On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:28:48PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> No, I didn't find either trn or C-News in the normal repos, but I didn't look
> in too many third-party ones, either a good UUCP is still available,
> though, in EPEL.
Taylor UUCP is part of the base repo in RH5; has it been dropp
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Tilman Schmidt
wrote:
> On 04/20/2012 05:19 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> You mean when the internet consisted of defense contractors and the
>>> universities in that business? I prefer 'open to the public', even
>>> with the baggage it brings.
>
> Nope, I mean the
On 04/20/2012 05:19 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> You mean when the internet consisted of defense contractors and the
>> universities in that business? I prefer 'open to the public', even
>> with the baggage it brings.
Nope, I mean the early nineties, when the Internet was still young and
largely sp
On Friday, April 20, 2012 02:07:39 PM Al Sparks wrote:
> > From: "m.r...@5-cent.us"
> > Usenet is, of course, still alive, though a lot of folks know it as google
> > groups
> My first usenet browser was "rn."
Anybody know if 'trn' and C-News are in any CentOS 6 repos? I want to re-live
> From: "m.r...@5-cent.us"
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] A request from the CentOS Project
>
> Bob Hoffman wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 11:12 AM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>>>
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Tilman Schmidt
> wrote:
mark "why, yes, I *do* remember Kantor & Siegal, and the
aftermath to them"
>>
>> Don't get me started. Ah, the good old pre-spam days!
>
> You mean when the internet consisted of defense contractors
On 04/20/2012 05:19 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You mean when the internet consisted of defense contractors and the
> universities in that business? I prefer 'open to the public', even
> with the baggage it brings.
lets not get carried away, and try to atleast keep conversations CentOS
centric. I a
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Tilman Schmidt
wrote:
>>> mark "why, yes, I *do* remember Kantor & Siegal, and the aftermath
>>> to them"
>
> Don't get me started. Ah, the good old pre-spam days!
>
You mean when the internet consisted of defense contractors and the
universities in that
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 11:12 AM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 20.04.2012 16:02, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>>
>>> mark "why, yes, I *do* remember Kantor& Siegal, and the
>>> aftermath to them"
>> Don't get me started. Ah, the good old pre-spam days!
> I was not working for a comp
On 4/20/2012 11:12 AM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 20.04.2012 16:02, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>
>> mark "why, yes, I *do* remember Kantor& Siegal, and the aftermath
>> to them"
> Don't get me started. Ah, the good old pre-spam days!
I was not working for a computer company, but I finally
Am 20.04.2012 16:02, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 19.04.2012 23:42, schrieb Giles Coochey:
>>> Oh, that fateful day when AOL joined usenet, and usenet died.
>>
>> IIRC that wasn't the same day.
>
> Usenet did not die that way. [...]
That's what I was trying to say.
>
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 19.04.2012 23:42, schrieb Giles Coochey:
>> On 19/04/2012 01:28, Larry Martell wrote:
>>>
>>> 18) If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here.
>>> You're already a fucking laughing stock, and there's no hope for you.
>>>
>> Oh, that fateful day when AOL jo
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> I think this classic from 1996 (author unknown) needs to be resurrected.
>
> Welcome to the Internet.
>
> No one here likes you.
This is not 1996. Internet is more than a thousands times more
accessible to people. Back then people who built
On 04/20/2012 04:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 18) If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here.
> You're already a fucking laughing stock, and there's no hope for you.
Oh, that fateful day when AOL joined usenet, and usenet died.
>>> IIRC that wasn't the same day.
>> Was
>> Dear Johnny,
>
> Your past history clearly shows this is a case of the pot calling the
> kettle black.
>
> You have unceremoniously told numerous users to take a flying leap if they
> didn't like it your way.
>
> Please reveal to the "Centos Community" who penned this piece for you to
> post.
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On 20/04/2012 12:35, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.04.2012 23:42, schrieb Giles Coochey:
>>>
>>> On 19/04/2012 01:28, Larry Martell wrote:
18) If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here.
You're already a fu
On 20/04/2012 12:35, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 19.04.2012 23:42, schrieb Giles Coochey:
On 19/04/2012 01:28, Larry Martell wrote:
18) If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here.
You're already a fucking laughing stock, and there's no hope for you.
Oh, that fateful day when AOL
Am 19.04.2012 23:42, schrieb Giles Coochey:
> On 19/04/2012 01:28, Larry Martell wrote:
>>
>> 18) If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here.
>> You're already a fucking laughing stock, and there's no hope for you.
>>
> Oh, that fateful day when AOL joined usenet, and usenet died.
On 19/04/2012 01:28, Larry Martell wrote:
18) If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here.
You're already a fucking laughing stock, and there's no hope for you.
Oh, that fateful day when AOL joined usenet, and usenet died.
___
CentO
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:06 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 04/18/12 4:08 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> As I recall you weren't necessarily nice to anyone who suggested the
>> process of building CentOS wasn't perfect. But now that it is, I
>> guess that doesn't matter.
>
> isn't that special. how p
On 04/19/2012 11:05 AM, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> I think his post about the internet was a tongue in cheek quote about
> how rough
> and realistic responses can be on the net.
Thats what I thought, but wanted to remove ambiguity.
We have some super cool people in and around the project, I just feel
On 4/19/2012 5:40 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> On 04/19/2012 01:28 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
>>> The CentOS Project seems to be having a problem within some of our
>>> community interactive areas that we need to address.
> ...
>> I think this classic from 1996 (author unknown) needs to
Hi Larry,
On 04/19/2012 01:28 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
>> The CentOS Project seems to be having a problem within some of our
>> community interactive areas that we need to address.
...
> I think this classic from 1996 (author unknown) needs to be resurrected.
I dont quite get the point of that po
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> The CentOS Project seems to be having a problem within some of our
> community interactive areas that we need to address.
>
> As most of you know, the project provides CentOS software free of charge
> and we also provide community areas like
On 04/18/12 4:08 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> As I recall you weren't necessarily nice to anyone who suggested the
> process of building CentOS wasn't perfect. But now that it is, I
> guess that doesn't matter.
isn't that special. how passive aggressive of you.
--
john r pierce
>
> As I recall you weren't necessarily nice to anyone who suggested the
> process of building CentOS wasn't perfect. But now that it is, I
> guess that doesn't matter.
>
> --
>Les Mikesell
please dont recall Les...
let it go
your memory is poor.
- rh
_
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I am not necessarily nice to
> people who want to get me to tell them how to create a competitor to
> CentOS ... but I digress.
As I recall you weren't necessarily nice to anyone who suggested the
process of building CentOS wasn't perfect.
On 04/18/2012 02:25 PM, Antaryami Khuda wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> The CentOS Project seems to be having a problem within some of our
>> community interactive areas that we need to address.
>>
>> Dear Johnny,
> Your past history clearly shows this is a case
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Antaryami Khuda
wrote:
>
>> Dear Johnny,
>
> Your past history clearly shows this is a case of the pot calling the
> kettle black.
But, a very welcome change... CentOS is a project clearly capable of
competing with the best commercial products and it is not at a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> The CentOS Project seems to be having a problem within some of our
> community interactive areas that we need to address.
>
> Dear Johnny,
Your past history clearly shows this is a case of the pot calling the
kettle black.
You have uncerem
The CentOS Project seems to be having a problem within some of our
community interactive areas that we need to address.
As most of you know, the project provides CentOS software free of charge
and we also provide community areas like a Wiki, Mailing Lists, IRC
Channels and Fora for our users to in
31 matches
Mail list logo
