🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:25:07 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:56:58 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>  "Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K.
>>>
>>>It didn't appear by magic and I'll bet you expected it to work because the 
>>>magic word "supported" was there.
>> 
>> 
>> We don't have to care whether it was magic, only that it WAS
>> there and only removed through additional effort.
>
>If you'd try thinking for a few minutes instead of trying to 'invent' 
>nonsense you'd realize they didn't decide to waste effort 'removing it' for 
>no reason.
>
>The simple fact is it costs money, more than to 'remove it', to trouble 
>shoot and 'support' the damn thing for no good reason.

Only if we presuppose it is significant to troubleshoot
something that already worked.

Howvever, you again presuppose I suggest MS should be
accountable for something.   I do not.  I dont' expect to
call them up and be told how to Netbeui anything.



>> yeah, removing it vs not.  More work.
>
>Wrong. It has to be tested and validated to be 'left in' and that's a hell 
>of a lot more work that removing the entry in the "add protocol" table.

No, because it was already working.  You don't have to
revalidate something that remains static.


>> As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
>> anything.
>
>If you already mentioned it then you were just as wrong then as you are 
>now. Support *means* it 'works'. And that means it must be "officially tested."

Only in one narrow definition of "support", which is why I
mentioned that previously, the context of a "support"
definition.  Clearly I do not put much weight in what
WIndows officially supports in your mind, since in my mind,
it doesn't even officiall or non-officially "support" things
they claim it "suports", like security.  COULD it be set up
to be more secure?  Yes, but likewise, Netbeui could be set
up to work.  Support HAS to be taken in context.


>
>>  In fact, since it already worked, and since it
>> does still work,
>
>It was claimed it didn't work. If it works then there's no issue at all. 
>Use it.

Ok, then the rest of our discussion is pointless.


>
>> these random ideas about support are
>> irrelevant.
>
>No it isn't because "support" is a warranty and an offer to provide, tada, 
>'support' for problems you have when it doesn't.

That's one definition, but certainly not the only one.



>> I made no such claim.
>> Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.
>
>I never said there was a problem. I said there's no reason to 'support' a 
>protocol that offers no significant value.

Again it boils down to the definition of "support".  It can
be supported as-in, easily implemented instead of hidden
away in a folder one has to actively seek, even if it isn't
supported as a warranty/policy/etc.  There are quite a few
things windows can do easily that Microsoft does _not_ (per
your definition), "support", yet they still easily
implement. 


>> And?
>> Who said any different?
>
>You did by implying it's 'free' to "support" it.

Because it is.
"Support" does not mean "warranty" in general.  That's why
we have these two distinct terms.  Only when specifically
defined in this narrow context would it be true.  When a
term is used in general, it cannot automatically be assumed
to mean only the most narrow of interpretations.



>> Again, I have never argued not to use TCP/IP for internet.
>> The key thing you keep overlooking is that not all things on
>> a lan need routing. 
>
>I'm not 'overlooking' anything. What you're 'overlooking' is it's less time 
>and effort to support one protocol than 2 and that a couple of disgruntled 
>yahoos who can't configure a network is not a "good reason" to 'support' 
>the obsolete one.

Yes, networks are trival, so are any concerns that conflict
with MS's wallet.  After all, we're only paying customers.