Well, here's my $0.02 on the issue. .DO files were originally written by a completely closed system. Even when the TPDD came into being, .DO files created on the Model T and saved to disk and loaded back into RAM would *never* have an EOF character at the end. It was only until such time that these files were being manipulated on a non-Model T that they could be corrupted by appending an EOF when saved from an editor in that other OS. And then, drives like the TPDD would allow the files with these illegal characters to be loaded back onto a Model T without objection. The files containing the illegal character would corrupt the RAM file system, and cold starts will happen. This bit me in the butt big time, because the .DO files I was dealing with had been loaded into an editor on one of my other computers and then got saved with the <EOF> at the end. Years later, I load them into my NEC with LaddieAlpha & TS-DOS and I end up with a significant issue that I spent a day trying to troubleshoot.
Had my desktop host software (LaddieAlpha or mComm) dealt with stripping off the oh so common EOF character that other systems use so that the file doesn't corrupt my Model T file system if I load it with TS-DOS is actually rather appealing. I'm quite happy to concede the CS 101 "don't mess with the data!" tenet as a valid principle academically. I'm also quite happy to use software the purposefully "messes with the data" if it serves the very valid purpose of saving me a headache of cold starts. Fact is, there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to preserve an invalid EOF character at the end of a Model T .DO file. It's just taint that another operating system appended to the file for *its* purposes, nothing else. To me, it would be a useless option to opt-out of the proposed cleansing behavior which is in use within this limited Model T <--> Host-software closed system. Then again, I view things in a very pragmatic sense in my old age... On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:12 PM Brian White <[email protected]> wrote: > > Accepted. > -- > bkw > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 12:03 AM John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected] wrote: >> >> " implying that because he happens to operate the listserver, his opinion on >> a technical matter may not be contested" >> >> You inferred that. I never said any such thing. >> >> You're wrong about the issue, but you can be wrong and the world will still >> continue to spin. >> >> I agree I was too forceful with my opinion, and I apologize for that. >> >> -- John. -- Gary Weber [email protected]
