Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-26 Thread John Galt
to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree? GPL, section 3c, says exactly that - -- A computer without windoze is like a fish without a bicycle. Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Debconf or not debconf

2003-07-02 Thread John Galt
with a hold prompt? - -- FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you! Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE/A0Hu+ZSKG3nWr3ARAl1SAJ0d8E9nrEwCIxduiWCYAaE6OOIDrQCgyUf3 FaRH2jyFLJrFgmStmomRV3s

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal

2002-11-23 Thread John Galt
that Hell in this case truly IS Redmond, WA. You bastards! /South Park -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!

Re: ITP: kernel-patch-selinux

2001-09-24 Thread John Galt
. This limitation will apply even if NSA has been advised of the possibility of such damage. I acknowledge that this is a reasonable allocation of risk. -- I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own decisions. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: sox sucks !

2001-09-16 Thread John Galt
you have to know it ... -- The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done! a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a

Re: xplanet can use ssystem image file!

2001-09-11 Thread John Galt
how to do it I think it's not due for at least four more years. ;) Marcus -- void hamlet() {#define question=((bb)||(!bb))} Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!

Re: Making better use of multiple maintainers

2001-09-02 Thread John Galt
: Can I cover all the possible ways of using this package myself? [0] We never finished that conversation at Linux Tag. -- EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!

Re: why dig ? I wanna use nslookup !

2001-05-02 Thread John Galt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Enough said. Fuck him. On Wed, 2 May 2001, Gerrit Pape wrote: http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html - -- Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP for Personal

Re: Two debconf issues

2001-05-02 Thread John Galt
the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBOvDNXB9mehuYcOjMEQKooACfVLZgJEzIt1Q2tjlY/A3MuiB+uL4AnArk YhCCMj6Qzd3LarvSunYR2mpA =DtWS -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Developer Behavior

2001-01-10 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote: On Wednesday 10 January 2001 03:23, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as

Re: Bug#81397: [authorization] fails silently for normal users, cannot start server

2001-01-08 Thread John Galt
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote: SLOn Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: SL SL Hamish Moffatt wrote: SL There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to you SL without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if SL too many people

Re: [way OT] private emails

2001-01-08 Thread John Galt
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: BROn Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 06:26:24PM -0600, Bud Rogers wrote: BR It is spectacularly bad form to quote private email in a public forum, BR but it is not illegal. And it is spectacularly naive to count on the BR privacy of anything you tell another

Re: ITP: mboxgrep -- Grep through mailboxes

2001-01-08 Thread John Galt
I guess that Raul WAS right when he told me there *IS* only one way to do it... On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: SBOn Monday 8 January 2001, at 9 h 5, the keyboard of Tollef Fog Heen SB[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SB SB I intend to package mboxgrep, a utility which greps mailboxes.

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote: In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you didn't include in your message. Why should I, when it would be no different

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:11:50PM -0700, John Galt wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use. Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a registry that RFC822

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Steve Greenland wrote: SGOn 03-Jan-01, 22:53 (CST), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SG On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: SG SG I didn't say there was. Does Mail-Copies-To: begin with an X? SG SG RFC 822 this time: SG SG http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html

Re: our broken man package

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote: JHPeter Makholm wrote: JH We have alternatives on almost everything but dpkg and man. If someone JH thinks it's worth the effort to make alternatives for these they JH should do it. If there is a general agreement that the alternatives is JH better than the

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On 4 Jan 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote: MSJohn == John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MS MS SG Wrong. This would break my MUA so that reply no longer sends mail back MS SG to the originator, as it is supposed to do. MS MS John Well, you replied to the list alone despite my reply-to, so I guess

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D-Man wrote: DOn Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote: D mutt allegedly shares code with pine... ^^ D D DThat would be very strange since mutt's author was a part of the elm Dgroup. Wouldn't mutt then have started with the elm code

Re: our broken man package

2001-01-04 Thread John Galt
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote: JHJohn Galt wrote: JH JHIn other words, if you can have a religious war over it, we need an JH JHalternative. I have never seen a religious war over man. :-) JH JH Never heard RMS on info pages? JH JHThat's a file format religious war, not a man program

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-03 Thread John Galt
FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard. There is nothing about honoring X headers at all. In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you didn't include in your message. Basically, you're on the wrong side of RFC 1855 on this issue and all the

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-03 Thread John Galt
Why the hell should we go on #debian on OPN when you so much as admitted that the ops on it have some kind of power trip: devoicing instead of rebutting when they have an issue with what's said? If I help somebody, I really don't want to have to stay politically correct: getting the problem

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

2001-01-03 Thread John Galt
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote: FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard. There is nothing about honoring X headers at all. I didn't say there was. Does Mail-Copies-To: begin with an X? RFC 822 this time: http

Re: Bug#80343: general: Lack of policy on which files should be owned by which user

2000-12-27 Thread John Galt
Isn't there rudimentary ACL implementation in the kernel? An ACL would do the job nicely... On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: Peter Eckersley wrote: If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I can set permissions: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ ls -l

Re: List of packages that could be dropped

2000-12-27 Thread John Galt
on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died during the potato freeze...). On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt wrote: If it's so important, why

Re: dueling banjos

2000-12-26 Thread John Galt
DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine specializing in sound-alikes for lousy spellers... On 26 Dec 2000, Ben Gertzfield wrote: Kim == Kim Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kim could you please mail me sheet music for dueling banjos This is about the third or

Re: dueling banjos

2000-12-26 Thread John Galt
Bzzt! mentioned three times by my recollection in the dualling banjos thread. Half the distance to the goal line, loss of down: second down! On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Leuner wrote: I thought it was some metaphor for SMP DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine

Re: List of packages that could be dropped

2000-12-26 Thread John Galt
If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC community

Re: Boost Windows Reliability!!!!!

2000-12-22 Thread John Galt
You going to send them the bill then? At the bottom off the mailinglist subscription page: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe is the mailinglist policy. Basically, the policy says either pay us $1,000 up front or $1,999 after. Martin (Joey, whatever you prefer...), Remco,

Re: Boost Windows Reliability!!!!!

2000-12-22 Thread John Galt
I was kind of feeling sorry about including you as a CC in the last post--partial oversight, partial personal policy (I never quite know how to deal with tertiary CCs: I generally detest people who adulterate a message they're replying to, but I also think that responsibility for replies stops

Re: KDE2 - nice demolition job ...

2000-09-14 Thread John Galt
I thought the netbase breakup was because of a old-BSD/GPL license incompatibility... On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote: John Galt wrote: The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing issues Not as far as I can remember. The X breakup and the netbase breakup

Re: dualing banjos

2000-09-13 Thread John Galt
for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: KDE2 - nice demolition job ...

2000-09-13 Thread John Galt
, therefore it's worth every penny you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money? Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe

Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)

2000-03-15 Thread John Galt
of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done! a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]John Galt /a

Re: The nature of unstable (was: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!)

2000-03-15 Thread John Galt
complaints about lack of manpower as rhetorical at best, hypocritical at worst. On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:24:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote: On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote: snip First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked