[no subject]

It seemed to me from the discussion about I-Pods and other devices on the CQ
site that CQ has at least *some* of the same issues with drivers that nearly
everyone else has.  It's not a slam against CQ, it's just what I consider a
SW development fact of life.  Often, one can divine where to "hook" into a
program or device without having that program or device's source code.
We've seen protocols reverse engineered right under our very eyes here in
CHA.  However, unless those protocols are in a manufacturer-sanctioned
document, there's always a danger in writing an interface that "appears to
work" with, let's say, the current generation of I-Pods.  It may not work
with any new ones.

You're old enough to remember how important this concept was to the
competitors of IBM mainframes way back when they all sued to be able to make
"plug compatible" computer equipment.  My mainframe buddies tell stories of
how IBM gave just enough information to satisfy the consent decree, but not
a byte more.  Sometimes, the information they provided was so inadequate
that they were dragged back to court to make their systems accessible.  Now,
Microsoft is apparently carrying that anti competitive torch for them. (-: