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

[Jo Even Skarstein <joska@nuts.edu>]

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Peter Rottengatter wrote:

> which most software would state such stuff. But then again it's useless,
> who reads documentations ? Virtually nobody, that's one thing that I've
> learned while programming STinG.

What's wrong with RTFM-answers? ;-)

> > Well, if this particular fix doesn't have any negative effects I can't
> > see any reasons not to do it. But it's also a matter of time and
> > resources, there are a lot of other things in MiNT that's more urgent
> > to fix.
> 
> I have offered to Konrad in my first posting that I'd write up the code
> and you only need to insert it into the MiNT code where necessary.

I'm all for it if it...

a) ...actually works and doesn't affect stability.
b) ...doesn't affect performance negatively.
c) ...doesn't introduce any security-problems.

IMHO it's hairy to grab the critical-error vector, but since I can
decide for myself what software I run on my Falcon I really don't care
what other people do :-) And if the code can be #ifdef'ed I really
don't care (I prefer to remove stuff I don't need).

> > BTW. why can't programmers put in checks in their TSR's when possible?
> 
> Trouble is, it works only one way, i.e. only programs that are supposed 

Yes, but even then most programmers doesn't do this. Even a trusted
and solid piece of software like NVDI doesn't check for MiNT. It
doesn't matter once you've got it right, but a "NVDI must run before
MiNT!" would be nicer than a nasty crash in the installation-phase.


/*
** Jo Even Skarstein    http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**    beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/