Re: Some general observations

Wayne Fisher (waynef@cyberenet.net)
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:12:06 -0500


Scott:

I hope you didn't think I was bashing white pine.... I'm actually the one
who was defending white pine's decisions, which I think caused Jason to
flip out a little.....

- Wayne

At 09:47 AM 2/20/98 -0400, Scott Lacroix wrote:
>Had your Wheaties this morning, didja? :)
>Me too...
>
>At 12:33 AM 2/20/98 -0600, Jason Williams wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Wayne Fisher wrote:
>>> Pardon me for putting more of my 2 cents in, but for someone to suggest
>>> that someone continue to use the demo version of the software is quite
>>> disturbing to me
>>
>>I didn't save the original article about this...but I believe the guy was
>>wanting to try out a demo of 2.1.2 and he couldn't get it to work because
>>it had a hard-coded drop dead date in it. Maybe I misunderstood him
>>though.
>
> Probably true.
>
>>> companies such as White Pine work very hard on
>>> their software, and for people to download and use just demos, or find
>>> cracks and hacks so that they do not have to pay for the software, is
>>> reprehensible.
>>
>>True..companies should get rewarded for what they do without people
>>ripping them off. But at the same time, there's a big business for cracks
>>and hacks...it's something all software developers have to deal with.
>
> First, there's no "big business" for cracks & hacks. There IS a high
>demand, but no money is made, no businesses are founded. That's kinda the
>point.
> So that makes it what? Ok? A good thing?
> A neccessary evil. Yes, we all have to deal with it. Sadly, we have to
>expect it.
>
>>> If you want companies like White Pine to continue to "pump out" quality
>>> products, show your support and buy the damn software...
>>
>>The assumption there is that paid programmers produce quality software.
>>Check out the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/) for another
>>approach. The GNU project is quite successful..It allows people to adapt
>>software to their needs and makes it much more useful.
>
> Say that first sentence again slowly? The implication there is that paid
>programmers do NOT produce quality software. I know what the FSF is and
>what they stand for (basically). The GNU project is very successful, and
>very good. Heck, I use ALOT of GNU software everyday... The fact that it is
>freeware doesn't make it any better than software that you have to
>(shudder) PAY for.
> Yes, it's nice to have the code. There have been more than a few times
>when I've been stumped for why something does what it does or needed to
>change something & gone diving into source code to find it. There have also
>been quite a few times I've been MORE than enthusiatic about downloading
>upgrades to software I've bought that someone ELSE got paid to fix. Or
>calling a (shudder) tech-support line and getting answers from someone who
>got paid from the money I spent on the software. Thus saving me alot of
>time & trouble.
> Both have thier advantages.
>
>>This is sort of like White Pine providing an API for programmers to extend
>>what CU-SeeMe does (like GeekTalk). The FSF takes it quite a bit farther
>>though. But quality software can indeed be produced and advanced without
>>mention of money.
>
> Indeed. Neither argued nor disagreed.
>
>At 12:47 AM 2/20/98 -0600, Jason Williams wrote (in a previous message):
>>Allow programmers to extend the features of CU-SeeMe and redesign it given

>>the core components. It's really not that hard to provide a SDK that
>>details how to use methods for CU-SeeMe control. Licensing on the other
>>hand can become tricky I imagine.
>
> Really? And you base that statement on what? An understanding of the
>CU-SeeMe protocol? An understanding of the source code from Cornell? Some
>understanding of the source code from White Pine? Your experiences working
>as a professional engineer and handling code that is at least 3 generations
>old?
> I'd be interested to know...
>
>>I wasn't condoning violating the license restrictions of CU-SeeMe...I
>>merely stated that 2.1.2 works fine with a serial number but not as a
>>demo.
>
> If you purchase a version of someone's software (whatever it is) and they
>stop making it available to the public, then you go and make it available
>on your own without first contacting the manufacturer, you violate license
>restrictions. Unless redistribution rights are specifically stated in the
>license agreement that came with the software.
>
>>> If you don't want to legally buy the software, don't use it and find a
>>> freeware program that does the same thing....
>>
>>It's only a matter of time before freeware versions come out that support
>>color (MJPEG, H.263). A few already have. OS/2 version supports it as
>>does the Linux port. 99% of the people I know who use the White Pine
>>version (be it 3.X or 2.X) all use it for one reason only: color support.
>>Given a freeware alternative to it, they'd happily switch.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps... And as I've said before, if that suits thier needs,
>more power to 'em! :)
>
>>Let's hope by the time color eventually does get to the freeware version
>>White Pine has enough corporate business takers to balance out the loss of
>>home users that have found a freeware alternative.
>>
>>With the source code to the Cornell version available for a small
>>licensing fee, anyone can modify CU-SeeMe to their liking. I know at
>>least one person that has improved the Cornell Mac version quite a bit.
>
> Why don't you get ahold of the Cornell code & make the changes you need?
>Implement the color codec(s) you want and develop an SDK for other
>potential CU-Engineers to code to. It shouldn't be all that hard...
>(pulling tounge out of cheek) *G*
>
>>> As someone in the software industry, I am appalled at your
>>> suggestions....
>>
>>I didn't suggest anything that I know of...If you can indeed still buy 2.1
>>from White Pine, then using 2.1.2 with the same serial number shouldn't be
>>illegal.
>
> See my comment above on redistribution rights.
>
>>I believe White Pine has switched serial numbers twice..
>>2.0 -> 2.1 required a different serial number.
>>2.1 -> 3.0 required a different serial number.
>
> Uhm, so?
>
> Ya know, White Pine as a whole takes a pretty good beating on this list...
>and for what? Are there specific grievances to air? Like: "I called White
>Pine durring the early Beta phase of 3.0 and made numerous suggestions for
>client imporovements that were ignored"... Or: "I was in the early Beta
>testing of the MeetingPoint server and needed improvements which never
>came"... things like that? Or does it basically boil down to: "White Pine

>made a bunch of changes to something I was comfortable with & I'm mad at
>them!"
> Well, change is good. Remember when Microsoft changed from Win 3.11 to
>Win95? We ALL hated it... No-one was terribly happy. But, you wouldn't go
>back now, wouldja? *G* Admit it, after all the patches are installed, it's
>quite good! Well, the same is true for most major changes, including this
one.
> And it's been mentioned that the new CU 3.0 requires a bigger, badder
>system to run on. And the response was that most upgrades do now-a-days.
>That (as I recall) went pretty much ignored. Well it still stands, that's
>what upgrades are about. Adding new features/enhancements AND taking
>advantage of new hardware/software capabilities. There are alot of new
>features in 3.1 and some of then rely on newer hardware to work correctly.
>That's life in the computer world.
> So, if you can't upgrade and can't use the new 3.1 client... stick with
>what you had. If you never had anything else, you can still buy 2.1.1 from
>White Pine SOMEWHERE on our website. (Look, I'm really sorry about this
>2.1.2 problem-thing, but really, REALLY, the only improvements in 2.1.2
>were to work with the Kodak USB cam, which apparently still comes with
>2.1.2 ) If THAT'S not good enough for ya, Jason can give you pointers (I'm
>sure :) to where you can download a freeware client that will run on your
>system.
> So, can we just accept a few basic truths here and move on? Is it really
>necessary to start a "Bash White Pine's CU-SeeMe" mailing list?
>
> Anyway, that's my $0.02 and my Wheaties have worn off...
> *climbing down off MY soapbox*
>
>- Scott
>--
>
> ,-==================================-.-==================================-.
>| I haven't lost my mind, it's backed | Scott LaCroix (slacroix@wpine.com) |
>| up on tape around here somewhere... | Sr. Software Engineer ___ |
>| - Author Unknown | White Pine Software ./_ -\. |
>| #include<disclaimer/std.h> | http://www.wpine.com q| o O |p |
> `-==================================-^-=====================oOOo=~U~=oOOo-'
>