mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) (09/24/88)
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <7038@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >>papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>> If you do >>> thing on your own, without CBM's blessing you are simply bound to failure. >> >>I think my subject line says it all... >> > Mark, I just don't understand why you're so hostile toward CBM's >tech group. Perhaps I feel the same way towards the tech group as you do about CBM's marketing group (as witnessed by your recent posting to the other Amiga newsgroup.) Sure, some of my antagonism towards CBM is based upon events that occured long ago (before your involvement with the Amiga, Leo), but the fact is, I still don't agree with the way this OS enhancement bit (1.3, 1.4, etc...) is progressing. (Reasons below.) >Consider: Considering... > o I don't use shell enhancement tools because they're non-standard. > Developing software for the masses means testing it on a > vanilla system. Frankly, I don't understand why you are (were) opposed to using a shell to improve your development environment. This in no way prevents you from testing your programs on a vanilla Workbench disk. You can't honestly tell me you enjoy retyping a command line because of a typo or typing "execute" in front of every script you'd like to run. I really don't think I need to remind you of all the "good" features of a shell since you use one every time you log into the WELL. (BTW, Thanks Matt, for banging out Shell 2.0X for the Amiga. ;-) > o ARP is non-standard. How many commercial houses do you know > (apart from MircoSmiths) that write code for it? How many > run-of-the-mill people do you know who write code using it? > o ARexx is non-standard. While a nice package, its use is not > as widespread as it could or should be. Would you rather that these packages did not exist? You are indirectly saying that, aren't you? These projects were started independantly of CBM and attempt to provide enhancements or additional functions that CBM did not originally provide in the O.S. As far as I know, they haven't officially been "blessed" by CBM. There may be a good chance of that coming to pass, but there would be no chance at all if the projects weren't started in the first place for fear of doing something non-standard. Standards are for programmers to use as they will, not the other way around. It seems to me that you want to place CBM in the same position as Apple maintains with its developers. I honestly don't want to see a bunch of CBM Zombies coding under the eyes (or guns) of Big Brother CBM. The neat thing about the Amiga user interface (as compared to Apple's) is that it isn't entirely strict. This leaves the programmer with enough flexibility to code a (hopefully) efficient interface. > Now, if CBM were to buy ARP and make it part of 1.4, then its use >would increase by a whole lot. I am now prepared to use a shell enhancement >tool; namely, 1.3's shell. Why? Because it's standard. It's not a standard yet. I mean, can I wander into an Amiga dealer right now and purchase the 1.3 upgrade for $15 or so? When can I? December? I'll believe it when I see it. I guess my point here is that it has taken CBM soooooooo long to "bless" it's own code, let alone that of others. Standard, you say. Hmmm... How "standard" will 1.3 be when it's released? What about 6 or 12 months after release? It took a long while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was as simple as copying a disk. Think about all those A500 owners (much more than there were A1000 owners) who will need to go to the trouble of a ROM change for the upgrade to 1.3. You're fooling yourself if you think its gonna happen overnite. And you're fooling yourself even more if you write a program for mass consumption that uses a 1.3 (or 1.2 incompatible) function for marketing in the short to medium future. > How many software developers do you think I would be able to >convince to use the iff.library Stu and I are working on in code for public >consumption? Not as many as would use it if CBM "blessed" it. I hardly think you (or Stuart's) main reason for writing "iff.library" is so that it may be "blessed" by CBM. I suspect the reason you are writing it has to do with it's utility to you as a programmer. > When CBM blesses something, you're guaranteed that all the users... [Stuff deleted.] > Having CBM bless things relieves you of a great deal of support >responsibility. If you want to do something, and it's blessed by CBM, then >you are clean. If it's not blessed, You Are On Your Own. No Problem. I Don't Mind Being On My Own. Personally, I Don't Want CBM Or Any Other Group To Tether My Imagination By Imposing Restrictions On What I May Or May Not Do. Call It My "Lone Wolf Attitude", If You Like. >_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ >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 Thought you were working for Riechart these days... ;-) -Mark- P.S. Somewhat applicable cookie I found on my system today: May your future be limited only by your dreams. -- Christa McAuliffe UUCP: ...!crash!gryphon!pnet02!mriley BIX: mriley LAT: 34.25 N INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com PLINK: SONIX LONG: 118.78 W "Hey, I don't _use_ programs, I write them..." ;-)
