hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) (04/11/90)
I read with amazement the posting on poolfix4. 1. First Humor: The author of poolfix4 carries on long and hard about how bad it is that poolfix3 must be installed first; when his program must be installed first! 2. Atari issued, as officially as possible, poolfix1, poolfix2, and poolfix3. They are docummented, supported and 'guaranteed' by Atari. It its just bad form to have someone issue a program with the same name and just change the revision. poolfix4, if it must exist, should be reissued by the author with a new name and removed from the archieves. Hmm, What a great way to spread a virus; just bump the revision on some popular program and watch the fun. Wouldn't it been interesting if G-PLUS had been named gdos1? 3. Please do not use other peoples product names for your own work. Even if the function is the same. Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs att!lzsc!hcj hcj@lzsc.att.com
roland@cochise.pcs.com (Roland Rambau) (05/04/90)
hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) writes:
->I read with amazement the posting on poolfix4.
->1. First Humor: The author of poolfix4 carries on long and hard about
-> how bad it is that poolfix3 must be installed first; when his
-> program must be installed first!
Please note that _his_ program is the HD interface program
( a AHDI replacement ), and its not the case that it _must_ be
installed first - its just handy to install the HD interface first
so you can load your auto folder programs from the hard disk ...
Roland Rambau
rra@cochise.pcs.com, {unido|pyramid}!pcsbst!rra, 2:507/414.2.fidonet csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod ) (05/07/90)
Dear Mr Pratt, since I don't have regular access to Usenet, this letter might be somewhat late. People have told me about your reactions towards my version of POOLFIX, and I would like to add some comments. You're right, naming my POOLFIX version "POOLFIX4" was foolish. I've changed that quite a while ago; unfortunately, Chris posted POOLFIX4 before I renamed it to POOLF_CB (just a suggestion, I've not settled yet about the final naming). So if this is your only problem with it - it's been solved. Sorry. I always thought ATARI had an interest to spread TOS bug fixes as widely and as fast as possible. Everyone owns FOLDRxxx, for example, and ATARI doesn't moan about it - though not everyone has bought an original ATARI hard disk. I didn't want to infringe any copyrights, as you supposed, I have always stated very clearly in the POOLF_CB readme file that this program was originally written by you, that I didn't claim any rights on it, and that I only improved it a bit. You also felt unhappy about me possibly being a malicious hacker spreading dangerous code under the hood of an original ATARI program's name. POOLF_CB and POOLFIX4 are no Trojan horses, and I've invested much time and effort to verify that it works properly. I've sent POOLF_CB to ATARI Germany hoping that it might find it's way to you. I didn't wait for your approval, true, and I regret this, but I had my reasons: People found out that POOLFIX3 (your version) didn't work when my hard disk driver was running, and soon there were rumours that my driver was faulty. This, however, isn't true, but it started to damage my reputation among European users. I didn't like that, so I sat down to find out more about it, disassembled POOLFIX3, found out why things went wrong, and patched it. Some friends needed this version badly, and so I gave it to them, and I even allowed Chris overhastedly to spread it via Usenet because I felt strong demand for it. Another point: You were in doubt whether it's worthwhile to optimize the POOLFIX code in order to obtain a smaller program. Well, I think it is. (This isn't much of a surprise for you, I know.) True, it will save you just a few bytes, but if ATARI had done a little-bitzy-eenie- weenie bit of optimization in their ROM code it would have been possible to include GDOS into the TOS ROMs. (When the ST appeared here, ATARI officials always said that GDOS was published separately because it didn't fit into the ROMs.) Think of all the trouble this would have saved us: Thousands of proprietary printer drivers and hundreds of GDOS incompatible programs. It also would have improved the reputation of ATARI's implementation of GEM. If you don't believe me you can squeeze GDOS into the 192 KB ROMs, ask our German hackers for a version of their improved TOSses. (Besides: I recently did a bit of optimization on the current German GDOS version, AMCGDOS, and it lost some 2 KB in size out of nearly 8 KB. Don't worry, I won't spread it, I'm just using it for my own ST - only the author of AMCGDOS received a copy.) Some of those hackers mentioned above saved so much code that it became possible to include a new Macish DESKTOP, new window features, a complete hard disk driver, and, last but not least, GDOS. Needless to say that they also squeezed TOS 1.6 into 192 KB ROMs. Don't panic, since ATARI doesn't seem to want outside improvements for TOS, they won't spread it. Some of them, however, have written long and detailled letters to ATARI about ways of optimizing TOS, and apparently there has been no reaction. (The bug patched by POOLFIX, for example, has been known here since the 8-8-88 beta version of TOS 1.4, and it has been reported to ATARI before the end of the beta test phase.) POOLFIX will find it's way into thousands of AUTO folders, so it will cost most of us some of our precious RAM. Yes, I think it's worthwhile investing some effort in it. I will stop optimizing POOLFIX and copying it to my friends who beg for it if you want me to. But then, I'd like to ask YOU for an official POOLFIX4 version from you that doesn't collide with my hard disk driver and numerous AUTO folder programs any more, so that I can stop wasting time telling readers twice a day that my driver is OK, and that the problem lies in POOLFIX3, and they should use POOLF_CB if they can get it anywhere, but no, I won't copy it because ATARI doesn't want me to, or they should delete POOLFIX3 from their AUTO folder or use another hard disk driver. Please! I strongly hope we will come to a good compromise that satisfies the needs of all ST users. Apart from that, I really appreciate that you follow this discussion and comment on selected items. It has been a great help for us here in Germany. Keep it up! Sincerely, Claus "all-time optimizer" Brod
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) (05/08/90)
