Date:	Mon, 8 May 2000 11:08:39 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Chris Lee <clee2 AT envirolink DOT org>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP and network programming
In-Reply-To:	<8f5cn7$g2a$2@bob.news.rcn.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000508110049.1993B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 8 May 2000, Chris Lee wrote:

> >Why don't people look in the FAQ?  These URLs are all there, waiting
> >to be discovered...
> 
> Maybe because like most things in FAQS the information contained within 
> them don't tend to be current?

If you find something that isn't current in the DJGPP FAQ, please tell.  
I'm not aware of any major problems in this area, give or take some 
versions of some packages that changed a bit.

Saying that "most things" in the FAQ are outdated is IMHO a great 
exaggeration, to say the least.

> The discussion concering Watt32 is a perfect example of this.

How so?  Watt-32 _is_ mentioned in the FAQ (together with a few other 
net libraries suitable for use with DJGPP).

> Networking Programing is not a static subject and for you 
> to sit there and tell people to look in some FAQ that really doesn't 
> answer the questions people have is quite frankly laughable.

If the FAQ doesn't answer questions people have, please suggest how to 
make it better.  In this particular case, I think the FAQ says most of 
what was posted in this thread.

> I can't figure out why you would want to discourage people 
> from talking about using DJGPP for network programing now that there is now 
> a usable TCP/IP library/stack for it....

I fail to see how my comments discourage discussions in any way.

I surely do see how *your* comments discourage me from working on making 
the FAQ better.  If you think the FAQ is a futile project, please say so 
explicitly.

- Raw text -