Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wrdis01!gatech!purdue!haven!mimsy!mojo!mebly
From: mebly@eng.umd.edu (Mark E. Bailey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Subject: Re: is workbench 1.3.3 released yet?
Summary: So put it on AB20
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.192635.1111@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 91 19:26:35 GMT
References: <28010@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1991Apr16.153337.470@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> <18361@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 29

In article <18361@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> lindwall@beowulf.ucsd.edu (John Lindwall) writes:
>In article <1991Apr16.153337.470@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> chem194@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (John Davis) writes:
>>Releasing 1.3.2 electronically was a very good idea, as it made it
>>easy for people to upgrade to the current release, without having 
>>to chase around after dealers. Hopefully CBM will see fit to do the
>>same with 1.3.3.
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, seeing as how many people (here
>on UseNet at least) were bitching about the electronic distribution!
>Many people said things like, "This distribution is no good, I don't have
>access to BIX or other pay services.  I can't believe #@%#$^ Commodore is
>forcing me to use a pay service to upgrade!" and similar drivel.
>
>I thought it was a great way to easily distribute the upgrade.
>

Why is BIX/CI$ more secure than a nice, protected directory on AB20?

It isn't?!  That's what I thought.  So, again, if commodore doesn't get
a cut, why force us to use a pay service?

And if they only use pay services again, we'll bitch again!!!



--
Mark Bailey
mebly@eng.umd.edu     mebly@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov
Disclaimer:  I didn't really say this.