ragnarok@ziebmef.uucp (Ragnarok) (05/09/89)
In article <2301@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) writes: >When I see a version of DesTerm that works well (and correctly), I >will be happy to use it on the occasions I use a c128. Until then, >C64KERMIT in C128 mode works much better, providing the emulation >features I really need. Otherwise, I use BTPro.... if DesTerm (or >DavesTerm or any other terminal) can do it better, I will use it. Well, our Desterm arrived DOA at this site, but from what I've been hearing it's probably been for the best. OK, I've got (IMHO) a better terminal for you for the C128: Dialogue 128, by Workable Concepts here in Toronto. The program features VT100, ANSI and C64 colour graphics emulation, with auto-logon and macro capability. The usual amenities, plus drop-down menus (if you want them - most of the commands are accessible via direct key-combinations). The best thing about it is the organization of the help/command menus -instead of stepping endlessly through submenus here and there, all options are set up on one set of menus only. There's no sublevels or menu nesting. The dropdown menus are always optional and change depending on the mode the terminal is in. Version 2 is now available, I understand (although I haven't gotten mine updated yet). I have no official affiliation with Workable Concepts other than being a satisfied customer (can't stand to use BobsTerm Pro now). For more information, contact Workable Concepts at 281 St. Germain Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 1W4. -- The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, | Ragnarok -- ragnarok@ziebmef.UUCP Moves on: not all thy Piety nor thy Wit |---------------------------------- Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, | Path: uunet!utgpu!(ontmoh!moore, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it. | ncrcan)!ziebmef!ragnarok
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/11/89)
> From: ragnarok@ziebmef.uucp (Ragnarok) > Message-ID: <1989May8.153709.20681@ziebmef.uucp> > Well, our Desterm arrived DOA at this site, but from what I've been hearing > it's probably been for the best. Why, that's mighty kind of you! BTW, future UUENCODEs will not suffer from the mailer-mauled space problem as I have corrected the software here. > OK, I've got (IMHO) a better terminal for you for the C128: > Dialogue 128, by Workable Concepts here in Toronto. We're aware of who the "competition" is (I've known both Jeff Goebel and Gary Farmaner for a couple of years - Gary was a regular user on a BBS I ran in Toronto while he was still working on Pro-Term). We'd like to offer these points to consider when comparing DesTerm to Dialogue: Dialogue has been on the market for over six months, DesTerm for more like six weeks. We're willing to bet that we will not only catch up to, but overtake, Dialogue in terms of features. Gary must be aware of this: some of Dialogue's "new features" are found in DesTerm! Dialogue is a *commercial* product - $69.95 Canadian, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). DesTerm is *shareware* - get a copy for next to nothing, register for $25. I do not know what Workable Concepts is doing regarding U.S. sales... shareware has no problem crossing the border. I've even had a message arrive from Down Under. Dialogue support is limited to the Workable Concepts BBS (it's on PunterNet, but that Net consists of less than 50 North American BBSes - most of them in and around Toronto - and provides only netmail capability) and Workable Concept's presence on Canada Remote Systems, a 60-line BBS in Mississauga. DesTerm support includes those PLUS Usenet news, PLUS FidoNet echomail - we may not be making the money that Workable Concepts is, but we're determined to offer superior product & services. In closing: you've all heard how wonderful v1.02 will be - it's been mentioned often enough. I am beginning to get the feeling that we ought to release it even as it's being beta tested, as it will cure most, if not all, of the complaints we've heard since v1.01 was released. I'd like to say that registered users will get it first, but we're still working on the manual - it seems that a lot of things in the original manual were not understood (or not read at all). Geoff -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) (05/13/89)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1989May8.153709.20681@ziebmef.uucp>, ragnarok@ziebmef.UUCP (Ragnarok) wrote: ]>When I see a version of DesTerm that works well (and correctly), I ]>will be happy to use it on the occasions I use a c128. Until then, ]>C64KERMIT in C128 mode works much better, providing the emulation ]>features I really need. Otherwise, I use BTPro.... if DesTerm (or ]>DavesTerm or any other terminal) can do it better, I will use it. ] ]Well, our Desterm arrived DOA at this site, but from what I've been hearing ]it's probably been for the best. I'd agree. DesTerm may be nice when it's a little more developed, but right now it is less useful than a 1660. (Endless emulation gripes will not be repeated.) ]OK, I've got (IMHO) a better terminal for you for the C128: Dialogue 128, by ]Workable Concepts here in Toronto. The program features VT100, ANSI and C64 ]colour graphics emulation, with auto-logon and macro capability. The usual ]amenities, plus drop-down menus (if you want them - most of the commands are ]accessible via direct key-combinations). The best thing about it is the ]organization of the help/command menus -instead of stepping endlessly through ]submenus here and there, all options are set up on one set of menus only. I suppose that depends on your tastes; I am assuming you mean that several different menus are available from the terminal mode directly. That, to me, is somewhat less important than it may be to you. The BobsTerm Pro organization has always made a great deal of sense to me, but I would definitely object to something a level or two greater. ]There's no sublevels or menu nesting. The dropdown menus are always optional ]and change depending on the mode the terminal is in. Version 2 is now ]available, I understand (although I haven't gotten mine updated yet). I have ]no official affiliation with Workable Concepts other than being a satisfied ]customer (can't stand to use BobsTerm Pro now). For more information, contact ]Workable Concepts at 281 St. Germain Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 1W4. Workable Concepts. Aren't those my Canadian friends who sponsored PC-PunterNet? If so, I would not contact them for anything. They don't think clearly. That shows in their support of "PC-PunterNet," and I would assume it carries through to other products. They also insulted me a few months ago by sending me a letter stating: "You are receiving this letter today, because at one time, you were a SYSOP and operated a BBS." That was their introduction to a flyer for PC-PunterNet and really turned me off because I still DO operate a BBS. Also, they have not always been very cooperative in their support of AMEX MODS (for BBS64). Past history indicates that it may not be wise to do business with them. The opinions expressed within are entirely my own and may very well be prejudiced by past experience. By the way, I am NOT trying to rip you apart or anything. Dialogue may work very well for you. -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/13/89)
> From: jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) > Message-ID: <2501@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> > Workable Concepts. Aren't those my Canadian friends who sponsored > PC-PunterNet? If so, I would not contact them for anything. They > don't think clearly. That shows in their support of "PC-PunterNet," > and I would assume it carries through to other products. Workable Concepts is Jeff Goebel. Yes, he distributes Amex mods, PC-PunterNet, and Dialogue 128. > Also, they have not always been very cooperative in their support of > AMEX MODS (for BBS64). Past history indicates that it may not be wise > to do business with them. Jeff is not much of a programmer - and he freely admits it. The Amex mods were some simple stuff he threw in plus more significant mods sent in by other BBS64 SYSOPs. Anyway, now that PC-PunterNet is out and offers some functional advantages over BBS64, C64 PunterNet nodes are second-class systems in that Net already. Both Steve and Jeff have grumbled to the effect that their work on BBS64 may not resume. I am not sure if this implies anything about the future of support for Dialogue. Geoff -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) (05/16/89)
In comp.sys.cbm article <2355.246CFBC9@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) wrote: ] Jeff is not much of a programmer - and he freely admits it. The Amex mods ]were some simple stuff he threw in plus more significant mods sent in by other ]BBS64 SYSOPs. Anyway, now that PC-PunterNet is out and offers some functional ]advantages over BBS64, C64 PunterNet nodes are second-class systems in that second class nodes on a third rate network.... Steve has lived up to my expectations of support and service for BBS64 and PunterNet. Now I am just wondering why I was stupid enough to spend ANY money on BBS64 in the first place. ]Net already. Both Steve and Jeff have grumbled to the effect that their ]work on BBS64 may not resume. When he started PC-PN, most of us did not expect Steve to resume work on BBS64. I'm not the only BBS64 owner that feels a little burned about it. -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/18/89)
> From: jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) > Message-ID: <2543@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> GW> ... C64 PunterNet nodes are second-class systems ... JG > second class nodes on a third rate network.... I made the mistake of expressing similar sentiments to Roman Kowalczuk in a much stronger way (sometimes it's hard to impress an idea on Roman), and he had the insensitivity to forward the message to Steve's BBS - publicly! Not surprisingly, Steve is quite upset at my comment... > am just wondering why I was stupid enough to spend ANY money on BBS64 > in the first place. Because it's the best there is for that hardware. > When he started PC-PN, most of us did not expect Steve to resume work > on BBS64. I'm not the only BBS64 owner that feels a little burned > about it. I know this is the wrong conference to be saying this in, but C64 users in general are miffed at the way some people are backing off development & support of C64 products... when you think of it, the C64 has had one of the longest and most productive lives of any microcomputer, and I think that C64 users are spoiled by it. Look at the present support for early TRS-80 products, the Mattel Aquarius, the Coleco Adam, the CompuColour II, the TI-99/4A... to this day C64 owners have it better off than owners of those machines ever did. Geoff -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
