Hyperion announces OS 3.1 update

[kolla]

C:Wait and C:Sort, both version 42.1, at least the sources are not a problem, hehe

The FILE option of Wait 42.1 has turned out to be quite useful for me, simple trick to solve situations with several background running scripts having dependencies on each other etc.

[Gulliver]

C:Wait and C:Sort, both version 42.1, at least the sources are not a problem, hehe

The FILE option of Wait 42.1 has turned out to be quite useful for me, simple trick to solve situations with several background running scripts having dependencies on each other etc.

The problem with those updates as far as I know is that they are post 3.1 CBM era and are not part of the rights Hyperion has, so they cant be included, but of course, their extra features can be reimplemented.

[guest11527]

The problem with those updates as far as I know is that they are post 3.1 CBM era and are not part of the rights Hyperion has, so they cant be included, but of course, their extra features can be reimplemented.

That sums it up, and I believe we might even have 4.x versions with these features, but I really did not consider them important enough to bother at this time.

[kolla]

The problem with those updates as far as I know is that they are post 3.1 CBM era and are not part of the rights Hyperion has, so they cant be included, but of course, their extra features can be reimplemented.

Code: [Select]

dr-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        0 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     5628 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.ld
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        2 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait_rev.rev
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      217 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait_rev.i
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      976 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.ld.strip
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     5604 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.o
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     1158 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.map
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      175 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait_rev.h
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     6050 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.c
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     2201 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/lmkfile
dr-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        0 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     1884 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.map
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     5984 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.ld
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      214 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort_rev.i
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root    18533 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.c
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     2280 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.ld.strip
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     2201 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/lmkfile
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      172 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort_rev.h
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        2 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort_rev.rev

From what I recall - CBM folded in 1994.

https://pastebin.com/L3uU1Cmq

[Gulliver]

Code: [Select]


dr-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        0 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     5628 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.ld
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        2 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait_rev.rev
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      217 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait_rev.i
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      976 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.ld.strip
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     5604 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.o
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     1158 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.map
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      175 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait_rev.h
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     6050 Jul 12  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/wait.c
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     2201 Jul 19  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/wait/lmkfile
dr-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        0 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     1884 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.map
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     5984 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.ld
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      214 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort_rev.i
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root    18533 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.c
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     2280 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort.ld.strip
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root     2201 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/lmkfile
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root      172 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort_rev.h
-r-xr-xr-x  0 root   root        2 Aug  9  1993 os-source/v42/src/workbench/c/sort/sort_rev.rev


From what I recall - CBM folded in 1994.

https://pastebin.com/L3uU1Cmq

The key element there is not that of the year, but of the version number.
Version 42.x was post 3.1, so it is a no go, despite still being built during CBM era.

[kolla]

My current handling of C:Edit is that I removed it from the distribution.

I wonder how wise that is, I believe I have seen installer scripts use C:Edit, for altering startup-sequence and other things.

[kolla]

The key element there is not that of the year, but of the version number.
Version 42.x was post 3.1, so it is a no go, despite still being built during CBM era.

That sounds whack, one would think that released 3.1 CBM code and unreleased WIP "3.2 beta" CBM code was pretty much the same, legally.

Who owns rights for the kickstart "3.2" kickstart of the Walker?

[Gulliver]

That sounds whack, one would think that released 3.1 CBM code and unreleased WIP "3.2 beta" CBM code was pretty much the same, legally.

Who owns rights for the kickstart "3.2" kickstart of the Walker?

Legally speaking 3.1, and post 3.1 code are two entirely different worlds apart.

As for who owns 3.2 beta kickstart, one thing for sure: it is not Hyperion.

[olsen]

I wonder how wise that is, I believe I have seen installer scripts use C:Edit, for altering startup-sequence and other things.

Because I made a mistake when I wrote the Roadshow installation script I thought I could put the "Edit" command to good use in order to fix the problem I had created. The "Installer" tool has only very limited string/file manipulation functions, so "Edit" seemed like an option to try. However, it turned out that the V36 "Edit" command could not be used because the editing commands I needed either did not work at all, or crashed the command.

