Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!kensy From: kensy@microsoft.UUCP (Ken SYKES) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: Communication between applications Message-ID: <72299@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 12 May 91 07:22:52 GMT References: <1072@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> <72160@microsoft.UUCP> <1081@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> Reply-To: kensy@microsoft.UUCP (Ken SYKES) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 29 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.