On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Dan Quinlan wrote:
> If "they" is Stata Labs, there is still an open source version at
> SourceForge to consider. Dan McD has been quiet, but he's not Stata
> Labs.
Well, "they" was sort of amorphous. It just looks like the saproxy
bugzilla hasn't been u
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Seeing the wiki updates about saproxy got me thinking ... If they
> > don't have a free version available, and they don't use our bugzilla
> > (which it looks like they don't), doe
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:13:02PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Seeing the wiki updates about saproxy got me thinking ... If they
> don't have a free version available, and they don't use our bugzilla
> (which it looks like they don't), does anyone have an issue if I blow
> away the "saproxy"
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seeing the wiki updates about saproxy got me thinking ... If they
> don't have a free version available, and they don't use our bugzilla
> (which it looks like they don't), does anyone have an issue if I blow
> away the "saproxy" product entry?
If "
Seeing the wiki updates about saproxy got me thinking ... If they
don't have a free version available, and they don't use our bugzilla
(which it looks like they don't), does anyone have an issue if I blow
away the "saproxy" product entry?
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"So, the long and short o
