Discussion:
OS X, Linux, dreaming...
(too old to reply)
Scott Wyatt
2005-08-14 03:34:25 UTC
Permalink
I'm still dreaming of PowerBASIC for other operating systems....

Please, let me have something faster than REALbasic!!!

- CSW
L***@GoForIt.net
2005-08-14 11:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Wyatt
I'm still dreaming of PowerBASIC for other operating systems....
Please, let me have something faster than REALbasic!!!
- CSW
They may be good OSes but the size of the market says in your dreams.

Lou
Scott Wyatt
2005-08-15 07:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@GoForIt.net
They may be good OSes but the size of the market says in your dreams.
Well, Linux would make sense of people didn't think every tool should be
free.

I can't imagine PowerBASIC is racking up huge numbers on Windows
anymore. Why not exploit a smaller market, but with less competition?
REALbasic is pretty much the only non-Apple tool on OS X.

The port to x86 should make things possible, if not likely.

Then again, open source tools are getting better and better. I just miss
PowerBASIC. Call it nostalgia.

- Scott
Michael Mattias
2005-08-15 11:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Wyatt
I can't imagine PowerBASIC is racking up huge numbers on Windows
anymore. Why not exploit a smaller market, but with less competition?
Um, because that smaller market cannot return enough to justify the
investment?
Scott Wyatt
2005-08-15 22:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mattias
Um, because that smaller market cannot return enough to justify the
investment?
The question is what do you consider "market" for a program. Not every
user is even close to a potential customer for most applications. You
have to consider how many are really doing whatever you sell.

I don't think so many companies would support the Mac if there were no
potential for return. The question is if there is a potential to sell to
enough developers to make things worth investment.

How many people pay $5000 a week to attend Big Nerd Ranch seminars? How
many Mac/*nix books does O'Reilly sell versus Windows books? I think the
numbers surprise most people. (O'Reilly has indicated Mac developers are
about a third of their customers. That makes for a lot of gcc/Xcode
users out there.)

If you sell 1,000 copies of software into the Windows market, and the
another 1,000 to the Mac, who cares how many users there are of the two
platforms? Equal sells figures are what matters, not user base.

Maybe this is because I come from the academic and publishing fields. We
don't care how many people own Windows machines -- we care how many will
buy our products on any platform.

- Scott
L***@GoForIt.net
2005-08-16 09:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Wyatt
Post by Michael Mattias
Um, because that smaller market cannot return enough to justify the
investment?
The question is what do you consider "market" for a program. Not every
user is even close to a potential customer for most applications. You
have to consider how many are really doing whatever you sell.
I don't think so many companies would support the Mac if there were no
potential for return. The question is if there is a potential to sell to
enough developers to make things worth investment.
How many people pay $5000 a week to attend Big Nerd Ranch seminars? How
many Mac/*nix books does O'Reilly sell versus Windows books? I think the
numbers surprise most people. (O'Reilly has indicated Mac developers are
about a third of their customers. That makes for a lot of gcc/Xcode
users out there.)
If you sell 1,000 copies of software into the Windows market, and the
another 1,000 to the Mac, who cares how many users there are of the two
platforms? Equal sells figures are what matters, not user base.
Maybe this is because I come from the academic and publishing fields. We
don't care how many people own Windows machines -- we care how many will
buy our products on any platform.
- Scott
The question revolves around ROI, Return On Investment - esp of developer
time. Do not forget PB comes from a very small company.
BTW the coming adoptation of Intel chips by Apple might make it easier to
post code.

Lou
Michael Mattias
2005-08-16 11:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Wyatt
Post by Michael Mattias
Um, because that smaller market cannot return enough to justify the
investment?
...
don't think so many companies would support the Mac if there were no
potential for return. The question is if there is a potential to sell to
enough developers to make things worth investment
...
Maybe this is because I come from the academic and publishing fields. We
don't care how many people own Windows machines -- we care how many will
buy our products on any platform.
I think you just made my point.

Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough Mac
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.

