🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vkmbd$b4@park.uvsc.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> wrote:

> Subject change, please.
> 
> ckt@best.com (Chris Thomas) wrote:
> ] I can answer that question, as can most people, I think.  Properly
> ] documenting something takes time.  Apple only has so much documentation
> ] effort to go around.  Apple is planning to bring out an (almost)
entirely new
> ] operating system next year.  Apple has just released the HRP specs.
> ] What would you rather have documented at this point?  This year's 
> ] proprietary structures which will be going away next year?  Or the
> ] new OS in it's entirety?
> 
> As a user of their hardware but not their OS, my answer would
> have to be hardware.  But presented as an "A xor B" proposition,
> I'd have to say that the OS is of more strategic importance.
> 
> I don't agree with your XOR, however.
> 
> ] > I am not bashing computers.  If anything, I am bashing OS's.  And
> ] > if I am doing that, it's tangential to what I'm really bashing,
> ] > which is Apple's failure to document their hardware.
> ] 
> ] Apple does document their hardware, internally.
> 
> So photocopy that and sell it, and use the prfits to hire
> someone to clean it up, and sell that too.

> This claim that there is doc existant counters your earlier
> argument about limited resources to produce doc.  It doesn't
> need to be produced if it exists, just published.  And sales
> can cover publication costs at a very small level.

I wasn't entirely clear.  The documentation that exists inside
Apple is documentation written by engineers, and intended to
stay inside Apple.  It's written on the assumption that it will
stay Inside Apple.  Do you understand?  You might need to
work at a high-tech company for a while before you see the
difference, but it's important.

A point irrelevant to that one is that engineers aren't
English professors.

> Compared to what I initially pais for PCI and PCMCIA docs,
> even several hundered dollars would seem like a bargain.
> 
> 
> ] What hardware has Apple failed to document that anyone needs access
> ] to (and can't get access to themselves?)
> 
> You mean without reverse engineering?
> 
> On board ASICs, register locations, command values, etc.  The
> Lunix guys have noted this before, and so have I.
> 
> ] Again, it comes back to "Why should Apple make the effort at
> ] the expense of it's other documentation if so few programmers
> ] will be better off?"
> 
> You already said the doc exists.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but you're being useless persistant here.
Do you want real answers, or flames?  I can provide either on
request.  I know that a Mac fell on your mother in a past life
and therefore you hate Macintoshes with all your heart, but you
could learn to leave well enough alone.

> ] Anyone who really needs documentation for
> ] a legitimate purpose *can* get internal documentation by asking
> ] Apple for it.
> 
> You reiterate that it exists.  Clearly, it would not be at the
> expense of their other documentation efforts.
> 
> ] But they do need to convince Apple that they have
> ] a legit purpose, and they need to sign an NDA.
> 
> Why?

Why do you think?
Because the docs inside Apple might contain information
that could hurt Apple if leaked to the competition.

Another point is that this is not unique to Apple.  Or
Commodore or Escom or Microsoft.

-- 
Chris Thomas, ckt@best.com