Re: CU, MeetingPoint, ERef, Etc. - Can we all get along?

Brian Godette (bgodette@idcomm.com)
Mon, 11 May 1998 12:10:03 -0600


At 12:14 PM 5/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Summary of long note:
> - I like Jason and Brian G and am often perplexed by their vitriol
> - ERef and MPCS are different because they serve different purposes.
> - WP charges because it does more (technically) and we provide more
>(business wise)
>
>Again, I ask these questions NOT to put Brian or Jason down, but merely to
>point out the fact that they both ignore a number of facts about what WP is
>trying to do to get more and more people to accept group IP conferencing
>solutions as a whole:
>
>a) Can Eref handle H.323 clients like NetMeeting and Intel Business Video?
>
>b) Can Eref handle T.120 conferences?

a & b, not yet... but really, how long do you think it would take me with
one of two conditions. 1) having h323 and t120 transport specs, or 2) using
a packet sniffer and reverse engineering the transport.

>
>c) Can Eref accept and moderate connections to a full-fledged, instructor
>controlled learning environment like ClassPoint?

Depends on your goals. But limiting by ip address and authenticaion thru a
web page is currently possible. Limiting by client type and codecs used is
going to be available RSN.

>
>d) Can Eref handle advanced bandwith management?

Yup.

>
>e) Can ERef link multiple servers and conferences within servers through a
>graphical user interface?

Conference linking between multiple servers is another RSN. As for the GUI,
excess baggage, nice but generally not needed, and being developed by a
third party anyhow :)

>
>f) Does Brian G. respond to specific customer needs on an as-needed
>emergency basis? (B & J - there are a few bugs you DIDN'T find that we
>fixed for customers who found them)

Yup.

As for bugs, there have certainly been no end of them in the various WP
clients which I haven't listed or said anything about as they're generally
not of the same fatal class as the ones listed.

>
>I'll answer this one - Of course not! Because that is not in the "business
>plan" of a freeware application.
>
>f) Is Brian G. working (publicly and behind the scenes) with large partners
>to make IP conferencing a larger cultural reality beyond its current limited
>scope?

I take the 5th. :)

>
>I'll answer this one - maybe a little. But for the most part, that is not
>in the "business plan" of a freeware application.
>
>g) Will Brian G. arrange on-site demos and installations to sites who need
>hand-holding?

It's been done. But probably not what you would consider an on-site demo.

>
>I'll answer this one - Of course not! Because that is not in the "business
>plan" of a freeware application. (And he has a full-time job he must attend
>so that he can pay for his hobbies!)
>
>h) Will Brian G. do on-site training?

Also been done.

>
>i) Does ERef provide full online and printed documentation?

Pay me printing and shipping fees and I'll gladly print out the docs you
can grab directly off the web page. :)

>
>I could go on.
>
>My SUMMARY point is that YES White Pine charges. Of course we do. We are
>trying to do very different things that Brian G is. I am contstantly
>perplexed at how Jason and Brian ignore the upside to what WP is doing.

We don't ignore it, but we also don't talk about a whole slew of other
issues (which explain our general disdain) either.