🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <527@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, ralph@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Ralph Mitchell) writes:
> 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 say "the following programs are going to break in rev
> >>such-and-such of TOS. Other programs that make this, thato, or the other
> >>assumption will also break. We're giving you X months warning. These changes
> >>are necessary to fix the a, b, and c bugs and to add these enhancements...".

> >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.

> Just how do you suppose Atari are going to find out who has been making use
> of the bugs in TOS ??  How many suppliers can you name that have declared
> "Note: This program makes use of TOS bug such-and-so." ??

They can (1) test the programs under a kindler, gentler TOS; (2) ask the
developers (using the reply card when they send out the developers kit
with the new TOS in it); (3) ask developers who have been trying to fix
the bugs on their own (David Beckmeyer, for example); (4) etc...

Also, they do not need to catch all programs. They must know of some, at
least, that they discovered while working on TOS 1.whatever. Nobody expects
them to be perfect.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net      'U`