🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1370@alliant.Alliant.COM> rosenkra@alliant.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz) writes:
>
>first of all, atari has virtually no control over the OS: i don't even
>think they have source to much of GEM/TOS/GEMDOS/... it's difficult even
>to know the proper NAME of the OS and it's parts, let alone specific
>details.
I think they have (al last Alan Pratt said he had the sources..).
Names! Whats important about names?

> atari was not remiss in leaving a fair amount of discression
>up to developers and warned continously about using "non standard" or
>reserved things (sys variables, etc.).

Right. And the lack of *good* documentation is the difference to Mama
Blue. They made an open system, documented it and money came.
I believe, it was not only the appaerance of three magical letters (and
the bucks behind them).

>you are naive to think that programmers will magically band together
>and standardize the way things are done, especially those of us in it
>for the $$$. 

Why not? 
If Atari does nothing about it? 
If we all talk about the bugs and 'hidden features', tell the comunity
about worarounds etc?
>
>i really don't know how further standardization will give you any more
>power. for all its problems , GEM ain't too bad.
My employer 'forced' me to do some work on a MAC II; I dislike GEM more
and more....
hase
-- 
Hartmut Semken, Berlin (West) (*east of West-Germany :-)
hase@netmbx.UUCP
I think, you may be right in what I think you're thinking. (Douglas Adams)