Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!USCMVSA!LDW From: LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET (Leonard D Woren) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: User interface for list postings Message-ID: Date: 2 Feb 90 21:36:00 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 47 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway On Tue, 30 Jan 90 13:55:24 EST, Michael Johnson said: > I would like to see the BITNIC charged with developing, or contracting to > develop, software to implement BITNET RFC standards and with making that > software available to all the member institutions (VMS, Unix and VM). If this Why does everyone on Bitnet (except RAF) seem to forget that there are 169 MVS systems on the NJE network? And those 169 systems probably have as many users as 3 times that many VM or 20 times that many VMS systems. > means slightly increased dues for all member institutions, so be it. It is > certainly more fair than having a few places carry the bulk of the financial > load that comes from product development time. I disagree with basically everything quoted above. First of all, software developed by end users typically does what they want. Software developed by vendors (and in the above scenario, Bitnic would be a vendor) typically does not do what you want, the way you want it done, and it takes just short of forever to get the vendor to change it. (Well, ok, maybe Joiner is an exception -- I don't know since I don't deal with them or JNET, but people seem to be happy with them.) The software that was developed by ONE or maybe TWO people is almost always better than that developed by a large organization. (Remember that a camel is a horse built by committee. (No smiley here.)) UCLA/Mail was developed by ONE person. Wasn't MAILER also? And nearly everyone knows that LISTSERV was developed by one person. I think that the low cost and the P.D. tools that we have for mail on Bitnet are typically better than what vendors can sell us. And vendors don't like to make source available. One MAJOR reason why certain things like UCLA/Mail, LISTSERV, MAILER, MAILBOOK are successful is because the source is available, and sites can make modifications to suit themselves, and contribute those mods back to the maintainer. I certainly don't think that software that can't be used by *all* Bitnet sites should be funded out of general Bitnet membership fees. If some sites want to pay Bitnic to develop software that would be licensed to those sites paying for it, fine. But why should, say, an MVS-only site pay for development of VM tools, or a VM-only site pay for development of VMS tools, etc??? Leonard D. Woren Senior MVS Systems Programmer MVS Postmaster University of Southern California