On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:02:58AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
| On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:54:08AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
| > The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be
easily
| > fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy.
|
| You really need th
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
| I don't think that unstable should be limited to Debian developers, but I
| think that it should be restricted to discourage people who aren't reading
| debian-devel. What if we setup the servers to use a different random
| passwo
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:05:54PM -0800, Aaron Brashears wrote:
| I'm doing some code which is intended to work on linux and sunos. I
| was poking through the header files in /usr/include on my debian box
| and found a line in g++-3/stl_config.h which specified:
|
| #if defined(__linux__)
|
|
It used to be gnome-run. I created my own launcher that first ran a
script to set the "history" on my RH6.1 system (heavily upgraded) that
had Gnome 1.2 on it. (Or maybe only gnome 1.0.55).
After I installed RH7 I could no longer find the command and my launch
er didn't work.
-D
On Mon, Jan 0
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:54:07AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
| A case where it might make sense to encourage someone to run unstable
| is if [...] the developer thinks that they are resonably competant.
I think that this is the key. If the user is competent enough there
is no harm suggesting to
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:12:56PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D-Man wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >> mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
>^^
> >>
> >
> >That wo
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
>
That would be very strange since mutt's author was a part of the elm
group. Wouldn't mutt then have started with the elm code base? (or
at least part of it)
> --
> Pardon me, but you have ob
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:30:39PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> [ D-Man writes ]
> >
>
>
> > You are free to use whatever MUA you want, but don't complain to the
> > rest of us if it is broken.
>
> Funny, you just did exactly that. If your mailreader
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:04:07PM -0500, D-Man wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:57:56PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > > For instance, if I followup to any of Branden Robinson's posts, they g
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:11:21PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > By making Reply-To: point to the list, you make these two different
> > commands do the same thing, thus depriving the user of the choice.
>
> There is NO "depriving of choice".
> If the recipient user wants to send to the original
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:57:56PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > For instance, if I followup to any of Branden Robinson's posts, they go
> > to the list only.
>
> that is because both you and he are using "special" software.
Let's find out. Miles, Branden, what MUA's do you use?
I happen to u
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:08:25PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer.
> > People want to munge Reply-To headers to make ``reply back to the
> > list'' easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two
> > separate ``re
12 matches
Mail list logo
