Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: bios function 0x7f
Message-ID: <3212@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 4 Jan 89 19:06:01 GMT
References: <1263@atari.UUCP> <3774@druhi.ATT.COM> <1268@atari.UUCP> <470@bdt.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 57

In article <470@bdt.UUCP>, david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes:
> In article <3186@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Moral: Atari should be [firm but fair about breaking stuff]

> Maybe in a perfect world they *should* do this, but in the real world there's
> no way in heck they *can* do it.  It's a no win situation for Atari, so
> they have to take the "lose the least" option.

May I direct you to the following two articles (you can look them up
yourself, or if enough people care I'll post). Why can Commodore do this
but Atari can't?

< From carolyn@cbmvax.UUCP Tue Jan  3 09:53:10 1989
< From: carolyn@cbmvax.UUCP (Carolyn Scheppner CATS)
< Path: sugar!texbell!killer!ames!mailrus!ulowell!cbmvax!carolyn
< Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
< Subject: Unsupported Programming Practices
< Keywords: warning unsupported
< Message-ID: <5605@cbmvax.UUCP>
< Date: 3 Jan 89 15:53:10 GMT
< Reply-To: carolyn@cbmvax.UUCP (Carolyn Scheppner CATS)
< Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
< Lines: 70

<                               IMPORTANT !    

<        Official Warning to Rom-Jumpers, Structure-Hackers, and Others
<        ==============================================================
<           From Commodore Engineering, Commodore-Amiga, and C.A.T.S.

<      We who bring you the Amiga want to make it perfectly clear that
< if you don't follow the rules, you WILL break.  

[rest of article deleted]

< From daveh@cbmvax.UUCP Tue Jan  3 10:46:49 1989
< Path: sugar!texbell!killer!ames!mailrus!ulowell!cbmvax!daveh
< From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
< Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
< Subject: Re: Unsupported Programming Practices
< Message-ID: <5608@cbmvax.UUCP>
< Date: 3 Jan 89 16:46:49 GMT
< References: <5605@cbmvax.UUCP>
< Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
< Lines: 35

[body of article deleted]

Yes, Atari has to take the choice that loses the least. I agree 100%. I
just don't agree with you what that choice is.

To quote my buddy Karl, "system software must evolve, and if it does not
evolve, it hastens the eventual demise of the system". At some point you
have to make a clean break with the past, or you lose everything.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net      'U`