"Diane L. Schirf" 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 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.
>
> Didn't we just have this conversation about people who hack system resources
> and then act shocked when their system goes unstable?
Fair points Diane. I think it's completely reasonable that the SR1 Updater
refused to update a copy of Word that I had altered with ResEdit.
But is it reasonable to reject the update because of a custom icon?
Or because a user removed "Microsoft" from the name of the app?
If I understand your opinion so far, I think your answer would be "yes, it's
reasonable." Fair enough. But shouldn't it be mentioned? I know lots of Mac
users that wouldn't think to look for these things when they ran into a
problem.
Maybe a Read Me note is all that is needed to clear this up...
--
CMS
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
