In a message dated: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:08:59 EDT
Randy Edwards said:
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is for wimps
Linux
Hm, can't really find much to disagree with.
Inconsistent rubbish. Any *real* Debianer knows it's GNU/Linux -- just
like Debian prints on its web site.
Hmm, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had a
decent flame war around here, so, since I remembered my asbestos
underwear today, let me lob the first volley ;)
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is for wimps
Linux
Hm, can't really find much to disagree with.
In a message dated: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 18:49:53 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Certain other rabid zealots fired back remarks about how KDE is under the
GPL, so Red Hat can do anything they darn well please. Naturally, they also
had to bring up the throughly dead KDE/Qt licensing issue one more
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:48:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had a
decent flame war around here, so, since I remembered my asbestos
underwear today, let me lob the first volley ;)
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is
In a message dated: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 20:52:46 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have always, by accident rather then by dint of planning, moved from
N.1 or N.2 to N+1.1 so I have yet to experience a RH N.0 release.
I do this by design. My rule of thumb is *always* avoid an X.0
release of
In a message dated: 05 Oct 2002 22:35:55 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
Here, I'm afraid, I somewhat agree. The new window manager for Gnome
2.0, metacity, is basically crippling for me.
Well, it's good to know that I haven't missed *anything* by sticking
with fvwm over the years :) Someone
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ed Lawson wrote:
=On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 10:48:15 -0400
=[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
=
= Hmm, now that I think about it, it's been a while since we had a
= decent flame war around here, so, since I remembered my asbestos
= underwear today, let me lob the first volley ;)
=
=
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It's now impossible to have the Gnome panel(s) be anything but
always-on-top.
Is this only if you're running Gnome? Or does it apply to running the
panel in other windows managers?
NITPICK
Gnome is not a window manager. You
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
- and an X.3 release is pretty much unheard of, and IMO,
indicative of just how much was wrong with the entire 7.x
series :)
Minor nit: I know the inside story about why there was a 7.3 and can
only say
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 14:55:11 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It's now impossible to have the Gnome panel(s) be anything but
always-on-top.
Is this only if you're running Gnome? Or does it apply to running the
panel in
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:07:26 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
- and an X.3 release is pretty much unheard of, and IMO,
indicative of just how much was wrong with the entire 7.x
series :)
Minor nit: I
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 15:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:07:26 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
- and an X.3 release is pretty much unheard of, and IMO,
indicative of just how much was
In a message dated: 07 Oct 2002 15:50:12 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers when
there are backward (or is it forward? Or both maybe? I forgot) binary
compatibility issues. I think the fact that they stuck with the .0, .1,
.2 release
Debian rules, RH Sucks
vi is for wimps
Linux
Hm, can't really find much to disagree with.
Inconsistent rubbish. Any *real* Debianer knows it's GNU/Linux -- just
like Debian prints on its web site.
And while vi isn't my favorite editor, I'm afraid to nominate joe
On 7 Oct 2002, at 3:50pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Minor nit: I know the inside story about why there was a 7.3 and can
only say that it had zero to do with the problems or lack of problems
with 7.2.
The basic issue is that Red Hat only bumps major release numbers when
there are backward
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, at 9:53am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or are you referring to the much-overblown Bluecurve issue?
Since I don't follow RH's releases very closely anymore, care to educate
me (and other non-RH fanatics :) on what the Bluecurve issue is?
With Red Hat Linux 8.0, Red Hat
16 matches
Mail list logo
