PE> BTPE 3.05 is a product that has a 32-bit OS/2 version that comes
PE> with source code.  It is not "an older version", it is in fact
PE> the latest version.

db> It's *your* latest version.  Paul, this is like when we were playing with 
db> MSGAPI.DLL - it was the most recent version that *we'd* put together, but 
db> it was *not* the most recent "official" version (as
official as you get).

Yes, it's exactly like MSGAPI38.  Do you realise that the last mod
made to MSGAPI38 was done 21/10/95?  When was the last of Scott's
versions?  OUR MSGAPI38 works with EMX, CSET, Watcom, Borland.
Tried that with Scott's version?

db> Paul, I'm assuming you understand the concept of parallel development 
db> trees, yes?  In that case, we have the following scenario:

Possibly.

db> MSGAPI.DLL:

db>     SD 1.x [16] --+---------------------> SD 2.x [16/32] --> ... ?
db>                   |
db>                   +--> PE/DB 1.x [32] --> * (stop)

Nope, no stop.  In fact, it would have gone PE/DB 1.x -> SD 2.x,
except that SD 2.x was stuffed, so PE/DB stayed.  Do you know
that MSGAPI38 not only works on 32-bit OS/2, but also 16-bit DOS
has been made from it too (one of the enhancements I made).

db> Msgedsq:

db>     Jim Nutt --> John Dennis --> Paul Edwards (& Co.) --> ... ?

Nope, you stuffed up there.

Jim Nutt -> stop?
John Dennis -> Paul + co -> ...
John Dennis -> person 1, can't remember

and there's others, I don't know all of them.

db> BinkleyTerm:

db>     BT 1.x ... 2.50 --+--> 2.55 --> 2.56 --+--> 2.59 -->
(pause) ... ?
db>                       |                    |
db>                       +--> 2.50EE ---------+
db>                       |
db>                       +--> BTPE --> ... ?

One day BTPE may be upgraded to be very similar in fact to 2.60.
Depends on what the 2.60 code is like, or if indeed it ever
exists.  BTW, these 2.55, 2.56, 2.59, 2.50EE are betas released
without source code.  There is actually only two released
products, 2.50 and BTPE 3.05.

db> As you can see, the work we did on MSGAPI.DLL was a temporary fix that was 
db> never actually rolled back into the main product (and we stopped working on 

No, it superceded it in that case.

db> it when MSGAPI.DLL 2.x actually appeared).  In the case of Msgedsq, 

No "we" didn't.

db> however, there's a linear development path with you currently carrying the 
db> torch, as it were.  There are no other "versions".

Yes there are, HEAPS of other versions.

db> Note that with BT, there are *three* versions, one of which (EE) has been 
db> rolled back into 2.59 (the main tree), but source code hasn't been released 
db> for either EE or for 2.59.  Your development is a *separate* path that has 
db> what *you've* added to it, but doesn't contain all fixes/enhancements 
db> present in BT 2.51 through to 2.59, nor any of the EE stuff.

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

db> I *like* EE.  I *also* like source code.  At the moment, I have *no* source 
db> code option for the EE stuff I like.  I only have a source code option for 

You don't actually have any EE stuff that is of any use to YOU
*now*.

db> what *you've* added.  I want source code to either (doesn't worry me which 
db> one) 2.59 or EE, so that all your changes can be rolled back into the one 
db> product with *all* features, rather than separate products with separate 
db> feature sets.

When there is a released product that competes with BTPE 3.05,
I'll let you know, and maybe even make mods to it myself.
There's no competition at the moment though.

db> What if you had to buy separate modems to support V.32bis, V.34 and V.FC - 
db> would you do it?  'course not, since they're all rolled into the one 
db> product (as it should be).

It's like V34bis.  It doesn't exist except in beta.  When V34bis
actually EXISTS, *then* I expect it to be rolled into my modem.
In this case, BTPE is the most advanced released product.

PE> It has features not found in BT 2.59 nor BTEE.

db> Just as BTEE and BT 2.59 have features not in BTPE.  So?  Obviously I like 

So it's hardly just a hack.  BTPE is even more legit than both
BTEE and BT 2.59.  Both of those are betas, not released
products.

db> these features *more*.  :-)  What I *want* is for all three to remerge and 
db> become one - with source code available, of course.  Whether or not it will 
db> happen is an entirely different matter.

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

PE> It has an absence of bugs in certain places, that exist in BT 2.59.

db> I don't doubt it - that's okay, I'm not running 2.59.  :-)

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

PE> It may be upgraded with lots of features such as EMSI (which
PE> incidentally gives YOU no benefit whatsoever)...

db> Maybe not anymore, but it did when I had multiple addresses.

Exactly.  NOT ANYMORE.

PE> as MSQ330 may be upgraded one day to use the JAM messagebase (which
PE> incidentally gives YOU no benefit whatsoever).

db> I'm not hankering for JAM, man.  ;-)

JAM is as useful to YOU NOW as EMSI is.

PE> The product that satisfies what you need exists already.

db> And I'm using it - so why are you bugging me?!  ;-)

You're the one complaining about 2.60 not existing and it being
a dead product.  The last release of BTPE was 4/11/95.  Pretty
recent, eh?

PE> Oh, and while you're sitting around, you can always dream too.  Couldn't
PE> you have worked that out from the above quote from The Jetsons?

db> I don't have time to either sit around, or to watch The Jetsons, Paul.  :-)

You were meant to do the latter when you were a kid.

PE> Whether ATI6 works or not is a separate issue from whether
PE> putting it in the init string will make it report the stats
PE> after a call.  I expect that it will.

db> I just tried it.  Nothing happened.  I win, you lose.  :-)

Did it perform the ATI6 command straight after your call?  
BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---