|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 1993 18:12:13 +0200 |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Wed,
15 Sep 1993 11:10:49 EDT from LISTSERV give-and-take forum
< [log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: |
|
On Wed, 15 Sep 1993 11:10:49 EDT "Sathaye, Shashi"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
>We are 'the backbone' listserv and we are not 'backdated'.
Most of these jobs come from a server in Brazil that I am unable to
update because it is chronically screwed up, I guess they have a bad disk
unit or a MW link or whatever. The more you fix it, the more it breaks
again a few months later.
>On a differnt topic : if we cannot afford to pay for the current version
>would we still be 'backbone' server?
It is an open question. Initially, yes. In the longer term, I doubt it
will be possible to maintain 100% compatibility with the new VMS and unix
versions, and L-Soft is unlikely to slow down development or write
special migration/gateway code just so that non-paying customers can
remain on the backbone. I wouldn't have done it one year ago when
LISTSERV was still free - I'd have called it a waste of my time, and a
bad idea anyway since I can't write fixes for back-level sites. Now that
it's a waste of "development resources" and an "incentive for people not
to become paying customers", it's even less likely to happen :-)
While I can't make any guarantee, I'd say you would remain on the
backbone for 6-12 months, but once the VMS and unix versions hit the
street (4Q94-1Q95) this will probably not be possible.
Eric
|
|
|