Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Upcoming New Newsreader for the Mac: Signal Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <110620141718485042%michelle@michelle.org> <1ln4szb.skzhggllmmyoN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> <1ln6831.2z5w5xg6ih76N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> <1ln8c6i.cqya7ouzxojkN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1402790639 11894 166.84.1.5 (15 Jun 2014 00:03:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:22919 comp.sys.mac.system:60950 Jolly Roger wrote, quoting me: [Nothing elided, for the context-challenged, in which I do not include JR] > >> Most of the Usenet clients on the market have been worked on for > >> years. > > > > Yea, but they've been working (as functioning, useful programs) for > > many years, too. Tin didn't thread by references until the current > > group of people maintaining tin added it, for example, but it was > > quite useful prior to that. > > I'm still unclear on how you think Signal is different in terms of how > long development has been underway, other than the obvious: he just > started working on it recently. That's it. In Doc's particular case, I think it would've been better to ask for financial support after he had something at least roughed in. With MailMate, the author asked for US$25K and received US$42,741. He's also (I don't know for sure about Doc) a one-man shop. As well, MailMate's author is quite passionate about his user agent. As are the people maintaining slrn and tin. I may be wrong, but I'm not seeing the same intensity here. I can absolutely, positively say none of them is anywhere even close to as argumentative. When I started using Unix instead of TSX and VMS to read news (early 1990s), I found tin and really liked it. Wow - decent video performance, instead of a printing terminal or other somewhat painful stuff (ANU-News). But, it had bugs. So, every time I encountered one, I'd stop and fix it. This is what I mean when I say the best software is written by those who actually use it. I'm not talking about how smart I am, I'm talking about finding bugs, and fixing them. You can't do that without actually using the program. To be sure, tin worked, and was quite usable, even though it also had bugs. This is a longer version of what I said above, in response to your noting that most Usenet clients have been worked on for years... My point is they were reasonably ok when released into the wild. > >> Please explained how "brogrammers" would enable success. > > > > Assuming getting something done equals success (I am), more > > than one person working on a project would speed it up. > > You're suggesting that success in this case hinges on the speed of > development? That's my impression from all Doc has expressed. Were these threads not so littered with excreta, I'd offer up some specific examples. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number