William Wilson wrote in a message to Bill Shaughnessy:
 BS>         For your information, Willie, the question as to whether or not 
 BS>         there might be two different versions of a software package 
 BS>         carrying the same date and time stamp is not all that unusual.  
WW> Bill,
WW> Say what?  When did I ever even suggest such a thing?
WW> 1.  Changing the time and date stamp on a file is something
WW> I do quite regularly, so even suggesting I didn't know such
WW> a basic thing is ludicrous!
Willie:
        Had I even suspected that you do this, I would never have made the 
above statement.  This is a good example of what an assumption can do, 
regardless of the original intent.
WW> 2.  In order to accept your "Two different versions of Opus"
WW> evidence, we have to accept major differences in the
WW> implimentation of the FTS0001 standard in each!
        I most definitely am not a programmer, but I have been led to believe 
that the differences in code involved are in the neighborhood od only one bit 
per fallback step - only a difference of 1 bit
between EMSI and WaZOO/Yoohoo, and also only a one bit difference between 
WaZoo/Yoohoo and DietIFNA (FTS-0001).
WW> 3.  To imagine this was accomplished and still maintain the
WW> exact same byte count boggles the imagination, I am willing
WW> to bet the only way it could be accomplished is by direct
WW> attempt by some mysterious programmer with a sick sense of
WW> humor and extreme talents!
        This shouldn't, Willie.  Since the change is in individual bits, the 
byte count will not change.  But the CRC's and Checksums will. Alpha 4, which 
is mentioned with some frequency in our local echos, has some very good 
examples of this.
WW> 4.  Now then, the real question, why the heck would any
WW> programmer of such immense talents waste his or her time
WW> performing such a stunt, one that at best could result in an
WW> argument in Meadow, when they could be out there destroying
WW> systems all over the planet, meaning the same goal of other
WW> such hackers of such stature?
        Willie, there are two kinds of hackers in the BBS world.  Some are 
destructive, and some are constructive.  I can see the destructive hackers 
going after a widely used program or system, like Alpha 4, or WINDOZE, or 
OS/2, so that they can get more bang for the effort.  But I don't see the 
destructive type going after BBS software.  There are not enough users of it, 
and sysops are rather good at discovering and correcting problems before they 
affect the board's users.
        In the case of OPUS, I truly think that a "good" hacker tried to 
correct some of the problems that did/do exist in the OPUS tosser, and did 
not change either the filename or the time/date stamp.  There is quite a 
precedent for this in BinkleyTerm.  There were quite a few
*good* hacks made throughout the lifespan of the 2.5x versions.  Many 
followed the very good practice of changing the filenames and the time/date 
stamps, but there were some who didn't.  The *good* hacking of Binkleyterm is 
evidently still taking place with the latest version - 2.60 - but with the 
filenames being changed as they should be.
WW> 5.  I repeat, what's your wager?  I am not averse at all to
WW> making a buck or two here, so let's make sure that I, who
WW> you seem to think is so stupid, understand this quite well. 
WW> You think Stu and I have different versions of OPUS.EXE,
WW> right?  Let me get Stu's OPUS.EXE, swap it with my own on a
WW> random, unknown to you basis, and you tell me when I'm
WW> running which, ok?
        Willie, by suggesting a wager, you are implying that this has to be a 
Win-Lose situation.  I don't see it that way.  What I see is a situation 
where a current OPUS sysop encountered some strange problems, and strange to 
the point that there was a legitimate question as to the existence of a 
second version of OPUS 1.73a.  A former OPUS sysop, and one who ran a totally 
different type of BBS, had also encountered some strange behavior in OPUS, 
and likewise concluded that there was a second version of OPUS 1.73a in 
existence.  There very well may not be more than one version of OPUS 1.73a in 
use today.  But, when two sysops, coming from totally different directions, 
legitimately reach the conclusion that there are multiple copies of OPUS 
1.73a around, we're no longer talking a possibility, but are talking a fairly 
high probability. At the present time I do not run OPUS, and hence the 
existence of multiple versions does not constitute a problem.  You are 
running OPUS, but if you are not encountering any strange problems, then the 
existence of multiple versions does not constitute a problem for you.
        Michele Marie Dalene is having problems with OPUS.  It is not 
important that her problems might be traceable to the existence of multiple 
versions, because in order to get her BBS running properly, she has to revert 
to software of known origin or provenance.  The only place she can get this 
today with the requisite degree of confidence is by downloading the version 
that Chris Baker has on his board, Rights On. As you know, Doug Boone went 
walkabout some time back (actually he may have been kidnapped by Martians), 
and Bev Freed (the major-domo of OPUS according the Web page) walked out in a 
snit some time back.  It is entirely possible that our compassionate 
Pittsburgh Judge, The Honorable Donald Machen, was lurking at the time she 
walked out, and sentenced her to a long prison term (for the benefit of 
non-Pittsburghers, Judge Machan did impose a 6 month sentence in the County 
"Slammer" to an individual for "slamming" the Courtroom door).
        Instead of a Win-Lose situation, we can create a Win-Win situation 
simply by considering the problem in its proper context.  Two sysops, under 
different operating conditions, have encountered the probability that 
multiple versions of OPUS 1.73a do exist.  When you, or some other sysop in 
the future run into a situation where you suspect the culprit might lie in 
multiple versions, you will know that at least two sysops have been there 
before, and most probably have some ideas as to how to get around the 
situation.  This is the FidoNet way, I think.
WW> Bill, the byte counts going to be the same, the behavior is
WW> going to be the same, and the difficult thing is going to be
WW> for me to remember which is which!  If you don't want to
WW> risk any money, we'll just go back to my old bet, if you can
WW> tell any difference at all, I'll eat a bug!
        Willie, what we are talking about here most probably will not involve 
different byte counts, but will involve different behavior.  If you are not 
being bothered by what you are running today, then don't worry about it.  If 
you are being bothered, then your best bet is to switch to MAXIMUS, along 
with your switch to Binkley.  In Michele's case, all she needs is a copy of 
OPUS 1.73a of known provenance.  She has demonstrated many times over that 
she has the skills requisite for tweaking OPUS to the nth degree.
        No, you are not stupid, Willie.  You just read too fast on occasion.
                   Bill
--- timEd 1.01
---------------