Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!mejac!gryphon!pnet02!mriley
From: mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: CBM's "blessing"
Message-ID: <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 24 Sep 88 02:40:53 GMT
Sender: root@gryphon.CTS.COM
Organization: People-Net [pnet02], Redondo Beach, CA.
Lines: 115

ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes:
>In article <7038@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes:
>>papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
>>> If you do
>>> thing on your own, without CBM's blessing you are simply bound to failure.
>>
>>I think my subject line says it all...
>>
>        Mark, I just don't understand why you're so hostile toward CBM's
>tech group.

Perhaps I feel the same way towards the tech group as you do about CBM's
marketing group (as witnessed by your recent posting to the other Amiga
newsgroup.)  Sure, some of my antagonism towards CBM is based upon
events that occured long ago (before your involvement with the Amiga,
Leo), but the fact is, I still don't agree with the way this OS
enhancement bit (1.3, 1.4, etc...) is progressing.  (Reasons below.)

>Consider:

Considering...

>        o I don't use shell enhancement tools because they're non-standard.
>          Developing software for the masses means testing it on a
>          vanilla system.

Frankly, I don't understand why you are (were) opposed to using a shell
to improve your development environment.  This in no way prevents you
from testing your programs on a vanilla Workbench disk.  You can't
honestly tell me you enjoy retyping a command line because of a typo
or typing "execute" in front of every script you'd like to run.  I
really don't think I need to remind you of all the "good" features of a
shell since you use one every time you log into the WELL.  (BTW, Thanks
Matt, for banging out Shell 2.0X for the Amiga. ;-)

>        o ARP is non-standard.  How many commercial houses do you know
>          (apart from MircoSmiths) that write code for it?  How many
>          run-of-the-mill people do you know who write code using it?
>        o ARexx is non-standard.  While a nice package, its use is not
>          as widespread as it could or should be.

Would you rather that these packages did not exist?  You are indirectly
saying that, aren't you?  These projects were started independantly of
CBM and attempt to provide enhancements or additional functions that
CBM did not originally provide in the O.S.  As far as I know, they
haven't officially been "blessed" by CBM.  There may be a good chance
of that coming to pass, but there would be no chance at all if the
projects weren't started in the first place for fear of doing something
non-standard.  Standards are for programmers to use as they will, not
the other way around.

It seems to me that you want to place CBM in the same position as
Apple maintains with its developers.  I honestly don't want to see
a bunch of CBM Zombies coding under the eyes (or guns) of Big Brother
CBM.  The neat thing about the Amiga user interface (as compared to
Apple's) is that it isn't entirely strict.  This leaves the programmer
with enough flexibility to code a (hopefully) efficient interface.

>        Now, if CBM were to buy ARP and make it part of 1.4, then its use
>would increase by a whole lot.  I am now prepared to use a shell enhancement
>tool; namely, 1.3's shell.  Why?  Because it's standard.

It's not a standard yet.  I mean, can I wander into an Amiga dealer right
now and purchase the 1.3 upgrade for $15 or so?  When can I?  December?
I'll believe it when I see it.  I guess my point here is that it has taken
CBM soooooooo long to "bless" it's own code, let alone that of others.

Standard, you say.  Hmmm...  How "standard" will 1.3 be when it's
released?  What about 6 or 12 months after release?  It took a long
while for many A1000 owners to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2, and that was
as simple as copying a disk.  Think about all those A500 owners (much
more than there were A1000 owners) who will need to go to the trouble
of a ROM change for the upgrade to 1.3.  You're fooling yourself if
you think its gonna happen overnite.  And you're fooling yourself
even more if you write a program for mass consumption that uses a
1.3 (or 1.2 incompatible) function for marketing in the short to
medium future.

>        How many software developers do you think I would be able to
>convince to use the iff.library Stu and I are working on in code for public
>consumption?  Not as many as would use it if CBM "blessed" it.

I hardly think you (or Stuart's) main reason for writing "iff.library" is
so that it may be "blessed" by CBM.  I suspect the reason you are writing
it has to do with it's utility to you as a programmer.

>        When CBM blesses something, you're guaranteed that all the users...
                             [Stuff deleted.]

>        Having CBM bless things relieves you of a great deal of support
>responsibility.  If you want to do something, and it's blessed by CBM, then
>you are clean.  If it's not blessed, You Are On Your Own.

No Problem.  I Don't Mind Being On My Own.  Personally, I Don't Want CBM
Or Any Other Group To Tether My Imagination By Imposing Restrictions On
What I May Or May Not Do.  Call It My "Lone Wolf Attitude", If You Like.

>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape    INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
> \_ -_          Recumbent Bikes:        UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac
>O----^o       The Only Way To Fly.            hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
>"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR anybody!  I'm just having fun."  -- The Doctor

Thought you were working for Riechart these days... ;-)

-Mark-

P.S. Somewhat applicable cookie I found on my system today:

May your future be limited only by your dreams. -- Christa McAuliffe 

UUCP: ...!crash!gryphon!pnet02!mriley   BIX: mriley    LAT: 34.25 N
INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com             PLINK: SONIX   LONG: 118.78 W

"Hey, I don't _use_ programs, I write them..."  ;-)