Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: Help converting Kick2.0 for A2000 Message-ID: <47558@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 20 Apr 91 20:56:09 GMT References: <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 62 In article <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in >thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 >Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* >versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy >beta version theory doesn't wash. Actually, as a few people have pointed out, 'newer' != 'less buggy.' >I would think it would be a bit more benificial for Commodore as >Randall can just check Usenet here and hear of the gripes that people >are having with thier *pirate* WB 2.0's and maybe he can fix them. >After all, the more beta testers the better, no? No. More responsible beta testers is better than a random mass of beta testers. I'm not saying that the only responsible Amiga owners are developers. I'm saying that at least C= knows the developers are somewhat knowledgable about the machine. They can give reasonable bug reports to the right people. Many users couldn't give a better description than, "It crashes when I run Amaze-A-Paint in Billo-Color mode." Actually, that would just make more work for the people at Commdore. Imagine having to scan the entire comp.sys.amiga.* hierarchy for bug reports. Also, there is an established format for providing all the needed information for a bug report. I challenge anyone here to find a bug post that gave the exact machine configuration, Kickstart version, Workbench version, name and version of the program/library/etc. in question, method for producing the error, conditions/configurations under which the error doesn't occur, and more. Without revealing any proprietary info, let me give you an example. I sent in an enhancement request a while back. I receieved mail the next day saying that the feature would be added (it was rather simple). Of course, my bug reports didn't generate responses, but I like to think that they were too busy to reply. ;-) I couldn't expect the C= engineers to have that kind of performance if they had to spend the time it would take to read the newsgroups in their entirety. It would take half their time just to collect the info, and then very little of it would be valid (this is USENET, not reality ;). However, the team seems to not mind listening to the net users' rantings anyway. ;-) >I am certainly not condoning piracy but I just don't see the harm in >having or using WB 2.0 on your 2000 at this point in time. If you >want it, it's readily available even on Public Domain boards. I certainly see the harm. With pirate copies of the OS available many users won't purchase the release version. They will lack not only the bug fixes but also the manuals. The OS won't appear complete or solid to potential customers. Any board with a copy of 2.0 available for downloading is in violation of the U.S. copyright laws. Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd