On Feb 08, 1996 at 07:10, Bill Grimsley of 3:640/305.9 wrote:

 db>> FWIW, I agree that something like this is not life/death kinda stuff -
 db>> but Paul's right in that it's still a bug all the same.
 BG>
 BG> Nope, it's not a bug at all.

Be realistic, Bill - by either unintentional fault or purposeful design,
it's a bug all the same;  not a serious bug, but still a bug.

 BG> Just because they work differently from a Rockwell doesn't make them
 BG> buggy.

That is very true - one problem though:  nobody's saying that because the
USR acts differently compared to a Rockwell-based modem, the USR therefore
has a bug;  Paul's bug comes from working with the USR in isolation, not
comparison.

 BG> Who's to say what "properly" means anyway ?

*ME* - the consumer.

 db>> That's called a "work-around", not a "bug-fix".
 BG> Given that the USR is not buggy, I doubt you could call it either.  :)

Yeah .. the USR is not buggy, and you've never had a need to upgrade your
EPROMs for anything other than additional new features (like 33.6Kbps).  :)

 BG> Perhaps, but by the same token, how many people need to change their DTE
 BG> settings once their mailer or term has been configured anyway ?

You're missing the point, Bill - it's not that people necessarily *need* or
*want* to change their DCE/DTE settings, just that it *might* happen (by
accident or design) and the modem shouldn't be so archaic as to force the
user to reconfigure either the modem or their software.

 BG> I've had USRs almost exclusively for a few years now, and it's never
 BG> been a problem for me.

As we've agreed before, no device is perfect and some people will have more
problems with a device than other people;  take OS/2, for example - some
people have no end of trouble with it and end up giving it the flick.  You
and I, however...

Doesn't mean OS/2 doesn't have bugs.  Same for USR.

Cheers..

    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---