On Feb 01, 1996 at 00:33, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

 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.

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

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

MSGAPI.DLL:

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

Msgedsq:

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

BinkleyTerm:

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

As you can see, the work we did on MSGAPI.DLL was a temporary fix that was
never actually rolled back into the main product (and we stopped working on
it when MSGAPI.DLL 2.x actually appeared).  In the case of Msgedsq,
however, there's a linear development path with you currently carrying the
torch, as it were.  There are no other "versions".

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

I *like* EE.  I *also* like source code.  At the moment, I have *no* source
code option for the EE stuff I like.  I only have a source code option for
what *you've* added.  I want source code to either (doesn't worry me which
one) 2.59 or EE, so that all your changes can be rolled back into the one
product with *all* features, rather than separate products with separate
feature sets.

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

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

Just as BTEE and BT 2.59 have features not in BTPE.  So?  Obviously I like
these features *more*.  :-)  What I *want* is for all three to remerge and
become one - with source code available, of course.  Whether or not it will
happen is an entirely different matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 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?

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

 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.

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

 PE> Any idea what modems you have successfully got 28800 connects
 PE> with?  BFN.  Paul.

See my message to Bill.

    - dave
    d.begley{at}ieee.org

---