wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN) (05/07/89)
To the Amiga OS developers (and to the rest of the newsgroup: apologies for my childish behavior. I feel really silly now): I've been informed about the history of AmigaDOS, and why there haven't been any attempts to rewrite it. My humble apologies for flaming you in my last post. Considering the pressures and limitations placed on you, you've done an excellent job. Your management calls the shots, so I guess there isn't a whole lot you as developers can do, even though you may have a better understanding of the situation than your management... I now understand and (partially) agree with your management's reasons for the INITIAL version of AmigaDOS (time constraints for release of the product), but I DON'T agree with the reasons for not FIXING the problem (i.e., I don't agree with the priorities set by your management: Autobooting, V1.2 of the OS, FFS, etc. taking priority over a rewrite of AmigaDOS). The reason is that autobooting and FFS can both be accomplished by a rewrite of AmigaDOS, with the added advantage that the current limitations of AmigaDOS would be removed. While this might take longer (and I say *might* because you wouldn't have to work around the existing code to achieve your objectives), I feel the result would have been worth the time. Yes, rewriting AmigaDOS will introduce a host of new bugs, but 1.1 of the OS had a number of bugs as it was, and I would hope, at least, that the introduction of a rewrite of DOS would not have introduced any more bugs than already existed (though the bugs would certainly be of a different nature). In any case, finding bugs is what beta testers are for! Out of curiosity, how many people are actually acting as beta test sites for new revisions of the OS? I suspect not nearly enough to get most of the bugs worked out in a reasonably short period of time, though I really can't say for sure. This may not have been a situation that you had much control over initially, since there may not have been many people around to act as beta test sites. With 1,000,000+ Amigas out there now, I don't think that is a limitation any more. So the question is, are there now a reasonable number of beta test sites? If not, then it seems that it should be an easy problem to rectify. There are a LOT of people on comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech. I would think that quite a number of them (myself included) would be willing to act as beta-test sites, provided that it doesn't cost anything (and why should it? Beta testers are providing a service for free, at least to the best of my knowledge!). But since your hands are essentially tied by management (unless the situation has changed, of course), I have a suggestion: why not release information about the internal workings of the OS to those who are interested and let THEM rewrite it? Many of them (myself included) would probably be willing to do it for FREE! Already we have one person (Deven Corzine) working on a Un*x programmer's interface for the Amiga. You could set things up so that those who want to give rewriting DOS a shot could access any internal information necessary (provided, of course, that such information will not change in future revisions of the OS), and then turn in their finished work to you. You can even make alpha-testing their responsibility. After a specified period of time, or when you have enough versions, you can evaluate them all and decide on which one to use and then release it to your beta-testers. Needless to say, I would strongly recommend hiring the author of the DOS you decide to use so that bug-killing will be easier :-) :-). And once the bugs are out (to the best of your knowledge), you can release it to the world. Since this is a project that would be done independently by outside people, the current bugs and enhancements in the current AmigaDOS can be addressed by you (which is already the case anyway), so nothing is really lost in that respect. It seems to me that the only drawback to this idea is that the rewritten DOS may have more bugs at the time of official release than AmigaDOS would at that time. However, since this project would be independent of the existence of AmigaDOS as it currently is, there is effectively unlimited time to work out the bugs in the new AmigaDOS before release. This is different from the situation you guys originally had to deal with, when there was no other working alternative. So what about it, guys? What's to stop you from taking this course of action? It doesn't look like AmigaDOS will be rewritten in-house anyway (at least not any time in the near future) so why NOT have it written elsewhere??? And your management might like the idea, too, since you (the Amiga OS people) could concentrate on what your management believes are the priority items. In other words, C-A, what do you have to lose? Kevin Brown Internet: wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu or Bitnet: WZG91@TTACS1 or c8u00@ttacs1.ttu.edu C8U00@TTACS1 Snailnet: 4817 Saxon Voicenet: (806)742-4375 Bellaire, TX 77401
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/08/89)
In article <14870@louie.udel.EDU| wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN) writes: |To the Amiga OS developers (and to the rest of the newsgroup: apologies for |my childish behavior. I feel really silly now): ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |I've been informed about the history of AmigaDOS, and why there haven't |been any attempts to rewrite it. |My humble apologies for flaming you in my last post. Considering the |pressures and limitations placed on you, you've done an excellent job. |[...] |I now understand and (partially) agree with your management's reasons for |the INITIAL version of AmigaDOS (time constraints for release of the |product), but I DON'T agree with the reasons for not FIXING the problem |(i.e., I don't agree with the priorities set by your management: |Autobooting, V1.2 of the OS, FFS, etc. taking priority over a rewrite of |AmigaDOS). [rumblings about why CBM management should give away AmigaDOS for others to 'fix" and let Usenetters be the beta testers OMITTED] The rest of your message shows your "childish behavior" hasn't really changed. Grow up, pal! And welcome to the real world. Your delirations don't make any sense. You should feel even more silly NOW. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) (05/08/89)
