| From: | Dr Greg Perry |
| Date: | 28 Mar 2001 at 08:09:58 |
| Subject: | Re: [D5] St. Louis? |
On 28-Mar-01 16:47:15 Tim Seifert wrote:
>_Replying to a message_
>By: Jonathan Potter <jpotter@lss.com.au>
>To: dopus5@lss.com.au <dopus5@lss.com.au>
>On: Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 8:00:19 AM
>Re: [D5] St. Louis?
>Hi Jonathan,
WH>>> While the Windows version of DOpus is in the works is there any
WH>>> chance of a patch to the Amiga version so it will more politely work
WH>>> with OS 3.5 or 3.9? ... allowing animated .gifs to work....
JP>> H&P are responsible for the altered behavior of Workbench when Opus is
JP>> running - talk to them about it.
>If you want to sell a product for a particular computer, you have to write
>it to work with its current operating system. Insisting the OS is changed
>to suit you, rather than coding for what exists, or refusing to accept it
>as it is, is being pig headed. No matter how good or bad the OS actually
>is.
>Which beggars the next obviously logical question: If you don't want to
>code to bad or stupid OSs, why are you making a Windows version?
>Though, if you're not trying to sell your product anymore, it doesn't
>matter. Or if you're /only/ going to support the older OS, rather than
>the current one. You may as well say so, if that's the case.
>It may be more profitable to ignore the newer OS, with less people using
>it. But it's really cutting off your own nose to spite your own face.
>Likewise if you tell people use the OS's GUI, *or* DOpus, but don't
>complain to me that DOpus doesn't work with the official operating system
>user interface.
>The whole thing looks like, to me, yet another progammers bun fight, where
>they all go around stating their programming skills are better than the
>others; to avoid actually making things compatible. Arrogant smugness is
>not impressive. And the users get left with half useable software, just
>because of programmers egos.
For perhaps the last time I'll try again. Aren't mailing lists constructive
vehicles.
We see it in very very simple terms.
There is no Amiga market left so who is going to pay for us or other
developers to support unilateral actions to make changes to an aging OS
on the part of one German developer who then sells product which invalidates
existing software. Quite simple. They refused to talk or cooperate with
other commercial developers remaining on the Amiga in this regard. The history
is there for all to see. The last time we tried to discuss things with them
they refused our suggsetions that they make the icon library compatible, which
they could have done but Petro and H&P wanted to maximise profit for minimal
development expenditure. So the answer is simple. They are welcome to the
the market all to themselves and have the freedom to create a captive market
to which they sell their own software. It is the end users who will loose.
So, shall we end this silly topic now. I am getting tired of explaining the
same position again and again.
-------------------------------------------------------