On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Steve Lamb wrote: : On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:50:21 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: : : >So your advice to avoid qpopper is not necessarily relevant to Debian? : : It is as relevant to Debian as a message containing advice to avoid : cucipop is. Or advice to use qpopper is. Or advice to use cucipop is. Or : even a message asking whether or not to use qpopper or cucipop is. : : None at all. It is a general Linux question which really isn't specific : to Debian at all.
Not to hack on you for "not reading the thread", but had you done so you might have noticed that Miquel van Smoorenburg not only maintains qpopper for Debian, but he also implements bugfixes. However, many of those bugfixes do not make it upstream to Qualcomm since they have chosen to make future versions of qpopper non-free. (FWIW I support Mike on this attitude). This _does_ mean that qpopper vs. cucipop (or any other popper) is relevant to debian, and is not a general Linux question. Likewise, qpopper on BSD is not as applicable as it could be (and I do agree that on BSD qpopper is a piece of crap) As you become more familiar with Debian you will notice that quality isn't just a buzzword around here, it's the way things are done (most of the time, anyway). I'm continually impressed by the quality and usability of Debian packages vs. the same software running on different distributions or Operating Systems. -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]