NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/datacomm/7556

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-09 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!ilium!sycom!tcedge!tdietz
From: [e-mail] (Tom Dietz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: CNET Info
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:50:40 GMT
Organization: EXCELSIOR! Tech Support BBS (313) 77-AMIGA
Lines: 115
X-BBS-Software: EXCELSIOR! v0.971

In an article, [e-mail] (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:

>slandering someone in a forum where they can't respond?  Why must you
>continue to harass people that make an innocent statement about Excelsior
>and C-Net having similar interfaces?

I am not harassing anyone.  I am merely defending the BBS's image.  In your
eyes, and from what you are posting, you have said that it could be that we
have used part of Kens code.  Come on.  Anyone that knows about EXCELSIOR!
knows that the BBS operates completely different.  Thats why it was written.

There are no limits to the BBS.  There is no way CNet can claim that.  This
is not a slander, so calm down, it is a feature for our BBS. Internally, this
makes our BBS quite different.  The structure-layout is completely original.
I have ran CNet since way back on the 64.  I remember modifying the hell out
of it and giving Ken many many ideas.

Before EXCELSIOR! was even thought of, I was contemplating buying CNet Amiga.
I started hearing a lot of bad things about it, the support sucked, things
werent going to well, or at least in the direction I liked, so Ron and I
decided to write a BBS similiar in CNet-design (we still prefer commands
accessible at all prompts).  We decided to use the nested directory
structure, which evolved from T-Net, CNet is a popular BBS that uses it, but
give credit where credit is due.  Things evolved as we implemented them.
CNet went its own way, and us ours.  Dont forget not too long ago CNet
went through a dramatic change in how its "CONTROL" window and other things
operated.  Whether you want to believe it or not, it was taken from our BBS.
Now we dont start saying "rip-off", "rip-off".  We just make things better, I
have complete confidence we can continue to offer a superior product with
superior support.

The point of this tiresome argument is that anytime anyone posts something
about EXCELSIOR!, even if it is customer that is satisified, CNet die-hards,
start attacking us. Un-provoked. Take for instance this whole thread, it was
started by an EXCELSIOR! customer that said well you should take a look at
EXCELSIOR! if you like the CNet-style of BBS'.  Then someone starts posting
all this trash, and it ends up to your quote saying "We might have stolen
code".  I don't know about you, but I would never make an accusation like
that, esp to a program I don't own, or even know much about.

As for the code Ron posted, it was, if I remember correctly, a discussion
about goto's and CNet style.  You should read amiga.programmer, I remember
reading many, many threads about CNet's code layout, even before I bought my
Amiga.

>a dissasembly).  You and Ron have written a conference module that is very
>similar to C-Net's, and it's been proven (by Ron's posted article) that he
>has had access to C-Net's conference source code.  This can be very bad if
>ken were to sue.

Why do you second guess things?  Ron was a registered CNet-sysop.  That code
was accessible via the CNet support BBS.  He was merely showing the MAJOR
flaws in the code, ask any programmer about the GOTO statement, or read it in
a book.  It was about 10 lines of code, a switch statement to be exact.  I
wrote the conference module, which wasnt to hard at all, it doesnt evolve
much, and being that we use an entirely different approach (which will
remain a trade-secret :) ) that it would be impossible to use code written
for a different BBS.

BTW, since the code is ours, how can someone sue us for that?  When this BBS
was copywritten officially, I was told that "look and feel" was impossible
to prove if your code was your own.  Are you saying (morally speaking) that
our BBS should not be available since Ken owns the rights to commands and
layouts forever, which were given to him by users, a lot by Ron, and myself
back in CNet-64 v9.50, (where do you think MCI came from?).  Come on.

>What does this have to do with your public mudslinging of Ken in a forum he
>doesn't even frequent?  You totally ignored what i was saying, and go off
>on this tangent of support?  I don't get it.

You seemed to have responded to the wrong part of my previous article.  I
posted the information about my harassing phone calls because I feel it is
relevant to our discusion.  This whole debate is basically about morality,
which these events are definitely a good example of morality and character.
I have seen previous articles posted by other users that are interested in
it.  A harassing phone call is the fault of the one that owns the lines.
Ken Pletzer.  The police report is public knowledge. I think you are just
upset that Ken would do such a thing.  I know I would never have believed
it if it didnt happen to me (and believe me, it happens almost every night).

>Bob Maple used the term rip-off merely as a term to show that they were
>similar, not to infer any legal impropriety.  However, you jump off the
>handle and start reaming him across the net.  Not a nice thing.  As a

Ah ok, so rip-off isn't a derogatory statement.  Rip-off, as defined by the
dictionary means to steal, or swindle.  Say what you mean, not say some-
thing, then reply, well it doesnt mean that.  So, CNet's DOS-door support
is a rip-off of DLG?  It's paragon door support a rip-off of Paragon?  It's
SKY-PIX a rip-off of Skyline?   I have no problem with Ken using ideas, as
long as he wrote the code himself.  I cannot condemn someone for something
they wrote themselves.  Just because an idea is available doesnt mean the
originator, which doesnt always mean Ken Pletzer, has the right to it.
There are many different ways of implementing things. If you take a look
at a copyright application, it gives some background to previous computer-
software lawsuits which set the standard for computer-copyright laws.
It says that only specific screen-displays, such as an arcade game, or an
exact layout of a screen can be copywritten.  It also says that code-methods
cannot be copywritten.  The only way I would get upset is if he took part
of something I wrote.  If you have been watching, I never said that I was
againest CNet, never, I have never claimed CNet was a rip-off of anything
else, just merely using the same argument againest the people who accuse
us of the same thing.  That is the hypocrisy.

I would rather like to continue this argument in email, as I dont like
cluttering up the net with things only two parties are interested in. I
just wanted to address your accusations publicly.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|          Tom Dietz                     EXCELSIOR! BBS For The Amiga     |
|     Sycom Design Software              ---------- --- --- --- -----     |
| P.O. Box 452  St Clair Shores              MULTI-LINE SUPPORT           |
|        MI, 48080 USA                (313) 77-AMIGA   2400               |
| INTERNET: [e-mail]      [phone]   Supra V.32bis      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------