Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: GDOS distribution
Message-ID: <583@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Nov-86 11:29:41 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.583
Posted: Wed Nov 26 11:29:41 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Nov-86 20:24:59 EST
References: <1044@husc2.UUCP>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster)
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 56

In article <1044@husc2.UUCP> grunau@husc2.UUCP (justin grunau) writes:
...
>There are those who speak of GDOS as a "missing"
>part of GEM, or something that was "supposed to have been included" in GEM from
>the beginning:  this would imply that it should (eventually, when fully
>debugged, of course) be distributed without charge:  I seem to sense that
>this is unlikely.

   As usual, there are the two sides to this (which applies equally
well to the new ROM question):

 1) "Our" side- We paid for a working GEM machine.  GDOS is an integral
    part of GEM, and a relatively bug-free OS is an integral part of the
    machine in general.

 2) "Their" side- You paid for what you got.  Any development done to better
    the computer costs more money, which we pass on to you when you buy the
    newer components.

As much as I'd like to get GDOS and new ROM chips free, I can certainly
see Atari's position.  After all, the computer is very inexpensive compared
to it's peers; what's another $20-50 more?  (Frankly, though, I'd like to
see the rumored new ROM free or very cheap-- manufacturing costs only.)

>
> ...contrary to what he [N. Harris] claimed,
>when I phoned Atari on Mr. Harris's information that any developer, not
>only those who have purchased Atari's developer's kit, can be registered
>with Atari, I was told (1) that this was not so, but that I had to buy
>the full kit, Alcyon C included...

   You may have been misled by my posted interpretation of what one of the
Atari people stated.  While I can agree with Atari's position on some
matters (like the above), I still think it's a *really* dumb idea to
restrict documentation and new developments to people who have paid for
a kit containing a lot of undesirable stuff.  I can *almost* see that kind
of policy for the first few critical months in the life of a new machine,
but there is already a large alternate source for many of the components
of the current developer's kit, and we latecomers who have chosen other
C compilers, assemblers, Kermits, etc., shouldn't have to pay for yet
another set of the same software (which, according to all reports I've
read, is inferior).
   Incidentally, I heard from a friend who has both an ST and an IBM with
GEM (GDOS intact, and *very* impressive!) that you can get the IBM GEM
documentation and C bindings for ~$100 directly from DRI.  From what I
understand (and owners of the Atari Dev. Kit can correct this), the ST
GEM documentation is a barely changed version of the IBM stuff.  That
still won't get you first dibs on new developments from Atari, nor
access to things like the CompuServe developers forum, but at least you
won't have to make do with the Abacus books, and you won't be the proud
owner of a second C compiler, etc.
--

 - Joel Plutchak
   uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
   ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu