Re: White Pine CUSeeMe Version 3.1.1]

The Mad Scientist! (s.j.turner@uq.net.au)
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:17:09 +1000 (GMT+1000)


On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Wayne Fisher wrote:

> 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?

That's not what has happened here.

> 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.

The world is moving towards standards based video conferencing, which I
think is the way to go. Just as the world has standardised on many other
issues. Take modems for example. Would we really have wanted x2 and
k56flex to be both around forever, unable to talk to each other? It's
much better now that the ISO (or whoever it is that handles these things)
has produced the V.90 standard.

Scott.

---------------------
s.j.turner@uq.net.au