Tim:
>>> But, I can't see what could possibly be wrong with a filter such as
>>> this:
>>>
>>> reply-to contains users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> move to folder lists/fedora
>>> stop processing
& Tim:
>> Looking at the log, each filtered message takes at least 3 to 4 seconds
>> to go thr
From: "Tim"
Sent: Thursday, 2010/April/22 09:35
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 00:34 +0930, Tim wrote:
>> You don't happen to know what the flag is, by the way?
>
> Scratch that, I found it moments later (after missing the obvious).
>
>> But, I can't see what could possibly be wrong with a filter s
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 10:03 -0700, Wayne Feick wrote:
>
> One thing I have seen it do, however, is get its caches confused and
> refuse to show new mail.
I have never seen that in many years of using Evolution.
> On the calendaring side, on a number of occasions the Palm sync got
> messed u
On 04/22/2010 08:44 AM, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> I've been using Evolution as my only email client since 2002.
> I agree that it has a number of shortcomings.
>
> Its been an up and down road for sure but one thing that I can say is
> that I have not lost a single email in the 8 years I have been using
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 09:44 -0600, Linuxguy123 wrote:
> I really wish that someone would inject some life into Evo. I've been
> looking at a gray Evo screen for 8 years. How about a little color ?
There's blue, and yellow, and green, and red, and orange...
--
[...@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 00:34 +0930, Tim wrote:
> You don't happen to know what the flag is, by the way?
Scratch that, I found it moments later (after missing the obvious).
> But, I can't see what could possibly be wrong with a filter such as
> this:
>
> reply-to contains users@lists.fedorapr
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:22 -0700, Wayne Feick wrote:
> I've finally given up on Evolution and moved back to Thunderbird.
>
> I really wanted Evolution to be a good mail and calendar client, but for
> the last 5 years or so it's always been *almost* there. It was
> calendaring and Palm sync that
Tim:
>> Filtering is dead slow, that's for sure. After setting up about four
>> filters, it gets really painful. So I just drag a bunch of messages
>> from my inbox to a folder, every now and then.
Patrick O'Callaghan:
> I have a whole bunch of filters and don't even notice the time lag.
> Note
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 18:51 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 15:27 -0400, fred smith wrote:
> > Yeah, I've tried Evolution 2 or 3 times over the last few years and
> > always ended up being disappointed. For one thing it's DOG SLOW. It
> > seems to want to index all the mail folders every
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 18:46 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 00:53 +0200, birger wrote:
> > I tried it years ago, and it was very unstable with severe memory
> > leaks so if I managed to keep it up for a few days it would slow down
> > my pc to a crawl.
>
> Just curious. Do you keep the
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 15:27 -0400, fred smith wrote:
> Yeah, I've tried Evolution 2 or 3 times over the last few years and
> always ended up being disappointed. For one thing it's DOG SLOW. It
> seems to want to index all the mail folders every time it starts and
> that can take MINUTES. and even w
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 00:53 +0200, birger wrote:
> I tried it years ago, and it was very unstable with severe memory
> leaks so if I managed to keep it up for a few days it would slow down
> my pc to a crawl.
Just curious. Do you keep the Evolution program window running all the
time, or do you e
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 20:38 +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
> Just to chime in here - I had abandoned Evo too some years ago but I
> was recently trying various mail clients again to see how things have
> changed.
That is how it was for me as well. I tried it years ago, and it was very
unstable with se
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:22 -0700, Wayne Feick wrote:
> Using an LDAP server consistently causes lockups. The whole UI freezes
> up for extended periods of time. God knows what they're doing, but
> apparently they never learned to separate blocking operations like
> network communication from the
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:22 -0700, Wayne Feick wrote:
> I've finally given up on Evolution and moved back to Thunderbird.
Please note here that I am not attempting to deny that any of the
problems you are having are real. I am just providing another data
point.
> Using an LDAP server consistently
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Wayne Feick wrote:
> I've finally given up on Evolution and moved back to Thunderbird.
>
> I really wanted Evolution to be a good mail and calendar client, but for
> the last 5 years or so it's always been *almost* there. It was
> calendaring and Palm sync that kep
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:22:15PM -0700, Wayne Feick wrote:
> I've finally given up on Evolution and moved back to Thunderbird.
>
> I really wanted Evolution to be a good mail and calendar client, but for
> the last 5 years or so it's always been *almost* there. It was
> calendaring and Palm sy
On 04/21/2010 12:22 PM, Wayne Feick wrote:
> I've finally given up on Evolution and moved back to Thunderbird.
>
> I really wanted Evolution to be a good mail and calendar client, but for
> the last 5 years or so it's always been *almost* there. It was
> calendaring and Palm sync that kept me on it
I've finally given up on Evolution and moved back to Thunderbird.
I really wanted Evolution to be a good mail and calendar client, but for
the last 5 years or so it's always been *almost* there. It was
calendaring and Palm sync that kept me on it for a long time, and the
promise that proper Exc
Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
>> On Saturday 13 March 2010 02:58:48 pm Craig White wrote:
>
>> The users and bug reports are, by and large, irrelevant. Mine certainly
>> have
>> been. As I said, sometimes I did not give enough info, but it also r
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:24 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Since you have a "little bit of experience" in development :) do you
> > think that developers -- maybe mainly application developers? -- would
> > benefit from this deadline for downstream releases(1)? Debian's "ready
> > when it's ready" deve
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 01:45 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote:
>> BTW, to all, I found this article that I found very interesting:
>>
>> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/377930/51c110883cc4de9c/
>>
>> It answered a lot of my questions on Fedora/Red Hat d
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Since you have a "little bit of experience" in development :) do you
>> think that developers -- maybe mainly application developers? -- would
>> benefit from this deadline for downstream releases(1)? Debian's "ready
>> when it's ready" develop
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 01:45 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> BTW, to all, I found this article that I found very interesting:
>
> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/377930/51c110883cc4de9c/
>
> It answered a lot of my questions on Fedora/Red Hat development. I
> intend to comment on it but spent the day
> Since you have a "little bit of experience" in development :) do you
> think that developers -- maybe mainly application developers? -- would
> benefit from this deadline for downstream releases(1)? Debian's "ready
> when it's ready" developers wouldn't appreciate much, I'm afraid, but
> some ag
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > If you mean a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6" then nobody who knows anything
>> > is going to give you an answer because it would be unlawful to do so in
>> > the USA (and most countries) as it would involve material information
>> > about un-anno
> > If you mean a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6" then nobody who knows anything
> > is going to give you an answer because it would be unlawful to do so in
> > the USA (and most countries) as it would involve material information
> > about un-announced products of a publically traded business.
>
> I
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Distrowatch says that Red Hat 6 will be about 2 years late because
>> Fedora is too goddamned buggy. In which way will Fedora's bugs help
>> Red Hat succeed better than Canonical or Novell?
>
> Red Hat 6 was released many many years ago 8)
>
> If
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 13:10 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> I guess the thread is still alive, no one has mentioned the premise for
> Godwin's Law right?
Not that I have seen. However, Godwin's Law only says that the
probability of mentioning you-know-who increases the longer a discussion
goes
--- On Mon, 3/15/10, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> From: Patrick O'Callaghan
> Subject: Re: [OT] Deafening silence
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 9:13 AM
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 08:43 -0700,
> Craig White wrote:
> >
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 08:43 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 11:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 08:16 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > > What is Goodwin's law? I only know about the "Law of Sines" and the
> > > "Law of Cosines" :)
> >
> > http://e
On 03/15/2010 11:38 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 08:16 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
>> What is Goodwin's law? I only know about the "Law of Sines" and the
>> "Law of Cosines" :)
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
>
> poc
>
Since Godwin's Law h
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 11:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 08:16 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > What is Goodwin's law? I only know about the "Law of Sines" and the
> > "Law of Cosines" :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
>
I took his smiley to mean
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 08:16 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> What is Goodwin's law? I only know about the "Law of Sines" and the
> "Law of Cosines" :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> Please, someone, please trigger
> Godwin's law with this thread...
> It's so close...