But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to make - and
act upon - your own projections.

Ain't capitalism grand?

MCM
unknown
2005-08-17 12:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mattias
Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough Mac
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.
But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to make - and
act upon - your own projections.
Ain't capitalism grand?
This assumes that money is the issue. I rather suspect that the issue
is Bob Zale's time. PowerBASIC is 100% his creation, and if he doesn't
have time to make a mac version and still keep up with Windows and DOS
development, then he has no options no matter how profitable he might
think the Mac version would be.

I still suspect (but don't have time to confirm) that PoweBASIC runs
just fine under WINE (http://www.winehq.com/). If I am right, we
already have PowerBASIC for Linux and OS X, and this conversation is
about a non-issue.
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Michael Mattias
2005-08-17 13:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough Mac
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.
But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to make - and
act upon - your own projections.
Ain't capitalism grand?
This assumes that money is the issue. I rather suspect that the issue
is Bob Zale's time...
Um, last time I looked, time IS money!


MCM
L***@GoForIt.net
2005-08-17 14:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mattias
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough Mac
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.
But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to make -
and
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
act upon - your own projections.
Ain't capitalism grand?
This assumes that money is the issue. I rather suspect that the issue
is Bob Zale's time...
Um, last time I looked, time IS money!
MCM
Ah but money can be acquired
Michael Mattias
2005-08-17 16:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@GoForIt.net
Post by Michael Mattias
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough Mac
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.
But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to make -
and
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
act upon - your own projections.
Ain't capitalism grand?
This assumes that money is the issue. I rather suspect that the issue
is Bob Zale's time...
Um, last time I looked, time IS money!
MCM
Ah but money can be acquired
You, sir, have GOT to be an academic.


MCM
L***@GoForIt.net
2005-08-18 00:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mattias
Post by L***@GoForIt.net
Post by Michael Mattias
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough
Mac
Post by L***@GoForIt.net
Post by Michael Mattias
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.
But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to
make -
Post by L***@GoForIt.net
Post by Michael Mattias
and
Post by unknown
Post by Michael Mattias
act upon - your own projections.
Ain't capitalism grand?
This assumes that money is the issue. I rather suspect that the issue
is Bob Zale's time...
Um, last time I looked, time IS money!
MCM
Ah but money can be acquired
You, sir, have GOT to be an academic.
MCM
Nope. But I am (or was) entrepreneurial:-))

Lou
unknown
2005-08-17 15:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Guy Macon wrote...
Post by unknown
This assumes that money is the issue.
I rather suspect that the issue is Bob Zale's time...
Um, last time I looked, time IS money!
Ah, the man-month myth resurfaces...

No it isn't. The old saying is wrong. Some folks have a surplus
of time and a shortage of money. Others have a surplus of money
a shortage of time. Most people can convert some time to money
and some money to time, but the exchange rates vary by many orders
of magnitude. A dollar in Guy Macon's pocket has the same purchasing
power as a dollar in Bob Zale's pocket, but an hour of Guy Macon's
time does not have the same value as an hour of Bob Zale's time.
Bob's time can be traded for improvements to PowerBASIC but not
for improvements in a mass-produced toy. Guy Macon's time can
be traded for improvements to a mass-produced toy but not for
improvements to PowerBASIC. Also, there is no fixed upper limit
to how much money a person can have, but the upper limit to how
much time a person has is fixed and unchangeable at 86,400 seconds
per day. In addition, money can be stored but time can not be stored.

Saying that "time IS money" obscures a basic fact of human existence;
that there are situations where only one person can do a particular
job at a particular pace and throwing money at the problem won't
change that.

If PowerBASIC runs well under WINE <http://www.winehq.com/>, this
thread is moot -- we already have PowerBASIC for Linux and OS X.
One would think that at least one person who has expressed a desire
for a Macintosh OS X or Linux or BSD version of PowerBASIC would
try running PowerBASIC under WINE and submitting the results of the
test to the WINE Application Database at <http://appdb.winehq.org> .
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Scott Wyatt
2005-08-29 03:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mattias
I think you just made my point.
Obviously the Powers That Be at PowerBASIC, Inc. don't think enough Mac
users WILL buy their product to make it a worthy venture.
But tell you what, when it's your money on the line feel free to make - and
act upon - your own projections.
Ain't capitalism grand?
Indeed it is. And on the OS X platform, we're selling pretty decent,
stable, POS/IM applications. This doesn't mean I don't miss the use of
PowerBASIC -- I would pay for it and use it quite a bit.

The comparison would be to REALbasic, which supports Mac/Win/Linux. If
they are selling equal numbers on all platforms, that would be the best
indicator of interest. I happen to think PB would be much needed
competition and probably win any serious developers looking for raw
speed on the platforms.

Then again, I know the "We might have something" on Linux line has been
out there in the past. It just never materialized.

My fear is PB dying a slow death.

A few of us were working to port Yabasic and Xbasic to the Mac, but why?
I suppose most of us will use Objective-C, in the end, but missing the
ability to code quickly for command-line and console apps.

Thankfully, we do well on the "alternatives" to Windows in large part
because a small company can do better. We can be seen, while on Windows
we would be overlooked.

Anyway, it was all just a dream. I can't get WINE to work well on the
Mac, but I can use Virtual PC if I want to move in slow motion. I've
been running PB 3.x on a VPC. Not really ideal... but good for testing
theories.

- CSW
unknown
2005-08-29 05:38:23 UTC
Permalink
I can't get WINE to work well on the Mac, but I can use Virtual
PC if I want to move in slow motion. I've been running PB 3.x on
a VPC. Not really ideal... but good for testing theories.
Keep your eye on Darwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/).
It may one day be able to run PB on a Mac and i would really
like to know that a Mac enthusiast is monitoring the progress
and will post a notice here when that glorious day arrives... :)

I am keeping my eye on http://www.winehq.com/ and
http://appdb.winehq.org/ - if someone gets PB running under
Linux one would hope that they would send in an update...
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon
2005-08-29 06:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I can't get WINE to work well on the Mac, but I can use Virtual
PC if I want to move in slow motion. I've been running PB 3.x on
a VPC. Not really ideal... but good for testing theories.
Keep your eye on Darwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/).
It may one day be able to run PB on a Mac and i would really
like to know that a Mac enthusiast is monitoring the progress
and will post a notice here when that glorious day arrives... :)
I am keeping my eye on http://www.winehq.com/ and
http://appdb.winehq.org/ - if someone gets PB running under
Linux one would hope that they would send in an update...
Then again, there is that fellow who figured out how to run all
Windows programs at full speed on a Mac...
http://digitalentropy.org/endofdays/G5.php
Tom Lake
2005-08-29 06:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I can't get WINE to work well on the Mac, but I can use Virtual
PC if I want to move in slow motion. I've been running PB 3.x on
a VPC. Not really ideal... but good for testing theories.
Keep your eye on Darwine (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/).
It may one day be able to run PB on a Mac and i would really
like to know that a Mac enthusiast is monitoring the progress
and will post a notice here when that glorious day arrives... :)
I am keeping my eye on http://www.winehq.com/ and
http://appdb.winehq.org/ - if someone gets PB running under
Linux one would hope that they would send in an update...
There's a better chance of a full-speed emulator when Macs use Intel chips
in 2006

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

Tom Lake
Scott Wyatt
2005-08-31 06:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Lake
There's a better chance of a full-speed emulator when Macs use Intel chips
in 2006
At that point, you don't emulate, you simply partition / virtualize,
depending on your particular theoretical grounding. Intel is including
more chip-level hooks for concurrent OS operation, which is one reason
Apple was interested. The idea is that you would run the server edition
of OS X on "two" machines, so testing won't crash your Web server.

