ImageDisk project is canceled

[Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner]

It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
> 
> > The format is said to be HEAVILY documented.
> > 
> > His program was one way to access the format, the format itself was the true
> > value in his work!
> > 
> > And that format was what he readily gave away for free!
> 
> Without seeing the source code to Imagedisk, how do I know that it 
> actually follows that spec. I will assume Dave is not so malicious as to 
> XOR the sector data with pseudorandom bit stream or anything stupid [1] 
> but how do I know that there isn't a bug in the progrma that causes it to 
> fail if there are more than 27 sectors/track or something?

  Then you must be a better programmer than I, to be able to tell if a
program has such a weird bug just by visual inspection.  Can I hire you do
debug some PHP code?  We have tons of it ... 

  Now, did you *bother* to read the spec?  Did you bother to write a program
that will read .IMD files?  I did.  Perhaps an hour or two (didn't keep
track of time) and I now have a program that will read .IMD files---at
least the ones I found on the net so far.  And no surprises.

  Sheesh!

  So two questions Tony:

	1.  Do you have the source code to every operating system for every
	computer you own?  I also know you have PCs, so what in the world
	did you do prior to Linux?  Refuse to use MS|PC-DOS?

	2. (might as well ask, as long as I'm asking)  I know you dislike
	the whole "board swap" mentality and that you prefer replacing
	blown chips over replacing a whole board.  But why not repair those
	non-functioning chips?  I mean, one blown gate and you toss the
	*whole* chip?  What's with that? [2]

  -spc (And you actually trust chips to do what they say?)

[1]	Not my footnote

[2]	Or in other words---the "components" in today's computers are bigger
	than yesterday's computers.  Right now, the "components" are
	boards/cards and I can certainly see it being whole computers
	in the not so distant future.