On 31-Dec-01, Matt wrote:
> You don't. If you could patch around it, it'd be pretty f**king stupid > to put in the timeout, wouldn't it? Your opinion. Not mine. Lots of shareware comes as a demo, where the software times out and loses features after a period unless a patch is applied or keyfile is installed. It is easy to make code branch. It would be perfectly acceptable for the programmers to provide a backdoor to bypass the timeout code, for many reasons. > > It's a failsafe to stop you running 10 month old bug-ridden copies of > V when there are much better versions (or even full releases) > available, and to make the spread of internal betas less "useful" to > people. > I know what it's there for, but surely some workaround will be available, either a new beta, a recompile of the existing beta with a new date, a keyfile, a patch etc. Going back to the last official release 3.2? with its bugs, and 10 month old code is not an option, either :-). I personally think you take your role much too seriously, after all there was a smiley atteched to my original comment. -- Bob Q Rocket Scientist during the day, Amiga Afficionado all night. _____________________________________________________________________ Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/ Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/ Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
