In article <uckkgr$27r60$
1...@dont-email.me>,
Bertel Lund Hansen <
gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> That's the problem with making all this stuff browser based. It always
>> ends up being browser-dependent, and usually ends up working only with MS's
>> browser.
>>
>> It was so much better when BBO ran as a normal Windows EXE file.
OK, I'll play.
>Linux, Mac and OS/2 users wouldn't be so happy with that solution.
It is actually pretty easy to run (simple) Windows apps (including BBO)
on other OSes.
I have personally run BBO (via Windows emulation) on both Linux and Mac.
I've never been able to get the browser version to run under either of
those OSes - because, as I said, this stuff usually ends up only working
(fully/correctly) with MS's browsers anyway.
And as for OS/2 users, you mean both of them, right? And note that I am
speaking as a former big OS/2 user/supporter/advocate. OS/2 really doesn't
exist anymore (in the consumer sphere). I think they're calling whatever
remains of it "eCom station" (or something like that) nowadays.
>And if you dream about a Windows program - then why are you unhappy with
>things only working in a Windows browser?
See above. I knew someone would make this objection; failing to see that a
Windows application is best, even if you don't run (or like) Windows.
Windows is (or should be) kind of a "lingua franca" or Esperanto-like thing.
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ForFoxViewers