Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!haven!mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!ins_bjjb From: ins_bjjb@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Jared J Brennan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: How to post umoria? Summary: Don't chop ST NetHack! Message-ID: <6855@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> Date: 22 Aug 88 05:20:25 GMT References: <6321@chinet.chi.il.us> <401@clio.math.lsa.umich.edu> <602@uwovax.uwo.ca> Reply-To: ins_bjjb@jhunix.UUCP (Jared J Brennan) Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr. Lines: 30 In article <602@uwovax.uwo.ca> 7103_300@uwovax.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) writes: >In article <401@clio.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > [Various info/questions about utilities being ported to the ST, > then a question about ST NetHack] > >I've got NetHack 2.3 working on the ST. I want to give it a little time >to settle (i.e. to make *sure* all those bugs are out) before posting it, >but it seems to be working pretty well. It's *big*, though; nearly 400K >just for the executable. Would people rather see a "pared down" version >that will run on 520's, or should we go for the full 2.3? >-- >Eric R. Smith email: >Dept. of Mathematics 7103_300@uwovax.uwo.ca >University of Western Ontario 7103_300@uwovax.bitnet >London, Ont. Canada N6A 5B7 (a shared mailbox: put my name on >ph: (519) 661-3638 the Subj: line, please!) Well, since there is already a "pared down" version (ST Hack v1.03) it isn't necessary to chop up ST NetHack. If you did "pare down" NetHack, you'd probably end up with a lot of complaints from people who assumed the "pd" 8-) (visual joke summary: "pared down" = "pd" = "public domain" [so much for humor]) version was the only one available. -- Jared J. Brennan BITNET: INS_BJJB@JHUVMS, INS_BJJB@JHUNIX ARPA: ins_bjjb%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_bjjb "You kids get outta my yard!" DISCLAIMER: I'm really PO'ed today, so ignore most of what I write.