PE> Where can I FREQ it from?  If it's not FREQable, it's vaporware,
PE> just like OS/2 4.0.

FM> Interesting definition of "vapourware", on that basis Corel Draw is
FM> vapourware - you can't freq that. 

Or buy it in a shop.

FM> What do you want me to do? Upload it
FM> to TML? Why? You wouldn't use it, you don't even like it. And it's in

I would use it once actually.  But it's not for me, it's for the
brain-dead the need to combine packets.

FM> Pascal so you couldn't recompile it if you didn't like the way it

I have a 100% ISO conforming Pascal compiler here.

FM> doesn't do some things (there are at at least 2 documented, possibly
FM> others not, design decisions which could well be not how someone else
FM> would want it to act). Oh, and it doesn't have an "explicit public
FM> domain message".

It needs to have something if it is to reside on my BBS.

PE> You're probably running an old version of PKTJOIN, it now has

FM> I'm *running* my version of PktJoin. The PQWK260 archive from which I
FM> have been examining the source to yours is dated 22/5/95.

PKTJOIN is in PQWK260?  I don't think so.

PE> error checking on the writing, and there have been NO reported
PE> bugs.  And don't bother trying to say that misuse of the program
PE> counts as a bug.

FM> Robust software responds gracefully to misuse.

You can say it is not robust, you cannot say it has a bug in it.

PE> Some people want to run it on OS/2 32-bit.  Well, if they were
PE> going to run it at all.  Linux is another requirement for any
PE> software I use in the long term, as that's where I want to end
PE> up going.

FM> Then they/you can run yours, and take the risk.

Take the only choice, actually.

FM> Consider it non-existent then, if you want to propose that as a
FM> criterion for existence. 

I do.

PE> FM> And as well as having at least those 2 fewer bugs,

PE> Likely a complete lie.

FM> I think we've discussed one before, the other one (or two, maybe the
FM> same bug) I identified while coding mine and checking to see how you'd
FM> implemented some possible failure modes. You hadn't.

That's robustness.  The original PKTJOIN didn't check a single
error at all.

PE> FM> it's 30% faster than yours

PE> It may well be 30% faster than the one you have, but there is no
PE> way in the world that it would be faster than the one I could
PE> write if I had wanted to.  I would do so, except I don't have your
PE> vaporware one available to keep you honest.

FM> Well create some PKTs which you think are big enough to fairly test it
FM> and run your best version on them. Let me freq them and I'll run mine.

I want to see yours to keep you honest.

FM> I'll certainly believe your times, why would you want to lie in an
FM> objective evaluation? Or do you *really* want me to upload it?

Yep, if you want a real test, you have to do that.  First I will
be checking to see that it was written in Pascal, not assembler.

PE> FM> and both the source and executable are smaller.

PE> That I can't be sure of, only the speed.

FM> Yes you can, I just told you.

You can't be sure of what I can write if I actually have some
performance/size objective I am trying to meet.

PE> Vaporware you write.  Yeah, between your PKTJOIN and Bob's
PE> PKT2QWK, you've got the most impressive collection of vaporware
PE> I've ever NOT seen yet.  BFN.  Paul.

FM> It exists, 

It doesn't, it's vaporware.  Just like OS/2 4.0.  No point comparing
OS/2 4.0 to Windows NT and saying OS/2 is the better OS.  It isn't.
It doesn't exist.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---