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
30 matches
Mail list logo
