Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious) - VMS

This is a discussion on Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious) - VMS ; Hello again Bob. This is in response to your email earlier today. I decided to reply to it using this forum for a number of reasons. 1) In our most recent dialog (in this forum) you made some (IMO) ill-considered, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

  1. Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

    Hello again Bob.

    This is in response to your email earlier today. I decided to reply to
    it using this forum for a number of reasons.

    1) In our most recent dialog (in this forum) you made some (IMO)
    ill-considered, incorrect and intemperate remarks about my attempts to
    explain the underlying issue regarding problems you were experiencing
    (with soyMAIL) and why they were endemic to Purveyor.

    2) Earlier attempts to assist with configuration of said software were
    fraught with outbursts stemming from your frustration (again IMO) at not
    being able to tailor the configuration for Purveyor (despite my having
    already done it on the test-bench).

    3) An investigation and report for you at the beginning of this year
    into generating version 1 X.509 certificates to allow Purveyor SSL to
    continue past current Instantwhip certificate expiry date didn't receive
    so much as an 'I'll get back to you'. Nothing. Zip. Zero.

    4) An assessment I undertook into migrating the Purveyor baseline code
    from SSLeay to OpenSSL, some three years ago and on Instantwhip's
    behalf, did not progress (perhaps understandably considering the
    Purveyor source-code license cost) but after spending a significant
    amount of my own time did not receive even the common courtesy of a
    'thank you', just an 'Instantwhip management aren't willing to risk the
    money' (again understandably).

    5) Still earlier endeavours to assist with configuration of yahMAIL left
    me with the impression you really had no idea how to follow instructions
    that many before you completed with relative ease.

    6) Continuing misunderstanding/misrepresentation in this forum of the
    origins and management of Web environments other than (perhaps) Purveyor
    indicate an inability to 'think outside the square'. This doesn't bode
    well for collaborative problem solving in an unfamiliar environment.

    7) Most of our interactions (public and private) have required time and
    effort disproportionate to anyone else who has used or uses WASD and/or
    its companion software.

    8) I do not wish to be constantly told how
    cumbersome/inefficient/convoluted/unconfigurable WASD is in comparision
    to Purveyor or how this or that could have be done with a couple of
    mouse-clicks (PPO).

    9) ...

    Hence, while willing to assist with the installation and configuration
    of WASD, in consideration of my own sanity, available time, generally
    sanguine disposition, and last but by no means least systolic and
    diastolic measurements, I prefer not to do it via private dialog. You
    are too high maintenance for a pastime activity.

    In consideration of all this I have some suggestions.

    1) Ask your questions in c.o.v. There is a large number of WASD sites
    and users out there. I'm sure some participate here also. I often read
    this forum and will respond to appropriate enquiries. In addition using
    c.o.v. provides you with 24 hour responsiveness, something I cannot.

    2) Subscribe to WASD's mailing list. Instructions are available at the
    site. This list shares similar advantages with c.o.v. It also
    represents a more concentrated and diverse pool of WASD experience. I
    respond to appropriate enquires in this forum (haven't yet seen one that
    hasn't been appropriate ) - and usually fairly promptly.

    3) HP's ITRC OpenVMS fora may also provide an active community (and
    possibly more technical, less off-topic discussion than c.o.v.) Though
    I don't participate in ITRC discussion for reasons aired here previously.

    4) Engage a company or consultant with experience with WASD. I know of
    a small number in the USA. I am sure there are others. You could poll
    for interest on c.o.v. Using such a commercial service would also
    provide you with the reassurance and security you have so volubly
    described as missing from open-source software and community support. I
    would not consider providing this sort of service to Instantwhip (read
    'yourself'). Someone else might.

    Be assured; WASD installation and configuration is doable, as hundreds
    preceding you attest.

    Mark Daniel.
    --
    Sonja: I truly think this is the best of all possible worlds.
    Boris: It's certainly the most expensive.
    [Woody Allen; Love and Death]

  2. Re: Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

    On Aug 23, 6:56 am, Mark Daniel wrote:

    I ask you a simple polite question and I get a smartass
    response ... but after seing your outburst earlier about
    supporting purveyor, I now understand the character of
    yourself ...

    I could list every email I previously sent to you, as I still
    have them, including the most recent, but I will not waste
    my time ...

    quite simply, I tried to install WASD with SSL and was
    told by your .com that it could not find the SSL package
    even though it was right in the [.000000] dir where it
    belongs ...

    further research into your dcl routines showed that
    they expected HT_ROOT to be defined, but upon
    manually defining it your dcl routine then complained
    that it looked like an UPDATE, not an INSTALL ...

    so it looks like the chicken and the egg ...

