Re: Randy's inherent hate of Apple IIs

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <6949eq$61f$4@opal.southwind.net>,
Randy Shackelford <shack@onyx.southwind.net> wrote:
>Nathan Mates (nathan@visi.com) wrote:
>:    Randy, with such blindsided and stupid opinions as to what the
>: Apple II can do, why do you bother sticking around here? It sure as
>: heck ain't the processor which limits the design of GS/OS to not have
>: a good clean API between the OS, the FST and the drivers. 

>You're the one who mentioned Linux right? Is there a 6500 version of Linux?
>Why not do you suppose? If you don't see that 6500 processors have their 
>limits, you're stuck in the '70s or something. 

   There's no port, and I'd not expect one. GNO/ME is an acceptible
substitute for many, and as it's already up and running, it'd make no
sense to split development efforts getting something else up and
running. Given that it's good clean C, it could be ported easily once
GS drivers and boot code written. And ditch the "hand assembly is the
only way to get any speed" crap too-- GNO/ME is 75+% C, probably same
with AWGS, and many other programs that are running just fine for
users. The 65xx processors do have their limitations, yes (64K stack
is the most annoying to work around), but that's IRRELEVENT here.

   As I said before, "IT'S THE CODE DESIGN, STUPID." A bad interface
is purely dependent on the lack of forethought and design on Apple's
part, not the processor. (And good code design was laid out in the
late 50s and definitely practiced in the 1960s, another point
destroying your idiotic argument about the processor's age) 

   GS/OS Device Drivers have a good interface that didn't change all
the time, same with the Toolbox. That's two out of three where Apple
did a good code design *first*. They failed to do so on the FSTs. Stop
your idiotic excuses and just admit that Apple messed up here.

>I wonder what Dave Lyons, Andy Nicholas, et al would think about your
>evaluation of their software design expertise. I don't think they'd take
>kindly to it.

   Geez, who appointed you their spokesman in their absence? For the
record, I've found many bugs in GS System 6.x, and reported them. [I
can crash a basic install of 6.0.1 w/ Teach and *no* other addons,
plus plenty more bugs.] They didn't try and blame it on the processor
or take it personally-- they were polite, thanked me for finding
things they didn't, and appreciated my releasing patches when they
were prevented from doing so *by* *APPLE*. They sure didn't have a
burr up their butt like you do.

>I'll just bet that there is a reason why FSTs are tightly coupled to
>the operating system code that doesn't presume crappy design of the
>system.

   Well, if you're claiming to be so smart with regards to the
processor, and exposing yourself as technically incompetent to comment
on software in the meantime, your "bets" are meaningless. I'm speaking
facts here as to what the GS can do, what good code design is, and
you're just coming up with bullshit after bullshit. When you've
actually learned with good code design is, and how it works in the
real world, then you might be able to comment on it. But, your blind
worship of Apple as evidenced by your trying to take insults to the
design of GS/OS personally shows you couldn't comment rationally on
anything out of Apple without shit coming back out your mouth from
your constant asskissing of Apple.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein