06/10/87: GETERM by Delphi, | Category: Delphi - Telecommunications | 39 comments - (Comments are closed)

GETERM

29016 10JUN87-0223 Telecommunications
GETERM
From: REXHEBERT To: GREGMILLER

Greg, I have been using Geterm for a while now and it is my main
terminal program. It’s a fine package and operates smoothly.

I wanted to ask if the Source Code is available as there are
a few modifications I’d like to make to my copy.
I would like to experiment with different attributes on the
CoCo 3 screens and the positioning of displays.
I don’t mind losing the lower res. screens as I run 80 col.
only.

Is there a patch to allow a true break to be sent?
I’d like to patch in some kind of simple disk utility to
extend the directory capabilities it offers.

Would the Source Code be included in the $10.00 package you
have made available?
I have some assembly language experience and would like to
give it a try.

Anyway, thanks for Geterm and I’m glad to meet you
any suggestions you might have would be welcome.

And Special thanks to Marty for all his help in getting
me started here on Delphi, it Really is an :
Instant CoCo Community and I’m glad to have access to it.

REXHEBERT

39 comments to GETERM

  • pucc_unknown

    29024 10JUN87-1810 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29016)
    From: GREGMILLER To: REXHEBERT

    Rex,
    I apprieciate your comments on GETerm. However, the source code is not
    available. I make it a policy not to release source code of programs such
    as GETerm, because the high majority of people who’d like the source would
    like to attempt to modify it. Now, don’t take this personally, but most
    people who ask for GETerm are incapable of writing it, themselves, which,
    in my opinion, makes them incapable of modifying it, correctly. What does
    this all mean? Well – many of these people WOULD attempt to modify it, and
    then start giving copies of their “Turbo-GETERM” away.. When problems
    arise, people would complain to -ME-..
    So.. the whole of the matter is, that, I really can’t give out copies of the
    source code, even with the $10 copy.
    Sorry!
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29027 10JUN87-1941 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29024)
    From: REXHEBERT To: GREGMILLER

    Thank you Greg for your quick reply and I see your point about
    Turbo-Geterms becoming potentially defective headaches for you.
    I don’t know if I have enough A/L experience either.

    I was curious and thought I’d ask but I certainly dont take it
    personally as it does not affect my enjoyment of the program,nor
    my respect for the work involved in its creation.

    Thanks again, Rex

  • pucc_unknown

    29129 13JUN87-2025 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29024)
    From: HARBIE To: GREGMILLER

    WHILE I AGREE ABOUT THE ASSESMENT THAT HAVING TTHE SOURCE CODE WOULD BE A
    HASSLE AS FAR AS GETTING ALL KIND OF VERSIONS FLOATING AROUND , I HAVE TO TAKE
    EXCEPTION THAT IF YOU CAN’T WRITE IT , YOU CAN’T MODIFY IT PROPERLY . I
    COULDN’T WRIT
    E MTERM BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE CODE I DISSASSEMBLED I CAN CUT AT LEAST 1 K
    RIGHT OFF THE BAT . EVEN THE SMALL PEEKS I TOOK INTO COLORMAX REVEALED SMALL
    INEFFICIENCY IN THE JOYSTICK ADDRESSING ROUTINE FOR
    ONE AND A FEW UNNECESSARY LONG BRANCHES ELSEWHERE . THERE IS A WORLD OF
    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING A GOOD PROGRAM IDEA AND IMPLEMENTING IT , BOTH
    REQUIRING DIFFERENT SKILLS WHICH THOUGH BOTH MUST BE PRESENT IN A GOOD
    PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMER , CAN BE PRESE
    NT SEPARATELY IN DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS . I HAVE FOR EXAMPLE A GOOD DISK ZAPPER
    WRITTEN BY A FRIEND , VERY USEFULL BUT WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE YOU
    BARF !

  • pucc_unknown

    29149 14JUN87-1308 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29129)
    From: GREGMILLER To: HARBIE

    Roger,
    Nope. I stick with my original assesment! If you can’t write it yourself,
    you aren’t capable of modifying it! (you may be able to modify it, and
    get it working, but you are terribly likely to make mistakes if you
    don’t understand it!)
    – Greg

    PS – those “unneeded long branches” you found in the joystick routines? They
    ARE needed. They happen to be there for timing.

