28-Mar-2024 10:02 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Forum] Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3ANN.lu
Posted on 03-Feb-2003 22:33 GMT by catohagen69 comments
View flat
View list
IBrowse 2.3 falsely claims MorphOS system is using AmigaOS.
Particularily misleading since MorphOS systems are reported as running AmigaOS 4.0 !!.

There exists a crude hack that just replace all "AmigaOS" strings with "MorphOS", and
"3.1", "3.5" and "3.9" with "1.1" or "1.2". Better solution should be provided by the IBrowse authors.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Xeyes03-Feb-2003 21:41 GMT
Comment 2catohagen03-Feb-2003 21:43 GMT
Comment 3catohagen03-Feb-2003 21:51 GMT
Comment 4Alkis Tsapanidis03-Feb-2003 21:59 GMT
Comment 5Argh03-Feb-2003 22:21 GMT
Comment 6the man in the shadows03-Feb-2003 22:34 GMT
Comment 7Ryu03-Feb-2003 23:59 GMT
Comment 8Linus G04-Feb-2003 00:11 GMT
Comment 9Anonymous04-Feb-2003 00:14 GMT
Comment 10gary_c04-Feb-2003 00:20 GMT
Comment 11gary_c04-Feb-2003 00:37 GMT
Comment 12the man in the shadows04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
Comment 13Anonymous04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
Comment 14[JC]04-Feb-2003 02:11 GMT
Comment 15gary_c04-Feb-2003 02:40 GMT
Comment 16Hooligan/DCS04-Feb-2003 03:26 GMT
Comment 17bbrv04-Feb-2003 03:31 GMT
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 18 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 04-Feb-2003 04:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (the man in the shadows):
the man in the shadows wrote:

> There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those who own
> IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press their case. I think
> the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

> If you were a lawyer would you tell your client to blab about any legal proceedings that might take place? Any such public statements would offset any such legal proceedings. .... So the lack of indication is more of an indication that there is something happening behind the scenes rather than the other way around. Think about it

Sure, the silence, considered alone, is open to interpretation. I'm not sure how valid your ideas about the reason for delayed action are, though. To me the "lack of indication" is exactly what it appears to be.

But the bottom line for me is that projects that can go forward should go forward, on their own merits, and see what they can do in the marketplace. If another individual or company initiates court action, then legal issues can be hashed out. Until then, speculation by outsiders, such as in this thread, is pointless, and repeating old accusations serves no good purpose. That is their prerogative, of course, but it reflects more (and more badly) on the accuser than the accused.

-- gary_c
Jump...
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 19catohagen04-Feb-2003 06:40 GMT
Comment 20Senex04-Feb-2003 07:04 GMT
Comment 21bbrv04-Feb-2003 07:12 GMT
Comment 22Anonymous04-Feb-2003 07:13 GMT
Comment 23Ben Yoris04-Feb-2003 07:19 GMT
Comment 24Senex04-Feb-2003 07:23 GMT
Comment 25Anonymous04-Feb-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 26catohagen04-Feb-2003 07:44 GMT
Comment 27catohagen04-Feb-2003 07:58 GMT
Comment 28priest04-Feb-2003 08:39 GMT
Comment 29Not a Eyetech Fan04-Feb-2003 09:00 GMT
Comment 30Cyberwlf04-Feb-2003 09:12 GMT
Comment 31Anonymous04-Feb-2003 09:16 GMT
Comment 32catohagen04-Feb-2003 09:25 GMT
Comment 33Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 10:45 GMT
Comment 34mahen04-Feb-2003 10:51 GMT
Comment 35mahen04-Feb-2003 10:58 GMT
Comment 36Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 10:59 GMT
Comment 37catohagen04-Feb-2003 11:12 GMT
Comment 38Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 11:17 GMT
Comment 39David Scheibler04-Feb-2003 11:18 GMT
Comment 40Johan Rönnblom04-Feb-2003 12:04 GMT
Comment 41joe04-Feb-2003 12:07 GMT
Comment 42Sigbjørn Skjæret04-Feb-2003 12:39 GMT
Comment 43tired04-Feb-2003 12:57 GMT
Comment 44logain04-Feb-2003 13:02 GMT
Comment 45Alfred Schwarz04-Feb-2003 13:22 GMT
Comment 46logain04-Feb-2003 13:33 GMT
Comment 47Anonymous04-Feb-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 48krize04-Feb-2003 13:44 GMT
Comment 49JoannaK04-Feb-2003 14:10 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous04-Feb-2003 14:17 GMT
Comment 51Anonymous04-Feb-2003 14:24 GMT
Comment 52pixie04-Feb-2003 14:38 GMT
Comment 53Jupp304-Feb-2003 14:58 GMT
Comment 54cheesegrate04-Feb-2003 15:06 GMT
Comment 55Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 16:49 GMT
Comment 56Elwood04-Feb-2003 19:17 GMT
Comment 57AnonX04-Feb-2003 21:12 GMT
Comment 58Anonymous04-Feb-2003 22:35 GMT
Comment 59gary_c05-Feb-2003 00:12 GMT
Comment 60Kolbjørn Barmen05-Feb-2003 00:32 GMT
Comment 61joe05-Feb-2003 11:26 GMT
Comment 62pixie05-Feb-2003 13:43 GMT
Comment 63pixie05-Feb-2003 13:46 GMT
Comment 64pixie05-Feb-2003 13:54 GMT
Comment 65pixie05-Feb-2003 14:03 GMT
Comment 66itix05-Feb-2003 16:30 GMT
Comment 67Alkis Tsapanidis06-Feb-2003 10:43 GMT
Comment 68Anonymous06-Feb-2003 23:41 GMT
Comment 69Ketzer11-Feb-2003 08:16 GMT
Back to Top