mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (06/11/87)
Since Scott Turner has been quiet lately, I'll take try and fill his flames-behind-my-postings shoes :-). Topic: Documentation, again. No, not AmigaDOS. The Enhancer kit. There are various neat new functions in 1.2, and changes to some old ones. They're mentioned in the Enhancer kit, and you're pointed to the AutoDocs. For instance, on LockIBase and UnlockIBase, which I'd like to use to make mg (among other things) more multi-tasking friendly, the Enhancer manual says: A pair of entry points named LockIBase() and UnlockIBase() are provided to gain access to locks which assure the integrity of the state of IntuitionBase (...) and of the linked lists of Screens and Windows. Marvelous! Just what I need! But it then says... The autodoc sections for these functions explains in great detail the intended use and cautions pertaining to these functions. In particular, be VERY careful that you pass the parameters described... Sh*t. I'd tell the auther-programmer (who goes so far as to tell us "don't get tricky with these locks") what to do, but they'd probably enjoy it. Look, I'm not a registered developer. To me, the Amiga is a *TOY*. Spending money to buy documentation is one thing. Having to go through some bul**hit paperwork to get documentation is another. Putting out an OS upgrade, mentioning functioning and then pointing to stuff that 90% of your customers don't have is an effing crock. The documentation should have been there in the first place. Given that some nitwit got you up this creek (you? Sh*t, you've got no problems. It's you're customers who are screwed.), you should do something to make the autodocs (or the infomation in them) generally available. At the *very* least, putting them in the PD so that Fred Fish can distribute them, giving copies to all your delears, and a mailing to all your registered customers explaining what they are and pointing them to a dealer. D*mn it, do something about getting the documentation that I paid for with the enhancer kit to me! Taking care of the those people stuck in the boonies who haven't got the foggiest idea what "autodoc" means at the same time would be nice. <mike P.S. Yeah, the Amiga is a fairly expensive toy. But not compared to a Porsche, and it's more fun. If only I could figure out how to use it to go cruising for women :-).
andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (06/11/87)
In article <8706110829.AA11035@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) writes: >Since Scott Turner has been quiet lately, I'll take try and fill his >flames-behind-my-postings shoes :-). > I'm sorry. you just don't seem to have the same touch. >Topic: Documentation, again. No, not AmigaDOS. The Enhancer kit. > >There are various neat new functions in 1.2, and changes to some old >Look, I'm not a registered developer. To me, the Amiga is a *TOY*. >Spending money to buy documentation is one thing. Having to go through >some bul**hit paperwork to get documentation is another. What paperwork ? As announced many times, you can get the 1.2 Autodocs on a disk from us by sending $20.00 for the 1.2 Native Developer Update (a 4 disk set) which contains the header files, the new amiga.lib, the autodocs, and the readme files for V1.2. Just ask for the 1.2 Native Developer Update, and send a check for $20 made out to Commodore Business Machines to Lauren Brown Software Department Commodore Business Machines 1200 Wilson Drive West Chester, PA 19380 > >Putting out an OS upgrade, mentioning functioning and then pointing to >stuff that 90% of your customers don't have is an effing crock. The >documentation should have been there in the first place. Sounds like we shouldn't have mentioned the new programmer functions in the first place. :-) No, you are right; a more careful editing job would have caught those lines, and we would have inserted instructions on how to get the Native Developer Upgrade. But we didn't, so since then we've announced it a lot (even here). >At the *very* least, putting them in the PD so that Fred Fish can >distribute them, giving copies to all your delears, and a mailing to >all your registered customers explaining what they are and pointing >them to a dealer. I don't think our current method ($20, no paperwork) is unreasonable. > >D*mn it, do something about getting the documentation that I paid for >with the enhancer kit to me! Taking care of the those people stuck in >the boonies who haven't got the foggiest idea what "autodoc" means >at the same time would be nice. Aw, come on. We only charged $15.00 for the upgrade. Most users might not need the additional information; The docs are available, at a small cost. (BTW, usenet is the boonies ???) > > <mike Sorry mike, it just doesn't have the "burn through the paper" quality... not that I'm complaining, mind you :-) andy -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore/Amiga "An end is always a new beginning." - Captain Cloud Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
mwm@eris.UUCP (06/12/87)
