In article <4D775095.30606(a)druck.org.uk>,
David J. Ruck <druck(a)druck.org.uk> wrote:
On 09/03/2011 09:53, Brian Bailey wrote:
> I've got both the new and the old files open in front of me
> moment and there appear to be significant differences between the two,
> just related to Archive, zip and other related file types. I have to
> ask, because I have no way of understanding/assessing these
> differences myself, is 20110307 'correct', please?
The moto of the story is; don't update system files which you
understand with those from 3rd parties, if your machine is working
correctly - i.e. it hasn't been recommended to solve a particular
problem you have experienced.
What does correctly look like? Recommended by whom?
I've worked on very large nuclear power reactors, they worked 'correctly',
but I don't ever want to work on one again. I'm not sure that many other
people understood them either. 8-)
As far as possible my machine has been updated regularly, with care,
otherwise the blessed thing would be no different from the day that I took
it out of it's cardboard box. And, without doubt it was worth it.
Mostly, it works, QED.
This isn't the first time there have been problems with Tim's
Thank you. I was unaware of that, not having seen any other adverse
comments elsewhere before. Undoubtedly one does trip up from time to time.
However, I have 'heeded the gypsies warning' as the saying goes and
reverted to the original file.