hey,
when i execute `anaconda --reconfig` from the command line, it prompts
me for networking information.
if, however, i create a /etc/reconfigSys file, and allow it to be called
from /etc/rc.d/init.d/reconfig at boot time, it does not prompt for any
network information, other than hostname.
I would personally still call it "Open Source" as the source code is
openly available (I think we're getting a bit spoiled as this alone is a
far cry from Microsoft world). If I'm reading their license correctly it
(the code) is also modifiable and can be redistributed under reasonable
terms. What
Matt Fahrner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I completely agree *if* possible. If anything will be Open Source's
> downfall it will be these sorts of forks and inablility to share the
> sandbox together.
Pine is not opensource software. It does not meet the OSD and Debian
shuttles it off into no
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Julie wrote:
>> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
>> distributed under is GPL compatible? In other words, would it be
>> possible to fork the program as a GPL'd work?
>
>You can't change the license for a software package unless you
>are the c
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Matt Fahrner wrote:
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:16:23 -0400
>From: Matt Fahrner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: PINE license.
>
>Julie wrote:
>I completely agree *if* possible. If anything will be Open Source
That is actually more the policy. Nothing is actually ever enforced and
we only "threaten" to not support them, in reality we end up supporting
just about anything in a pinch...
- Matt
Jason Fesler wrote:
>
> > I admit such forcing of specific tools sounds a bit draconia
> I admit such forcing of specific tools sounds a bit draconian, but
> otherwise we get into real issues trying to support too many varieties
Our company has a simple policy. "Here is what we use." No enforcement,
but also, no support, for anything else. You break something else, you
pick up y
hi, do you guys know how to recompiling an share object file?
let's say there is file.so, how can I extract this share object file using
"ar ..." and how can I recompile?
Thankx a lot.
>From Alan.
_
Get Your Private, Free E-m
(Writing this from Netscape Communicator...) We've had the same argument
for a *long* time now here. Company policy is to move to Communicator,
which I prefer though still very buggy, however there is a contingent
that are staunchly pro-Pine, including our Postmaster. We've pretty much
compromised
Julie wrote:
I completely agree *if* possible. If anything will be Open Source's
downfall it will be these sorts of forks and inablility to share the
sandbox together. Sometimes the forks are innovative and sometimes
they're just hubris. Unfortuntely code is "art" and thus everyone thinks
theirs i
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Pekka Savola wrote:
> If the latest source code was available with e.g CVS, I don't think this
> would be much of a problem at all..
I agree absolutely - but unfortunately, it seems to be pretty much
impossible even to contact the maintainers about these things.
I'd agree t
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
> Given that 64 megs of memory are under 100$ I think it is better to use
> an X-based mail reader and benefit of the time savings and
> fiunctionality you get with a windowed environmentAbout the only
> time you need a text-based mail reader ois when X
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Julie wrote:
> What's wrong with making your changes and distributing them
> under the owners license?
As you have noticed, pine is a very closely developed software. Only an
alpha team of about 30 people has access to pre-release versions. The
security "features" noted on
- Original Message -
From: Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 08:25
Subject: Re: PINE license.
> JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW I read french and I think your signature is offensive.
>
> Sorry, it's randomized.
JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW I read french and I think your signature is offensive.
Sorry, it's randomized. I'll remove that entry.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
22 days, 2 hours, 10 minutes, 13 seconds till we run away.
"I am Ernest of Borg.
Alan Shutko a écrit :
> "Julie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What's wrong with making your changes and distributing them
> > under the owners license?
>
> You can only distribute patch files, and it looks like you can't
> distribute modified binaries. Besides, the Pine license has been a
>
"Julie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's wrong with making your changes and distributing them
> under the owners license?
You can only distribute patch files, and it looks like you can't
distribute modified binaries. Besides, the Pine license has been a
thorn in the side of many for years..
"Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
> distributed under is GPL compatible? In other words, would it be
> possible to fork the program as a GPL'd work?
Not a recent PINE. There was an older version of Pine that RMS wan
From: Mike A. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Red Hat Development List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 23:19
Subject: PINE license.
> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
> distributed under is GPL compatible? In other words, would it be
> possib
hi,
what's the reason why nm not working on 7.0 with the compat libraries:
# nm /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/libc-2.1.3.so
nm: /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/libc-2.1.3.so: no symbols
# ll /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/libc-2.1.3.so
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root 989352 Jul 26 00:14
/usr/i386-gli
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
> distributed under is GPL compatible?
There are a couple of incompatibilities.
"Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
agreement:
(a) In free-of-charge or
21 matches
Mail list logo
