On Sat, Jan 10, 1998 at 04:02:22AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
> AS you said, what support? I guess the mistake I made was thinking
> that IRC is a vilid means of support. All the answers I got on IRC were
> not usable, and mostly along the line of go fix it yourself. Well, usually,
> I have n
Ok, Folks, I will make one concession. My message did come out of the blue
to a lot of you. The support I had been seeking was on IRC. For that
oversight, I apologize. I still think my language was civil, although firm,
and was worded so as to be sure to kindle some action. A flame? A mere
On 08-Jan-98 Kai Henningsen wrote:
> That made me reread that message. Nope, my first impression still holds.
> Our customers on the phone are usually not like that. "Hey, your product
> is broken, you are idiots for breaking it, I'm going to install the
> competitor's product"? No. Don't ge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Morton) wrote on 08.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To the group, let me say:
> Those of you who saw my first message as an attack or a flame, what nice
Well, it was.
> little utpoia of the planet do you come from? sheesh! If that's all
> it takes to ruffle your
On 08-Jan-98 "James A. Treacy" wrote:
> I think everyone agrees that there should have been a new package prepared
> for bo.
> So we made a mistake. I'll never understand why free software gets
> held to higher standards than commercial software. If this were a
> Microsoft product everyone would j
David Morton wrote:
> On 08-Jan-98 Martin Schulze wrote:
> > If all people who have noticed the lack are behaving like you did, no
> > wonder why there isn't such a perl update.
>
>
> EXCUSE ME?? Ok, I already said I was not attacking anyone, but stating
> that I was upset. Maybe it's not
On 08-Jan-98 Martin Schulze wrote:
> If all people who have noticed the lack are behaving like you did, no
> wonder why there isn't such a perl update.
EXCUSE ME?? Ok, I already said I was not attacking anyone, but stating
that I was upset. Maybe it's not common for ppl to share feelings.
On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 09:32:20PM -0600, David Morton wrote:
> I just wonder how something this big slipped past so many people for this
> long.
If all people who have noticed the lack are behaving like you did, no
wonder why there isn't such a perl update.
Regards
Joey
--
/ Marti
On 07-Jan-98 Martin Schulze wrote:
> Please file a bug report against the perl package.
I might do that, If I have time... but it really should have been taken care of
already...
> I the meantime you can try the packages I have compiled for
> a much simplier reason:
I appreciate the offer, but
At 8:18 Uhr -0600 07.01.1998, David Morton wrote:
>Greetings from Kansas,
>
>I am quite upset with the fact that no update for perl has
>been included in the "stable" release, currently named bo, I think.
>
>A security bug in suid-perl has been known to exist in 5.003, as you
>have noticed on your
On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 08:18:22AM -0600, David Morton wrote:
> I am quite upset with the fact that no update for perl has
> been included in the "stable" release, currently named bo, I think.
>
> A security bug in suid-perl has been known to exist in 5.003, as you
> have noticed on your security
Greetings from Kansas,
I am quite upset with the fact that no update for perl has
been included in the "stable" release, currently named bo, I think.
A security bug in suid-perl has been known to exist in 5.003, as you
have noticed on your security page. However, the IRC people
told me that 5.00
12 matches
Mail list logo
