Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
The GNG foundation
Karthik Kumar wrote:
It's been a while since I removed links on that page. And
for the information I very much use OpenBSD. Maybe I should change the
title to Free as in beer OSes.
No. Free is free.
Free as in beer is unethical to children who view the website and wonder
what beer tastes
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:28:53AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 12:26 AM, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 11:28 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
community which listens to the
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in
On 1/5/08, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
I have a better idea. Why don't you do your own fucking homework.
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 20:14:27 +0100
Jacob Grydholt Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free.
Or supposedly why emacs runs on non-free.
And you apparently missed the posts where the leading developers of
OpenBSD stated that they don't
On 1/5/08, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person. Applying the
same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and
nothing more.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Why, they haven't provided me with a free
upgrade for, what 2, 3
On 1/5/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no such thing as free as in beer. This is one of the dumbest
analogies I have ever heard. Who came up with it anyway? Was it the
Thank you.
But, like all good political slogans, it is stupid like a fox: the
hucksters who push it
--- Shane J Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/01/2008, at 3:28 AM, Karthik Kumar wrote:
If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be
putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'
Huh? OpenBSD is built from free software and allows users the freedom
to do
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well OpenBSD is fine here. But, are you sure about RMS? Because he
has been contradicting himself all over the place in this thread alone.
Richard appears to be falling into a single point of failure setup.
Its
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 1:06 AM, Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your
computer and ethics.
Please cite a piece of software that can harm my computer merely
--- Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written
in a stupid web page until you live up to them.
Which OpenBSD does. You have failed to show otherwise.
We do
On 1/5/08, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
I have a better idea. Why don't you do your own fucking homework.
Oh come now. You can't expect a hypocrite to do homework that
undermines
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well OpenBSD is fine here. But, are you sure about RMS? Because he
has been contradicting himself all over the place in this thread
On Jan 6, 2008 1:22 AM, Jacob Grydholt Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/01/2008, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify to encourage
people to use
non-free software, but I see that happening anyway.
And so what? I think you
On Jan 5, 2008 11:51 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.
I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
like and fight for
There is no such thing as free as in beer. This is one of the dumbest
analogies I have ever heard. Who came up with it anyway? Was it the
FSF by any chance?
A guy called it 'Free as in Sex' here. Blame him for the next dumbest term. :P
By now if you have been carefully studying you
On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and
On 1/3/08, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm following the same principles that I apply to others.
I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers
can judge all aspects for themselves.
I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
apply a
On 04/01/2008, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:02:09AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
your big fat lying mouth.
Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar. And
since you refuse to undo your commercial support in
[This message was generated by an automated system.]
I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay. I am
located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is concerned,
I appear to be well outside the solar system.
After your message arrives at gnu.org, I will
On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
period!
That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use,
including distributing the code under other licenses.
I don't think so. The
2008/1/4, David Vasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sounds like he is hiding somewhere in Tora Bora.
Regards,
David
Actually I got that message in a private conversation with him as
well, he do reply within 48 hours time frame so I don't think he is
hiding in Tora Bora.
--
Please avoid sending me
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Richard M. Stallman - Autoreply Message wrote:
[This message was generated by an automated system.]
I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay. I am
located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is concerned,
I appear to be well outside
On Jan 4, 2008, at 14:26, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
others?
Because for me it is
The wget he uses is worse.
You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
the user at all!!!
I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.
Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32
API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some
Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was
free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free
OS's.
My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved. If
any of my friends were involved, they did not inform me.
Good friends you have then.
More likely they aren't my friends. You may have noticed that the
Linux developers disagree with my philosophy. I know very few of
http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/
http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/
http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm
see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your
favourite organization.
In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american
lawyer but
Mr. Stallman, I respect you for what you've managed to achieve as an individual.
But, frankly, this thread has really gotten way out of control.
A few days back everything had kind-a settled down and we got the
impression that the thread had fortunately died, but that's not been
the case, you
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word free,
which we don't give a
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Mr. Stallman, I respect you for what you've managed to achieve as an
individual.
But, frankly, this thread has really gotten way out of control.
A few days back everything had kind-a settled down and we got the
impression that the thread had fortunately died, but
On Jan 3, 2008 3:20 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite
organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your
friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they
even tried vainly
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:03 AM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
you are going to go
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
non-free are distributed in the ports site.
