Unofficial CyberGraphX v4 bug fixes

[Trev]

I don't need the architect's permission to add on to my house. I don't need the hardware designer's permission to add on to my Amigas. I don't need the software designer's permission to add on to my software, particularly when the operating system was designed specifically with that capability in mind.

There are many friendly, open, and reapsonsive developers in the community. There are also those who operate as a professional cartel, stonewalling attempts to effect change. It's sad, it's counterproductive, and it's demoralizing to those who donate time and resources to the betterment of the community without any desire for compensation.

[Trev]

Back in the day, the two communities--professional and hack--would have been comfortably segregated. It's at least refreshing to see everyone playing together, nicely or otherwise.

[Trev]

Did Piru ever get permission to patch Exec, or do we conveniently ignore the transgressions of our more popular and prolific community members? ;-) (Does he still post here? I haven't been on much in the last four years....)

EDIT: But yeah, @Cosmos should have contacted the original author. I for one stopped fiddling with Amiga software because it stopped being fun. When I reported issues with e.g. the OS 4 SDK ages ago, they were ignored. :-( I suppose I should unload my kit. What does a Blizzard 1260 with SCSI adapter go for these days?

[Trev]

I think the point everyone is trying to make is if an Amiga developer--they're special, you see--opts not to support their software, there's f**k all anyone can do about it. ;-) This is true in enterprise environments as well, but it's understood and accepted that enterprises modify software in various ways to facilitate compatibility and interoperability. Behavior similar to SetPatch and SetFunction has existed in DOS and Windows for decades, for example.