🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <IUWu4Sy00WI8weQ0ZD@andrew.cmu.edu> rs4u#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Richard Siegel) writes:
>
>I've received a number of comments that the Juggler info's also in InfoWorld.
>
>I would venture to say that someone ELSE violated
>their nondisclosure agreement, and the InfoWorld should know
>about such things and not publish.
>
>Whatever...
>
>		--Rich

Hey, what's this? I believe there's something like the Freedom of Press,
at least in my country there is!

If InfoWorld has all the ins and outs of this new phenomena, it's their
_duty_ to publish and not their duty to think of Apple's non-disclosure
clauses! Whoever 'slipped' the information is responsible for doing
so and Apple is 'responsible' for sueing him/her providing the 'leak'
is found. Don't run along with computer companies that just love
the secrecy about their new products. InfoWorld has a responsibility
towards her readers for publishing whatever information it comes
across.

BTW: On a press conference this morning at the European Mac Expo
in Rotterdam, Holland, Larry Tessler (hope I spell that right :)
gave some information about the Juggler (how's that for
a non-disclosure violation :).

He said Juggler is a sort of marriage between the Switcher and Servant.
It uses parts of the Servant code. It has facilities to have certain
processes (like datacommunication or printing) running in the background.
He emphasized that applications can assign a _part_ of their program
as a possible 'background' process. Juggler will put those processes
into a 'real' multi-tasking environment. He stressed that it's not meant
for _entire_ programs to run in the background. "Macintosh programs
are very user-dependant. The user has to give information, work with
the application. It's not like Unix, where you can put an entire process
into the background. It wouldn't make much sense having an application
waiting for user-input in the background."

Paul Molenaar
(freelance journalist - now you know why I'm sensitive about these
subjects ;)