on 4/4/01 8:56 PM, Diane L. Schirf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I disagree. Why should programmers waste time/resources/money to pander to
> people too stupid to have the basic common sense NOT to try to update an app
> that's been adulterated?
I tend to agree with that point when it comes to people that hack around
with resedit, but if all they did was change an icon by pasting in another
one (using a facility provided by the system), then I would not consider
that adulterated.
Furthermore, I think we do have the technological capabilities to check for
a checksum of the app, without checking the icon pasted in. I don't believe
this would be an issue if other updaters weren't able to work despite such
changes.
> I have a bit of attitude about this because I see more and more effort in
> the work world to pander to people too lazy to get a clue or too stupid. I'm
> tired of being personally responsible for adults just because they don't
> feel like being personally responsible themselves.
Again, I think there is a difference between what you lined out above, and
something as simple as changing a name, or pasting an icon on - at the very
least, this should be addressed in the documentation, wouldn't you agree?
Harry
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
