torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/08/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun8.030855.18976@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>> In other words "the Amiga is doomed." Marc, you can apply the above >>>paragraph to System 7.0 's InterApp Communication. It's inferior to >>>the Amiga message system and Arexx >> >> In what way? > Real time speed for one. Yep, for sure. Chalk one up for the Amiga. > Standardization. The Amiga has had interprocess communication from >day 1. It will be awhile before the Mac catches up. Yes, but as you mention in your clipboard example, this is not really a technical advantage. Indeed, Apple (as they have done with most things) have set pretty strong standards for things like AppleEvents (with required, core, functional-area and finally custom events), so I would expect all major developers to have a very strong incentive to build IAC into their programs. Just as a question, to what extent is Amiga IPC standardised? I take it that Arexx is the method of standardisation? Who defines Arexx? How does one program know what messages another program can accept? Are there set messages defined for things like "Drag this object to this location"? > Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and >messages are reused. Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent across the network. > Arexx. Nuff said. Let me give an example. Any Amiga user could take >a bbs with an Arexx port, add a menu to the board called "Process a >bitmap", he could then set up a front end to ASDG's Art Department >and offer (optionally at a price) Color/Printer processing. Or one could >set up a fast machine with Arexx serial server and allow user to >upload 3d objects and have them rendered by your favorite ray-tracer. There are equivalent products for Mac IAC, such as ControlTower, Frontier, and eventually AppleScript, all based on top of AppleEvents. So, Arexx has a head start, but once again, I don't think it's a technical advantage. Using your "there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to surpass the other in the future" applies here. > Exactly my point. I'm trying to point out the flaw in Marc's >arguement. His article said that no matter _how_ good the Amiga's >clipboard got in the future it would never surpass the Mac's because >the current apps don't support it. I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these "standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical superiority is wasted. So the question is: will applications support it? Apple has a reasonably good track history of "telling" developers what they, at the minimum, must support. For example, the style guidelines, the standard Edit menu, support of a clipboard, a standard file open dialog box, printing, support of PICT and TEXT formats, etc. This guarantees that users get the most out of applications, because they know that all applications support those features. If some developer decides not to support those features (such as with some of the early DOS ports), the product dies a quick and painful death because customers just won't buy it. Commodore does not seem to have such a good track record with the Amiga [e.g. the clipboard/a standard file requester]. For example, as mentioned above, Apple has enforced a standard that all applications being developed now and in the future should support at the very least required and core Apple events. Is there any such standard on the Amiga, or is it left up to the developer? There's also a difference in market, which will tend to compel Mac applications developers to include a sophisticated feature like IAC, namely, that there are more high-powered productivity applications users on Macs than there are on Amigas. Someone doing DTP for example would love to have AppleEvents to be able to flow incoming text off the modem from Microphone II V4.0 into Pagemaker 5.0. And there's a huge market of people out there who need this. Is the market for Amiga users as large? If not, will applications developers be so compelled to support it? Anyway, enough of this rambling. My main point is that with IAC (of which the clipboard is one small example), it's the definition of standards between developers that is critical to its success. If the OS developer acts as the central repository and driving force behind these standards, you're likely to end up with more support for the feature than leaving it to individual developers to work it out for themselves. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > >>In article <1991Jun8.030855.18976@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>>rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>> >>>> In other words "the Amiga is doomed." Marc, you can apply the above >>>>paragraph to System 7.0 's InterApp Communication. It's inferior to >>>>the Amiga message system and Arexx >>> >>> In what way? > >> Real time speed for one. > > Yep, for sure. Chalk one up for the Amiga. > >> Standardization. The Amiga has had interprocess communication from >>day 1. It will be awhile before the Mac catches up. > > Yes, but as you mention in your clipboard example, this is not really >a technical advantage. Indeed, Apple (as they have done with most things) >have set pretty strong standards for things like AppleEvents (with >required, core, functional-area and finally custom events), so I would >expect all major developers to have a very strong incentive to build >IAC into their programs. > Just as a question, to what extent is Amiga IPC standardised? I take it >that Arexx is the method of standardisation? Who defines Arexx? How does >one program know what messages another program can accept? Are there >set messages defined for things like "Drag this object to this location"? ARexx is the Amiga implementation of the standard language Rexx. The Amiga implementation is exactly the same as the standard language (used originally on IBM mainframes) save the omission of the arbitrary-precision arithmetic facility (arithmetic operation in Amiga Rexx are done using IEEE double-precision and limited to 14 digits of precision). > >> Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and >>messages are reused. > > Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? >i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on >another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 >IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent >across the network. No, not at all. Rexx on the Amiga works strictly on one machine, and has absolutely no networking features. Actually, networking on the Amiga in general is still very, very primitive. It is very rare to find Amigas used in a networking environement, while it is rare to find MACs not being used in a network. If Amigas are being used in a network, they are probably running Amiga UNIX. The networking software for AmigaDOS has only been available from Commodore for less than two years, and is largely ignored (very few Amiga applications have networking-related features). <Brief Tangent> The subject of networking brings up yet another area in which the MAC excells over the Amiga. As I said above, Commodore has been selling netorking software for the Amiga for less than two years, while Apple has been making networking software available for the MAC for a very long time. To see just how much of a jump Apple has over Commodore in this area, you just have to pick up a netorking-related journal. I've been getting Network World for several years, and every issue has something in it about Apple or the Macintosh. I have never ever seen either Commodore or the Amiga mentioned in this journal in the several years that I've been getting it. <End Tangent> > >> Arexx. Nuff said. Let me give an example. Any Amiga user could take >>a bbs with an Arexx port, add a menu to the board called "Process a >>bitmap", he could then set up a front end to ASDG's Art Department >>and offer (optionally at a price) Color/Printer processing. Or one could >>set up a fast machine with Arexx serial server and allow user to >>upload 3d objects and have them rendered by your favorite ray-tracer. > > There are equivalent products for Mac IAC, such as ControlTower, >Frontier, and eventually AppleScript, all based on top of AppleEvents. >So, Arexx has a head start, but once again, I don't think it's a >technical advantage. Using your "there's no reason why it shouldn't >be able to surpass the other in the future" applies here. > >> Exactly my point. I'm trying to point out the flaw in Marc's >>arguement. His article said that no matter _how_ good the Amiga's >>clipboard got in the future it would never surpass the Mac's because >>the current apps don't support it. > > I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these >"standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the >clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right >in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical >superiority is wasted. > So the question is: will applications support it? Apple has a >reasonably good track history of "telling" developers what they, >at the minimum, must support. For example, the style guidelines, >the standard Edit menu, support of a clipboard, a standard file >open dialog box, printing, support of PICT and TEXT formats, etc. > This guarantees that users get the most out of applications, because >they know that all applications support those features. If some >developer decides not to support those features (such as with some of >the early DOS ports), the product dies a quick and painful death >because customers just won't buy it. > > Commodore does not seem to have such a good track record with the >Amiga [e.g. the clipboard/a standard file requester]. > > For example, as mentioned above, Apple has enforced a standard that >all applications being developed now and in the future should support >at the very least required and core Apple events. Is there any such >standard on the Amiga, or is it left up to the developer? > > There's also a difference in market, which will tend to compel Mac >applications developers to include a sophisticated feature like IAC, >namely, that there are more high-powered productivity applications >users on Macs than there are on Amigas. > Someone doing DTP for example would love to have AppleEvents to be >able to flow incoming text off the modem from Microphone II V4.0 into >Pagemaker 5.0. And there's a huge market of people out there who need >this. > Is the market for Amiga users as large? If not, will applications >developers be so compelled to support it? > > Anyway, enough of this rambling. My main point is that with IAC (of >which the clipboard is one small example), it's the definition of >standards between developers that is critical to its success. > If the OS developer acts as the central repository and driving force >behind these standards, you're likely to end up with more support for >the feature than leaving it to individual developers to work it out >for themselves. > > > > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!" ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > >>In article <1991Jun8.030855.18976@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>>rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> Standardization. The Amiga has had interprocess communication from >>day 1. It will be awhile before the Mac catches up. > > Yes, but as you mention in your clipboard example, this is not really >a technical advantage. Indeed, Apple (as they have done with most things) >have set pretty strong standards for things like AppleEvents (with >required, core, functional-area and finally custom events), so I would >expect all major developers to have a very strong incentive to build >IAC into their programs. Commodore defines the "events" (message classes that arrive on your window message port) but they don't enforce any amount of events you should handle if I recall correctly. This is the reason some Amiga programs have no GUI at all and merely input/output from the stdin/out of the console. However, most programs do implement the standard open, close, about, quit, save, cut, paste, and so on. The problem on the Amiga wasn't that developers didn't follow the rules, it was that there was no interface guidelines at all. Now that has changed, C= has put out the Amiga interface style guide. > Just as a question, to what extent is Amiga IPC standardised? I take it >that Arexx is the method of standardisation? Who defines Arexx? How does >one program know what messages another program can accept? Are there >set messages defined for things like "Drag this object to this location"? Arexx is now the "standard" format for IPC messages not only because it is flexible, but because you get an interpreted language to boot. Until recently, Arexx command names were left up to the implementator (for instance, almost all Amiga editors have an Arexx port, but most of them had different names for the commands that do the same thing on each ,like mark a block of text, etc) It's not an easy problem to solve. Sure you can standardize some commands, but what about really localized features. Suppose a paint program had a command to "draw a closed bezier curve with parameters foo,bar,baz and fill it with the inverse of the background behind it." How is a word processor supposed to know about this feature and use it ? SImple, it can't. A lot of Amiga programs boast over 100 arexx commands and there simply isn't a way to standardize every function every type of program could have (editors, compilers, paint programs, renderers, publishers, image processors, etc). Imagine the frustration of a programmer who would have to implemented support for that many functions. The simply solution is to define a small set of Arexx commands every program should accept (open file, save file, print file, help, close file, quit, cut, paste) The rest is left up to the user to create simple macros that use the more complex commands that are not standardized. Will Mac programmers add more IAC commands other than the small standardized set? >> Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and >>messages are reused. > > Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? >i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on >another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 >IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent >across the network. I call as evidence, Parnet/Sernet on the Amiga, also Matt Dillon's NFS-Handler NF0: which lets me mount the entire Unix device list on my Amiga and access it as a normal device. (e.g. I can cp dh0:myfile to nf0:home/users/mydir, or use it from workbench) In short, Exec doesn't care where the message came from just so long as it gets there. There is zero networking support in the OS however so if you want to network Amiga's, you either buy an ethernet card with AS225 software, Dale Luck's X11R4 for AmigaDOS, or grab Dnet/Parnet/Sernet off a fish disk and have networking for free. All of the networking is transparent(you can access remote devices perfectly). (Note you can also get DoubleTalk which allows you to fileshare with Macs on Appletalk, or hook doubletalk to doubletalk and get twice the speed of Appletalk.) There is a network standard, it is called SANA. >> Arexx. Nuff said. Let me give an example. Any Amiga user could take >>a bbs with an Arexx port, add a menu to the board called "Process a >>bitmap", he could then set up a front end to ASDG's Art Department >>and offer (optionally at a price) Color/Printer processing. Or one could >>set up a fast machine with Arexx serial server and allow user to >>upload 3d objects and have them rendered by your favorite ray-tracer. > > There are equivalent products for Mac IAC, such as ControlTower, >Frontier, and eventually AppleScript, all based on top of AppleEvents. >So, Arexx has a head start, but once again, I don't think it's a >technical advantage. Using your "there's no reason why it shouldn't >be able to surpass the other in the future" applies here. I never said it couldn't surpass the Amiga in the future, at the moment IAC is slightly inferior to Exec's messaging scheme. >> Exactly my point. I'm trying to point out the flaw in Marc's >>arguement. His article said that no matter _how_ good the Amiga's >>clipboard got in the future it would never surpass the Mac's because >>the current apps don't support it. > > I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these >"standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the >clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right >in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical >superiority is wasted. No, Marc said no matter how good it was, it could never surpass the Mac because all Mac apps support the clipboard and hardly any Amiga apps do. Regardless of whether developers start to support it, Marc's arguement boils down to 'the Mac is too far ahead, the number of Amiga apps which support the clipboard will never catch the number of Mac apps that do.' Yes, I'm putting words in Marc's mouth, but his arguement definately sounds like a doublestandard. Applying the same thing to the Amiga, so many apps support Arexx and they have so many commands (usually over 100, minumum 40) that the number of IAC commands and apps that support them will never catch up to the Amiga functionality. > So the question is: will applications support it? Apple has a >reasonably good track history of "telling" developers what they, >at the minimum, must support. For example, the style guidelines, >the standard Edit menu, support of a clipboard, a standard file >open dialog box, printing, support of PICT and TEXT formats, etc. The Amiga doesn't have a track record to compare. There was no style guide until recently. The Amiga does enforce IFF universally because CBM did tell the developers to use it. Apple and Microsoft seem to be adopting deritatives of IFF now that it's getting popular (MIFF, AIFF, etc) > Commodore does not seem to have such a good track record with the >Amiga [e.g. the clipboard/a standard file requester]. There was no standard file requester prior to 2.0 however the ARP requester and the requester.library became an unofficial standard. > For example, as mentioned above, Apple has enforced a standard that >all applications being developed now and in the future should support >at the very least required and core Apple events. Is there any such >standard on the Amiga, or is it left up to the developer? Amiga events don't say 'Open','Close', 'Quit'. Amiga events say 'MENUPICK, the user pressed MENU X' or 'CLOSEWINDOW' or 'GADGETUP/DOWN' Before C= produced the style guide developers were free to implement any menu structure they choose. However, most of them did implement a main menu (open/close/quit/save/about), an edit menu, and a preferences menu. > There's also a difference in market, which will tend to compel Mac >applications developers to include a sophisticated feature like IAC, >namely, that there are more high-powered productivity applications >users on Macs than there are on Amigas. Amiga developers will support new features simply because it will make their application better and they make money by selling an upgrade. Typical examples are ASDG's Art Department, ProWrite, HASH's JourneyMan, Turbo Silver/Imagine, Sculpt 3d/4d, even SuperBase which also sells on MS-DOS/Windows updated to AmigaDOS 2.0 and Arexx. > Is the market for Amiga users as large? If not, will applications >developers be so compelled to support it? Sure, size has little to do with the Amiga market. Many companies still support the AMiga although I feel they haven't been selling as much as they would on another platform. > If the OS developer acts as the central repository and driving force >behind these standards, you're likely to end up with more support for >the feature than leaving it to individual developers to work it out >for themselves. Before ADOS 2.0, C= didn't bother with 'human interface' standards much, now they do. A lot of great Amiga features have come from developers thinking up standards themselves, and C= ends up licensing it. (Commodities Exchange[Jim], pipe-handler[Matt], conman[Bill] (2.0 con: has its features now), Snap (Conclip), iffparse.library[Leo], asl.library[Charlie], Arexx[Bill],Screenshare.library[Willy] (2.0 PubScreens) and so on) Let's not forget Dale Luck and SANA, or the software distillery's NET:. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!" -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/08/91)
Let me clarify a few points to Evan that I forgot in my last
message. Recognize the difference between Arexx the language and
arexx commands. Arexx is a standardized language dating back to
really old mainframes. ANSI is standardizing it now to bring
IBM OS/2's Rexx, Amiga, and everyone else into sync with the new features.
(Arexx's creator, Bill Hawes was at the ANSI committee to insure
the Arexx's features and flavors are reviewed. )
Arexx commands are the stuff applications recognize. Once you address
an Application's message port, the Arexx commands cannow be accesses
as if they were part of Arexx's base language.
Example:
/* A program to print numbers 1 to 100 to my terminal */
address 'VLT' /* Connect to VLT's port. This doesn't have to be here
if you're running this script from the term's menu
option to execute Arexx scripts */
do i = 1 to 100
send 'i*R' /* The *R is an escape code to send a newline */
end
end example:
There, that was easy. The send command is normally not part of Arexx's
language and will generate a syntax error if the term isn't
loaded.
Arexx supports structures/array, interpreter/self modifying (like lisp),
loops, flow constructs, a switch like statement (named select),
procedures, local variables, recursion and everything else you'd
expect.
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/08/91)
<Blush> there's a bug in that Arexx program and a few typo's (so
sue me, it's late!)
send 'i*R' should be "send i||'*R'". The || operator is like strcat().
