On Monday 29 December 2003 07:07 pm, Jaap van Hemert wrote:
> You where the first, and the first with an answer I was looking for.
> Thanks for the answer and advice.
No problemo with either. My pleasure. And the best of luck with whatever you
decide to do.
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
>
> Ja
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:05 pm, you wrote:
> > IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY
> > similar to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is
> > rock solid AND comforms to GPL completely.
>
> This sounds like you still do not agree / believe / fe
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:02 pm, Richard Morrell wrote:
> >IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY similar
> > to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is rock solid
> > AND comforms to GPL completely.
>
> Bob, I like what Clark Connect and their CE
On Monday 29 December 2003 06:29 pm, Jaap van Hemert wrote:
> Sorry for posting this topic,
> I'm rather new in this list and was only expecting a yes or no.
Well the answer to your orginal question is : yes.
Some others illuminated on this I suppose, I wasn't one of them. as I answered
in one s
On Monday 29 December 2003 05:32 pm, Mike Sensney wrote:
> At 11:48 AM 12/29/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a comment, but coffee arrived,
> >
> > and
> >
> > > I hit the wrong button.
> >
> >Just a quick comment to point out I was rather roundly trounce
On Monday 29 December 2003 12:50 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, John Cusick wrote:
> > Were you about to make a comment, or was this a subtle comment on the
> > excessive top-posting and lack of cleaning up previous messages?
> >
> > :-)
>
> Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a
If it is gpl stuff only, in a word: yes.
On Monday 29 December 2003 10:04 am, Jaap van Hemert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Your E Sale" (http://youresale.com/) sels/ships four types of YES servers
> based on e-smith distro without any reference.
>
> Is that alowed to put your own brand to it?
> Jaap
>
>
>
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:52 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 16/12/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say:
> > So what constitutes a working SME system is not ALL going to be released
> > into open-source AND you are considering parts of SME and/or Red Hat as
> > LGPL in some cases to make this deter
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:09 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote:
> > > > > On
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:30:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > It has been a long wait for some packages, and it
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:30:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 06:25 am, Dick Morrell wrote:
> > [...]
> > P.S. I am glad that it appears that Mitel is intending to follow through
> > on its' promises a
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 08:33 am, Dick Morrell wrote:
> > Guys, I have seen enough of this to last a lifetime from this reflector.
> > Please refrain from putting others down. There is *NO* need to say things
> > like "...you havent the skills nor the time, nor the awareness of whats
> > needed
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 06:25 am, Dick Morrell wrote:
> (apologies for top posting)
>
> There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the base we have at all. Remember
> Linux is Linux forget the RedHat issues its a non starter - just think
> like engineers.
>
> For those that want to realise why this
Actually the mailmain or mailman doesn't have an html page yet, or so it is
reporting.
The other two appear to be working.
Best regards;
Bob Finch
On Friday 12 December 2003 07:00 pm, Hsing-Foo Wang wrote:
> Hi TekUnsupported,
>
> (we would prefer real names though)
>
> Please visit contribs.o
OOPS !!
This was ameant to be sent as a reply to Graeme Seatons; message about
Whitebox linux instead of Fedora.
Sorry about that !
Bob Finch
On Monday 08 December 2003 10:54 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Monday 08 December 2003 10:16 am, Greg Zartman wrote:
> > In concept, porting "e-smi
On Monday 08 December 2003 10:16 am, Greg Zartman wrote:
> In concept, porting "e-smith" to a different distro might be a good
> idea. In reality, it isn't feasibly for this group to do this. I don't
> think you guys realize the undertaking this would be. SME (e-smith) is
> so integrated into Re
On Monday 08 December 2003 08:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Dan Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:06:47PM -0800, Des Dougan wrote:
> > > > Given Red Hat's stated direction, and the lack of clarity of how
> > > > Fedora Core will develop, might v 7.0 be the tim
On Monday 01 December 2003 04:09 pm, Greg Zartman wrote:
> > BTW; thanxs for being so polite. That often (sadly) is not the case on
> > this list.
>
> Bob, I can't recall the last time you contributed anything of substance
> to this list. In fact, before responding to your email, I did a search
>
On Monday 01 December 2003 10:01 am, Craig Jensen wrote:
> In Other Words...
>
> They will comply with GPL and source will therefore be made available.
> What kernel or dist that source is compiled against... Or any other
> unknown, will be known when it is released... Right? I think I got it
> a
On Monday 01 December 2003 09:21 am, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I notice that Mitel is saying it WILL comply with GPL, so my questions
> > are appropriate at this time or in the near future.
> >
> > So I ask again, what are your (Mitel's) plans about this
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:34 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How can you do further development without an up-to-date base ? Or are
> > you planning to use some other base of some nature ?
>
> Although I can understand your curiosity about Mitel's
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:42 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 26/11/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say:
> > Confusing as to how you are planning to implement this -> "...we will be
> > continuing to develop applications on top of our commercial release and
> > as we make changes to GPL component
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 05:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Devinfo list members,
>
> As has been hinted on this list, we are following Red Hat's lead with
> Fedora and turning the SME Server developer release over to the community.
>
> I d
Um, yes rsync does this, as will even a simple (or perhaps not so simple) tar
script. How is this "shadow copy" a special deal ?
BTW, I have attended M$ Dealer seminars where this is discussed in detail, and
I do not see where this is anything special except that M$ is now
implementing this "ne
Any of the source-based distros (like gentoo) can, in theory, easily be ported
due to their built in ability to do the equivalent of a (bsd-style)
"makeworld". Many are also designed to make this even easier with some
specific pre-planning as well.
Bob Finch
On Friday 31 January 2003 09:54 am,
Oh O.Kthat wasn't at all clear to me from the content. Thank you.
Bob
On Friday 24 January 2003 11:33 am, you wrote:
> Quoting w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Um, suggestion: why not offer to send him to the appropriate e-smith
> > forum or email list ?
>
>
Um, suggestion: why not offer to send him to the appropriate e-smith forum or
email list ?
Bob
On Friday 24 January 2003 10:53 am, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Brandon Friedman wrote:
> > Ok have posted on this topic before with little success.
>
> On this occasion at least, you a
ng or similar behavior they are
NOT rewarded.
Bob Finch
On Thursday 16 January 2003 08:02 pm, Joseph Armstrong wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "w9ya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:06 AM
> Subje
I read this to essentially mean ".if Mitel can't make money off of it,
then you cannot use it.."
Gee, what a surprise to some, perhaps not such a surprise to others.
I *DO* really think it is sad to pretend that this is a matter of "...visions"
vs. "hard reality" when a decision to allow b
Clarkconnect just released a new version you might want to check out.
Bob
On Saturday 14 December 2002 10:26 am, Jaime Nebrera Herrera wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
> > I saw a message in the "General discussion" forum saying that mitel has
> > released 5.6 to their clients.
>
> Mitel has done this
On Saturday 02 November 2002 01:39 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
> From: "Gordon Rowell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > As for devinfo - I too worry about where it is heading. I would like
> > to see development activity, but the list has been extremely quiet on
> > that front.
>
> It is extremely difficult t
On Saturday 02 November 2002 10:59 am, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
> * w9ya; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02 Nov, 2002 wrote:
> >You might also look at what I am using now;
> >
> >clark connect at clarkconnect.org which is EASY to add to with standard
> > red hat rpm's,
On Saturday 02 November 2002 09:04 am, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 22:00, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
> > Why the hassle just stop services that you do not need so you have the
> > same thing but operating as you intend to not what it comes out of the
> > box. This way securty
Symlink the directory maybe?
On Monday 21 October 2002 09:13 am, Craig Genner wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Thanks to the HOWTO on installing SquirrelMail I now have it installed and
> working, my problem is that SquirrelMail is set up to save it's files in
> the root of the users directory, rather then
Seems like another distro for profit. The site doesn;t really say, as they
appear to be trying to solve someone's percieved problem(s). It is filled
with "high-falutin" terminology, but *grin* never says just what EXACTLY it
is they are selling. (Other than a solution to various problems that i
On Sunday 10 February 2002 07:41 pm, Keith Winston wrote:
> I have been using reiserfs on 5 of my systems without incident for
> over a year. I've not had to use the repair facilities, so I can't
> comment on how well they work. It has never let me down and seems
> much more mature than ext3 or
Hey Darrell;
I am glad you brought this up. I have used several of the journalling systems.
My observations;
Reiser cannot run without it's journal.
Reiser's repair utilities might as well not exist, they are horrible.
Reiser's speed is no longer as good overall as xfs or e3.
Reiser has been int
On Friday 08 February 2002 10:51 pm, you wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote:
> > An example; Open H323 Proxy and H323 Gatekeeper are reported to work with
> > 2.4 firewall/gateways, and is reported as such here;
> >
> > http://www.clarkconnect.org/forums/Forum4/H
On Friday 08 February 2002 08:18 pm, Graeme Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, David Brown wrote:
> > I think it's not wise to post things like this without being more
> > thorough. w9ya is Bob Finch, as he posted a little earlier. I don't
> > agree with him, bu
On Friday 08 February 2002 07:29 pm, you wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote:
> > On Friday 08 February 2002 06:53 pm, David Brown wrote:
> > > Understood, but I'm still curious about what other distros are
> > > successfully running on the 2.4.x series kernel
On Friday 08 February 2002 06:53 pm, you wrote:
> On Friday, February 08, 2002, w9ya wrote:
> > Well, that is the heart of the issue for me. I do not expect gateways to
> > perform security functions as such. That is a bonus. I expect
> > firewalls and
> > protoc
linux distros.
amsat.org is a mail forwarder and it is their rules that the address must be
formatted with a users ham call, which is why you see mine there.
Bob
On Friday 08 February 2002 06:12 pm, you wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote:
> > Well, they have NOT communicated a time-fram
On Friday 08 February 2002 06:10 pm, you wrote:
> > I think the confusion is based on trying to both firewall and serve? At
> >least it is for me. I seem to remember when e-smith recommended that
> >firewalling and serving should be done separately, on separate
> >equipment. I tend to agree
> >wit
On Friday 08 February 2002 05:48 pm, you wrote:
> > I think the confusion is based on trying to both firewall and
> > serve? At least
> > it is for me. I seem to remember when e-smith recommended that
> > firewalling
> > and serving should be done separately, on separate equipment. I
> > tend to a
On Friday 08 February 2002 05:04 pm, you wrote:
> On Friday, February 08, 2002, w9ya wrote:
> > > > Now, perhaps we can take this a step further. Many other distros are
> > > > being used for firewalling, including firewall centered distros
> > > > (c
On Friday 08 February 2002 02:53 pm, David Brown wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: w9ya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:34 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Fwd: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
> >
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:33:30 -0500
From: w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dan York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Finally someone at e-smith/Mitel that can state the obvious without being in
middle of a cat-
Hey Gang;
Time for me to speak up I guess. I think the idea of creating a list of
wanted and needed features and capabilities of the next releases IS part of
what a developers mailing list should be about. I also feel that Mitel and
its representatives should support this affirmatively, even i
I know mkCDrec works on Mandrake. I imagine it will work on Red Hat. It is
worth a looksee maybe? (maybe not)
Bob
On Monday 04 February 2002 11:58 pm, you wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:28:09PM -0500, Dan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > From: Rich Lafferty [mailt
On Thursday 31 January 2002 03:51 pm, you wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote:
> > It has been my experience that Mitel's current position is typically to
> > not respond to any bug submitted by a unpaid customer. In my own
> > personal experience I've submited a _few_ bug reports an
50 matches
Mail list logo
