On Thursday 20 July 2006 18:45, Fabricio Cannini wrote:
Yeah, not like in OpenSolaris, when SSH depends on J2RE :-)
j2re wouldn't happen to include appletviewer and thus depend on X?
-- vbi
--
If I have trouble installing Linux, something is wrong. Very wrong.
-- Linus
On Thursday 20 July 2006 03:05, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 18:45, Fabricio Cannini wrote:
Yeah, not like in OpenSolaris, when SSH depends on J2RE :-)
j2re wouldn't happen to include appletviewer and thus depend on X?
And so it goes on and on.
When i saw it i just WTF??
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:19:15 -0300, Fabricio wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 03:05, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 18:45, Fabricio Cannini wrote:
Yeah, not like in OpenSolaris, when SSH depends on J2RE :-)
j2re wouldn't happen to include
The point is that you don't have to install everything. You don't have to install packages like units and rig (a couple of my stange favorites). You can have a thin system out of the box without having to purposefully un-install several hunder packages. Don't mix customizability and breadth of
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 10:16, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
The point is that you don't have to install everything. You don't have to
install packages like units and rig (a couple of my stange favorites). You
can have a thin system out of the box without having to purposefully
un-install
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:15:57AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
Hello,
thanks everyone (or not?) for joining in the last thread. I wanted to
make the point that asking not to have a flamewar is a good way to start
one, and I can see it was somehow successful.
As a side note, see last
Enrico Zini wrote:
And finally, it has inspired a new polygen grammar:
SNIP
polygen -X 50 flame.grm | dadadodo -
I think this might bring in different types of flames to debian:
dadadodo - wrote:
Do Please do us
not continue this thread; please stop CC ignoring the list!
Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I had this idea of trying to push into everyone's consciences that:
the last one who posts to a flamewar is a loser
anyone can help me marketing it?
The only way to win is not to play.
Heard that in a movie once.
--
Any technology
Hello,
thanks everyone (or not?) for joining in the last thread. I wanted to
make the point that asking not to have a flamewar is a good way to start
one, and I can see it was somehow successful.
That thread is now linked as an example from the DCG:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:15:57AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
thanks everyone (or not?) for joining in the last thread. I wanted to
make the point that asking not to have a flamewar is a good way to start
one, and I can see it was somehow successful.
hmm, the problem with that is, that on
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0200, Martin Bähr wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:15:57AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
thanks everyone (or not?) for joining in the last thread. I wanted to
make the point that asking not to have a flamewar is a good way to start
one, and I can see it was
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:47:12PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
Might as well be impossible. How do you stop a flamewar that was
started to show that trying to stop a flamewar is a good way to ignite
it? :)
maybe by using the same technology that started it and apply the
motivation for people
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:14:17 +0200, Martin Bähr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ps: i apologize for the off topic mail (there is nothing curious in
this one)
^
And is that, in itself, not curious?
ps. notice how nobody
13 matches
Mail list logo