  • pucc_unknown

    29158 14JUN87-1827 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29149)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGMILLER

    Greg,

    In this matter you are simply plumb WRONG. No if’s, and’s, but’s,
    or or’s! Your suggestion that if you are not competent to rite
    a program you are not competent to modify it is utter nonsense!

    Very often minor changes in major programs substantially
    OT need to be able to
    write the thing from ground zero to fix bugs or enhance
    sloppy design aspects.

    I side SOLIDLY with Roger in this little discussion.

    I can cite numerous examples. I know of a friend who
    was unable to write a terminal program (or certainly
    poorly able to, and who did not want to) who, never the less,
    successfully added needed cursor control to a terminal program
    he had (after I broke the protection on it).

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    29200 16JUN87-1828 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29149)
    From: HARBIE To: GREGMILLER

    THE LONG BRANCHES I WAS REFERRING TO WERE NOT IN THE JOYSTICK ROUTINE , THEY
    ARE SPRINKLED ALONG THE PROGRAM , THE PART OF THE JOYSTICK ROUTINE THAT STRIKES
    ME FUNNY IS THE PART THAT CONVERTS THE 0 -320 READING INTO A 0-200 ONE . YOU
    SAVE THE ORIGINAL VALUE,
    DIVIDE IT BY 2 SAVE THAT THEN GET THE ORIGINAL TO DIVIDE IT BY 8 . I
    SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IF YOU DIVIDED THE ORIGINAL BY 2 , SAVED THAT THEN DIVIDED
    AGAIN BY 4 YOU’D SAVE ABOUT 6 BYTES . (I AM AWARE OF THE TIMING OF THE HIGH
    RES THINGIE , I FIGURED OUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE FROM THE LISTING IN RAINBOW )

    I MUST STILL DISAGREE , YOU CAN
    UNDERSTAND CODE YOU DO NOT WRITE , EVEN FIGURE OUT THE ORIGINAL INTENTS OF THE
    AUTHOR AND THEN >>>AND ONLY THEN< << YOU MODIFY IT , I DON'T SUGGEST PUTTING
    ANY OLD PATCH IN THERE UNTIL YOU ARE DARN SURE JUST WHAT THE ROUTINE YOU WANT
    TO MODIFY DOES HOWEVER,
    THAT IS SUICIDAL .

  • pucc_unknown

    29164 14JUN87-2157 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29158)
    From: GREGMILLER To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Marty,
    Sorry, but no. I stand by my comments that if someone is incapable of
    writing a program, they are by FAR prone to mucking up the works, w/o
    ANY knowledge of what they’ve done. SURE – they may get it working,
    but who KNOWS what they may screw up (inadvertantly)? (ex: deleting
    code that “seems” to be useless…)
    Nope. If they can’t write it, they don’t understand it. If they don’t
    understand it, then their “patches” are potshots. And – if they “patch”
    it by taking “potshots”, then they are obviously making an incomprehensible
    mess.
    Like I said – SURE – they MAY get it working.. But if they do, god knows
    what ELSE they’ve done. And – I don’t need 500 people griping at ME, because
    someone else “patched” one of my programs, and accidently removed some
    “worthless” code, which caused the new copy of the program to crash disks.
    Nope.
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29219 17JUN87-0144 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29158)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: MARTYGOODMAN

    I agree with you about improving programming
    skills by writing patches. I ran a CoBBS
    system before I took it down (little time to
    maintain it). The original code was, to use
    the phrase I coined, more buggy than a rotting
    log. I got a working copy of the software from
    Jim Parsons (BVILLJIM) from Bartlesville, Ok.
    I then added a few little goodies myself, plus
    fixed a bug or two. With all the time that I
    spent on this project, I gained a better
    understanding of the BASIC language.

  • pucc_unknown

    29221 17JUN87-0148 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29158)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: GREGMILLER

    Greg, I can understand the problems “patched”
    copies of your software would do, but the
    statement “If you didn’t write it, you can’t
    fix it” is not applicable in a lot of situations.
    If someone is VERY knowledgeable in assembly
    language development, they have a good chance
    of fixing bugs. I added some niceties to CoBBS,
    as well as fixing a couple of bugs. I did this
    because I’m VERY familliar with BASIC, at least
    the Microsoft version!

