Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update
Paul Slootman wrote: On Thu 11 Apr 2002, Keith G. Murphy wrote: Bernd Eckenfels wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:18:08AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote: You only need pptp-linux if you use an Ethernet attached modem instead of the USB attached modem (which is E50 cheaper). This does not make sence at all. PPTP is also a WAN Tunneling and VPN Protocol. How can a Linux Router speek PPTP without linux-pptp package? This is a often used VPN Solution to Windows servers. And if there is no bug, it is not a good idea to remove the package. Do ya think they're talking about PPPOE, rather than pptp? It would make more sense in that context... No, he's right; at least, the part about VPN is correct. Russell was speaking in the context of the common ADSL offering here in the Netherlands, where an Alcatel ADSL modem is commonly used. You have to speak PPTP to that modem, unless you can hack it (see earlier discussion). Oh, OK, sorry to shed more obscurity on the issue. I just now searched groups.google.com, and noticed another discussion about this issue: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enselm=EtSTNbljddDU-pn2-g7tGhLXjwmmM%40POBLANO.hashkedim.com At least you didn't get irritated! :-) It was just hard for me to believe you needed PPTP to talk to an ADSL modem! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [2002-04-06] Release Status Update
Bernd Eckenfels wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:18:08AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote: You only need pptp-linux if you use an Ethernet attached modem instead of the USB attached modem (which is E50 cheaper). This does not make sence at all. PPTP is also a WAN Tunneling and VPN Protocol. How can a Linux Router speek PPTP without linux-pptp package? This is a often used VPN Solution to Windows servers. And if there is no bug, it is not a good idea to remove the package. Do ya think they're talking about PPPOE, rather than pptp? It would make more sense in that context... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A language by any other name
John Hasler wrote: I wrote: Surely there are locales for welsh and Scottish gaelic? Keith G. Murphy writes: I should think not. Those are two *very* different Celtic languages. Nor did I say otherwise. Read my sentence as Surely there is a locale for welsh and also a locale for Scottish gaelic. -- OK. I read it as: same language, different locales. I.e., Welsh gaelic and Scottish gaelic. *English* language ambiguity. :-)
Re: A language by any other name
John Hasler wrote: that. Surely there are locales for welsh and Scottish gaelic? -- I should think not. Those are two *very* different Celtic languages.
Re: A language by any other name
Federico Di Gregorio wrote: On Thu, 2001-09-13 at 11:35, David N. Welton wrote: Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My bug was triggered by the fact that gdm offers a long selection of languages, among them English (without bells and whistles, just plain old English) and in case you select that, it sets the environment variable LANG to that, english. Maybe it should ask if you want british or american english. Trying to decide which one is 'the' English is probably a good recipe for a flame war with no result. why? we know what is *the* english, the one that originated in england. (note how the two words have the same root, eng-?) as a pratical rule, i suggest to assign the language 'name' to the locale of the coutry that originated it. spain for spanish, italy for italian, france for french, etc. everybody is accepting that on other languages, don't see why the americans should do different... :( Closest parallel would be pt/pt_BR, since Brazil/Portugal is another example of where the daughter country has a greater population and rivals the mother country as cultural center. Actually, probably more so. So that precedent would argue for english - en_UK. As a southerner, I would object to yank - en_US. :-) Considering our troubles, maybe it should be anguished - en_US. :-(
Re: dualing banjos
marty macdonald wrote: So far, the Linux kernel only supports single, not dual banjos. There is, however, a patch available that will make the 2.2 kernel support up to 15 banjos. The 2.4 kernel, of course, will support any number of banjos. (Well, 65535, but who needs more than that?) :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
