Re: LLUCE vs. METAL: A losing battle

[damin@tarjan.cba.csuohio.edu (Greg Boehnlein)]

In article <1jidilINN7nr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> you write:
>
>What I don't understand is why all the ACO  bashing
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but my "ACOS Bashing" comes from the utter
lack of support that L& has given the product. It was plain and simple. The
language did what it was originally designed to do and that is where it ended.
It never evolved to anything that I deemed worthwhile and I none of the
Proposed features ever arose.
 
Bashing is, in reality, NOT that prolific on the FutureNt. In fact, we carry
two conferences dedicated to the support of ACOS. And they see a lot of action.
One is for programming, and the other is for questions. Both of which are
hosted by my site.
 
>None of us have done this to Metal infact I have hnought it was a pretty
>good program but have found no reason to switch from what I have been using.
 
To each his own. Personally, I don't consider a language a language wtahout at
LEAST 1 dimensional array support. ACOS just didn't offer me anything that I
was happp writing. Personally, I think the BBS software SEVERLY needs to be
updated.
 
>Also I'm one of the Ogg-Net SysOps that has been pushing for a Gateway
>between the 2 networking systems, but the statement made will kill
>this idea since Lance will be joining the net.
 
Actually, I am currently in the process of Beta Testing FV 5.0 for Josh and
writing a "Networking Toolbox" that will facilitate EASY connections from
basically -ANY- network. I -WAS- working with actual code to -HANDLE- the
Team-Net. But, I got a HECK of a lot of flack from both Sysops and users.
And when I considered the fact that FutureNet has more than both Ogg net and
Team net -COMBINED-, plus the fact that I was doing this to better connect the
Apple II community, wrtning -BOTH- ACOS and METAL code, it turned out to NOT
be worth it in the long run. Cmon, I dedicate my time to a project that I feel
will benefit all and I get pissed on for it? Screw that. I that is the way
that everyone is goig to treat each other fine. But the II family is slowly
going down the tubes due to these attitudes.
 
Ogg-Net and Team Net sysops as WELL as FutureNet sysops ought to get off each
others backs and just think about the bigger picture.
 
If Ogg-Net and Team-Net were to link up with FutureNet, they would -HAVE- to
do a HECK of a lot of upgrading VERY fast. But, with that added upgrade time
would come the benefits of what the 5.0 Networking software will provide.
 
Mainly, full domain style addressing with OUR OWN Internet domain. Doubt me?
Give me an address, and I'll send you code to prove it.
 
The great thing about the new FV software is that it was DESIGNED with
expansion in mind. We -ALREADY- have the code done t d it. It's now a matter
of -WHO- wants to get involved. Our networking platform is one of the most
advancedon -ANY- Apple II networking systm and I will bank money on it.
It supports MLTIPLE networks and will INTELLIGENTLY route mail between all
of them based on the LCM (Least Cost Method). The FV 5.0 software adhers to the
ISO 7 layer standard, and as such is RIGHT there waiting to be connected to
any systems that are interested in it.
 
Off on a tangent for a whiea, but here is the final word.
 
ACOS is static and hasn't chang d.
LLUCE is fresh and hasn't been proved.
METAL is stable and has prved itself.
 
-BOTH- authors think their product is better than the others. -BOTH- authors
are competing with each Other. -BOTH- are strong headed.
 
This is good! Competition gets the blood flowing and creates a better product
for the end user.
 
Just look at the SonicTracker vs. ModZap debate. As a result, we have not one,
but -TWO- superior products.