On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:33:41PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
SNUH. SLUG's Not Usenet.
I hope not, because Usenet is pretty much dead after the spammers trashed it.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs:
quote who=Bret Comstock Waldow
There may be times it's not appropriate to say 'RTFM' to some people, but
in this context I think he's writing to someone who knows his way around.
'RTFM' IS the right thing to do in many cases - even for a newbie
(although that may not always be the right way
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:10, Jeff Waugh wrote:
Much of the friendliness part of it comes from phrasing and
manner. RTFM is not friendly or helpful.
Directing someone towards relevant documentation is a really good way of
helping. Telling them to read the fucking manual [1] is insulting.
No,
I pulled all 5 cd iso's and the 75mb rescue cd iso yesterday from the
optusnet mirror at full adsl speed (approx 150kb/s on 1.5m/256 adsl).
On my home connection using 512/128 adsl I'm still waiting for the DVD
ISO over bit torrent. At 8:00 am (+24 hours on torrent) this morning it
was about 68%
On 3/22/06, Mr A Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pulled all 5 cd iso's and the 75mb rescue cd iso yesterday from the
optusnet mirror at full adsl speed (approx 150kb/s on 1.5m/256 adsl).
On my home connection using 512/128 adsl I'm still waiting for the DVD
ISO over bit torrent. At 8:00
Mr A Tomlinson wrote:
I pulled all 5 cd iso's and the 75mb rescue cd iso yesterday from the
optusnet mirror at full adsl speed (approx 150kb/s on 1.5m/256 adsl).
On my home connection using 512/128 adsl I'm still waiting for the DVD
ISO over bit torrent. At 8:00 am (+24 hours on torrent) this
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:52:49AM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
There's one big reason why I'd like to deploy Fedora Core 5. It's got
OpenSSL-0.9.8a
containing major security fix.
!?!
Are you saying there's a security fix that is not
going to be released in fedora4?!
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:52:49AM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
There's one big reason why I'd like to deploy Fedora Core 5. It's got
OpenSSL-0.9.8a
containing major security fix.
!?!
Are you saying there's a security fix that is not
going to be released in
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 12:59:27PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Are you saying there's a security fix that is not
going to be released in fedora4?!
I don't know.
I'll take that as a NO then.
Which makes the rest of your message a little baffling.
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4.
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 12:59:27PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Are you saying there's a security fix that is not
going to be released in fedora4?!
I don't know.
I'll take that as a NO then.
Which makes the rest of your message a little baffling.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Due to security inadequacy.
Details man! Details!
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Due to security inadequacy.
Details man! Details!
The details are in www.openssl.org.
You know what to do. RTFM.
O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's
not worth my effort chasing rainbows.
openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f (which was
quote who=O Plameras
You know what to do. RTFM.
Please don't *ever* say RTFM on SLUG. Particularly when you're spouting
broken advice.
- Jeff
--
FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazilhttp://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/
I must be getting old... Buying toothpaste with gel in it is no
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
You know what to do. RTFM.
Please don't *ever* say RTFM on SLUG. Particularly when you're spouting
broken advice.
What advise do you mean.
RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know..
O Plameras
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's
openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f (which was released for FC4
when the vulnerability was announced last year) contains the same
security fix as openssl 0.9.8a.
http://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20051011.txt
http://lwn.net/Alerts/155824/
And of course, the really stupid thing is
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
You know what to do. RTFM.
Please don't *ever* say RTFM on SLUG. Particularly when you're spouting
broken advice.
What advise do you mean.
RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know..
I'm
RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know..
It is also a great indicator of the ability of the posters ability to deal
with people who a) Might not have the same level of experience, b) may
have a different opinion or c) may not be able to communicate as clearly.
The sooner RTFM is
David Gillies wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's
not worth my effort chasing rainbows.
openssl in FC4 is patched
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's
not
James Purser wrote:
RTFM means READ THE FUJITSU MANUAL if you don't know..
It is also a great indicator of the ability of the posters ability to deal
with people who a) Might not have the same level of experience, b) may
have a different opinion or c) may not be able to communicate as
David Gillies wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:31:34PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's
not worth my effort chasing rainbows.
openssl in FC4 is
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote:
Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in
USENET and lists groups since
I can remember.
SLUG's Not Usenet.
(or SNUH for short)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:42:06PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
openssl in FC4 is patched as openssl 0.9.7f
Was patched in openssl-0.9.7h.
And was then backported to 0.9.7f-7.10 in FC4.
Sorry, I don't get this backported version in FC4 or FC3. My auto-update
using
yum does not pick
Norman Gaywood wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:31:34PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's
not worth my effort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages that rely on OpenSSL-0.9.7f that comes with FC4. It's
not worth my
O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
David Gillies wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
O Plameras wrote:
I tried to install OpenSSL-0.9.8a in FC 4. But there are far too many
packages
David Gillies wrote:
Check what the release version of the openssl rpm is. It should be the
same release version as this (7.10)
$ rpm -qi openssl
Name: openssl Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 0.9.7fVendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote:
Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language in
USENET and lists groups since
I can remember.