Instead of dual-boot systems, at least one Apple site has talked about
"multi-boot" where Linux, BSD, OS X, and even FreeDOS were booting on a
single Intel box, one after the other. Good concept, if you have the
cycles to spare. On a database box, with less than 10 or 20% CPU
utilization, that will rock. On a CAD station, you won't see much of a
point. The problem, so far, with Windows is that it seems to like eating
cycles for lunch. I wonder if GDI changes will reduce this drag in 2006
or 2007?

As it stands, Apple is likely to continue a dual platform strategy for
longer than anticipated. The new contract with Freescale for single and
dual-core chips is through 2008.

I really think the chip inside matters less and less, once they start to
reduce power consumption and address core memory/bus sharing issues.

Future is pretty decent, regardless of platform. Maybe Mono or something
similar will free me of REALbasic for BASIC? Oh, joy... VB.Net, OS X
edition. Yuck. LOL!

- CSW
Michael Mattias
2005-08-29 12:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Wyatt
My fear is PB dying a slow death.
...
Thankfully, we do well on the "alternatives" to Windows in large part
because a small company can do better. We can be seen, while on Windows
we would be overlooked.
True, there's not a whole lot more PB can do with its Windows product, other
than perhaps integrating the forms tool with the IDE (VB redux?) (or perhaps
VB *returns*??)

But there's always other operating systems/models e.g, 'nix and .NET.

Then again, Windows will no doubt be with us for quite a while, and as long
as there is a need for Windows applications, a solid Windows BASIC - which
PowerBASIC surely is - will have a place.


MCM
Jonathan Berry
2005-08-29 17:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mattias
Post by Scott Wyatt
My fear is PB dying a slow death.
...
Thankfully, we do well on the "alternatives" to Windows in large part
because a small company can do better. We can be seen, while on Windows
we would be overlooked.
True, there's not a whole lot more PB can do with its Windows product
I don't want to start an argument, but .... PB is a
professional product priced so that it is accessible to
amateurs. Well, I'm not a complete amateur, I've programmed
for money, but not every day or every week or even every month.
You are a professional, and I wonder if that opinion is from
your professional point of view only, or could PB improve their
product from the point of view of amateurs, possibly to the
detriment of professionals?

I don't follow the PB forums religiously, or even closely, but
when a suggestion for improvement is made, the reason for
shooting it down is often that it would impinge on the
compilation or (more rarely) execution speed.

For instance? Widening the functionality available without
resorting to API calls. An example of that might be
manipulation of file names, dates and times, which still have
remnants of the days when BASIC was in a tiny ROM.




--
happy
Jonathan Berry and Erika http://members.shaw.ca/berry5868/fun.htm
Michael Mattias
2005-08-29 18:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Berry
Post by Michael Mattias
True, there's not a whole lot more PB can do with its Windows product
I don't want to start an argument, but .... PB is a
professional product priced so that it is accessible to
amateurs. Well, I'm not a complete amateur, I've programmed
for money, but not every day or every week or even every month.
You are a professional, and I wonder if that opinion is from
your professional point of view only, or could PB improve their
product from the point of view of amateurs, possibly to the
detriment of professionals?
....
For instance? Widening the functionality available without
resorting to API calls. An example of that might be
manipulation of file names, dates and times, which still have
remnants of the days when BASIC was in a tiny ROM.
Oh, I did not mean there aren't gaps or holes... I was thinking a bit more
"big picture.'

The few times I've tried to use the Dynamic Dialog Tools for something, I,
too, have been amazed at how much you CAN'T do with "controlname
dosomething" syntax. For example, in listboxes and combobboxes you CAN'T get
the text of item number "n" in the list. (You can only get the text of the
currently-selected item). You also can't get/set the individual row item
data value with these controls. You can't get or set the selection INDEX.
Would be nice to have a metastatement to allow DDT LISTBOX and COMBOBOX
controls to do everything in ZERO-based indexes. (All PB stuff uses
ONE-based indices.. very bad when you consider you have to use the
zero-based WinAPI indices to get the above done with the one-based 'DDT'
controls. Really easy to get off-by-one errors, trust me on this).

With the edit control (TEXTBOX), you can't Set/Unset the 'selected' text.

DDT handles are not valid across code modules. (This one is undocumented).

DDT only works for DIALOGS, it does not work for WINDOWS

More 'general' holes in the product include...:

Forward referencing at compile time is not supported.

SIZEOF is not valid at compile time, even though that's when SIZEOF must be
known anyway.

Numeric Equates are limited to integers.

Documentation has gradually moved with each version from mediocre (meaning
"unexceptional) toward sub-mediocre.

But as I said, when I look at the "big picture" the compiler has pretty much
everything you'd want, other than an integrated forms designer-IDE.

(Well, maybe some 'native PB syntax' database access would be good. Right
now that's kind of a complicated thing to do for the casual/hobby/newer
programmer.)

The rest of the WIndows API stuff (that is, the stuff not related to
handling screens) is probably beyond the needs/wants of all but the more
advanced programmers, who will use the WinAPI anyway (guilty).


MCM
unknown
2005-08-14 12:06:35 UTC
Permalink
(You will get more replies if you post to alt.lang.powerbasic and to
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic. Not all servers carry alt.lang.powerbasic.)
Post by Scott Wyatt
I'm still dreaming of PowerBASIC for other operating systems....
Please, let me have something faster than REALbasic!!!
Have you tried running PoweBASIC under WINE? See
http://www.winehq.com/ for details. I have seen a few
favorable reports, but nobody has submitted PowerBASIC to
the WINE Application Database at http://appdb.winehq.org yet.

If you try it, please report your (good or bad) here.

I have been meaning to do this myself for a long time, but other
projects have a higher priority. It sure would be nice if someone
else did the actual work... :)
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
<a href="http://www.guymacon.com/">
http://www.guymacon.com/
</a>
Buck Huffman
2005-09-05 04:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Have you tried running PoweBASIC under WINE?...
If you try it, please report your (good or bad) here.
I have tried PowerBASIC 6 and 8 using various wine releases (currently
20050725) but it has always refused to compile anything. I read somewhere
that wine did not support some privileged instructions that PB uses,
but I don't know if that has been changed or not. On the good side, most of
the sample programs that come with PB seem to run well with Wine, you just
have to compile them from Windows.
--
Gaspassasaurus
unknown
2005-09-05 07:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buck Huffman
Have you tried running PoweBASIC under WINE?...
If you try it, please report your (good or bad) here.
I have tried PowerBASIC 6 and 8 using various wine releases (currently
20050725) but it has always refused to compile anything. I read somewhere
that wine did not support some privileged instructions that PB uses,
but I don't know if that has been changed or not. On the good side, most of
the sample programs that come with PB seem to run well with Wine, you just
have to compile them from Windows.
The latest wine is 20050830 - one version later than 20050725 - so
I doubt that it will work any better.

Have you ever considered posting the results of your tests in
the Wine Application Database? See http://appdb.winehq.org/
and http://appdb.winehq.org/appsubmit.php?apptype=1

BTW, why are you setting followups to an alt.* group?
comp.* groups reach a far greater audience.
Buck Huffman
2005-09-05 19:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Have you ever considered posting the results of your tests in
the Wine Application Database? See http://appdb.winehq.org/
and http://appdb.winehq.org/appsubmit.php?apptype=1
Actually I meant to but "time and unforseen circumstances have their way
with us all". or to put it another way I just got busy with other stuff.
I might just go do that right now...
Post by unknown
BTW, why are you setting followups to an alt.* group?
comp.* groups reach a far greater audience.
I was just going down the list reading the posts and alt shows on the list
before comp (alphabetical I guess?). I'm down to comp now ;)
--
Gaspassasaurus
Guy Macon
2005-09-06 09:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buck Huffman
Actually I meant to but "time and unforseen circumstances have their way
with us all". or to put it another way I just got busy with other stuff.
I might just go do that right now...
It sure would be nice if it turned out that a minor change in Wine or
in PowerBASIC would make them work together...
Post by Buck Huffman
I was just going down the list reading the posts and alt shows on the list
before comp (alphabetical I guess?). I'm down to comp now ;)
Something is mis-configured in your newsreader. Your headers contain:

From: Buck Huffman <***@home.now>
Newsgroups: alt.lang.powerbasic,comp.lang.basic.powerbasic
Subject: Re: OS X, Linux, dreaming...
Followup-To: alt.lang.powerbasic
...


