Thread: Re: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 (Page 3)
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2009-12-01 07:37:28
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | > >> Gale Andrews wrote: >> >>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>> | >>>> ... >>>> Gale, I think you were the only lobbyist for Win98/ASCII support. Did we >>>> resolve that or are we releasing only Unicode? If so, we might as well >>>> remove Unicode from the name. We can do that post-1.3.10, or now, before >>>> the final rc's are built. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, I was just about to pick up on that. From memory, the idea was one >>> final version for Win98/ME, then drop support for it for good. James and >>> Leland discussed ways of producing such a version. My rationale is to >>> provide those users with something significantly better to finish with >>> than what they have now, given we couldn't actually tell anyone in >>> advance we were going to drop support. >>> >>> I can't say there is a huge pressure of users who lobby for this (unless >>> Peter/Steve want to contradict), but if we can find the time, I think it's >>> the more honourable ting to do. Should this be after 2.0? >>> >>> >>> >> I'd say, small demand, so drop it now, and let them use 1.3.7, the last >> version I see with separate ASCII release. 1.3.7 is not a whole lot less >> stable than 2.0 will be, at least compared to 1.2.6. >> > > I'm not 100% sure that's correct, if you don't mind me contradicting you > once again. 1.2.6 instability on Windows is mostly in Vista and later, > and releases post-1.3.7 have been/will be mostly bug fixes. The release > that was more feature-oriented (1.3.8) has the important VST GUI addition. > > Thanks.. I was talking about 1.2.6 vs 1.3.7 on old machines/systems that cannot handle unicode. We are going to stop supporting ASCII-only machines/systems at some time. The question is now or later. I think it's way overdue. iirc, James seconded that motion, months ago, so I hope we can dismiss it. Which is the better of those versions (or other) that we have for the margin of people with old/underpowered systems? Let's link to it and stop focusing on the far less than one percent. Are they into contemporary VST effects? People with Vista or greater should use the beta..And then 2.0. - Vaughan |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2009-12-01 20:49:26
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:38:35 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 > Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > > | > > > >> Gale Andrews wrote: > >> > >>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > >>> | > >>>> ... > >>>> Gale, I think you were the only lobbyist for Win98/ASCII support. Did we > >>>> resolve that or are we releasing only Unicode? If so, we might as well > >>>> remove Unicode from the name. We can do that post-1.3.10, or now, before > >>>> the final rc's are built. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Yes, I was just about to pick up on that. From memory, the idea was one > >>> final version for Win98/ME, then drop support for it for good. James and > >>> Leland discussed ways of producing such a version. My rationale is to > >>> provide those users with something significantly better to finish with > >>> than what they have now, given we couldn't actually tell anyone in > >>> advance we were going to drop support. > >>> > >>> I can't say there is a huge pressure of users who lobby for this (unless > >>> Peter/Steve want to contradict), but if we can find the time, I think it's > >>> the more honourable ting to do. Should this be after 2.0? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> I'd say, small demand, so drop it now, and let them use 1.3.7, the last > >> version I see with separate ASCII release. 1.3.7 is not a whole lot less > >> stable than 2.0 will be, at least compared to 1.2.6. > >> > > > > I'm not 100% sure that's correct, if you don't mind me contradicting you > > once again. 1.2.6 instability on Windows is mostly in Vista and later, > > and releases post-1.3.7 have been/will be mostly bug fixes. The release > > that was more feature-oriented (1.3.8) has the important VST GUI addition. > > > > > Thanks.. I was talking about 1.2.6 vs 1.3.7 on old machines/systems that > cannot handle unicode. That's right. And on those machines, 1.2.6 is I think pretty stable, therefore 1.3.7 is a significantly more unstable option for them despite its better features. > We are going to stop supporting ASCII-only machines/systems at some time. > The question is now or later. I think t's way overdue. iirc, James seconded that > motion, months ago, so I hope we can dismiss it. James said at the time this decision was "mostly my call" in his opinion. I don't know if that is still his opinion. If possible, I'd prefer we announced a final version for Win98/ME instead of just stopping support unannounced. My guess is a release after 2.0 would be best for that final version. But, "Do-ocracy" (which I support) suggests the people having to do the work would have to decide. I have no problem with that, if we decide on the evidence (see below). > Which is the better of those versions (or other) that we have for the > margin of people with old/underpowered systems? Let's link to it and > stop focusing on the far less than one percent. My feeling is that stability started going downhill after 1.3.3. But clearly 1.3.7 has more features including of course WMA support via FFmpeg. Maybe it's currently still the best one on balance? Vaughan, I don't want this to go into an argument again :=). But do you have evidence of "far less than one percent"? I'm talking about Windows 98/ME. AFAIK these systems are still 10% or more of Windows systems: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/4823/53/ Of course, MS has already pulled the plug on 98/ME, but I'm sure they announced timescales in advance for doing so. > Are they into contemporary VST effects? VST GUI was a much demanded feature as you know. > People with Vista or greater should use the beta..And then 2.0. Right. I'm talking about 98/ME. Thanks Gale |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@go...> - 2009-12-01 21:35:49
