| From: | Victor I. Haaz |
| Date: | 15 Sep 2000 at 04:05:00 |
| Subject: | Re: AMIOPEN: Absence of VP in distros, and strategy |
Hello, Ed,
From: Ed Dana <EDanaII@CSI.com>
>Aaron Optimizer Digulla wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:35:37AM +0200, Juan Carlos Marcos Rodr�guez wrote:
>>
>> > From: Jim Peters <jim@aguazul.demon.co.uk>
>> >
>> > >> there should be some way for the OS to _enforce_ the presence
>> > >> of .00 (VP) binaries in any installation archive. However I don�t
>> > >> have any way of enforcing this at hand.
>> >
>> > > This is all nonsense. It's not an Ami program if it doesn't have
>> > > VP binaries - it would be an Ami/x86 or Ami/PowerPC program
>> >
>> > Then... So what, for the customer? Almost every computer in sight uses a x86
>> > processor. So this is viable. In fact, it's profitable. So it will happen.
>> > The solution is centralised control of the distributions, something very
>> > rare and alienating. Of course, I'm worrying too much. There's a ton of work
>> > to do to even get near this point. Just about that, two questions:
>>
>> The solution is pretty simple: Don't include tools to create native
>> binaries. This way, only a small fraction of people will be able to
>> create native binaries.
>
>Amiga programs will be represented by an icon (or so I hope), the user should be
>allowed the choice within that icon, or the ability to have two icons: Portable
>Executable or Optimized for Hardware.
In fact, it is handled automatically by Elate/VP. Since it belongs to the very basic
concepts. So, native tools (routines) used if present, and VP-code otherways.
>Never rob users of choice. Except when their is a good chance of it complicating
>their lives. Software lives to make the users life easier, not to control it. :)
Would you expect Mr. Average Joe to learn what's the difference? Why bother him
if not even really necessary?
Victor
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: open-request@amiga.com
Amiga FAQ: http://www.amiga.com/faq.html