ragnarok@ziebmef.uucp (Ragnarok) (05/18/89)
In article <2346.2469060E@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > > [My comments from a previous message] > > > > Well, our Desterm arrived DOA at this site, but from what I've been hearing > > it's probably been for the best. > > Why, that's mighty kind of you! BTW, future UUENCODEs will not suffer from >the mailer-mauled space problem as I have corrected the software here. Remember, all I've had to go on so far are users' remarks in this newsgroup; and, to be honest, they haven't exactly been glowing recommendations (not that I expected them to be - otherwise I would have wondered how much these users had been paid off to endorse the product). However, there have been a number of complaints about Desterm, enough to justify my off-hand remark, I think. > > OK, I've got (IMHO) a better terminal for you for the C128: > > Dialogue 128, by Workable Concepts here in Toronto. > > We're aware of who the "competition" is (I've known both Jeff Goebel and >Gary Farmaner for a couple of years - Gary was a regular user on a BBS I ran >in Toronto while he was still working on Pro-Term). We'd like to offer these >points to consider when comparing DesTerm to Dialogue: As I recall, I (briefly) compared Dialogue NOT with Desterm, but with BobsTerm Pro. I don't know why you're treating my message as some kind of put-down that you have to redress by writing a heavily-biased product blurb. Interesting how you immediately went on the defensive. I didn't post with the intention of slamming another product, as you seem to have; moreover, I have to wonder how confident you feel about your own product if you feel it can't stand up on its own merits without your having to point out every feature in comparison to your "competition" (your choice of words, not mine). The posting was done in the spirit of sharing a personal opinion with others; your message makes it seem as if I was trying to drum up business for Workable Concepts. I said it then, and I'll say it now: I have NO connection with Workable Concepts. I don't even know the people you're talking about personally; I purchased my copy from a computer store. If you have any bones to pick with Workable Concepts, take it up with them; don't drag me into it. I believe we all know what IMHO means? > Dialogue has been on the market for over six months, DesTerm for more like >six weeks. We're willing to bet that we will not only catch up to, but >overtake, Dialogue in terms of features. Gary must be aware of this: some of >Dialogue's "new features" are found in DesTerm! > > Dialogue is a *commercial* product - $69.95 Canadian, I believe (correct >me if I'm wrong). DesTerm is *shareware* - get a copy for next to nothing, >register for $25. I do not know what Workable Concepts is doing regarding >U.S. sales... shareware has no problem crossing the border. I've even had a >message arrive from Down Under. I don't know if I made it clear in my previous message, but perhaps I didn't. Dialogue is indeed a commercial product. My copy cost me $59.95 CDN + PST. The way that second paragraph in the immediately previous attribution is written makes me think that your posting Desterm is less a generous gesture than an attempt to encompass a larger potential market. I'm probably wrong, and I hope I am; I'm not sure how net administrators would see it. Posting with the expectation of financial return is a sure way of receiving large phone bills, or at the very least the wrath of node administrators... > Dialogue support is limited to the Workable Concepts BBS (it's on >PunterNet, but that Net consists of less than 50 North American BBSes - most >of them in and around Toronto - and provides only netmail capability) and >Workable Concept's presence on Canada Remote Systems, a 60-line BBS in >Mississauga. DesTerm support includes those PLUS Usenet news, PLUS FidoNet >echomail - we may not be making the money that Workable Concepts is, but >we're determined to offer superior product & services. Your insistence on interpreting my opinion as a personal attack on your product is really something else. In fact, I hadn't brought any of these points up; you're bringing them up yourself for brownie points. You've turned my message into a springboard for your (unsolicited) product ad. > In closing: you've all heard how wonderful v1.02 will be - it's been >mentioned often enough. I am beginning to get the feeling that we ought to >release it even as it's being beta tested, as it will cure most, if not all, >of the complaints we've heard since v1.01 was released. I'd like to say that >registered users will get it first, but we're still working on the manual - >it seems that a lot of things in the original manual were not understood (or >not read at all). Glad to hear it, although I might believe it more if you hadn't gone heavy- handed on me. You realize, of course, that after this I'm going to have to hunt down a copy of Desterm just to see how it lives up to your claims... -- The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, | Ragnarok -- ragnarok@ziebmef.UUCP Moves on: not all thy Piety nor thy Wit |---------------------------------- Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, | Path: uunet!utgpu!(ontmoh!moore, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it. | ncrcan)!ziebmef!ragnarok
carus@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (bryce.w.carus) (05/18/89)
In article <2372.24724227@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > > stuff deleted > > I know this is the wrong conference to be saying this in, but C64 users in > general are miffed at the way some people are backing off development & > support of C64 products... when you think of it, the C64 has had one of the > longest and most productive lives of any microcomputer, and I think that C64 > users are spoiled by it. Look at the present support for early TRS-80 > products, the Mattel Aquarius, the Coleco Adam, the CompuColour II, the > TI-99/4A... to this day C64 owners have it better off than owners of those > machines ever did. > > Geoff > -- > Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 > UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot > Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG I'm not going to get into the BBS war - I'm more interested in the notion expressed by Geoff from above: > ...but C64 users in general are miffed at the way some people are backing > off development & support of C64 products... I'm not exactly miffed, I'm puzzled. As I read it, Commodore managed to sell another million c64/128's in '88 without the benefit of any visible support. The Amiga just reached the lifetime level of one million units so now developers can take the machine "seriously". So, here's my question... If Commodore kills the line, what will fill the truely low-cost home computer/entry level educational computer market? Amigas? PC clones? Atari's? Apples?- I don't think so. These machines will all sell but they don't satisfy the need for a simple, easy to use, $300 system. Why would schools spend big bucks to fill a room with Apples when they could fill four or five rooms with c64's? I wrote the code for Explode and Video Byte and they are selling well. To hear the experts talk, there was no market for these things. I know people are still trying to find Koala pads which are like gold. Who is going to sell stuff to the brand new owners of a million units from last year? If Commodore drops the c64, I think Atari or Japan Inc. will fill the void with a similarly priced clone and clean up. OK, Netlanders - what do *YOU* think?
fred@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Bowen) (05/19/89)
>In article <2372.24724227@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Geoffrey Welsh writes: >If Commodore drops the c64, I think Atari or Japan Inc. will fill the void >with a similarly priced clone and clean up. > >OK, Netlanders - what do *YOU* think? What makes everybody think Commodore is going to drop the C64?? Sure there are new concepts under development- there have been virtually every year since the C64 (and C128) were introduced! I personally have worked on three or four such systems (C64+, C64D, C256, etc.). This does not mean the C64 is being dropped. Considering it usually takes far more than a year from concept to introduction of a new machine, especially if there are custom chips involved, such R&D is clearly prudent. Anyone, any company, who does plan ahead will certainly be left behind at some point. Although I am no spokesman for the company, I'm quite sure Commodore is not going to give up the low-end consumer/home/game market. -- -- Fred Bowen uucp: {uunet|rutgers|pyramid}!cbmvax!fred arpa: cbmvax!fred@uunet.uu.net tele: 215 431-9100 Commodore Electronics, Ltd., 1200 Wilson Drive, West Chester, PA, 19380
jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) (05/19/89)
In comp.sys.cbm article <2372.24724227@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) wrote: ] ] > From: jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) ] > Message-ID: <2543@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> ] ]GW> ... C64 PunterNet nodes are second-class systems ... ] ]JG > second class nodes on a third rate network.... ] ] I made the mistake of expressing similar sentiments to Roman Kowalczuk in a ]much stronger way (sometimes it's hard to impress an idea on Roman), and he ]had the insensitivity to forward the message to Steve's BBS - publicly! ] ] Not surprisingly, Steve is quite upset at my comment... Roman would. If you really would like to get Steve upset, you could forward him copies of an exchange of public messages on Node 31 some months back.... somebody referred to "hearing it from the horse's mouth" (meaning Punter, who had made some "point" about PC-PN) and I couldn't resist. I said "wrong end".... which really livened up the conversation. None of it, of course, any good. I don't have any real use for PunterNet. Two pen pals have shut down their nodes. Another offered to sell me his HD. The only person I am still really interested in talking to that runs a BBS64 is a local. It's expensive, BBS64 doesn't care too much for my Courier 2400's, and Steve is a real drip. Long distance phone calls at 1200 baud cost a HECK of a lot. Why? There's PC-Pursuit. Or Internet/UUCP :-). There used to be 3 or 4 nodes here in metro Milwaukee. I suggested consolidating network traffic through one system, to save costs. There was a fair amount of enthusiasm (especially since I have 2400 baud capabilities), but Punter was uncooperative. In the meantime, one local node switched to Fido, Steve promised "no help," and I became disinterested. ] > am just wondering why I was stupid enough to spend ANY money on BBS64 ] > in the first place. ] ] Because it's the best there is for that hardware. I doubt THAT. What I'm running right now is more user friendly