From: tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
Subject: Re: Interesting tidbit from September 7, 1992 PC Week
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.185614.696@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.013107.17657@muddcs.claremont.edu> tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.095659.2455@cam-orl.co.uk> thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert) writes:
>>>
>>>You mean like the current OS/2 2.0 "Beta"?  As everyone is keen on pointing
>>>out, a "Beta" should go to a restricted number of developers who will provide
>>>detailed reports on bugs and features. A "Beta" is not generally available to
>>>the whole world.
>>
>>*Wrong*.  A beta version is for users to test unfinished code and report
>>problems back to the manufacturer.  A "pre-beta SDK" is a software
>>developer's kit, which is not for testing but development.
>
>     I agree with both of your definitions.  Let's work with them
>below.

That is what I had  in mind, you know:).

>
>
>>  This has been
>>BS on MS's part from the beginning.  Since when did MS bother to find out
>>whether someone was a developer before sending them the SDK?
>
>     This is a straw man argument, as you point out yourself in the
>next paragraph.
>
>
>>"So?  MS shouldn't have to spend time asking for proof." you may say.
>>No, they shouldn't.
>
>     Therefore what you wrote before was just a waste of keystrokes.

No, it's not a waste of keystrokes.  It was putting the  argument in
perspective.  MS can't be told how to run their pbsdk program anymore than
I can be told how to do my socks.  However, if I drop my socks in a sink
with no water and say I'm cleaning my socks, something smells fishy :):):)
So where's the water?  MS isn't checking to see if there's water in their
sink,  either.  Most other companies I've run into *do* check to see whether
it's a developer they're signing up or not.

I can only speculate as to why MS doesn't care, but sure  as shootin' it
seems like all they want to do is get the damn thing out there.  More
power to 'em.  Competition is what America's built on.  But the funny
cover-up "pre-beta" name, which has been  such  a hot topic of conversation,
just doesn't wash.  No company releases alpha code for people to develop
with.  The very act of MS releasing their code to any Joe Schmoe, child or
not, before it even hits beta smacks of desparation (or should I say,
eagerness).  It's just too from the hip to be taken seriously.

>
>
>>  But the way they've handled the SDK so far shows what
>>they're really trying to do with it.
>
>      This line is precedes the following text, which doesn't seem to
>be at all related, as far as I can tell.

Don't worry about it, it'll be a cohesive whole someday.

... (stuff about "normal", as I'm aquainted with the term, developer's programs
deleted)...

>
>
>>So what does this say about the pre-beta SDK?  MS doesn't care whether they
>>put it in a developer's or a child's hands, as long as it's out there.
>
>     How many of the 25,000 SDKs shipped so far were ordered by children,
>do you estimate?
>

Do you want that in physical or mental ages?;)

>
>>I, for one, think this is a perfectly legitimate way for them to try to
>>push their product, but I laugh to think of those who buy into MS's pre-beta
>>BS, and try to justify it as such.  Wake up and smell the coffee.
>
>      You have fallen miles short of proving any ulterior motivations
>for Microsoft's release of the Windows NT SDK.  Your post is filled
>with vague assertions, totally unsupported by facts or even further
>argument.
>      Care to try again?

Mine was not a proof, just an appeal to perception.  
I don't care to try further than I have in this letter, as I have other
things to worry about.

>
>					-Phil

Ted