Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1 From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri Message-ID: <1991Jun18.064727.11773@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 06:47:27 GMT References: <22455@cbmvax.commodore.com> <3096@public.BTR.COM> Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News) Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) Organization: Columbia University Lines: 55 Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu In article <3096@public.BTR.COM> valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >In article <22455@cbmvax.commodore.com> peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter >Cherna) writes: >> >>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. > >This is absolute nonesense. Nobody in his right mind would start using tricks >or undicumented features that would break their software in the future. This >cynical attitude has no place in this discussion. > I guess you haven't used all that much Amiga software? How many workarounds had to be made for 2.0 to try to make it compatible with assinine decisions programmers have made? How about copy protection schemes? It seems to be realism, not cynicism. >What imbeciles are going to do with a usefull tool is totally irrelevant to >this discussion. Besides, we all have a constitutional right to shoot ourselves >in the foot. > If a developer breaks the rules and shoots him/herself in the foot, he then shoots customers in the foot, which then shoots Commodore in the foot. Anything that affects the apparent quality of the Amiga affects Commodore. It doesn't HELP them to release the source. It only seems to hurt. We do have constitutional rights which allow us to be as stupid as we like (unless you go to college and have to be P.C. 8), but you have no right to impose your will/opinions on CBM. >>Further, Commodore has a very dynamic and accessible support program. >>Official developer support is affordable and easy to reach. > >If you can afford the $450/year fee, plus the long distance phone charges. >Many of our contractors cannot afford this 'accesible' program. > Every business has its costs. To be a programmer, you need to buy your development system, buy your compilers, buy your DTP program to write the manual, market the product or find a distributor, etc. If you can't afford $450 and phone charges (or a BIX/Usenet account), then you don't have the money realistically to make it in the software market, at least unless you get really lucky. -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."