May I say, I expected something like that to happen sooner or later?
No, that's not entirely true. I expected accusations that someone cries out that some developer intentionally modified his/her code in order not to work, or work erroneusly on OS4/MorphOS. I expected, that there will be noone ATM to tell, if the accusations right or wrong, and knowing the truth only years after.
But this is just plain childish.
(For those not knowing, and not on beta mailing lists: there are many problems with imperfect code, which breaks the standards laid down in the docs, yet for some reason works on the classic machines and not on MorphOS. There is not only one case where it was claimed that MorphOS is *censored* because a code won't work on it, then turned out that there was a serious bug in the code, which for some odd reason left unnoticed on the classics. Some pop up on MOS because of the hardware differences, different addresses, etc., but there are some which cleanly show that the MorphOS code is different, yet strict to the (auto)docs). That's why I have (as time passed by) became convinced that no original sources were used, but that is just IMO, based on some experiences.
I was just amazed when I heard how easily Piru finds those errors, and always turn to be right. And there are just a few cases when MorphOS is to blame, and not the coder has to fix his buggy code. He must have some divine abilities.
