Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:19:34 -0700
From: Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com
Subject: Re: Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 06:10:54PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 16:09, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wr=
ote
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Nov 11 23:20:20 2010
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:21:51 -0800
From: Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 17:19, Chad
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:48:40 -0600 (CST)
Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
Au Contraire, WINDOWS *itself* forbids more than one application
from having the same file open forworking on.
Wrong. Windows *itself* doesn't care - lots of applications just don't
specify
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:47:05AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:19:34 -0700
From: Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com
Subject: Re: Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
=2E . . and it is shortly after that point that things get very specific
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:02:31 +
Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk articulated:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:48:40 -0600 (CST)
Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
Au Contraire, WINDOWS *itself* forbids more than one application
from having the same file open forworking on.
Wrong.
windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 17:19, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
This isn't really a GUI problem, because the issue is the file format
changing such that your .bat no longer worked. If you retained the
original format or fixed the script, it would
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sat Nov 13 13:01:04 2010
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:02:31 +
From: Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:37:18PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:48, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
Said employee _demanded_ a GUI-based application. The 'obselete' tool
in effective production use did not exist in a windows version.
Since said
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:12:16PM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
This kind of file-locking _does_ make good sense -- 'sort of', that is.
A default mode where additional apps could access the file 'read only'
with a warning, would be arguably better.
Yeah -- I'm a fan of how nvi and Vim handle
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:53, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
Right, and this isn't a GUI problem - its a problem with combining the
documents. What software allows multiple people to open and write to
the same file simultaneously without trashing the file or losing data?
Git and
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 06:12:52PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:53, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
Right, and this isn't a GUI problem - its a problem with combining the
documents. What software allows multiple people to open and write to
the same file
Quoth Chad Perrin on Thursday, 11 November 2010:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:09:15PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:57:17 -0800
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
However, for automating repeated tasks (as distinguished from running
automated tests of the
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 23:16, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
It sounds like in some respects we're violently agreeing with each other.
On one hand, I think that CLI programs can be great for frequent tasks,
especially if you have something like the Unix pipeline at your disposal
to
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:49:26 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:21:01AM -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
The STRENGTH OF GUI (yes, I'm really saying that) is to aid
using language elements, CLI. Arranging
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:54:57AM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 23:16, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
It sounds like in some respects we're violently agreeing with each other.
On one hand, I think that CLI programs can be great for frequent tasks,
especially if
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:14:38PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:49:26 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I agree. That is one type of GUI I would really love to see getting more
popular.
You can already find this concept in use: The Midnight Commander,
Hello Rob,
Rob Farmer wrote:
Most general computer users will never give up the GUI, because it
involves investing in computer skills and they don't see that as
terribly worthwhile - they just want to get started on their work. I
think some UNIX fans are reluctant to accept this, and in doing
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:19:34 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
In fact, a set of CLI filters linked together by the Unix
pipeline (or even a DOS pipeline, at least in theory) is essentially
infinitely extensible to provide surprising levels of automation
customizability that might
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:25:51 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
It's too bad such APIs require so much more knowledge, and present so
much more of a barrier to entry for automating tasks, than a simpler CLI
filter's interface provides via something like the Unix pipeline.
Any GUI is
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:21:51 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote:
I'm not saying the CLI is universally bad - if you gain competence
with a set of programs that you use frequently, it can be very
efficient. It does make it hard to enter a new area, though - you've
got to learn
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:23:22 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
The type of program I specifically meant was the sort of thing that
actually tells the user the command that would perform the same task as
the button-click, so that users of the GUI (or captive interface TUI)
would get
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:35:51PM +0100, Michael Grünewald wrote:
But in my opinion, a complete GUI software should also provide some
command line facilities. I mean, for instance, a word processing
software could be shipped with command line tools that could be used to
* inspect
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:21:51 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net
wrote:
I'm not saying the CLI is universally bad - if you gain competence
with a set of programs that you use frequently, it can be very
efficient. It
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:49:51PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
The primary REFUSE to use the keyboard because the mouse EXISTS
prevents lazy users even from READING that 3x5 card. They are
often not WILLING to follow instructions, no matter how simple
(or even idiotic, sorry) they may be. In
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:33:38 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:21:51 -0800, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net
wrote:
I'm not saying the CLI is universally bad - if you gain competence
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:33:38AM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
To use a US example, you see the same thing with the SI/metric system.
Scientists and other technical people use it almost universally
without issue (except for some oddities, PSI is somewhat popular) - it
is better for real/serious
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:47:32 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
This sounds a bit like a common problem with people thinking that
Unix-like OSes are not user friendly because they're hard to install,
a frequent protestations of people who like MS Windows because it comes
already
On 2010/11/12 at 10:33, rfar...@predatorlabs.net (Rob Farmer) wrote:
Scientists and other technical people use it almost universally
without issue (except for some oddities, PSI is somewhat popular)
Would you consider engineers technical people?
One example would be the American Association
Quoth Chad Perrin on Friday, 12 November 2010:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:33:38AM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
To use a US example, you see the same thing with the SI/metric system.
Scientists and other technical people use it almost universally
without issue (except for some oddities, PSI
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:24:09 -0900
Peter A. Giessel pgies...@mac.com articulated:
It depends on what you mean by real serious work. Try
ordering a
cubic meter of concrete or a #25 rebar in the U.S. and see how
far you
get.
Seriously, does everyone in this tread suffer from ADHD
Since this discussion refuses to die, I hope the participants will heed
my suggestion and collect the results on a webpage somewhere so we don't
have to go over it all many times again in the future.
So far, I haven't seen anything said that wasn't already said five, ten,
fifteen or even twenty
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Peter A. Giessel pgies...@mac.com wrote:
On 2010/11/12 at 10:33, rfar...@predatorlabs.net (Rob Farmer) wrote:
it is better for real/serious work, but the general public doesn't see
it as new or valuable - its just a stupid change in the way everything
has
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:21:01AM -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
The STRENGTH OF GUI (yes, I'm really saying that) is to aid
using language elements, CLI. Arranging windows, presenting
information, displaying structures, managing things. GUI
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 06:10:54PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 16:09, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
A GUI provids a _fixed_ set of predefined operations that it is possible to
perform.
IF your needs are met =entirely= by the provided operations, great.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:09:15PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:57:17 -0800
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
However, for automating repeated tasks (as distinguished from running
automated tests of the GUI itself), scripting a GUI is the wrong way
to do
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 17:19, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
This isn't really a GUI problem, because the issue is the file format
changing such that your .bat no longer worked. If you retained the
original format or fixed the script, it would still work fine.
Actually, my
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:21:51PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
Well, our info about this situation is limited, so it is hard to say
exactly what happened.
This is true, but I think you assumed some things that were not implied
by the description of the situation, and that you missed or ignored
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:02:34 +0100
Michael Ross michael.r...@gmx.net wrote:
For Windows OSes there is actually a rather nice tool out there,
http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/
which allows you to script the GUI cross-app.
Microsoft also have the UI Automation API to script GUI
On Wednesday 10 November 2010 06:21:18 Bruce Cran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:02:34 +0100
Michael Ross michael.r...@gmx.net wrote:
For Windows OSes there is actually a rather nice tool out there,
http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/
which allows you to script the GUI
Quoth Rob Farmer on Tuesday, 09 November 2010:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 16:09, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
A GUI provids a _fixed_ set of predefined operations that it is possible to
perform.
IF your needs are met =entirely= by the provided operations, great. If not,
Quoth Michael Ross on Wednesday, 10 November 2010:
Am 10.11.2010, 01:09 Uhr, schrieb Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com:
With a GUI there is no way to describe the series of mouse
'motions'/'clicks'/
'double-clicks'/'drags' and keypresses required to perform an operation.
