Re: sytem 6.0.2?

[Antoine Vignau <vignau@cybercable.fr>]

Hello,

Thanks for the messages. Here are some points that need to be discussed
and explained:

1) Yes, the complete source code of System 6.0.1 exists. I did it once
(never
trust your hard disk drive, make backup copies, grrrr) then I did it
again!
The proof is on Olivier's web site (http://www.cyberstation.fr/~zardini)
with
the French version of the System (all compoments have been translated
and re-assembled)

2) I once asked people to send me bug reports of the System. There were
few
answers (which is surprizing strange when you count the number of
existing patch/update programs)

3) We once asked some folks at Apple for the opportunity of the making
of
our 6.0.2. The answer was quite clear : DO IT BUT BEWARE OF OUR
ATTORNEYS!
It was a long time ago, maybe we could do something now if Apple
copyrights
remain!

4) I once did a patch of the TextEdit ToolSet, I really think that the
thing
had to create a new version of the tool and not a patch. Patches are
nice but
are not very comfortable to use (taking lots of memory, more files to
load...)
BUT they are useful (FixFont 6.0.1... blahblahblah)

IMHO it is now time to do something...but in a certain order :
           first, correcting bugs
           then, adding features                  Am I wrong ?

    Antoine Vignau - Olivier Zardini
         Brutal Deluxe Software

P.S. : Olivier, how is it going there ?


Brian Hammack wrote:
> 
>  Ludowick (the Harry Protagonist) raised the cup and toasted:
> 
>  LC(| I remember hearing some time ago that Brutal Deluxe was working
>     | on an upgrade to Sytem 6.0.1, but didn't release it for fear of
>     | legal action on part of Apple Computer.  Would it be legal for
>     | them to release a "patcher" program that would make patches to
>     | the needed files to upgrade System 6.0.1?
> 
> Disclaimer:  I'm not associated with BD, I'm just offering my 2c.
> 
> There are certain parts of System 6.0.1 that are snarfed in a way that
> complete rewrites are better, cleaner, more reliable, and more feature-
> additive than dropping a patch on top.  You list some items that patch
> various programs (and Twilight's blank-on/blank-off sound patch isn't
> the only one available to tweak the Sound CDEV -- another one exists
> which works with some modem program but only that program recognises
> any of the two dozen hooks except "GSOS->8bit" and "8bit->GSOS"; but
> these patches only add, they don't fix like the Jawaid's HFS.FST patch
> or make an non-program-specific enhancement like Sheppy's System Error
> patch to Sys.Resources), but wouldn't it be better to just have the
> improved items right there on your originals instead of having to fix
> them after installation?  When BD redid that Tool for the number of
> styles one could have in a document, they redid the Tool instead of
> writing a doodad that would edit it.  Much faster and simpler to use.
> 
> As for the legal aspects, I can't speak much -- it's be excellent if
> Apple would say, "Sure, guys, you can redo our code to improve it since
> we the company have given up support."  If BD rewrote the System from
> scratch using none of Apple's code, they couldn't say anything, but
> that is a lot of work.  (At least they could change the name, right?)
> Has BD asked Apple if they can have at it?  Would Apple take them to
> court if they did release a fixed System 6 or be happy that people are
> still interested in their computers, if they noticed/cared at all?
> 
>  LC(| --  Soylent Verde es containos humanos! --  Carlos Heston
> 
> hehehe!
>                                                         << mushroom >>
> 
>  * 2qwk! 2.04 * Heard outside Ruby Kahn's bedroom:  "Vidi, vinci, vini."