Seth Arnold wrote:
But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
So, while I love free software, I don't think killing
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 12:22:37AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Seth Arnold wrote:
But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
against the DFSG. I do believe that movement exists and has always
existed to some degree, but it's on the rise as Linux gains in popularity
and new people care less and less
* Peter Eckersley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001028 21:09]:
You are confusing *pragmatic* support for an ideological
position with not supporting that position at all...
Ok, I promise this is the last anyone will hear from me on the whole
issue.
I *love* free software. I love that I can run apt-get
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 03:11:11PM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
John's proposal is, IMO, a reaction to a growing movement within Debian
against the DFSG. I do believe that movement exists and has always
existed to some degree, but it's on the rise as Linux gains in popularity
and new
Seth Arnold wrote:
But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works fine.
So, while I love free software, I don't think killing
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 12:22:37AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
Seth Arnold wrote:
But, somehow, I don't think Debian putting itself in a position to ship
without a graphical SSL web browser is a good idea. Currently, netscape
is the only one I have seen that supports SSL.
Konquerer works
7 matches
Mail list logo
