H-Net Central <[log in to unmask]> says:
 
>Everyone expected that BITNET would be dead by now but it has survived
>and even flourished for one reason only:  LISTSERV discussion groups
>(of which H-NET is an example).
...
>LISTSERV was developed by Eric Thomas as 'freeware' and quickly became
>the most popular BITNET application worldwide.
...
>Eric has wisely capitalized on this growth by
>taking his LISTSERV software commercial.  Ironically, his software is
>the main contributing cause of the problems he now complains about!
 
A classic case of confusing correlation with causation, i.e.,
 
        Most BITNET traffic stems from LISTSERV lists
        AND LISTSERV is developed by Eric Thomas/L-Soft
        AND BITNET is having traffic problems;
        THEREFORE "It's Eric's fault!"
 
Doesn't anyone take Logic 101 anymore? :-)
 
It seems to me that L-Soft provides software that system administrators
HAVE CHOSEN TO install on their systems since it meets their users'
needs.  The users are creating unanticipated traffic that the
administrators had not forseen early enough to install the appropriate
replacement software (be it LISTSERV-TCP/IP, or ListProc or majordomo, or
whatever) or hardware or combination.  Or perhaps they didn't have the
resources of money or manpower or both.  At any rate, where the software
provider (L-Soft) appears willing and able to work with its customers
(BITNET administrators) to solve the problems of their users, it would
seem that ALL parties benefit most from their working together, rather
than engaging in finger-pointing.
 
>In summary, we're trying to do everything we possibly can with the
>human and hardware resources we have.  There WILL still be bumpy
>times ahead as we try to cope with growth rates that are almost impossible
>to predict and cope with.  Please bear with your Computer Center - we are
>trying our level best.
 
Well, that wasn't really a summary of the often personal gibing in
the rest of the message, but that's neither here nor there.  Anyway, as a
list-owner, I certainly appreciate the work of system administrators who
help keep the systems running smoothly that allow us to continue to
operate our lists, despite the time that it takes away from their support
of the more mainstream functions of their computer centres.  I also
appreciate the providers of the software which makes it possible (though
some of it could come with better documentation--oops, sorry, wrong
thread :-)).  I question neither the salaries of the administrators nor
the profits of the software vendors.  In the absence of any evidence to
the contrary, I assume that both are earned honestly, and that the
people authorizing both expenditures have made what they believe to be
the right cost-benefit analyses in incurring those expenditures.
 
Shahrukh Merchant