Posted by Angrie.Woman on 10/13/05 04:04

Loco Jones wrote:
> "frank-in-toronto" <thehickOBVIOUS@OBVIOUScanada.com> wrote
> in message news:43erk1dcceql8lhnekdup1p8ppakmit2gp@4ax.com...
>
>>why is there so much effort being put into getting the peer cache
>>servers up again?
>
>
> Why not? Some people are loathe to let the RIAA "win", even if their
> press-release trumpeted victory is hollow.
>
>
>>Just let them go. Back to opennet.
>
>
> Opennap? Yes, that's one alternative (worthwhile and appreciated as it is),
> but it's not the only one.
>
>
>>I can't imagine sufficient people going to the trouble of hosts
>>and dll and this and that.
>
>
> It's really not rocket science. The temporary WinMX "fixes" posted
> shouldn't confound anyone but the most completely compter-illiterate.
>
>
>>most have left already. anyone capable enough to read/post
>>on usenet should be able to get their opennap servers going.
>
>
> I'm unsure how you know for a fact that "most have left already", but I
> will agree with you that "anyone capable enough to read/post on usenet
> should be able to get [...]" - WinMX working again.
>
> - Loco -
> (Now Playing: A Point Of View - Jose Feliciano)
>
>

I'm pretty compustupid, but when WinMX would not work, I just Googled
"WinMX won't connect" and ended up on the Vlad44 site PDQ. I just came
here to be sure it wasn't an RIAA site or something equally devious
before I installed it on my computer.

A

[Back to original message]