PE> Well before claiming something is stuffed, at least have the
PE> decency to use the executable provided before stuffing around
PE> with it.

db> I checked the executable provided, and sure enough it doesn't have that 
db> problem;  but "BTPE" is more than just the executable
included, it's also 
db> the most useful source code that you keep touting as a benefit/feature and 
db> sign of "release-not-beta" status.  Since a simple
recompile WITH DEFAULTS 
db> can break it, then the source is of no value and "BTPE" is stuffed.

I tested it against Watcom C++ 10.0.  Did you compile with that?
NO.

PE> Since it is most likely that YOU stuffed it, by recompiling it
PE> differently.

db> Since there is no way that I stuffed it as I recompiled it using YOUR 
db> DEFAULTS, then it's YOUR BUG.  BTPE is stuffed.  To say otherwise is to 

My default is Watcom C++ 10.0.  I have no idea on 10.5.

db> agree that the problem you've uncovered in the USR is not a bug because so 
db> many USR users for years haven't encountered.  I've now encountered
a "bug" 
db> (by design or accident) in the BTPE package, and ergo (just as the USR is 
db> shit) BTPE is stuffed.  Deal with it.

That's like saying there's a bug in the Netcomm modem because it
doesn't report stats on ATI6.  Or saying there's a bug in BTPE
because it won't compile for Unix.  There is no bug in the BTPE
package.  It's your problem for compiling with a different
compiler than what I used.  If you use a different product, you
will need to make a new makefile for it.  I assume that Watcom
10.5 aligns structures on a doubleword boundary by default now,
instead of byte-aligned.

db>> It's either a bug by accident or design, but it's still a bug all the
db>> same and therefore it's stuffed.
PE>
PE> YOU stuffed it.

db> Using YOUR source code, so it's YOUR bug.  BTPE is stuffed.

Nope, you didn't follow the doco, which said it has been tested
under Watcom 10.0, not 10.5.  Nice try at wiping the egg from
your face though.

PE> So BTEE is perfect, no source code needed, keep using it instead
PE> of complaining about Vince.

db> I am using it, and I'm not complaining about Vince.  So?

So there's no problem then.

db>> Rubbish - almost all EE enhancements are in 2.59 .. even the expanded
db>> (zoom) outbound window (which I *do* use).
PE>
PE> They weren't when EE was released...

db> Tough.

Shoots a massive hole in your theory that unless it's on the
main development tree you won't use it, eh?

PE> ...and you still don't know until 2.60, which may never be released.

db> Since we've both agreed that 2.59 is probably the last version Vince will 
db> ever release, and 2.59 has these features, your efforts are in vain.

I haven't even agreed to that.  What I have said is that it could
be measured in years, or indeed never, and if you want source now,
BTPE is the way to go.  If source is not critically important to
you, then there's no point complaining to anyone but yourself.

db>> Fax?  Yes it is.  EMSI?  Yes it is.  Hydra?  Yes it is.  Expanded
db>> outbound...
db>>
PE> Nope, not yet.

db> Yes, *now* - too frightened to take a peek at 2.59 and see for yourself?  
db> I've looked, and inbound fax, EMSI, Hydra and the expanded outbound window 
db> *are* all there.

PE> Sorry, that is a beta, 2.60 will be the release.

db> Apologise all you want, you're still wrong.

Nope, 2.60 will be the official release.

PE> Next you'll be saying that Windows NT was released on schedule.

db> No I won't, because there is only one Windows NT development tree, period.  
db> Or are you planning on releasing Windows PE soon?

2.59 is a beta of Binkley.  Windows NT had betas out for probably
a year before it was released.  Same situation.  Using your theory,
Windows NT was released on time.

db>> Wanking with words - it's beta in name only;  availability of source 
db>> does not affect its alpha/beta/gamma/release status.
PE>
PE> Yes it does.

db> In which case Windows NT will never leave alpha/beta/gamma.  Get serious.

Windows NT is not a product that comes with source.  It comes
with manuals though, and a box, something that I bet the betas
didn't come with.

PE> Binkley has always come with source code when it is released.  It hasn't.

db> So if Vince distributes a "release-level" BinkleyTerm 2.60
but refuses to 
db> give you the source code, you're going to argue that 2.60 is still 
db> beta/alpha?  Get serious.

It's a different sort of product then, Binkley would then become
a product that is not released with source code, and you get two
distinct branches then.  You can stay with the source code version,
which is what I would do IN THIS CASE, or you can go the exe only
route.

PE> It was YOU that was claiming it to be an all-important feature.

db> Prove it.

I have crossposted the message.  I notice you didn't say "Does
BT 2.59 come with source code", which means that EMSI, which you
don't even use, is more important to you than source code, so I
don't know what you're complaining about.

PE> In netmail a few months ago.

db> I mentioned it as a feature (like Hydra, fax, or whatever else), not as an 
db> all-important feature;  if I felt it was important, you wouldn't have heard 
db> the end of it.

It was a reason against going with a source-code version.  And
since you consider EMSI, Hydra, fax, none of which you use, to
be more important than source code, which you said in THIS 
thread that you wanted, one would have to conclude that EMSI
is incredibly important to you.

PE> Ah, read the previous message on that.  BFN.  Paul.

db> I did - you're still wrong.

Well, if you consider that to not be a complaint, we have 
different interpretations of the word, which is where the
misunderstanding came about.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---