🚀 go-pugleaf

kony wrote:

> 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.

It is, even if for no other reason than you have to prove it *still* 'works'.

> 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.

If you also don't care if it works 'right', whatever that might mean (a non 
trivial thing to define as well), then you're not talking about "support" 
and the issue is moot.

>>>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.

Yes, you do. Perhaps not as much but I assure you that if you say that in a 
software QA lab you'll get slapped.

>>>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.

Now I see what the problem is: your vision of 'support'. And I'm telling 
you that even if you *think* nothing has 'changed' it has to be retested. 
And if you provide 'support' you have to at least provide bug tracking and 
some level of assistance, even if it's to tell someone it doesn't work that 
way when they screw it up.

And that doesn't even count that the odds you'll find nothing to 'fix', or 
a workaround to explain, after an O.S. change is next to zero. And the more 
sure you are "nothing can go wrong" the closer to zero it is.

I can't tell you how many times a programmer's answer to a problem has been 
"but I didn't change anything THERE" only to be followed a few hours later 
but "oh wait, that interacts with..."

Remember, our original poster is all pissed because HE CAN'T MAKE IT WORK 
and is incensed MS no longer 'supports' it because he wants them to MAKE IT 
WORK. So what do you think *he* means by 'support'?


>>> 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.

It's the one the lawyers will pull out if you don't provide it.

>>>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. 
> 

See below.

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

No, it isn't.

> "Support" does not mean "warranty" in general.

Yes, it does, although not to the extent you're trying to imply.

"We support X."

Does it work?    No.    Are you going to make it work?    No.    Is there a 
workaround?    No.

Then why the hell do you say you "support" it?

Well, it's on the menu.

Sounds like a Monty Python skit.

The 'warranty' isn't that the whole system is 'flawless' but your liability 
increases with the significance of the function.

>  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.

You're trying to invent a meaning to the term 'support' that does not exist 
in the industry and is essentially useless.

Near as I can tell, your version of 'support' is 'make it easy to install' 
by leaving it on the menu. Which boils down to, again using your 'free' 
version of 'support', "put it on the menu even though you won't tell me how 
to use it, track bugs, make it work or provide a workaround if it fails, 
talk to me about it if I call, or do anything whatsoever."

And while you may like to call that "support" I assure you that no one else 
will.


>>>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,

It's precisely because it isn't trivial that you'd want it clear you do not 
support it. Like by taking it off the standard menu and putting it in the 
'your own responsibility' folder.

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

Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the 
other party is concerned with their wallet too?