Floppyshop 2/Floppyshop - 2.zip/Floppyshop - 2.iso/diskmags/0022-3.564/dmg-0081/info89/853.txt

Text File | 1997-04-16 | 12KB | 256 lines

=========================================================================

INFO-ATARI16 Digest         Fri, 22 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue  853

Today's Topics:
               Malloc on 2.5 Meg 1040stf - help needed
                   summary on ICD autoboot problems
                          The Rape of Usenet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 89 00:25:56 GMT
From: mcsun!hp4nl!dutrun![e-mail]  (Hans Buurman)
Subject: Malloc on 2.5 Meg 1040stf - help needed
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I think I'll need help on this one...
I recently upgraded my 1040 stf to 2.5 Mb using a kit by Weide
(although this is not a hardware problem). I found that one of
the programs I use intensively (turbo c linker) won't make full
use of the extra memory. The reason is the following:

This linker uses gemdos call 0x48 (Malloc) at least twice for
each file read. It appears that this call can only be issued
some 300 times, after which it fails, regardless of the amount
of free memory. This problem does not occur on a Mega ST !
Maybe it is only present in early gemdos versions ? (I bought
the 1040stf in March, 1987).

Right now, my workaround is to link from the desktop, without
ramdisk, turbodos, etc. I'm cooperating in a large project,
so I really could use a solution. Can anybody help me ?

Anyway, merry Chistmas everybody !

        Hans

========================================================================
Hans Buurman               | [e-mail] | [e-mail]
Pattern Recognition Group  | 31-(0)15-78 46 94       |
Faculty of Applied Physics | Delft University of Technology

------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 89 23:22:23 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!texsun!pollux!ti-csl!vlsic2![e-mail]
 (James Parker)
Subject: summary on ICD autoboot problems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I earlier posted a message asking about problems I was having with the
 ICDBOOT.PRG
and trying to disable the autoboot from the hard-drive. Thanks to everyone who
replied and with their help and some luck of my own, I have managed to solve it
sort 0f...

With my ST (1040 with TOS 1.4), the following sequence would allow the ST
to boot completely from the floppy disk, ie. not using the AUTO folder of the
hard drive boot partition.

DO a cold boot, and wait for the Floppy drive light to come on and then go off
again. Now press and hold down Ctrl/Alt/Shift until the hard drive light
flashes on an goes off. Now release the keys and the computer will continue
to boot reading the floppy.

One more thing to note. If you have ICDBOOT.PRG in the AUTO folder of your
floppy, it will be read no problem, but the computer then goes to hard drive
and installs whatever accessories are there for a hard-drive boot.
If you want to come up with the accessory arrangement on your floppy, the
easiest thing is to remove ICDBOOT.PRG from your floppy AUTO folder and
run in manually after you have booted. You can then access your hard drive
no problem.

I'm sure there are more elegant fixes than this, but... I also had several
people say just get SUPERBOOT or G+PLUS, etc., and forget about it.
Probably good advice.

Anyway, there is the summary of what I discovered.

Thanx again,

james parker

------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 89 00:01:59 GMT
From:
 zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu![e-mail]
 .ohio-state.edu  (Neil Gilmore)
Subject: The Rape of Usenet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

(all points I don't discuss deleted)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Diane Barlow Close)
 writes...

>This message was posted by Dave Small to the atari newsgroup, and I have
>many objections and some questions I'd like to pose to the net (so as not
>to waste net $$ please direct all followups to news.misc or alt.flame):
(I'd like to, but our reader is brain-damaged)
(if someone else can, please put this in the appropriate place, thanks)

>-> Date: 19 Dec 89 06:00:28 GMT
>-> >From: [e-mail] (David Small)
>-> Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
>-> Subject: USENET -> GEnie uplink now working
>-> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>->     It's time to announce that there is now a working uplink
>-> from USENET to GEnie. Each note posted into comp.sys.atari.st is sorted
>-> by topic, and uploaded to "Category 10" of the Gadgets RT on GEnie.[...]

>->     The link is one way. GEnie makes its living selling information
>-> bases to the public, and doesn't want them downloaded and distributed
 freely.
>-> [...] I just want to get the maximum freedom of information
>-> exchange possible between these networks; [...]

In this case, the maximum is not enough to allow the minimum.

>I object to this ONE WAY transfer of information.  Dave talks about the
>*exchange* of information.  This is not an *exchange*, it is a one-way
>transfer of Usenet information.  I object to the rape and plunder
>(*for profit*) of Usenet!  A summary of Usenet, or perhaps ``this is the
>latest from Usenet'' (1 or 2 articles follow), is acceptable. This wholesale
>plunder of Usenet is not.

I must second this opinion. Unless the 'article' link is both ways,
forget it.

>->     I wanted to let you know to prevent invading anyone's privacy.
>-> [...] If someone has a real need not to have their notes forwarded to
>-> GEnie, I will be happy to put a "filter" on to prevent it by request; [...]

