DD :),

I was justifying the fuss, and not (I do not think you took it wrongly) criticizing you or even the MCP (Microsoft Corporate Policies).

It takes more that 40 billions of dollars to stop this fusser from fussing:). I'm not sure that this impressive M$ cash position makes them always right, and fussing does make a difference, that's what the UF (Universal Fuss) is (or was) all about.

And yes I see it coming, the language could be rebaptised Visual Fuss Pro, it would not require any change in acronym.

And yes, I share your general point of view. I differ in the causes. No there is no perfect software, but that does not mean that we are allowed to deliver sloppy work, and from a not IT professionnal point of view, that is what we do. The degree of complexity of our products does not excuse it's lack of reliability. And it's not because we can get away with it (today) that it means that there is no other alternative.

Our products are not reliable because our tools are not. And what Jim does, and I think he is right in doing that, is to repeat time and again that this is not as inevitable as you seem to infer. That it is not "necessarily" the only, or even a right situation. And guess what? Things are improving.

>Does anyone reading this honestly think that the developers of the several Microsoft products want so ship buggy software???

As far as the MSFT VFP team goes, I (but who cares right? :)) want to go on the record for saying that given the conditions in which they have had to work, they must be as crazy and dedicated as we have been to the product.

Voila, 2 Euro cents more.

Marc