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

[Konrad Kokoszkiewicz <draco@piwo.bl.pg.gda.pl>]

> > Peter, yes, Atari approved XBRA protocol. But if you really think this is
> > an argument against MiNT, please tell me: what copyright notice is still
> > inserted into MiNT's welcome text? Isn't it "Copyright (c) 1992-1994 Atari
> > Corporation"?
> 
> I fail to understand why you keep thinking I'd be argueing against MiNT. 
> I'm not. After all I'm here to suggest an improvement, am I not ?
> 
> All that I'm argueing is that nobody should dismiss the standards set by
> Atari easily, as one won't do the Atari world a favour.
> 
> XBRA is such a standard, and I'm advocating it's use by MiNT. It causes
> no drawbacks, but will improve compatibility with existing software that
> you cannot seriously consider broken for having used a standard that has
> been set by Atari !

I am only trying to show you that calling Atari as an ultima ratio to
defense your proposal (regardless of whether it is useful or not, I has to
be discussed) is, keeping your style of expression, bullshit. Because
Atari at one hand has approved the XBRA protocol, but at the other hand -
they developed MiNT and MultiTOS. So perhaps the usage of the privilege
violation handler in MiNT is correct even according to Atari?

In other words: please use real arguments...

Gtx,
K.