Thanks Dave. It would have been genuinely dishonest to make this
link and not tell anyone... but I would have preferred discussion before
the event, not after. Oh, well, at least we get to discuss it now.

>I think this should be changed to ``only take articles from Usenet if a
>person sends Dave his *approval*''.  Why should I have to trust Dave to remove
>my articles?  What if he misses one?  What if my mail can't get through?...

If the link doesn't go away as I want it to, I think this is an
acceptable alternative. Post only what has specific permission to post.

(If you read this Dave, This is the ONLY one of my postings which I wish
to go to GEnie. NO OTHERS may. Attempted mail to follow.)

>I also object most strenously to Dave limiting MY access to information by
>scaring away Usenet posters who don't want the kind of publicity GEnie
>offers.  Usenet is supported FREELY by a conglomeration of machines (each
>company covering a bit of the expenses) and I object very, very much to
>GEnie profiting from other sites' generousity.

I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Publicity?

>->     It seems to me like a benefit for everyone involved, especially
>-> if/when 2-waymail gets going.

No objections, only encouragement for a mail link (both ways, of
course). Dave, there is a mail link to CompuServe, but I don't have any
details. Mail is fundamentally different than posting. It is an exchange
between 2 people, not 2 organizations.

>-> [...] other areas on GEnie are
>-> expressing great interest in having a USENET uplink. Basically, folks,
>-> USENET is perceived as the place where the people who know what they're
>-> doing post notes.

But have any USENET groups expressed interest in having their group
uplinked to GEnie? Have any USENET groups even expressed interest in a
2 way link to GEnie. If USENET is preceived as the place for those who
know their stuff, why did those others get GEnie accounts instead of
accounts on public USENET machines? I know of only 3 (portal, madnix,
and macc), but there must be many other machines out there on which
anyone can get an account.

>Does this mean that soon *all* Usenet groups are going to be appearing on
>GEnie?  I hope we can stop this before it gets out of hand!

Agreed. Stop this now.

>->     Why do it? Because a long time ago, on the CERL site on PLATO, a
>-> person named Sherwin Gooch, ex-PLATO, ex-Atari, and now with Apple,
>-> introduced me to the hacker ethic and freedom of information exchange as
>-> its primary goal. (No, not illegal exchange, you know what I mean). [...]

Sounds like a defferent hacker ethic than what I was raised on... I
don't follow any of that crap they fed me when I was younger.

>->     If anyone feels this is wrong, I'll be more than happy to listen and
>-> if convinced, drop the link. [...]

I think you're getting an earful of what we think.

>Write Dave Small and voice your objections TODAY, before it's too late and
>Usenet becomes GEnie (and you have to pay through the nose for what was
>formerly free)!

Sorry. Emotional argument of this type doesn't cut it. I don't believe
that USENET will cease to exist because of this link, but it won't help
it any either.

>->     Well, enough said. I hope this leads to good things -- GEnie users
>-> getting good information on time, for instance.

Dave, you are known to us as a doer of good things. Your reputation is
impeccable, at least in your business dealings. I believe that you
intended to do good by this, but I believe more strongly that,
ultimately, this will do no good for those who are generating the
information that you wish to pass along, instead doing good for persons
having no real connection with the originator.

>The more Usenet becomes publicized, the greater the danger of someone in
>political power becoming ``concerned''.  Perhaps concerned enough to pass
>legislation like that currenly up for review in New York:  a sysop must
>validate each and every *message* that is posted to his BBS and must also
>guarantee privacy of the message and guarantee that the message NOT appear
>on any other service.

Bad news to me. Blast this and other similar legislation, except for
privacy of private email. Also unenforcable, as no sysop can guarantee
that no person ever will download a message and upload it somewhare
else. Make the originator responsible for their postings, not the
sysops.

>Is there anything (legal?) that we can do to stop this link?  In general,
>are there any ``net rules'' for this type of thing?  Is GEnie in any danger
>by uploading Usenet articles wholesale?

I hope that Dave will understand our sentiments and close down the link
until such time as the Net Gods can pass judgement. I would think that
any postings which specifically say that their information may not be
distributed for profit would be incorrect for uplinking, as GEnie would
be profitting from their posting to USENET. This pretty well leaves out
any of the binaries and sources groups, as well as most of the code
fragments in postings. As Dave does not profit, he should be in no trouble.
Who will monitor every message to be certain which may be distributed and
which may not be? That is what it would take to ensure copyright
compliance.

>Diane Barlow Close
>      ?nosc, ucsd?!crash!canada
>      [e-mail]
>      Free Canada -- Trade Mulroney

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kitakaze Tatsu Raito  Neil Gilmore     internet:[e-mail] |
| Jararvellir,          MACC, UW-Madison bitnet: gilmore@wiscmac3       |
| Middle Kingdom        Madison, Wi                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V89 Issue #853
*****************************************