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/08/91)
>In article <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? >>i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on >>another machine? In article <1991Jun8.084126.3287@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > No, not at all. Rexx on the Amiga works strictly on one machine, and >has absolutely no networking features. Marc, "Amiga IPC" does not equal "AREXX"! The Exec has a whole message-passing IPC mechanism, and *that* is what is being discussed here. And yes, it works fine over a network. BTW, do you think you could learn to edit your messages a little?? You include the entire text of the previous message and insert a sentence or two in the middle. (No need to include 5 paragraphs at the end of the message, for example!) Dan (no relation :-)) //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> Standardization. The Amiga has had interprocess communication from >>day 1. It will be awhile before the Mac catches up. > > Yes, but as you mention in your clipboard example, this is not really >a technical advantage. Indeed, Apple (as they have done with most things) >have set pretty strong standards for things like AppleEvents (with >required, core, functional-area and finally custom events), so I would >expect all major developers to have a very strong incentive to build >IAC into their programs. Actually, that's not true. I was reading an article I think in InfoWeek or some such which was talking about how Microsoft (of course! 8) is using a different standard and now companies are faced with the choice of either working with MicroSoft programs or Apple programs. > Just as a question, to what extent is Amiga IPC standardised? I take it >that Arexx is the method of standardisation? Who defines Arexx? How does >one program know what messages another program can accept? Are there >set messages defined for things like "Drag this object to this location"? > There are no set messages, besides the system messages. Each program defines its own. The method of sending and receiving messages is what is defined. Actuall, I do vaguely remember seeing a list from Commodore of standard commands, but as usually most Amiga programmers aren't following the rules. >> Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and >>messages are reused. > > Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? >i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on >another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 >IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent >across the network. > No. It should be pretty simple to implement in a number of ways, but there is no official way to do it. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun8.084126.3287@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > Actually, networking on the Amiga in general is still very, very primitive. >It is very rare to find Amigas used in a networking environement, while it >is rare to find MACs not being used in a network. If Amigas are being used >in a network, they are probably running Amiga UNIX. The networking >software for AmigaDOS has only been available from Commodore for less than >two years, and is largely ignored (very few Amiga applications have >networking-related features). > Marc, you've been mixing up two concepts for several messages now. Just because few people use the thing (in this case networking) doesn't mean it is primitive. In fact, Amiga networking isn't close to very, very primitive. In fact, Amiga networking follows all the standards, from the hardware with Arcnet and Ethernet, to the software with Novell and TCP/IP and X11. What more you want I haven't figured out. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/09/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> Just as a question, to what extent is Amiga IPC standardised? I take it >>that Arexx is the method of standardisation? Who defines Arexx? How does >>one program know what messages another program can accept? Are there >>set messages defined for things like "Drag this object to this location"? > Arexx is now the "standard" format for IPC messages not only >because it is flexible, but because you get an interpreted language >to boot. Until recently, Arexx command names were left up to >the implementator (for instance, almost all Amiga editors have an >Arexx port, but most of them had different names for the commands >that do the same thing on each ,like mark a block of text, etc) This is where the idea of a central repository for defining and standardising these events is critical. > It's not an easy problem to solve. Sure you can standardize some >commands, but what about really localized features. Suppose a paint >program had a command to "draw a closed bezier curve with parameters >foo,bar,baz and fill it with the inverse of the background behind it." >How is a word processor supposed to know about this feature and >use it ? SImple, it can't. Not strictly true. For example, the following comes from a description of Apple's Open Scripting Architecture. "The architecture includes a set of standard Apple events and a mechanism for applications to tell other applications which standards they support. Standard events are those that have been defined as open standards by Apple or committees of developers and listed in a registry maintained by Apple. They are designed to give programs a way to tell others to perform common operations, such as dragging an object from one location to another, as well as genre-specific functions, such as selecting a range in a database. Under the new architecture, developers will need to add an Apple Event User Terminology resource to their IAC-aware applications. Scripting environments will check the resource to determine which events a program supports." I can see it being developed to the point, where a program will be able to tell the scripting environment say, that it supports a command called "Draw closed bezier : takes 3 parameters", and the scripting environment will be able to treat this as a new command. Then, you'll be able to add a menu command to your word processor, which uses the scripting environment to send this message to your drawing program. >A lot of Amiga programs boast over 100 >arexx commands and there simply isn't a way to standardize every >function every type of program could have (editors, compilers, paint >programs, renderers, publishers, image processors, etc). No, but you should try to standardise as much as possible, otherwise you end up with different developers defining different commands for the same function (as you mentioned has happened with editors in the Amiga world). >Imagine >the frustration of a programmer who would have to implemented >support for that many functions. An application only has to support those events which make sense to his application. Presumably, "Draw Bezier curve - 3 parameters" doesn't make sense to a text editor application. If the program is organised in the right way (this is also something Apple is strongly promoting), you should separate your user interface code from the actual mechanics of the operation code - hence, adding support for an event to "select a block of text" should be just a few lines of code which calls the "mechanics" procedure, bypassing the user interface code. >The simply solution is to define >a small set of Arexx commands every program should accept >(open file, save file, print file, help, close file, quit, cut, paste) >The rest is left up to the user to create simple macros that use >the more complex commands that are not standardized. > Will Mac programmers add more IAC commands other than the small >standardized set? Well, it's too early to tell, but the whole idea of Open Scripting Architecture is meant to recognise the fact that events beyond the std open, close, quit commands are crucial to the success of IAC. Deneba have already added support for custom Apple events to their Canvas 3.0 drawing program, providing a command for every single function of the program. >> Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? >>i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on >>another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 >>IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent >>across the network. > I call as evidence, Parnet/Sernet on the Amiga, also Matt Dillon's >NFS-Handler NF0: which lets me mount the entire Unix device list >on my Amiga and access it as a normal device. (e.g. I can >cp dh0:myfile to nf0:home/users/mydir, or use it from workbench) Yes, but is this using the same IPC mechanisms as ordinary applications use. I've been able to mount remote devices on a Mac for the past 5 years, but it certainly wasn't using IPC to do it. It was just using a customised device handler. I'm talking about running your scripting environment on one machine in the network, and being able to write a script which says something like open Pagemaker on machine Saturn send "FlowText" && text of item 3 to Saturn:Pagemaker send "Save Document" to Saturn:Pagemaker close Pagemaker on machine Saturn >> For example, as mentioned above, Apple has enforced a standard that >>all applications being developed now and in the future should support >>at the very least required and core Apple events. Is there any such >>standard on the Amiga, or is it left up to the developer? > Amiga events don't say 'Open','Close', 'Quit'. Amiga events say >'MENUPICK, the user pressed MENU X' How does a scripting environment "know" where the Quit command is then? What happens if the program doesn't have a Quit command, but instead just uses the Close of a window to exit the program? Or, if the Font menu (for example under change of Font) is really a hierarchical menu under a Format main menu? Or even, fonts can only be changed via a Format dialog box (often the case with non word processors - e.g. spreadsheets and databases)? By moving the level of abstraction up one, you can have "SetFont to Helvetica" as a command which a scripting application can send to any program, not having to worry how the user interface of that program actually implements "SetFont". -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/09/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >arexx commands. Arexx is a standardized language dating back to >really old mainframes. ANSI is standardizing it now to bring >IBM OS/2's Rexx, Amiga, and everyone else into sync with the new features. A question to Arexx users. Is Arexx a "nice" language? How does it compare to say, a language like Basic, or C? >do i = 1 to 100 > send 'i||*R' /* The *R is an escape code to send a newline */ >end Hmmm. *R for a newline? Intuitive? Playing devil's advocate for a moment - isn't the fact that Rexx was originally designed for old IBM mainframes a big black mark against it? Is it really appropriate for microcomputer users? Would you prefer (instead of Arexx) to have a C-like language? Or even a structured Basic as Bill Gates seems to want everybody to use... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/09/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991Jun8.074935.781@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> >> Yes, but as you mention in your clipboard example, this is not really >>a technical advantage. Indeed, Apple (as they have done with most things) >>have set pretty strong standards for things like AppleEvents (with >>required, core, functional-area and finally custom events), so I would >>expect all major developers to have a very strong incentive to build >>IAC into their programs. > Actually, that's not true. I was reading an article I >think in InfoWeek or some such which was talking about how >Microsoft (of course! 8) is using a different standard and now >companies are faced with the choice of either working with >MicroSoft programs or Apple programs. Microsoft (of course! :-() have ulterior motives. This is a big worry to developers at the moment, and it's something Apple has tried to allay in just the last couple of weeks. For example, from this week's MacWeek article on the Open Scripting Architecture. "Apple said the architecture will encompass two approaches to IAC: the Object model the company developed and the simpler Remote Procedure Events model UserLand President Dave Winer is encouraging. ... The broader standard may ease concerns that differences in approach between Apple and Microsoft Corp. could limit the benefits of IAC. "RPE is broad enough to include Dynamic Data Exchange, Microsoft's interapplication messaging protocol," Winer said. "It's reasonable to expect Microsoft apps will eventually be scriptable." It will be interesting to observe how events turn out. Certainly, one of the biggest concerns from the corporations is that they want IAC to be cross-platform. Indeed, there have been quotes from Apple that they're thinking about moving AppleEvents and IAC across into the Windows world, or at least making them a platform-independent standard (as they have done with Appletalk). Similarly, Microsoft would like to gets its Object Linking and Embedding established as a cross-platform standard. >>> Speed. Amiga messages are not copied, only pointers are passed, and >>>messages are reused. >> >> Does Amiga IPC work across a network (I'm asking, I don't know)? >>i.e. can one Amiga program send a low-level message to a program on >>another machine? That's one of the more powerful features of System 7 >>IAC vs for example, Microsoft's DDE. IAC is totally transparent >>across the network. >> > No. It should be pretty simple to implement in a number >of ways, but there is no official way to do it. Definitely something to look into. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/09/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun8.090052.12906@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> by rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell): > The problem on the Amiga wasn't that developers didn't follow the rules, > it was that there was no interface guidelines at all. Now that has changed, There were interface guidelines. In the 1.1 Intuition manual. I don't think folks have considered interfacing a problem, though. People just do what they like, and assume the user is intelligent enough to handle it. This could be a misunderstanding they have re the average user, but then again maybe it isn't. > / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (06/09/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > To see just how much of a jump Apple has over Commodore in this area, >you just have to pick up a netorking-related journal. I've been getting >Network World for several years, and every issue has something in it >about Apple or the Macintosh. And if you ever *read* it you would notice that they aren't all that enthused. Recent quotes: [concerning system 7.0] "...users and analysts are panning the product... does not give Macintosh users the sophisticated networking capabilities they had expected" "There are very few networking features of any interest" "...users must be running System 7.0 in a peer-to-peer configuration to obtain the multiuser advantages" "Apple did not pay enough attention to networking" "Apple's primary achievement after three years has been a PostScript clone" "...does not include the more advanced multitasking....It's still basically the Macintosh operating system." "System 7 is not a big networking deal." -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: " I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these "standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical superiority is wasted." This is one instance in which the Mac's clipboard is superior to the Amiga's. Specific data types are contained in the clipboard (TEXT, PICT, etc), a list which grows as the need arises. An application in which a Paste command was given can check to see what data type the clipboard contains because this information is provided by the OS. The Amiga's clipboard is too free-form, or so recent posts would have me believe.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: "perfectly). (Note you can also get DoubleTalk which allows you to fileshare with Macs on Appletalk, or hook doubletalk to doubletalk and get twice the speed of Appletalk.)" Twice the speed of AppleTalk? Impossible. AppleTalk is a set of high-level protocols independant of speed. It supports TokenRing, Ethernet, and Localtalk (the networking hardware built into all Macs). Perhaps you're referring to LocalTalk?
