From: Bill Peters Subject: (sgclegacy) Fwd: Re: Mac PAF Date: 28 Aug 2001 20:12:29 -0600 Here's the latest in my dealings with my PAF contact at church HQ. As you can see, not much has changed, and there seems to be little hope at this point that they will change their ways. (I first contacted this guy over two years ago.) However, the parable of the unrighteous judge comes to mind. Perhaps if I leak you his email address and we all weary him on a weekly basis, something may happen. Anyone have any other ideas? Bill >Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:56:04 -0600 >From: "Steven Cannon" >To: >Subject: Re: Mac PAF > >The delay is caused because we are still trying to formulate what >our policy and direction is going to be for Macintosh. It is also >because there are higher priority projects consuming much of our >time at the moment. We hope to be able to have something definitive >in the new few weeks. > >To be honest, the small percentage of Macintosh users has not been >able to justify any resources in light of the other high priorities >in recent times. It looks like few, if any, resources will be >forthcoming from the Church in terms of the Macintosh. What we are >trying to work out is how much, if any, effort and help we should >give third parties like yourself who have such an interest in seeing >PAF or something similar on a Macintosh. > >>>> Bill Peters 08/28/01 08:13AM >>> >Hi Steve, > >It's been a while since I last spoke to you, and I was curious to >know if you had made any progress finding out what can be done to the >Mac version of PAF. As you may remember, in July I called you and >told you about a group of five professional Mac programmers who >wanted to help on a volunteer basis. You requested that I call back a >week later to see what you were able to find out. Unfortunately since >then I haven't been able to reach you. Thus I am left to assume one >of the following things: > >1) life is busy and this hasn't been a priority for some person(s) in >the chain of command > >2) many are called and I wasn't chosen (you found someone else to do the work) > >3) a wolf in sheep's clothing (Mac hostile person(s)) in your midst. > >In regards to point three, I know sometimes Mac people have the >reputation for being paranoid. But when you have been in this >position as long as I have, you learn that there is more often than >not an element of truth to these kinds of suspicions. > >And in regards to sheep in general, the prevailing assumption is that >the Mac market share only represents two or three percent of computer >users. Consequently, many companies feel that it just isn't worth the >time or effort to make Mac software. > >However it calls to mind the story of the Good Shepherd, who left His >ninety and nine sheep who were safe and went out to find the one. >Considering what the Church spends for other areas of temple and >genealogy work, it would seem natural that a Mac (and Linux, etc) >version of PAF be important as well. > >I hope I am wrong, and that my suspicions are unfounded. However I >have heard many instances of people who already have a Mac and who >are trying to justify buying a PC so they can run PAF. This just >seems wrong to me, especially considering the business practices of >the company who writes the dominant PC operating system. And even >Virtual PC, though a marvelous engineering feat, is an expensive >product and beyond the reach of many. > >Anyhow, enough food for thought. I hope that this message will be >taken in the spirit in which it was intended, and not be a cause of >offence, as none was intended. If it would help, you may forward it >on to whomever could help to expedite the process. > >Thank you, >Bill Peters - To unsubscribe to sgclegacy, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe sgclegacy" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.