In article <2003@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: <In article <8706110829.AA11035@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) writes: <>Since Scott Turner has been quiet lately, I'll take try and fill his <>flames-behind-my-postings shoes :-). < <I'm sorry. you just don't seem to have the same touch. Sigh. Must be out of practice. Maybe it's time to go back to talk.religion. Prase Bob! [Hey! Anyone got Bob in IFF?] <What paperwork ? As announced many times, you can get the <1.2 Autodocs on a disk from us by sending $20.00 for the <1.2 Native Developer Update (a 4 disk set) which contains the header files, <the new amiga.lib, the autodocs, and the readme files for V1.2. Announced? Where? I've never seen it before. In fact, I had a newly-registered developer asking me what the 1.2 Native Developers Update was in a reply to my posting. Someone else told me in another reply, so I forwarded it. <Just ask for the 1.2 Native Developer Update, and <send a check for $20 made out to Commodore Business Machines to Check? What about plastic? It's bad enough to have to wait for docs when I find I out where to get them. But having to play snail-mail games both way is ridiculus. And why can't I get this stuff from my dealer? I got the original docs from them. And if your $20 is just covering cost, what's the problem with giving them to Fred? He tends to supply programmers tools, so this fits his bill. And it could save your people time they could use doing other things. Just put copyright notices all over it and restrictions on redistribution. <Sounds like we shouldn't have mentioned the new programmer functions <in the first place. :-) That's not funny. That's the f*cking truth. I bought an Amiga, and it didn't have *any* documentation for anything but the workbench and PM type stuff. I had to buy the hackers docs over and above that. No problem, I knew it before hand. That's better than the half-*ssed job that was done on the enhancer kit. <get the Native Developer Upgrade. But we didn't, so since then <we've announced it a lot (even here). So howcum I didn't see any of it until I bitched about it? <I don't think our current method ($20, no paperwork) is unreasonable. The cost isn't unreasonable. The method sucks. Two snail-mail delays, assuming you're lucky enough to know how you get them? Was that designed by the Commodore Amiga advertising team? <Aw, come on. We only charged $15.00 for the upgrade. For which you did a good thing. But you *didn't* deliver what was promised - an upgrade with docs. If the enhancer kit hadn't had any docs in it, and the dealer had the "Programmers Documentation Upgrade" at another $15, that would have been a *major* improvement. While I'm on the topic, why the feep wasn't the Doc upgrade done as replacement sheets for what was already there. Even IBM can get that right, forxsakes. Calling that first doc "Wedgies" just about describes this situation. And you know where *I* think they ought to be wedged; just so it's remembered WHY docs are delivered in oversized three-ring binders. <Most users might <not need the additional information; The docs are available, at <a small cost. And once again, it *wasn't* announced that you'd need that extra information when you bought the Enhancer kit, even though the Enhancer kit referenced it. And having to put a project on hold for two weeks while you wait for the docs is the kind of thing that makes me hate other vendors who shall remain nameless. <(BTW, usenet is the boonies ???) No, but I've got friends that bought Amigas (in part because I did) who have a 40-mile drive (one way) to a dealer who carries Amiga software. It's even farther to a dealer who has hardware. Their Usenet access is a 3b2 made from second-hand parts sitting on a friends desk, with 80 Meg of disk. I don't think he bothers with comp.sys.amiga - to damn big. And when they had a reliable Usenet site that carried everything, there was still a 5-day delay to a backbone site. In summary (i.e., I want to say it *again* :-), there are users out there who are programmers, who *don't* have access to any major nets (CI$ or the internet mail world). I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't know what the AutoDocs were, much less how to get them. You sold an OS upgrade that looked like it had documentation, but was incomplete. How to get the missing stuff isn't mentioned in the upgrade, and when you find out how, you're still up the creek without a paddle for a couple of weeks. Sc*w it. How much trouble would I get into if *I* posted the complete Autodocs? I'm not a developer, haven't signed any non-disclosure agreements (I *won't* sign those things), etc. Since I'm not making any money, I think damages to me are limited to something small. Anyone out there willing to contribute to a "AutoDocAid" fund to pay court costs and damages? <mike -- How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (06/12/87)
In article <3935@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <2003@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: ><In article <8706110829.AA11035@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) writes: ><>Since Scott Turner has been quiet lately, I'll take try and fill his ><>flames-behind-my-postings shoes :-). >< ><I'm sorry. you just don't seem to have the same touch. > >Sigh. Must be out of practice. Maybe it's time to go back to >talk.religion. Prase Bob! [Hey! Anyone got Bob in IFF?] it's ok, its better this way... Well, now that you know, even if you missed the other announcements its really a non-issue, except about taking plastic. We've talked about it a few times; last time we discussed it it looked like we'd have to raise prices to cover the additional paperwork, overhead, minimums. We generally just try to break even on the supports disks and docs. >And if your $20 is just covering cost, what's the problem with giving >them to Fred? He tends to supply programmers tools, so this fits his >bill. And it could save your people time they could use doing other >things. Just put copyright notices all over it and restrictions on >redistribution. Maybe this would work. We'll discuss it here. But I can't really see the difference between ordering from Fred and ordering from us...we both are asking about the same money in US funds. >While I'm on the topic, why the feep wasn't the Doc upgrade done as >replacement sheets for what was already there. Even IBM can get that >right, forxsakes. This is a good suggestion. Unfortunately, there