That "Followup-To:" line shouldn't be there unless that's what you
meant to do.
Buck Huffman
2005-09-10 06:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon
Newsgroups: alt.lang.powerbasic,comp.lang.basic.powerbasic
Subject: Re: OS X, Linux, dreaming...
Followup-To: alt.lang.powerbasic
...
That "Followup-To:" line shouldn't be there unless that's what you
meant to do.
That is very strange. I'm switching back and forth between KNode and
Outlook Express depending on which operating system I happen to be
running at the time. I'm fairly sure I was using KNode at the time,
and as I look up at the top of this editor I see it's reporting the
same thing(followup-to: alt.lang.powerbasic) even though the KNode
window clearly shows that I am browsing comp.lang.basic.powerbasic.
What's up with that??? Perhaps since my first followup to this thread
was in alt.lang.powerbasic, KNode continues to post there for continuity
or something. I don't know, Just guessing.
--
Gaspassasaurus
unknown
2005-09-10 23:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buck Huffman
Post by Guy Macon
Followup-To: alt.lang.powerbasic
That "Followup-To:" line shouldn't be there
That is very strange. I'm switching back and forth between KNode and
Outlook Express depending on which operating system I happen to be
running at the time. I'm fairly sure I was using KNode at the time,
and as I look up at the top of this editor I see it's reporting the
same thing(followup-to: alt.lang.powerbasic) even though the KNode
window clearly shows that I am browsing comp.lang.basic.powerbasic.
What's up with that??? Perhaps since my first followup to this thread
was in alt.lang.powerbasic, KNode continues to post there for continuity
or something. I don't know, Just guessing.
Here is the problem:

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68732
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73852
http://lists.kde.org/?t=109494711200003

I couldn't find the solution. :(
Buck Huffman
2005-09-11 03:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68732
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73852
http://lists.kde.org/?t=109494711200003
Thank you for looking that up.
Post by unknown
I couldn't find the solution. :(
I sure hope that they get that fixed soon. Even like it is
I'm still using knode though. I should probably try one of
the other newsreaders, but I'm lazy and this one is already
installed.
--
Gaspassasaurus
Guy Macon
2005-09-11 08:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buck Huffman
Post by unknown
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68732
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73852
http://lists.kde.org/?t=109494711200003
Thank you for looking that up.
Post by unknown
I couldn't find the solution. :(
I sure hope that they get that fixed soon. Even like it is
I'm still using knode though. I should probably try one of
the other newsreaders, but I'm lazy and this one is already
installed.
Does KNode allow you to set followups manually? If so, you could
cut and paste from the newsgroups line, or possibly just delete
the followup-to.

This is disruptive enough to the working of Usenet that you really
should stop doing it, even if that means some extra work for you.
Buck Huffman
2005-09-15 03:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Macon
Does KNode allow you to set followups manually? If so, you could
cut and paste from the newsgroups line, or possibly just delete
the followup-to.
I set it for my last message, and now for this one
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic came up by itself on the
followup-to line. Is the change being reflected on
that end ?
--
Gaspassasaurus
Guy Macon
2005-09-15 03:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buck Huffman
Post by Guy Macon
Does KNode allow you to set followups manually? If so, you could
cut and paste from the newsgroups line, or possibly just delete
the followup-to.
I set it for my last message, and now for this one
comp.lang.basic.powerbasic came up by itself on the
followup-to line. Is the change being reflected on
that end ?
Alas, no. Your headers show:

Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic,alt.lang.powerbasic
Followup-To: comp.lang.basic.powerbasic

:(

Loading...