Re: cce 0.36

To: Anthony Wong <ypwong@debian.org>
Cc: debian-simplified-chinese@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: cce 0.36
From: Arthur Que <arthur@turbolinux.com.cn>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:44:32 +0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 19991015234432.A520@FreeBSD.tlc.com.cn>
Reply-to: arthur@turbolinux.com.cn
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 19991015234232.D6853@asunaro.dhs.org>; from ypwong@debian.org on Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 11:42:32PM +0800
References: <19991015205656.C6853@asunaro.dhs.org> <19991015215808.A775@FreeBSD.tlc.com.cn> <[🔎] 199910151432.WAA25854@niet.webforce.com.hk> <[🔎] 19991015234232.D6853@asunaro.dhs.org>

Hi, Anthony

  I just test cce 0.36 in FreeBSD and found that after running an application
"appindex", a simple program such as "more" will cause it crash. However,
cce 0.36 in Linux is more robust than in FreeBSD(it works fine with SLang,
but with some bugs with ncurse). 
So I recommend it to Debian. cce 0.36 is good.

On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 11:42:32PM +0800, Anthony Wong wrote:
> Hi Arthur,
> 
> Thanks for the tips. That means 0.36 has higher performance than
> 0.11, that's good. How about the 'bugginess'? Are there more bugs
> in 0.36 than 0.11?
> 
> -- 
> Anthony Wong.   [ E-mail: hajime@asunaro.dhs.org / ypwong@debian.org ]
> 

-- 
Regards

QUE Hongyu

Reply to:

References:
- Re: cce 0.36
  - From: Arthur Que <arthur@turbolinux.com.cn>
- Re: cce 0.36
  - From: Anthony Wong <ypwong@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: cce 0.36
Next by Date: Re: [jec@dcs.ed.ac.uk: ANNOUNCE: Xfsft-1.1.7]
Previous by thread: Re: cce 0.36
Next by thread: Re: cce 0.36
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread