From: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson - Amiga Networking)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Attn Commodore: You are making a Big Mistake (Hardware Manual)
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:26:37 GMT
Reply-To: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson - Amiga Networking)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Keywords: hardware reference manual

In article <1992Nov19.154759.12082@ifi.uio.no> stigo@ifi.uio.no (Stig Arne Olsen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.225947.5840@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, wille@june.cs.washington.edu (Robert Wille) writes:
>> ... someone (I forgot who) from C= stated that people working
>> on OS's would be able to hardware docs.  Just because there isn't a

>Well, so they think it's better that SOME get the hardware ref., but not
>all? That SUCKS!

Hey. Commodore makes the chips, Commodore makes the machines,
Commodore writes the docs, Commodore pays the engineers and Commodore
decides what does and does not get released to the public. 

We did it your way up til now and it created FAR more problems for
engineering, users and developers than it was worth.  So, this time,
we're doing it differently.  If, in your view, that "SUCKS!" then so
be it.  The fact is that "demo coders", while creating 'neato' things
to look at, do little or nothing for sales and they create an entire
generation of Amiga programmers that have failed to learn how to do it
right. The result is application software (you know, the stuff that
people pay MONEY for and expect to work on new machines) that is chock
full of silly, pointless coding errors and, often, _slower_ code than 
if it had been coded properly from the start.

>> hardware reference guide doesn't mean that documentation on the hardware
>> doesn't exist.  According to the previously mentioned article, people who
>
>I never said that the documentation did not exist, the whole discussion
>here is whether it should be made available to the public or not.
>I imagine it's pretty hard to design new chips without documenting how
>they work :-)

No. A discussion is where people _discuss_ a topic. What we have here
is people _demanding_ something and then complaining like children
when they are told "no".

>> have a *legitimate* reason (creating the best-ever demo doesn't qualify
>> as a legitimate reason) for needing docs on the hardware will be able
>> to get them.  I don't know if the Linux group will be able to get 
>> documentation or not, but I hope so and it isn't too unreasonable that
>> they will.

>I doubt it. Linux is not a commercial product, so it wouldn't surprise me
>a bit if C= wouldn't release it to them. I also remember one time that
>someone wanted to include some CLI-commands in their public-domain work,
>this was something _everybody_ already had, and would only make it more
>easy to install the utility (forgive me for not remembering the exact
>program),but Commodore refused. I have no reason to think they have
>become more easy to deal with now.

Please don't spread such bogus mythology. Anyone with an application that
requires any/all of the Workbench files on their distribution can
acquire a Workbench license for a _small_ fee and have at it. Matt
Dillon's DICE (registered version) comes with this. No big deal.

There is nothing whatsoever "hard to deal with" with that.

>> Robert

       +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
       Brian Jackson    Amiga Networking Group, Commodore-Amiga Inc.
                        bj@cbmvax.commodore.com
     {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj    or   networking@cbmvax.commodore.com
                       uva uvam vivendo varia fit 

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer