sigh... here's my last reply (hurrah!) to a non-linux question - all I
was trying to do is point out that the message formatting has been
mentioned in the past, and that people get all bent out of shape about
it, to the point of yelling and stuff. Unless the Mandrake
rulers-of-the-mailing-list imposed a message format, and outlined it
when people sign up, I just don't believe that the attempt at
standardizing, although I think its a good idea, will work.
'nuff said
cya - I'm outta here
Romanator wrote:
>
> Can't we just get along. Huh?
>
> philomena wrote:
> >
> > Oh boy, here we go - this could re-open a hornets nest that shows up
> > every now and then - everyone has their own preferences and habits, and
> > those are near impossible to alter. Also, the different software that
> > people use to read/write their email are set up with different defaults.
> > I doubt the idea of a message standard is going to go far, except to
> > unleash another barrage of non-linux, non-mandrake related emails, of
> > which I am guilty of contributing to now. So, my 2 cents is, trying to
> > suggest a standard is not going to be successful, and forget trying to
> > get all to adhere to it.
> >
> > cheers,
> > philomena
> >
> > Ritesh Ahya wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everybody, newbies as well experts.
> > > I am getting everybody about 100 messages, i dont' mind with it. i love to
> > > read all of them, try to understand the problems that our linux-brothers are
> > > facing, like to ask sometimes, like to reply sometimes.
> > > but it's a good feeling. All i have to say it, can not we make a Uniform
> > > format for writing and replying mails to each other. Like when you reply,
> > > the person's whom you are replying, mail sometimes is at top or sometimes at
> > > bottom. sometimes three or four people's are replying.so can not understand
> > > quickly who has asked and who has replied ? can not everybody decides to
> > > answer and ask quetions in some defined uniform formats, so everybody can
> > > communicate with each other easier and quicker ?
> > > Thanks everybody, if you like suggestions, please come forward and let's
> > > decide.
> > > Thanks all of you everybody in advance.
> > > I dont' mind if you people don't like the suggestions too.
> > > Ritesh Ahya.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dennis Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: < >
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 8:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [newbie] Java in KDE 2.1 -- SOLVED!
> > >
> > > > On Saturday 10 March 2001 08:41, you wrote:
> > > > > Dear friends:
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, the Java madness in Konqueror is finally over!
> > > > >
> > > > > I never could get KDE 2.0.1 to work with any of the Java Virtual
> > > > > Machines that I installed. This doesn't mean that it won't on other
> > > > > people's systems. It's just that they failed on mine. So...
> > > > >
> > > > > I upgraded to KDE 2.1 and tried out all four Java Virtual Machines on my
> > > > > system: Sun's 1.3.0, Blackdown's 1.3.0, IBM's 1.3.0 and Sun's JDK 1.2.2.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the winner is...
> > > > >
> > > > > IBM 1.3.-6
> > > > >
> > > > > The exact file is:
> > > > >
> > > > > IBMJava2-JRE-1.3-6.0.i386.rpm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Benjamin, where or how exactly did you find the IBM Java, I went to the
> > > URL
> > > > you posted and searched all over for the jre-1.3 download and found
> > > nothing.
> > > > What am I missing here. TIA for the info,
> > > > --
> > > > Dennis M. registered linux user # 180842
> > > >
> > > >