  • pucc_unknown

    29313 21JUN87-0414 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29158)
    From: DIAWA To: MARTYGOODMAN

    After reading your message there’s something I’m wondering about. There’s a
    certain pretty well known programmer in the CoCo community who is said to have
    taken protection of programs so that they could be copied at users group
    meetings.
    And in your message you mentioned taking protection off.
    Exactly how far does legality go in this matter?

    …ERIC…

  • pucc_unknown

    29190 16JUN87-0514 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29164)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: GREGMILLER

    You have already conceeded my point.

    Of COURSE someone capable of writing the program in the first
    place is MORE able to quickly make solid, working mods!
    I would never argue otherwise!

    BUT, it is beyone question that folks of lesser ability
    (like myself) can… and HAVE… made small but extremely
    important and valuable changes in much bigger programs.

    Actually, in writing those changes, one learns often to
    become a better programmer. It was in part with what
    I learned modifying two releases of the INtronics
    driver software for their Eprom programmer that I
    learned enough to confidently write my own
    (far better) driver from scratch a while later.

    Also, note that even if one HAS the ability to write
    the entire application, one may not have a snow ball’s
    chance in Hades of having the TIME to do it.
    Or the confidence. Or the inclination. Thus, it is
    OW for sure if someone who
    CLAIMS they lack the ability to write the whole
    package does or does not have that ability…
    you may NEVER know!

    —marty

  • pucc_unknown

    29199 16JUN87-1813 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29190)
    From: GREGMILLER To: MARTYGOODMAN

    Marty,
    Hmm. I suppose I carry a different view. To me, if they don’t understand
    what they’re doing, then they aren’t qualified. I suppose, I see what you’re
    trying to say, but I still hold my point.
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29205 16JUN87-2112 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29200)
    From: GREGMILLER To: HARBIE

    Roger,
    NONONO! I never said that if you didn’t write it, you can’t understand it!!
    I said that if you CAN’T WRITE IT, then you’re most likely NOT CAPABLE OF
    SUCESSFULLY MODIFYING IT!
    Oh – for my using extra, unneeded divide-shifts… I write code as it forms
    in my mind. If, in mmind, I find that I can generate, say, 1/5 of a value
    in a certain manner, I’ll code it as straightforward as I can. Taking time
    to optimize every byte of code, (or, sections of code) is a luxury for people
    who aren’t on deadlines. If I had optimized everything, ColorMax 3 would
    STILL be on the drawing board. Regardless, the code is, on average,
    exceptionally
    CLEAN, and straightforward.
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29226 17JUN87-1826 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29205)
    From: DONHUTCHISON To: GREGMILLER

    I have to agree with you, Greg. I’ve found the coding in
    BSCTOOL, GALLERY, and your other programs to be QUITE
    straightforward and “clean”. I wish more code were written that
    way.

    I can’t believe that anyone will quibble about six bytes of
    code in a 29,161-byte program… I guess you should have spent
    more time on correcting that terrible coding inefficiency than
    on the icons, the joystick/mouse interface, the patterns, the
    composite/RGB monitor problem(s), the pull-down menus, the MGE
    file format, and the GALLERY/BSCTOOL utilities, huh?

    (( sheesh ))

    Don

  • pucc_unknown

    29242 18JUN87-1824 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29205)
    From: HARBIE To: GREGMILLER

    I’D NEVER TRY TO OPTIMIZE NEXT TO 32K CODE EITHER ! , GLAD YOU DID NOT , I
    LOOOOOOVE COLORMAX !!!

    READING YOUR MESSAGE , I NOTICE TTHE ‘MOST LIKELY ‘ AND JUST PLACE MYSELF IN
    THE EXCEPTION CATEGORY .

    ->=====< - (PROUD GRIN)

  • pucc_unknown

    29227 17JUN87-1828 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29221)
    From: DONHUTCHISON To: POLTERGEIST

    I think that’s really Greg’s point… *IF* someone is
    proficient at A/L programming, he stands a fair chance at
    making his modifications work. I think Greg’s main concern is
    for those who only *THINK* they know A/L, and would produce a
    botched version of his program. At least, that would be MY
    concern.

    Plus, proficiency at A/L programming doesn’t really impart a thorough
    understanding of the inner workings of a terminal program, either.