and more flexible. Imagine something between TBBS2.0 and QuickBBS for the 64, and you have an idea of what I am running. ] > When he started PC-PN, most of us did not expect Steve to resume work ] > on BBS64. I'm not the only BBS64 owner that feels a little burned ] > about it. ] ] I know this is the wrong conference to be saying this in, but C64 users in ]general are miffed at the way some people are backing off development & ]support of C64 products... when you think of it, the C64 has had one of the ]longest and most productive lives of any microcomputer, and I think that C64 ]users are spoiled by it. Look at the present support for early TRS-80 ]products, the Mattel Aquarius, the Coleco Adam, the CompuColour II, the ]TI-99/4A... to this day C64 owners have it better off than owners of those ]machines ever did. I'd agree. Still, many of us feel that Steve has never really lived up to his obligations, and this is kind of a final nail in the coffin. -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/19/89)
> From: fred@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Bowen) > Message-ID: <6917@cbmvax.UUCP> > >In article <2372.24724227@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Geoffrey Welsh writes: > >If Commodore drops the c64, I think Atari or Japan Inc. will fill the void > >with a similarly priced clone and clean up. I dunno how you (or your software) got the idea that I wrote that. I know that C64 sales volume is still too high to merit cutting it off completely, although I have noted declining development support from many third-party vendors. What worries me is the C128. While certainly a far more useful (computing-wise) machine than its predecessor, it is between a rock and a hard place: its price puts it too close to the PClones for comfort. In Europe, the 128d was introduced to lower the cost (and, therefore, the user price) of a C128 system and side-step the PClone problem for a while... it does not seem to have had that effect here in North America. I would like to see Commodore produce a C128-derived system that would offer the more "needed" features (80-column screen, fast serial bus, 128K memory) and drop the ones not often used around here (Z-80 & CP/M). Since the system exists and works, R&D costs should be low. The overall price should come down a bit, meaning that it would not be compared directly to PClone systems, and its uses would not be as restricted as the C64's. Or is Commodore not interested in preserving the C128, given that the PClones poised to take over its market completely include a couple of Commodore models? Geoff -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/22/89)
> From: ragnarok@ziebmef.uucp (Ragnarok) > Message-ID: <1989May18.005309.23522@ziebmef.uucp> > Remember, all I've had to go on so far are users' remarks in this > newsgroup; and, to be honest, they haven't exactly been glowing > recommendations (not that I expected them to be - otherwise I > would have wondered how much these users had been paid off to > endorse the product). However, there have been a number of > complaints about Desterm, enough to justify my off-hand remark, I think. DesTerm v1.01 was a preliminary release (no proper docs, &c.) and we expected lots of problems, especially in the area of VT-100 (where most of the problems were reported); v1.02 testers have been commenting on how vastly improved it is. If nothing else, this should show responsiveness from the author (which, incidentally, is not me). > As I recall, I (briefly) compared Dialogue NOT with Desterm, but with > BobsTerm > Pro. I don't know why you're treating my message as some kind of put-down > that you have to redress by writing a heavily-biased product blurb. > > Interesting how you immediately went on the defensive. I didn't post with > the intention of slamming another product, as you seem to have; moreover, I > have to wonder how confident you feel about your own product if you feel it > can't stand up on its own merits without your having to point out every > feature in comparison to your "competition" (your choice of words, not > mine). Why is it that I am "defensive" and "slamming another product" when I point out features of a terminal program, and you're not when doing the same? Surely the fact that I had a hand in writing and promoting the program does not rescind my right to talk about it? Surely there is a logical progression to using one product comparison as an intro to another? > The posting was done in the spirit of sharing a personal opinion with > others; > your message makes it seem as if I was trying to drum up business for > Workable Concepts. I said it then, and I'll say it now: I have NO > connection > with Workable Concepts. I don't even know the people you're talking about > personally; I purchased my copy from a computer store. If you have any > bones > to pick with Workable Concepts, take it up with them; don't drag me into > it. > I believe we all know what IMHO means? At no time did Matt or I take offense to your message - you simply provided information, something to which we do NOT object. Why is it that I get this long criticizing message (including questions about my confidence in my own product) when I also provide info, but stoop to the sins of talking about my own product and comparing it to another's? I did not make any personal remarks in my message, I merely mentioned that I knew the people behind Dialogue and Workable Concepts... > The way that second paragraph in the immediately previous attribution is > written makes me think that your posting Desterm is less a generous gesture > than an attempt to encompass a larger potential market. I'm probably > wrong, > and I hope I am; I'm not sure how net administrators would see it. Posting > with the expectation of financial return is a sure way of receiving large > phone bills, or at the very least the wrath of node administrators... If you search back through the comp.sys.cbm archives, you find me asking in no uncertain terms if there would be enough general interest in this terminal - I made clear that it was shareware - to merit the expense of posting it to this newsgroup. The response, both in this newsgroup and in netmail, was many yeas and a single nay (after the fact). It was never my intention to force this product on anyone, nor would I have posted it if there had been an outcry against doing so. If it makes the readers here (and sysadmins along the way) feel better, I would be glad to STOP supporting DesTerm and distributing it via this conference - but I think that would be to many readers' detriment at least as much as to ours. Reader comment invited. > Your insistence on interpreting my opinion as a personal attack on your > product is really something else. In fact, I hadn't brought any of these > points up; you're bringing them up yourself for brownie points. You've > turned my message into a springboard for your (unsolicited) product ad. > [re: the pending release of v1.02] > Glad to hear it, although I might believe it more if you hadn't gone heavy- > handed on me. You realize, of course, that after this I'm going to have to > hunt down a copy of Desterm just to see how it lives up to your claims... Heavy-handed? I did *not* interpret your product comparison as a personal attack and any such impression is the result of hypersensitivity and/or a paranoid imagination... excuse me while I take a moment to breathe easy, as you *should* have done when reading my message. The electronic medium is famous both for the absence of the cues that accompany a face-to-face conversation, preventing erroneous inference of malice and for the presence of people who are prone to taking offense to just about anything. I see that my taking your message as an opportunity to provide information and comparisons has brought together these elements and offended you. For that, I am truly sorry. I have neither the skill nor the patience to tiptoe among sleeping lions. On the other hand, once convinced that my message bore bad feelings toward you, you embarked on a full-scale smear campaign (suggesting that I felt I had to "redress" your message, that I was on the defensive, that I had no confidence in our product, that I was "heavy-handed")... in other words, your message embodied the intentional malice that you mistakenly inferred from mine. Were I (and my system) not merely guests in this conference, I would feel quite justified in DEMANDING an APOLOGY. Some humility (and valium) would do us both good at this point. -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/22/89)
> From: ragnarok@ziebmef.uucp (Ragnarok) > Message-ID: <1989May18.005309.23522@ziebmef.uucp> > Posting > with the expectation of financial return is a sure way of receiving large > phone bills, or at the very least the wrath of node administrators... Therein lies a very legitimate potential problem. I stand to gain very little financially from DesTerm registrations. Matt and I have agreed that our motivation for doing DesTerm has been to get a top-notch terminal out there, and that the registrations were intended to cover development expenses and provide better support. It is in that spirit that the program was posted here, though I can see how some sysadmins might feel otherwise. Reader comment is welcome as always and, in this case, outright invited: does DesTerm distribution and support constitute a misuse of facilities donated to comp.sys.cbm? ===== Date: 10 May 89 13:25:04 From: Geoffrey Welsh Subj: A better C128 term (was Re: DesTerm gripes) ... ... we may not be making the money that Workable Concepts is, but we're determined to offer superior product & services. -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
harsha.godavari@canremote.uucp (HARSHA GODAVARI) (06/05/89)
Geoffrey:
Would you be posting the new version of DESTERM in this
echo ? I have been waiting for the revised version but we seem to
have lost the echo for a couple of weeks in early May. So if you
did post it, we missed it here in Winnipeg.
Regards
Harsha Godavari.
* QNet 1.03a2: Pokey's Place Winnipeg, MB (204) 253-1342 (HST) <<SmartNet>>Geoffrey.Welsh@p0.f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (06/23/89)
> From: harsha.godavari@canremote.uucp (HARSHA GODAVARI) > Message-ID: <89061907162177@masnet.uucp> > Would you be posting the new version of DESTERM in this > echo ? I have been waiting for the revised version but we seem to > have lost the echo for a couple of weeks in early May. So if you > did post it, we missed it here in Winnipeg. It (DesTerm 1.02) has *NOT* been posted; it is awaiting documentation before its release. I have been blasted for promoting a money-making venture via the Net, and I am not sure if the Usenet powers-that-be would be overjoyed to see another DesTerm posting here. -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171.0!Geoffrey.Welsh Internet: Geoffrey.Welsh@p0.f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG