Re: Vids that need to be "goosed"

Dennis J. Streveler (
Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:46:21 -0700

At 06:34 PM 7/14/96 -0500, wrote:
>ST>packets, that the application was deciding that they didn't contain
>ST>meaningful updates afterall. Now, your experience seems to indicate this is
>ST>not the case. It is beginning to sound like a bonafide bug to me...
>A bug?
>After your glowing opinion on CUSEEME, there could be a bug?
>CUSEEME should clearly be labeled experimental so no one actually
>depends on it. Much like ham radio messages, sometimes they actually get
>Burt Fisher
>Cape Cod's Internet Address

Hello, Burt,

My "glowing" opinion of CU? Gosh, I wish the guys at White Pine thought that
I gave glowing opinions of CU! :) They also say that I am somehow trashing
their product... Ah, perception, those gestalt psychologists were right! :)

Anyway, CU has MANY bugs, the one describe here is the most aggregious that
I have seen for some time in this product. I sure hope it gets fixed in the
next release. I too have seen large kbps being pumped into a picture but
never to see it get "updated". One should not have to goose the application
to force the update.


Dennis J. Streveler, Ph.D., | Internet:
Systems Consultant | CIS: 71036,1645
| web:
-Future Technologies in Medicine / | CUSeeMe:
Telemedicine +------------------------------
-International Software Development | 415 239-1441
Methodologies | 415 469-9476 fax
-Human-Computer Interface Design | 127 Lake Merced Hill
for Casual Users | San Francisco CA 94132 USA
My job? To send the appropriate electrons hurtling around the globe.