C News patch of 7-Sep-1990

[Larry Blair]

In article <1990Sep17.121127.25859 at ni.umd.edu> louie at sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
=In article <1990Sep17.010600.11421 at vicom.com> lmb at vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes:
=
=>I think that Henry and Geoff need to accept that fact that their software, in
=>the absence of anything better, is becoming the net standard and act in a
=>manor that is responsible and consistent with the rest of the net.  The time
=>has come for normal patch levels and reasonable message id's.
=
=Er, excuse me, but did Henry and Geoff come visit your site and force
=you to install C news on your system?  THEY wrote the software, THEY
=made it available for YOU to use for FREE, and you demand that they
=act in a "responsible" manner?

They distributed the software and have actively promoted it as the `better'
alternative.  Their software has caused my site and the rest of the net
considerable grief due to the (now fixed) inews -C bug and the overly long
message id's (which broke rn).  This is whether I run C News or 2.11.  The
problem with their patch scheme is that many admins are unsure if it is safe
to apply a patch or if they are up to date and this has led to a continuation
of the inews -C problem.

As long as they feel that they need to `sell' the net on their software, and
as long as it is the defacto standard (which it is becoming), they bear a
definite responsibility to the rest of the net.

There is one fact that I want to make abundantly clear: I applaud Henry and
Geoff's efforts to write and maintain C News.  Without their work many sites
would have drowned in the ever increasing traffic on the net.  There are
things about C News over which Henry and I have disagreed ever since I
started running it (which was before it was posted to the net), but that
doesn't mean that I don't have a great deal of respect for him.
-- 
Larry Blair   ames!vsi1!lmb   lmb at vicom.com