    NOWHERE in your docs does it say to define HT_ROOT ...

    I can only assume you must have the server running
    which I do not want to do and install the SSL package
    in UPDATE mode which is not what your stupid dcl routine
    says it can do ...

    My associate here actually tried this first and ran into
    this problem and I had to intervene and examine your
    dcl routines to find out this is the case ...

    I am sorry we did not thank you, but should we have
    to thank someone who we were going to employ to
    convert purveyor if possible? We asked if you would
    do the project for a FEE if it was possible and asked
    if you would look into it ... Process allowed you access
    to the code, and you agreed to do it if feasable ...

    It turned out it was not a easy as you first thought and
    we politely declined to further pursue the port ...

    YOU ARE THE ONE WHO AGREED TO PORT
    PURVEYOR IF POSSIBLE FOR A PAID FEE BUT
    WANTED TO SEE IF THERE FIRST WERE ANY
    SHOW STOPPERS AS YOU CALL THEM, AND
    THERE WERE A FEW AND NO GUARANTEES
    FROM YOU THAT IT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL ...

    You had a chance to look at a competing packages
    code base, which I would have thought you would
    have valued, as most other developers would have,
    but I can see now that you are the ingrate.

    I am sorry you do not like my foundness of
    Purveyor over WASD, Apache or even OSU,
    but the truth is, Purveyor's ease of setup and
    maintenance puts your unix models to shame.

    Let this be a lesson to all those who bank
    their hopes on freeware ... I said it once and
    I will say it again ...

    YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

    I came into this as was posted here before stating
    the above, but I decided to give freeware a chance,
    and now I have confirmed the above ...

    It is not only UNPROFESSIONAL to discuss your
    professional dealings with a potential client, but
    even more unprofessional to respond in the spoiled
    childlike manner you did ... if you were employed
    (I am surprised you even are) you would be fired ...

    do you wear a tin foil hat at night? I have never
    here or in past emails insulted you personnally
    or your product, but you seem to infer that I have
    done so ... and the only thing high maintenance
    about this whole experience has been your "C"
    code ... I am not a C programmer, and DO NOT
    wish to be, and should not have to be ... I talked
    to you twice about yahmail which I set up without
    docks and had no idea that your kludge (or should
    I say fudge) code existed or where it had to be
    inserted ... soymail turned out to be a typing error
    as was discussed on this site, and now the damned
    if you do, damned if you don't SSL build problem in
    WASD ... and though you state on your site that
    you spent some time updating your docks, there is
    much work to be done yet ...

    so Mark, you feel the need to be publicly thanked for
    pursuing employment with us, examining the Purveyor
    code base which you agreed to do first and actually
    suggested to do first to find any potential show stoppers,
    and upon finding them us deciding not to pursue that
    avenue, THANK YOU MARK DANIEL for giving us the
    chance to employ your services ...

    and as far as Soymail (or as many around the office here
    call it ... Soilmail) or WASD or any other package goes,
    THANKS BUT NO THANKS ...







  3. Re: Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

    Well, I think we've made good progress here today. . .

    Tomorrow we might canvass the idea of you and Mark getting a room and
    venting some of this spooky sexual-tension that's going on. Alternatively
    you could leave "reality" TV to those dumb ****s that choose to watch it.
    OTY.

    Regards Richard Maher

    wrote in message
    news:1187871933.894664.68670@x35g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    > On Aug 23, 6:56 am, Mark Daniel wrote:
    >
    > I ask you a simple polite question and I get a smartass
    > response ... but after seing your outburst earlier about
    > supporting purveyor, I now understand the character of
    > yourself ...
    >
    > I could list every email I previously sent to you, as I still
    > have them, including the most recent, but I will not waste
    > my time ...
    >
    > quite simply, I tried to install WASD with SSL and was
    > told by your .com that it could not find the SSL package
    > even though it was right in the [.000000] dir where it
    > belongs ...
    >
    > further research into your dcl routines showed that
    > they expected HT_ROOT to be defined, but upon
    > manually defining it your dcl routine then complained
    > that it looked like an UPDATE, not an INSTALL ...
    >
    > so it looks like the chicken and the egg ...
    >
    > NOWHERE in your docs does it say to define HT_ROOT ...
    >
    > I can only assume you must have the server running
    > which I do not want to do and install the SSL package
    > in UPDATE mode which is not what your stupid dcl routine
    > says it can do ...
    >
    > My associate here actually tried this first and ran into
    > this problem and I had to intervene and examine your
    > dcl routines to find out this is the case ...
    >
    > I am sorry we did not thank you, but should we have
    > to thank someone who we were going to employ to
    > convert purveyor if possible? We asked if you would
    > do the project for a FEE if it was possible and asked
    > if you would look into it ... Process allowed you access
    > to the code, and you agreed to do it if feasable ...
    >
    > It turned out it was not a easy as you first thought and
    > we politely declined to further pursue the port ...
    >
    > YOU ARE THE ONE WHO AGREED TO PORT
    > PURVEYOR IF POSSIBLE FOR A PAID FEE BUT
    > WANTED TO SEE IF THERE FIRST WERE ANY
    > SHOW STOPPERS AS YOU CALL THEM, AND
    > THERE WERE A FEW AND NO GUARANTEES
    > FROM YOU THAT IT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL ...
    >
    > You had a chance to look at a competing packages
    > code base, which I would have thought you would
    > have valued, as most other developers would have,
    > but I can see now that you are the ingrate.
    >
    > I am sorry you do not like my foundness of
    > Purveyor over WASD, Apache or even OSU,
    > but the truth is, Purveyor's ease of setup and
    > maintenance puts your unix models to shame.
    >
    > Let this be a lesson to all those who bank
    > their hopes on freeware ... I said it once and
    > I will say it again ...
    >
    > YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!
    >
    > I came into this as was posted here before stating
    > the above, but I decided to give freeware a chance,
    > and now I have confirmed the above ...
    >
    > It is not only UNPROFESSIONAL to discuss your
    > professional dealings with a potential client, but
    > even more unprofessional to respond in the spoiled
    > childlike manner you did ... if you were employed
    > (I am surprised you even are) you would be fired ...
    >
    > do you wear a tin foil hat at night? I have never
    > here or in past emails insulted you personnally
    > or your product, but you seem to infer that I have
    > done so ... and the only thing high maintenance
    > about this whole experience has been your "C"
    > code ... I am not a C programmer, and DO NOT
    > wish to be, and should not have to be ... I talked
    > to you twice about yahmail which I set up without
    > docks and had no idea that your kludge (or should
    > I say fudge) code existed or where it had to be
    > inserted ... soymail turned out to be a typing error
    > as was discussed on this site, and now the damned
    > if you do, damned if you don't SSL build problem in
    > WASD ... and though you state on your site that
    > you spent some time updating your docks, there is
    > much work to be done yet ...
    >
    > so Mark, you feel the need to be publicly thanked for
    > pursuing employment with us, examining the Purveyor
    > code base which you agreed to do first and actually
    > suggested to do first to find any potential show stoppers,
    > and upon finding them us deciding not to pursue that
    > avenue, THANK YOU MARK DANIEL for giving us the
    > chance to employ your services ...
    >
    > and as far as Soymail (or as many around the office here
    > call it ... Soilmail) or WASD or any other package goes,
    > THANKS BUT NO THANKS ...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




  4. Re: Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

    IS there anything wrong with wearing a tinfoil hat?
    ;0)


