🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <368@boing.UUCP> dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes:
|It is not a good idea to put this stuff in any of the libraries and
|begin a precedent of tolerating software bugs.  We must strive for
|perfection in this operating system and associated applications or
|we will eventually wind up limited by our own short sightedness.
|
|If we expect to continue to make progress we must be able to count on
|certain activities in the os and applications. The ones that for some
|reason or another fail to work properly must be revved to that other
|applications and os software can count on well running execution
|environment.

All true, except that the current behavior (GURU on negative opencount)
is simply unacceptable, especially since there are ways to avoid that.
It makes ALL  Amiga applications and the OS look flakey.  Software
bugs are "acceptable" in a "protected" machine.  The Amiga is not such
a machine.  I perfectly agree that there should be some kind of
warning message, which could be a Recoverable Dead Alert which could 
"name" the task that incorrectly decremented the library open count.

Perfection is great. Unfortunately it doesn't sell machines per se.
Error recovery seems much more important to me, especially in the
OS of a non-protected multi-tasking machine, in which multi-vendor
applications can stomp on each other.  Since the protections are not
in the hardware, the software HAS to do the extra job.  Just my
5 cents.

-- Marco Papa 'Doc'
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
uucp:...!pollux!papa       BIX:papa       ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu
 "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=