On Feb 03, 1996 at 20:20, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

 PE> Yes, it's exactly like MSGAPI38.  Do you realise that the last mod
 PE> made to MSGAPI38 was done 21/10/95?  When was the last of Scott's
 PE> versions?

So that's your measure of the "newest version", based purely upon
the date of the most recent modification, eh?  A rather primitive metric,
Paul.  Who aside from *you* is still using MSGAPI38?  Certainly not me.

 PE> OUR MSGAPI38 works with EMX, CSET, Watcom, Borland. Tried that with
 PE> Scott's version?

The version we put together may well be more portable/useful than Scott's,
but it was a temporary hack from the start to finish and was never rolled
back into the main development tree.  Make as many changes as you want,
keep it alive for all it's worth - but that still doesn't make it "the
newest", which IMHO relies on the main development tree for any
product (everything else is a sideways step, not forward).

 db>>     SD 1.x [16] --+---------------------> SD 2.x [16/32] --> ... ?
 db>>                   |
 db>>                   +--> PE/DB 1.x [32] --> * (stop)
 PE>
 PE> Nope, no stop.

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

 PE> In fact, it would have gone PE/DB 1.x -> SD 2.x...

No it wouldn't, because the PE/DB 1.x [32] changes were never rolled into
SD 2.x [16/32] - he did those himself, to spite us most probably.  As shown
above, if Scott's version wasn't "stuffed" in your eyes then the
tree I've drawn would be the most accurate as PE/DB 1.x [32] development
would have stopped without being rolled into the main tree.

 PE> Do you know that MSGAPI38 not only works on 32-bit OS/2, but also 16-bit
 PE> DOS has been made from it too (one of the enhancements I made).

Nope.  Don't care, either.  I was thinking last night while I had a look at
your BTPE 3.05 (it's stuffed, BTW), that maintaining support for 16-bit DOS
is a lost cause and I'm not interested in it one little bit.  I'd happily
support 32-bit DOS, but not 16-bit DOS.  Those folk content with old
operating system technology can be content with old versions of everything
else, too.  Fuck 'em.  I'm interested in vitual memory systems with linear
address spaces, and if that means I can only support UNIX, OS/2 2.x, WinNT
and MacOS, then those OS/2 1.x, Win3.1 and DOS users can get bent.

Segmented memory architectures are for embedded applications, not general
purpose desktop PCs.

 db>>     Jim Nutt --> John Dennis --> Paul Edwards (& Co.)
--> ... ?
 PE>
 PE> Nope, you stuffed up there.

No I didn't - you obviously *don't* understand how it works.

 PE> Jim Nutt -> stop?
 PE> John Dennis -> Paul + co -> ...
 PE> John Dennis -> person 1, can't remember
 PE>
 PE> and there's others, I don't know all of them.

What you're saying here is that from the very beginning, there were three
completely separate versions of Msgedsq, all started from scratch, never
sharing code.  See how stupid that is?  What you're trying to say is:

    Jim Nutt --> John Dennis --+--> Paul Edwards & Co. --> ... ?
                               |
                               +--> person 1, can't remember --> ... ?
                               |
                               ...

This reads:

* Jim Nutt created Msged.
* Jim stopped developing it, and John Dennis took over from where Jim left
  off.  John's became the official version (still the one development path).
* John stopped developing it, and from there many people started developing
  their own variants, of which the PE&Co. one seems to be the most popular
  and/or most official.

If you *really* want, you can make the PE&Co. variant a branch from the
main tree and have the main tree stop - but that's about it.

 PE> One day BTPE may be upgraded to be very similar in fact to 2.60.

Then the development tree will change, and not before.  I've just fired off
a netmail message to see what VP has to say about releasing 2.59 source
code.

 PE> BTW, these 2.55, 2.56, 2.59, 2.50EE are betas released
 PE> without source code.  There is actually only two released
 PE> products, 2.50 and BTPE 3.05.

We're talking about the *entire* development tree, not just the
"released" products;  even then, your BTPE path does *not* merge
at present with the official development tree (therefore yours is a
sidestep, and all you can do is make a newer version of BTPE, but you can't
make a newer BT until you remerge with the original development tree).

 db>> it when MSGAPI.DLL 2.x actually appeared).  In the case of Msgedsq,
 PE>
 PE> No "we" didn't.

Yes *we* did;  *you* may have not, but *we* most certainly did.

 PE> Yes there are, HEAPS of other versions.

See above - you're not competing with an official development tree as that
tree has definitely stopped, so you either *are* the official development
tree or you're the closest thing to it.

Why don't you merge your efforts with fixes/features from the other versions?

 PE> And their BETAS don't contain all the stuff in my RELEASED
 PE> product, so?

Which proves my point - yours is a *sideways* step, not forward or backward.

 db>> I *like* EE.  I *also* like source code.  At the moment, I have *no*
 db>> source code option for the EE stuff I like.  I only have a source code
 db>> option for 
 PE>
 PE> You don't actually have any EE stuff that is of any use to YOU
 PE> *now*.

Bullshit - even the cosmetics of the EE screen are better than BTPE.  The
entry boxes are better, as are the extra help screens.  It has built-in Fax
receive, which I *can* use now if I so choose.  It's not perfect, and it's
definitely slower at starting up than BTPE (and it's larger), but it's
32-bit OS/2 native and I like it.  When source for 2.59 becomes available,
I can make the cosmetic changes I like/want to it and keep all the other
built-ins that are present.

BTW, WTFITPO "-DPRIVATE_IDAHO"?!?!  You *really* oughtta get out
more often, Paul.

 PE> When there is a released product that competes with BTPE 3.05,
 PE> I'll let you know, and maybe even make mods to it myself.

Great - then I'll think of running it seriously.

 PE> There's no competition at the moment though.

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

 PE> It's like V34bis.  It doesn't exist except in beta.  When V34bis
 PE> actually EXISTS, *then* I expect it to be rolled into my modem.

And until then - what?  Have a V.34bis-only modem?  (Does anyone know when
ITU-T plans to vote on V.34bis?)  Get serious.

 PE> In this case, BTPE is the most advanced released product.

It's the most "advanced" BTPE - it things that are not in the
main development tree.  It also *lacks* things that are in the main
development tree.  So?  Why are so many dickheads running Netscape 2.0 as a
Web browser and creating pages that will *only* work with Netscape 2.0? 
The fucking product hasn't been released yet it's still in beta!!

The reason is simple - "beta" it may be, but it's *available*
(they're still dickheads for using it, though).

 PE> BTPE is even more legit than both BTEE and BT 2.59.  Both of those are
 PE> betas, not released products.

Now you're just wanking with words - both BTEE and BT2.59 are *available*,
so people will use 'em, like it or not.  Ask Nigel Davies (IBM OS/2 Support
bboard), David Drummond, Dave Hatch, Poe Lim, Chris Graham, Graham Stair
and Vince Perriello why they're all running BinkleyTerm 2.59 instead of
BTPE.

 PE> Exactly, and how many years have you been dreaming for?

None - BTEE runs and works perfectly, so I haven't had to spend any time
worrying or thinking about it at all.

 PE> I bet they exist in BTEE 2.50 too.  I can crash any Binkley
 PE> system in the world.

Go ahead.  Install BTEE and crash it.  Enjoy yourself.  It won't crash the
version that's running here, and won't make any difference as to which
version I keep running.

 PE> Exactly.  NOT ANYMORE.

So?  EMSI isn't the only thing BTEE has.  Even BTPE has features that you
couldn't be bothered enabling so that people can use 'em (like Janus). 
That *would* have been useful recently when uploading all the EMX stuff
(I'd still get my downloaded email and could read it whilst the xfer kept
going) and would also help your STD callers who are running Janus-enabled
mailers.

 PE> You're the one complaining about 2.60 not existing and it being
 PE> a dead product.

I wasn't complaining, just making comments based upon a recent check of the
current BT status.

 PE> The last release of BTPE was 4/11/95.  Pretty recent, eh?

Is that American or Australian date format?  ;-)

 db>> I don't have time to either sit around, or to watch The Jetsons, Paul.
 db>> :-)
 PE>
 PE> You were meant to do the latter when you were a kid.

Oh well, I guess I failed Infancy-101.  ;-)

 PE> Did it perform the ATI6 command straight after your call?

Yup.  "OK" was the response - just like I told you.

    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---