    "Richard Maher" wrote in message
    news:fajus3$9mb$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
    > Well, I think we've made good progress here today. . .
    >
    > Tomorrow we might canvass the idea of you and Mark getting a room and
    > venting some of this spooky sexual-tension that's going on. Alternatively
    > you could leave "reality" TV to those dumb ****s that choose to watch it.
    > OTY.
    >
    > Regards Richard Maher
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:1187871933.894664.68670@x35g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    >> On Aug 23, 6:56 am, Mark Daniel wrote:
    >>
    >> I ask you a simple polite question and I get a smartass
    >> response ... but after seing your outburst earlier about
    >> supporting purveyor, I now understand the character of
    >> yourself ...
    >>
    >> I could list every email I previously sent to you, as I still
    >> have them, including the most recent, but I will not waste
    >> my time ...
    >>
    >> quite simply, I tried to install WASD with SSL and was
    >> told by your .com that it could not find the SSL package
    >> even though it was right in the [.000000] dir where it
    >> belongs ...
    >>
    >> further research into your dcl routines showed that
    >> they expected HT_ROOT to be defined, but upon
    >> manually defining it your dcl routine then complained
    >> that it looked like an UPDATE, not an INSTALL ...
    >>
    >> so it looks like the chicken and the egg ...
    >>
    >> NOWHERE in your docs does it say to define HT_ROOT ...
    >>
    >> I can only assume you must have the server running
    >> which I do not want to do and install the SSL package
    >> in UPDATE mode which is not what your stupid dcl routine
    >> says it can do ...
    >>
    >> My associate here actually tried this first and ran into
    >> this problem and I had to intervene and examine your
    >> dcl routines to find out this is the case ...
    >>
    >> I am sorry we did not thank you, but should we have
    >> to thank someone who we were going to employ to
    >> convert purveyor if possible? We asked if you would
    >> do the project for a FEE if it was possible and asked
    >> if you would look into it ... Process allowed you access
    >> to the code, and you agreed to do it if feasable ...
    >>
    >> It turned out it was not a easy as you first thought and
    >> we politely declined to further pursue the port ...
    >>
    >> YOU ARE THE ONE WHO AGREED TO PORT
    >> PURVEYOR IF POSSIBLE FOR A PAID FEE BUT
    >> WANTED TO SEE IF THERE FIRST WERE ANY
    >> SHOW STOPPERS AS YOU CALL THEM, AND
    >> THERE WERE A FEW AND NO GUARANTEES
    >> FROM YOU THAT IT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL ...
    >>
    >> You had a chance to look at a competing packages
    >> code base, which I would have thought you would
    >> have valued, as most other developers would have,
    >> but I can see now that you are the ingrate.
    >>
    >> I am sorry you do not like my foundness of
    >> Purveyor over WASD, Apache or even OSU,
    >> but the truth is, Purveyor's ease of setup and
    >> maintenance puts your unix models to shame.
    >>
    >> Let this be a lesson to all those who bank
    >> their hopes on freeware ... I said it once and
    >> I will say it again ...
    >>
    >> YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!
    >>
    >> I came into this as was posted here before stating
    >> the above, but I decided to give freeware a chance,
    >> and now I have confirmed the above ...
    >>
    >> It is not only UNPROFESSIONAL to discuss your
    >> professional dealings with a potential client, but
    >> even more unprofessional to respond in the spoiled
    >> childlike manner you did ... if you were employed
    >> (I am surprised you even are) you would be fired ...
    >>
    >> do you wear a tin foil hat at night? I have never
    >> here or in past emails insulted you personnally
    >> or your product, but you seem to infer that I have
    >> done so ... and the only thing high maintenance
    >> about this whole experience has been your "C"
    >> code ... I am not a C programmer, and DO NOT
    >> wish to be, and should not have to be ... I talked
    >> to you twice about yahmail which I set up without
    >> docks and had no idea that your kludge (or should
    >> I say fudge) code existed or where it had to be
    >> inserted ... soymail turned out to be a typing error
    >> as was discussed on this site, and now the damned
    >> if you do, damned if you don't SSL build problem in
    >> WASD ... and though you state on your site that
    >> you spent some time updating your docks, there is
    >> much work to be done yet ...
    >>
    >> so Mark, you feel the need to be publicly thanked for
    >> pursuing employment with us, examining the Purveyor
    >> code base which you agreed to do first and actually
    >> suggested to do first to find any potential show stoppers,
    >> and upon finding them us deciding not to pursue that
    >> avenue, THANK YOU MARK DANIEL for giving us the
    >> chance to employ your services ...
    >>
    >> and as far as Soymail (or as many around the office here
    >> call it ... Soilmail) or WASD or any other package goes,
    >> THANKS BUT NO THANKS ...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >




  5. Re: Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

    Mark Daniel wrote:
    >
    > Hello again Bob.
    > [snip]


    Well, at least we know now why he's been so quiet lately...

    Thanx for keeping his attention focused elsewhere, even if just for a brief
    while. I can understand your frustration.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  6. Re: Open letter to Bob Ceculski (long and somewhat tedious)

    ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    > On Aug 23, 6:56 am, Mark Daniel wrote:
    >
    > I ask you a simple polite question and I get a smartass
    > response ... [snip]


    Bob,

    Do you REALLY enjoy interacting with people in this way?

    If your remarks draw a very different response from what you expect, please
    consider the possible source of the issue. You won't want to believe that the
    source can be found in the mirror, but please consider the possibility.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

+ Reply to Thread