From: hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu)
Subject: Re:  Falcon is an Ape
Keywords: Me Too!
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:36:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.115505.14348@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> falavi@bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk (Farrukh Alavi) writes:
>Read my original post again. I was quoting OFFICIAL ATARI LITERATURE. It
>genuinely surprised me as well to see them claiming the incompatibility. 

Ah, missed that detail. Well, score one for incompetence...

>Ah, agreement finally :-)

Rare thing on usenet, eh? }-)
>
>>> Mucho NeXT emulation in things like their choice of DSP, the SCSI-2  
>>>port, the black colour of the case. Even things like BLiTTER and MiNT  
>>>are dead giveaways. Again, in the aforementioned interview, Sam was  
>>>quoted as saying that he hoped that the TT would "clobber" the NeXT.  
>>>Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism....
>>
>>Sincerest form of flattery, I thought the line went... Blitter and MiNT
>>have nothing to do with the NeXT box. The ST blitter has been around in
>>some form or another since 1987, and MiNT arose merely because someone
>>who was fed up with a single-tasking OS decided to do something about it,
>>and didn't feel like running ST-Minix.

>I never claimed that BLiTTER and MiNT have anything to do with NeXT. It  
>_is_ clear, however, where they got the inspiration to SpELL them that way 
>rather than just BLITTER, blitter, MINT or mint.

Well, now I understand what you mean, but I still disagree. (And while
the point is really too trivial to worry about, it seems to be the only
real disagreement we have here so I'll keep at it. }-)

ST blitter existed long before there was even a rumor of a NeXT machine,
and it has always been spelled out "BLiTTER". Since the operation it
performs is commonly called a "bitblt" I guess Atari felt they had to
make sure the letters "BLT" were emphasized... Or perhaps it's 
related to the AT&T DMD terminals, I dunno if those "Blits" were SpELLED
in any funny way or not.

As for MiNT - well, recursive names are pretty common in the Unix world,
(XiNU is Not Unix, etc...) so I don't think you can blame this on NeXT
either. Main point being, you're accusing Atari of copying ideas from
NeXT and Amiga, and I don't think that's really the case.

>>>I don't mean to incubate :) another Falcon flame war here, so any Atari  
>>>fans reading this please note that the above does not include anything  
>>>other than raw facts. I will, however, say the following (mainly because  
>>>it is too difficult to resist:):
>>
>>Hm, I would say the article contained a number of raw facts followed by
>>a number of ludicrous conclusions.
>
>Well, you would, wouldn't you...
>
>I invite you to point out what "ludicrous conclusions" were drawn in my 
>original post - you yourself seem to agree with my major verdict
>on the machine, namely that there is very little in the Falcon that has  
>not been done on other machines already.

Ok, I suppose if we agree "nothing is new under the sun" then there's nothing
wrong with that conclusion. But your posting conveys a tone that implies
that all of the ideas present in the Falcon are just copying of other
companies' ideas. I would say that despite the fact that certain elements
of the system have been used in other systems doesn't negate the fact that
the Falcon is an original piece of work. Even discounting the features that
are unique to the Falcon, you have an original work in the same way that
a collection of public domain music (for example) can be copyrighted - the
compilation is a unique creation, an original work. The Falcon is new, unique,
and original because it combines so many different elements into a single
package. And moreover, some features you point to as being copied from
another company really aren't, they were present in Atari systems long before
other companies used them, or they were common practice before that.

I'm surprised you didn't point to the 3-1/2" floppy disk drive and accuse
Atari of copying IBM or Apple there, as well. Or point to the SCSI-2 port
and accuse them of copying the workstation companies, or look at the
68030 and accuse them of copying NeXT there as well.

I could say "Gee, they copied that IDE hard drive controller from PC
companies" but the simple truth is they wanted the cheapest thing they
could find to control the smallest possible device, because the case was
getting cramped. IDE won because 2.5" form factor drives are plentiful
there, and they had already designed an IDE controller for their notebook
computer. Using a 68030 is just a logical extension to upgrade a 68000,
but by your thinking Atari would be copying Mac, NeXT, Sony and HP or
somesuch. Using real SCSI is just an extension of ACSI, and SCSI-2 just
makes sense for a contemporary design.
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

All true wisdom is conveyed in one-line witticisms.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy