Re: System 6.0.1 docs

[fredp@cs.utexas.edu (Fred William Peterson)]

In article <uerics.736924384@mcl> Eric D. Shepherd writes:
>>me if it's not), then will Apple be fully documenting the still-
>>undocumented bits, like FSTs, etc.?  Releasing the source code?
>>
>>I hope Apple will do that, so that the system software can continue
>>to be supported, by the users if not by the manufacturer.  It would
>>be a shame for it to stay forever stuck in 1993.
>
>I hope not!!
>
>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.

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.

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.

>--
>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.

-- 
Fred Peterson (fredp@cs.utexas.edu) a.k.a. "Bjorn Nitmo" 
CS undergraduate - University of Texas