Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: MT-Newswatcher
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 13:07:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <l96o7d$tp9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <l952he$ehk$2@dont-email.me> <bhmhcoFh28qU2@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 13:07:58 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cddc23e2136ccc51841168df0a277061"; logging-data="30505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+iqvA6E1g/bqv+7T3398Ig3qpfUK8UvrY="
User-Agent: NewsTap/4.0.1 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K4HBsLCeIE5uRPQyx7ymEZB7CX4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:20104

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-21, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-21, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>> In article <l944eu$t6s$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <l92eh7$6p4$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>  Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lyndon <lyndon@someisp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anyone know if any updates coming or has it been "abandoned"?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Lyndon
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What's wrong with it? Works fine for me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It doesn't work in Mavericks, from what I've read.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yet another "up"grade problem.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that MTNW used an API that was deprecated after it was
>>>> written, and removed with Mavericks.
>>> 
>>> No, the real problem is that Erilar devalues any software update that
>>> does not maintain 100% backwards compatibility. 
>> 
>> Not exactly.  I object to 0% backward compatibility.
> 
> When you act as if any change at all in behavior is a complete loss of
> compatibility, as you are oft to do, everything has 0% backward
> compatibility.

Not really. There used to be a lot of it, but every recent "up"grade dumps
large percentages of it.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad