Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!jdickson
From: jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Problems with changing display
Message-ID: <1991May15.214209.22389@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 May 91 21:42:09 GMT
References: <52749@apple.Apple.COM> <21505@cbmvax.commodore.com> <52861@apple.Apple.COM> <21589@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 27

In article <21589@cbmvax.commodore.com> peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes:
>In article <52861@apple.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes:

>One of the downsides of the occasional legal or necessary access to
>system structures is that it creates the impression that it's open
>season on private data.  A certain amount of the compatibility
>problems that early versions of 2.0 suffered is attributable to 
>developers peeking or poking in places they shouldn't.  Where reasonable,
>possible, and where it didn't seriously compromise the integrity of the OS,
>the system has been modified to let such applications continue to run.
>
>
>>-- Cary
>
>     Peter
>--

	I "invented" my own method to patch a DOS entry in the device list,
because at the time (1985 - 1986) I didn't know how. There has never been,
especially back then, much information on AmigaDOS. Last year when I com-
municated with a C= former member about my way of doing things (Rob Weisman),
he said that when the C64 was big, developers made up so many ways of doing
things that C= couldn't risk updating the OS. He said that can't happen to
the Amiga and I agree. I realize that for 2.0 some of these "methods" had to
be integrated into the OS, but where does C= draw the line? 

-jeff