schiebel@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Darrell Schiebel) (12/16/90)
In the January '91 issue of MacUser in Alexis Rosen's A/UX article, it was mentioned that an "A/UX Third Party Product Guide" exists (p. 124), and that it is downloadable from AppleLink. Is this list avaliable from an anonymous ftp site? I tried apple.com but had no success. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks, Darrell Schiebel EMail: (schiebel@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu) (drs@baks.bell-atl.com)
tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS) (12/17/90)
From article <1129@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, by schiebel@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Darrell Schiebel): > In the January '91 issue of MacUser in Alexis Rosen's A/UX article, > it was mentioned that an "A/UX Third Party Product Guide" exists (p. 124), > and that it is downloadable from AppleLink. Is this list avaliable from an anonymous ftp site? I tried apple.com but had no success. This is the file aux.info/apps.sit.hqx which is available via anonymous ftp from aux.support.apple.com. The file must be un-binhexed with fcnvt and consists of a single file wrapped with Stuffit. I managed to un-Stuff the file but could not read it; it appears to require a Mac word processor or some such application to read the file. Anyone know what is required to view the file? -- Doug Tody, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ, 602-325-9217 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!tody or uunet!noao.edu!tody Internet: tody@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::TODY (NOAO=5355)
tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS) (12/17/90)
From article <1990Dec16.171144.9859@noao.edu>, by tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS): > From article <1129@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, by schiebel@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Darrell Schiebel): >> In the January '91 issue of MacUser in Alexis Rosen's A/UX article, >> it was mentioned that an "A/UX Third Party Product Guide" exists (p. 124), >> and that it is downloadable from AppleLink. Is this list avaliable from > an anonymous ftp site? I tried apple.com but had no success. > > This is the file aux.info/apps.sit.hqx which is available via anonymous > ftp from aux.support.apple.com. The file must be un-binhexed with fcnvt > and consists of a single file wrapped with Stuffit. I managed to un-Stuff > the file but could not read it; it appears to require a Mac word processor > or some such application to read the file. Anyone know what is required > to view the file? Answering my own question, I found that I could read the file under A/UX by converting the CR's therein to LF's, e.g., cat A_UX* | tr "\015" "\012" | less ... It still appears to be a word processor document with various other control codes embedded in the file, but you can at least extract some useful information from the file this way. -- Doug Tody, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ, 602-325-9217 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!tody or uunet!noao.edu!tody Internet: tody@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::TODY (NOAO=5355)
alexis@panix.uucp (Alexis Rosen) (12/18/90)
schiebel@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Darrell Schiebel) writes: >In the January '91 issue of MacUser in Alexis Rosen's A/UX article, >it was mentioned that an "A/UX Third Party Product Guide" exists [...] Yeah, well, it does (I see someone else answered your question). The problem with this guide is that it one of the few places where Apple really fell down on the job. Their marketing folks totally lost control on this one. A/UX _is_ very compatible with many Mac apps but there are plenty of mistakes in this guide. Also, the room Apple had at MacWorld in August where they did some testing was not impressive... it was basically up to "well, yeah, this starts up fine under A/UX... OK, it can open and save documents... yeah, this looks OK. You're compatible." Now most of the time, that's OK, because the app really is compatible. But take Fourth Dimension, for example. That database is listed in the guide, and it is most certainly _not_ A/UX compatible (although it _looks_ like it's compatible... Until you try to run it twice...). On the other hand, FoxBase, which has as much of a market share as 4D does, is not listed, even though (as far as I can tell, and I've used it a lot) it _is_ compatible. So Apple did not test on the basis of which applications were most used. I'm at a loss to explain what criterion they did use. There's one other problem. Many products which don't exist, or which aren't yet released, are in this book. I think that that's done in poor faith, and that _nothing_ should be in that book that hasn't been tested by Apple. After all, if they want to distribute a book of A/UX advertisements, they should call it that. This is one of the things that MacUser forced on me. I would not have written about it this way, and did not- you're reading the Editor's words. As far as I know, Apple did not have any direct hand in that, so I don't blame them for it. --- Alexis Rosen Owner/Sysadmin, PANIX Public Access Unix, NY {cmcl2,apple}!panix!alexis
tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS) (12/19/90)
From article <1990Dec18.051053.12719@panix.uucp>, by alexis@panix.uucp (Alexis Rosen): > There's one other problem. Many products which don't exist, or which aren't > yet released, are in this book. I think that that's done in poor faith, and > that _nothing_ should be in that book that hasn't been tested by Apple. After > all, if they want to distribute a book of A/UX advertisements, they should > call it that. > > This is one of the things that MacUser forced on me. I would not have written > about it this way, and did not- you're reading the Editor's words. As far > as I know, Apple did not have any direct hand in that, so I don't blame them > for it. I can understand your not wanting to be blamed for any inaccuracies in the third party products guide, since it was mentioned in your article, and I am sure everyone will appreciate your warnings. Speaking as a user though, I am glad to have this guide (and I didn't know about it until I read your article). I considered it to be only a guide, a pointer to some possible third party products for A/UX, not an endorsement by Apple for these products. Obviously Apple cannot be responsible for third party products and only the third party vendor (or maybe an experienced user) knows enough about a product to certify that it runs under A/UX. I hope Apple will continue to provide this service. -- Doug Tody, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ, 602-325-9217 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!tody or uunet!noao.edu!tody Internet: tody@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::TODY (NOAO=5355)
tjb@Apple.COM (Tom Barrett) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec18.051053.12719@panix.uucp> alexis@panix.uucp (Alexis Rosen) writes: > >The problem with this guide is that it one of the few places where Apple really >fell down on the job. Their marketing folks totally lost control on this one. >A/UX _is_ very compatible with many Mac apps but there are plenty of mistakes >in this guide. Also, the room Apple had at MacWorld in August where they did >some testing was not impressive... it was basically up to "well, yeah, this >starts up fine under A/UX... OK, it can open and save documents... yeah, this >looks OK. You're compatible." > >Now most of the time, that's OK, because the app really is compatible. But >take Fourth Dimension, for example. That database is listed in the guide, and >it is most certainly _not_ A/UX compatible (although it _looks_ like it's >compatible... Until you try to run it twice...). On the other hand, FoxBase, >which has as much of a market share as 4D does, is not listed, even though >(as far as I can tell, and I've used it a lot) it _is_ compatible. So Apple >did not test on the basis of which applications were most used. I'm at a loss >to explain what criterion they did use. > >There's one other problem. Many products which don't exist, or which aren't >yet released, are in this book. I think that that's done in poor faith, and >that _nothing_ should be in that book that hasn't been tested by Apple. After >all, if they want to distribute a book of A/UX advertisements, they should >call it that. When this guide was put together, we considered what it would require for us to compile, maintain, and distribute (read: take full responsibility for) this list. There were a number of factors to consider: Completeness - Do we need to test every app that's ever run on a Macintosh? There are thousands of these things. We could probably get a "reasonable" subset, but it's likely that _my_ reasonable subset differs from _yours_ and if _you_ are an app developer with a hungry legal department, there might be more than bad feelings to deal with. Resources - Once we had these thousands (or hundreds) of apps in hand, we need to have a staff for testing them. Although we built the Mac, many of us are not necessarily expert in the use of some apps, yet we would have responsibility for assuring full functionality (?). New version - If we are responsible for testing these apps, do we have to maintain currency and begin a new test effort everytime a developer revs their application? Liability - (Sorry to have to bring this one up, but) what happens when your real-time widget running XYZ app under A/UX crashes, costing you millions of dollars? Hey, Apple _said_ it works fine. Anyway, due to the above (and more) reasons, we didn't think compiling this list ourselves looked like a very good idea. What did look feasible was having developers test their own software on A/UX and tell us if it worked. If so, they would be included in the list, which we would maintain and distribute. There are deficiencies in this plan, however, which you and others have highlighted. The most significant one I've seen is that some popular apps that do appear to run under A/UX (e.g. FoxBase) may not be listed until the developer has tested it him/herself, notified us, and we have updated our on-line list. BTW, the disclaimer at the beginning of the guide does state some of what I've just written here. -- - Tom Barrett A/UX Engineering Apple Computer MS 50UX 10300 Bubb Road, Cupertino CA 95014 {amdahl,decwrl,hplabs,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft}!apple!tjb OR tjb@apple.com