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (09/26/88)
In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >It took a long >while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was >as simple as copying a disk. Really? Is that how you upgraded to 1.2? I seem to remember paying about $15 for mine... -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) (09/27/88)
On 9/26/88 ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >>It took a long >>while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was >>as simple as copying a disk. >Really? Is that how you upgraded to 1.2? I seem to remember paying >about $15 for mine... I suppose you are trying to imply something by that. I thought the heckler only existed on BIX, but alas, it seems that they are to be found here as well. Tis a shame. -Mark- P.S. FYI, I got my upgrade through the (pre CATS?) development program (if you could call it that.) I'm sure they charged us (Everyware, Inc.) for that as they charged us for the pre-release Amiga's we had in our possession. UUCP: ...!crash!gryphon!pnet02!mriley BIX: mriley LAT: 34.25 N INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com PLINK: SONIX LONG: 118.78 W "Hey, I don't _use_ programs, I write them..." ;-)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/27/88)
In article <7314@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >On 9/26/88 ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >>In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >>>It took a long >>>while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was >>>as simple as copying a disk. >>Really? Is that how you upgraded to 1.2? I seem to remember paying >>about $15 for mine... > >I suppose you are trying to imply something by that. I thought the >heckler only existed on BIX, but alas, it seems that they are to be >found here as well. Tis a shame. Mark, loosen up :-) You must not have been around Usenet for long. If you call this "heckling", you really cannot imagine what real "flaming" is. What is he "trying to imply"? It's a fact that 1.2 was SOLD for $15 as part of the "1.2 Enhancer Kit". Some dealers let people copy it indiscriminately, but that was their decision. >P.S. FYI, I got my upgrade through the (pre CATS?) development > program (if you could call it that.) I'm sure they charged > us (Everyware, Inc.) for that Not so, at the Second Developer's Conference in Monterey everyone got a copy of the "1.2 Enhancer" before it got to the stores. It was absolutey FREE. >as they charged us for the > pre-release Amiga's we had in our possession. Again, not entirely true. How many companies that received the "loaner" A2000s were asked to return their machines when the B2000 was finally released in the US? NONE. I guess you were among the "unlucky" ones cought in the bad times of early '86 when CBM was in real financial trouble. -- 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo L. Schwab) (09/27/88)
In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >How "standard" will 1.3 be when it's >released? What about 6 or 12 months after release? It took a long >while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was >as simple as copying a disk. Think about all those A500 owners (much >more than there were A1000 owners) who will need to go to the trouble >of a ROM change for the upgrade to 1.3. You're fooling yourself if >you think its gonna happen overnite. And you're fooling yourself >even more if you write a program for mass consumption that uses a >1.3 (or 1.2 incompatible) function for marketing in the short to >medium future. > As you know, 1.3 KickStart is functionally identical to 1.2 KickStart, with the exception of the autoboot code. 1.3 is primarily a WorkBench distribution, so it's as simple as copying a disk, or buying the enhancer package. DPaint ][ required 1.2 to function, and was released about the same time 1.2 came out. This didn't stop users from buying DPaint ][ and upgrading to 1.2. Enlighten me: How does Apple upgrade its Mac OS? _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ 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
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (09/28/88)
In article <12399@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
<>P.S. FYI, I got my upgrade through the (pre CATS?) development
<> program (if you could call it that.) I'm sure they charged
<> us (Everyware, Inc.) for that
<
<Not so, at the Second Developer's Conference in Monterey everyone got a copy
<of the "1.2 Enhancer" before it got to the stores. It was absolutey FREE.
<
Actually, heh, heh, BADGE people got 1.2 alpha 9, a >year< before release for
free. Thanks to Bob Pariseau. THe bugs made it almost worthless, but the
bragg quotient was well worth the trouble.