    Don

  • pucc_unknown

    29236 17JUN87-2234 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29226)
    From: MIKEWARD To: DONHUTCHISON

    I’ll probably get cut to fishbait on this but what the heck.
    I too support Greg’s position but from a different point of view.
    Writing a popular program (or programs) like Greg and Erik have
    comes with some responsibilities, not the least of which
    is maintaining some control and consistency over the product.
    Doesn’t matter if the program is a commercial endeavor
    or a program written to be given away and shared by all freely.

    There is a very real attitude of responsibility that often goes
    with having written a program that many thousands of folks use
    and the feeling of “protectiveness” does not (in my case)
    come from selfishness about making the source code available
    but more from one of compassion for the users of the program
    and the desire to remain the source of change and enhancement
    to the program.

    Perhaps it’s fear of losing control or whatever but I like to
    think that that’s the original author’s prerogative.

    As the demand for modifications and/or patches
    become “in demand” (like the new coco 3, Hayes modem
    dialers, etc), I like to think the original author
    is in the best position to respond to these demands.

    I would also like to commend Greg and Erik for maintaining
    a presence and for being available to respond to these
    changing demands and I, for one, certainly think
    the end-user benefits quite greatly from this “presence”.

    Mike

  • pucc_unknown

    29244 18JUN87-1827 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29226)
    From: GREGMILLER To: DONHUTCHISON

    Don,
    Heh. If people could SEE some of the really horrible bugs that Cmax3
    contained, they’d be in shock.
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29278 20JUN87-0926 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29226)
    From: HARBIE To: DONHUTCHISON

    i was not quibbling over 6 bytes , merrily demonstrating that even if i can’t
    write anything the magnitude of colormax i can still efficeintly modify it .

    but as long as you bring it up , it would be 6 bytes over 100 , the size of yhe
    joystick routine . as for their importtance , the fact that the program is so
    large makes them specially important . they can make the difference between a
    feature that f
    its in memory or not !

  • pucc_unknown

    29240 18JUN87-1818 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29236)
    From: GREGMILLER To: ALL

    Folks,
    I have the funny feeling that I’ve either been terribly misquoted, or
    I used a VERY wrong group of words. If I did (which I doubt) say
    “If you didn’t write it, you can’t fix it”, I apologize. But – I
    DO carry the general belief that if you don’t understand it, you have
    pretty good odds of mucking up the works. I had no intention of saying
    that if you’re not a regular software author that you can’t program.
    However, like I’ve said before (probably too many times) – if you
    can’t write the program yourself, you most likely don’t understand it.
    If ya don’t understand it, how’re ya gonna fix it??
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29247 18JUN87-1853 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29236)
    From: GREGMILLER To: MIKEWARD

    Mike,
    Ditto for you! Sheesh. To support MTerm, you frequent EVERYWHERE, and
    go out of YOUR way to make sure that everyone can download the newest
    versions. If anyone deserves to be commended, ’tis you!
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29276 20JUN87-0917 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29236)
    From: HARBIE To: MIKEWARD

    don’t worry , I’ll keep my knifes in the kitchen for this one , for i already
    have conceeded to greg’s position of keeping control over a program that is put
    in the pd . i only took exception to the position that you should be able to
    write it befo
    re you can pretend to be able to modify it . i never read a book on assembly
    language in my life ( until recently i did not even know who leventhal is \)
    all i have learned i did by dissassembling other ml program , understanding
    them and modifying t
    hem for my needs . if greg’s position held water i’d never have gotten anywhere
    !

  • pucc_unknown

    29250 18JUN87-2211 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29247)
    From: RICKADAMS To: GREGMILLER

    Yes, I’ve found some pretty amazing bugs in ColorMax 3 myself! Still a pretty
    darned
    good product, though.

  • pucc_unknown

    29258 19JUN87-0051 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29247)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: MIKEWARD

    Plus, that was the first WORKING terminal
    program that I have ever used. Beats the
    heck out of the RS-232 Pak ROM!

  • pucc_unknown

    29252 18JUN87-2317 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29250)
    From: GREGMILLER To: RICKADAMS

    That’s NOT what I meant!!
    – Greg
    (grin)

  • pucc_unknown

    29256 19JUN87-0047 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29227)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: DONHUTCHISON

    I understand. What seems to upset programmers
    are folks who THINK they know AL, and try to
    fix a program, but as a result, it crashes
    and burns on boot up.

