🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1081@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> press@venice.sedd.trw.com (Barry Press) writes:
>
>So my point is that openness is relative.  As far as my experience goes,
>Open Tools is at best reserved for those well funded folk in commercial
>development environments, not for shareware or freeware authors.
>
>Care to disagree?
>
>-- 
>Barry Press                                 Internet: press@venice.sedd.trw.com
Obviously you are frustrated by the way Microsoft has handled the dissemenation
of this information and rightly so.  There are alot of other people, big and
small, that are upset as well which is why the Open Tools philosophy was 
introduced.  Now you (nor anyone else) can't  make judgements of Microsoft's Open
Tools strategy because it is in its very early infancy.  It was just in the
last month or two that we had an Open Tools Summit with alot of the big
manufacturers of development tools.  This was done to introduce what we have
come up with so far and to get input on what needs to be done to make our
offerings better.  Believe me, supporting our ISVs and Windows programming
population is a high priority for us - the health of Windows is depending
on this.  Sit tight and give us a chance to deliver on what we've announced -
it's not something that will happen overnight.

Now, if you're still upset that's fine.  But I'm not going to argue this 
point any further.  If you have useful suggestions about what you need to
write good windows tools please post them.  

Ken Sykes
Disclaimer: The above opinions are solely my own.