Re: [Speak-freely-devel] Re: Feature removal proposal

Robert Lunnon wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:30 pm, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Lunnon" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "Jeffrey S MacKinnon" <[email protected]>;
> > <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Speak-freely-devel] Re: [Speak-freely-users] Feature removal
> > proposal
> >
> > > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:57 am, Jeffrey S MacKinnon wrote:
> > > > By the way, two other Speak Freely features that I would like to see
> > > > retained are:
> > > >
> > > > 1)  "Open on New Connection" - This is the feature that would cause a
> > > > previously minimized Speak Freely window to open upon receiving a new
> > > > connection request.
> > > >
> > > > 2)  "Text Chat" - Although this feature did not always work reliably,
> > > > and took some understanding of its idiosyncrasies to get to work.  :-)
> > >
> > > I would like to second this. I am looking for a reliable "point to
> > > point" encrypted text chat. I don't like the privacy implications of
> > > using unencrypted channels (oe even encrypted channes) through servers
> > > (EG msn messenger).
> >
> > But SpeakFreely's Text Chat is not encrypted (dunno why).

I can explain why (or rather, relay John Walker's own explanation why) "Text
Chat" is not encrypted.  When John originally introduced "Text Chat" into Speak
Freely, it was only as a diagnostic (or debugging) tool.  It was meant to be
used only between two users who were experiencing problems getting Speak Freely
audio working between them.  In other words, its purpose was to assist users in
troubleshooting their audio connection - not as a primary means of communication
unto itself.

I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing "Text Chat's" purpose in life expanded,
however.  :-)




> >
>
> This is a developer list :-)

I've always thought of "developers" in the wider sense as including those who
generate ideas, alpha/beta test new code, and report problems in alpha/beta
testing - not just those who write code.  I've worked in all of these capacities
(including writing code), and appreciate that the process of "development"
encompasses far more than what the coder does.  I also believe that this wider
sense of the definition of "developer" is part of what the spirit of "open
source" is all about, and is, I believe, the way that John Walker always
interpreted it throughout the development of Speak Freely and his other
products.

In this particular case, we are providing development related feedback in direct
response to a post by a developer who requested feedback to direct development
related questions.  I realize that his post was on the "users" list, but still
feel that the best way to ensure that all of the developers see the responses is
to also place them on the "development" list.  I know that any good developer
subscribes to - and follows - the "users" list, but there's no guarantee of
that.

At any rate, if this kind of input is no longer welcomed on the "development"
list, I'll be happy to comply.  :-)

Thanks.

Jeff MacKinnon, KB1RC




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click