On Wednesday 14 November 2007 23:40, Chip Marshall wrote:
On November 14, 2007, Ben Scott sent me the following:
I suggest just running your own caching resolver (ISC BIND named,
tinydns, whatever) and bypassing the ISP's mess entirely.
Probably doable for now, but there's nothing
Ben Scott wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 9:03 PM, Ric Werme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I still have no good idea of exactly what Gnome is and isn't ...
That's okay, the GNOME developers have the same problem.
HHOS.
Is this a corollary to the Peter Principle that any software project
will
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Ben Scott wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 10:27 AM, TARogue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with most of those is that they are FVWM2, which is nothing
at all like regular FVWM.
The config file syntax was heavily modified in FVWM version 2.x, no
question. For the
On Nov 15, 2007 9:30 AM, TARogue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I couldn't even find the right places to put my file edits from 1.x ...
I assume you mean what and where in the config file. And not where
the actual file was supposed to go. :)
Basically, with FVWM 2, a lot of things were made
On Nov 14, 2007 11:40 PM, Chip Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On November 14, 2007, Ben Scott sent me the following:
I suggest just running your own caching resolver (ISC BIND named,
tinydns, whatever) and bypassing the ISP's mess entirely.
Probably doable for now, but there's nothing
On 11/15/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 11:00 AM, Charlie Farinella
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first assumption was that they (GoDaddy) are blocking outward traffic
on port 25, so I called them, but they say they are not.
I suspect they lied:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Ben Scott wrote:
What happens when you try? Do you get an error message? Does it
just sit forever waiting to connect?
# telnet mail.appropriatesolutions.com 25
Trying 63.131.36.2...
telnet: connect to address 63.131.36.2: No route to host
telnet: Unable to
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Neil Joseph Schelly wrote:
Can you pint that host? No route to host generally indicates you
cannot
even ping an address, due to having no connection to it. What happens
when
you telnet to a known mail server. For example,
telnet mail.neilschelly.com 25
On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:06, Charlie Farinella wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Ben Scott wrote:
What happens when you try? Do you get an error message? Does it
just sit forever waiting to connect?
# telnet mail.appropriatesolutions.com 25
Trying 63.131.36.2...
telnet:
On Nov 13, 2007 2:17 PM, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007 7:41 PM, Jim Eden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am an IBEW employed tech in NH.
By the way, Sir, I wanted to thank you for taking the time, and
having the courage, to voice your opinion and POV on this, in what was
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 11:50 -0500, Chris wrote:
Also found this
http://www.sematopia.com/?p=51
Might not be suitable for your application, but it is a way around the
problem.
So the PHP script is installed on some server that can send email and is
accessible via port 80 which gets
Hopefully someone can point me to a possible solution to this problem.
Using Debian ID and Gnome. Initially when I inserted a USB stick, an
icon for it appeared on desktop and I could browse, etc files on it.
No doubt after some upgrade, that behavior stopped. In the computer
folder, when I plug
On 11/15/07, Lloyd Kvam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 11:50 -0500, Chris wrote:
Also found this
http://www.sematopia.com/?p=51
Might not be suitable for your application, but it is a way around the
problem.
So the PHP script is installed on some server that
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote:
The big problem is that some idiot renamed the 'fvwm2' packages
to 'fvwm' in FC5 or 6 ...
I couldn't even *find* an FVWM (any version) packagein Fedora 5 or 6
(or maybe both; I forget). I think it got removed from the distro,
We have a POTS line (courtesy of Verizon) and three cells here in
Montpelier, VT, and sometimes on our 7-acre farm we lose the cell
connections, let alone driving north of here into the NEK where cell
coverage is pretty much non-existent, ditto for the ride down I-89 between
Royalton and Bellows
On Nov 15, 2007 3:17 PM, Star [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wireless is not nearly as all-encompassing as we think... I live in
Nashua and yeah, great coverage... I head out to my buddies house in
Allenstown and on my Verizon phone can't seem to find signal and
eventually kills itself looking...
On Nov 15, 2007 2:38 PM, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 2:30 PM, Michael Costolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find myself asking why anyone cares if they want to leave since they
refuse to do business with so many of us.
That's my thinking, too.
My only concern is,
Couldn't some combination of wireless and VOIP make POTS
redundant/unnecessary? Doesn't it already?
Not even a little bit. Drive north of Concord NH and it starts to
fall out in waves.
I noticed Verizon doesn't want to ditch its wireless service (a separate
company). I'm assuming that
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 14:30 -0500, Michael Costolo wrote:
I find myself asking why anyone cares if they want to leave since they
refuse to do business with so many of us.
I think a major concern is that FairPoint may be paying so much for the
franchise that debt service payments will prevent
On Nov 15, 2007 2:17 PM, mike ledoux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IME, FVWM2 is more resource-intensive than FVWM, for
comparable configurations.
That's I'll agree with, especially depending on the source build
configuration. FVWM 2 added support for quite a few more features and
extensions, and
If the keepers of the POTS up and vanished... wow. What chaos, what
opportunity would ensue!
People would still want (or think they need) their telephone
service, but there would be no shiny-logo company to take their money.
These would seem to be the perfect conditions for small-time
On Nov 15, 2007 4:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only imagine bands of Amateur Telephone Operators roaming the
streets, rewiring at will.
You can't attach your own lines to public utility poles without a
permit. I know a business that tried that, just to cross the street
to their
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:00:48 -0500
From: Michael Costolo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just wonder, if POTS went away tomorrow, what would that mean in terms of
its effect on residents and commercial businesses? I think it wouldn't
affect me all that much because I have VOIP and cell phones. But
On Nov 15, 2007 4:02 PM, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got it? :-)
-- Ben
I do now. Dang. Thanks.
-Mike-
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
On Nov 15, 2007, at 14:38, Ben Scott wrote:
My only concern is, what if FairPoint does turn into another Vitts?
Financial meltdown could well disrupt POTS (Plain Old Telephone
Service) across the region, too. That would be worse.
Vitts wasn't regulated the same way telcos are. e.g.:
On Nov 15, 2007, at 15:00, Michael Costolo wrote:
I'm assuming that Comcast serves the whole state and that their
VOIP services are available everywhere, but that could be a bad
assumption.
This has been made intentionally hard to measure, by using ZIP coding
to decorate coverage maps.
On Nov 15, 2007, at 08:09, Ted Roche wrote:
Is this a corollary to the Peter Principle that any software project
will expand to the point where it has lost track of what it was
supposed
to be doing?
I'd like to offer an emacs exception to your corollary as emacs is
_supposed_ to be
27 matches
Mail list logo
