RE: Re: [POLITICAL INFIGHTING] Difference between spf/spf2 srs/srs2

On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 12:49, Seth Goodman wrote:

> First of all, I think Roger has the correct viewpoint on this.  The fact
> that James, Wayne and Shevek are no longer working together is of little
> interest to anyone outside the SPF developers group.  It is our joint
> loss, but their personal problem.
Correct.

> The fact that there are two libraries with exceedingly similar names
> purporting to do the same thing is a source of confusion to potential
> adopters and gives the appearance of infighting, which in this case is
> true.  I have no desire to take sides in an argument as petty as the
> name of a library.  However, since it looks bad from the viewpoint of
> potential adopters, I feel that something needs to be done.
I think it looks quite bad and I'm ashamed that it has had to go this
far just to get the people who should be taking action to even make a
post about it.

> Since James lib was originally named libspf and Wayne's was originally
> named libspf-alt, I suggest the best course of action for the community
> would be to revert back to those names.  I respectfully disagree with
> Meng that renaming a library is a huge job.  It is a more like a minor
> headache, and libspf-alt was already renamed once before.
As I stated in my response to Meng this is quite right.  The reasons
listed in his post are trivial excuses not to act.

> I am not qualified to judge which library is better/faster/more
> compliant, nor do I even care.  All I care is that potential adopters
> see a situation which looks like petty squabbling, and that serves none
> of us well.  I am confident that the community of adopters will decide
> that for themselves which library to use regardless of the claims of
> either primary author.
I think its useless for authors from either project to state which is
better than they other, since there is a strong bias.  Amusingly enough
those who make claims that my library suffers from "bad bugs" don't ever
prove it.  They all (including Wayne) have such a hard time finding them
that they all say the same thing "its not worth the time".  In my
personal experience this is the result of someone attempting to make a
statement that bears likeness to a falsehood.

>   In the interest of the SPF community, I feel it
> would be wise to return the library names back to the original, easily
> distinguished names, which don't confer any advantage to either rival
> library, and let the users decide which one they want to use.
I couldn't agree more.

> Competition can be a good thing, but the present names cause confusion
> and imply that one library supercedes another, which is not the
> community position.
And this is the underlying problem I have with it.  Some have tried to
slag some mud around with the mindset that I do not like competition
when in reality the opposite is true.  Competition drives me to do
better and I thoroughly enjoy it.  As is evidenced through my
complaints, its quite obvious that I intend to continue my work.

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                                                     ( ( (      
      ((__))         __lib__        __SPF__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---

http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money!  http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part