04-07-102 15:17:39 We should get started. 04-07-102 15:18:10 This meeting of WarpDoctor is now in session. 04-07-102 15:18:32 Sector and I are logging the meeting. 04-07-102 15:19:22 Agenda Item 3: RS is living in Florida with Chrissy's sister, and is limited to two one-hour phone sessions for the internet. 04-07-102 15:20:31 He won't be able to do anything with our website until he gets their own place. He may not be able to make it to these mtgs. 04-07-102 15:22:52 Agenda Item 4: Old Business 04-07-102 15:23:37 Two weeks ago, we discussed the mirroring of other establishing sites. 04-07-102 15:24:33 I think we talked about mirroring in categories of FTP and web sites 04-07-102 15:24:45 meaning that the two are pretty different 04-07-102 15:25:15 Isn't possible to "cache" a site to be used if the original is unavailable? Google does this 04-07-102 15:25:16 What techniques are available to make the mirroring automatic? 04-07-102 15:25:44 I don't think Google asks anyone for permission 04-07-102 15:26:19 Does google do that, or does your browser do that? 04-07-102 15:26:48 Doug: Google offers a "cached" link if available 04-07-102 15:26:58 Google claims to have over 1,000,000,000 pages in its index. 04-07-102 15:27:48 COuld we divide the discussion into FTP and then web sites? 04-07-102 15:28:42 ftp automation: most ftp sites that I have seen have an upload section. We could scan the upload section 04-07-102 15:28:51 Except you can access most ftp sites using a browser if you a ftp:// in front. 04-07-102 15:28:57 automatically on a dialy basis and copy any new files that appear 04-07-102 15:29:28 Once we get the files the question becomes "what do we do with them?" 04-07-102 15:29:55 meaning - do we make them available for downlaod from WD, or do we just store them in case the other site goes away? 04-07-102 15:30:31 Making them automatically available for download will be somewhat tricky. 04-07-102 15:30:32 Do mirrors (e.g. the Hobbes mirror that used to be the Super Site) save the data or just the links? 04-07-102 15:31:15 I believe that true mirror sites save the data - the purpose of a mirror site is to distribute the load 04-07-102 15:31:16 to be the Super Site = to be on the Super Site 04-07-102 15:31:40 OK, that would require permission, wouldn't it? 04-07-102 15:31:46 I should say - one fo the purposes 04-07-102 15:32:15 For public FTP download sites - I would say no - although it would be polite 04-07-102 15:33:07 my reasoning is - it anyone can download, why can't we? 04-07-102 15:33:12 The term "public" needs to carefully defined. 04-07-102 15:33:50 You could almost say that any site where someone can log-on as anonymous (which is how a browser logs on) is a public site 04-07-102 15:33:58 Would IBM appreciate us taking files from "TESTCASE" for example, and putting them in our own archive? 04-07-102 15:34:04 private sites would be password/user id protected 04-07-102 15:34:11 For general download. 04-07-102 15:34:42 I don't know - is the lawyer here? 04-07-102 15:35:16 What I'm getting at is that many public sites contain copyrighted material. Again the IBM sites are a good example. 04-07-102 15:35:30 Pilot, what do you think? 04-07-102 15:37:47 I would want to consider individual cases. 04-07-102 15:38:34 I tend to be somewhat agressive on this issue. I perfer act first - appologize later 04-07-102 15:38:54 That pretty much rules out using a robot to copy files from public sites. 04-07-102 15:39:27 Pilot's view means we should get permission first. 04-07-102 15:39:36 We could still use a robot - but we would limit it to specified sites 04-07-102 15:39:37 Unless you have notice that you are publishing someones material without permission you are probably not in trouble - at least any meaningful trouble. 04-07-102 15:39:40 Personally, I would feel safer that way. 04-07-102 15:40:17 my fear is that if we seek permission for some (most) of this stuff we will never get it. 04-07-102 15:40:34 If we go ahead and do it- we probably will not get slapped 04-07-102 15:41:01 And some places that would not give us permission might very well leave us alone if we go ahead and do it 04-07-102 15:41:42 Pilot - What is the worst that can happen? 04-07-102 15:42:38 The worst is that you could be sued. But it is very unlikely. You would probably receive a demand to cease. 04-07-102 15:43:21 Here's an actual example. Just before WSeb was released and there were all manner of rumours 04-07-102 15:43:30 Take a look at the history of CuSeeMe/2. It mostly resulted in flameing on the internet 04-07-102 15:43:34 Even if WD was sued - what would WD lose? the equipment? 04-07-102 15:44:14 A suit is just not economicall worth it for anyone to pursue. 04-07-102 15:44:46 flying around about whether IBM would release another client, a European webmaster got hold of a rather embarrassing memo 04-07-102 15:45:49 from an IBM executive. I forget what it said. However all that IBM did was to call the webmaster and insist that he remove the document from his webmaster. 04-07-102 15:47:13 You are talking about the OS/2 strategy document I think. I have a copy. The fact was once it was out it didn't matter any more becase lots of people had copies. 04-07-102 15:47:44 Once IBM mistakenly released the protection on a major software upgrade, and I downloaded. I got a phone call from an IBM representative verifying that I had downloaded the software. That's all. He didn't even ask me to destroy the software. 04-07-102 15:48:16 Wow, how'd he get your phone number? 04-07-102 15:48:39 I probably had to key it in on a form. 04-07-102 15:49:34 I think we should honor copyright for existing, in business companies or software that is currently being sold or distributed 04-07-102 15:49:55 My point is that though IBM keeps pretty close track of who downloads what, they don't seem to find it worthwhile to drag out the heavy artillery. 04-07-102 15:49:59 For software that is off the market, or from companies that no longer exist - I suggest we be a bit more aggressive 04-07-102 15:50:56 Doug: But even off market deadware is still copyrighted? 04-07-102 15:51:37 True - but how much enegery is a company going to spend pursuing us for distributing software that it not sold 04-07-102 15:51:59 and how much argument can they make that we are financially hurting damaging them 04-07-102 15:56:27 I think we shouldn't touch anything that is still supported - even if it is not sold, because that is a legitimate expense to a company 04-07-102 15:57:16 But if a company refuses to support, and does not sell, what income are we depriving the company from getting? 04-07-102 15:57:30 That also brings up the question of software that was released for free by the author's (TrueSpectra Photo>Graphics Pro and Embellish come to mind). 04-07-102 15:57:32 Not supported and not sold. I like that. We should add a period of time to make it more definite. 04-07-102 15:58:09 How about the following three criteria: 04-07-102 15:58:16 1) Not sold 04-07-102 15:58:21 Embellish specifically asks that it not be made available from any other web site - we should honor that 04-07-102 15:58:24 2) Not supported 04-07-102 15:59:16 3) An email inquiry regarding support to author either brings "not found" or negative reply. 04-07-102 16:00:11 let's add 4) we are not notified that it should not be posted 04-07-102 16:00:18 "Not sold, not supported, etc" are not difinitive of copyrights, and there are "statutory damages" regardless of no loss of income. I suggest again this is a subject for thought and discussion at another time. 04-07-102 16:01:05 OK, let's do it. 04-07-102 16:02:05 Agenda Item 5: Status Reports 04-07-102 16:02:21 a. DB2 - Doug 04-07-102 16:02:41 Can you bring us up-to-date? 04-07-102 16:03:03 I am finishing up documentation and will start on menu structures from the database this week 04-07-102 16:03:47 RS has some concerns about how the menus will look and work - he doesn't like frames - so anything I put up will be preview only 04-07-102 16:04:14 he and I had an off-line discussion about menus a few weeks ago. 04-07-102 16:04:51 My plan is to put up a working site that we can look at without disturbing the existing WD site 04-07-102 16:05:22 * Walter don't like forms either. 04-07-102 16:07:43 The advantage of frames is that it allows an area of the browser window to be isolated from the rest of the window 04-07-102 16:08:05 which means that area can be updated without affecting the rest of the window 04-07-102 16:08:56 This issue came up because I was planning on using Javascript for a collasping/expanding menu structure on the left side of the window 04-07-102 16:09:01 like is used in the HCL 04-07-102 16:09:02 The drawback is that many browsers can't use them properly. 04-07-102 16:09:11 But that requires frames 04-07-102 16:09:57 That is true - but I figured (hoped?) that we could target a fairly small version/make range of browsers 04-07-102 16:10:18 Say - Netscape from version 4.61 - 6 and IE from 4-5. 04-07-102 16:12:00 But RS has some concerns about frames. So I was going to through something up we could look at 04-07-102 16:12:15 without suggesting that it is the final anwer. 04-07-102 16:15:16 The advantage of JS (javascript) is that it moves some processing to the browser, which = better performance 04-07-102 16:15:51 The disadvantage is that it rules out graphical web page builders (most of them) and it a pain to program for all browsers 04-07-102 16:16:09 and it (generally) requires frames to work well 04-07-102 16:16:55 what it really comes down to is that a browser is a piss-poor (excuse my language) environment for building a decent user interface 04-07-102 16:17:28 Doug is done hogging conversation.... 04-07-102 16:18:00 You've got me curious. What kind of tool would you like to see? 04-07-102 16:19:44 If we could be sure that all users coming to us were OS/2 users we could build a much better user interface using any one of a number of OS/2 tools 04-07-102 16:19:59 But I don't think that is a reasonable assumption or one that we want to make 04-07-102 16:21:11 Agenda Item: 6 04-07-102 16:21:18 i know - and it someone is trying to get a non-functioning OS/2 system up and running he may have to use some M$ stuff to get to us 04-07-102 16:22:40 a. Abel has negotiated with Dr. Martinus to put a backup of his famous Notebook/2 site on WD!! 04-07-102 16:23:46 Who will be doing updating? 04-07-102 16:24:40 b. Michal Necasek has give me permission to copy his article "OS/2 FileSystem Shootout" at (http://pages.prodigy.net/micaln/os2/os2fsperf.html ) onto WD. 04-07-102 16:25:03 That is a first-class article, with benchmarks and everything. 04-07-102 16:32:48 Agenda Item 7: Does anyone wish to move to adjourn the meeting? 04-07-102 16:33:20 I move we adjorn 04-07-102 16:33:35 All in favour type Aye. 04-07-102 16:33:40 aye 04-07-102 16:34:35 aye 04-07-102 16:35:27 aye 04-07-102 16:36:10 aye. . . 04-07-102 16:36:17 Carried 04-07-102 16:36:24 Meeting adjourned.