Good point, Mike. I actually think I support the opt-out feature, just as long as the name of the switch on the LaddieAlpha.exe command line is --allow_file_system_corruption
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:20 PM Mike Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > Give up, John; just add a -EOF CLI option as requested and let the user > guess which one will crash the system, or better yet a checkbox: > > "Crash system after loading (Y/N)?" > > Most ridiculous argument I've read in a long time; why burden an > inexperienced user with a choice that he/she might not understand when one > of the two options will crash the system? > > A good program IMO does its job with as little confusion and/or risk for > the user as possible, regardless of some irrelevant CS101 "principle." > > Maybe just mentioning in the documentation that an inappropriate CTL-Z > will be stripped and the extension changed if necessary will satisfy the > zealots... > > Sheesh! > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2019 2:14 AM > *Subject:* Re: [M100] Weird "bug" with TS-DOS 4.0 (ROM version) > > "That places the obligation on the wrong party." > > It's not a legal issue. It's just functionality. > > Arguing on other turf (FTP, or checksum algorithms, etc) is to totally > ignore the issue. > > But really, you're arguing on the basis of principle that I agree with in > principle, but in real life an engineer weighs the issues and can set ANY > principle aside. > Yes my decision will violate your assumptions in a hypothetical scenario. > I guess. > > That's what I did here, I set a principle aside, because there is zero, or > really, negative, value in inloading a character that crashes the machine. > > The exception to the rule serves the greater good, such as it is with our > little hobby. But I make decisions just like this in work, and it is part > of what makes me a good engineer. > > -- John. > > -- Gary Weber [email protected]
