Guys,
BTW, if you hadn't guessed, that comment was supposed to be off-list.
Unfortunately, I discovered a bug with KMail and list management, the hard
way ...
Sigh.Just in case anyone wants to know, KMail 1.5.1 + has a bug where, if
you have list management turned on, it sometimes sends
Andrew,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:39:52AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Thanks. As you know, I'm getting a little sick of the chicken little
act among many of the -hackers
I think this is a little bit of a mischaracterisation. Afilias is
already a customer of IBM.
BTW, if you
Marc,
And to be perfectly frank, I was mostly thinking of Marc when I said that.
Sorry, that was uncharitable. I meant that (at the time) you were panicking.
Now you have something different to panic about. How goes the server
shuffle?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San
Josh Berkus wrote:
Guys,
BTW, if you hadn't guessed, that comment was supposed to be off-list.
Unfortunately, I discovered a bug with KMail and list management, the hard
way ...
Sigh.Just in case anyone wants to know, KMail 1.5.1 + has a bug where, if
you have list management turned on, it
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
Now you have something different to panic about. How goes the server
shuffle?
alot smoother today then it went yesterday ... and faster ... but, then
again, *most* clients use 256MB of storage, so moving their VM around
takes no time ... svr1 is @ ~13G
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
Marc,
And to be perfectly frank, I was mostly thinking of Marc when I said that.
Sorry, that was uncharitable. I meant that (at the time) you were panicking.
Wait, I've not panic'd about all of this at any point ... the only
'chicken little' comment I made
Marc,
alot smoother today then it went yesterday ... and faster ... but, then
again, *most* clients use 256MB of storage, so moving their VM around
takes no time ... svr1 is @ ~13G :) Something like 3G is justin's mailbox
alone ... and i miscalculated how long it would take to move it back
On Friday 28 January 2005 12:36, Josh Berkus wrote:
Robert,
Read the law... willful vs. unknown infringement are two different
things.
We're not infringing anything, yet. That's a *pending* patent.
*sigh* Thats understood. But you were using the counter-argument that we
might be
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not mischarecterizing, I just feel that putting out an lru based 8.0.x
release is such a bad idea that I'd rather do (1) than gamble on (2).
I don't understand why you think it's such a bad idea. We do have the
problem of getting adequate testing,
On Saturday 29 January 2005 11:33, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not mischarecterizing, I just feel that putting out an lru based
8.0.x release is such a bad idea that I'd rather do (1) than gamble on
(2).
I don't understand why you think it's such a bad idea.
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 12:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
We don't *have* to do anything when the patent is granted. When we *have*
to
do something is when IBM sends a cease-and-desist letter to a PostgreSQL
user. Not before.
With that attitude we don't have to do anything even then. We have a
Marc, Tom, Robert, Bruce, et al:
Bruce is advocating waiting until the Patent has been Granted, instead of
doing something about it now, when we know the patent is going through the
system (and will likely get granted) ... a reactive vs proactive
response to the problem.
No, we're reactive
Josh,
Bruce is advocating waiting until the Patent has been Granted, instead of
doing something about it now, when we know the patent is going through
the system (and will likely get granted) ... a reactive vs proactive
response to the problem.
Very well written Josh.
Thanks. As you
13 matches
Mail list logo
