From: dawson@willard.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: if (++moves > 255) logout ("SiN"); ?!?!
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:37:34 GMT
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

bitbangr@moosevax.cojones.com (Anthony W. Hursh) writes:

> dawson@willard.UUCP writes:
> 
> > If Waffle is bum-fuddled by hardware limitations, and that has been pointed
> > to by various posts to this group (or have you simple MISSED the posts that
> > have agreed with mine?), then, simply put, Waffle is not robust.
> 
> Come now. If your modem isn't lowering CD reliably there's nothing Waffle
> can do about it. Waffle can only work with the signals coming in from the
> modem. If those signals aren't there, or are getting lost by your serial
> card, or if some other piece of software is changing them before Waffle
> sees them, it's absurd to blame it on Waffle.

Come now yourself.  *IF* my modem isn't lowering CD reliably NOW has very
little, if anything, to do with the problem SUPPOSEDLY under discussion.
I admit that I am CURRENTLY having problems with my modem.  However, the
behaviour I've described happened well in the past, and with other modems
as well as my current one.  Others besides myself have also said that they
have witnessed the described problems with MORE than a single modem.  It is
then readily apparent to the casual observer that there is confirmation of
the existence of a problem.

Please don't try to confuse the issue by calling my guesses on the nature
of the observed problems "absurd."  That does little to engender goodwill.

Suppose I were writing an error correcting protocol to be used to transfer
data across serial connections, do you think I'd want to make it sensitive
to timing considerations?  How sensitive to delays in receiving ACKs could
I allow the software to be and still call it "robust" ?

Suppose I were writing BBS software that was to be used with a variety of
modems, each of which might have different characteristics regarding DSR
timing.  How much variation should I allow in order for my software to
reliably run with the greatest majority of these modems?  If some few
modems had documented difficulty in certain circumstances, do you think
I'd still be justified in claiming that the software was "robust" ?

If you have ready answers to these and other questions, then you either
have great experience in writing real-world applications and have a great
understanding for the problem at hand, or you must be an assuming, self-
aggrandizing fool with an appetite for public embarrassment.

Perhaps that's a bit strong.  Perhaps you do have something useful to add
to the discussion.  Has any of this settled whether there exist situations
in which the problem that I began discussing, i.e., the apparent inability
to properly recover in certain cases of dropped carrier?

> This is exactly like claiming that Waffle isn't "robust" because it won't
> work with no modem hooked up at all.

It most certainly is NOT exactly like that.  This is a most absurd statement.

> 
> 
> --
> Author of WWCP, Waffle-WWIV gateway software. Send email for info.
> Internet: bitbangr@moosevax.cojones.com 
> WWIVnet:bitbangr#moosevax.cojones.com@500 or: 1@500
> UUCP: ..!uunet!coldbox!moosevax!bitbangr


-- 
dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814