"The web interface is a pain"

you're telling me :)  i guess i'm going to have to find a "newsgroup client" whatever that is... i think i might've gotten rid of outlook express but i'll look..

DrakeX wrote:
>>You are kidding, right??? Of course windows has newsgroup clients!
> 
> 
> to tell you the truth i never have had to use one... i didn't think newsgroups
> still existed until i found this place!
> 
> 

Ahha! You have been denied the experience of newsgroups and NNTP, an important chapter of internet history! :-D A lot of these old unix protocols are still alive and very well on the internet, despite the availability of slicker options.  They're tried, true, and available on almost any platform that connects to the internet.

there!  i do still have outlook express.  it looks better now.  and it's faster.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:21:41 +0000 (UTC), DrakeX
<DrakeX_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

>"The web interface is a pain"
>
>you're telling me :)  i guess i'm going to have to find a "newsgroup client" whatever that is... i think i might've gotten rid of outlook express but i'll look..
>

You might want to try "Agent." It's a very very good news browser with tons and tons of cool features. Unfortunately, it costs $29, and I don't know anyone who has ever paid to get it. Everyone, like me, uses the free version of the product (called FreeAgent) which has most of its cool features disabled.

But it's still a very cool product, and I'd dare say that it's at least slightly better for newsgroups than Outlook Express.

--Benji

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:14:31 -0600, Benji Smith <dlanguage@xxagg.com> wrote:
>You might want to try "Agent."

By the way, here's a link to the agent homepage:

http://www.forteinc.com/agent/index.php

thanks for that guys :)

interesting..!

In article <bknt8r$18j$1@digitaldaemon.com>, DrakeX says...
>
>there!  i do still have outlook express.  it looks better now.  and it's faster.

Poor guy... he thinks outlook express is a good thing... :(

Ant
Let's try to keep this group D related

Charles Sanders wrote:
> win2k with cygwin == awesome.  I still keep a linux box around but for a
> desktop win2k has won my heart ;)
> 
> Charles
> ...

Please read the EULA.  I don't for certain know that the win2k EULA is unlivewithable, but I've seen snippets of the XP?  XT? version, and I won't allow it in my home.  And I've seen representations that some of the security patches came with clauses that retrofitted the win2k license to be just as bad.

The EULA is my original reason for fleeing MSWindows.  It took me six months before I had a useable system (this was a few years ago), and I still considered it time well spent.  These days...I'll generally reccommend that you hire someone else if you want work done with MS.  And I surely won't install it.  (Well, I can accept the Win95 and Win98 licenses.  They're not too bad.)

Sometimes technical slickness doesn't suffice.  Fortunately, MS is losing out even on that end.  (If you don't think so, check our a system configured to look like a MSWind system...Linux does it without any problem.  But most people don't care for the costs over more than the short term.  [You might look at a Lycoris box, or a Xandros one...their software tends to be a bit behind the curve, but their graphics make you think it's windows {this is a plus?}.])

Keep it to D boys otherwise I am going to have to get on my OS X soap box, oops slipped.

Actually as an aside I think OS X is a great target for D and here's why.

THe CARBON API is C based making it absolutely suitable for D.  The 'Modern' application frameworks use Objective-C.  A phenominal language that is used by Apple and GNUStep. [Objective-c retain].

Many of the die-hard mac people, that is not NeXT, are very wary of Objective-C, poor souls, and are continuing to develop C/C++ based Apps.  From my limited experience with D I believe it can match the performance of C++ and  eclipse the performance of COCOA java and Objective-C.

From that perspective if it was runing on the platform someone at Apple might be persuaded to build a small CARBON / Core foundation application in D to show to Avie and Steve.

Faced with a small, fast, somwhat dynamic, language that simplifies development, offers many of the advantages of java, at least form Apple application development perpective, without the overhead and startup cost may be of great interest to a company know for its innovation and its penchant for bucking the trend.

Anyway back to the real world.

In article <bl26r6$2b0o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Hixson says...
>
>Charles Sanders wrote:
>> win2k with cygwin == awesome.  I still keep a linux box around but for a desktop win2k has won my heart ;)
>> 
>> Charles
>> ...
>
>Please read the EULA.  I don't for certain know that the win2k EULA is unlivewithable, but I've seen snippets of the XP?  XT? version, and I won't allow it in my home.  And I've seen representations that some of the security patches came with clauses that retrofitted the win2k license to be just as bad.
>
>The EULA is my original reason for fleeing MSWindows.  It took me six months before I had a useable system (this was a few years ago), and I still considered it time well spent.  These days...I'll generally reccommend that you hire someone else if you want work done with MS.  And I surely won't install it.  (Well, I can accept the Win95 and Win98 licenses.  They're not too bad.)
>
>Sometimes technical slickness doesn't suffice.  Fortunately, MS is losing out even on that end.  (If you don't think so, check our a system configured to look like a MSWind system...Linux does it without any problem.  But most people don't care for the costs over more than the short term.  [You might look at a Lycoris box, or a Xandros one...their software tends to be a bit behind the curve, but their graphics make you think it's windows {this is a plus?}.])
>
>
>