From: clee2 AT envirolink DOT org (Chris Lee) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DJGPP and network programming Date: 8 May 2000 10:41:23 GMT Organization: Your Organization Lines: 46 Message-ID: <8f65kj$lkg$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: YFQ+CX3lr4MjRgOFIkXbbvyOhi22vqNDVkhsYMYy3aw= X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rcn DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2000 10:41:23 GMT X-No-Archive: Yes X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.10 beta8 [mds] (16bit) To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In article , eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il says... > > > >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Saying that "most things" in the FAQ are outdated is IMHO a great 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. Because they disrupt the natural flow of the discussions. The fact that the focus of discussions have changed to if something is or isn't found in the FAQ instead of network programing pretty much proves my point.