🚀 go-pugleaf

In a recent posting, the view was expressed regarding OS/2 binaries that:

> "Their [sic] not needed..."

Maybe not needed (is anything necessary?), but wanted and appreciated.

> "...they all will have to be redone to accomidate [sic] ... OS/2 1.2."

I have downloaded several utilities that make absolutely no use of filenames
and in fact work just fine under version 1.2.  Those that DO use filenames
still work; it's just that they don't support the long filenames now
permitted, thus they don't "have to" be redone (1.2 is downward compatible
with the short filenames used by the FAT method) but should be if they want
to support long filenames.

Incidentally, the "bandwidth" used is the same whether the destination is
comp.os.os2 or comp.binaries.os2.  The only difference is whether you see
them in comp.os.os2 or not.  If you'd rather not see them, just skip them
when scanning new postings.

Just wanted to let our person "with the overactive C compiler" know that not
everyone shares the view represented above.  Keep up the good work.