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:38:35 -0800 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 >> Gale Andrews wrote: >>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>> | >>> >>>> Gale Andrews wrote: >>>> >>>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>>>> | >>>>>> ... >>>>>> Gale, I think you were the only lobbyist for Win98/ASCII support. Did we >>>>>> resolve that or are we releasing only Unicode? If so, we might as well >>>>>> remove Unicode from the name. We can do that post-1.3.10, or now, before >>>>>> the final rc's are built. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, I was just about to pick up on that. From memory, the idea was one >>>>> final version for Win98/ME, then drop support for it for good. James and >>>>> Leland discussed ways of producing such a version. My rationale is to >>>>> provide those users with something significantly better to finish with >>>>> than what they have now, given we couldn't actually tell anyone in >>>>> advance we were going to drop support. >>>>> >>>>> I can't say there is a huge pressure of users who lobby for this (unless >>>>> Peter/Steve want to contradict), but if we can find the time, I think it's >>>>> the more honourable ting to do. Should this be after 2.0? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'd say, small demand, so drop it now, and let them use 1.3.7, the last >>>> version I see with separate ASCII release. 1.3.7 is not a whole lot less >>>> stable than 2.0 will be, at least compared to 1.2.6. >>>> >>> I'm not 100% sure that's correct, if you don't mind me contradicting you >>> once again. 1.2.6 instability on Windows is mostly in Vista and later, >>> and releases post-1.3.7 have been/will be mostly bug fixes. The release >>> that was more feature-oriented (1.3.8) has the important VST GUI addition. >>> >>> >> Thanks.. I was talking about 1.2.6 vs 1.3.7 on old machines/systems that >> cannot handle unicode. > > That's right. And on those machines, 1.2.6 is I think pretty stable, > therefore 1.3.7 is a significantly more unstable option for them > despite its better features. > > >> We are going to stop supporting ASCII-only machines/systems at some time. >> The question is now or later. I think t's way overdue. iirc, James seconded that >> motion, months ago, so I hope we can dismiss it. > > James said at the time this decision was "mostly my call" in his > opinion. I don't know if that is still his opinion. If possible, I'd prefer > we announced a final version for Win98/ME instead of just stopping > support unannounced. My guess is a release after 2.0 would be best > for that final version. > > But, "Do-ocracy" (which I support) suggests the people having to do the > work would have to decide. I have no problem with that, if we decide on > the evidence (see below). > > >> Which is the better of those versions (or other) that we have for the >> margin of people with old/underpowered systems? Let's link to it and >> stop focusing on the far less than one percent. > > My feeling is that stability started going downhill after 1.3.3. But > clearly 1.3.7 has more features including of course WMA support via > FFmpeg. Maybe it's currently still the best one on balance? > > Vaughan, I don't want this to go into an argument again :=). But do > you have evidence of "far less than one percent"? I'm talking about > Windows 98/ME. AFAIK these systems are still 10% or more of > Windows systems: > http://www.itwire.com/content/view/4823/53/ That is more than 3 years old. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp may be more use to this discussion. Martyn > Of course, MS has already pulled the plug on 98/ME, but I'm sure > they announced timescales in advance for doing so. > > >> Are they into contemporary VST effects? > > VST GUI was a much demanded feature as you know. > > >> People with Vista or greater should use the beta..And then 2.0. > > Right. I'm talking about 98/ME. > > > Thanks > > > > Gale > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, > a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. > Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2009-12-02 01:51:43
|
