Re: Randy's inherent hate of Apple IIs

[shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford)]

Nathan Mates (nathan@visi.com) wrote:

: >No that is not what you're seeing. What I'm getting at is actually what
: >you're saying yourself, that it's easier to get good performance out of 
: >hand coded assembly than compiled code. For 8 bit Apple IIs in particular,
: >it's the only way to get any speed at all. You don't have linux on Apple IIs
: >because there isn't enough horsepower to run so much compiled code.

:    Randy, once again, thanks for proving your hate of Apple IIs and
: the processor. You're coming up with bullshit technical reasons once
: again for the "lack" of something that are dead wrong in the real
: world. GNO/ME is at least 75+% C code, according to the current
: maintainers. [Derek Taubert wished it was more C, less asm, in fact]
: As I've said elsewhere, GNO/ME is a more than adequate substitute, and
: as it's gotten the development time, it should continue to get
: supported.

You can always prove me wrong by writing a C compiler that you can use
to compile Linux on an Apple //e. When can we expect to see it?

:    Face it, Randy. This is bullshit being propagated by you to justify
: your blind worship of Macintosh, Inc. You're coming up with statement
: after statement which is just being shot down ("The 65xx can't do good
: code design" "The 65xx can't run compiled code" "FSTs were anything
: but bad code design") by the truth and facts. There comes a point
: where your blind devotion to Macintosh Inc causes all reason to escape
: from your brain, and you're just making yourself look silly. All your
: silly reasons bashing everything but Apple show that you *do* have a
: hate of the hardware, simply because you cannot admit that Apple
: messed up here.

I honestly don't give a piss whether you think I "hate" the hardware. So
I won't dignify that crap with a response.

:    It's much easier to accept that Apple never had a good design for
: the FST API, then all of these *WRONG* reasons propagated by you. But,
: since you've got your nose so brown from kissing Apple's ass in
: public, you sure don't seem to care about your appearing the freak in
: public.

I guess they did such a good job making print drivers, DAs, and the like
completely modular, then decided out of spite to make FSTs more dependent
on OS internals out of spite or something. Yeah, sounds reasonable. I
buy that.

:    Back to the original point of this thread: Apple royally messed up
: the API of the GS/OS FSTs. And that's *NOT* the fault of the 65xx
: series, that's not the fault of the language things were written
: in. That fault is purely on the programmers at Apple. And yes, I'm
: saying they could have done it better, but they shaved too many
: corners. If they're gonna be insulted by such a statement, I'd rather
: hear that direct from them rather than bullshit excuses from an Apple
: buttkisser.

Originally, you said that Linux has a better design for using differnet 
file systems. And I said well why isn't there Linux on Apple IIs? That's
how this crap got started. You haven't answered the question why Linux
isn't available. And a hand coded lookalike doesn't count. If you think
Linux is the thing to have, come up with a way to get it to run on an
Apple II. If you can.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.