Re: Some Answers About 1.0

Jason Williams (
Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:19:10 -0500 (CDT)

On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Skip wrote:
> This being the case, why is Martyn requesting that copies not be
> redistributed?

My guess on this based upon what Martyne has said in the past, is that 1.0
was just a "test" release and wasn't ready for prime time. From that
perspective, she wouldn't want test releases do get out to the public
since they are test releases and updated a lot. But that contradicts what
Steve said (that 0.96a17 and 1.0 weren't just test releases by full
versions usable by all). There's also something that can be said when the
testers get daily updates. Someone distributing test releases at any one
time can be a bad thing because it may be very buggy (I, as a tester, did
encounter this once which cause any Mac client to crash). But as Steve
said, 0.96a17 and 1.0 were full ready-to-release versions which were well

> Since 1.0 is already available on the net (via redistribution which is legal)
> how can it be canceled or feature stripped?

I believe he was referring to the "official" distribution site
( That's what the big problem is right now.
It's available on the net, but not officially from Cornell. The Cornell
web page is one of the main pages people go to since Cornell developed the
software. Having the official distribution of 1.0 placed there insures
that people are indeed downloading a verified and tested version.

It would be quite confusing if there were two 1.0 versions running around.
One would be the one that's out there now available from a myriad of web
pages (which itself attests to how much people like it). The other would
be the possibly feature-stripped version that Cornell collaborated with
White Pine on to make it more appealable to White Pine (read: so that it
doesn't cut into their profits) distributed on Cornell's page.

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