UCB? Mark of the Unicorn? Gosling? > > hmmmmm, the mind boggles at the concept > > > > -- > Yes - really. My old IBM BBS was chock full of binary only programs (with i sit corrected -- god bless Lily St. Cyr -Rocky Horror Picture Show Name: James Turner Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-9400 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner CompuServe: 76327,1575
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/16/86)
There are sometimes good reasons for making binaries freely available but not sources. In the case of Megaroids, it is probably in the best interests of Megamax to not distribute the source for free. Since the purpose of Megaroids is to advertise the Megamax C compiler, they probably want to avoid having N buggy versions of Megaroids floating around, which they would have if source were commonly available, because people would modify it and then distribute the modified versions. Also, they might have some time critical stuff as inline assembly language. This would tend to make it hard to compile on other C compilers unless they both use the same format for inline assembly. Since they want Megaroids to be available to people who don't have Megamax C (yet!), binary is the way to go. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (01/17/86)
In article <265@ism780c.UUCP>, tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > There are sometimes good reasons for making binaries freely > available but not sources... > Since the purpose of Megaroids is to advertise > the Megamax C compiler... If the purpose of Megaroids is to advertise a commercial C compiler, why are we paying to distribute it over the net? Let them incur the cost of sending out their ad. -- # I resisted cluttering my mail with signatures for years, but the mail relay # situation has gotten to where people can't reach me without it. Dammit! # John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,nsc}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa # ^^^^^^^ Hoptoad used to be L5.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/18/86)
In article <434@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >If the purpose of Megaroids is to advertise a commercial C compiler, >why are we paying to distribute it over the net? > The point I was making is that Megaroids is freely distributable in binary, but that the source is not freely distributable, and that there are legitimate reasons for Megamax to have done it this way. Note that Megamax did not distribute Megaroids on the USENET, someone else did. We are paying to distribute it because someone who had it decided that it was a reasonable game, and wanted to share it. I don't think that the fact that Megamax released it in order to help C compiler sales is relevant. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
rb@ccivax (01/21/86)
> > > > > > Also it is not uncommon for binarys to be placed in the public domain !! > > -- > Yes - really. My old IBM BBS was chock full of binary only programs (with > no source available). Some were Freeware and some were just plain public > domain. So is the ST BBS I currently log onto. Megaroids is being freely > distributed by most ST BBS's. The source is available for $25 from Megamax. Don't forget some of the really good ones, like the switcher, newer debugged finders, even BASIC, over in net.micro.mac For some reason, the folks in net.micro.amiga seem to have few of the hassles over posting sources to the distribution group that seem to show up in this list. Also, commodore has actually provided a knowlegable company person to give INFORMED ANSWERS to important questions. Not to tout his product, just to prevent the spread of mis-information. Seems like we could use a little accurate information over here. Seems that this early in the introduction of a new product, just about ANYTHING posted to this group should be considered a blessing. (Besides, we can always use a dis-assembler to see how it works). I would rather see some meaningful source code, but post whatever you feel you can! Has anybody successfully ported any of the Amiga code over to the ST? Someone ported some of it to their CoCo/OS-9 system (see net.micro.6809). We're getting baited into wasting net space/money on some useless debates. Lets get some of the REAL issues out there. Like: 1: which chips are socketed (CPU?)? 2: who knows how Atari is going to implement X3T9 (SCSI) out the DMA port? 3: Is there a good debugger? 4: Are applications 'taking over' the operating system (Like they do with MS-DOS?)? 5: Are System Calls Re-Entrant? (If so, true multitasking may be possible) 6: How much of the OS is in ROM? Can vectors be remapped? 7: Are the ROM's modular (Can I replace one with a new boot driver, or Do you have to replace the works? Could one replace the trap handler to allow use with a 68010? 8: Anybody tried using a Track-Ball instead of the mouse? 9: Can you order spare cables (to cut up and make standard connections) 10: Other than the new ROM provisions, any other board revisions noticed? 11: Is there a way to produce "standard format" graphics data files so that text->graphics applications can be made possible? 12: Are atari representatives available to answer technical questions? 13: What would you most like to see in the next version of the machine?
kim@mips.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) (01/23/86)
>>> Also it is not uncommon for binarys to be placed in the public domain !! >>> -- >For some reason, the folks in net.micro.amiga seem to have few of the >hassles over posting sources to the distribution group that seem to >show up in this list. > -- >(Besides, we can always use a dis-assembler to see how it works). > -- >I would rather see some meaningful source code, but post whatever you >feel you can! > -- >Has anybody successfully ported any of the Amiga code over to the ST? >Someone ported some of it to their CoCo/OS-9 system (see net.micro.6809). Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) recently posted microEmacs to net.micro.atari. The source came from net.micro.amiga. Not to rub salt into open wounds (at least not too much, anyway :-) ), but the argument that "the source is too machine specific to be of value to others" is just alot of hand-waving. Sure, most *any* porting requires some amount of rework ... hell, even to go from AmigaDOS V1.0 to V1.1 requires some changes. And granted that a straight across port may not take advantage of unique hardware, and some functionallity may be lost from the original, but it provides a place to start working on the next revision ... isn't there something about "standing on the shoulders of those who have gone on before me" (or does that only apply to physicists)? Sorry to ramble on so ... I just get so annoyed when I see something posted that *might* be interesting to look at, and then on the 2nd or 3rd screen I see "requires BinHex 4.0", or some such drivel! Grrrrrr!!! Anyway, thanks to whomever posted XLISP to net.micro.atari ... I hope to get it up on my Amiga shortly ... and then I may try to move it over to my MS-DOS machine (tho the C compiler I have there is a little "weak"). /kim -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim DDD: 415-960-1200 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems Inc, 1330 Charleston Rd, Mt View, CA 94043