> I think I know how my 20 years of dedication is seen by others.
I'm still trying to catch up in the mailing list but just wanted to say
though I know that you know already. A big thanks from the world not
just the community Theo for all your hard work and shining a light
from the end of the tunn
On 2015-10-02, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> AFAIK, Linux uses 'long' for time_t,
Yes.
> like we used to.
No. We went from time_t being 32 bits on all archs to 64 bit on
all archs.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > Do you want to give back the money we have contributed? Refund the cost
> > > > of
> > > > the CDs we have on the shelf since, what, 3.1?
> > >
> > > Are you being serious here?
> > >
> > > I give you some money, and you'll leave?
> > >
> > Well, .
Lee said:
> > > Do you want to give back the money we have contributed? Refund the cost of
> > > the CDs we have on the shelf since, what, 3.1?
Theo said
> > Are you being serious here?
> >
> > I give you some money, and you'll leave?
Lee said:
> Well, .. that's what you were proposing, ..
Lee
> > > Do you want to give back the money we have contributed? Refund the cost of
> > > the CDs we have on the shelf since, what, 3.1?
> >
> > Are you being serious here?
> >
> > I give you some money, and you'll leave?
> >
> Well, .. that's what you were proposing, ..
I didn't propose anything abo
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Do you want to give back the money we have contributed? Refund the cost of
> > the CDs we have on the shelf since, what, 3.1?
>
> Are you being serious here?
>
> I give you some money, and you'll leave?
>
Well, .. that's what you were proposing, ..
> A
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Even if that is the case, it gives you NO RIGHT to keep pushing for
> developers to fix shit for you.
>
Well, .. if you would stop ranting long enough to actually READ the emails
I have sent, you might actually discover the words therein, .. and if you
ca
> Do you want to give back the money we have contributed? Refund the cost of
> the CDs we have on the shelf since, what, 3.1?
Are you being serious here?
I give you some money, and you'll leave?
Are there really user community members like you -- who are so
freeloading -- that if push comes to
> Do you want to give back the money we have contributed? Refund the cost of
> the CDs we have on the shelf since, what, 3.1?
Even if that is the case, it gives you NO RIGHT to keep pushing for
developers to fix shit for you.
None of your mails have arrived with a patch. Why is that?
http://www
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I still encourage you to stop using OpenBSD. It's pretty clear
> noone here is going to go out of their way to help you. So I mean,
> why continue asking/begging/demanding, and suggesting that people
> here are lazy or lunatic?
>
Huh? You've been trying
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> OpenBSD is essentially just a research project.
>
> It is completely unsuitable for use by "scientists" who demand we
> change it for them.
>
> Lee, I think you should go.
>
Why? I don't do anything a lunatic tells me, .. besides, you're too
entertaining.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> FYI sluug,
>
> Lee has been on our mailing lists arguing with people who don't
> want to do his work for him.
>
> Such discourse from a member of your community towards open source
> groups is not acceptable.
>
> Lee, you tell me when I should stop being
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, Linux uses 'long' for time_t, like we used to. This is
> > 32 bits on 32-bit platforms and 64 bits on 64-bit platforms and
> > matches the %lu format strings.
> >
> > Background etc. in http://www.openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon_2013_time_t/
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > When you pick a fight with one open source project, it may lead
> > people to believe you have other bad business practices.
> >
> Sorry, .. you picked the fight, not me - better get your story straight.
>
> > Stuart said he didn't want to help you
FYI sluug,
Lee has been on our mailing lists arguing with people who don't
want to do his work for him.
Such discourse from a member of your community towards open source
groups is not acceptable.
Lee, you tell me when I should stop being a 'lunatic', ok?
> > Apparently your expertise is beggin
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> AFAIK, Linux uses 'long' for time_t, like we used to. This is
> 32 bits on 32-bit platforms and 64 bits on 64-bit platforms and
> matches the %lu format strings.
>
> Background etc. in http://www.openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon_2013_time_t/
>
Stuart,
Th
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> When you pick a fight with one open source project, it may lead
> people to believe you have other bad business practices.
>
Sorry, .. you picked the fight, not me - better get your story straight.
> Stuart said he didn't want to help you -- for free. Y
> > Apparently your expertise is begging for help on open source
> > mailing lists, and then insulting us when we say no, we won't
> > help do your job for you.
> >
> Ahh, .. I wasn't begging, better check your sources. I was trying to help
> - if you don't want help, go farm cotton.
>
> > Get los
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Apparently your expertise is begging for help on open source
> mailing lists, and then insulting us when we say no, we won't
> help do your job for you.
>
Ahh, .. I wasn't begging, better check your sources. I was trying to help
- if you don't want help,
> > > Not saying he is, .. the question is why the codebase complies just fine
> > > on both 64 & 32 bit Linux systems, but not OBSD. If there were a way to
> > > divine that secret sauce, would it not help others?
> >
> > Yes. So go divine it, get going at it already.
> >
> Well, ... guess you re
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Not saying he is, .. the question is why the codebase complies just fine
> > on both 64 & 32 bit Linux systems, but not OBSD. If there were a way to
> > divine that secret sauce, would it not help others?
>
> Yes. So go divine it, get going at it alrea
> > > Ports is a thankless job. I guess there are way more (most probably paid?)
> > > volunteers in Linux who maintain nagios.
> >
> Not necessarily - the codebase is exactly the same - compiling on 5.7
> throws the errors previously mentioned, .. building on a 32-bit Debian
> kernel [4-byte time
On 2015/10/02 16:38, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> The part I do not grok is that nagioscore builds happily on 64-bit
> AND
> 32-bit Linux platforms, ...
>
>
> Ports is a thankless job. I guess there are way more (most probably
> paid?) volunteers in Linux who maintain nagios.
AFAIK, Linux
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> > Ports is a thankless job. I guess there are way more (most probably paid?)
> > volunteers in Linux who maintain nagios.
>
Not necessarily - the codebase is exactly the same - compiling on 5.7
throws the errors previously mentioned, .. building on a 32-
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:27 PM, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> Stuart,
>
> First, I have to thank you for being so patient and complete with the
> information,and understand the issue with the Nagios version in Ports,
> the changes that would be required to
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Stuart Henderson wrote:
Stuart,
First, I have to thank you for being so patient and complete with the
information,and understand the issue with the Nagios version in Ports,
the changes that would be required to make that work with 5.7, and also
your justifiable switch to Icing
On 2015/10/02 13:35, L. V. Lammert wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> One final question that is bugging me - if you have a few moments to
> provide a little edumification it would be appreciated.
>
> I realize that there is a issue for the project with time and resources
> to build binary packages packages
27 matches
Mail list logo
