It seems like one of the legitimate complaints was that the updater failed to notify the user that the update was incomplete. Even if one acknowledges that the updater should only update 'clean' apps, could we acknowledge that failing that, it should say so? > > 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? -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To search the archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Tim Mountford
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Remo Del Bello
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Justin Mayer
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Dan Crevier
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Christian M. M. Brady
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Lee Hinde
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Tim Mountford
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Dan Crevier
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Allen Watson
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Chris Stearns
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Harry (lists)
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Chris Stearns
- RE: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Gil Gordon
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Clayton Bennett
- Re: SR-1 updater logic could be improved Paul Berkowitz
