Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!vger.nsu.edu!manes From: manes@vger.nsu.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: What's Wrong with ARP!!!! Message-ID: <321.27552470@vger.nsu.edu> Date: 29 Nov 90 19:08:32 GMT References: <2271@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Lines: 144 In article <2271@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > In <305.27511607@vger.nsu.edu>, manes@vger.nsu.edu writes: >>In article <2254@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>, lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >>> In <253.2747d0bd@vger.nsu.edu>, manes@vger.nsu.edu writes: >>>>In article <90318.162021DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>, DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > [ Some discussion of ARP vs. CBM-supplied commands. > > > > No I haven't. If you have, all I can say is that you have a lot more faith than > I have in the infallibility of those who assume anything at all about your > machine and write scripts to mess with the setup. I do not run scripts without > first checking them out very carefully, making changes as necessary, or simply > seeing what they do and doing it manually. Running a script without doing so > leaves you in a poor position to blame ARP for any woes that you may incur. It was this very thing that caused me to start looking at every installation script. It was a education. :-) Larry, how about all those folks who *dont* know what ARP is, and what the potential problems they may endure? What about the people who bought the Amiga to use it, and who have not invested the time to 'learn' the CLI commands and their potential effects? I dare say that most Amiga users don't understand many concepts that you (and I) take for granted. > >>My problem with ARP is simple. It did not come from Commodore. It had >>little or no support, and in my opinion was not as useful as some of the >>'shells' that have been in the PD for the longest time. > > ARP had as much support as any third party piece of software, which at times > has been as much support as you could expect for the CBM supplied commands. At > the time of the first appearance of ARP, what shells were in use? Matt Dillon's > comes to mind, and of course the noermal CBM supplied CLI, but neither of these > addressed the problems beyond any built-in commands in Matt's shell. > Larry, you lost me there. Was there a company that I could call and get questions answered about it? When ARP first came out, if memory serves, it was for AmigaDOS 1.2. Commodore's concentration at that time was working on a standard for booting hard disks, this certainly is much more important than the oddities of the BCPL based CLI commands. >>> >>>>It is hard enough for most to learn AmigaDOS, adding a command set that >>>>doesn't work particularly well does nothing but add a support headache >>>>for Commodore and their dealers, and makes the outsiders believe that >>>>AmigaDOS needed replacement. >>> >>> I would agree, though I fail to see where the ARP command set "doesn't work >>> particularly well". As of the inception of ARP, the Amigados command set did >>> not work particularly well, or consistently. It _did_ need replacement. The >>> interfaces to the Amigados functions _did_ need revamping. That CBM apparently >>> agrees is ample proof that ARP was, if not the total answer, at least a >>> demonstration that the concepts were valid. >> >>See above. Who should change it? Commodore. > > And as I say, I agree. Since they did not, ARP was born, and served its > purpose, which was at least twofold. One, it supplied the functionality and > consistency the users wanted, and two, it showed CBM some good ideas that they > later adopted. Saying that only CBM should ever write programs for the Amiga is > nonsense (I know you agree with this sentiment), but where do you draw the > line. Should we all be stuck with Ed and Emacs just because CBM supplied them > in the earliest releases? Should we use Edit instead of See or Sed? Should I > always use List or Dir instead of ls? (I use all three, for different reasons). My concern is that 'replacement' commands not supplied from Commodore may not always be 100% compatible, and introduce a "unreliability belief" in the work that Commodore has done. If Commodore's work was ok, then why would someone want to replace it? Ah, it must be buggy. You and I know different, but will the rest of the world? I certainly grant that for the knowledgable user, ARP gives many wonderful things. Certainly the most important is the freedom of choice. I suppose if all users were knowledgable I would not have a beef with ARP. Unfortunately as you and I both know, there is a steep learning curve in using the Amiga and having programs that rely on ARP only makes it more difficult. Perhaps if the ARP commands came with different names so that the Commodore supplied set was not replaced there would not be a problem, as the 'experienced' user could delete the Commodore one with the knowledge of what he/she is doing. Further, if it was easy to identify the difference (without comparing byte sizes) between the ARP command set and the Commodore set then the problem would be less. I am looking at this with two views. The first view, as a person who uses the machine and understands the circumstances of using PD software, and the second view of a person who has to answer the phone at a Amiga dealership. > > Early on, I wrote a small Echo replacement. I wrote it for two reasons. The > first reason was that there was no documentation on the BCPL conventions of > supplying ESC sequences to a command, and I wanted to be able to make use of > colour, typestyles, and so on. The second reason was that I wanted something > to write using assembler. The result was quite functional, and a lot of folks > used it for a long time. The users who used it certainly felt that it was > worth having (especially at the price, completely free). Was I wrong to write > it? I think not. Funny, I didn't hear a lot of people flaming me for writing > it either, or flaming the program because CBM didn't supply it. Perhaps it's > just because you weren't using Amigas then or didn't see my little program. I am certain that ECHO is on the less than dangerous side of things, don't you think? MOUNT on the other hand, if you wrote a replacement for it, and called it MOUNT I would flame you. There is a difference. > > Sounds to me like you should be flaming those who write scripts that make > assumptions, rather than those who make damned fine attempts to help the Amiga > community. Certainly agree there, and I have. :-) Help is a relative term. The only people who prospered from ARP where those who understood what it was, and why it was. It did not HELP those who did not realize (perhaps care?) about the problems with the Commodore supplied commands. I am not knocking the idea of ARP, but I am knocking the implementation and the original arrogance of the individuals who were involved with the AmigaDOS Replacement Project (the original name). > > -larry > > -- > The only things to survive a nuclear war will be cockroaches and IBM PCs. > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | // Larry Phillips | > | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | > | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================