🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <1830@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes:
>>Atari Corp. policy is that we offer developer support to registered
>>developers, not to end users.  I know how you feel about the issue,
>>and I'm sorry if you feel "left out."  It seems to me, though, that it
>>just wouldn't be cost effective for us to offer the level of technical
>>support we give to developers to end users.

I'm still carping.  If the TOS 1.4 documentation is indicative of what Atari
documentation is going to be like in the future, it's a gigantic step in a
good direction.  But I still think that making a listing of ROM contents, as
of some major freeze date, with comments, available to registered developers
would be a GOOD THING.  Extra charges, extra confidentiality agreements and
big red warnings "This is provided only as a supplement to <other documents>;
Atari guarantees to break any program dependent on OS features not promised
elsewhere" would be acceptable.  Although I also don't see any need to make
such a thing confidential.  I do see the need for warnings.
                                    Steve J.