In article <14870@louie.udel.EDU> wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN) writes: > > > >To the Amiga OS developers (and to the rest of the newsgroup: apologies for >my childish behavior. I feel really silly now): Continue to feel silly, as the flames are about to roll in.. >Your management calls the shots, so I guess there isn't a whole lot you as >developers can do, even though you may have a better understanding of the >situation than your management... This is where you should have said, "Thank you... The End" Oh well... > >I now understand and (partially) agree with your management's reasons for >the INITIAL version of AmigaDOS (time constraints for release of the >product), but I DON'T agree with the reasons for not FIXING the problem >(i.e., I don't agree with the priorities set by your management: >Autobooting, V1.2 of the OS, FFS, etc. taking priority over a rewrite of >AmigaDOS). The reason is that autobooting and FFS can both be accomplished >by a rewrite of AmigaDOS, with the added advantage that the current >limitations of AmigaDOS would be removed. While this might take longer >(and I say *might* because you wouldn't have to work around the existing >code to achieve your objectives), I feel the result would have been worth >the time. > It might help all of us to understand why you wish a re-write if you defined the problems with the current operating system, from a user perspective. As a user, I see where every improvement made by the operating system folks at C-A have been much needed, and in a couple cases almost too late. As a programmer, I too, wish the end of BCPL, however, as with all machines there are things that you must live with. It is not that big of a deal, certainly considering the 'Big Picture'. What limitation are you refering too? As far as taking longer, it is absolutely impossible. All developers would just die if Commodore-Amiga attempted a change in operating system. Far too much has already been spent, and is continuing to be spent to develop for AmigaDOS. There were almost a couple of murders for leaving Zorro-I expansion slots. You continue to switch time in your last sentence, are you talking past? PRESENT? OR WORSE FUTURE? Are you really recommending C-A dump AmigaDOS? or are you just wishing that they had back in 85? >Yes, rewriting AmigaDOS will introduce a host of new bugs, but 1.1 of the >OS had a number of bugs as it was, and I would hope, at least, that the >introduction of a rewrite of DOS would not have introduced any more bugs >Than already existed (though the bugs would certainly be of a different >nature). In any case, finding bugs is what beta testers are for! > Have you EVER written any code? Have you ever written a sentence? You can not compare the number of bugs in release 1.0 with a yet-to-be written OS. Tell me, how do your beta testers know what is a bug? Maybe it is a bug in your language that you are using? Maybe it is a bug in your assembler... You know you will have to write these things for your new DOS. Beta testing a operating system is no trivial matter, and one that requires a decent understanding of how things work, from the ground up. >Out of curiosity, how many people are actually acting as beta test sites >for new revisions of the OS? I suspect not nearly enough to get most of >the bugs worked out in a reasonably short period of time, though I really >can't say for sure. This may not have been a situation that you had much >control over initially, since there may not have been many people around to >act as beta test sites. With 1,000,000+ Amigas out there now, I don't >think that is a limitation any more. So the question is, are there now a >reasonable number of beta test sites? If not, then it seems that it should >be an easy problem to rectify. > I believe that every release of AmigaDOS is very well tested, as evidence, look at 1.3. 1.3 introduced many new things, and yes, there are a few bugs, but there is no code that is released that is absolutely bug free. I strongly believe that the C-A people have done a excellent job, when pressure must be high, in NOT releasing code before it is truly ready. >There are a LOT of people on comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech. I >would think that quite a number of them (myself included) would be willing >to act as beta-test sites, provided that it doesn't cost anything (and why >should it? Beta testers are providing a service for free, at least to the >best of my knowledge!). > A lot of people doeS not mean that there are a lot of people who are capiable of handling that job, your included in that group. As far as it costing, everything costs, time is the most expensive resource. >But since your hands are essentially tied by management (unless the >situation has changed, of course), I have a suggestion: why not release >information about the internal workings of the OS to those who are >interested and let THEM rewrite it? Many of them (myself included) would >probably be willing to do it for FREE! Already we have one person (Deven >[much rambling deleted] I am sure that all the virus-writers would love that. Let me hark back, if I remember correctly the IPC conversation went on for months and months, was there a conclusion? Only one, you can not design anything with a committee of thousands. At least that is my perception. Picture this: \ Commodore: good afternoon sir, how may I help (go ahead try to imagine) User: I am using WrapBench 4.6, why wont Baffleterm run? commodore: Oh, let me see, that is managed under the Wrap team, there are five folks hard at work at fixing that problem, the temporary fix is to hook a fast load cartidge.... It IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR COMMODORE TO SUPPORT USER-WRITTEN OPERATING SYSTEMS. IT IS CRAZY FOR THEM TO RELEASE CODE OR INTERNAL INFORMATION SO THAT VIRUS- WRITERS CAN HAVE A FIELD DAY. AND FINALLY THERE ARE DAMN FEW PROGRAMMERS WHO TRULY HAVE THE SKILL TO GET THE JOB DONE. clearing throat.. sorry... got excited.. >So what about it, guys? What's to stop you from taking this course of >action? It doesn't look like AmigaDOS will be rewritten in-house anyway >(at least not any time in the near future) so why NOT have it written >elsewhere??? And your management might like the idea, too, since you (the >Amiga OS people) could concentrate on what your management believes are the >priority items. In other words, C-A, what do you have to lose? > > How does crediability sound? Marketability? How about their business? The jobs at Commodore? How about the users of the Amiga? How about the developer of Amiga hardware and software? I know this is just a nightmare... C-A please please tell me you will not listen to this fella! also, btw, I would appreciate you not posting things like "I realize it is out of your hands.. " That implies they have NO SAY. I assure you, they have say. If they didn't you would have a computer without a CLI. > Kevin Brown > >Internet: wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu or Bitnet: WZG91@TTACS1 or > c8u00@ttacs1.ttu.edu C8U00@TTACS1 > >Snailnet: 4817 Saxon Voicenet: (806)742-4375 > Bellaire, TX 77401 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Manes "In Amiga We Trust" manes@xanth.UUCP ===========================================================================
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (05/08/89)
In article <14870@louie.udel.EDU> wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN) writes: >There are a LOT of people on comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech. I >would think that quite a number of them (myself included) would be willing >to act as beta-test sites, provided that it doesn't cost anything (and why >should it? Beta testers are providing a service for free, at least to the >best of my knowledge!). This is about as dumb as taking your spouse to a convention. -- ``But if she wants it (particularly if she wants it bad), I am going to have a hard time saying "no".'' - Ted Kaldis richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (05/09/89)
*Marco Papa writes... In article <14870@louie.udel.EDU| wzg91@ttacs1.ttu.edu (BROWN, KEVIN) writes: |To the Amiga OS developers (and to the rest of the newsgroup: apologies for |my childish behavior. I feel really silly now): ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |I've been informed about the history of AmigaDOS, and why there haven't |been any attempts to rewrite it. |My humble apologies for flaming you in my last post. Considering the |pressures and limitations placed on you, you've done an excellent job. |[...] |I now understand and (partially) agree with your management's reasons for |the INITIAL version of AmigaDOS (time constraints for release of the |product), but I DON'T agree with the reasons for not FIXING the problem |(i.e., I don't agree with the priorities set by your management: |Autobooting, V1.2 of the OS, FFS, etc. taking priority over a rewrite of |AmigaDOS). *[rumblings about why CBM management should give away AmigaDOS for others *to 'fix" and let Usenetters be the beta testers OMITTED] *The rest of your message shows your "childish behavior" hasn't really *changed. Grow up, pal! And welcome to the real world. Your delirations don't *make any sense. You should feel even more silly NOW. *-- Marco Papa 'Doc' *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu * "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Well Marco pretty much said what I was going to say. Thanks Marco! I did want to ask one question... WHERE DID THIS GUY COME FROM!!?? With Drivel such as that above concerning the Amiga OS, it is a wonder that the guys/gals from CATS don't just pack up their Amiga's and ride off into the sunset! I was surprised that Richard Sexton did not flame him to a crisp. Kevin Brown's drivel concerning what C-A should do with the Amiga's OS, was to put it mildly ,silly. Much more of a "flame that message" posting than ANYTHING I have seen come down the old bitstream in sometime. And interesting as this may be, it was from a beloved educational institution, and not Portal. :> :> - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Com
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (05/10/89)
Rather than flame (or attempt to flame) CA for releasing the AmigaDOS in BCPL, I think they should be applauded for having the rest of the software so wonderfully flexible that something as fundamental as the DOS can be replaced by something in an essentially incompatible language and still get out the door in any reasonable amount of time. Incredible! My only regret is that I will probably never find out some of the nifty stuff undoubtable planned for the original AmigaDOS (hint, hint :-). Seeing how much the filesystem on the Macintossed does towards making the software work, I can only think two things: 1 - Imagine replacing the Mac filesystem with something unix-like and still getting it out the door on time. 2 - What the Amiga could have been with a file-system like the Macs. In keeping with the subject line, I'll toss in my 2 cents for 1.4 wishlists: Add a call to the filesystem that allows only the calling process to have it's file reads/writes honored. I.e., allow a process to exclude other processes from using the same filesystem, much like Forbod/Permit. Then wrap LoadSeg in a FileForbid() / FilePermit() pair to stop the thrashing when two programs are loaded simulatneously. Actually, I guess you would want this to work on a volume. Allow the user to do this so that loading (say) IFF files can avoid thrashing too. Either that or make the trackbuffers (at least for floppies) actually trackbuffers instead of sector buffers; then it would only thrash once for each track instead of once for each sector. (I wonder if C= people actually pay any attention to such suggestions) -- Darren New -- University of Delaware
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (05/10/89)
In article <18129@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: > >I was surprised that Richard Sexton did not flame him to a crisp. Kevin Brown's I flame stupidity, not ignorence. He is a very ignorant person. >And interesting as this may be, it was >from a beloved educational institution, and not Portal. :> :> Yeah, surprised me too. -- ``But if she wants it (particularly if she wants it bad), I am going to have a hard time saying "no".'' - Ted Kaldis richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV