On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Indeed! When something brakes, do you want it to continue to work as
if nothing has happened and lose your data silently, or do you want it
to give you some indication that it needs attention?
* With binary drivers, it's always broken (and if
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
And what I'm learning with bsdstats.org is that there are more then just
those
four ... GNU/kFreeBSD is reporting
Now _that_'s funny ;)
Yes, indeed. Some people are really wasting their time.
are there any others?
If you're going to keep chatting about the bsdstats thing would you
please stop cross posting to so many lists? It's very irritating.
--
Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ |
Thorsten Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
And what I'm learning with bsdstats.org is that there are more then just
those
four ... GNU/kFreeBSD is reporting
Now _that_'s funny ;)
-snip-
The five big ones are DF/Free/Mir/Net/Open though.
Not as funny as
On 05/09/06, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough.
Surely better than nothing but ...
No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really!
Indeed! When something brakes, do you want it to continue to work as
if
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Daniel Seuffert (from AllBSD.de) today said he intends that your script
to be installed AND ENABLED BY DEFAULT in every BSD release/snapshot,
and he will definitively enable it in DesktopBSD 2.0. I will probably do
the same for MirOS, as I currently
thus Joseph A. Dacuma spake:
I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough.
Surely better than nothing but ...
No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really!
Don't forget that an open source team sometimes makes api changes
that might break a binary only
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:47:32 +0200
Timo Schoeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Hi All!
:
: I agree totally with Mr. Peereboom. IMHO, BLOBS are not sustainable
: in the long run. If a manufacturer decides to retire a particular
: model (driver support included) while OS keeps on releasing newer
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a stupid comment, but ... Linux is one kernel, multiple distributions
... BSD is, what, 4 kernels now? If we
On 9/5/06, Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 50 distributions are only a burden if it comes to the point
what different shared library / Java / TCL / etc ... versions
are packaged with the OS.
A friend of mine doing Java development had severe issues with
all that different Linux
I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough.
Surely better than nothing but ...
No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really!
Don't forget that an open source team sometimes makes api changes
that might break a binary only driver. And companies
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:55:42 +0200, Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a stupid comment, but ... Linux is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if you:
are already watching a movie?
- have more than 1 dvd-rom and insert 2 disks at the same time, will it
automagically play the first part? Will it play the second part after?
Will it pause for 15 minutes before playing second dvd, so you can go
make
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're tilting at windmills. I don't know of any OS that
automatically starts playing a movie when you insert the DVD. What
usually happens is simply that the movie player application pops up;
you still have
If you didn't instruct it to play a movie, why it does that?
You did: by putting the disc in.
Bad logic. Putting the disc in != requesting (or wanting) to play a movie.
Indeed, no. And putting a CD-ROM in doesn't mean I want to mount it
or read it. And putting in a memory stick
Gilbert Fernandes wrote on Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:59:57AM +0200:
I have a dream. A dream of unification. Having one BSD.
Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping incompatible
stuff as options that would be either one or another.
Horrors!
Options are mostly against the goals of
Theo de Raadt wrote:
[snip]
We know one reason why we never got documentation. Bit by bit more
information has come out to show that the hardware design is an
embarrasment and there are countless bugs and shortcomings.
Surprising? Not really.
Affects ONLY OpenBSD? Not a chance.
That's why
Rahul Siddharthan:
On FreeBSD with UFS, more than once a crash totally
hosed my system: I had to reinstall. People blamed it
on ATA write-caching: the standard FreeBSD advice is
use SCSI. With linux/ext3 I've NEVER had a problem
Don't know whether it's really ATA write-caching, but my
home
With today's Ubuntu, for example, I can plug in all the
equipment I have -- memory sticks, digital cameras,
whatever -- and it just works.
Same with any system that supports _standard_ storage devices.
They just work.
If I pop in a DVD the DVD player opens.
Now, who needs that? If you
If you didn't instruct it to play a movie, why it does that?
You did: by putting the disc in.
Bad logic. Putting the disc in != requesting (or wanting) to play a movie.
[SorAlx] ridin' VN1500-B2
___
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
On 9/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you didn't instruct it to play a movie, why it does that?
You did: by putting the disc in.
Bad logic. Putting the disc in != requesting (or wanting) to play a movie.
Indeed, no. And putting a CD-ROM in doesn't mean I want to mount
On 01/09/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you didn't instruct it to play a movie, why it does that?
You did: by putting the disc in.
Bad logic. Putting the disc in != requesting (or wanting) to play a movie.
How is that bad logic?
I have a dream.
A dream of unification.
Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping
incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another.
But when you tell yourself that it cannot be done, you don't even
try it.
It would require people to not only do it for
I may sometimes
want it mounted as /opt instead.
SVR4 cruftiness in BSD?! I'm shocked! :-P
___
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01/09/06, Gilbert Fernandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a dream.
A dream of unification.
Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping
incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another.
But when you tell yourself that it cannot be done, you don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It would require people to not only do it for the sake of their
projects,
but for the whole BSD people. Even those who really piss you off in
other projects.
Because someday, those projects will live on without us. We'll pass on
like everyone.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
I have a dream.
I have a reality
A dream of unification.
A reality involving separation
Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping
incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another.
Having 3 different
2006/9/1, Gilbert Fernandes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have a dream.
A dream of unification.
Having one BSD. Merging the three projects and, why not, keeping
incompatible stuff as options that would be either one or another.
Opensource is about choice. If you don't like something, when fork it
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 01/09/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, should I then switch to Linux because they do welcome
'vendor written drivers'?
If by 'vendor-written drivers' you mean binary-only drivers, then no, the
linux kernel developers emphatically
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
They don't have to write device drivers at all, they just should
write good documentation.
Unfortunately, the documentation often isn't so hot either. I'll
give you an example. Even with both code and documentation from
Realtek,
On Friday 01 September 2006 11:27, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:08:13AM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
They don't have to write device drivers at all, they just should
write good documentation.
Unfortunately, the documentation often isn't so hot either. I'll
give
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 12:01:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A chicken running around sans head is quite active.
Not really the same thing as productive.
What you don't see is that NetBSD is the chicken in your analogy.
___
I'm just a lurker on the OpenBSD list, but I think Charles is right about
Linux. The code is better then people give it credit for, and considering
it's vast popularity and what all it's accomplished, the bazaar model has
worked wonders. I'm not advocating Linux, I'm just pointing out that
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Harpalus a Como wrote:
I'm just a lurker on the OpenBSD list, but I think Charles is right about
Linux. The code is better then people give it credit for, and considering
it's vast popularity and what all it's accomplished, the bazaar model has
worked wonders. I'm not
I'm just a lurker on the OpenBSD list, but I think
Charles is right about
Linux. The code is better then people give it credit
for, and considering
it's vast popularity and what all it's accomplished,
the bazaar model has
worked wonders.
Well, the hype certainly put the zap on your head.
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
(Please don't keep individual persons in the Cc, only the lists,
otherwise people will get the mails several times.)
Put together a *BSD core ... representative from each camp and try and steer
the *kernel* itself towards a more common BSD ...
BSD is about an operating
On 8/31/06, Thorsten Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel.
Bingo. Good point. This point is lost sometimes.
I believe NetBSD has the proper philosophy in regards to the entire OS
as well. I don't want apache built in, for instance.
Andy
On 31/08/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Harpalus a Como wrote:
I'm just a lurker on the OpenBSD list, but I think Charles is right about
Linux. The code is better then people give it credit for, and considering
it's vast popularity and what all it's
Andy Ruhl wrote:
On 8/31/06, Thorsten Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel.
Bingo. Good point. This point is lost sometimes.
I believe NetBSD has the proper philosophy in regards to the entire OS
as well. I don't want apache built in, for
Put together a *BSD core ... representative from each camp and try and
steer
the *kernel* itself towards a more common BSD ...
BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel.
This is a common misconception.
BSD is about people pissing each other, because they don't want to admit
that
On 8/31/06, Gilles Gravier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ahem... so no Apache... but why games, X11, compiler?