'screen
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:57:17 -0800
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
However, for automating repeated tasks (as distinguished from running
automated tests of the GUI itself), scripting a GUI is the wrong way
to do it. It's layering on an entirely unnecessary layer of
abstraction
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:43:01 +
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Tips for installing windows and freeBSD both.. anyone??
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:17:23 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I did give a nod to discoverability for GUIs, as you might note if
you go
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 16:09, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
A GUI provids a _fixed_ set of predefined operations that it is possible to
perform.
IF your needs are met =entirely= by the provided operations, great. If not,
you're dead in the water, without any way to
Am 10.11.2010, 01:09 Uhr, schrieb Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com:
With a GUI there is no way to describe the series of mouse
'motions'/'clicks'/
'double-clicks'/'drags' and keypresses required to perform an operation.
'screen coordinates' are meaningless when a window, or icon, or
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
The STRENGTH OF GUI (yes, I'm really saying that) is to aid
using language elements, CLI. Arranging windows, presenting
information, displaying structures, managing things. GUI
alone, with no functional substance behind it, is useless.
Sadly, you'll find
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:07:29 +, Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote:
With the command-line you also choose the inefficiency of having to
read the man page every time you want to do something you're not
familiar with.
Not fully. The strength of the command line is (1st) that things
you
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:41:09 -0800, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com
wrote:
Up to a point, yes. But as options become more complex, either the GUI
must also become more complex or you reach the tipping point where the
complexity warrants the use of language instead of gestures.
This is
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:17:23 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I did give a nod to discoverability for GUIs, as you might note if
you go back and read what you quoted back at me. That's exactly what
you're talking about. I don't see why you have to pretend I didn't
mention it, and
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:17:23 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
So, let's see here -- either I lose efficiency on things that aren't very
familiar to me, because I have to type `foo --help` or `man foo` or
something like that, or I lose efficiency on things I do all the time,
because
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:43:01 +, Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote:
[...] I do think a well-designed GUI can increase productivity by
bringing things together that would otherwise be separate.
Yes. Plain YES. I'm just waiting for the GUI that actually DOES that. :-)
--
Polytropon
El día Monday, November 08, 2010 a las 10:56:00AM +0100, Polytropon escribió:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:17:23 -0700, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
So, let's see here -- either I lose efficiency on things that aren't very
familiar to me, because I have to type `foo --help` or `man foo`
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:00:59 +0100
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:43:01 +, Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk
wrote:
[...] I do think a well-designed GUI can increase productivity by
bringing things together that would otherwise be separate.
Yes. Plain YES. I'm
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:43:01AM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:17:23 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I did give a nod to discoverability for GUIs, as you might note if
you go back and read what you quoted back at me. That's exactly what
you're talking
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:32:20 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
You probably found it inefficient because you did not bother to gain
sufficient familiarity with it to enjoy the efficiencies it provided.
Seriously. In my experience, development on MS Windows with clicky
GUI tools
On Mon 08 Nov 2010 at 02:06:24 PST Matthias Apitz wrote:
I think this philosofic discussion has little or nothing todo with
FreeBSD. Could you move this elsewhere, or off-list? Thanks
It's also a very very OLD argument. Surely the debating points have
already been collected on a webpage
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:54:46 -0700, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com
wrote:
What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides overhead.
Bloat. :-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:54:46 -0700
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides overhead.
I don't expect to be able to convince you, but a lot of people find
desktop environments easier to use than a whole load of terminals. For
example I
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:43:12 +0100
Polytropon free...@edvax.de articulated:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:54:46 -0700, Chip Camden
sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides overhead.
Bloat. :-)
Bloat can easily be defined as something one user does not
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 05:51:42 -0500, Jerry freebsd.u...@seibercom.net wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:43:12 +0100
Polytropon free...@edvax.de articulated:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:54:46 -0700, Chip Camden
sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Tushartushar...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to use windows and freeBSD, both of them at the same time...
please help...
I use Win7 and FreeBSD in a dualboot configuration because of the need
for USB connectivity for some of the Windows apps.
I have
I guess the virtualbox supplied under puel license has full USB
support. may be good to check out if you are not averse to a more
restrictive licensing.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Leslie Jensen les...@eskk.nu wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Tushartushar...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On 2010-11-07 12:44, Mubeesh ali wrote:
I guess the virtualbox supplied under puel license has full USB
support. may be good to check out if you are not averse to a more
restrictive licensing.
With the OSE version in the ports tree I've not considered the PUEL version.
Can you provide
Quoth Bruce Cran on Sunday, 07 November 2010:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 15:54:46 -0700
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway? Besides overhead.
I don't expect to be able to convince you, but a lot of people find
desktop environments easier to use
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:41:06 -0800, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com
wrote:
I'm not here to bash desktop environments, I seriously want to know you use
them to
improve productivity.
Yes, would be interesting to know. Not that I deny it - I just have
no evidence from my experience and
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:23:36 +0100
Polytropon free...@edvax.de articulated:
To answer the question, What does KDE or GNOME buy you anyway?,
the answer is nothing. They have never even brought me a cup of
coffee.
You need to install Kaffeine. :-)
Touché
--
Jerry ✌
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:58:45PM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:41:06 -0800, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com
wrote:
I'm not here to bash desktop environments, I seriously want to know you use
them to
improve productivity.
Yes, would be interesting to know.
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:51:22 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I choose a little up-front learning curve for massive efficiency and
productivity enhancements down the road. The increased efficiency of
a minimal, composable toolset driven by the keyboard can be a huge
win in
Quoth Bruce Cran on Sunday, 07 November 2010:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:51:22 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I choose a little up-front learning curve for massive efficiency and
productivity enhancements down the road. The increased efficiency of
a minimal, composable toolset
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 10:07:29PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:51:22 -0700
Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
I choose a little up-front learning curve for massive efficiency and
productivity enhancements down the road. The increased efficiency of
a minimal,
I want to use windows and freeBSD, both of them at the same time...
please help...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Tushar tushar...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to use windows and freeBSD, both of them at the same time...
please help...
You can run Windows from FreeBSD, or FreeBSD from within Windows.
Either way, use VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org,
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Tushar tushar...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to use windows and freeBSD, both of them at the same time...
please help...
Consider using a virtualization solution to run both operating
systems in parallel.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD
Personally I would install FreeBSD as the primary operating system and
install Windows in a VirtualBox VM.
That way you can get the best of both worlds and no need to reboot to access
a particular application.
Opportunity is most often missed by people because it is dressed in
overalls and
Yes, I'm going to try virtualbox.
Thankyou
On Nov 6, 4:22 pm, Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Tushar tushar...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to use windows and freeBSD, both of them at the same time...
please help...
You can run Windows from
Yes, I'm going to try virtualbox.
Thankyou
On Nov 6, 4:33 pm, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Tushar tushar...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to use windows and freeBSD, both of them at the same time...
please help...
Consider using a virtualization
Yes, I'm going to try virtualbox.
Thankyou
On Nov 6, 4:20 pm, Ross Cameron ross.came...@linuxpro.co.za wrote:
Personally I would install FreeBSD as the primary operating system and
install Windows in a VirtualBox VM.
That way you can get the best of both worlds and no need to reboot to
Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is much
more lightweight of the two, so you don't impose the overhead of running
Windows when all you need is FreeBSD.
Quoth Ross Cameron on Saturday, 06 November 2010:
Personally I would install FreeBSD as the primary operating
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is
much more lightweight of the two, so you don't impose the overhead of
running Windows when all you need is FreeBSD.
I'm not sure that's true,
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:39PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is
much more lightweight of the two, so you don't impose the overhead of
running
Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 06 November 2010:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:39PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
Yes, I would recommend that configuration also, because FreeBSD is
much more lightweight of
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.comwrote:
Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 06 November 2010:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:39PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:09:34 -0700
Chip Camden sterl...@camdensoftware.com wrote:
Yes, I would
82 matches
Mail list logo
