🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Bs41qE.1Hy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doc) writes:

>fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller) writes:

>>>2) Many people hate Searchlight.

>>one person hates Searchlight.

>Get a life, fnord.  If you think Im the only one you are ignorant indeed.

Oh, it's Mr. "Let's not resort to personal flames" himself.  You are the
only outspoken opponent on this conference.  The original poster was
summarizing the facts that had been obtained from reading this thread in
this newsgroup.  From that information, the conclusion that "many people
hate Searchlight" was not correct.

>>The Message Threading on Searchlight is superior to any product on the
>>market. When a message comes up, there is an indicator of the number of
>>replies to it.  You can read these replies without losing your place.  You
>>can jump up the thread, or across the thread very easily.

>Message threading on SL is totally confusing.  I have yet to figure out
>the difference between "Top" and "Original" message, or "Next" and
>"Sequential".  Im sure fnord will now diligently explain the differences
>to me, and tell me how simple it really is (to him) but the fact remains 
>that it is confusing to new users. Hell its confusing to old users!  

You should stick with "It is confusing to me"  What do you know of old
users, or even new users.  I have not seen many complaints of this nature,
and I have seen many users become power users of SL's message threading in
only a few log in sessions.   As to the confusion regarding the terms, a
short session in the help system could resolve all the confusion.  

Since you seem to really want my dilligent explanation:

"First"  (not "Top")  is the very first message in the thread.  The one
that started the whole topic.

"Original" is the one that the current message is a reply to.  

I'll admit that there has been some confusion regarding "Sequential" versus
"Threaded" read mode, but the power of threading is unmatched, and it
doesn't take very long to master.

>How nice to know that Frank made that choice for you, instead of
>leaving it up to you.  Frankie knows best?  I dont think so.....

Take it or leave it.  Most people are satisfied.  I'm glad you found a
product that matches all your needs perfectly.

>>2) it is contrary to the author's philosophy of BBSing.  That is Frank
>>didn't really go for "The Sysop as big brother"

>Yes, and along with that philosophy, SL doesnt even let the sysop see
>the users' passwords.  A sorry "feature" indeed. 

You completely stepped in it now.

What possible reason is there for a Sysop to see users' passwords.  Of what
use is that information?  Searchlight behaves exactly like UNIX, and other
sophisticated multi-user operating systems.  The password is encrypted.
The Sysop can change the password to anything he/she wants. but has no use
for the information.  Yes, this is a very positive feature.  As a result, I
can use my "secure" password on every Searchlight system, knowing that I
have not compromised my access to the internet, or any other system.  When
I log on to boards that don't run Searchlight, I am forced to use an
"insecure" password.

>So when a user forgets his password and asks you what it is, you look
>like an idiot having to tell him "I dont know, I can only reset it
>for you."

Not true, all you have to do is explain to them that how that feature is
protecting them, and they will completely understand.

>>From what I gathered from our sole major vocal opponent of Searchlight in
>>private e-mail transactions, the problem is that after the first major
>>upgrade, they cost $25.  (This naturally excludes maintenence releases)

>Dont even think that I am alone in this fnord, Im just the only SL sysop
>who doesnt like it AND who happens to read this group AND has the motivation 
>to speak up about it.  

Isn't that exactly what I said?  

The fact is that the =majority= of SL sysops I know
>would not buy it again.  

That's not a fact.  You would have to post numbers.  You would have to take
a random sampling of searchlight sysops (Not just the ones that you know).

Also, it is a misleading hypothetical to ask them if they would buy it
again.  They already bought it once.  

>By the way, the upgrades cost $30, not $25.  If you want a diskette mailed
>to you, you can add another 6 bucks on top of that.  For that $6 you get
>a 720K diskette that has been hole-punched and formatted to 1.44M, and a
>floppy mailer with $.65 postage on it.  

Not a bad deal, in my opinion, considering the features that have been
included in the major upgrades lately.  I really don't know what you
expect.   

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"