On Feb 13, 1996 at 08:24, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

 db>> Since a simple recompile WITH DEFAULTS can break it, then the source is
 db>> of no value and "BTPE" is stuffed.
 PE>
 PE> I tested it against Watcom C++ 10.0.  Did you compile with that?
 PE> NO.

Since your source code is so compiler version-specific as to break from one
version to the next (not even a major upgrade, either), then your claims of
portability are hollow and BTPE is stuffed.  Still.  What are you doing,
coding to rely on 10.0 bugs?  Paul, Paul, Paul...

 db>> I've now encountered a "bug" (by design or accident)
in the BTPE
 db>> package, and ergo (just as the USR is shit) BTPE is stuffed.  Deal
 db>> with it.
 PE>
 PE> That's like saying there's a bug in the Netcomm modem because it
 PE> doesn't report stats on ATI6.

Wrong again - part of the BTPE package's claim-to-fame is its
cross-platform portability, and the usefulness of the included software; 
ATI6 is undocumented on the NetComm, so there's no claim that it does
*anything* or has *any* usefulness.  Ergo, no bug.

 PE> Or saying there's a bug in BTPE because it won't compile for Unix.

Do you claim that BTPE will compile under UNIX?  If so, then BTPE is
stuffed if it won't compile under UNIX.  If you make no such claim, then
it's not stuffed.  A jump from 10.0 to 10.5 in the same compiler within the
same environment is hardly like jumping from one operating system to the
next.

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

Your egg on your face?  Dear me, Paul, after all the complaints about USR
having a bug despite what the documentation did or did not say, you're now
pretty protective of BTPE having no bugs.  Fix it now, saving yourself from
having to fix it later when you upgrade.

 db>> No I won't, because there is only one Windows NT development tree,
 db>> period.  Or are you planning on releasing Windows PE soon?
 PE>
 PE> 2.59 is a beta of Binkley.

In name only - you've said yourself that the mark of a release vs beta
version of BinkleyTerm is whether or not source code is released.

 PE> Same situation.

In that case, where's the source code for WinNT to prove that it has been
*released*, hmm?  Where's the PD project for WinPE running on the Amiga?

 PE> Windows NT is not a product that comes with source.

Since you don't own BinkleyTerm, there is no guarantee that every version
should ever come with source, anyway.

 PE> It comes with manuals though, and a box, something that I bet the betas
 PE> didn't come with.

So the secret to release vs beta in WinNT's case is the size of the box and
manuals that are included?  This gets dumber and dumber.

 PE> It's a different sort of product then...

It's still BinkleyTerm.  Period.  Keep wiping that egg off your face.

 PE>> It was YOU that was claiming it to be an all-important feature.
 db>> Prove it.
 PE>
 PE> I have crossposted the message.

I've seen it, and it *still* doesn't *prove* that I have ever claimed that
it's an "all-important" feature.  Try again Paul, and keep that
egg coming off your face.

 PE> I notice you didn't say "Does BT 2.59 come with source code", which
 PE> means that EMSI, which you don't even use, is more important to you than
 PE> source code...

Wrong again - we were discussing EMSI and no other feature, so that's why
it appears so prominently;  doesn't mean that EMSI and EMSI alone is more
important to me than source code.

 PE> ...so I don't know what you're complaining about.

You not having a clue.

 PE> It was a reason against going with a source-code version.

Just a single reason?  Not *the* reason?  Dear me, Paul, keep trying.

 PE> And since you consider EMSI, Hydra, fax, none of which you use...

Prove it.  Prove I don't use them.  You've made an authoritative statement
more than once, that I don't use *any* of these features.  Prove your
claim.

 PE> ...to be more important than source code, which you said in THIS
 PE> thread that you wanted, one would have to conclude that EMSI
 PE> is incredibly important to you.

EMSI, and EMSI alone?  Geez Paul, get serious.  What I've said is that all
these things are far more important to me than *your* source code (remember
me saying that these are *your* enhancements, not changes to the main
development tree?), not source code, period.

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

Like you and Bill over the word "bug"?  Get serious.

    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---