And yet, you still don't have it quite right. Saying that the ports system
Mayuresh Kathe schrieb:
Mr. Stallman,
...
Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word free,
which we don't give a farthing for.
Hello Mayuresh,
a possible reason can be that he is thinking Some
of it might stick.
Not likely.
Go back under your rock, along with RMS and the rest
of the bunch.
--
Michael Schmidt MIRRORS:
Watcom
ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/
OpenOffice
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[blablabla]
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
want's to be
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:50:27PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
I don't
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
I don't have a strong problem with it, but for
Why don't you tell us about emacs and gcc as Theo said?
If you don't want to answer nothing new here
Don't feed the troll!!
While reading this thread the course it has taken really surprises me.
I dont agree with Richards take on OpenBSD. I think OpenBSD is fine,
good for recommendations for a truly free OS. But what really surprises
me is that Stallman has resorted to blatant troll like posting just to
incite a
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:22:35AM -0700, L wrote:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary
On Jan 3, 2008 10:28 PM, Ruben Gonzalez Arnau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you tell us about emacs and gcc as Theo said?
If you don't want to answer nothing new here
The wget he uses is worse.
You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
the user at all!!!
L wrote:
GCC for ms WIndows does not even REQUIRE thinking first. Everyone
knows GCC is a great Windows Proprietary compiler to create
proprietary software.. it's just a cheaper compiler than MS VC. It
is so easy to get or make GCC on windows, because Stallman knows
his figurehead will
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
le that have an OpenBSD CD to install the OS have the chance to use
MORE free software than before.
That's got nothing to do with what was talked about. It's not about the
OpenBSD cd, but about having ...
http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
This list is actually the first place I read of widespread use of GCC
for making proprietary software. Since so many lies are said about what
RMS promotes or not, I don't feel confident in taking your word for it
(specially since you seem to resort easily into insults).
This just underscores
On 1/3/08, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The wget he uses is worse.
You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
the user at all!!!
And electricity! I'm pretty sure (unless I'm misinformed) he uses
electricity provided by plants and distribution systems that are
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:02:40PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
OpenBSD as not
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:40:47AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:50:27PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Since I'm (at
Marco Peereboom wrote:
This list is actually the first place I read of widespread use of GCC
for making proprietary software. Since so many lies are said about what
RMS promotes or not, I don't feel confident in taking your word for it
(specially since you seem to resort easily into insults).
This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably
In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
looks like the question had in mind a whole system. This
miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
endorsement of a system.
Huh? OpenSolaris is just a kernel
That's what I
On Jan 4, 2008 10:59 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
looks like the question had in mind a whole system. This
miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
endorsement
This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will
In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it
looks like the question had in mind a whole system. This
miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an
endorsement of a system.
Huh? OpenSolaris is just a kernel
That's
On Jan 2, 2008 2:54 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the real issue, Richard. You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
without knowing the facts. You get confronted with them and you change
history. Sound familiar?
What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
your big fat lying mouth.
I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid.
They will certainly see I am not perfect. I had learned the facts
about OpenSolaris, but that was months before. By the time I
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open
your big fat lying mouth.
I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid.
They will certainly see I am not perfect. I had learned the facts
about OpenSolaris, but that was months before. By the
Hello Richard,
After reading this thread, I was interested to see what your list
recommendation really was, because I have never actually seen it!! So
I headed over fsf.org which leads me to this page when trying to find
out your list of recommended OS list:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html
On Jan 1, 2008 4:28 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard, since you are a hypocrite who won't read web pages,
Richard please switch from you demoniac way of reading web pages
fetching them with wget and so on as you said and act normal. There
are a whole lot of people who are at
Here is the real issue, Richard. You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
without knowing the facts. You get confronted with them and you change
history. Sound familiar?
What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
But you have added a new false accusation of
Here is the real issue, Richard. You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
without knowing the facts. You get confronted with them and you change
history. Sound familiar?
What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.
We are not spinning any facts.
Richard,
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 04:24:06PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Here is the real issue, Richard. You go off and endorse OpenSolaris
without knowing the facts. You get confronted with them and you change
history. Sound familiar?
What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you
]
CC: misc@openbsd.org
In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (message from Marco
Peereboom on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:07:16 -0600)
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Marco Peereboom wrote:
Might it have something to do with money?
http://www.fsf.org/donate/patron/index_html
Thanks, now I know how Barracuda got away with barely paying lip service
to the GPL.