From article <2709@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>, by csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod ): > > to verify that it works properly. I've sent POOLF_CB to ATARI Germany > hoping that it might find it's way to you. I didn't wait for your > approval, true, and I regret this, but I had my reasons I think that one lesson we should all learn from this and from stories people have told about variations in Developers Kit policy, TOS 1.4 distribution, etc. is: NEVER assume that one bit of Atari will tell any other bit anything at all. Atari just isn't that organised. I sometimes wonder how the company keeps going at all. > Some of those hackers mentioned above saved so much code that it became > possible to include a new Macish DESKTOP, new window features, a complete > hard disk driver, and, last but not least, GDOS. Needless to say that > they also squeezed TOS 1.6 into 192 KB ROMs. Don't panic, since ATARI > doesn't seem to want outside improvements for TOS, they won't spread > it. Some of them, however, have written long and detailled letters to > ATARI about ways of optimizing TOS, and apparently there has been no > reaction. (The bug patched by POOLFIX, for example, has been known > here since the 8-8-88 beta version of TOS 1.4, and it has been > reported to ATARI before the end of the beta test phase.) Again, if you're not writing directly to the people who maintain TOS, forget it. Descriptions like these, though, serve as a reminder of just how much of the ST's potential has been wasted. Getting the original ST out so fast in 1985 was a terrific achievement, but the follow-through has been a real disppointment. Claus Brod has made some good points in a very reasonable way. If his pool fixing program does what he says it does, and doesn't hurt anything else, then I can see no reason why it should not be distributed. Why not let Allan Pratt add his comments (and maybe even POOLFIX3) and let users decide which version they want to use? Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK JANET: grahamt@uk.ac.sussex.syma EARN/BITNET: grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk ARPA: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: grahamt@syma.uucp Phone: +44 273 686758 Fax: +44 273 685865
dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (05/09/90)
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) writes: >Claus Brod has made some good points in a very reasonable way. If his >pool fixing program does what he says it does, and doesn't hurt anything >else, then I can see no reason why it should not be distributed. Why >not let Allan Pratt add his comments (and maybe even POOLFIX3) and let >users decide which version they want to use? The problem was not with the program itself, but with the author's attitude. Allan Pratt may not be perfect, but then again if you've every released software to the world you know that getting everything absolutely right the first time isn't likely no matter how careful you are. The original poolfix4 posting was one of the most pompous and obnoxious messages I've ever seen in this newsgroup. There was more of an "I'm a better hacker, Nyyaah!" feeling there than an "I'm trying to help out" attitude. If I'd been Allan I would have been annoyed too. My AUTO folder has poolfix3.prg in it. Dave Baggett dmb@wam.umd.edu
csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod ) (05/09/90)
dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >The problem was not with the program itself, but with the author's >attitude. Allan Pratt may not be perfect, but then again if you've >every released software to the world you know that getting everything >absolutely right the first time isn't likely no matter how careful you are. >The original poolfix4 posting was one of the most pompous and obnoxious >messages I've ever seen in this newsgroup. There was more of an >"I'm a better hacker, Nyyaah!" feeling there than an "I'm trying to help >out" attitude. If I'd been Allan I would have been annoyed too. Well, right, the first readme file that I sent to some friends who needed a patched POOLFIX version was a bit provocative. I've changed that meanwhile, and I apologized for allowing Chris overhastedly to post it. Maybe you would understand my attitude in the readme file if you know how you feel like after an evening of disassembling and patching a foreign program in order to solve a SEP (somebody else's problem) which ATARI should have known about and cared for for a long time. (Remember: The bug has been reported! BTW: It isn't the only bug in the pool manager, but this is another story and we're currently trying to find out more about it.) Alas, if you could read some of my articles in German ST magazines or my book, you wouldn't have been very surprised to find unusual readmes from me. My readers seem to like it, and so far nobody really did mind. Allan Pratt's message that I've seen didn't mention the readme file, so it seems he wasn't particularly upset because of this. His point was different: Publishing the program as POOLFIX4, and failing to ask before. I really do regret doing this, and I hope Allan will someday forgive me. But on the other hand, there's a real demand for patches and programs like this, and we're fed up with waiting for ATARI to do it for us in Germany. We have learnt a lesson: Don't wait for ATARI to fix it, fix it yourself. This is a main reason why ATARI is so successful over here: They are supported by their users. It should be the other way round, though. Don't forget this is a personal opinion derived from a 4-years-experience with the ST and ATARI; others will disagree or have experienced much more feedback from ATARI. Maybe I'm the only one who feels a lack of support. I hope that Allan will come up with his own POOLFIX4 version and end this discussion. Claus Brod
jfbruno@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John F. Bruno) (05/09/90)
In article <1990May9.042912.22032@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: >grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) writes: >>Claus Brod has made some good points in a very reasonable way. If his >>pool fixing program does what he says it does, and doesn't hurt anything >>else, then I can see no reason why it should not be distributed. [stuff deleted] >The problem was not with the program itself, but with the author's >attitude. [ stuff deleted] >The original poolfix4 posting was one of the most pompous and obnoxious >messages I've ever seen in this newsgroup. There was more of an >"I'm a better hacker, Nyyaah!" feeling there than an "I'm trying to help >out" attitude. If I'd been Allan I would have been annoyed too. > >My AUTO folder has poolfix3.prg in it. > >Dave Baggett >dmb@wam.umd.edu I think everyone is missing the major problem with the poolfix4. The choice of "poolfix4" implies that it is the next version of "poolfix3" and since poolfix3 came from Atari, people will assume poolfix4 also came from Atari. I'm sure that some people would be confused by this and go to Alan Pratt for support/questions/whatever... I don't think it matters how pompous and obnoxious the original post was. If the original name was "POOLPTCH" or something like that, I bet nobody would have complained at all (unless of course it didn't work). ---jb