are too many styles of "already there", as A-W and Bantam books are reorganized from the original RKMs. >And once again, it *wasn't* announced that you'd need that extra >information when you bought the Enhancer kit, even though the Enhancer >kit referenced it. And having to put a project on hold for two weeks >while you wait for the docs is the kind of thing that makes me hate >other vendors who shall remain nameless. if you have specific questions, just post. We're usually willing to help. (we can talk about the general case for a while, but you (as you have usenet access) can always ask. >In summary (i.e., I want to say it *again* :-), there are users out >there who are programmers, who *don't* have access to any major nets >(CI$ or the internet mail world). I wouldn't be surprised if they >didn't know what the AutoDocs were, much less how to get them. If they are trying to program the Amiga without access to the autodocs, (found in the back of the Rom Kernal Manual) they probably will have trouble anyway. Well, maybe Addison-Wesley (who has the rights to update the RKM manuals) will come out with a V1.2 Upgrade, so it will be available in bookstores as well. That would be a reasonable solution. I think we're trying to encourage them in this direction now. Again, sorry that it didn't mention how to get the autodocs. Since it wasn't there, we correct it in the only way possible...by spreading the word now. >Sc*w it. How much trouble would I get into if *I* posted the complete >Autodocs? I'm not a developer, haven't signed any non-disclosure >agreements (I *won't* sign those things), etc. Since I'm not making >any money, I think damages to me are limited to something small. Probably no more that publishing any other copyrighted materials without permission. You'd only reach the usenet 'boonies' however, unless you did it in book form, of course. :-) > <mike -- andy finkel {ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy Commodore/Amiga "An end is always a new beginning." - Captain Cloud Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
hamilton@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu.UUCP (06/12/87)
andy@cbmvax.cbm says: > In article <8706110829.AA11035@violet.berkeley.edu> mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) writes: > >Topic: Documentation, again. No, not AmigaDOS. The Enhancer kit. > > > >There are various neat new functions in 1.2, and changes to some old > > >Look, I'm not a registered developer. To me, the Amiga is a *TOY*. > >Spending money to buy documentation is one thing. Having to go through > >some bul**hit paperwork to get documentation is another. > > What paperwork ? As announced many times, you can get the > 1.2 Autodocs on a disk from us by sending $20.00 for the > 1.2 Native Developer Update (a 4 disk set) which contains the header files, > the new amiga.lib, the autodocs, and the readme files for V1.2. > > Just ask for the 1.2 Native Developer Update, and > send a check for $20 made out to Commodore Business Machines to.... just sending that extra check to pennsylvania amounts to some "paperwork". it would have been ideal if i could have ordered the native developer kit, the iff kit, the expansion specs, etc, from BEST when i ordered the enhancer, putting it all on the same credit card transaction. i can understand that some of these other packages may be of less interest to a mass merchandiser, but did c-a even try to distribute this way? several mail-order places sell cardinal's reverse-engineered schematics, but i've seen none selling c-a's own schematic kit. wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,pur-ee,convex}!uiucuxc!hamilton ARPA: hamilton@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu USMail: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801 CSNET: hamilton%uxc@uiuc.csnet Phone: (217)333-8703 CIS: [73047,544] PLink: w hamilton
ford@crash.CTS.COM (Michael Ditto) (06/13/87)
In article <3935@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <2003@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: ><What paperwork ? As announced many times, you can get the ><1.2 Autodocs on a disk from us by sending $20.00 [...] > >Announced? Where? I've never seen it before. In fact, I had a >newly-registered developer asking me what the 1.2 Native Developers >Update was in a reply to my posting. Someone else told me in another >reply, so I forwarded it. I agree -- I'm a commercial developer, and I had NEVER heard about the Autodocs from any official C=A source until I had been accepted as a developer. There was a little paragraph that said something like "... and you will receive the latest Autodocs ...". I wouldn't have had any idea what they were talking about if I hadn't heard about them from other sources. But, to C=A's credit, in the back of the A2000 manual there is a list of available sources of information, grouped into introductory, programming, and advanced/technical, or something like that. But I think they only listed the Addison/Wesley and other major publishers' books. I hope they will at least give some little pointer to CATS, even if it is in the tech manuals, so people know it exists. So, here's to [hopeful] improvement in C=A publicity! Michael "Ford" Ditto -=] Ford [=- P.O. Box 1721 ford@crash.CTS.COM Bonita, CA 92002 ford%oz@prep.mit.ai.edu -- Michael "Ford" Ditto -=] Ford [=- P.O. Box 1721 ford@crash.CTS.COM Bonita, CA 92002 ford%oz@prep.mit.ai.edu
page@ulowell.UUCP (06/15/87)
mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) wrote:
about LockIBase and UnlockIBase, and lack of info. I have a similar
question about WaitBOF or WaitTOF (I think BOF), which I once *think*
I saw someplace; it allows you to easily add an interrupt server
to the vertical retrace (Bottom Of Frame).
I swear there's a function to do this, but can't find the docs for it.
Can anyone shed light on where to find it?
>If only I could figure out how to use [my Amiga] to go cruising for women :-).
Cyberspace! A self-contained ROM construct might do it... watch for black ice!
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet} papa@uscacsc.UUCP (Marco Papa) (06/16/87)
Sorry to say, Mike, but your USENET feed might be broken since I have seen
AT LEAST 3 times messages from Carolyn, Phil and others at CATS announcing
the availability of the 1.2 Native Development upgrade for $20 and how to get
it. The same for the IFF docs and the A1000 Hardware Description. Also $20
for the 4 disks and mailing (plus overhead) seems pretty reasonable to me.
Check what other companies (IBM for example) charge for the documentation
of their hardware/software (when you can get it!).
-- Marco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Marco Papa 3175 S. Hoover St., Ste. 275 (213)669-1497
Los Angeles, CA 90007 USC: (213)743-3752
F E L S I N A
Now working for ::::::: BIX: papa
But in no way :: ::
Officially representing ::::::: ...!oberon!uscacsc!papa
S O F T W A R E papa@cse.usc.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (06/17/87)
In article <2017@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: <In article <3935@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: <>Sc*w it. How much trouble would I get into if *I* posted the complete <>Autodocs? I'm not a developer, haven't signed any non-disclosure <>agreements (I *won't* sign those things), etc. Since I'm not making <>any money, I think damages to me are limited to something small. < <Probably no more that publishing any other copyrighted materials <without permission. You'd only reach the usenet 'boonies' however, <unless you did it in book form, of course. :-) < <> <mike I post material with copyrights all the time. Usually it's my copyright, or my employers, though. Hmmm (as his eyes light with a maniacal glow), I wonder what the implications of a USENet posting from a site in a country that doesn't honer international copyright laws would be? Time to drag out a lawyer, and maybe see if that acount on ea-singapore is still around.... BTW, Usenet isn't the "boonies," it just goes to them. Once you're out of reach of usenet, you really are in the boonies. Of course, now that I no longer live on a USENet leave node, I can say that :-). BTW, where did the name "autodocs" come from? I don't recall seeing it in any of the documentation I've got. <mike -- How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (06/17/87)
> Maybe this would work. We'll discuss it here. But I can't really see the > difference between ordering from Fred and ordering from us...we both > are asking about the same money in US funds. Except that Fish Disks tend to be available from users groups for essentially free.
rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) (06/18/87)
In article <3978@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > > BTW, where did the name "autodocs" come from? I don't recall seeing it > in any of the documentation I've got. > > <mike The term "autodocs" came from the fact that those files you are examining are actually embedded in the source code for all of the system routines. Each of the developers was required to maintain the docs as source changes happened. When it came time for a major release to developers or for an issue of ROMK, we ran a program that automatically extracted the doc files from the source that was part of the release. Thus the name "auto-docs". Rob Peck ...hplabs!dana!rap (p.s. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe it was Kodiak who generated a Pascal program (PASCAL...aaarrrggghhh) that performed the extraction on both asm and C source.)
cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (06/19/87)
In article <3978@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
.<>Sc*w it. How much trouble would I get into if *I* posted the complete
.<>Autodocs? I'm not a developer, haven't signed any non-disclosure...
.
.Hmmm (as his eyes light with a maniacal glow), I wonder what the
.implications of a USENet posting from a site in a country that doesn't
.honer international copyright laws would be?....
Technically? Every USENET site which transmitted the offending material
could share liability, even if the poster were out of reach of our law.
Get some shades for those glowing eyes, Mike, people will notice. ;-)
--
Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp
"Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."