🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr10.023306.7429@cs.rose-hulman.edu> snyderre@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Robert E. Snyder) writes:
>When I called Wolfram Research, via their normal phone number, non 1-800-  
>I got the run around quite a bit.  I then finally got to some one in the  
>correct department. (which I'm not sure what it was)  They asked me if I  
>had any problems with the MMA I was using at current.  I said no, but I  
>wanted the new MMA so I could just load the 'thin kernal' to save my self  
>time etc.  (I thought it was a valid reason)  They told me that I had to  
>have something wrong with the program and just because I wanted to save  
>myself time, that was not good enough to warrant a new copy of MMA  
>2.0.4.5.  Anyway, thought you guys might like to know.  If I find  
>something wrong I shall call back, but I guess I won't waste my time or my  
>phone bill on trying to make up a reason to get a new version.

A while back I bugged Wolfram about a bunch of files that were missing
with my Mathematica distribution (the stuff to render graphics on
graphic terminals).  They sent me the files.  I asked if I could share
those files with other licensed owners of Mathematica, and Wolfram
said *yes*.

So, if I can prove to someone that I have Mathematica 2.0.0 on my
machine, is it kosher for me to just copy 2.0.4?  Sounds like it'd
save headaches all around.
-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (NeXT mail, AMS/ATK mail, and MIME mail welcome)