Sure, but that would fix itself by the next time I distibute the FAQ. I'm trying
to stop people distributing copies of this that is _old_. I have been doing this
FAQ for three years now, and there are a lot of information that isn't correct
anymore in the FAQ's that is a couple of years old.
A month or two isn't a big thing.
>Without trying, we violated your distribution restrictions.
Well, a replica of an FTP archive of *.answers should, at least in theory, be
updated automatically. So, even if you violated the _word_ (doubtful) it doesn't
violate the _soul_ of the distribution restrictions.
(On the subject of CD_ROM)
>If they do not alter them in any fashion, why is that different than a
>distribution of *.answers ?
>...
>It is just a slow *.answers newsfeed.
Updating once a year is simply too slow. Hopefully people will realise that, and
try to get newer versions of the FAQ's on the CD.
>No, I mirror rtfm. But mirroring has its problems at times.
So have archiving. The first FAQ I posted didn't pop up at rtfm.mit.edu until
several weeks after I posted it. The next time it was there the day after.
>This is why I do not like your "out-of-date" restriction message. What is
>out-of-date to you is not to me. Your previously posted data cannot be so
>totally worthless the day you post the next installment.
No, They aren't. See above. There _can_ be big differences because of new
versions of the products, but on the other hand, most people will still have the
older versions of the product so soon after the new is released, so it's not a
big deal.
>I really do not wish to waste my time reading something that the author
>considers totally useless. That is not a supplying a service. If that is
>truly the case then quit posting it. I *doubt* that is the case however.
I have NEVER said that my FAQ is totally useless one month after posting it.
_You_ have said that, _I_ have not. I'm simply saying that the new version is
_better_.
And you aree right. You should not waste your time reading something I think is
worthless. You should read the newest version of the FAQ, not an old one.
>They are probably still useful 6 months later.
Yes, they might be, but they also contain information that is WRONG.Therefore I
would rather like you to distribute the newest version.
I can not, however I try, see what is the matter with that.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved