Re: White Pine CUSeeMe Version 3.1.1

Scott Lacroix (
Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:35:05 -0300

At 02:06 PM 4/18/98 -0500, Jason Williams wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Grattan Colvin wrote:
>> I always understood that I had gotten something for free and if it was
>> imperfect, well, it didn't cost me anything.
>The assumption here is that White Pine is dealing with making their
>version compatible with the "imperfect" Cornell version which just isn't
>true at all. In most cases that I've seen, it's the White Pine version
>that's imperfect and prevents you from operating the software correctly
>(ie: the 2.X close all problem. So the question becomes, why do people
>PAY for buggy software?

The WhitePine version was and will be compatible with the "imperfect"
Cornell version. EVERYONE has bugs, whether the program costs you money or
not. I haven't had time to download the Cornell and play with it in months,
but perhaps I will & see what there is to complain about... :)
Nah, maybe not... there's enough bashing going on around here.
People "PAY for buggy software" because ALL software has bugs, it has the
feature set they want, it works well enough to suit thier needs, it's (in
thier opinion) the best on the market (at least in that price range) and
WORTH the money they put out, and they trust the company enough to expect
bug fixes for issues that are critcal and/or affect thier usage.
At least that's why *I* pay for software... maybe I'm off here... :)

- Scott


,-==================================-.-==================================-. | I haven't lost my mind, it's backed | Scott LaCroix ( | | up on tape around here somewhere... | Sr. Software Engineer ___ | | - Author Unknown | White Pine Software ./_ -\. | | #include<disclaimer/std.h> | q| o O |p | `-==================================-^-=====================oOOo=~U~=oOOo-'