Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!rutgers!cbmvax!andy From: andy@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Andy Finkel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: My turn to flame at C/A... Message-ID: <2017@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jun-87 15:00:28 EDT Article-I.D.: cbmvax.2017 Posted: Fri Jun 12 15:00:28 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 01:08:00 EDT References: <8706110829.AA11035@violet.berkeley.edu> <2003@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> <3935@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 84 In article <3935@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <2003@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: > mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) writes: ><>Since Scott Turner has been quiet lately, I'll take try and fill his ><>flames-behind-my-postings shoes :-). >< > >Sigh. Must be out of practice. Maybe it's time to go back to >talk.religion. Prase Bob! [Hey! Anyone got Bob in IFF?] it's ok, its better this way... Well, now that you know, even if you missed the other announcements its really a non-issue, except about taking plastic. We've talked about it a few times; last time we discussed it it looked like we'd have to raise prices to cover the additional paperwork, overhead, minimums. We generally just try to break even on the supports disks and docs. >And if your $20 is just covering cost, what's the problem with giving >them to Fred? He tends to supply programmers tools, so this fits his >bill. And it could save your people time they could use doing other >things. Just put copyright notices all over it and restrictions on >redistribution. Maybe this would work. We'll discuss it here. But I can't really see the difference between ordering from Fred and ordering from us...we both are asking about the same money in US funds. >While I'm on the topic, why the feep wasn't the Doc upgrade done as >replacement sheets for what was already there. Even IBM can get that >right, forxsakes. This is a good suggestion. Unfortunately, there are too many styles of "already there", as A-W and Bantam books are reorganized from the original RKMs. >And once again, it *wasn't* announced that you'd need that extra >information when you bought the Enhancer kit, even though the Enhancer >kit referenced it. And having to put a project on hold for two weeks >while you wait for the docs is the kind of thing that makes me hate >other vendors who shall remain nameless. if you have specific questions, just post. We're usually willing to help. (we can talk about the general case for a while, but you (as you have usenet access) can always ask. >In summary (i.e., I want to say it *again* :-), there are users out >there who are programmers, who *don't* have access to any major nets >(CI$ or the internet mail world). I wouldn't be surprised if they >didn't know what the AutoDocs were, much less how to get them. If they are trying to program the Amiga without access to the autodocs, (found in the back of the Rom Kernal Manual) they probably will have trouble anyway. Well, maybe Addison-Wesley (who has the rights to update the RKM manuals) will come out with a V1.2 Upgrade, so it will be available in bookstores as well. That would be a reasonable solution. I think we're trying to encourage them in this direction now. Again, sorry that it didn't mention how to get the autodocs. Since it wasn't there, we correct it in the only way possible...by spreading the word now. >Sc*w it. How much trouble would I get into if *I* posted the complete >Autodocs? I'm not a developer, haven't signed any non-disclosure >agreements (I *won't* sign those things), etc. Since I'm not making >any money, I think damages to me are limited to something small. Probably no more that publishing any other copyrighted materials without permission. You'd only reach the usenet 'boonies' however, unless you did it in book form, of course. :-) >