At 11:40 AM 7/11/2006 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Charlie Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 05:12 PM 7/11/2006 +0100, Mark Stanton wrote:
> >There's sort of a link.
> >
> >We run a (paper only) magazine and have done for nearly six years.
> >It currently has a subscription list of between three and four
...
> ...
>
> Bear with me. This may be way too far 'out of the box' to be useful to you,
> but the following approach might have merit.
Sucks for that Linux or mac user now doesn't it?
why not make a web page on the existing site. You log in and it's done.
...
Because not everyone has an always-on Internet connection. Because patches
to browsers make you open to screw-ups when they get applied. Because web
sites are one of the primo targets for hackers. Because... oh.. nm, you're
not listening anyway...
No fat clients, no more rules like that, no need to destroy what they
paid for in their subscription.
I see you like to use the out-of-date term 'fat-client'. Get with it. It's
called Rich-client or Smart-client. One of the 'key' things MS has touted
in .Net. Didn't you get the memo?
And Destroy? huh? Where did that come from? Are you thinking Windows
Deactivation stuff?
I think Charlie has been drinking the DEVELOPER kool aid way to long.
;->
Well I'm certainly biased toward smart-client type systems. They are the
only ones I've found reliable in my experience. Even the simple web
'Timesheet' thing a client of mine uses is off-line about 20% of the time.
And that's a fairly simple thing!
I'll admit I've been drinking the kool aid if you admit you've fallen for
the hype.
;-)
-Charlie
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
