Re: System 6.0.1 docs

[uerics@mcl.ucsb.edu (Eric D. Shepherd)]

In <1smaa7INNa4t@ghidrah.cs.utexas.edu> fredp@cs.utexas.edu (Fred William Peterson) writes:

>>Now, before people have a cow, let me continue: I think Apple should turn
>>over the source code for the System Software to someone -- NOT NOT NOT to
>>the public domain or whatever.  They should find a reputable person or
>>group of people to turn it over to; making it public would lead to utter
>>chaos and would probably destroy any chances of the IIGS continuing to
>>have a good system.

>Hmm, I understand your point.  How about if Apple just released the 
>source code for the "non-core" routines?  We need to be able to 
>customize and change the OS as the computer world goes on.

I still don't think even this is a good idea.  In an operating system,
nothing is "non-core".

However, if this kind of information were to become public knowledge,
whether because Apple released it or because Apple II programmers
disassemble the OS, it would be best if a reliable Apple II
fanatic/programmer and/or a pro-Apple II company were set up as a clearing
house for modifications to the system.

But that's still not as good a solution as having an official source for
revisions to the IIGS system software.  There are several companies that
are entirely Apple II oriented that could (in theory) take on the job.

>Only the users love the Apple IIGS enough to continue supporting it.
>A business in charge of the code would just file it away as Apple 
>would.  There would be no profit in supporting a relatively old 
>computer with relatively few users.  If only there were a supreme
>users group to keep it, it would be perfect.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  There are companies that make
fairly good money off the Apple II.  However, doing system software
maintenance would, I agree, not be a profitable task, which is why I would
prefer to see some kind of organization of Apple IIGS programmers handle
it -- I assume enough of them/us are mature enough to handle that kind of
thing. :)

>Look at UNIX.  The source code for a lot of it is open to public
>inspection.  There's no chaos, but hundreds of easily installable
>commands and options.  Letting us see a bit more of how to extend 
>GS/OS, the Finder, and FSTs would not kill our computer, but help 
>keep it going, IMHO.

Ah, but the various Unix implementations are now arguing over which one is
the true Unix.  They've been struggling to create a Unix standard for
years now.  Programs designed for one Unix don't always work unmodified on
another Unix system (although they often do).  Commands even vary slightly
among the implementations.  I don't call that stable.  It's not chaos,
either, but it certainly isn't the epitome of perfection, either.

If there were to be revisions to the OS performed by people other than
Apple, it would be _absolutely_ necessary for there to be an official
place where these changes could be sent and incorporated into an official
version of the System Software -- this would allow applications to
continue to assume that they're running with certain features available.
If, for example, Mr. Bill added six new calls to the Menu Manager to
handle hierarchical menus to his version of System 6.1, and John Doe
didn't add those, there would be chaos.  But if Mr. Bill sent his changes
to OS Central HQ, and Mr. Doe did likewise, a version of System 6.1 could
be assembled that would contain the best of their new features, and chaos
would be avoided.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, since Apple hasn't, and most likely
won't, give away the IIGS SSW. :(

>Fred Peterson (fredp@cs.utexas.edu) a.k.a. "Bjorn Nitmo" 

--
Eric D. Shepherd                   | Apple II Alliance Charter Member
InterNet: uerics@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu  |           ACM Member
FidoNet:  1:206/2713 Eric Shepherd | Programming Law #2: If it works
AOL:      Sheppy                   | the first time, something's wrong.