  • pucc_unknown

    29257 19JUN87-0049 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29244)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: GREGMILLER

    Horrible bugs, eh?

    Just spray some RAID on the disk.. Should take
    care of it! :) < -

  • pucc_unknown

    29266 19JUN87-2237 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29258)
    From: MIKEWARD To: POLTERGEIST

    Almost anything, even Megabug, beats the RS232 pak software.

  • pucc_unknown

    29271 20JUN87-0018 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29266)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: MIKEWARD

    Wouldn’t you say that there should be a law
    againt drinking and programming?

  • pucc_unknown

    29272 20JUN87-0053 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29257)
    From: GREGMILLER To: POLTERGEIST

    Nonono! Cmax3 doesn’t HAVE horrible bugs! Everyone’s reading info into
    what I said.. I meant that, in DEVELOPMENT, it had bugs.
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29284 20JUN87-1207 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29272)
    From: RICKADAMS To: GREGMILLER

    I was partly poking fun at you, partly serious when I said that I’d discovered
    lots of bugs in ColorMax 3. I’ve found some bugs, but nothing serious, and
    the one thing I’d gripe about the most (the hi-res interface “jitter”) was
    not under your control.

  • pucc_unknown

    29285 20JUN87-1333 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29284)
    From: GREGMILLER To: RICKADAMS

    Rick,
    Ya know – that’s the number one complaint from people. The hires interface’s
    jitter.
    – Greg

  • pucc_unknown

    29288 20JUN87-1426 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29271)
    From: MIKEWARD To: POLTERGEIST

    I would agree that drinking and attempting anything serious
    like programming is somewhat futile at best. It has been
    demonstrated, however, that entire operating systems can
    be written in merely 8 or 10 lines of code “under the influence”.
    hehe

  • pucc_unknown

    29289 20JUN87-1431 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29276)
    From: MIKEWARD To: HARBIE

    This has been an interesting thread and of course there’s
    no correct answers here as to what’s right or not.
    All are opinions and all points of view have merit.
    I agree with you that dis-assembly is a valuable
    teaching tool if you have the persistence to do it and
    learn from it. I still dis-assemble interesting
    programs. Usually to examine the function of a small
    part of the program and I’ve learned quite a lot
    from doing this as I’m sure you have.

  • pucc_unknown

    29291 20JUN87-1458 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29276)
    From: DONHUTCHISON To: HARBIE

    Just for the record, I should state that GEterm, Mikeyterm, and Rickeyterm
    are all copyrighted programs, and are NOT “public domain”. Natch, they
    CAN be freely passed to anyone you choose, but the term “public domain”
    opens a whole new can of worms that I’m sure these three guys would just
    as soon keep CLOSED. (Each of the above programs is copyrighted by its
    author.)

  • pucc_unknown

    29323 21JUN87-1507 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29288)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: MIKEWARD

    I’d like to see
    one of those! :)

  • pucc_unknown

    29324 21JUN87-1508 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29291)
    From: POLTERGEIST To: DONHUTCHISON

    By the way, Don, are those
    hi-res joystick adapters
    available from Radio Shack yet?

  • pucc_unknown

    29327 21JUN87-1624 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29324)
    From: DONHUTCHISON To: POLTERGEIST

    Yes, the hi-res adapters are available at Radio Shack… where you
    can find them! Most stores only carry one or two, at least as far as I know.

    You might hafta ask around a bit.

    Don

  • pucc_unknown

    29399 23JUN87-0549 Telecommunications
    RE: GETERM (Re: Msg 29313)
    From: MARTYGOODMAN To: DIAWA

    There is an excellent article on this subject in the July
    issue of Rainbow. I recommend you read it carefully.

    To the best of my knowledge, it is quite legal to
    remove protection from programs or help others to do so,
    if the unprotected program is to be used for archieval purposes.
    (this has been challenged in the courts, where folks claimed
    a right to prevent disassembly, due to a “lease agreement”,
    and of course disassembly is usually required to deprotect
    a program).

    If the intent and use of the deprotection is to give away
    copies to others, then one is dealing in piracy,
    which as you must know is a federal crime.

    —marty