Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cbmvax!peter From: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri Message-ID: <22455@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 14 Jun 91 15:28:31 GMT References: <3036@public.BTR.COM> Reply-To: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) Organization: Commodore-Amiga, Inc. West Chester, PA. Lines: 65 In article vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes: > Now, style isn't everything. Publishing your not all too nice source >code is OK. Style has nothing to do with it. In fact, significant chunks of the OS are in excellent shape, for example Intuition (thanks in large part to Jim Mackraz - hi jimm!) >What *may* scare CBM is clones of the OS. Now it has >already happened to the PC BIOS, Apples ROMS, Apple II ROMs and PC BIOS ROMs are quite trivial compared with the Amiga ROM. >Reverse engineering is of course much simpler if you have >source Reverse engineering is quite illegal if you work from the source. There's nothing reverse about it then. >IT SURE DOES HURT YOUR APPLICATION DEVELOPERS. If you think not having source will hurt application developers, you've not begun to imagine the long-term hurt to users and developers which would be caused by releasing the source. Why? Because there seems to be some confusion that the _implementation_ of the OS is its definition. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The documentation is the definition, and the implementation is subject to change. Seeing the insides of routines will only encourage developers to take advantage of tricks that are not part of the definition and not supportable. It would effectively mean either the end of OS development or a significant down-turn in compatibility with future revs of the OS. We won't allow it, and you shouldn't want it. The funniest part about it is that one of the Usenetters arguing for sources to be released has recently dealt with a bug in code he is responsible for. The problem was code that was depending on Intuition preserving some fields that in the manuals were specifically _defined_ as being trashed. Under 1.3, they just happened to be preserved. Under 2.0, they weren't. Boom. You can't seriously want more of that? Further, Commodore has a very dynamic and accessible support program. Official developer support is affordable and easy to reach. Unofficial support is provided on places like Usenet by CBM employees who aren't required to be here. If you have a question, ask it, instead of asking for the source. And before you ask for the source, be sure you avail yourself of the existing documentation and tools that exist to make your life easier. Do you have the 1.3 RKMs? Do you have the 1.3 autodocs and include files? Do you subscribe to AmigaMail? Are you a registered developer? Do you stay up-to-datewith the Fish Disks and other sources of freely-redistributable stuff? Do you own the good books that are out there? Do you run the validation tools we make available (eg. mungwall, enforcer?) Start there. >-- Leonard Peter -- Peter Cherna, Operating Systems Development Group, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter peter@cbmvax.commodore.com My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. "Gosh, didn't he have anything positive to say at all?"