mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (10/13/88)
I heard that the old Addison-Wesley RKM series is out of print, to be replaced
by a rewritten set of manuals that includes information up to 1.3. I also
heard that these manuals were to be released about the same time 1.3 was
released to the public
Is this true? Can I expect to purchase these new manuals within a reasonable
amount of time, say by Christmas?
--M
Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University
ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas
"my friends say she's a dumb blonde, but they don't know she dyes her hair"kjohn@richsun.UUCP (John Kjellman) (10/14/88)
In article <oXIuwqy00VsfM0jV4J@andrew.cmu.edu> mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: >I heard that the old Addison-Wesley RKM series is out of print, to be replaced >by a rewritten set of manuals that includes information up to 1.3. I also >[0123...] >Is this true? Can I expect to purchase these new manuals within a reasonable >amount of time, say by Christmas? > Is this true??????? I wanna replace my old manuals w/new ones :-). If any knows whether this is right or not, please POST the answer, I'm sure we'd *ALL* like to know...... And what about that 68020 card and what about UNIX, any CATS people have some guesstimate (that's guess-(es)timate :-) as to availablility???? KJohn -- | Amiga /// | Disclaimer: This is only a dream, it's only a dream ......... | | Manic///.5K | One liners: I'm from the government, I'm here to help........ | | \\\/// 1K | MS/D*S is the best damn OS I have ever used...... | | \XX/ 2K | kjohn@richsun or [ purdue | spl1 | mcdchg ] ! richsun ! kjohn |
jones@ingr.UUCP (Mark Jones) (10/18/88)
In article <oXIuwqy00VsfM0jV4J@andrew.cmu.edu>, mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes:
! I heard that the old Addison-Wesley RKM series is out of print, to be replaced
! by a rewritten set of manuals that includes information up to 1.3. I also
! heard that these manuals were to be released about the same time 1.3 was
! released to the public
!
! Is this true? Can I expect to purchase these new manuals within a reasonable
! amount of time, say by Christmas?
^^^^^^^^^ --- of which year?????afraser@ssibbs.UUCP (Alex Fraser) (10/19/88)
In article <2694@ingr.UUCP>, jones@ingr.UUCP (Mark Jones) writes: > In article <oXIuwqy00VsfM0jV4J@andrew.cmu.edu>, mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: > ! I heard that the old Addison-Wesley RKM series is out of print, to be replaced > ! by a rewritten set of manuals that includes information up to 1.3. I also > ! heard that these manuals were to be released about the same time 1.3 was > ! released to the public I called Addison-Wellesley -- they claim that RKM:Exec is done and that RKM:Libs+Devs will be shipping in thirty days. I actually believe this :-). I was going to take this opportunity to heavily flame CBM for letting the ROM Kernel manuals get out of print, but I can't bring myself into flame mode. Let it be added to CBM's list of crimes against the people (wait, we are people?) -- /* Alexander Fraser 23 Sheraton Park "Home is where you ssibbs!afraser Arlington MA 02174 wear your hat!" ...{mit-eddie,pyramid,datacube}!mirror!ssi3b1!ssibbs!afraser */
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (10/22/88)
In article <18@ssibbs.UUCP> afraser@ssibbs.UUCP (Alex Fraser) writes: >I called Addison-Wellesley -- they claim that RKM:Exec is done and that >RKM:Libs+Devs will be shipping in thirty days. I actually believe this :-). > Addison-Wesley better not screw up this set of the RKM's like they did the last time. I still have the original "white" copies of the RKM, and find them infinitely preferable to the A-W versions. The primary reason for this irrational behavior is that A-W hopelessly screwed up the layout of the AutoDocs. Instead of functionally seperating them (exec calls grouped together in one "chapter", graphics in another, layers in another, and so on), they alphabetized *all* the Kickstart functions by name and printed them, without regard to what library they're a part of, making it next to impossible to discover the structure of Kickstart. The A-W versions may have more examples, all of which work, but in my humble opinion, this is little compensation for wrecking the primary reference sections. Slightly unrelated point: Whyzzit the DOS functions aren't in the AutoDocs? Every time I want to look up a DOS function, I have to dig out the AmigaDOS Developer's Manual. It'd be more convenient if they were listed with the rest of the Kickstart functions. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) (10/25/88)
In article <7437@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > Addison-Wesley better not screw up this set of the RKM's like they > did the last time. I still have the original "white" copies of the RKM, and > find them infinitely preferable to the A-W versions. > > The primary reason for this irrational behavior is that A-W > hopelessly screwed up the layout of the AutoDocs. Instead of functionally > seperating them (exec calls grouped together in one "chapter", graphics in > another, layers in another, and so on), they alphabetized *all* the > Kickstart functions by name and printed them, without regard to what library > they're a part of, making it next to impossible to discover the structure of > Kickstart. I also keep a copy of the original white copy around and use it exclusively. I don't know whether they'd reorganize it "back" to the way it was based on your (and my) complaints, but as I remember, I caught SO much flack from unix-oids once the white books were issued that I was TOLD to alphabetize everything because once someone heard the name of a function, they insisted that they be able to go directly alphabetically to the function and not have to stop and figure out what KIND of function it was, going to the appropriate Library docs to find it listed there. We who know what a function does don't have that problem and would (at least in my case) prefer to go to a specific section to find the doc because I personally am likely to use many of that locations functions if I hadda look it up in the first place. The other thing is that the parallelism between the functions grouped as they originally were related to the include files that defined the variables and structures that the functions used. That made it easier for ME to learn about the system in the first place. Re the AmigaDOS includes and functions -- perhaps Nancy Raines, at C-A, who is overseeing the upgrade effort, might consider adding an AmigaDOS.doc file to the new edition. The reorg though mayhaps be beyond her control. The (shall be nameless because I don't remember who said it) folks who demanded the full alpha reorg may still control that layout. (sigh) Rob Peck
mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) (10/25/88)
In article <18@ssibbs.UUCP> afraser@ssibbs.UUCP (Alex Fraser) writes: >> ! I heard that the old Addison-Wesley RKM series is out of print, to be replaced >> ! by a rewritten set of manuals that includes information up to 1.3. I also >> ! heard that these manuals were to be released about the same time 1.3 was >> ! released to the public >I called Addison-Wellesley -- they claim that RKM:Exec is done and that >RKM:Libs+Devs will be shipping in thirty days. I actually believe this :-). In Ireland the RKM mans cost anythingup to 60 quid,even in Holland , laboriously translated verions are half the price. Considering that they are utterly useless without the 1.2 updates,not to mention the 1.3 versions which are COMPLETELY UNAVAILABLE in Ireland I feel that you do not see just how lucky you are to be able to buy them at the recommended retail price of $24.95 in any local bookstore. -- Mike Rogers, mike@maths.tcd.ie 39.16 Trinity College, Dublin University, ...staccato signals of constant information, Dublin 2, Ireland. a loose affiliation, ... (Simon)
dbk@fbog.UUCP (Dave B. Kinzer @ Price Rd. GEG) (10/26/88)
[Many deletions] |> The primary reason for this irrational behavior is that A-W |> hopelessly screwed up the layout of the AutoDocs. Instead of functionally |> seperating them (exec calls grouped together in one "chapter", graphics in |> another, layers in another, and so on), they alphabetized *all* the |> Kickstart functions by name and printed them, without regard to what library |> they're a part of, making it next to impossible to discover the structure of |> Kickstart. | |I also keep a copy of the original white copy around and use it exclusively. | |I don't know whether they'd reorganize it "back" to the way it was based on |your (and my) complaints, but as I remember, I caught SO much flack from |unix-oids once the white books were issued that I was TOLD to alphabetize |everything because once someone heard the name of a function, they insisted |that they be able to go directly alphabetically to the function and not have |to stop and figure out what KIND of function it was, going to the appropriate | |Rob Peck |>Leo Schwab Then how come all the string functions in the UN*X manuals are under "STRING(3C)". Or, where is "fgetc()"? Maybe you should have alphabatized exec, layers, graphics, etc. :-) :-) I only have the white copys, tell those in power that. -- | @ @ // Save the Ewacs Society Dave Kinzer | | L // noao!nud!fbog!dbk | | \_/ \X/ "My employer's machine, my opinion." (602) 897-3085 |
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (10/26/88)
In article <658@ardent.UUCP> rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck) writes: >In article <7437@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >> The primary reason for this irrational behavior is that A-W >> hopelessly screwed up the layout of the AutoDocs. [ ... ] > >I don't know whether they'd reorganize it "back" to the way it was based on >your (and my) complaints, but as I remember, I caught SO much flack from >unix-oids once the white books were issued that I was TOLD to alphabetize >everything because once someone heard the name of a function, they insisted >that they be able to go directly alphabetically to the function and not have >to stop and figure out what KIND of function it was, going to the appropriate >Library docs to find it listed there. This argument on the part of the UNIX-oids is, of course, complete hogwash. Look at a UNIX Programmer's Manual. The shell commands are in a seperate section from the system administration commands, which are in a seperate section from the games, which are in a seperate section from the system calls, which are in a separate section from the stdio library calls, which are in seperate section from the termcap library calls, which are in a seperate section... This argument was doubtless levelled many years ago when even UNIX was young. This is why, near the front of all the UPM's I've seen, is a little invention to address that problem: The permuted index. You look up any significant keyword you can think of in the permuted index, and it'll direct you to the relevant chapter and page. Try alphabetizing all the system and library calls under UNIX into one big list, and see if you prefer that. I sure wouldn't. (No, I'm not attacking Bob; I'm attacking the twits who made this lame argument stick.) >The other thing is that the parallelism between the functions grouped as >they originally were related to the include files that defined the variables >and structures that the functions used. That made it easier for ME to >learn about the system in the first place. > Me, too. One of the first things I did after getting the Amiga was to print out all the include files and read them. Most educational. >The reorg though mayhaps be beyond [Nancy Raines'] control. >The (shall be nameless because I don't remember who said it) folks who >demanded the full alpha reorg may still control that layout. (sigh) > We can always vote with our wallets. I suspect a major portion of sales will be to people who want hardcopies of the new AutoDocs and include files. If A-W barfs it up again, then we can simply agree not to buy the new manuals. The AutoDocs and include files are machine-readable anyway, and can be purchased directly from Commodore for $20. Then some clever person posts a program that will directly take these files and format them to come out pretty on a laser printer, and individuals can make their own hardcopy from the machine-readable version they bought. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) (10/27/88)
I too would favor a functional arrangement of the library functions.
I feel that an alphabetized list is best placed in THE INDEX!!!!!
After all, that is what they are for.
Why post this, well if someone is taking a vote to send to AW to
get them to change their mind, I want my vote counted.
(Speaking of which, Nov. 8 is just around the corner.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Mike Davis ..!att!ihlpm!jmdavispapa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (10/27/88)
In article <2505@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: |I too would favor a functional arrangement of the library functions. |I feel that an alphabetized list is best placed in THE INDEX!!!!! |After all, that is what they are for. | |Why post this, well if someone is taking a vote to send to AW to |get them to change their mind, I want my vote counted. By the way, I picked up David Lai Amiga Tech Reference ($14.95) which is practically just a complete cross-index, ala UNIX man page cross index, of all Amiga system calls, MANX and Lattice symbols. That's all it is needed. The "separate" sections are much better than the A-W single combined section. I never bought the A-W manual for the simple reason that the Commmodore-Amiga ones were so much better organized. But I do miss the "working" examples. -- 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/28/88)
in article <1350@fbog.UUCP>, dbk@fbog.UUCP (Dave B. Kinzer @ Price Rd. GEG) says:
$ |I don't know whether they'd reorganize it "back" to the way it was based on
$ |your (and my) complaints, but as I remember, I caught SO much flack from
$ |unix-oids once the white books were issued that I was TOLD to alphabetize
$ |everything because once someone heard the name of a function, they insisted
$ |that they be able to go directly alphabetically to the function and not have
$ |to stop and figure out what KIND of function it was, going to the appropriate
$ |
$ |Rob Peck
$
$ Then how come all the string functions in the UN*X manuals are under
$ "STRING(3C)". Or, where is "fgetc()"? Maybe you should have alphabatized
$ exec, layers, graphics, etc. :-) :-)
I like the solution used for the Mortimer books: organize it by
exec/layers/etc., but put an alphabetical quick-index on the inside of
the cover. The original V7 manuals did something of the same... one of
the sad things to happen to the Unix manuals was when the alphabetical
function-index went away.marco@hpuamsa.UUCP (Marco Lesmeister) (10/31/88)
I am looking for a cross-reference of all the library calls of the Amiga too, so could anyone just post this stuff (mayb someone at commodore has it on file somewhere, with the description of the lot as well?), so we are all happy with it. Marco Lesmeister.
joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) (10/31/88)
In article <2505@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: > >I feel that an alphabetized list is best placed in THE INDEX!!!!! I may be a little brain-dead, but how about including a list of ALL references on a topic in the index? For instance, does "struct Window" only appear on one page in the entire book? And I guess NOTHING appears in the appendices -- the index doesn't mention a thing in there. Come on! When someone's trying to use a REFERENCE MANUAL, they want to find their information quickly, not page through for half an hour. That means the index has to be MUCH more complete than the current index. I couldn't care less what order the information comes in as long as the index is going to save me having to sort through the whole book trying to find the layout of one of my structures. -Joe -- UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe (Feed my Dayton Hudson Department Store Company ATT : (612) 375-3537 picture Joe Larson/MIS 1060 (standard disclaimer...) collection) 700 on the Mall Mpls, Mn. 55402
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/02/88)
Just run kwik on the things, and include the kwik index as an appendix. From certain typos in the manuals it's obvious they're in nroff format. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.