🚀 go-pugleaf

Ludovic LANGE wrote:

> "John Frazier (Inprise/Borland)" wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:02:46 +0100, Ludovic LANGE <tily@planetepc.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >So quite identical. I really don't know where it can come from. Too bad, I
> > >was very excited about running JB on my linux box !
> >
> > You can still be excited about it.  Just wait a bit longer for us to
> > finish the actual Linux version.
>
> Ok. I'm still excited ;-)
>
> > >But I think (I may be wrong) that, even if Borland explicitely 'unsupports'
> > >such things, they are more easily open to such tests etc... than other
> > >vendors (and we can thank them for being so).
> >
> > I didn't understand this.
>
> Really ? Sorry, english is not native language for me...
> What I meant was that it was very kind from Borland to give us support through
> newsgroups, devote time to users, be responsive to user request, etc... Many
> time in the (JBuilder) newsgroups I saw guys from Borland trying to explain the
> internals of JBuilder, to comment configuration files, to explain the steps
> needed to replace the JB internal VM by another one, etc... : many things that
> are explicitely unsupported, but that can help users willing to go on further
> with JB to do so, etc... I found that was a very interesting behaviour, and it
> is not so common among other software vendors.
> That's what I wanted to say ;-)
>

Borland did not do this very well in the past. This is the new strategy, isn't
it? It is working; keep this up and everything will be fine.

>
> Regards,
>
> Ludovic LANGE