Re: STiNG, CAB, and Multitasking (strike

[Peter Rottengatter <perot@pallas.amp.uni-hannover.de>]

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jo Even Skarstein wrote:

> > I should say here that I'm not a friend of ASH either, ATM I'm fighting
> > their arrogance to attempt to establish a one-line-per-paragraph format
> > ("endless" lines) on Usenet and e-mail (the "ASH-Emailer").
> 
> If more news-servers around the world enforced the RFC a bit stronger (512
> chars per line IIRC) perhaps ASH will realise that breaking conventions is
> A Bad Thing? 

The 512 character limit is only for NNTP command lines, i.e. header lines
etc, but not text. So the RFC does not provide the means to tell ASH off.


> They're not only arrogant in that they set their own standards (look at
> the MagiC AES

I'm not sure what you're referring here to. MagiC AES implements virtually
all MultiTOS extensions meanwhile. The few things that are different result
from a different point of view of the system. Under MiNT, AES is just a 
process that uses the multitasking system, while under MagiC AES is an
integrated unseparable component of the system. But even those differences
are better called extensions. As a test you can try to run MultiTOS
applications under MagiC. Some test for the MiNT cookie, of course you
must work around that.


> ), but that they give discounts to MagiC-users ("power-user",
> yeah right ;-) for software that works equally well with TOS, Geneva,
> MiNT/N.AES/whatever. 

That's pretty silly indeed. It's probably a marketing method to boost
MagiC sales.


Cheers  Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Peter Rottengatter       perot@pallas.amp.uni-hannover.de
                            http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/~perot
---------------------------------------------------------------------