Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!overload!dillon From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) Message-ID: Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Source to OS (Was Re: Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri) Distribution: world References: <3034@public.BTR.COM> Date: 13 Jun 91 11:06:41 PST Organization: Not an Organization In article <3034@public.BTR.COM> valentin@btr.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea valentin@btr.com) writes: >In article <22326@cbmvax.commodore.com> mks@cbmvax.commodore.com (Michael >Sinz) writes: >>>>> >>>>> Please explain what is so bad about releasing the source code ? I >>>>> don't see your point. >>.. > >You are missing the point. Looking at the source code will give the reader >a much better understanding of what a function does then those foggy >autodocs. It will in no way encourage the misuse of these functions. Many full >page autodocs explain the actions of a mere 5 line routine. > >I recommend to everybody to seek out Markus Wandel's disassembly of the Exec >if they wish to understand the inner workings of the OS. > >Valentin I am sure that many of us would use the source for appropriate purposes. Unfortunately, a greater number will definitely misuse it in major ways. Apart from recompiling it with 'enhancements', many hacker types will begin utilizing side effects they discover in the source that are not officially supported, or be more inclined to run direct ROM calls. The source should NOT be made available. The point is moot anyway since Commodore isn't about to release it anyway :-) By the way, I do not believe it is legal for Markus to disassemble Exec and publish the results, there are several clauses relating to this in Commodore's copyright statement. -Matt -- Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US 891 Regal Rd. uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon Berkeley, Ca. 94708 USA