Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!mjs
From: mjs@hpfcso.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: case insensitivity in TOS
Message-ID: <7340070@hpfcso.HP.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 91 22:25:41 GMT
References: <1991Jan12.023029.20022@convex.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 28

>    oh, pu-lease! now you guys are telling me because you are perhaps not
>    a good typist, i should not have the option of using MY OWN shift key.
>    ...
>    anybody can, though i seem to be a better typist than some :-).
>    ...
>    ok. lets drop this. it is getting far too silly for me...

This coming from a guy who doesn't even capitalize the first word of his
sentences :-?

>    how can having an option to either use it or not be worse than not having
>    the option in the first place? that's why your keyboard has a caps lock
>    key. how is owning a ferrari and a 4x4 worse than owning just a 4x4 (or
>    just a ferrari, assuming u can afford both, etc)?

Well, some applications, upon finding the feature, might insist on using it,
and not leaving it up to the user.  Someone might write an application that
creates internal data files named "foo" and "FoO" and requires them to be
distinct.

Realistically, this can probably be avoided, but the point is, it is not a
given that people will be able turn the feature off just because it is made
optional.

Using the car example, if all there were in the world were ferrari's, then
your boss could not expect you to drive through swamps.  If the option to own a
4x4 became available, it is possible that your boss will be require you to
drive through a swamp.