🚀 go-pugleaf

ckt@best.com (Chris Thomas) wrote:
] 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.

I've worked at several in the 16 years since I was first paid to
write a program.

I have also written a significant amount of documentation for
various software systems that I've worked on, both for the
maintenance engineers that would inevitably follow on after I
was done with the code and for OEM's using source products.

The "difference" that you seem to be attempting to point out
was that the engineering documentation probably had specious
commentary, although that wouldn't have lived through any code
review I've ever participated in.

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

You're right.  Quite irrelevent, since the import things are
the numbers and the interfaces, not the broken English with
which they are described.  I'd happily try to use a documented
interface several ways by trial and error, and then I'd scribble
on my copy of the docs so I wouldn't have to deal with the broken
English again.

The point is to limit the damage, not necessarily eliminate it.

Otherwise documentation produced by English professors would
not have errata and everone would hire English professors ot
write their doc.


] 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.

Humor.  Ar ar.

] > ] 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.

Ah.  A potentially "real" reason.

Again, internal doc would not have passed review if this were
the case (and the review was professionally done).

The only possible problem here is that they would locate hardware
bugs and workarounds.  Worst case, without workarounds.

So they need a once-over.

The problems with workarounds are precisely the things that *do*
need to be documented.

Either way, I'd like a change to examine the reasons Apple is
keeping the docs under wraps on a case by case basis.  I can't
think of one that couldn't be refuted in terms of their hardware
dongle (the ROMs) or their attempted commoditization of the
Apple hardware by signing OEM agreements.

If you don't have answers, then just say you don't.  No one
has really asked you to defend Apple's honor in a trial by
combat.

Meanwhile, I'm not letting go until I have opportunity to FTP
or purchase or otherwise legally acquire docs (or HRP Macs are
released or IBM/someone sells a cheaper box that's comparably
equipped).


					Regards,
                                        Terry Lambert
                                        terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.