The "Edit" command which shipped with Workbench 2.0-3.1 suffered from several bugs and limitations which rendered it mostly unsafe for use. For example, the DTA, SA and SB commands never worked at all, the WIDTH and PREVIOUS arguments didn't work either, lines longer than 120 characters could cause Edit to slip up badly and path names longer than 120 characters would trash memory before even loading the respective file.

When I got curious after I ran into the "Edit" bugs I took the plunge and fixed the bugs, using the original BCPL implementation as a reference. The updated version is available in a form usable within the context of Workbench 3.1.4. As far as I can tell it's now on the same level as the Workbench 1.3 version (last updated in 1985) and "only" suffers from the same design limitations.

However, this is a Catch-22 situation bordering on satire: if "Edit" saw limited use because it was rarely safe to use in the first place, replacing it with a version which actually does what it's supposed to will accomplish exactly what?

[kolla]

Legally speaking 3.1, and post 3.1 code are two entirely different worlds apart.

I would say that depends entirely on whether it is CBM or post CBM, but whatever - doesn't look like anything of the v42 stuff from CBM ever went to H&P's OS3.5.

So who has rights/ownership to the CBM v42 code?

[kolla]

if "Edit" saw limited use because it was rarely safe to use in the first place, replacing it with a version which actually does what it's supposed to will accomplish exactly what?

This is AmigaOS, what's this "safe to use" thing you speak of? :laughing:

I think it is great that Edit has been worked on, a standard scriptable editor is in my opinions quite important and useful for the OS. If it now is more stable and reliable, then the worst that can happen is that it will be used more often.

[olsen]

I would say that depends entirely on whether it is CBM or post CBM, but whatever - doesn't look like anything of the v42 stuff from CBM ever went to H&P's OS3.5.

That is correct. Work on V42 stopped when development was ongoing, and we were in no position to evaluate if the current state was preferrable to what the V40 code was in. Even the V40 code was still being worked on when Commodore went out of business. So we stuck with the V40 code.

So who has rights/ownership to the CBM v42 code?

Does it matter? As far as the shell commands, etc. are concerned a rewrite based upon the V40 code isn't such a demanding task if you wanted to implement the same functionality or even something better. The shell commands were the "long hanging fruit" anyway. Just look at how the "Sort" command does its job. It can be improved merely by randomizing the order in which the individual lines are added to the list. With only very few exceptions none of these commands had been updated since 1990.

[olsen]

This is AmigaOS, what's this "safe to use" thing you speak of? :laughing:

How about lack of constant embarrassment as the next best thing? Much of the code which received the long overdue upgrade in Workbench 2.0 was never updated, its limitations and failures known for a very long time indeed. Not much happened here in the next 3-4 years, and software such as "HDToolBox" and "prodprep" arguably became less stable and robust as development "progressed" on them.

I think it is great that Edit has been worked on, a standard scriptable editor is in my opinions quite important and useful for the OS. If it now is more stable and reliable, then the worst that can happen is that it will be used more often.

One small problem remains to be resolved: how does a script file figure out if it's using the more well-behaved "Edit" command or its more embarrassing predecessor?

[kolla]

One small problem remains to be resolved: how does a script file figure out if it's using the more well-behaved "Edit" command or its more embarrassing predecessor?

Same as with shell scripts - ask the "interpreter" what version it is, and bail out if the answer is not satisfying?

[Romanujan]

Better yet - ask using the Version command

[guest11527]

Quite frankly, I believe you should not really depend on edit anymore. It would probably more advisable to create something more robust and reliable in first place, or fall back to another solution for the same problem.

REXX comes to my mind.

Otherwise, any attempt to write a script that depends on such commands becomes a nightmare in first place as the script first has to go through hoops to check for "which version of edit to we work with today?". This is not creating a more robust solution, but a less robust one. It might just crash on the "lesser working versions" of it.

Deprecating the beast is not the worst option, really.