-=> Quoting David Bowerman to Richard Town <=-
 CF> Unadulterated bovine fecal matter! Please detail _any_ change that
 CF> occured to V.32bis between the time it was voted out of SG1 and the
 CF> time it was adopted by the general assembly.
 RT> Why?  V32bis is now settled.  Which is at least some saving grace
 RT> for those trying to call UK x2-upgraded Couriers when V34 can't be
 RT> negotiated
How telling it is that anytime someone actually has the temerity to question
USR's terrible record in interop, there's always a cabal of groupies needing
to try and dig something out of the dim distant past as cover
 DB> You claimed that there were problems with USR's implementation of
 DB> v.32bis based on the use of the final draft prior to the General
 DB> Assembly ratification.
No I did not.  Please don't place words into my mouth, as I don't know where
they've been.  All I said was that there was interop problems with USR's
original V32bis, and that they were late into the V32bis arena.  You and
others have responded with a stout defence of v.32bis claiming that there
were no changes to it at all between its introduction in USR product and
up
 CF> Your claim was:
 CF> "...refuse to recognise extended V42 commands..."
 RT> My claim is that USR deliberately and by design attempts to limit
 RT> full capablities to others only of its own marque
 DB> So you are saying that USR should implement every proprietary
 DB> extension in the hopes of preventing connectivity problems caused by
 DB> another company's failure to correctly implement standards?
It is touted as the "V.Everything"  And over here for a time lived up to that
claim.  But since an ever helpful UK employee left (soon after the first
and only) UK x2 code, that claim can no longer be substantiated
Warbling on about what Rockwell did or did not do has no relevance.
Then why bang on about them.  Smoke?  Surely not :)
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------