From: Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Richard, can you please educate me why you endorse Solaris?
http
Thanks. Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
correction in the interview. I made it general so that I won't have
to go into these specifics. But I would like to know more about the
need for Devpro:
Thanks. Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
correction in the interview. I made it general so that I won't have
to go into these specifics. But I would like to know more about the
need for
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:30:47PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Thanks. Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info
about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a
correction in the interview. I made it general so that I won't have
to go into these
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Per that interview you are endorsing an OS that basically won't run
without proprietary drivers.
I did not know that. Can you send me a URL for the precise details?
Once I know the details, I will ask them to post a
2007/12/16, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The language is not ready for it. Other languages do not have such a problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
Best
Martin
bofh wrote:
The reasons I've are:
Need to support commercial packages
Linux is more mainstream
Debian has a maintenance program in place (ie, security patches are
back ported to supported platforms)
Longetivity of a particular level of release
...
I've used Debian a bit since 1997.
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
in one place.
BSD has and still does depend on GCC.
Even if you manage to successfully replace it tomorow, The BSD's have
depended on it
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, STeve Andre' wrote:
On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:42:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I
also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I
send mail
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:31PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
...
Remember all the people who accused me of lying because at some time
I described the presence of these recipes as the ports system
includes non-free software?
Actually, in the quote from the interview you refer first to
the
Gilles Chehade wrote:
I still know of many companies that did not switch to Linux because a
free software foundation provided them with a version of gcc that can
run on their proprietary OS and Richard still did not tell me why the
fsf promotes the use of proprietary software by porting free
ropers wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?
Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
batches almost made
William Boshuck wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.
Neither one.
What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
system suggests non-free programs.
You
Ray Percival wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:21 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
Richard Stallman wrote:
Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.
that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose?
I suppose
On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Distribute:
4) To pass out or deliver.
By providing URL's in its ports system, OpenBSD distrubutes - passes
out/delivers,
the items pointed to by the URL's.
Some of them are non-free.
Dude, you're a comic genius! Absolutely
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:42:06PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you mind sharing the recipie ? That sounds like a great idea.
It's rather easy to do. I have done it just for fun.
You can also FTP download using mail. You send commands to a
server, it cuts in pieces the file to download
He got his cookie for that many years ago.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:52:05AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
in one place.
BSD
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
in one place.
BSD has and still does depend on GCC.
Has anyone on the OpenBSD devel team reviewed the
I am not arguing; you are.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:43:40AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Who cares? Opera is also in pots, who cares? I am sure we have
more of those things in there. It's exactly the same as having
windows binaries
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
Actually I'm not a man at all.
Not all people who are in software are men.
This an interesting point..
I came up with a solution and also wrote it down here:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 03:36:21AM +, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
Where I work right now, we have bsd and debian on servers.
All user computers run debian or mandrake right now (and
we're going to move those to debian). We dont let them choose.
It is mandatory. We use bsd and some debian on
On Dec 16, 2007 1:26 PM, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
I came up with a solution and also wrote it down here:
http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=The-He-She-Woman-Man-Problem-Solved
Yee will find it interesting if yee
L writes:
Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.
Har, har.
Just use they.
It used to be considered poor English to use they when
speaking of a single person, but the language has evolved.
I did not find the thread title objectionable; in fact I found
it humorous that anyone thought
On Dec 16, 2007 2:02 PM, Deanna Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
L writes:
Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.
Har, har.
Just use they.
It used to be considered poor English to use they when
speaking of a single person, but the language has evolved.
Actually, it just came
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 03:36:21AM +, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
Where I work right now, we have bsd and debian on servers.
All user computers run debian or mandrake right now (and
we're going to move those to debian). We dont let them choose.
It
The reasons I've are:
Need to support commercial packages
Linux is more mainstream
Debian has a maintenance program in place (ie, security patches are
back ported to supported platforms)
Longetivity of a particular level of release
And... Hell of a lot of opensource programmers think
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 01:10:54PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
Where I work right now, we have bsd and debian on servers.
All user computers run debian or mandrake right now (and
we're going to move those to debian). We dont let them choose.
It is mandatory. We use bsd and some debian
Hi!
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:26:17AM -0700, L wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
Actually I'm not a man at all.
Not all people who are in software are men.
This an interesting point..
I came up with a solution and also wrote it down here:
201 - 300 of 724 matches
Mail list logo
