brain-dead stuph like:
for (int nI=0; nI10; nI++) ...
Anybody who does that willingly must be shot. =
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First
.
That's all fine, but did we ever find out if someone were crazy enough to
pay for the PnP monitor specs (wasn't it $300 or so?) that an
implementation could be done and properly documented source released?
Reverse engineering this just does not sound like fun.
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED
distributed internal memo.
Guess who `volunteered' to write Corel Wine coding style guidelines?
HAHAHAHAHA Why oh WHY did I not see this coming? *amused look*
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes
(the Linux penguin)
Pros: people already know it
Cons: too Linux-specific
You left out the logos Ean provided which many people wanted to see.
Generally I kinda like the DG logo.
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:16:39PM +0100, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen wrote:
I intend to package GoldED when my developer-application processes
From freshmeat appindex:
GoldED is a very nice console full-screen mail/newsreader for
Fidonet and Internet. It is one of the best of it's kind for
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 07:14:04PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
I'd like to propose that for now the FHS is changed to read
The mail spool area location is undefined. It is guaranteed that both
/var/mail and /var/spool/mail point to this mail spool area if the system
has a mail spool. The
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 01:50:28PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
We could then have conversations like this with our users:
CART DRIVER: Bring out your dead!
LARGE MAN: Here's one!
CART DRIVER: Ninepence.
BODY:I'm not dead!
I'm waiting for someone not to know where that's
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 03:42:06PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Power, speed, and freedom: a wild horse.
That's been taken...
--
I'm working in the dark here. Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark.
-- Earth: Final Conflict
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:18:18PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
really needed as 'The law is quite clear that the release of the software by
the
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 12:35:31AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
who would liek to take the lilo package over?
There are a few pending bugs, most of the dealing with the lack of an
intelligent install script (which should be included in the bootfloppies,
too).
I wouldn't mind
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 06:06:04AM -, Project Secretary wrote:
This is the last and final ballot. In a weeks time, we will have a new
leader *or* we'll have to start this process over again because NONE
won. If you havn't voted, please cast your ballot now.
I know I speak for all four
Sorry for my ignorance when deleting the mails under this topic. I
was absend from the net for a longer time and couldn't read all my
E-Mails. Please repeate the link where to vote for those like me
who ignored the mails. I couldn't find a site to vote.
Instructions are found at
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 10:14:15AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
1. Dragon (well-liked choice on IRC)
Why not a phoenix?
/me poses for gimp artists being that he'd make a cute mascott... =
(that was supposed to be funny, why aren't you laughing?)
--
I'm working in the dark here. Yeah well
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:38:49PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
2. Octopus (my own suggestion)
How about Cthulhu? That would also tie into Linuxes world domination
theme. :-)
Nah, that's the NT logo...
Win95 or WinNT? Why settle for the lesser of two evils when you can pay
twice as
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 05:37:53PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Most Mail User Agents for standard Unix systems look in /var/mail/user
for the user's mailbox. So if qmail is switching to ~/Mailbox, then
they have to solve the problem for all of the various MUA's out there,
and that is
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:51:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Also, I suspect that some people might be confusing ~/Mailbox and
~/Maildir issues. These are two completely different issues. Maildir
comes from Qmail, but my guess is that ~/Mailbox didn't. Qmail has a
program that will automatically
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:45:57PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ pathetic attempt at sex spam snipped ]
Can we PLEASE enforce our spam policy and make these people pay for their
crimes against humanity?
--
I'm working in the dark here. Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 07:09:34PM -0500, Kragen Sitaker wrote:
If we must back out /var/mail (for no good technical reason that I can
determine), then at the very least I think we should state that there
that for all compliant distributions, /var/mail *MUST* be a valid way of
reaching the
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:33:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
You've forgotten something. The military act as if they are above any
laws. (If they cared about obeying laws, they would be disarming nuclear
weapons under their international treaty obligations)
On the contrary. The
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:24:13AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
On 25-Jan-99 Chris Lawrence wrote:
IMHO we should also be discussing how the vote on this proposal will
be structured. My understanding is that there are multiple DFSG
revision proposals out there, even though this one is the
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:22:58PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so we
could just enter the data, and either save it to a file or go ahead and
print it
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:30:45PM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so
we
could just enter the data, and either save it to a file or go ahead
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:24:28PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
Why do I get the idea I should bring up once again my hope to gather a
sizable group of people to build a game system which is released under
free license and available to anyone with a web browser and the like? =
I'm
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:23:51AM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
I'm all for it! How about it, anyone else interested? :)
aolMe too/aol We could call it gnuice :-)
I would have to bop you then... = But it would be under a free
software type license, probably GPL or LGPL rewritten
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:31:10PM -0500, Stevie Strickland wrote:
Just wondering, what's the output like and does it return for d10 0-9 or
1-10? Does it handle d%? Is the number of dice optional or must one
feed it 1d8 for example? Does it return the results of each die or the
total
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:37:18PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Or if you're really crazy, you could allow optional + or - to affect the
total, if that were -d12 above the total would be 21 for example.. If it
doesn't do EVERYTHING by that point, what more can be said? =
Yes, I think it
will not be in slink.
KDE will be in potato if
a) KDE change their license (in which case it can go into contrib)
b) Qt change their license (in which case they may both be able to go into
free)
b) is the likely outcome, since troll are designing a new Qt license,
which Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:34:57PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default kernel,
would be used on the boot disks, etc, but this would let people get ahold of
kernel 2.2
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:25:14AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
There is precedent for this as there is a 2.1.125 package in slink now.
I think it's not a big deal if there are big disclaimers attached that
slink is not a 2.2 targetted dist.
Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 01:22:32AM -0500, Stevie Strickland wrote:
that's the good news. the bad news is that it was all done in turbo
pascal. however, the algorithms were clean and readable, so easily
ported to C.
if you're interested, i'll dig up the files (i still have them on tape
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 04:04:20AM -0500, Stevie Strickland wrote:
rolldice is a virtual dice roller that takes in a string on the command
line in the format used by some fantasy role playing games like Advanced
Dungeons Dragons[1] and returns the result of the dice rolls.
Just wondering,
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 06:49:43AM -0500, Johnie Ingram wrote:
Thomas How do you know? You waited just 4 hours before drawing that
Thomas conclusion. Isn't this a bit early? I mean, not everybody has
Thomas an RJ45 jack implanted in one's body.
Thankfully enough of us do, including the
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 05:38:25PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
Reasonable objection notwithstanding, I intend to write a letter to those
responsible for the LSB to attempt to raise the issues we have with their
current proposal. I would appreciate discussion on these issues in other
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
You can start by writing to our man on point with the LSB, Dale Scheetz.
Absolutely!
As said elsewhere, I was going to submit the draft to -private. If you
think it would be better for you to handle it, say so and I'll stay out
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 08:02:34PM +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
FYI, the French Prime Minister just announced that cryptography will
become legal in France!
In the meantime (until our representatives adopt the law), the
authorized key sizes go from 40 bits to 128 bits.
Now if the idiot in
It has come to my attention that recent decisions made by the Linux
Standard Base body (I hesitate to say committee as I have never been
party to any of their internal discussions and am unaware of their
internal organizational structrure) are possibly unwise and have been
determined by at least a
It has come to my attention that recent decisions made by the Linux
Standard Base body (I hesitate to say committee as I have never been
party to any of their internal discussions and am unaware of their
internal organizational structrure) are possibly unwise and have been
determined by at least a
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:05:54AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
Go on, please.
It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.
That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so?
'nuff said
No.
Yes. Permission not given in a license is DENIED. When UW was asked
[ Please send replies to -devel, Cc's to me encouraged ]
When I originally stated my interest in running for Debian project leader, I
was unsure if I really would be a good candidate or not, so I offered to run
if others believed I should.
I am confident that I can be a good leader for Debian,
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 09:03:34PM +, Rob Browning wrote:
On the rvplayer side, nobody there seems to want to talk about it...
*sigh*
Always nice to have such clear reminders of the importance of free
software...
And people ask why we push for mp3 in places that patents on software
Are there any plans to package things like the nextish GTK patches or
anything like that? From freshmeat:
subject: GTKstep 1.1.2
added by: Ullrich Hafner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
time: 15:08
category: Software
GTKstep is a patch to improve the boring GTK+ look and feel with a
NEXTSTEP(tm) look
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 03:47:16PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THIS PROGRAM - whatsoever. You use it entirely
[..]
What I hi-lighted I do believe violates the DFSG..
Zephaniah E, Hull.
Huh? Where do the DFSG say this?
See
On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 09:55:48PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
People,
The fact that there even exist two debian versions of mutt should tell
you that it was an issue for people. Looking through the changelogs, I
see that mutt was moved to non-US in Feb. 1997:
mutt (0.61.1-1) unstable;
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 06:02:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was under the impression that putting hooks in to use crypto was enough
to raise the hackles of the export hounds.
Standing near the border and thinking about prime numbers is enough to
raise the hackles of the export
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 09:48:18AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
What I need from dselect is more screen space, more pixels, a less crampled
selection environment. It takes forver to navigate through dselect because
of the sheer number of packages. It seems that gdselect would help a lot
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:08:46PM +0100, Dave Swegen wrote:
Out of curiosity, which version of PGP is the debian de facto standard.
I'm currently using v5, but I've seen a number of people use 2.6...
The Debian standard is RSA/IDEA (2.6.x compatible) keys, though Debian is
slowly adjusting to
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:23:38PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
Dave Swegen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Out of curiosity, which version of PGP is the debian de facto standard.
I'm currently using v5, but I've seen a number of people use 2.6...
2.x; we don't accept later stuff.
Dpkg now does
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:14:20PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
Can I move mutt-i from non-us to main?
There is no crypto code in the package, only SHA-1 (hash algorithm) and
code to run pgp or gnupg.
(Waiting to resolve this issue I haven't uploaded yet the stripped version
to main, I
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
theone wrote:
Names after Slink is very simple. They should just be named after
userfriendly characters.
Oooh.. that means our releases would even have their own geek code blocks
(http://www.userfriendly.org/cast/) ;-)
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
[...]
I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
with XForms.
[...]
I don't think so. It is not enough for
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
How about this one?
I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
okay to me.
Michael
- Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
If we do something like this, I'd
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 01:44:18PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission
certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK,
Qt
or Win32.
`... and distributing the resulting binary.' should
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 06:56:22PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are the sound modules not included with the kernel? Afaik they are in
Redhat.
They are. The intent is to package binaries for the standard kernels
already made...
pgpltzRfWWC4i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 04:38:45PM +0100, mummert[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be able to get a similar license agreement for KDE as the one I
send for LyX. Would that be enough to get at least major parts of KDE back
on the site? I have no idea how much we would have to keep out. I know
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no
difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux.
We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which
are NOT licensed under the
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 07:58:58AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
x11amp-static
mp3.8hz
You didn't watch the 100 messages thread on debian-private?
I never got it. In fact I was surprised I didn't get a single mail on
private for at least two months. Could anyone please check whether
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:48:43PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can't do what we
do with netscape/staroffice/etc.? Even if we can't distribute it, can't
we have a loader package? (No, I'm not volunteering, I don't own a 3dfx
card either.)
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
[...]
I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
with XForms.
[...]
I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:16:01PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
that the KDE
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
Lyx is currently in contrib.
Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
statement, this means we
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
to deal with this, please let me know.
New license:
...
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
it's now. I have little respect left for him. Fortunately, a few of the
non-core KDE developers show more promise. Hopefully a few of them will
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:18:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
In case some Debian developers read this mailing list: Guys, you don't like
KDE
since it encourages people to write software for it. Therefore you don't
want
What does this mean exactly? Why would we be unhappy with KDE
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it
and opt to do the right
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:46:11PM -0700, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various efforts to
port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows environments. Legally, this
would
imply stepping very carefully because who knows what proprietary
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:25:27PM -0700, Alex wrote:
[..]
And lots of people haven't kicked stuff back. Why doesn't *BSD run on an
SGI Indy - its because the BSD license didnt force all the neat stuff
to be contributed back. And there are thousands of other examples like it.
I fail to
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 05:16:37PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
Ben Just wondering, Dale, but why didn't you announce this to the
Ben Debian lists as well as the c.o.linux.announce?
Because this is a commercial, and there is a $1000 charge to advertise
on debian lists (to discourage spam).
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
Whenever you start a program running under X11, the windows created
usually have the little 'X' logo in the upper left hand corner. If
you are running RedHat linux however, the upper left hand corner of
the windows contains
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:33:07PM -0700, David Welton wrote:
I'm here, working on 0.66 as we speak. This might be a good time to ask
a question. yagirc can now be built with gnome interface or
text interface. Should I make two packages, include both in one
package or just drop the
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:40:04AM -0700, David Welton wrote:
Slashdot has posted an article about the decision to remove the KDE
binaries
right now.
Could someone please post the article or at least the complete URL?
http://slashdot.org - it's a pretty good source of Linux news.
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
the last sentence, from However, as a special exception is particularly
relevant here.
So, if Qt were disttributed with the OS then it would fall under the
special exception? :)
Some people argue that it would. RMS argues
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:56:23AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Let me try to make some qualified guess about this:
If KDE would add the permission note, they would admit that there is a
license problem, and they had to stop sucking in GPL'ed third party code
without explicit permission by
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:14:19AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is what
is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
license? How does it hurt them to do
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND
Troll Tech
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
files and libraries being linked
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Martin Will Debian remove LyX from their ftp server? According to
Martin several Debian developers Xforms is not a DFSG compatible
Martin library.
This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distribution of
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:29:26PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 10:31:08PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial use.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
working on a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:29:08PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
link
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't want to hide this mail from you.
First it's please take license issues to the license list and now it's go
away, we don't want you here...
If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
it's
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:14:17PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Roderick RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick platform or
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:59:52PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 07:00:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Contrib and Non-free packages can't have release critical bugs --
they're not even an official part of debian.
yeah yeah, the package ain't part of Debian anymore because of a lack of
license and no way to get the author to fix it.
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Linux 2.2 is a good candidate for the next unstable to play with.
I believe that it will be fun, but I also forsee that there will
be problems.
I hope our release manager won't jump on that train too quick.
Agreed. There are
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 10:36:24AM +0100, Birgitt Simon wrote:
Dear Sirs,
we know you as a distributor of program packages for Linux. We, the H+BEDV
Datentechnik GmbH, are developer and distributor of the virus protection
program AntiVir for Linux. Since 1988, when the number of computer
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 06:40:09AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
dpkg remains the primary bottleneck in the setup, and apt calls dpkg
anyway, so the different is not really significant, and apt-get update
is slow too.
The update phase seems to be slow because of translating the package files
to
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 09:55:19AM -0400, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
I'm sure someone would be happy to package it in .deb format, but by the
sounds of your message neither source is included and only non-commercial
use is permitted. Either one of these would cause Debian to place your
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 03:50:01PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
This is silly. dpkg/dselect are already insanely slow, even on my
P166 with 128 meg of RAM -- especially when reading database, etc. If
we slow down the installation so much more by using bzip2, then people
will simply stop
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 03:40:24PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
IIRC Dale Scheetz used to have one for bo (sorry if I'm wrong, Dale :)
Well, not exactly. What I do is an imbedded file system that can be
installed on a DOS/Windows/'95 file system as simple files and booted with
a special
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:39:36PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the message IDed as [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Woodcock [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote this on Mon, 05 Oct 1998 20:31:24 PDT:
Yeah, I know this makes at least the second reincarnation of this thread in
the last 6 months, but I
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 04:33:13AM +0100, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
Getting lots lots of dups of everything, from 2 to up to 6 copies.
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
pgpVViWzrtIcE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:41:51PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
I did, however, list my sex as a narcoleptic rat monkey with the spirit
of an androgenous toaster in the chakras of a Kentucky NAMBLA
representative
or something along those lines. ;-
Of course, that should have been listed
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 05:38:02PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The namespase lasts for five more releases. Or do I misunderstand
something?
On a related note, do we want to continue using names from pixar movies
now that Bruce is gone?
Does it really matter?
pgpGlHXoyGpzD.pgp
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:23:52AM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote:
I'm a Japanese living in the United States, but not a permanent
resident. I've heared that the usage of PGP in the States by
a person like me is controversial. I posted this qestion to some
related Mailing-Lists (such as
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote:
I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...).
Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
have Pine package ?
yes.
If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian.
Either they break the pine
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 10:49:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you brought it with you (and can PROVE it) there is probably no
problem in theory.
It doesn't matter where he got it. It is entirely legal for anyone to use
or distribute strong crypto in the US. The only restriction
201 - 300 of 397 matches
Mail list logo
