Re: White Pine CUSeeMe Version 3.1.1]

Wayne Fisher (waynenf@mindspring.com)
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:58:20 -0400


At 04:54 PM 4/16/98 -0600, Brian Godette wrote:
>At 04:03 PM 4/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, David Toole wrote:
>>> It doesn't much matter to me as a
>>> Cu-SeeMe user that some reflectors work and some don't. I just know that
>this
>>> software is incapable of working properly with all reflectors and
>therefore causes
>>> problems when switching. IMHO, software should work, period.
>>
>>... so ignoring that fact only ticks off White Pine's potential (and
>>possibly current) customers.
>>
>Hmmm, didn't I say something along those lines a few months ago? :)

I find it disturbing that so many people on the list question White Pine's
decision to support their own versions of reflector software (2.x and the
new MPCS software) over the myriad versions of reflector software out
there. Let me digress for a moment....

In todays business world, most software company's limit the systems,
peripherals, and operating systems which will support their software. Let
me use the Cornell CUSeeMe client as an example. In the release notes, the
types of cameras which are supported by the Cornell version of the software
are clearly outlined. Let's pretend for a moment that I choose to purchase
a digital camera that is NOT on the supported hardware list (for whatever
reason). Would that then give me the right to complain that the software
does not work (let me quote here.... "IMHO, software should work, period")
because I chose to use something that is clearly not supported, or is not
supported well?

White Pine knows the ins and outs of their server software (i.e., Reflector
2.x and MPCS), so wouldn't it make sense for them to limit support for
their client software (CUSeeMe 2.x and 3.x)? Tech support can only do so
much....

Besides, there is a large number of videoconferencing software packages
available today which use propietary server software to connect users. If
one were to look at iVisit, VocalTec Internet Phone, ICUII, and VDOPhone,
one would see that of these software applications work best when using the
propietary server software to connect to other users. Why should White
Pine be any different? I don't hear anyone complaining about these
company's limiting the server software which can be supported by their
clients.

Please try to remember these comments (strictly my own opinions) the next
time you want to bash White Pine for making a technical decision on what
works best for software which they developed.

My own 2 cents,

Wayne