On Feb 09, 1996 at 08:30, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

 db>> The only person complaining here Paul is you - complaining about my
 db>> refusal to run BTPE.
 PE>
 PE> I'm not actually, I'm complaining about you complaining about
 PE> Binkley 2.60's unavailability when you have an alternative
 PE> available now.

Paul - for the millionth time, I was not (and am not) complaining;  I was
curious one day, so I decided to have a look at the latest state of
affairs, and then relayed same (along with my own observations).  Got it?!

Yes, there are alternatives to BinkleyTerm 2.60 - and I'm running one of 'em.

 db>>> No it wouldn't, because the PE/DB 1.x [32] changes were never rolled
 db>>> into SD 2.x [16/32] - he did those himself, to spite us
most probably.
 PE>>
 PE>> I don't think so, David!
 db>>
 db>> "No" he didn't do it himself, or "No" he
didn't do it to spite us?
 PE>
 PE> I'm sure he didn't do it to spite us.

So he ripped us off?  Wonderful (though not surprising).

 PE> He had his version available for YEARS before releasing it.

Excuse me?  *Available*?  Think again.

 PE> Are you using the Version 7 nodelist, and did you recompile
 PE> BTPE yourself?  If so, which compiler and options?

Of course, yes, Watcom C/C++ 10.5a, defaults.

 PE> No, it's to show that it isn't stuffed.

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

 PE> Do a grep on "far" and "near" in msged.

We're not talking about Msged - we're talking in general.

 PE> Ok, so there are 3 instances which I missed - so sue me.

Paperwork on its way.

 db>> From what I've heard, Jim has given up on Msged, just as John has.
 PE>
 PE> I've heard as much about Jim's MSGED as Vince's Binkley.

Ergo, Jim has given up on Msged - just as I said Vince appears to have done.

 db>> BinkleyTerm is *not* your product - you do not own copyright and BT's
 db>> users...
 PE>
 PE> BTPE *IS* my product.

Rejoin reality, Paul - "BinkleyTerm" != "BTPE".

 db>> Less official by leaps and bounds - BTEE enhancements have been rolled
 db>> back into the main development tree;  BTPE enhancements haven't.
 PE>
 PE> You don't know whether either of those are true until you see
 PE> Binkley 2.60.

Oh yeah?  Check the documentation accompanying the BT 2.59a wide beta.

 PE> Fine, you're the one that started complaining.

You can repeat it as many times as you like - won't make it so.

 PE> No, a message in PUBLIC_DOMAIN will be fine.  Ask Roy how long
 PE> it took him to get a fix for his reported bug.

Considering I haven't encountered any bugs that would otherwise stuff-up
the operation of either BTEE or my modem, I've still required *zero*
support, even without source.

 PE> Now ask anyone how long it took to get the same from Microsoft.

QED.

 PE> *YOU* are the one running a non-standard V34bis-equivalent.

Rubbish - almost all EE enhancements are in 2.59 .. even the expanded
(zoom) outbound window (which I *do* use).

 PE> *I* will quite likely be upgrading to Binkley 2.60 when it comes out.

As will I - which is why I originally decided to have a look and see if
2.60 was any closer to being released today, than it was a year ago.

 PE> Binkley 2.60 will then be the successor to BTPE 3.05.  A lot of
 PE> code rework etc.  So what.

See?  Even you acknowledge that the original BT tree is the one to watch.

 db>> Bullshit;  show me the ITU-T Group III fax receive in BTPE.  Show me the
 db>> EMSI support in BTPE.  Show me the "enhanced" help
screens and entry
 db>> fields in BTPE.  They're just not there.
 PE>
 PE> They're not in BT either...

Fax?  Yes it is.  EMSI?  Yes it is.  Hydra?  Yes it is.  Expanded outbound
window?  Yes it is.  When (if ever) the sources are released, I'll put in
whatever is missing.  Check 2.59a for yourself and you'll see.

 PE> ...and BTEE has not been released.

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

 db>> Big deal;  you're the only one with a hang-up on EMSI.
 PE>
 PE> I don't have a hang up with EMSI at all.

Bullshit - if you had no hang-up about it, you wouldn't keep focussing on
that one feature, and falsely claiming that I deem it an all-important
feature.  Quite frankly, as I've already said before, you enabling Janus
would be of more use/interest to me than EMSI.

 db>> In other words, adding ATI6 did sweet FA - just like I told you.  FU2.
 PE>
 PE> *YOU* were the one questioning whether putting a command in your
 PE> init string would help as an aftercall.  *I* corrected you.

Bullshit.  I said that there was no point *even* putting ATI6 in the init
string, aftercall support or not, because ATI6 doesn't do anything.  You're
wanking with words if you think you're correcting anybody on this point.


    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---