Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!udel!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!shadooby!oxtrap!oxtrap!time
From: time@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP (Tim Endres)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Tail patches
Message-ID: <TIME.89Nov27160228@oxtrap.oxtrap.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 89 21:02:28 GMT
References: <1459@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> <36250@apple.Apple.COM>
	<5056@internal.Apple.COM> <1989Nov7.212837.5146@oracle.com>
	<26596@santra.UUCP> <5148@internal.Apple.COM> <26693@santra.UUCP>
	<5250@internal.Apple.COM> <26788@santra.UUCP <5323@internal.Apple.COM>
Sender: time@oxtrap.aa.ox.com (Tim Endres)
Reply-To: time@oxtrap.UUCP
Organization: Oxtrap - Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: lsr@Apple.COM's message of 21 Nov 89 03:18:17 GMT

In article <5323@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes:

   From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein)
   In article <26788@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) writes:

   [ ... tons of discussion on patching religion ... ]

   Staying away from tail patches doesn't mean you can't customize the 
   system.  That's a silly statement.  History has shown that programmers 
   will patch any trap they want to get some hack done.  That's fine with me. 

   Just look at the number of INIT managers, and problem reports having to do 
   with INITs.  It shows that writing an INIT is a black art, and not 
   something that should be taken lightly.

Has Apple looked into some OS mechanism that provides ROM patching?
Like, bless and condone patching in a "supported" manner. Just curious.