Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!vsi1!altnet!uunet!super!rminnich From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IEEE libraries Keywords: IEEE, GURU, Death, Horror, AINU (Amiga Is Not Unix) Message-ID: <731@super.ORG> Date: 13 Sep 88 17:26:33 GMT References: <1356@percival.UUCP> <358@boing.UUCP> <1570@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <7096@well.UUCP> Sender: uucp@super.ORG Reply-To: rminnich@metropolis.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) Distribution: na Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Lanham, MD Lines: 20 In article <7096@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: >I don't see a reason to react so strongly against GURU conditions. It There is just one reason. when people see them they get upset, esp. people like J Pournelle who, like it or not, really can affect how many amiga's get purchased. I really agree with Rick on this one. Think of the GURU as really bad PR (which it is) which can adversely affect amiga's sales. Dale makes a good point that the code SHOULD be perfect. But we all know (or at least i think i know) how likely this is. If the tradeoff is slow suffocation (libraries hanging around that are no longer open) vs. even a recoverable GURU, i vote for suffocation. With the 1mb minimum common on most machines i don't see that a few extra open libraries will kill you. But too many GURUs will kill amiga sales. God i wish they hadn't called it a guru. I get so sick of the jokes about that one ... Now a library could attempt to keep track of when bogosity occurs. That's a whole nother issue. and of course the right answer is resource tracking. But we have to use what we have, not what we should have. ron