Martyn Shaw wrote: > Gale Andrews wrote: > >> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> | ... >> But do >> you have evidence of "far less than one percent"? I'm talking about >> Windows 98/ME. AFAIK these systems are still 10% or more of >> Windows systems: >> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/4823/53/ >> > > That is more than 3 years old. > > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp > may be more use to this discussion. > > Martyn, thanks for checking the actual info. Looks like my estimate was pretty darn good. So Gale, do you actually get inquiries from these people, and if so, aren't their machines so wimpy they're better off with 1.2.6? I'm persuaded, Martyn. Contrary to my previous email, I say let's just stop doing it now and see if there's actually any demand. We can, I think, go ahead and remove "unicode" naming and make that the default. If there's demand, we'll build a Release build and designate it "-ascii", since that's certainly the rarer case now. - Vaughan |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2009-12-02 05:16:47
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:46:12 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 > Martyn Shaw wrote: > > Gale Andrews wrote: > > > >> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > >> | ... > >> But do > >> you have evidence of "far less than one percent"? I'm talking about > >> Windows 98/ME. AFAIK these systems are still 10% or more of > >> Windows systems: > >> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/4823/53/ > >> > > > > That is more than 3 years old. > > > > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp > > may be more use to this discussion. > > > > > Martyn, thanks for checking the actual info. Looks like my estimate was > pretty darn good. Thanks! I was looking for figures on % of Windows users (not of all OS'es) and couldn't find anything more up-to-date. The w3schools figures are their own logs, so I would assume to be biased towards more savvy users. If 98/ME was now really (say) 2% of Windows users (down from the alleged 13% three years ago), that's circa 720,000 users (2% of the 36 million or so Windows 1.2 downloads we've had). Trivial % whatever it is, but large in absolute terms. > So Gale, do you actually get inquiries from these people, and if so, > aren't their machines so wimpy they're better off with 1.2.6? I've said, very occasional. I can recall two users with machines good enough for XP. They just didn't want to spend money (or go to Linux, which I mentioned to them). > I'm persuaded, Martyn. Contrary to my previous email, I say let's just > stop doing it now and see if there's actually any demand. We can, I > think, go ahead and remove "unicode" naming and make that the default. > If there's demand, we'll build a Release build and designate it > "-ascii", since that's certainly the rarer case now. I don't know how we measure demand, except by complaints of lack of support. I can see no point in maintaining ongoing ASCII support, especially since the figures would seem lower than I thought. I just see it as the honourable thing to produce one more quality release for them, and tell them that's the end. If no-one agrees, then its up to me to read up what was said and do a final ASCII build some time, if I can, and if I still want to. > Gale, I elided a lot of this msg. Please stay focused and don't assume > or speculate how any of the others of us will react. It's amazing how > much of the history of discussions you remember, but I don't think it's > useful to revisit so much of it every time the topic comes up. Better to > focus on the current criteria and opinions. I'm calling for brevity again. OK, but please don't ask me direct questions unless you actually want an answer, eh? It may help things along. :=) Thanks Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2009-12-03 23:51:18
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:46:12 -0800 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 > >> Martyn Shaw wrote: >> >>> Gale Andrews wrote: >>> >>> >>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>>> | ... >>>> But do >>>> you have evidence of "far less than one percent"? I'm talking about >>>> Windows 98/ME. AFAIK these systems are still 10% or more of >>>> Windows systems: >>>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/4823/53/ >>>> >>>> >>> That is more than 3 years old. >>> >>> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp >>> may be more use to this discussion. >>> >>> >>> >> Martyn, thanks for checking the actual info. Looks like my estimate was >> pretty darn good. >> > > ... > If 98/ME was now really (say) 2% of Windows users (down from the > alleged 13% three years ago), that's circa 720,000 users (2% of > the 36 million or so Windows 1.2 downloads we've had). > > Trivial % whatever it is, but large in absolute terms. > > > >> So Gale, do you actually get inquiries from these people, and if so, >> aren't their machines so wimpy they're better off with 1.2.6? >> > > I've said, very occasional. I can recall two users with machines > good enough for XP. They just didn't want to spend money (or > go to Linux, which I mentioned to them). > If your calculation above is correct, and nearly 0.75m people were having trouble, it would be more than very occasional. > > >> I'm persuaded, Martyn. Contrary to my previous email, I say let's just >> stop doing it now and see if there's actually any demand. We can, I >> think, go ahead and remove "unicode" naming and make that the default. >> If there's demand, we'll build a Release build and designate it >> "-ascii", since that's certainly the rarer case now. >> > > I don't know how we measure demand, except by complaints of lack of > support. Complaints, or requests. That's what we do now, e.g., why you think "stable" is pernicious, because you've seen a few hundred msgs to that effect. > I can see no point