Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Blindness Message-ID: <8810110723.aa09950@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> Date: 11 Oct 88 03:49:48 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 74 >>after Rich has the NERVE to accuse Joe of being a THIEF for no particular >>reason. > >I did not accuse anyone of being a thief. Please do not attribute to me any >statements that I haven't made. By suggesting that Joe did not have a manual, you implied he was using pirate software. Most developers consider piracy the equivalent of theft (although copyright violation is *legally* a civil offense, us non-lawyers aren't prone to such fine distinctions). I doubt Joe appreciated an unfounded accusation of piracy any more than he'd like being called a thief. >>>Second, the comment concerning folks with a *legitimate* copy of AE Pro is >>>justified.... it's a complex program, but once you get the manual... and >>>take the time to *read* it.... you can do all the things that have earned AE >>>such high marks from reviewers for so many years. AE Pro isn't the only vendor guilty of a turgid manual. I have one, and I DID read it. After I FINALLY figured out how to get an ADM3A emulation to work the manual actually did make some sense. It wasn't very helpful BEFORE I knew how to make an emulation work (I've read LOTS of mainframe manuals, and they're usually even worse). >I stand by that statement, in it's entirety. AE Pro was (and may still be) >one of the most heavily "pirated" programs in the Apple world, and it is >certainly a complex program. Those statements are not conjecture, but are >based on a number of years of contact with Apple owners in a formal >"support" capacity. It simply doesn't follow that anyone who complains about the program hasn't got a manual. AE Pro may or may not be pirated more frequently than, say Choplifter (for which owning a manual isn't nearly so necessary ;-), but United Software must be selling SOME copies to SOMEBODY (else how do they manage to stay in business?). >As a side note, if anyone else, including Joe Craparotta, interpreted that >as an accusation that he was "a thief", let me assure you that I did not >intend it that way... How about not accusing anyone of piracy without evidence either? >that I found no problem getting AE Pro's emulation to work, (perhaps I should >have added "within the limits of the Apple's hardware", but that's hindsight) An objective question might be preferrable to evaluative commentary. I suspect that Joe is plenty smart enough to activate AE Pro's emulations. I believe his complaint is that some (many, all?) of the emulations do not exactly mimic ALL of the ESC code sequences produced by the REAL terminals emulated. I work with a host that is EXTREMELY forgiving of incomplete emulations, so I'm not in a position to discover many weaknesses in emulations (for instance Kermit's VT100 always worked fine on our system, although early versions wouldn't survive vttest, and a number of people using unix editors made a number of specific bug reports). AE Pro's ADM3, Televideo 9xx, etc. emulations work ok on our host (not as nicely as a good VT-100, however). > ...Further, I'd suggest >that "flames" such as the one that prompted this message would be more >appropriately transmitted via private mail facilities. I recall something about black pots and kettles? Maybe it was "Do unto others..." [The Far Side shall return (I hope)] Murph Sewall Sewall@UCONNVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) "Close enough for government work" - source unknown (naturally ;-)