🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjbD3Gw79.8Bt@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>the fact is that when those stable releases are made to their customers,
>the same release is not made available to non-customers.  this is the
>issue.

Please help me understand what you think we should be doing instead.
Do you hold us responsible for making sure that everyone in the world
that wants our software can get it as soon as our customers can get
it?  If not, I clearly don't understand, could you please state your
position more fully.

If you think that we should be doing that, just state that.  State
that you think Cygnus should take on the responsibility of paying for
shipping throughout the world to all sites that are interested in
getting our software, even though they are not customers of ours, that
we should pay for the physical media used and that we should pay for
another T1 link into a new ftp machine that we will have to purchase
for this task.

I have no problem with you making complete statements like that.  I
think it is unfair of you to make incomplete statements that infer
that Cygnus is doing something improper.

>however, go read your own brochures.  it also says that cygnus'
>customers get stable releases faster, before non-customers get it.

And?  This is one of our objectives and goals, and we like to think
that it is true.  Now, it is pointless to argue whether or not it is
true, as this is an opinion, not something that is measurably true or
scientifically provable.

I call this marketing sleeze.  It's kinda like saying Coke is the
best.  One cannot prove it, although a good marketer will jump through
many hoops to try and prove it to you.  I am sorry that you cannot
distinguish between absolute and provable facts and truths, and
marketing sleeze.  Most of the readers on the net, most of our
customers, and in fact most people in the US are probably capable of
understanding the difference.

>seems to be contraditory.

I would be happy to help you understand the issues and facts.  Cygnus
is benefited from your understanding.  The only limitation is my time.

>i can understand that cygnus' customers get support (faster or
>slower), but the distribution of the releases should happen to all,

At what cost?  $100?  $100,000?  $1?  Where do you draw the line?  I
can tell you where we draw the line.  We will not pay for mailing
physical media.  We will not pay for another T1 link.  We will not
purchase a new ftp server to handle the load, we will not hire another
support person to answer the help requests.

If you think `the distribution of the releases should happen to all',
then put _your_ money where _your_ mouth is.  You can buy a machine,
an Internet link, and our release, and put it up for anonymous ftp.  I
caution you, if you do that, we might point all of our customers at
your machine, and say, if you want to get our release, the you can ftp
from...

You see why no one wants to help us out this way, and why no one does
it now?  Now, before you say, but that is unfair, think about what a
public server is.  Should it be for all of the public, or all of the
public as long as they are not Cygnus customers?

>if cygnus is truely interested in free software.

One has nothing to do with the other.  The plain fact is, it costs
money to as you request, and Cygnus cannot justify that cost at this
time.  Frankly, the money is better spent on improving the free
software for all.  I am sorry you don't possess enough facts to know
this.

>yet, in other places on the same WEB/FTP site (ftp.cygnus.com), you see
>direct contradition to this (W.R.T release distribution mentioned above).

I don't see the contradiction.  Maybe you can state clearly again what
you think the contradiction is.

>why? because, elsewhere in your literature cygnus tries to confuse its
>customers (as above).

Did you talk with the person that wrote it?  Was that their intention?
If not, how do you know that was their intention?  If you did talk
with them, could you please post their writings to support the above
assertion you made.

If you didn't talk with them, did you knowingly try and mislead people
into believing that you knew more than you do, did you just do it by
accident, or maybe you just don't agree with me that your statement is
misleading, which is it?

>>No, you're not.  You've got some idea of how the world is, and you're
>>convinced you're right, and damn anyone who disagrees with you.
>
>this seems to apply to you as well, if it applies to me.

This is petty.  Sometimes people are right, sometimes they aren't.  A
wise man knows when he is right, and when he isn't.  Sean was making
that statement that he thought you were wrong, and could not admit it.

If you want to convince us he was wrong, you're welcome to try.

If you want to convince us you are right you're welcome to try.

I certain would like to know about anything I think is true, that you
know isn't, as I would hate to go on holding something as true,
even if it wasn't.

In short, you seem to be misleading people on purpose or just trying
to bash Cygnus.  If you just want to bash Cygnus, you can do so more
effectively by supporting your position, laying foundations for your
comments, having the facts, and making intelligent conclusions and
comments.  If you just want to get a clue, just ask, maybe someone
would be willing to offer you the information you seek.  If you want
to bash Cygnus without foundation effectively, then you might try a
private forum where we cannot respond to your accusations, or in a
newsgroup a don't read.  If you bash Cygnus here when we feel you have
no support or foundation, we will respond and provide all the
information people need to understand why what you say shouldn't be
taken seriously.