So don't install the games set, the X set, or the comp set if you
don't want that stuff.
I think the point I'm trying to make is, apache is certainly not
something *most* people will use.
On Aug 31, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
BSD is about an operating system, not about a kernel.
This is a common misconception.
BSD is about people pissing each other, because they don't want to
admit
that other people can have different needs, goals, or ways of
designing
code,
On 8/31/06, dereck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Linux] are copying known work, shooting for a target
that has already been hit.
Hit by Mac OS X, perhaps. Which I can't install on my
computer even if I wanted to: Apple won't let me. The
target -- a user-friendly, reliable unix -- hasn't been hit
On 31/08/06, Rahul Siddharthan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/31/06, dereck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Linux] are copying known work, shooting for a target
that has already been hit.
Hit by Mac OS X, perhaps. Which I can't install on my
computer even if I wanted to: Apple won't let me. The
On 31/08/06, Paul Saab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Rollin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If Yahoo (to pick the one big vendor I remember making a big thing of
using
a BSD) don't reincorporate their changes, perhaps that's because the
license
allows them not to?
If you think that Yahoo! has
On Thursday 31 August 2006 14:47, Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 31/08/06, Paul Saab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Rollin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If Yahoo (to pick the one big vendor I remember making a big thing of
using
a BSD) don't reincorporate their changes, perhaps that's because the
On 31/08/06, John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 14:47, Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 31/08/06, Paul Saab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Rollin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If Yahoo (to pick the one big vendor I remember making a big thing
of
using
a BSD) don't
On 31/08/06, Gilles Gravier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy Ruhl wrote:
The reason why apache and perl shouldn't be included is because they
are moving, 3rd party targets. They are better suited to pkgsrc.
And of course, GCC isn't... a moving 3rd party target?
Gilles.
Good point. It's
On 8/31/06, Charles M. Hannum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, defining (poorly) the OS to include so much else has been a
liability for NetBSD in many ways. It has massively slowed the adoption
of new software versions (e.g. GCC), for one. It also contributed to
the perception that a better
On 31/08/06, Andy Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/31/06, Charles M. Hannum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, defining (poorly) the OS to include so much else has been a
liability for NetBSD in many ways. It has massively slowed the adoption
of new software versions (e.g. GCC), for one.
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for,
what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for
FreeBSD, one for NetBSD, one for OpenBSD, and *now* one for DragonflyBSD
Please don't Cc: people when you respond to mailing lists *sigh*
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
for us, they need to write
1. Companies don't write drivers for BSD
2. Companies don't even release specs so that people
can write drivers for BSD
//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all
different goals...
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver,
for, what, 50+ distributions of linux
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all
different goals...
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for,
what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for
FreeBSD,
I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards
directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of
documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need
documentation for?
To fix the driver.
A given piece of source code can only been believed
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pedro Martelletto wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for,
what, 50+ distributions of linux ...
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards
directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of
documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need
documentation for?
To fix the driver.
If the vendor
If the vendor is supporting the driver, and working with the community,
then one would hope that they would also fix the driver as bug reports
come in about it ...
That's too many ifs to be realworld-compatible.
And actually the only vendors I can think of which are working with the
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one* device driver, for,
what, 50+ distributions of linux ... for us, they need to write one for
FreeBSD,
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
If the vendor is
bought up, bankrupt, out of business, dead (like that person
who ported g++ to Plan 9, whose window managers' copyright
is now set in stone), etc... you're SOL¹.
//mirabile
¹) wtf knows it
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens
On Aug 31, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pedro Martelletto wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 06:50:00PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to write *one*
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
If the vendor is supporting the driver, and working with the community,
then one would hope that they would also fix the driver as bug reports
come in about it ...
That's too many ifs to be realworld-compatible.
And actually the only vendors I can
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:01:49PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
In a perfect world, they all would ... this is not a perfect world, it is
one dominated by Linux or Microsoft ... I use Adaptec drivers on 3 of my
servers, because, in 4.x, they were rock solid ... in 6.x, they have a
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all
different goals...
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ... companies like adaptec have to
On 8/31/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vendors should release documentation, not write drivers.
In a perfect world, they all would ... this is not a perfect world, it is
one dominated by Linux or Microsoft ... I use Adaptec drivers on 3 of my
servers, because, in 4.x, they were
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Jason Dixon wrote:
If everyone had your attitude, there would be no *BSD. Settling for
good enough means never making progress.
Who ever said settling for good enough? I know I didn't ... if I
settled for good enough, I would have stuck it out with Linux years ago
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation is
pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on these
lists that I may have offended ... but ... having
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ...
documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on
these lists that I may have
On 01/09/06, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/09/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, should I then switch to Linux because they do welcome
'vendor written drivers'?
If by 'vendor-written drivers' you mean binary-only drivers, then no, the
linux kernel developers
On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation
is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, davide zanon wrote:
The reason why merging is impossible or stupid has been said some million
times... Different goals.
I'm curious here, but why did the *kernel* diverge for each project?
Like, I understand (or think I do) the philosophy of the OpenBSD project,
and
(When do you stop putting people into Cc instead of just the lists?)
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
source code drivers provided by a
vendor, and supported by them
Yeah, and what if the vendor goes out of business, is bought
or simply bankrupt? You're pretty much SOL then.
//mirabile
--
I believe
mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... documentation
is
pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on these
lists that I may have offended ... but ... having clean source code to a
driver is
Marc G. Fournier dixit:
I'm curious here, but why did the *kernel* diverge for each project?
Because kernel, userland, ports and attitude come as a package,
they cannot be separated, for together they are the operating system.
//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ...
documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
Maybe I'm missing something,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I'm curious here, but why did the *kernel* diverge for each project?
Like, I understand (or think I do) the philosophy of the OpenBSD
project, and that is high security ... but, wouldn't the security
improvements that go into the OpenBSD kernel not be applicable to
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:57:20PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards
directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of
documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need
documentation for?
To
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:03:04 -0300 (ADT), Marc G. Fournier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Miod Vallat wrote:
I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards
directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of
documentation itself ... if
On 9/1/06, Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I doubt that'll be productive -- NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD have all
different goals...
Even at the kernel level? Look at device drivers and vendors as one
example ...
On 9/1/06, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there is no real reason ( in my opinion ) in exerting some
Sorry Typo :-( ^^^in not exerting^^^
pressure on vendors to release the documentation. Actually it is for
their benefit :-)
Hope this
The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has
gotten to the point that being associated with the project is often
more of a liability than an asset. I will attempt to explain how this
happened, what the current state of affairs is, and what needs to be
done to attempt to
On 31/08/06, Charles M. Hannum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance.
If true, unfortunate. A sad day.
Jeff.
___
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
Hello Charles,
Some parts of your message seemed to be flames resulting from some
past personality conflict that I know nothing about, so I won't
comment further on those. Clearly you are more familiar with BSD
internals than I am. I imagine others will pickup various technical
points such as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Charles,
Charles M. Hannum wrote:
popularity in 1993 and 1994) have suffered similar problems. FreeBSD
and XFree86, for example, have both forked successor projects (Dragonfly
and X.org) for very similar reasons.
I don't agree that Dragonfly
Charles M. Hannum wrote:
[I'm CCing this to FreeBSD and OpenBSD lists in order to share it with
the wider *BSD community, not to start a flame war. I hope that people
reading it have the tact to be respectful of their peers, and consider
how some of these issues may apply to them as well.]
Breen Ouellette wrote on Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:22:59PM -0600:
This really isn't relevant to OpenBSD,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] $ head -n2 /var/run/dmesg.boot
OpenBSD 3.9-stable (GENERIC) #2: Wed Aug 30 16:53:43 CEST 2006
[EMAIL
Andy Ruhl wrote:
On 8/30/06, Charles M. Hannum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The NetBSD Project has stagnated to the point of irrelevance. It has
Let me start by saying I'm probably not qualified to reply to this
thread, but I was never worried about making a fool out of myself
before so
88 matches
Mail list logo
