On Thursday 31 January 2002 03:51 pm, you wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote:
It has been my experience that Mitel's current position is typically to
not respond to any bug submitted by a unpaid customer. In my own
personal experience I've submited a _few_ bug reports and it
I know mkCDrec works on Mandrake. I imagine it will work on Red Hat. It is
worth a looksee maybe? (maybe not)
Bob
On Monday 04 February 2002 11:58 pm, you wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:28:09PM -0500, Dan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hash: SHA1
From: Rich Lafferty [mailto:[EMAIL
Hey Gang;
Time for me to speak up I guess. I think the idea of creating a list of
wanted and needed features and capabilities of the next releases IS part of
what a developers mailing list should be about. I also feel that Mitel and
its representatives should support this affirmatively, even
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:33:30 -0500
From: w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dan York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Finally someone at e-smith/Mitel that can state the obvious without being in
middle of a cat-fight. Thank you
On Friday 08 February 2002 02:53 pm, David Brown wrote:
-Original Message-
From: w9ya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
Finally someone at e-smith/Mitel that can state
On Friday 08 February 2002 07:29 pm, you wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote:
On Friday 08 February 2002 06:53 pm, David Brown wrote:
Understood, but I'm still curious about what other distros are
successfully running on the 2.4.x series kernel and have provided ways
to masq pptp
On Friday 08 February 2002 08:18 pm, Graeme Robinson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, David Brown wrote:
I think it's not wise to post things like this without being more
thorough. w9ya is Bob Finch, as he posted a little earlier. I don't
agree with him, but I won't insult him because
On Friday 08 February 2002 10:51 pm, you wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote:
An example; Open H323 Proxy and H323 Gatekeeper are reported to work with
2.4 firewall/gateways, and is reported as such here;
http://www.clarkconnect.org/forums/Forum4/HTML/01.html
It does appear
Seems like another distro for profit. The site doesn;t really say, as they
appear to be trying to solve someone's percieved problem(s). It is filled
with high-falutin terminology, but *grin* never says just what EXACTLY it
is they are selling. (Other than a solution to various problems that
Symlink the directory maybe?
On Monday 21 October 2002 09:13 am, Craig Genner wrote:
Hello all,
Thanks to the HOWTO on installing SquirrelMail I now have it installed and
working, my problem is that SquirrelMail is set up to save it's files in
the root of the users directory, rather then in
On Saturday 02 November 2002 09:04 am, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 22:00, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
Why the hassle just stop services that you do not need so you have the
same thing but operating as you intend to not what it comes out of the
box. This way securty
On Saturday 02 November 2002 10:59 am, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
* w9ya; [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02 Nov, 2002 wrote:
You might also look at what I am using now;
clark connect at clarkconnect.org which is EASY to add to with standard
red hat rpm's, very secure, plus remote monitoring of servers
On Saturday 02 November 2002 01:39 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
From: Gordon Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for devinfo - I too worry about where it is heading. I would like
to see development activity, but the list has been extremely quiet on
that front.
It is extremely difficult to take this
Clarkconnect just released a new version you might want to check out.
Bob
On Saturday 14 December 2002 10:26 am, Jaime Nebrera Herrera wrote:
Hi Laurent,
I saw a message in the General discussion forum saying that mitel has
released 5.6 to their clients.
Mitel has done this with
I read this to essentially mean .if Mitel can't make money off of it,
then you cannot use it..
Gee, what a surprise to some, perhaps not such a surprise to others.
I *DO* really think it is sad to pretend that this is a matter of ...visions
vs. hard reality when a decision to allow blades
.
Bob Finch
On Thursday 16 January 2003 08:02 pm, Joseph Armstrong wrote:
- Original Message -
From: w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Blades interface (Was Re: [e-smith-devinfo]
Announcing SME Server V5.6
Um, suggestion: why not offer to send him to the appropriate e-smith forum or
email list ?
Bob
On Friday 24 January 2003 10:53 am, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Brandon Friedman wrote:
Ok have posted on this topic before with little success.
On this occasion at least, you
Oh O.Kthat wasn't at all clear to me from the content. Thank you.
Bob
On Friday 24 January 2003 11:33 am, you wrote:
Quoting w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Um, suggestion: why not offer to send him to the appropriate e-smith
forum or email list ?
Maybe because he already knows where
Any of the source-based distros (like gentoo) can, in theory, easily be ported
due to their built in ability to do the equivalent of a (bsd-style)
makeworld. Many are also designed to make this even easier with some
specific pre-planning as well.
Bob Finch
On Friday 31 January 2003 09:54 am,
Um, yes rsync does this, as will even a simple (or perhaps not so simple) tar
script. How is this shadow copy a special deal ?
BTW, I have attended M$ Dealer seminars where this is discussed in detail, and
I do not see where this is anything special except that M$ is now
implementing this new
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 05:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Devinfo list members,
As has been hinted on this list, we are following Red Hat's lead with
Fedora and turning the SME Server developer release over to the community.
I don't
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:42 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 26/11/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say:
Confusing as to how you are planning to implement this - ...we will be
continuing to develop applications on top of our commercial release and
as we make changes to GPL components we
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:34 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can you do further development without an up-to-date base ? Or are
you planning to use some other base of some nature ?
Although I can understand your curiosity about Mitel's plans,
On Monday 01 December 2003 09:21 am, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice that Mitel is saying it WILL comply with GPL, so my questions
are appropriate at this time or in the near future.
So I ask again, what are your (Mitel's) plans about this Charlie
On Monday 01 December 2003 10:01 am, Craig Jensen wrote:
In Other Words...
They will comply with GPL and source will therefore be made available.
What kernel or dist that source is compiled against... Or any other
unknown, will be known when it is released... Right? I think I got it
a week
On Monday 08 December 2003 08:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Dan Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:06:47PM -0800, Des Dougan wrote:
Given Red Hat's stated direction, and the lack of clarity of how
Fedora Core will develop, might v 7.0 be the time to address
On Monday 08 December 2003 10:16 am, Greg Zartman wrote:
In concept, porting e-smith to a different distro might be a good
idea. In reality, it isn't feasibly for this group to do this. I don't
think you guys realize the undertaking this would be. SME (e-smith) is
so integrated into Redhat
Actually the mailmain or mailman doesn't have an html page yet, or so it is
reporting.
The other two appear to be working.
Best regards;
Bob Finch
On Friday 12 December 2003 07:00 pm, Hsing-Foo Wang wrote:
Hi TekUnsupported,
(we would prefer real names though)
Please visit contribs.org
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 06:25 am, Dick Morrell wrote:
(apologies for top posting)
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the base we have at all. Remember
Linux is Linux forget the RedHat issues its a non starter - just think
like engineers.
For those that want to realise why this isnt
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 08:33 am, Dick Morrell wrote:
Guys, I have seen enough of this to last a lifetime from this reflector.
Please refrain from putting others down. There is *NO* need to say things
like ...you havent the skills nor the time, nor the awareness of whats
needed...
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:30:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been a long wait for some packages, and it is nice
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:09 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16,
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:52 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 16/12/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say:
So what constitutes a working SME system is not ALL going to be released
into open-source AND you are considering parts of SME and/or Red Hat as
LGPL in some cases to make this
If it is gpl stuff only, in a word: yes.
On Monday 29 December 2003 10:04 am, Jaap van Hemert wrote:
Hi,
Your E Sale (http://youresale.com/) sels/ships four types of YES servers
based on e-smith distro without any reference.
Is that alowed to put your own brand to it?
Jaap
--
Please
On Monday 29 December 2003 12:50 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, John Cusick wrote:
Were you about to make a comment, or was this a subtle comment on the
excessive top-posting and lack of cleaning up previous messages?
:-)
Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a comment,
On Monday 29 December 2003 05:32 pm, Mike Sensney wrote:
At 11:48 AM 12/29/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a comment, but coffee arrived,
and
I hit the wrong button.
Just a quick comment to point out I was rather roundly trounced and then
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:02 pm, Richard Morrell wrote:
IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY similar
to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is rock solid
AND comforms to GPL completely.
Bob, I like what Clark Connect and their CEO stand
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:05 pm, you wrote:
IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY
similar to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is
rock solid AND comforms to GPL completely.
This sounds like you still do not agree / believe / feel that
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:07 pm, Jaap van Hemert wrote:
You where the first, and the first with an answer I was looking for.
Thanks for the answer and advice.
No problemo with either. My pleasure. And the best of luck with whatever you
decide to do.
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
Jaap
39 matches
Mail list logo
