At 10:15 AM 7/19/00 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>Chris Withers wrote:
>>
>> "Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>> > Maybe, maybe not. I think perhaps the most compelling argument from
>> > Digital Creations' viewpoint for having an expanded "access" file
might be
>> > the simplification of the setup proce
Chris Withers wrote:
>
> "Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> > Maybe, maybe not. I think perhaps the most compelling argument from
> > Digital Creations' viewpoint for having an expanded "access" file might be
> > the simplification of the setup process for customers. And it would also
> > make it easier
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> Maybe, maybe not. I think perhaps the most compelling argument from
> Digital Creations' viewpoint for having an expanded "access" file might be
> the simplification of the setup process for customers. And it would also
> make it easier to:
>
> 1) Phase out unownedness
At 03:07 PM 7/10/00 -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>>
>> Understood. I'll try to keep that use case in mind. Keep in mind,
>> however, that being able to create a LoginManager is a pretty risky
>> business in a portalish environment - you could potentially get access to
>
