Hello, can we please stop the flame wars on this list?
I think by now everyone is aware that e.g. Steven C. Darnold and Charles Angelich are not exactly each others hottest friends. Nevertheless we all agree that both (and others, too) are doing valuable contributions to the Internet and the subjects relevant to this list. Please, let us appreciate those valuable contributions and drop any personal accusations or "ad hominem" remarks! Regarding problems with EZNET: In my activities as a computer expert for courts of law, I have made it a rule to always solve a problem _before_ assigning blame/cause to a component under evaluation. As long as a problem is not solved, you really can't be sure about the exact reason. Therefore it is okay to say "software xy does not work for me in the setup that I used", but we should not say "software xy is bad software" unless we can diagnose (and prove) a precise technical error in the software. In the case of EZNET, a "proof" would at least require a full protocol snap shot (with e.g. a proper freeware program) that documents the exact PPP and TCP/IP packets sent/received and permits any expert to objectively pin-point an RFC violation on either the side of EZNET or the ISP. (Of course, such a protocol snap-shot may also point to a configuration error.) The fact that a connection attempt with program A is successful while program B is not successful in the same situation, does not by itself point out a bug in program B as (aside from configuration errors) it may well be the case that the ISP violates the RFCs, and program A just happens to be "very tolerant" and silently fix the RFC violations. (As an author of commercial e-mail software, I can tell you that at least 10% of the code in my programs is just there to compensate provable errors in widespread other programs. Another piece of software that does not do all those "silent fixing of MS [and other] bugs" may be less interoperable than my software, but may still be fully RFC conforming.) Therefore, in such a situation the RFCs (= internet standards) decide what is right or wrong, and the comparison of 2 programs against each other is not suitable, by itself, for any final judgement. Regarding links: To link to specific files is _not_ a violation of Netiquette (see RFC 1855, Netiquette). On the contrary, the WWW was designed to do exactly that. Of course, the concept of the WWW assumes that links are treated according to proper scientific references, i.e. that no attempt is made to cloud the fact that the links lead to works of other people. (So-called "deep links" from frames that make the foreign content appear as one's own content, would be inappropriate [and even illegal in some countries]. But I cannot see such an inappropriateness in the links on Charles' web site.) Aside from this netiquette/legal aspect, there is of course the problem of coping with changes in links. Here a linking to a "mother page" instead of a specific file name with a version in it may alleviate the update-problem. But this is a support issue and has nothing to do with what is Netiquette or permitted. - Wolfgang Redtenbacher ----------------------------------------------------------------- Redtenbacher Software Tel.: +49 7159 17046 Roemerstr. 11/1 Fax: +49 7159 17047 D-71272 Renningen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
