Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!isishq!f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG!izot From: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: A better C128 term (was Re: DesTerm gripes) Message-ID: <2391.24778733@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Date: 21 May 89 17:10:58 GMT Sender: ufgate@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.25) Organization: FidoNet node 1:221/171 - Izot's Swamp, Kitchener ON Lines: 113 > 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