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.150550.21859@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991Jun8.084126.3287@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > >> Actually, networking on the Amiga in general is still very, very primitive. >>It is very rare to find Amigas used in a networking environement, while it >>is rare to find MACs not being used in a network. If Amigas are being used >>in a network, they are probably running Amiga UNIX. The networking >>software for AmigaDOS has only been available from Commodore for less than >>two years, and is largely ignored (very few Amiga applications have >>networking-related features). >> > Marc, you've been mixing up two concepts for several >messages now. Just because few people use the thing (in this case >networking) doesn't mean it is primitive. In fact, Amiga >networking isn't close to very, very primitive. In fact, Amiga >networking follows all the standards, from the hardware with >Arcnet and Ethernet, to the software with Novell and TCP/IP and >X11. What more you want I haven't figured out. You have explicity stated the problem yourself, yet you don't even see it. The Amiga has all of the technical stuff to support networks, yes, but no actual applications geared toward networking. I am talking about applicatioins such as WordPerfect Office, which is a very good applications package geared toward networking. Both MSWord and MAC WordPerfect also have extra features for MACs on a network. As far as I know, the Amiga has no applications like WordPerfect Office, and none of the Amiga word processors or desktop publishing programs include extra features for networked Amigas. So, on the Amiga you have all the bare-bones requirements for networking. You can set up a basic network of Amigas, and you can even set up your own Amiga FTP site. However, there are no applications available to make a network of Amigas truly usable. > -- Ethan > >Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, >Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, >I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, >How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun9.005806.18799@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >The Amiga has all of the technical stuff to support networks, yes, >but no actual applications geared toward networking. If networking is done right, applications don't NEED to be "geared toward" it in any explicit way. That's the beauty of TRANSPARENT networking. In UNIX, for example, files are often shared between machines using software called NFS. No applications need to be aware of NFS -- they JUST USE THE FILES, not knowing (nor caring) whether they actually exist on the local disk or not! NFS exists on the Amiga *now*. Install it, and ALL of your applications will be able to use files on remote disks transparently. More examples on request. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/09/91)
In article <38@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >" I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these >"standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the >clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right >in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical >superiority is wasted." > >This is one instance in which the Mac's clipboard is superior to the Amiga's. >Specific data types are contained in the clipboard (TEXT, PICT, etc), a list >which grows as the need arises. An application in which a Paste command was >given can check to see what data type the clipboard contains because this >information is provided by the OS. The Amiga's clipboard is too free-form, >or so recent posts would have me believe. The Amiga method is way more flexible. Using IFF it's possible (if developers would implement it) to cut and paste TEXT, Graphics, SOUND, Animation segments, brushes, Music arrangements, and even 3-d objects! This is because the Amiga has one file format for all of these, IFF. An application would simply need to check the header (ILBM=Bitmap, ANIM=Animation, DCMS=Music, 8SVX=Digitized sound, FXTX=Text, DR2D=Cad objects, TDDD=Turbo Silver 3-d object format) And iffparse.library makes this task even easier. Again, the idea with the Amiga is openness. It's a pity no one hardly supported the clipboard.device, it would really rock if done properly. Imagine cutting a new rendered animation out of Imagine, pasting it into Showmaker, cutting out a few sounds from audiomaster and pasting/syncing them to animation in Showmaker, and why not add a MEDplayer module to boot! -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.091822.13675@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >Example: > >/* A program to print numbers 1 to 100 to my terminal */ >address 'VLT' /* Connect to VLT's port. This doesn't have to be here > if you're running this script from the term's menu > option to execute Arexx scripts */ > >do i = 1 to 100 > send 'i*R' /* The *R is an escape code to send a newline */ >end > >end example: > > There, that was easy. The send command is normally not part of Arexx's >language and will generate a syntax error if the term isn't >loaded. > As easy to program in as BASIC. One of the first things I ever did with ARexx was to integrate a few applications together. I wrote an ARexx script that caused my Term program (BaudBandit) to dial compuserve, login, navigate through the menus, and ask for (and capture) stock quotes on Apple and CBM. The ARexx program then took the numbers from the term program and entered them into a spreadsheet in Superplan (daily stock quote data base). It then commanded Superplan to generate an IFF file from a graph done by SP. It also took some summary data from SP and nicely formatted it into a document in my word processor (ProWrite). And, oh yeah, I had bound it to a function key in my editor (CygnusEd) for fun. These days, I use These days, I've modified the script to allow me to enter all the stocks and options in my portfolio to my spreadsheet and the script interrogates it to find what stocks to get prices for. I also am running it automatically at 2:00AM while I am asleep via Matt Dillon's DCRON. This is something that I did almost 3 years ago, and might be possible on other computers (namely the Mac) in the future... By the way, Ray and others really haven't mentioned another major benefit of ARexx: It is an AWESOME text/macro language, thanks to a lot of excellent string functions. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/09/91)
Quoted from <38@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy): > This is one instance in which the Mac's clipboard is superior to the Amiga's. > Specific data types are contained in the clipboard (TEXT, PICT, etc), a list Er, the same is true for the Amiga clipboard. The data is in the IFF format, with chunks etc. -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/09/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun9.005806.18799@news.iastate.edu> by taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett): > it. The Amiga has all of the technical stuff to support networks, yes, > but no actual applications geared toward networking. Isn't the meat and potatoes of networking access to files on other machines? Where the important thing is that applications DON'T have to do special things to get at data across the network? > Amiga FTP site. However, there are no applications available to make a > network of Amigas truly usable. Where I work, the network is used as a means of having lots of people access the same files. There are no applications with extras specifically for networking, except email (which does exist on the Ami). > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.150550.21859@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991Jun8.084126.3287@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > >> Actually, networking on the Amiga in general is still very, very primitive. >>It is very rare to find Amigas used in a networking environement, while it >>is rare to find MACs not being used in a network. If Amigas are being used >>in a network, they are probably running Amiga UNIX. The networking >>software for AmigaDOS has only been available from Commodore for less than >>two years, and is largely ignored (very few Amiga applications have >>networking-related features). >> > Marc, you've been mixing up two concepts for several >messages now. Just because few people use the thing (in this case >networking) doesn't mean it is primitive. In fact, Amiga >networking isn't close to very, very primitive. In fact, Amiga >networking follows all the standards, from the hardware with >Arcnet and Ethernet, to the software with Novell and TCP/IP and >X11. What more you want I haven't figured out. > -- Ethan > The Amiga Ethernet Network I set up had 7 030 Amigas and was totally state of the art. Every volume on every machine was sharable on the network, including RAM: and floppy drives. Serial and parallel ports were also sharable. It was also trivial to command any of the machines on the network to run programs remotely. Every single piece of software that I ever used with it (and this encompasses a wide variety of apps) used the network volumes as if they were directly mounted locally. And as Ethan says, you can get X11, TCP/IP, and Novell. What Ethan omitted is that you can also get DecNet and AppleTalk, too. And there is also SANA, which allows multiple protocols to be used on the same Amiga at the same time. Granted, the only Amiga networks I have heard about are at SLAC, Commonwealth Edison of Illinois, and a couple of other places. The facts are that networking capabilites for the Amiga are outstanding, but its use is just not common yet. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: " Marc, you've been mixing up two concepts for several messages now. Just because few people use the thing (in this case networking) doesn't mean it is primitive. In fact, Amiga networking isn't close to very, very primitive. In fact, Amiga networking follows all the standards, from the hardware with Arcnet and Ethernet, to the software with Novell and TCP/IP and X11. What more you want I haven't figured out." Does the Amiga's File Managment scheme make access of drives and files TRANSPARENT to users AND applications? Does it have built-in byte-range locking? Is sending messages (IPC) to an app across a network also transparent to the calling app? I'm asking because I don't know. I'm not making accusations
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/10/91)
In article <40@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Does the Amiga's File Managment scheme make access of drives and files >TRANSPARENT to users AND applications? Yes, very much so! If you have a file on the device FOO: (for example), you don't have to know exactly what "FOO" is at all. It might be: - A floppy disk? - A directory somewhere on your hard drive? - A RAM disk? - The input or output of a process (a named pipe)? - A networked computer? - A handler? Here's a great example. Your floppy disk hardware, when addressed by different names, can have several totally different functions. When I address my floppy as unit DF1:, it responds as an Amiga disk drive. If I address it as MS1:, it responds as an MS-DOS disk drive! An application transparently simply the device, which transparently responds the correct way. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/10/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >Quoted from <1991Jun9.005806.18799@news.iastate.edu> by taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett): >> it. The Amiga has all of the technical stuff to support networks, yes, >> but no actual applications geared toward networking. > Isn't the meat and potatoes of networking access to files on other > machines? Only in the first generation of networking. The current generation is to use the network for collaborative work. Products in this category include Lotus Notes, Meeting Maker, WordPerfect Office, Markup, etc. > Where I work, the network is used as a means of having lots of > people access the same files. There are no applications with extras > specifically for networking, except email (which does exist on the > Ami). That's a pity. Applications with extras specifically for networking are incredibly powerful. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/10/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >This is one instance in which the Mac's clipboard is superior to the Amiga's. >Specific data types are contained in the clipboard (TEXT, PICT, etc), a list >which grows as the need arises. An application in which a Paste command was >given can check to see what data type the clipboard contains [...] and rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >The Amiga method is way more flexible. Using IFF it's possible >(if developers would implement it) to cut and paste TEXT, Graphics, >SOUND, Animation segments, brushes, Music arrangements, and even >3-d objects! This is because the Amiga has one file format for all >of these, IFF. An application would simply need to check the header So both clipboards are more or less the same: different data types, ability to check on types, etc. Don't see much to argue over here. Tangent: calling IFF "one file format" is misleading. It's really more like many different file formats using a similar style and wrapper. It doesn't make much difference what format is used in a clipboard anyway, as long as it's both described and used. > It's a pity no one hardly supported the clipboard.device, I recall someone mentioning that the first version didn't work quite right, which led to developers unfortunately ignoring it later on. Something about losing the first line of text or something relatively minor like that. Anyone know more about this? Folklore or truth? :-) thx! - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/10/91)
In article <38@ryptyde.UUCP>, dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > Responding to the following: > > " I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these > "standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the > clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right > in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical > superiority is wasted." > > This is one instance in which the Mac's clipboard is superior to the Amiga's. > Specific data types are contained in the clipboard (TEXT, PICT, etc), a list > which grows as the need arises. An application in which a Paste command was > given can check to see what data type the clipboard contains because this > information is provided by the OS. The Amiga's clipboard is too free-form, > or so recent posts would have me believe. Sorry, you don't seem to know about what you talk. The Amiga clipboard uses IFF, and the IFF standard includes determining the type of document you have clipped, be it text or graphics or something else. You find this information in the header of every IFF file, ILBM for graphics, FTXT (sp?) for text and so on. So, if this is totally different (opposite) from what you stated, is the Amiga version still "too free-form" and the Mac's clipboard "superior"? I doubt it. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following:
"Isn't the meat and potatoes of networking access to files on other
machines?"
That's SOME of it.
"Where I work, the network is used as a means of having lots of
people access the same files. There are no applications with extras
specifically for networking, except email (which does exist on the
Ami)."
I guess this is the standard mentality of Amiga owners who think the extent of
networking is to make accessing files across a network transparent to apps.
Ever heard of colaborative computing? Every tried it? There are no applications
specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in
a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see
each others changes immediately and be able to add their own. There are
integrated packages that do this, specialized packages (database, of course,
as well as drawing, painting, word processing, etc).dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following:
" The Amiga method is way more flexible. Using IFF it's possible
(if developers would implement it) to cut and paste TEXT, Graphics,
SOUND, Animation segments, brushes, Music arrangements, and even
3-d objects! This is because the Amiga has one file format for all
of these, IFF. An application would simply need to check the header
(ILBM=Bitmap, ANIM=Animation, DCMS=Music, 8SVX=Digitized sound,
FXTX=Text, DR2D=Cad objects, TDDD=Turbo Silver 3-d object
format) And iffparse.library makes this task even easier."
The Macintosh is much more flexible and standardized than any OS I know of.
It has standard formats for all of those, and up to 2,020 "types" can be in
one file! Have you heard of resources? ('snd ' for sound, 'TEXT' for
formatted text, PICT for graphics. Animation, Code, and just about everything
else is all standardized). As a matter of fact nearly every file has these
resources (ICONs, PICTures, snd's, MENUs, etc) that can be modified by other
programs.dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following: "As easy to program in as BASIC. One of the first things I ever did with ARexx was to integrate a few applications together. I wrote an ARexx script that cause d my Term program (BaudBandit) to dial compuserve, login, navigate through the menu s, and ask for (and capture) stock quotes on Apple and CBM. The ARexx program then took the numbers from the term program and entered them into a spreadsheet in Superplan (daily stock quote data base). It then commanded Superplan to generate an IFF file from a graph done by SP. It also took some summary data from SP and nicely formatted it into a document in my word processor (ProWrite). This is something that I did almost 3 years ago, and might be possible on other computers (namely the Mac) in the future..." It is possible on the Mac now, and there is an application (Hypercard) to do it quickly and easily. Also, mind spacing your posts a little better? Try spacing for an 80-column display...
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/10/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun9.185504.4631@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > > Isn't the meat and potatoes of networking access to files on other > > machines? > > Only in the first generation of networking. The current generation > is to use the network for collaborative work. Products in this Which is the basic (meat and potatoes) generation? Enough said. Well, almost enough - granted BYTE isn't a wonderful thing, but they discuss aspects of networking from time to time and "groupware" seems to be portrayed as a sort of experimental extra. Shared data I can imagine being very useful (database servers, source code management, et al). But glorified secretarial work like arranging appointments? > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <43@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >z> >Reply-To: dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) >Organization: Ryptyde Timesharing >Lines: 20 > >I guess this is the standard mentality of Amiga owners who think the extent of >networking is to make accessing files across a network transparent to apps. No, it's basically the mentality of Unix too. Unless you count remote procedure calls. >Ever heard of colaborative computing? Every tried it? There are no applications >specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in >a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see >each others changes immediately and be able to add their own. There are Ever heard of confusion? I find this to be a silly idea. Multiusers editing the same document spells confusion to me. My idea of networking is the Plan 9 operating system with compute-servers and file-servers. RAM should also be shared (like AmigaNet) you should also be able to call functions across the net and have return values returned to you. I'd say the majority of networking deals with file-sharing and servers for special processes. Something like multiple users editing the same document and having it updated in all apps is done easily with file-notification. I still think(IMHO) it's a silly idea, and a waste of net bandwidth (having packets constantly sent back and forth for minor updates) but it's not hard to do with a file-notification mechanism. In fact, most Amiga editors are already support multiple windows into the same file with changes in each file immediately. It's merely a simple matter of notifying when the file has changed and voila. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun8.084126.3287@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > Actually, networking on the Amiga in general is still very, very primitive. >It is very rare to find Amigas used in a networking environement, while it >is rare to find MACs not being used in a network. If Amigas are being used >in a network, they are probably running Amiga UNIX. The networking >software for AmigaDOS has only been available from Commodore for less than >two years, and is largely ignored (very few Amiga applications have >networking-related features). Amigas have hooked up to "real" networks, like Ethernet, for quite some time. Under industry standard protocols, like TCP/IP, NFS, X, etc. It's mainly in the peer to peer area that they have been lacking. As for "network-related features" in Amiga applications, most applications don't need any. For basic network use, you mount a network based disk or other device, and it looks just as if that device were resident on your system. For instance, when I click on the VAX: icon on my Amiga here, I open up my home directory on cbmvax, complete with Amiga icons and all. Since the OS has always supported file sharing and locking, there's no special magic necessary. You do need 2.0 for record locking. Most PClone systems need something called a "network operating system", either as a TSR, or compiled into the "network" version of each application, to handle networking, even without multitaking themselves (since any file on the network is inherently subject to multitasking, even it's due to 100 single tasking PCs banging on one file over a server). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (06/11/91)
In article <38@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >" I think the whole question here is how strictly enforced these >"standards" are. You're right in that there's no reason why the >clipboard couldn't be better than the Mac's. But Marc's also right >in saying that if applications don't support it, then the technical >superiority is wasted." > >This is one instance in which the Mac's clipboard is superior to the Amiga's. >Specific data types are contained in the clipboard (TEXT, PICT, etc), a list >which grows as the need arises. An application in which a Paste command was >given can check to see what data type the clipboard contains because this >information is provided by the OS. The Amiga's clipboard is too free-form, >or so recent posts would have me believe. You don't know what you are talking about. The Amiga's clipboard holds exactly one type of object --- an IFF file. IFF files are completely structured, i.e. no free-form. The applications reading from/writing to the clipboard know exactly what the type of the data is because all IFF files, by definition, contain type information. IFF files can also hold lists/trees of objects. With 2.0's IFFParse, no Amiga application writer can ignore the clipboard! IFFParse makes reading and writing IFF clips as easy as IFF files. Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/11/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > Shared data I can imagine being very useful (database servers, source > code management, et al). But glorified secretarial work like arranging > appointments? Markup, editing, group proposals etc are all good examples of where this technology is being used. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Murphy's Law of Intelism: Just when you thought Intel had done everything possible to pervert the course of computer architecture, they bring out the 860
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/11/91)
Quoted from <43@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy): > Responding to the following: By me, he says blushing with pride... :) > "Isn't the meat and potatoes of networking access to files on other > machines?" > That's SOME of it. The most important part of it in my opinion, though I do recognise that in an ideal environment more of the available resources should be sharable, such as process space, modems, etc. File/printer sharing LANs seem to be the real core of business networking (wherever I look at work, which is a bank running PS/2s and Novell, like most of our customers who have networks at all). I understand this might be a slightly skewed impression, as folks who outfit themselves with higher capability hardware and operating systems are capable of better, but they seem to be located either in research organisations or in computer companies. Of the applications which are making an impact in the networks I see, email is the only significant one designed for "groupware" sort of use. > I guess this is the standard mentality of Amiga owners who think the extent of > networking is to make accessing files across a network transparent to apps. No, no, this is the standard for PClones where I work. Tell me, is there a Mac equivalent of the AmigaUUCP package (which is free)? What is it like? Does it take over the machine? > Ever heard of colaborative computing? Every tried it? There are no applications Yes I've heard of it. No I've nevery tried it (outside of using links on a Unix programming project once - oops, file system stuff, eh?). > specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in > a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see Er, woop de doo. Why do you want several people messing with the same picture, or same Microsoft Word file, or whatever? Of the products that one sees outlined, the project management ones seem the most reasonable. And that's nothing to get excited about. Source code management has been available as a file system thing for years, I'd guess. Multiple people diddling with the same spreadsheet makes it harder for one of them to cook the figures, so it can't be that handy for management... :) Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by meat and potatoes. I mean the _bulk_. Sure there are extras and exceptions, but the bulk of a LAN's current usefulness in a business environment is, I contend, to share files (or things made to look like files, like printers). -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/11/91)
Quoted from <46@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy): > The Macintosh is much more flexible and standardized than any OS I know of. > It has standard formats for all of those, and up to 2,020 "types" can be in Now where's that guy ripping of (ie: using without attribution) that quote re "the nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" when one needs him? :) -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/11/91)
In article <4332.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >z> <43@rypty > The most important part of it in my opinion, though I do recognise > that in an ideal environment more of the available resources should > be sharable, such as process space, modems, etc. Don't forget AmigaDOS allows you to transparently mount any type of device. File sharing printers/modems is almost the same as sharing files on the Amiga. For instance, using NET: from software distillery you can netmount a remote Amiga's PRT: to net:prt, then on the local Amiga side you can assign prt: net:prt. Even better would be replacing parallel.device with a version that opened a channel on dnet/parnet which then redirected output to a remote parallel.device. Quite easy to do. Netkeys from software distillery allows you to share the keyboard/mouse on your Amiga with another (you can drag the mouse off your monitor onto the other Amiga's screen and activate/launch programs on it.) The Amiga library, device, and handler system is very powerful. > Er, woop de doo. Why do you want several people messing with the > same picture, or same Microsoft Word file, or whatever? Of the > products that one sees outlined, the project management ones seem > the most reasonable. And that's nothing to get excited about. Source > code management has been available as a file system thing for years, > I'd guess. Multiple people diddling with the same spreadsheet makes > it harder for one of them to cook the figures, so it can't be that > handy for management... :) I agree, I think multiple users editing the same data is a _dumb_ idea. Humans don't intermesh as well as computers, and editing a document is not the same as working on an assembly line. Imagine right in the middle of typing a sentence someone alters the sentence before it screwing up the flow of the paragraph. Not to mention real-time updates (instead of buffering) is very expensive and wasteful of a network. Transmitting single characters at a time adds time to the overall transfer since the same packet header is being sent over and over again instead of once for an entire buffer. Anyone ever been on a chat system that sends what the other users type while you're typing your message? Ever get pissed off when -in the middle of a sentence- a new sentence bursts on the screen interupt yours, scrolling your screen, and interupting your train of thought? That's what this whole thing reminds me of. As you say, the _bulk_ of networking is file-sharing and device-sharing. The next level after that is servers and clients. Future networking will include sharing process-space and ram. Infact one Amiga network can already does this, AmigaNet(tm). Here's a quote from their ad: "Ethernet version 2 compatible, Fully IEEE 802.3 A dnd B compatible" "10 Megabaud transfer rate up to 64k buffer memory" "DMA sequencer with 16 megabyte address range" "DMA addressing directly to chip and fast RAM" "16 bit data path" "Every Amiga on AmigaNet may be a client as well as a server" "Allow inter-computer communications with data and resource sharing (Share hard disks, ram disks, serial ports, parallel ports, printers, etc) " "Send messages to another user" "Run programs on remote system" "Excellent recovery from actual disconnection and crashes on remote Amigas" "Ability to know who is active on a network" "Simple installation" "Cables and connector included" It looks as if AmigaNet has the ability to DMA into other Amiga's RAM, or at the very least, its own. This means AmigaNet takes no time away from the processor(only bus cycles are taken away from the RAM bus it is DMAing into, but it still won't eat 100% processor time, on the A3000 it will probably eat about 5-10% of ram cycles) I'm curious as to whether AppleTalk is DMA driven. I bet it uses polled-I/O. If you want to see a nice network paradigm (object oriented and everything) check out the Plan 9 operating system, it's being developed by some of the original Unix and C hackers (Kernigan, Richie?, I can't remember, I read about it a long time ago). -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/12/91)
Responding to the following: "Ever heard of confusion? I find this to be a silly idea. Multiusers editing the same document spells confusion to me." Then you don't know anything about collaborative computing (oh, sorry, you're an Amiga user. Never mind). Ever heard of the "virtual napkin"? Collaborative computing is VERY useful for communication on more advanced subjects, remotely. For example, in a CAD program, you and a friend could go over the basic structure of whatever it is you're designing instead of having to put more advanced concepts into words alone.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/12/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > File/printer sharing LANs seem to be the real core of business > networking (wherever I look at work, which is a bank running PS/2s > and Novell, like most of our customers who have networks at all). Ahh, NZ banks are not known for their forward looking microcomputer technology. Could this be BNZ? National? ANZ? Westpac? Last year, I did a quick article on how NZ banks were using microcomputers, and the impression I got out of it was that they were one of the LEAST sophisticated users of micros in the NZ market. >> specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in >> a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see > Er, woop de doo. Why do you want several people messing with the > same picture, or same Microsoft Word file, or whatever? Suppose you want to work with your colleage on a proposal. Unfortunately, your colleague is in Auckland, and you're in Wellington. Now, you both have copies of the most recent printout, which you want to make changes to together. Hmmm, do you ring him up, and try to explain where you're talking about over the phone? How about sending a dozen faxes as you go back and forth over the changes? Or how about just getting it both on your computer screens, and working on it in real-time? > Of the > products that one sees outlined, the project management ones seem > the most reasonable. Another very big one is product training. You're the microcomputer support person for the company. A user rings you up wanting to know why he can't print out to his laser printer. You just fire up your copy of Timbuktu, or Carbon Copy, make his machine into a host, and start controlling his computer directly from yours. Having worked briefly in a microcomputer support group, I can tell you that something like this would have saved around 50% of the support person's time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (06/12/91)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > You just fire up your copy of Timbuktu, or Carbon Copy, make his >machine into a host, and start controlling his computer directly from >yours. Having worked briefly in a microcomputer support group, I can >tell you that something like this would have saved around 50% of the >support person's time. I would *love* to have something like Carbon Copy or pcANYWHERE for the Amiga! There are less than a handful of other programs on other platforms that I envy -- this is one of them. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun12.042434.26067@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >z> <43@rypty >Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu >Organization: Michigan State University >Lines: 16 > >torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > >> You just fire up your copy of Timbuktu, or Carbon Copy, make his >>machine into a host, and start controlling his computer directly from >>yours. Having worked briefly in a microcomputer support group, I can >>tell you that something like this would have saved around 50% of the >>support person's time. > >I would *love* to have something like Carbon Copy or pcANYWHERE >for the Amiga! There are less than a handful of other programs >on other platforms that I envy -- this is one of them. I don't know anything about Carbon Copy, but the obvious answer to me seems to be: 1.RAM DISK:> newshell aux: if you want more direct control (via keyboard and mouse) fire up a copy of Matt's Sernet and run Netkeys 2.0. Now if you want to see intuition apps run over a net it's harder. This falls back on the DIG problem, you would need to redirect all Text/Writepixel/Draw/Move, etc calls over the net, not so easy. Doing a program like this on the PC is easy, especially with an MMU. Just trap all writes the video hardware registers and memory and shadow them to the other machine. DNET/Parnet/Sernet and AUX seem to get the job done for me in most cases. > >-- >Dan Griffin >griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/12/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun11.165524.4720@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> by rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell): > Don't forget AmigaDOS allows you to transparently mount any type > of device. File sharing printers/modems is almost the same as sharing I'm not forgetting that. I think this is an _excellent_ example of good design re the Amiga's OS. However, as far as networking goes a nice feature would be the ability to mix machines, which cuts a bit on sharing CPU resources, because of binary/OS incompatibility. Going with a more standard OS, the Amiga has an apparently solid Unix. And at the file access level there is Novell and the Sun thing, NFS? > idea. Humans don't intermesh as well as computers, and editing > a document is not the same as working on an assembly line. Imagine > right in the middle of typing a sentence someone alters the sentence Yes, at that level I think it's pointless. There are applications that do things more like database servers, where users lock parts of the data to modify it. I mean, there are applications. They just aren't common, or the primary usefulness of LANs. > / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (06/12/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun12.042434.26067@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >> >>I would *love* to have something like Carbon Copy or pcANYWHERE >>for the Amiga! There are less than a handful of other programs >>on other platforms that I envy -- this is one of them. [....] > DNET/Parnet/Sernet and AUX seem to get the job done for me in most >cases. Parnet is great - for very local applications. We're talking about modem remote control of another Amiga. DNET won't work for anything that launches its own screens, etc. In pcANYWHERE, everything is echoed on both ends. I can imagine that this would be tough for the Amiga (read slow) because of the bitmapped display. Graphics mode using pcANYWHERE is no speed demon, either. I haven't tried Sernet and Netkeys -- will have to take a look at them. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/13/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun12.010912.6193@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > > File/printer sharing LANs seem to be the real core of business > > networking (wherever I look at work, which is a bank running PS/2s > Ahh, NZ banks are not known for their forward looking microcomputer > technology. Could this be BNZ? National? ANZ? Westpac? Last year, I BNZ. Sure they aren't advanced. The bit I work for does electronic banking (call a mainframe, swap files, etc). From a banking point of view, we are not bad. Technically, the operation is very inefficient (something like 85% wastage of on-line time, at the mo... :). Anyhow, I get a lot of calls from our support folks (who install the PClone software), and the bulk of our customers with networks use PClones and Novell. A handful use other network products. Our big customers (BP, for example) use true blue PS/2s like us. And from what I can gather visiting their installations, talking to folks over the phone trying to get our software running on networks, etc, the primary function of their networks is to share files. There are even a few customers who use diskless PClones on Novell networks, and care a lot about the security of file access provided by networks. > did a quick article on how NZ banks were using microcomputers, and the Quick article for who, btw? > Suppose you want to work with your colleage on a proposal. Unfortunately, > your colleague is in Auckland, and you're in Wellington. Now, you both > have copies of the most recent printout, which you want to make changes I'd do it by ZMODEM transfer. Or email. > forth over the changes? Or how about just getting it both on your computer > screens, and working on it in real-time? I would not do that, even if the capability to do it were free. "This file is mine, mine, mine!", as the saying goes. Structured data yes (as in database servers). Text files no. > You just fire up your copy of Timbuktu, or Carbon Copy, make his Hm. Funnily enough we had a support guy doing this, except he was installing Carbon Copy without explaining to customers the ramifications of the thing. There is a problem with cost, and the audit folks in the bank getting uptight about what a bank employee may do to a customer's data (by accident or design). The support guy I refer to above no longer works for this bank. > machine into a host, and start controlling his computer directly from > yours. Having worked briefly in a microcomputer support group, I can > tell you that something like this would have saved around 50% of the > support person's time. And as a current employee who has a support role, I know how useful just getting at their files is. Because of the cost and audit problems with products like Carbon Copy, I recently wrote a program which a customer uses to call the bank, and allows us to traverse their file system and ZMODEM files back and forth. Using the software on their machine would admittedly be nice, but this isn't simultaneous use of the software. And as a training mechanism it would be a pointless alternative, since a bank rep. is required on the spot anyway to install the software the first time. > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun12.010912.6193@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >>> specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in >>> a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see > >> Er, woop de doo. Why do you want several people messing with the >> same picture, or same Microsoft Word file, or whatever? > > Suppose you want to work with your colleage on a proposal. Unfortunately, >your colleague is in Auckland, and you're in Wellington. Now, you both >have copies of the most recent printout, which you want to make changes >to together. Hmmm, do you ring him up, and try to explain where you're talking >about over the phone? How about sending a dozen faxes as you go back and >forth over the changes? Or how about just getting it both on your computer >screens, and working on it in real-time? > This sounds like a REAL LONG LAN, to stretch from Auckland to Wellington :) >> Of the >> products that one sees outlined, the project management ones seem >> the most reasonable. > > Another very big one is product training. You're the microcomputer >support person for the company. A user rings you up wanting to know >why he can't print out to his laser printer. > You just fire up your copy of Timbuktu, or Carbon Copy, make his >machine into a host, and start controlling his computer directly from >yours. Having worked briefly in a microcomputer support group, I can >tell you that something like this would have saved around 50% of the >support person's time. My $.02: Network dependant applications, such as multiuser databases, paint programs, etc., are made possible by LANs and WANs. There is certainly a lot of potential for what can be done in a group on a LAN as opposed to individual users just sharing resources. On the other hand, the people who are doing these applications are using the wrong machine, because the Amiga makes MORE possible (this is .advocacy, after all :) > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes >and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day." -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun12.042434.26067@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes: >torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > >> You just fire up your copy of Timbuktu, or Carbon Copy, make his >>machine into a host, and start controlling his computer directly from >>yours. Having worked briefly in a microcomputer support group, I can >>tell you that something like this would have saved around 50% of the >>support person's time. > >I would *love* to have something like Carbon Copy or pcANYWHERE >for the Amiga! There are less than a handful of other programs >on other platforms that I envy -- this is one of them. > > >-- >Dan Griffin >griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu DNet, by Matt Dillon, provides 90% of the functionality of Timbuktu, and it's PD (FREE). I say 90%, because it doesn't allow you to remote control DPaint, or other apps that use screens/mouse. It doesn't let you use a lot intuition features either... -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/14/91)
In article <8611@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >In article <1991Jun9.005806.18799@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >>The Amiga has all of the technical stuff to support networks, yes, >>but no actual applications geared toward networking. > > If networking is done right, applications don't NEED to be "geared >toward" it in any explicit way. That's the beauty of TRANSPARENT networking. > > In UNIX, for example, files are often shared between machines >using software called NFS. No applications need to be aware of NFS -- >they JUST USE THE FILES, not knowing (nor caring) whether they actually >exist on the local disk or not! > Amiga Networks should do this with any protocol, because it is natural and easy to do with the standard Amiga features. > NFS exists on the Amiga *now*. Install it, and ALL of your >applications will be able to use files on remote disks transparently. > > More examples on request. > I don't claim to know much about Unix, but doesn't X-Windows require a "server" running the actual application and a "client" which just does the user-interface? Do such servers talk to multiple clients without using the file system (meaning peer-to-peer via sockets)? If so, this is an example of an application geared toward networking beyond just file/print sharing. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/15/91)
In article <43@ryptyde.UUCP| dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: |I guess this is the standard mentality of Amiga owners who think the extent of |networking is to make accessing files across a network transparent to apps. |Ever heard of colaborative computing? Every tried it? There are no applications |specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in |a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see |each others changes immediately and be able to add their own. There are |integrated packages that do this, specialized packages (database, of course, |as well as drawing, painting, word processing, etc). From a networking point of view, what is needed to support such functionality is called "byte-range locking", and actually has more useful applications that what mr. tracy suggests. For example, multiple-access to databases can be speeded up considerably if multiple write-accesses can be supported. And it is my understanding that this is fully supported in 2.0. Nice going, guys. And yes, networking is a rapidly expanding industry unto itself... MUCH MUCH $$$ are going to be made there for umpty-ump years. e-mail itself is probably the current "apple-of-the-networkers-eye", currently moving pictures, sounds, voice mail...probably animations/entire presentations will be mailed around! (can you imagine, you log into your system in the morning to a host of commercials? hmmmm...maybe we should re-examine this situation...). Seriously, what the macoid was saying has some truth to it...transparent file access acfdcross the nets only scratches the surface of what networking will provide in terms of functionality in the years to come. And the mac has always tried to provide it's users with useable (not incredible, but useable) networking, geared toward being user friendly. Knowing the mac's architecture, I can tell you that this is no easy feat! Networking is complex technology with infinite variables and appletalk has served the mac community well. It is probably the ONE SINGLE MAC FEATURE that, if absent, would have prevented the mac from EVER being considered business-oriented. It really was too cutesy for this market, originally targeted as a home/personal machine. But the fact that networking was provided really helped with the perception that networking was a strictly-business application, so they looked further...some took that "chance"...the rest is history. I'm actually a little incredulous that networking wasn't considered more in the original amiga flavor...it was so far ahead in virtually every other aspect that industry computing requires. Obviously, as an open system, it could be added at any time, but in some ways, it would have been much more important "out-of-the-box" than stereo sound or "genlock-ability" to the business community. Folks go thru hoops implementing 3rd-party networking solutions on the PC, but they HAVE TO DO IT! The mac gave it to them turnkey, with provision to switching to faster medium at the click of an icon (that's how you re-direct the appletalk protocols from the ho-hum native localtalk, 230kbps to, for example, ethernet at 10Mbps). In this respect, they have done a nice job. (too bad the rest of the OS is so limiting). Anyway, it's there now, and done very well. Nice going, guys. <sigh> but sometimes, I can't help but think that were it there from day 1, even if some "turtle-slow" C= proprietary implementation (that would have SCREAMED for 3rd-party improvement), that my company, Touch Communications, might be providing OSI/X.400 mail gateway technology for the Amiga, too, and instead or working on Macs and UNIX, i would be in the "Amiga group". (We also provide OSI/X.400 solutions for PC's, too...this is what the industry is forced to deal with!!!).
johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee) (06/16/91)
In article <mykes.3558@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >In article <8611@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >>In article <1991Jun9.005806.18799@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >>>The Amiga has all of the technical stuff to support networks, yes, >>>but no actual applications geared toward networking. >> >> If networking is done right, applications don't NEED to be "geared >>toward" it in any explicit way. That's the beauty of TRANSPARENT networking. >> >> In UNIX, for example, files are often shared between machines >>using software called NFS. No applications need to be aware of NFS -- >>they JUST USE THE FILES, not knowing (nor caring) whether they actually >>exist on the local disk or not! > >Amiga Networks should do this with any protocol, because it is natural >and easy to do with the standard Amiga features. > >> NFS exists on the Amiga *now*. Install it, and ALL of your >>applications will be able to use files on remote disks transparently. >> More examples on request. > >I don't claim to know much about Unix, but doesn't X-Windows require a >"server" running the actual application and a "client" which just does >the user-interface? Do such servers talk to multiple clients without using >the file system (meaning peer-to-peer via sockets)? If so, this is an >example of an application geared toward networking beyond just file/print >sharing. Not quite. X Window System-based applications are designed around a protocol that's network-independent, not around networking. The X Window system uses a client-server model like this: The server is a program running on the display device and takes care of things like drawing, clipping, screen-object management, and input devices. It does not know nor care what the applications are or have to do. Basically, it acts like a super-intelligent graphics terminal with a specific interface, the X protocol. There is usually only one server running on a workstation or whatever machine the screen-keyboard-mouse is setup. Multiple clients can be connected to the same server and each client can act as if it is the only one. A client is an application program. Since the server is naive about things such as menus and pushbuttons, it uses the server's abilities to do GUI I/O, but handles the actual GUI operation itself. This means each application can define a different GUI. Now almost all clients don't use the X protocol itself. Instead they use a functional interface to the protocol, the X library, and the C subroutine library, Xlib, which provides lots of niceties in dealing with the protocol. These libraries hides all details of networking from the application. If the server and client are on the same machine, the X library will use a low-cost local connection, possibly through the file system (on UNIX systems, this is a "UNIX-domain" connection.) If not, the X library will use the appropriate network transport mechanism. In any case, it is transparent to the application. Application programmers ignore networking totally and write programs "geared towards" the X protocol only. This means that X Window System-based programs can be ported to the Amiga with almost no changes, at least with regards to the GUI (OS-specific things are something else--the ANSI C Standard I/O library helps here.) We just need to implement the X library for the Amiga using whatever network mechanism/interface is available (not necessarily BSD-style sockets.) For local connections, just use the Exec message-passing mechanisms. The Amiga- style IPC and networking is hidden totally. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions are those of the user, and not of this machine.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/16/91)
In article <43@ryptyde.UUCP| dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > I guess this is the standard mentality of Amiga owners who think the extent of > networking is to make accessing files across a network transparent to apps. No, it's to make the *network* transparent to the apps. That's why NFS sucks canal water, for example, since programs that need to do locking or device access have to know about remote daemons like lockd... Reasonably transparent networks, like Intel's OpenNET, allow all special files to be properly accessed via the network. > Ever heard of colaborative computing? Every tried it? There are no applications > specifically for networking? There are several on the Mac! For instance, in > a painting program, different users can be editing the same document and see > each others changes immediately and be able to add their own. That's got nothing to do with networking... it's just an immediate benefit of a multitasking/multiuser environment. If programs have to be specially written to be network smart to support stuff like that, well that's a bug. A network should be as near to invisible as possible. The best research systems support heterogenous networks that are transparent to the point of allowing invisible process migration between CPUs. Transparent file access is just the tip of the iceberg. > Folks go thru hoops implementing 3rd-party networking > solutions on the PC, but they HAVE TO DO IT! Networking goes into the Amiga like a key into a lock. It is, after all, just more multitasking... (X.400? Ecch: gimme RFC822 any day) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/16/91)
Responding to the following: "solutions on the PC, but they HAVE TO DO IT! The mac gave it to them turnkey, with provision to switching to faster medium at the click of an icon (that's how you re-direct the appletalk protocols from the ho-hum native localtalk, 230kbps to, for example, ethernet at 10Mbps). In this respect, they have done a nice job. (too bad the rest of the OS is so limiting)." The rest of the OS is limiting? In what way? I'm assuming this isn't another anti-GUI argument since you admire our methods of switching network drivers. :-)
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun15.225638.11517@cs.cornell.edu> johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee) writes: >>I don't claim to know much about Unix, but doesn't X-Windows require a >>"server" running the actual application and a "client" which just does >>the user-interface? Do such servers talk to multiple clients without using >>the file system (meaning peer-to-peer via sockets)? If so, this is an >>example of an application geared toward networking beyond just file/print >>sharing. > >Not quite. X Window System-based applications are designed around a protocol >that's network-independent, not around networking. The X Window system >uses a client-server model like this: > >The server is a program running on the display device and takes care of >things like drawing, clipping, screen-object management, and input devices. >It does not know nor care what the applications are or have to do. Basically, >it acts like a super-intelligent graphics terminal with a specific interface, >the X protocol. There is usually only one server running on a workstation >or whatever machine the screen-keyboard-mouse is setup. Multiple clients >can be connected to the same server and each client can act as if it is the >only one. > So far, you've described a distributed network application. For example, if you want to run FrameMaker, you don't need a binary version of Frame for each workstation that is going to use it, just for a "server" machine somewhere on the network. The "clients" (again, my knowledge of X is limited) are programs that only provide user-interface support. The clients draw what the server tells them to and sends input events back to the server... There is no rule in networking that says that the client and server can't be located on the same physical machine, either... >A client is an application program. Since the server is naive about things >such as menus and pushbuttons, it uses the server's abilities to do GUI I/O, >but handles the actual GUI operation itself. This means each application >can define a different GUI. > The notion of "server" and "client" are reversed in X to what I think of them as. A server, to me, is a program on a machine dedicated to doing a specific application (like E-Mail or FileSharing). A client, to me, is a program run on people's workstations that talks to the server. The reversal in terminology doesn't confuse me, though... >Now almost all clients don't use the X protocol itself. Instead they use >a functional interface to the protocol, the X library, and the C subroutine >library, Xlib, which provides lots of niceties in dealing with the protocol. >These libraries hides all details of networking from the application. >If the server and client are on the same machine, the X library will use >a low-cost local connection, possibly through the file system (on UNIX >systems, this is a "UNIX-domain" connection.) If not, the X library will >use the appropriate network transport mechanism. In any case, it is >transparent to the application. Application programmers ignore networking >totally and write programs "geared towards" the X protocol only. > It is nice to add a layer on top of network protocols like this, but it still doesn't change the fact that the network is being used to do distributed processing. That is all I was trying to say. The talk here was that the Mac and PC have their own flavors of X-style applications, while the Amiga doesn't, and that resource sharing is the meat and potatoes of networking. In the PC and Mac networking universes (using your terminology), they have Database, Paint, and Word Processing clients that allow servers to act on the same documents in real time... >This means that X Window System-based programs can be ported to the Amiga >with almost no changes, at least with regards to the GUI (OS-specific things >are something else--the ANSI C Standard I/O library helps here.) We just >need to implement the X library for the Amiga using whatever network >mechanism/interface is available (not necessarily BSD-style sockets.) For >local connections, just use the Exec message-passing mechanisms. The Amiga- >style IPC and networking is hidden totally. > I find this hard to swallow :) I'd think that it might be relatively easy to port the GUI (server) portion of an APP to the Amiga, but porting the real guts of the application might be far from Easy. Today, I know I can use X to run Frame FROM my Amiga, but I still need a network and a Sun (or whatever) to run the client binary... >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. > John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu >The above opinions are those of the user, and not of this machine. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
johnhlee@CS.Cornell.EDU (John H. Lee) (06/17/91)
In article <mykes.3628@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: [...] >So far, you've described a distributed network application. For example, >if you want to run FrameMaker, you don't need a binary version of Frame >for each workstation that is going to use it, just for a "server" machine >somewhere on the network. The "clients" (again, my knowledge of X is limited) >are programs that only provide user-interface support. The clients draw what >the server tells them to and sends input events back to the server... Well, no, X programs are not distributed network applications, at least in the fashion that I know that term. For those kind of applications, you'll need something like the ISIS Distributed Programming Environment developed here at Cornell which allows multiple processes on multiple machines in a heterogenous network to act as a single "group" program (end of shameless plug--my current project is an X Window System-based performance tool for ISIS.) In the usual case, the application runs entirely on one host machine. The server is not considered part of the application, since that is implemented once by the workstation vendor. This is not to say that X applications can't be distributed, though (such as my program.) [...] >The notion of "server" and "client" are reversed in X to what I think of >them as. A server, to me, is a program on a machine dedicated to doing >a specific application (like E-Mail or FileSharing). A client, to me, >is a program run on people's workstations that talks to the server. The >reversal in terminology doesn't confuse me, though... As for the terms "client" and "server", according to the original model I learned at Berkeley, the "server" provides services to multiple "clients". Only "clients" initiate the connection, never the other way around. This implies that while the system is up, servers are always waiting for a connection, whereas clients don't. The usual guide is that the resource that must be shared is operated as the server, but it is not always easy to classify things. According to the X Window System model, the service is the screen, keyboard, mouse, graphics facilities, and the graphics processing power. For each set of the above, there is only one X server program running providing access through the X protocol for multiple client programs. From your description of FrameMaker, the model is indeed "turned around", in that applications are "computation servers", and the workstations are "display clients." However, X Window System applications aren't written as two programs like Framemaker (if I'm interpreting you correctly), since all applications have the operational parts of the GUI contained within them. Both application models have their advantages and disadvantages. >There is no rule in networking that says that the client and server can't >be located on the same physical machine, either... True, but then I did imply that (the "local" and "UNIX domain" connections I mentioned are used only when the client and server are on the same machine.) >The notion of "server" and "client" are reversed in X to what I think of >them as. A server, to me, is a program on a machine dedicated to doing >a specific application (like E-Mail or FileSharing). A client, to me, >is a program run on people's workstations that talks to the server. The >reversal in terminology doesn't confuse me, though... (See above.) [...] >It is nice to add a layer on top of network protocols like this, but it >still doesn't change the fact that the network is being used to do distributed >processing. That is all I was trying to say. The talk here was that the >Mac and PC have their own flavors of X-style applications, while the Amiga >doesn't, and that resource sharing is the meat and potatoes of networking. >In the PC and Mac networking universes (using your terminology), they have >Database, Paint, and Word Processing clients that allow servers to act on >the same documents in real time... As I said before, not really. The X server really doesn't participate in "distributed processing" any more than does, say, a VT340 terminal. I also don't dispute that fact that network applications exist for Macs and PC while such Amiga- specific applications don't really exist yet. I just wanted to clarify what exactly the X Window System is about and to point out that there is nothing in the Amiga to preclude "X-style applications", and that the native IPC and multitasking environment of the Amiga actually makes the Amiga very attractive as an X Window System platform. That the Amiga doesn't have a standard network-independent programming model of its own isn't any different from the situation with Mac and IBM system. I'm not familiar with the internals of the applications you describe, but it appears that each application vendor must supply a "display client" specific for his "application servers." This is not the case with the X Window System. All applications share the same "display client." If we adopt X Window System, we get all the advantages of Mac and IBM network-independent applications plus the advantage of access to all X Window System-based programs already out there. [...] >I find this hard to swallow :) I'd think that it might be relatively easy >to port the GUI (server) portion of an APP to the Amiga, but porting the real >guts of the application might be far from Easy. Today, I know I can use >X to run Frame FROM my Amiga, but I still need a network and a Sun (or >whatever) to run the client binary... That's why I said the "GUI" portion of the application is easy to port and the OS-dependent part is another matter. But something like the UNIX and ANSI C libraries provided by SAS/C makes porting X applications to execute ON the Amiga easier. In fact, many of the X applications I can think of should port with little difficulty. The hard part is implementing the X server and X libraries for AmigaDOS and, thanks to Dale Luck, that's already done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DiskDoctor threatens the crew! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions are those of the user, and not of this machine.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/18/91)
In article <243@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >I'm actually a little incredulous that networking wasn't considered more in >the original amiga flavor...it was so far ahead in virtually every other >aspect that industry computing requires. Obviously, as an open system, it >could be added at any time, but in some ways, it would have been much more >important "out-of-the-box" than stereo sound or "genlock-ability" to the >business community. Folks go thru hoops implementing 3rd-party networking >solutions on the PC, but they HAVE TO DO IT! The mac gave it to them >turnkey, with provision to switching to faster medium at the click >of an icon (that's how you re-direct the appletalk protocols from the >ho-hum native localtalk, 230kbps to, for example, ethernet at 10Mbps). >In this respect, they have done a nice job. (too bad the rest of the >OS is so limiting). I remember a rumor a few years back that CBM had bought the mask rights to the 82586 Ethernet chipset. This was before the A2000 came out. If it is true, it is a shame that they didn't design it right onto the motherboard... CBM does own MOS Technologies, which makes its own chips. Maybe CBM was just trying to become a source for the chip... -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************