On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:58:51 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<lf48s25ldt0lsc8vubsbd00jb7c4jp8cat@4ax.com>:

>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:04:20 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>I know that. I'm talking about their new versions of Agent.
>
>Well, I must admit that I don't use every single feature in Forte
>Agent. Still, what I use works well enough.

Because Agent v1 is an excellent newsreader, my own bar is higher than
"well enough".

>>My bugs still exist as of the last time I tested.
>>Likewise the sluggish performance.
>
>Well, ok. I don't notice any sluggish performance on my systems which
>are certainly not state-o-de-art.

Agent v1 is resource lean and lightning fast by comparison with later
versions. If, for example, a system is loaded with heavy multitasking
and disk I/O, v1 performance still will be acceptable (to me), whereas
the performance of later versions is too painful to be usable (to me).
That's not something I'd give up, especially given the showstopper bug
(to me), unless I got something important to me in return, and there's
nothing in later versions that's terribly important to me.

>>The point is that framing in <>, while a good idea in general, is not
>>any sort of assurance that bad wrapping won't occur.
>
>There is a line length limit where things autowrap. I don't mean the
>configurable limit that's usually set to 75 characters. I mean the
>255 or so character limit probably caused by a fixed length buffer
>somewhere in Agent. That is sometimes a problem with Linksys URL's,
>which tend to be rediculously long. Otherwise, <> non-wrapping has
>worked just fine when I've used it in the last 3 or so versions.

My point is that framing in <> only helps in some newsreaders, making it
a bit self-centered to insist that it be done for one's own benefit.
Why shouldn't you instead get a newsreader smart enough to avoid
wrapping long URLs that aren't framed in <>? It's not terribly hard to
do from a design standpoint -- Agent v1 is already smart enough to
properly parse URLs without <> framing, and it almost certainly would be
simple to fix the wrapping issue without requiring <> framing.

>Yep. I said that, I believe that, I even practice that. Give me
>features or give me death (of the product). Does the world really
>need MS Vista?

About as much as it needs Agent v3+ (IMnsHO at least).

>> Software tends to grow faster than the bugs can be fixed. Bloat is
>> in, quality is out. Eventually, reliability and scaleability will
>> suffer. Bigger is better or at least sells better.
>
>Yep. I said that. I don't think Forte Agent qualifies. There have
>been features added, but there have also be releases that are
>overwhelmingly bug fixes (i.e. version 4.1). There was a big leap in
>code size from 1.9x to 2.x, which I guess qualifies. However, as I
>understand it, the changes in architecture and design were required to
>supply new added features.

Surely you're not so naive as to buy that? Especially since you don't
seem to buy similar claims from Microsoft and others. ;) New features
could have easily been added to the Agent v1 codebase. The major
architectural change was to wxWindows (aka wxWidgets
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/wxwindows>) in order to facilitate
portability, but at the cost of bloat, inefficiency, new quirks & bugs,
and delayed features. And of course the upgrade wasn't free.

>> My conspiracy theory is that all software manufactories,
>> intentionally leave bugs unfixed, so that the customer has an
>> incentive to purchase upgrades and support. If the stuff actually
>> worked out of the box, people would simply use the last version
>> forever, and the software manufactory will go otto biz. Therefore,
>> bugs are permanent and a good thing.
>
>Yep. I said that. If the stuff worked, nobody would be asking
>questions in the newsgroups, nobody would need to read the manual,
>nobody would be upgrading to later firmware, and few would upgrade to
>the latest versions unless they needed the features.

That's why I'll probably use Agent 1.93 forever -- it works very well
indeed, is easy to use, lean on resources, rock solid, and has all the
features I really want.

>> On a similar note, if some company accidentally produces something
>> that actually works, an incentive to upgrade must be found.
>> Manufacturing groups, consortia, and industry committees, meet in the
>> inevitable smoke filled room, and conspire to introduce new
>> technology, new acronyms, and standards in copious quantities. Soon,
>> everything you own that actually works, is obsolete, incompatible, or
>> unsupported. This is called progress.
>
>Yep. I said that. Progress is measured in sales and stock prices.
>Those don't go up unless the company releases new products or upgrades
>on an almost continuous basis. Want to pump up the stock price? Just
>issue a press release announcing something new and/or improved. Know
>any company that has been selling the same version for a long time?

Sure, but not in the consumer market.

>>I've got a lean mean stable release with very few bugs. Tell me again
>>why I should upgrade? ;)
>
>So you can have <> quoted URL's that don't wrap.

At the cost of bloat, inefficiency, and showstopper bug. No thanks.

Methinks you have a double standard for Agent versus Vista. ;)

I likewise continue to use Office 2000 -- there simply isn't enough of
value to me in later versions to justify the cost and drawbacks of
upgrading. And I'll likewise probably continue to use Windows XP Pro
for years to come.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>