Re: TSR blacklist

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:

>  >extensions to the AES would have been nice. The problem is that nobody
>  >really use them. How many apps do you see that use MultiTOS-like toolbars,
>  >which has been around for several years?
> 
> Nobody ever uses them, because everyone insists on supporting TOS 1.0
> in their applications... so they end up integrating custom libraries. 

So we agree :-) I'm proud to say that all my apps require MiNT and a
modern AES ;-)

> Every time a GEM application specifically requires AES 4.1 or better,
> half the Atari community complains it won't work on their 520 STM...

Toss 'em a copy of Super Sprint and tell them to shut up. Seriously.

> IMHO, it's about time we start making use of AES 4.1 and 030 features,
> releasing stuff that specifically makes use of newer qualities.

Definelately.

>  >I'm afraid that means that ASH will push their wdialog-extension, 
> 
> Well... ASH should have revised the innards of MagiC to follow MiNT
> practices, once Atari adopted it as THE standard...

But that's not the reality. ASH does what they want, which is
unfortunate for everybody. If they had approached the MiNT-community
before they implemented new things, we could have had support for them
in both MagiC and MiNT, with common APIs. As things are now people
rarely use the new features since they're MagiC-only. MultiTOS is
still more wide-spread than MagiC... 

>  >No it's not. The last thing we need is yet another protocol or API. 
> 
> Read my original post again. 

I did ;-)

---------8<-------------
IMHO, it's about time N.AES and MagiC people sit down and draft specs
on what new system calls should be added, then release a Compendium II
to document the new functions.
-----------8<-----------

You clearly state that new system-calls are needed, which I don't
think they are (yet). What really needs to be done is to start an
offencive towards programmers and convince them to use existing
protocols, APIs, MiNT- and AES-features etc.

> My point is, there are protocols that duplicate each other. I NEVER

Which ones? The problem isn't to many protocols, but that some (many)
programmers simply ignore them and implement every little feature in
their own programs.

>  >I've been thinking about putting together a web-site with descriptions of
>  >all the modern, powerful, *existing* protocols we have, perhaps this is a
>  >good time to start...
> 
> Ohhh! Coolness! You're volunteering?! ;-)

It's just a matter of spare time ;-) The skeleton for this site has
existed since Christmas actually.

Anyway, this is totally off-topic, so does anybody know what happened
to the GEM-list? Is it still alive?


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