<CT> Re: Our Rights.
- From: Alan Grimes <alangrimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:21:09 -0500
Martin B. Brilliant wrote:
> 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.
Yes. Such "features" are quite famous, and pleantiful. =\ Immagine a
piece of software that is, by the specification, more windows than
windows. ;)
Unfortunately around the same timeframe some of the "enhancements" to my
most beloved DOS, were botched by the same process... =(
I have a book on the subject.
Unfortunately I hated win3.11 so much at the time that I never bothered
to hoard the programmer's manuals. =(
I never dreamed that its successor would be so much worse.
> 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.
It will work better, much better. It may break some stuff but hopefully
that can be minimized.
> I would expect the same to be true of Windows.
We deserve better software.
--
People who work on computers use linux; People who work on life use
Macintosh =)
http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website.
Any usage of this e-mail account is subject to the terms and conditions
specified on my website.
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org
Other related posts:
