On Feb 06, 1996 at 23:32, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

 db>> back into the main development tree.  Make as many changes as you want,
 PE>
 PE> It hasn't been rolled back into Scott's development tree.  So
 PE> what?  That's his problem.

It's *nobody's* problem, Paul, just a fact.

 PE> It is the newest, and it is the main development tree.

By your own definition it may be the newest - by mine it's not.  Likewise
with the "main development tree" scenario - I see the original
product as being the main development tree, not any variant;  however, you
see your own development as being the main development tree merely because
you're still developing it whereas Vince has (apparently) stopped.

 db>> Fine, no stop - but still doesn't change the fact that the two are now
 db>> *separate* developments, *not* the one development tree (they're on
 db>> different branches/paths, as shown above).
 PE>
 PE> So, complain to Scott, not me.

The only person complaining here Paul is you - complaining about my refusal
to run BTPE.

 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!

"No" he didn't do it himself, or "No" he didn't do it
to spite us?  In the first case, what evidence do you have that he ripped
off our efforts?  In the second case, I most certainly *do* think he's
aware of MSGAPI38 and released his version to spite us.  You said yourself
that MsgApi 2.x is stuffed and isn't half as good as MSGAPI38, so why on
earth should he have bothered?

 PE> What do you mean it's stuffed?

I ran it up, it complained that there was no boss in the nodelist, and
promptly exited.  Stuff it, I don't have time to toy with crap that claims
to deliver the world yet it can't even get started.

 PE> I'm using it, I think Bill is using 3.04 and Jeff Green and Roy McNeill
 PE> are also using it.

That's hardly a large following from which you claim to be in control of
the "main development tree"...

 db>> is a lost cause and I'm not interested in it one little bit.  I'd
 db>> happily
 PE>
 PE> Tell that to the DOS users of MSGED.

To 16-bit DOS Msged users - stiff shit, fuck off.  (Note, I said *16-bit* DOS only.)

 PE> The more OS's you support the more development possibilities
 PE> there are available.

In case you've missed it, the world is finally waking up to (aging) 32-bit
technology;  having to shackle your development efforts merely to support
16-bit DOS is a complete waste, IMHO.

It is *right* to write your code in a manner that is most likely to be
portable to a wider range of platforms;  that's why I'm more interested in
linear virtual memory 32-bit environments (even if that includes DOS), not
this 16-bit segmented bullshit.

Why should I care if my data is near or far?  That's for the compiler and
operating system to decide;  I just want to allocate a huge wad of memory
and access it directly, regardless where it exists...

 PE> No, what I'm trying to say is that the Jim Nutt version
 PE> continued on.  He released at least 2.07 and I believe 2.08
 PE> is available in beta.  John took 2.00 and worked from that on his
 PE> alternative version.

From what I've heard, Jim has given up on Msged, just as John has.  But, to
satisfy your desire for accuracy (which is not a bad thing), we now have:

    Jim Nutt --+--> 2.08 --+--> (stop?)
               |           |
               +--> ...?   +--> ... ?
               |
               +--> John Dennis --+--> (stop)
                                  |
                                  +--> Paul Edwards & Co. --> ... ?
                                  |
                                  +--> ... ?

Still very different to what you proposed.  In any case the semantic
circling here is beside the point - the point is that you are not
"competing" with a single development path as such as thing no
longer exists (it was stopped).

 PE> Right, your message will be the one that puts him over the edge.

Who knows - I may even get an intelligible response out of him;  unlikely,
but you never know.

 PE> I couldn't even get him to acknowledge receipt of bug reports.

Your version of "Hello" is to stick a musket up someone's nose
and mumble, "That's an ISO violation - this is your first and last
warning."  No wonder he wouldn't acknowledge bug reports.

 PE> It's a new official development tree.

BinkleyTerm is *not* your product - you do not own copyright and BT's users
do not recognise you as an authoritative maintainer of BT releases.  It is
*not* official, it's only your own development efforts.

 PE> Certainly more official than your BTEE which you are happy to run.

Less official by leaps and bounds - BTEE enhancements have been rolled back
into the main development tree;  BTPE enhancements haven't.

 db>> Bullshit - even the cosmetics of the EE screen are better than BTPE.
 PE> Use them a lot do you?

Running a point I certainly am subjected to the cosmetic appearance of the
screen more so than if it was an unattended node system.

 PE> Ok, the fax would be useful (sounds like you've never used it
 PE> though).

Irrelevant - BTEE has it and BTPE doesn't (I actually still have the full
init string from my old M7F still hanging around to enable fax receive in
BTEE).

 PE> BTPE and BT 2.59 also have 32-bit OS/2 native versions.  Only BTPE
 PE> has source code though.

Correct, very correct;  as I've already said, I *want* source - but it's
importance is lower than actually using the product, therefore I'm happy to
run what I have even though no source is available.

 PE> I hope your life insurance policy includes protection against
 PE> expiry before BT 2.60 is released.

Hello - wakey, wakey;  anybody home, Paul?!  To you, source may be
paramount;  but to the rest of us, it's secondary to actually using the
damn thing.

 db>> BTW, WTFITPO "-DPRIVATE_IDAHO"?!?!  You *really*
oughtta get out more
 db>> often, Paul.
 PE>
 PE> Tell that to the people who wrote BT 2.50.

Nah - Vince needs to take a dose of reality, but you *really* oughtta get
out more often.

 PE> I didn't change that bit, since changing it added no value to me.

So answer the question - WTFITPO "-DPRIVATE_IDAHO"?!?!

 db>> Yes there is - I'm running it.  There's no source, but there most
 db>> certainly is a *product* (beta-level in name only, perfectly stable in
 db>> operation).
 PE>
 PE> Zero support...

The best products require *zero* support;  I've not once had to rely on
"support" for BTEE.  During what hours is the BTPE free support
hotline open?  1-800, I assume...

 PE> ...zero source is not my idea of a competitor.

That's why you're not running it.  So?  If someone else (other that you) is
 running it, then it's a competitor to BTPE, whether you like it or not.

 PE> Pardon?  You have a V34 (and lower) modem until the ITU-T comes
 PE> up with V34bis.  What's the problem?

That's *exactly* my point - the modem has *everything* in it, and there is
*no* point worrying about V.34bis until it is rolled back into the
"main development tree" and appears in modems with everything
else built-in;  just as you wouldn't bother buying a beta V.34bis-only
modem, many people won't use "alternatives" until the
functionality appears in the main product (and BTEE's functionality *does*
appear in the main product).

 PE>> In this case, BTPE is the most advanced released product.
 db>> It's the most "advanced" BTPE - it things that are
not in the main
 PE> It's the most advanced released product.

It's the most "advanced" BTPE.

 db>> development tree.  It also *lacks* things that are in the main 
 db>> development 
 PE>
 PE> No it doesn't.

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

 PE> BT 2.50 being the only released competitor, it has all the features
 PE> in it.

Now *you're* dreaming - it's like saying that OS/2 Warp had no competition
from Win95 until it was officially released, despite the fact that people
had beta copies already.  If there is an alternative variant available,
it's a competitor.  Period.

 PE> Presumably people who don't think that source code is important.

Of the list of people you named as running BTPE, how many of them have
*ever* bothered to compile BTPE, or see theselves *ever* compiling BTPE? 
(Yourself excluded, of course since the answer there is obvious.)  Of the
list of people I named, I'd say some are most definitely intrested in
source code - but they recognise that it's not *paramount* above all else.

 db>> So?  EMSI isn't the only thing BTEE has.
 PE>
 PE> In fact, there's very little, if anything, that BTEE actually
 PE> gives you.

Big deal;  you're the only one with a hang-up on EMSI.

 PE> No, user-interface to an automatic dialler doesn't get any points.

Yes it does.  Ask people why they use Win95 instead of Win3.1 or OS/2, and
many will say because it *looks* better.  Win95 is a competitor to Win3.1
and OS/2, even when it was just a beta.  No source available, regardless of
importance to end-users.

 PE> There was a reason for that - Spirit double-send problem.  I will
 PE> be happy to enable that when I get my new modem.

You coded around the Spirit bug, did you not?  You're not using a Spirit at
the moment, are you?

 db>> I wasn't complaining, just making comments based upon a recent check of
 db>> the current BT status.
 PE>
 PE> Why do you need to check?

It's called "curiosity", dickhead.

 PE> In other words, it did the same effect as an Aftercall, even though
 PE> it is an init string - just like I told you.  BFN.  Paul.

In other words, adding ATI6 did sweet FA - just like I told you.  FU2.  Dave.

---