On Mon, 25 Nov 1991 11:53:50 EST [log in to unmask]
said:
>We could change the address, I suppose, but the program itself will
>still identify itself as 'Listserv 5.2'
Which again is confusing because your program is not LISTSERV but
something different and incompatible. It's a bit as if I wrote a very
simplistic editor that fits in (say) only 30k, for people who can't
afford to spend more disk space on an editor, and decided to call it
EMACS 5.2 because the screen setup looks the same from the other end of
the room.
>(Quite honestly, I disagree with Mr. Thomas...I think it will be far
>more confusing to change the name...Joe User thinks that all list
>serving programs are "listserv"
Joe User does indeed think that all list serving programs are called
LISTSERV, because, before a flurry of new list server programs became
available for unix about 1 year ago, there used to be only one list
serving program and it was called LISTSERV. Nothing would have prevented
the unix ones from choosing another (and more unixish) name such a
'list-request', 'list-daemon', 'listmaster' or whatever. Above all, I
really fail to understand how the name of the software itself (as opposed
to the ID it uses) also had to be LISTSERV. Technics makes portable
cassette players, but they don't call them "Walkman DX-187", because
that's Sony's brand name. Maybe it was a mistake not to register LISTSERV
as a trademark.
>Perhaps instead Mr. Thomas should be working with the Unix listserv
>people to enhance compatibility...
Mr.Thomas has been working with the unix listserv people to discuss
compatibility, thank you very much. His patience ran out in late august,
when it became clear that the vast majority of the working group was not
the least interested in preserving compatibility with a "network that
still uses virtual punched cards", and furthermore did not want to write
a unix version of his LISTSERV but something more closely resembling
Ricky Hernandez's server (also known as the "BITNIC LISTSERV", ca 1985).
While I have no problem with that, the reason I started writing a
"Revised LISTSERV" at all is that I was not satisfied with the
functionality provided by the BITNIC server, and I felt the user
community needed more than a simple signup/signoff server for public
lists. But, of course, there is no reason for such a respectable network
citizen as Michael Shappe to get the facts right before publicly blaming
his own problems on someone else, is there?
Eric
|