> Si, on the other hand, has modified the dsk format without telling > anyone (and I really hope he hasn't done anything else). All I have to > say is: get the basics working first, then add the extra functionality > *AFTER* you've released the source code. I really hoped Si wouldn't do > this, but it seems that I was wrong, and that he might be attempting to > make the Win32 version better than the others. > > Then again, Windows programmers are all alike -- they've got no respect > for other platforms. DOS programmers are about as bad, too: "Go and get > DOS because it's the right STANDARD!!!!" -- if we listened to that sort > of advice, we'd all be living in trees.
9/10 for sweeping generalizations, 6/10 for religious warfare tactics, 10/10 for missing the point. "He might be attempting to make the win32 version better than the others"? SO WHAT? 1. He's still working on it. 2. It's under GPL; therefore it'll be released as source code anyway, so you can do a backport if you like. 3. It's his time and effort. It's up to him how he spends it. As you'll have the source, you can spend the time backporting it if you like. 4. The only person who knows what he's doing on it is Simon himself. And heaven forbid that I should take Simon's Win32 port, and add a debugger API to it, and have my win32 assembler system talk to it through that. After all, it wouldn't work on Linux. So we can't do it! "Then again, Windows programmers are all alike -- they've got no respect for other platforms." Sounds like I could say the same about Stuart Brady... no respect for other platforms. Why not just wait and see what happens? Also: the DSK format has NOT been modified. It'll still be the same. There will, however, be ANOTHER format that can correctly represent protected/non-standard disks. The current format has no concept of sector addressing, it doesn't know about different length sectors. So it can handle standard disks, and that's it. That's not sufficient. Simon