in maintaining ongoing ASCII support, > especially since the figures would seem lower than I thought. > Great. > ... > > >> Gale, I elided a lot of this msg. Please stay focused and don't assume >> or speculate how any of the others of us will react. It's amazing how >> much of the history of discussions you remember, but I don't think it's >> useful to revisit so much of it every time the topic comes up. Better to >> focus on the current criteria and opinions. I'm calling for brevity again. >> > > OK, but please don't ask me direct questions unless you actually want an > answer, eh? It may help things along. :=) > > Right, it's my fault. Way to own responsibility for your behavior. And direct questions are usually best served by direct, succinct answers, not long elaborations. - Vaughan |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2009-12-04 04:56:21
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:52:25 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 > > ... OK, but please don't ask me direct questions unless you actually want an > > answer, eh? It may help things along. :=) > > > > > Right, it's my fault. Way to own responsibility for your behavior. > > And direct questions are usually best served by direct, succinct > answers, not long elaborations. Vaughan, I did use a few lines about my "recollection" (point taken). But more generally, I really, really think some of your questions are not easy to answer in a few words without glossing over something relevant. It isn't programming code where there is one definitive phrase like a formula which is the only possible answer. I certainly get frustrated that you seem to see no "improvement" at all. Thanks Gale |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2009-12-04 18:51:43
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | ... > > I certainly get frustrated that you seem to see no "improvement" at all. > > I do see some improvement, for recent example the summaries at the tops of messages. But over time, it ebbs and we seem to get back to the ongoing flood of long, digressive messages. Then I and others feel the only way we can rein it in is to complain loudly, because soft suggestions (e.g., helicopter) get endorsement but little actual change. I'd love to know how most effectively to make these requests, because it's stressful for all of us to complain loudly and get in arguments about whether and why it's happening again, especially when we're already stressed out by the task of reading email taking so much time, intruding on getting things done. And if we just ignore the email, it seems to grow even worse, and decisions get made without pertinent developer input. Thanks for being responsive and trying to figure out how to resolve these issues. - Vaughan |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2009-12-02 01:59:45
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:38:35 -0800 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 > >> Gale Andrews wrote: >> >>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>> | >>> >>> >>>> Gale Andrews wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >>>>> | >>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> ... Win98/ASCII support. Did we >>>>>> resolve that or are we releasing only Unicode? If so, we might as well >>>>>> remove Unicode from the name. We can do that post-1.3.10, or now, before >>>>>> the final rc's are built. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ... > ... > > But, "Do-ocracy" (which I support) suggests the people having to do the > work would have to decide. I have no problem with that, if we decide on > the evidence (see below). > It's not that much extra work, if Martyn is willing to build and post a Release build and the download page links to both. (Or I could do it tomorrow. My machine's not set up fully and I've got other obligations this evening.) We should post an ASCII 1.3.10 as well as Unicode, so it's also tested pre-2.0. Gale, I elided a lot of this msg. Please stay focused and don't assume or speculate how any of the others of us will react. It's amazing how much of the history of discussions you remember, but I don't think it's useful to revisit so much of it every time the topic comes up. Better to focus on the current criteria and opinions. I'm calling for brevity again. - Vaughan |
From: James C. <cr...@in...> - 2009-12-03 22:19:47
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > >> We are going to stop supporting ASCII-only machines/systems at some time. >> The question is now or later. I think t's way overdue. iirc, James seconded that >> motion, months ago, so I hope we can dismiss it. >> > > James said at the time this decision was "mostly my call" in his > opinion. I don't know if that is still his opinion. If possible, I'd prefer > we announced a final version for Win98/ME instead of just stopping > support unannounced. My guess is a release after 2.0 would be best > for that final version. > > But, "Do-ocracy" (which I support) suggests the people having to do the > work would have to decide..... My memory isn't brilliant, but as I recall it you (Gale) were volunteering to go on maintaining the non-unicode build. My Win98 machine blew a gasket in 2008, so I am not able to check Win98 builds, and Vaughan is in the same situation. Whatever the history, I would have no problem with us dropping Win98/non-unicode right now and without prior announcement. If some enthusiast for retro chic (or whatever) later volunteers to make/maintain the Win98 version for us, that would change the landscape a bit, and we could revisit adding unicows.dll to a unicode version. --James. |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2009-12-04 05:37:17
