Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AMIX?
Message-ID: <1933@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 88 01:22:17 GMT
References: <1917@sugar.UUCP> <3991@killer.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 33

In article <3991@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:
> in article <1917@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) says:
> > Another point is that UNIX is well-documented. Try to figure out just what
> > Execute() on mi Amiga does from the manual.

> WHAT??? What have you been smoking????

Water. I never smoke anything stronger than water.

> As far as readability, usability, etc., go, I find them to be about the same.

Here's where the UNIX manuals and include files have the Amiga's beat all
hollow:

Types.

In the AmigaDOS manuals mainly, but even in the RKMs, you can't easily figure
out what the types of everything are. You have to use the examples or the
include files... but even there's there's WAY too much stuff overloaded on
poor old APTR, ULONG, and USHORT. But better manuals are promised.

> Methinks that the only reason someone might think Unix is better documented,
> is if that person is a Unix guru who reads system source code with his
> breakfast. That much, at least, you cannot do with AmigaDos (sigh).

I wish.

The only think I can recall having to be told about in the UNIX manuals is
the damn overloading of the c_cc feilds in termio.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva      `-_-'      ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.