SLUG's Not Usenet.
Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists
quote who=O Plameras
Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language
in USENET and lists groups since I can remember.
SLUG's Not Usenet.
Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists
service.
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a
Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists
service.
Yes, and once people would make human sacrifices to their pagan gods for a
good crop. We don't do that anymore because it's not considered good
manners, much the same was as RTFM is looked upon as being trite and a
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
Besides, what is this noise about RTFM. It is an acceptable language
in USENET and lists groups since I can remember.
SLUG's Not Usenet.
Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists
service.
... and on
James Purser wrote:
Usenet and lists groups are the Godfather and Godmothers of all lists
service.
Yes, and once people would make human sacrifices to their pagan gods for a
good crop. We don't do that anymore because it's not considered good
manners, much the same was as RTFM is looked
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:26:39PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Due to security inadequacy.
Details man! Details!
The details are in www.openssl.org.
You know what to do. RTFM.
Once I
quote who=O Plameras
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a
question) is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures
that is not wanted or needed here.
You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet.
I'm pretty comfortable with my
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote:
You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet. I'll
translate RTFM as Read The Fabulous Manual in
accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM.
SNUH. SLUG's Not Usenet.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List -
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a
question) is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures
that is not wanted or needed here.
You really need to RTFM, say, the netiquette from the Internet.
I'm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you.
Whacko for them. I think you'll find that there is a large body of people
both on this list and others who do not like the mentality that comes with
RTFM as a serious response.
Jeff has already come out swinging on this issue and I will
James Purser.quote;
Jeff has already come out swinging on this issue and I will join him. RTFM
is a sign that the poster could not be bothered explaining themselves to
any degree, and to a large extent, it displays a lack of respect for the
person you are posting too.
Or that they themselves
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:26:39PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 01:14:28PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
Due to security inadequacy.
Details man! Details!
The details are in
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:41:47PM +1100, James Purser wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you.
Whacko for them. I think you'll find that there is a large body of people
both on this list and others who do not like the mentality that comes with
RTFM as a serious
James Purser wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM disagrees with you.
Whacko for them. I think you'll find that there is a large body of people
both on this list and others who do not like the mentality that comes with
RTFM as a serious response.
May I venture, then, to say that
May I venture, then, to say that your overall perspective is limited.
You somewhat live in a pretend world.
Yes, the one with with fairies and dwarves and horrible little trolls.
If the search in SLUG works try and search for the word RTFM and I am
not the first person to use it
in SLUG.
This one time, at band camp, O Plameras wrote:
What I know is there is security issue. I did not know that openssl-0.9.7f
has been patched to fix this problem until I saw a number of post on this
list. But the 0.9.8a release has the fix according to their site. So, I
tried
to go for it.
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question)
is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not
wanted or needed here.
And not only that, there is usually NO FM {:-).
And you can easily get a reply like
Terry Collins wrote:
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
... and on *this* list service, RTFM (as a serious answer to a question)
is inappropriate. It's an ugly part of other online cultures that is not
wanted or needed here.
And not only that, there is usually NO FM
quote who=O Plameras
In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person I
addressed the reply to in my assessment is matured and well-informed SLUG
user. I presume he knows what is meant by my RTFM.
Yet there are plenty of other people on this list who will read that and
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person I
addressed the reply to in my assessment is matured and well-informed SLUG
user. I presume he knows what is meant by my RTFM.
Yet there are plenty of other people on this
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 05:41:30PM +1100, O Plameras wrote:
In the context of the Post, there is RTFM in www.openssl.org. The person
I addressed the reply
That'd be me
to in my assessment is matured
You make me sound like a cheese.
and well-informed SLUG user. I presume he
knows what
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 17:51 +1100, O Plameras wrote:
You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if
you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons.
There are many people like myself, who are not speaking up because we
concur with Jeff's
quote who=O Plameras
You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if
you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons.
Funny how others have expressed the same thoughts on this thread, Oscar.
- Jeff
--
FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazil
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=O Plameras
You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if
you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons.
Funny how others have expressed the same thoughts on this thread, Oscar.
It's not funny when
O Plameras wrote:
You live in a bubble. You always say you speak for other people, as if
you are the only one who can express yourself and not the other persons.
On the matter of RTFM I agree with Jeff and I hereby allow him to speak
for me on the subject of RTFM.
Erik
--
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:33, James Purser wrote:
It is also a great indicator of the ability of the posters ability to deal
with people who a) Might not have the same level of experience, b) may
have a different opinion or c) may not be able to communicate as clearly.
The sooner RTFM is trotted
55 matches
Mail list logo