--
*** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"he's braindead Jim. . ."
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) (09/29/88)
On 9/27/88 papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <7314@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: [Deletions...] >>P.S. FYI, I got my upgrade through the (pre CATS?) development >> program (if you could call it that.) I'm sure they charged >> us (Everyware, Inc.) for that > >Not so, at the Second Developer's Conference in Monterey everyone got a copy >of the "1.2 Enhancer" before it got to the stores. It was absolutey FREE. Ok, that sounds right. I did not attend that conference but someone else from the company did. Though didn't they charge for admittance at the conference? >>as they charged us for the >> pre-release Amiga's we had in our possession. > >Again, not entirely true. How many companies that received the "loaner" >A2000s were asked to return their machines when the B2000 was finally >released in the US? NONE. I guess you were among the "unlucky" ones >cought in the bad times of early '86 when CBM was in real financial trouble. We were. Although it wasn't A2000's but A1000's (and problematic ones at that.) -Mark- UUCP: ...!crash!gryphon!pnet02!mriley BIX: mriley LAT: 34.25 N INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com PLINK: SONIX LONG: 118.78 W "Hey, I don't _use_ programs, I write them..." ;-)
rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) (09/29/88)
decwrl!mejac!gryphon!pnet02!mriley (Mark Riley) writes: >Standard, you say. Hmmm... How "standard" will 1.3 be when it's >released? What about 6 or 12 months after release? It took a long >while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was >as simple as copying a disk. What evidence do you have that it took a long time for Amiga 1000 owners to update from 1.1 to 1.2? Every Amiga owner I knew was eager to upgrade. All of the local dealers would sell out a shipment of Enhancer packages (50 - 100 copies) within two days of receiving them. I knew people who called every dealer listed in Amazing computing to see if they had upgrades in stock. Lately, all of the local dealers have been going crazy because every other customer for the last few months has been asking about 1.3. I expect that new versions of the OS are very quickly accepted by the Amiga community. I expect Workbench 1.3 will become nearly universal within 3 months of introduction (the limiting factor will be availability of upgrade kits). Hard to predict how many people will bother with the ROM upgrade since the only change there is autoboot. ---------------------------------------- Randy Meyers, not representing Digital Equipment Corporation USENET: {decwrl|decvax|decuac}!tle.dec.com!rmeyers ARPA: rmeyers%tle.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com
trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) (09/29/88)
In article <7226@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >>...Think about all those A500 owners (much >>more than there were A1000 owners) who will need to go to the trouble >>of a ROM change for the upgrade to 1.3. You're fooling yourself if >>you think its gonna happen overnite. >>... > As you know, 1.3 KickStart is functionally identical to 1.2 >KickStart, with the exception of the autoboot code. 1.3 is primarily a >WorkBench distribution, so it's as simple as copying a disk, or buying the >enhancer package. > > DPaint ][ required 1.2 to function, and was released about the same >time 1.2 came out. This didn't stop users from buying DPaint ][ and >upgrading to 1.2. Bad example. No ROM changes were needed to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2. Whereas it was possible to have one person in a group "take orders" and get a bunch of 1.2 upgrade packages, I doubt that such will be possible for A500 owners upgrading to 1.3 (assuming that the owner needs to bring the machine into the store to protect the warranty). > Enlighten me: How does Apple upgrade its Mac OS? With callous disregard for its customer base. However, they seem to be a little better at maintaining backwards compatability. ============================================================================== ARPA: trn%warper@aplvax.jhuapl.edu \ nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu } one of these should work UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!warper!trn / USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53 Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, Md. 20707 "It's a number somewhere between infinity and 5." ==============================================================================
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (10/01/88)
In article <2001@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: >In article <7226@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >> DPaint ][ required 1.2 to function, and was released about the same >>time 1.2 came out. This didn't stop users from buying DPaint ][ and >>upgrading to 1.2. > > Bad example. No ROM changes were needed to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2. Nor are there for 1.3, unless you want auto-boot capability. >> Enlighten me: How does Apple upgrade its Mac OS? > > With callous disregard for its customer base. However, they seem to > be a little better at maintaining backwards compatability. > Excuse me? 99% of 1.1 software worked under 1.2; *all* 1.2 software works under 1.3. I've heard every Finder release is a nightmare (of course, my sources are biased). _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ 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