Luke Kanies wrote:
I hate gems, but stupid Rails really wants to use them. Not just that,
but a really recent version.
I hate ports, but I've got a Mac and it doesn't have real package
management.
I have an older version of rubygems installed with ports, and I need to
upgrade.
So:
Timothy Knox wrote:
Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:37:15PM -0700, Michael
G Schwern wrote:
Hate ports. It doesn't explain what dependencies its going to install or
even
warn you about them. This is inexcusable as all they have to do is take a
look at dpkg or fink
Luke Kanies wrote:
I hate ports, but I've got a Mac and it doesn't have real package
management.
Just install it by hand. Whenever I try to install rubygems via some
package manager (ports on mac or apt on linux), somehow it always gets
screwed up one way or another.
--
Jeremy Stephens
I've been (un)fortunate this summer to do a lot of travelling this summer.
Most places that I've stayed has some kind of hotspot login where any
attempt to visit a website goes to a special login screen and then redirects
you do the website once you've logged in.
The hate these things inspire are
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Robert Rothenberg rob...@gmail.com [2007-08-20 03:55]:
The hate these things inspire are so numerous.
Worst is that most of them are brutally incompetent about HTTP;
many of them will send you a 301 permanent redirect for all your
web access attempts until you sign in.
* Jarkko Hietaniemi j...@iki.fi [2007-08-20 14:00]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Robert Rothenberg rob...@gmail.com [2007-08-20 03:55]:
The hate these things inspire are so numerous.
Worst is that most of them are brutally incompetent about
HTTP; many of them will send you a 301 permanent
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I don't even mind -- but what they should send is their sign-in
page in the body of a 403 response, not a redirect and CERTAINLY
NOT A FsCKING PERMANENT ONE argh! Kill kill kill!!
Have fun checking all your feed subscriptions to
* David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk [2007-08-20 17:55]:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I don't even mind -- but what they should send is their
sign-in page in the body of a 403 response, not a redirect
and CERTAINLY NOT A FsCKING PERMANENT ONE argh! Kill
On 8/20/07, Jarkko Hietaniemi j...@iki.fi wrote:
You are trying to use the Inttarweb before you pay us? Sacrilege!
It's not just the places looking to get paid. Libraries with free
wifi can be among the worst offenders. I've been to libraries where
you are required to check out a wireless card
Gmail provides a very helpful view-PDF-attachment-as-HTML tool. It
works for my needs 99% of the time.
Except when I get some particular PDFs, clicking upon which in Gmail
producing this message:
The attachment cannot be viewed as HTML because the author has placed
restrictions on its content.
On Aug 20, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Earle Martin wrote:
Except when I get some particular PDFs, clicking upon which in Gmail
producing this message:
The attachment cannot be viewed as HTML because the author has placed
restrictions on its content. Download the attachment to view it in its
original
On 20-Aug-2007, at 09:00, Chris Devers wrote:
If the Adobe software can open it sans password, then surely Google
should be able to either reverse engineer that ability, or license
the ability to do so from Adobe.
Assuming Adobe wants them to have that ability, and won't sue them
for
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:32:13AM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
The amount of stupid hateful wetware around the whole subject of
encryption is, of course, amazing.
And lots of it spends much of its workday wrapped in black robes. I
could easily imagine a course of events thus:
- Moron
On 20/08/07, Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com wrote:
On 20-Aug-2007, at 09:00, Chris Devers wrote:
If the Adobe software can open it sans password, then surely Google
should be able to either reverse engineer that ability, or license
the ability to do so from Adobe.
Assuming Adobe wants
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:38 +0100, Earle Martin wrote:
http://chosaq.net/archives/2006/05/gmail-cripples-drmed-pdf-files-view-as-html-functionality.html
Which brings me to another hatred - when was the HTML 'title' element
deprecated ?
it hasnt
* Bob Walker b...@randomness.org.uk [2007-08-20 19:15]:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:38 +0100, Earle Martin wrote:
http://chosaq.net/archives/2006/05/gmail-cripples-drmed-pdf-files-view-as-html-functionality.html
Which brings me to another hatred -
16 matches
Mail list logo
