<CT> Re: Our Rights.
- From: "Martin B. Brilliant" <marty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:30:25 -0400
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:45:04 -0500 Alan Grimes <alangrimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> ... I think we should begin considering a
> legal action that will seek to reveal the technical specifications to
> wich our windows software was written so that we may maintain
> alternative versions should we so choose....
As always in computing, you'll get what you asked for, not what you
wanted (YGWYAFNWYW). What guarantees that Windows 3.1 as delivered
actually met its specifications? Software has bugs, and bugs that are
not corrected become undocumented features.
That means that building a clone to the Windows 3.1 specifications
does not necessarily mean that you have built something that actually
works the same as Windows 3.1.
I never worked for Microsoft, but I worked for AT&T (Bell Labs,
before trivestiture). What I learned there is that nobody knew how
the whole system worked, and it wasn't all documented. Anything added
to the system had to be fitted by trial and error. I would expect the
same to be true of Windows.
Marty
Martin B. Brilliant at home in Holmdel, NJ
http://www.netlabs.net/hp/marty/
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org
Other related posts:
