to
distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
freedom! Agree?
GPL, section 3c, says exactly that
- --
A computer without windoze is like a fish without a bicycle.
Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED
with a hold prompt?
- --
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE/A0Hu+ZSKG3nWr3ARAl1SAJ0d8E9nrEwCIxduiWCYAaE6OOIDrQCgyUf3
FaRH2jyFLJrFgmStmomRV3s
that Hell in this case truly IS Redmond, WA.
You bastards!
/South Park
--
Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
. This limitation will apply even if NSA has
been advised of the possibility of such damage. I acknowledge that this is a
reasonable allocation of risk.
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you have to know it ...
--
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a
how to do it I think it's not due for at least
four more years.
;)
Marcus
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
: Can I cover
all the possible ways of using this package myself?
[0] We never finished that conversation at Linux Tag.
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enough said. Fuck him.
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Gerrit Pape wrote:
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
- --
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP for Personal
the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOvDNXB9mehuYcOjMEQKooACfVLZgJEzIt1Q2tjlY/A3MuiB+uL4AnArk
YhCCMj6Qzd3LarvSunYR2mpA
=DtWS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wednesday 10 January 2001 03:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will
only stop it from booting.
Oh, well, as long as
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
SLOn Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
SL
SL Hamish Moffatt wrote:
SL There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to
you
SL without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
SL too many people
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
BROn Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 06:26:24PM -0600, Bud Rogers wrote:
BR It is spectacularly bad form to quote private email in a public forum,
BR but it is not illegal. And it is spectacularly naive to count on the
BR privacy of anything you tell another
I guess that Raul WAS right when he told me there *IS* only one way to do
it...
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
SBOn Monday 8 January 2001, at 9 h 5, the keyboard of Tollef Fog Heen
SB[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SB
SB I intend to package mboxgrep, a utility which greps mailboxes.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To:
headers,
which I might note you didn't include in your message.
Why should I, when it would be no different
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:11:50PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use.
Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a
registry that RFC822
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
SGOn 03-Jan-01, 22:53 (CST), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SG On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
SG
SG I didn't say there was. Does Mail-Copies-To: begin with an X?
SG
SG RFC 822 this time:
SG
SG http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
JHPeter Makholm wrote:
JH We have alternatives on almost everything but dpkg and man. If someone
JH thinks it's worth the effort to make alternatives for these they
JH should do it. If there is a general agreement that the alternatives is
JH better than the
On 4 Jan 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
MSJohn == John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MS
MS SG Wrong. This would break my MUA so that reply no longer sends mail back
MS SG to the originator, as it is supposed to do.
MS
MS John Well, you replied to the list alone despite my reply-to, so I guess
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D-Man wrote:
DOn Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
D mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
^^
D
D
DThat would be very strange since mutt's author was a part of the elm
Dgroup. Wouldn't mutt then have started with the elm code
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
JHJohn Galt wrote:
JH JHIn other words, if you can have a religious war over it, we need an
JH JHalternative. I have never seen a religious war over man. :-)
JH
JH Never heard RMS on info pages?
JH
JHThat's a file format religious war, not a man program
FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
There is nothing about honoring X headers at all. In fact, the only thing
the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you
didn't include in your message. Basically, you're on the wrong side of
RFC 1855 on this issue and all the
Why the hell should we go on #debian on OPN when you so much as admitted
that the ops on it have some kind of power trip: devoicing instead of
rebutting when they have an issue with what's said? If I help somebody, I
really don't want to have to stay politically correct: getting the problem
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
There is nothing about honoring X headers at all.
I didn't say there was. Does Mail-Copies-To: begin with an X?
RFC 822 this time:
http
Isn't there rudimentary ACL implementation in the kernel? An ACL would do
the job nicely...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Peter Eckersley wrote:
If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I
can set permissions:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ ls -l
on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless
adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died
during the potato freeze...).
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
If it's so important, why
DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine specializing in
sound-alikes for lousy spellers...
On 26 Dec 2000, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Kim == Kim Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kim could you please mail me sheet music for dueling banjos
This is about the third or
Bzzt! mentioned three times by my recollection in the dualling
banjos thread. Half the distance to the goal line, loss of down: second
down!
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Leuner wrote:
I thought it was some metaphor for SMP
DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine
If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC
folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's
utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the
point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC
community
You going to send them the bill then? At the bottom off the mailinglist
subscription page:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe
is the mailinglist policy. Basically, the policy says either pay us
$1,000 up front or $1,999 after. Martin (Joey, whatever you prefer...),
Remco,
I was kind of feeling sorry about including you as a CC in the last
post--partial oversight, partial personal policy (I never quite know how
to deal with tertiary CCs: I generally detest people who adulterate a
message they're replying to, but I also think that responsibility for
replies stops
I thought the netbase breakup was because of a old-BSD/GPL license
incompatibility...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
John Galt wrote:
The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing
issues
Not as far as I can remember. The X breakup and the netbase breakup
for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a
complaints about lack of manpower as rhetorical at best, hypocritical at
worst.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:24:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
snip
First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked
35 matches
Mail list logo