Re: White Pine CUSeeMe Version 3.1.1

Jason Williams (
Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:21:33 -0500 (CDT)

Let's see how brief I can make this..hehehe

On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Scott Lacroix wrote:
> Hey, anything for you! :)
> Yep it is... stay tuned....

You're too kind :) I couldn't find any mention that it was beta/preview
on the web I just assumed it was a released version. I sit
corrected :)

> Well, that just can't be good! ;)
> There's at least one other thing that could cause that, happens to me all
> the time. And it has to do with the capture card drivers. I'd know more if
> you did multiple tests & had some more results, but hey... it's not a
> terribly big deal.

All I have installed right now is a Quickcam, an STB TV/PCI card, and a
Videum. They all seemed to work fine with 2.1.2.

> And here's a question, if you're not Beta Testing, and
> you hate the interface, why DO you run the 3.X client at all? Why not just
> delete it & not worry about it anymore?

I run to find out what the latest and greatest are :)
Mainly to help others figure out the interface and help them along with
configuring it. If I deleted it, I couldn't confirm bugs..and you KNOW
how much I enjoy doing that <grin>

> Hmmm.... perhaps it was an oversight in the 2.X client that it failed to
> mark incoming private chat... and thus a bug in all other clients that they
> EXPECT the SENDER of private chat to flag it for them.

Perhaps so. But I seriously doubt White Pine would go back and FIX the
2.X client so that it DOES mark private chat. Since White Pine has moved
on to the 3.X client, the easiest thing to do is make it backward
compatible with it's previous clients (which a LOT of people still use).

> Send priv chat to a 3.X client from a Cornell client (et al) and it
> should flag it, REGARDLESS of whether or not the sender marks it.

The same is true for the newer Cornell client as well. As I said, it only
breaks the 2.X client (and the 3.X users who have to learn the hard way to
send private chat to 2.X users).

> And I THINK the 2.X client came out before GeekTalk, right? Since there
> weren't any clients sending private chat, it wasn't a big issue at the
> time. So you can see how it may have been easy for an oversight like that
> to creep in.

2.1.1 is dated November 18, 1996. I believe Chris said GeekTalk came out
in September 1996. It may have been an oversight when 2.1.1 came out, but
if I recall 2.1.2 didn't come out until March, 1997.

> So it depends on how you look at it... Personally, I see it as a design
> flaw in the reciever. They are RELYING on the sender to ALWAYS mark private
> chat. you're admitting that there's a flaw in the 2.1 versions. What
does White Pine propose as a solution? Upgrade to 3.1 of course :)

This would be a moot point if there weren't so many people still using the
2.X versions. That's one reason why it's not that big of a deal with the
0.84b7 Cornell version. Virtually no one uses it. The majority of people
I see using White Pine's version are on 2.1.1 or 2.1.2 though.

> Personally, I'd rather just have fixed it in the reciever.

And there you said it :) Feel free to dig up the 2.X code and fix the
problem :) You'll have a lot of happy customers that way.

> And if they send it to an OLDER Cornell client, does it display as
> private? Is that a bug in the sender or reciever? Personally, I still think
> it's the reciever.

I can see your point. But then, I was also going on the assumption that
it will be a lot easier to get White Pine to change the 3.X client to
make it compatible with the 2.X client than it would be to change the 2.X
version to make it compatible with the 3.X client. If White Pine is up to
hacking away on the 2.X client, I'd love to beta test that :) How about a
2.2 version? Or 2.1.3? :)

> >I suppose this could be a tactic to try and force people to upgrade to
> >3.X. "As an added incentive, you'll be able to distinguish public chat
> >from private chat".
> I suppose we could run down the Conspiracy Theory again. But I thought
> we'd outgrown that.

I don't see it as a conspiracy...but I do see it as what is happening.
You admit yourself that it's a bug in the receiver (the 2.1.X client). So
how do you propose to fix it? The only way I've seen to "fix" it is to
upgrade to another version. ie: upgrade to 3.1.

> I promise, I'll check into it before yelling about it again. Mind you,
> that doesn't mean I'll just stop yelling :)

I wouldn't expect you to stop doing that..heaven forbid :)

> I think you're off here somewhere. There DEFINATELY is a bug-report
> mechanism for the MPCS Beta users. If they said "dont use the list" then
> that means there's another method. And I think you got an email re: that
> anyway...

Yep..there is another method...just one I wasn't used to (plain ol' email
to the person who sent out the beta information). I liked the bug-track
database thing :)

> He did, he sent it to me. But like I said, I lost the thread. As I
> remember it, that one line was a functional change, and in a corporation
> you can't make functional changes just 'cuz they're easy or you think
> they're right. You have to go through the development cycle.

The waterfall cycle? woohoo :) Software Engineering at work.hehe

> And, that make the WhitePine 2.X reflector the MAIN! Wheee!
> Ok, got that off my chest! :)

Hehe...I liked the 2.1 reflector...could leave it running for months on a
Solaris system here without it breaking. It's nice and solid
(well..except on Win95/NT)

> I don't doubt that the ERef popularity is growing rapidly. It may even
> outshadow the 2.X ref evenually (in the market that you're surveying).

Yep, I'm sure it will eventually. You can't beat the price of the
Enhanced Ref. :) Especially with it's feature set.

> But even still, the MPCS already has over 10% market share and it's only
> been out a few months! Not too shabby, you gotta admit!

Yep...not too bad, but then I also question whether or not it will
continue to grow. A LOT of the current reflectors out there (in fact,
most that I know of) aren't running NT but some form of unix. As I
understand it, MPCS will only be supported on Solaris and NT. We'll see
what happens over time.

> Thus, if the next rev of the Cornell client didn't support backwards
> compatability with older Cornell clients, that would also be a moot point
> (since they don't charge either)? Don't flip-flop here, we're talking
> apples and apples. wouldn't be a moot point, but one way to really alienate
customers is not only to tell them their version isn't compatible with the
"new and improved" version, but also that they have to shell out more
money for it.

> Yup, you're absolutely right. And like I said in the bit you clipped out:
> "If (as Brian says above) there are no differences between the ERef and the
> basic Cornell refs (as far as the client is concerned), then there is
> nothing to worry about (as far as the ERef is concerned)."

I'm not a bit worried about the ERef :) Much more concerned about the WP
2.X clients that are stuck.

> >Again, thanks for your input :)
> Hey, ya know... anything for you! Just trying to brighten your day!
> :)

Hehe.well.believe it or not, I got a big kick out of your message :)
Now get that 100 watt bulb out off of my head :)

--    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** **************|