Re: STiNG, CAB, and Multitasking (strikes back)

[hyc@troy.la.platsol.com (Howard Chu)]

  On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Julian Reschke-FJR010 wrote:

  > kellis@primenet.com%INTERNET wrote:
  > > 
  > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Jo Even Skarstein wrote:
  > > 
  > > >BTW. why can't programmers put in checks in their TSR's when possible?
  > > >The only program I've seen recently that does this is MetaDOS, which
  > > >says "MetaDOS must run before MiNT!" if it detects MiNT. In many cases
  > > >it's so easy to put in these checks (not only for MiNT, but for mosts
  > > >features it needs or doesn't work with) and notify the user instead of
  > > >just continue.
  > > 
  > > This I don't agree.
  > > You never know how new version are gonna react. So, a check won't be
  > > accurate just by looking at the name or cookie, well It could be good
  > > IF you look into version numbers, that would work.
  > > 
  > > You never know what's gonna come out.
  > > Be as wide as possible.
  > 
  > Well, at least for the special case of MetaDOS I have to comment that,
  > because it was me who put in the check.
  > 
  > MetaDOS installs a GEMDOS extension. We know that MiNT will un-link all
  > changes made to trap #1, so there's absolutely no point in running it
  > after MiNT.

  Again, another case where my suggestion would make a much more elegant
  solution. Of course only where it's possible, but I definitely think that
  MetaDOS uses XBRA here ? ;-)

The question isn't whether or not MiNT uses XBRA - it does. We already
know that. The question is, what parts of the system are appropriate for
third-party software to be changing? The privilege-violation vector is
unquestionably the property of the operating system, and not an application.
TOS already provides several legal, documented calls for getting in and out
of Supervisor mode. As such, STiNG's method can only be viewed as a dirty
hack. Konrad has also already shown that STiNG's method is slower than a
more legitimate approach, in CPU cycles. So, you have a dirty hack that not
only causes problems, but also wastes CPU time. Everything that has surfaced
so far in this discussion shows only that MiNT observes all accepted Atari
programming standards, and that STiNG is broken. Can we please move on now?

Howard Chu - Principal Member/Tech Staff - PLATINUM technology, Los Angeles Lab
hyc@locus.com,chu@platinum.com        visit my band! http://www.highlandsun.com
Advertisements proof-read for US$100 per word, payable within 10 days. Delivery
of your ad to my email address constitutes your acceptance of these terms.