Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarson
From: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: Soapbox ramblings (long)
Message-ID: <14336@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 29 Dec 88 05:53:17 GMT
References: <3979@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles
Lines: 67

In article <3979@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> klieb@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Kurt Liebezeit) writes:
>Am I alone in thinking that Microware's pricing strategies are out of line
>with the supposed home computer market?

No.

>This brings me to my first question, gentle denizens of the net: are the
>bugs (as yet undiscovered by me) in 2.0 of the OSK C compiler worth paying
>$100 to trade for the bugs (perhaps small, and hopefully few) in version 3.0?

There were a lot of improvements between 2.0 and 2.2, making it closer
to a modern C compiler, and I think there are more in 3.0.  (I'm still
running 2.2 on osk 2.1.)  There were also a number of bug fixes, but
nothing major enough to compel an upgrade.  cstart.r must be modified
to get the 2.0 compiler working under osk 2.1.  (Elinate the unused
reference to the non-existant routine in cstart.a and reassemble.)

>Worst of all, I'm told that OSK version 2.1 is pretty buggy, so I'm looking
>at another $75 to go to 2.2.

I find 2.1 quite usable.
  
>The second question is: how bad are the bugs in OSK 2.1? Worth going to 2.2?
>Wait for 2.3? Punt?

You should probaby check out the Microware area on compuserve, they
list both information on new releases (new features) and bugs fixed.

>More questions: has the user group gone down the tubes or what? Were the money
>problems so bad that we'll never see another MOTD published?

MOTD is being published at irregular intervals.  The money situation
is not great, but I understand it is gradually improving.

> Or are they
>suffering from a lack of volunteers to write articles, etc?

I think they could certainly use more.

> Did I jump on a
>sinking ship by buying OS-9/68k in 1986?

I hope not, I'm sitting beside you.

>Is anyone out there running OS-9/68k other than TOP? (which, by
>the way, is a beam of light in an otherwise silent and murky software world).

With Mg, C-Kermit, patch, hack, and a few other goodies, I don't think
I've been exactly idle.  TOP picked up a few of my things (without
specific permission) but I wish they would distribute source.

>I'm about ready to start my own user group, ...

Well, one of my projects is getting usenet running on os9, and
starting an os9/68k oriented bboard on my system.  (Source archive and
some usenet groups are planned.)

I think lack of reliable source distribution is the major problem with
the users group.  Over 6 month turnaround from submission to
availability is just to long, and compuserve is to expensive (and
their software is user hostile) to take seriously.  Pete's archives
are oriented to os9/6809.

Bob Larson	Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu	blarson@skat.usc.edu
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson
Prime mailing list:	info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu
			oberon!ais1!info-prime-request