>
> --
> [...@localhost ~]$ uname -r
> 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
>
What is Goodwin's law? I only know about the "Law of Sines" and the "Law of
Cosines" :)
Right on topic here, at Distrowatch there is a l
> Distrowatch says that Red Hat 6 will be about 2 years late because
> Fedora is too goddamned buggy. In which way will Fedora's bugs help
> Red Hat succeed better than Canonical or Novell?
Red Hat 6 was released many many years ago 8)
If you mean a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6" then nobody who kn
On 03/15/2010 07:10 AM, Roger wrote:
> well I've found the selinux list to be a much better place to get help
>
>> with selinux stuff than this list but I would expect that if you had put
>> drupal stuff into /var/www and made a soft link in /home to that
>> directory you would have not had any
Please, someone, please trigger Godwin's law with this thread...
It's so close...
--
[...@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraprojec
well I've found the selinux list to be a much better place to get help
> with selinux stuff than this list but I would expect that if you had put
> drupal stuff into /var/www and made a soft link in /home to that
> directory you would have not had any issues with selinux at all. If you
> try to mov
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
> On Saturday 13 March 2010 02:58:48 pm Craig White wrote:
> The users and bug reports are, by and large, irrelevant. Mine certainly have
> been. As I said, sometimes I did not give enough info, but it also really
> didn't *matter*.
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Roger wrote:
> Fedora is experimental, live with it, like it, or not!
All others, join Ubuntu! You think it's doing better while White keeps
on repeating that it's the same software all over the place? You think
that clipboards and file managers work better in U
On 03/14/2010 10:37 PM, Roger wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 09:58 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 17:21 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Honestly, I never thought that I'd find this kind of communist planned
>>> economy reasoning within the advocates of a company listed on
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 13:37 +1100, Roger wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 09:58 AM, Craig White wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 17:21 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> >
> >> Honestly, I never thought that I'd find this kind of communist planned
> >> economy reasoning within the advocates of a company listed
On 03/14/2010 09:58 AM, Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 17:21 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
>
>> Honestly, I never thought that I'd find this kind of communist planned
>> economy reasoning within the advocates of a company listed on the
>> NYSE. Of course, I'm not a geek, not even a sui
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 15:31 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 23:56 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Craig White
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wr
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 23:56 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Craig White wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We are *not* irrelevant. I'm not, and neither is the
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 23:56 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Craig White wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> We are *not* irrelevant. I'm not, and neither is the OP, and the
> >> attitude
> >> that says we are is the *problem*
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Russell Miller wrote:
> On Saturday 13 March 2010 02:58:48 pm Craig White wrote:
> What about selinux? At the SCALE conference, Karsten Wade gave the keynote
> and acknowledged that selinux was handled badly, and also acknowledged that it
> was a huge PR problem
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
>>
>> We are *not* irrelevant. I'm not, and neither is the OP, and the
>> attitude
>> that says we are is the *problem*.
>
> #1 - mentioning Red Hat or the NYSE on a Fedora list is
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 16:38 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
> On Saturday 13 March 2010 03:47:52 pm Craig White wrote:
> I am not a typical user. I have been a sysadmin for 12 years. I have a
> general idea of how a good bug reporting and triaging system should work.
> When I submitted a bug tha
On Saturday 13 March 2010 03:47:52 pm Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
> > We are *not* irrelevant. I'm not, and neither is the OP, and the
> > attitude
> > that says we are is the *problem*.
>
>
> #1 - mentioning Red Hat or the NYSE on a Fedora l
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 15:26 -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
>
> We are *not* irrelevant. I'm not, and neither is the OP, and the
> attitude
> that says we are is the *problem*.
#1 - mentioning Red Hat or the NYSE on a Fedora list is irrelevant.
#2 - this is a community based distribution and
On Saturday 13 March 2010 02:58:48 pm Craig White wrote:
> you are completely irrelevant... not that I have any ability to change
> that and I surely respect your right, as a Fedora user to post on the
> list.
>
> In the future, would you please mark your irrelevant rantings as OT (off
> topic)?
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 17:21 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> Honestly, I never thought that I'd find this kind of communist planned
> economy reasoning within the advocates of a company listed on the
> NYSE. Of course, I'm not a geek, not even a suit, so I know nothing.
> But, if you really get infuria
54 matches
Mail list logo