|
| From James Crook <cr...@in...> | Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:19:38 +0000 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win98 versions (was Win rc2) > Gale Andrews wrote: > > > >> We are going to stop supporting ASCII-only machines/systems at some time. > >> The question is now or later. I think t's way overdue. iirc, James seconded that > >> motion, months ago, so I hope we can dismiss it. > >> > > > > James said at the time this decision was "mostly my call" in his > > opinion. I don't know if that is still his opinion. If possible, I'd prefer > > we announced a final version for Win98/ME instead of just stopping > > support unannounced. My guess is a release after 2.0 would be best > > for that final version. > > > > But, "Do-ocracy" (which I support) suggests the people having to do the > > work would have to decide..... > > My memory isn't brilliant, but as I recall it you (Gale) were > volunteering to go on maintaining the non-unicode build. My Win98 > machine blew a gasket in 2008, so I am not able to check Win98 builds, > and Vaughan is in the same situation. > > Whatever the history, I would have no problem with us dropping > Win98/non-unicode right now and without prior announcement. If some > enthusiast for retro chic (or whatever) later volunteers to > make/maintain the Win98 version for us, that would change the landscape > a bit, and we could revisit adding unicows.dll to a unicode version. James, My take is it would be better to drop the "Unicode" designation as Vaughan suggested, and take no further action until after 2.0. That gives us the option of: a) Assessing the number/virulence of complaints at that time, when it will be obvious that there is no route from 1.2.6 to 2.0 for Win98/ME b) Me going ahead with a one-off ASCII build anyway, which I already volunteered to do. The uptake of a version that exists will give us more measure of demand than the minority of people who actually complain. I can give one fact, that 210,000 people have downloaded 1.3.7 ASCII since February from SF and GoogleCode. Unknown how many were on XP or greater and got the wrong version. Gale |
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2009-11-30 22:45:27
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:01:31 -0800 | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 > Martyn Shaw wrote: > > And where do I put them to release them? And how? Or is somebody > > else doing that? > > > You are an "owner" for audacity.googlecode.com so can post them to > http://code.google.com/p/audacity/downloads/list yourself (if you're > logged in). Be certain it's the final release, because they cannot be > deleted and we'd rather keep the list less cluttered, for our sake. If > you'd prefer I do it, let me know. Plus for 1.3.9 we uploaded to the SF archive (and release announced there) for anyone who comes across us that way. Gale |
From: Martyn S. <mar...@go...> - 2009-11-30 23:37:47
|
Gale Andrews wrote: > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:01:31 -0800 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 >> Martyn Shaw wrote: >>> And where do I put them to release them? And how? Or is somebody >>> else doing that? >>> >> You are an "owner" for audacity.googlecode.com so can post them to >> http://code.google.com/p/audacity/downloads/list yourself (if you're >> logged in). Be certain it's the final release, because they cannot be >> deleted and we'd rather keep the list less cluttered, for our sake. If >> you'd prefer I do it, let me know. > > Plus for 1.3.9 we uploaded to the SF archive (and release announced > there) for anyone who comes across us that way. We'll have to stop that eventually, so I guess now is as good a time as any. I shall leave that out. TTFN Martyn > > > Gale > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, > a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. > Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > audacity-devel mailing list > aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel > |
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2009-12-01 01:25:44
|
Martyn Shaw wrote: > Gale Andrews wrote: > >> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> >> | Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:01:31 -0800 >> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Win rc2 >> >>> Martyn Shaw wrote: >>> >>>> And where do I put them to release them? And how? Or is somebody >>>> else doing that? >>>> >>>> >>> You are an "owner" for audacity.googlecode.com so can post them to >>> http://code.google.com/p/audacity/downloads/list yourself (if you're >>> logged in). Be certain it's the final release, because they cannot be >>> deleted and we'd rather keep the list less cluttered, for our sake. If >>> you'd prefer I do it, let me know. >>> >> Plus for 1.3.9 we uploaded to the SF archive (and release announced >> there) for anyone who comes across us that way. >> > > We'll have to stop that eventually, so I guess now is as good a time > as any. I shall leave that out. > > I think as long as we're announcing on SF, and keeping the website there, somebody might look for it in their archive, so I'll post those. - V |