On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:04:09PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote: > > Cause I asked a question (which has drawn *no* replies, BTW -- mostly, > > probably, cause I'd already asked the point guy on the topic and he didn't > > know), and subscribing to follow the answers *is what you do*. I stayed on > > a) waiting to see if someone picked up the questions and b) in case someone > > asked one I could answer -- much the same reason I'm on the Linux Gazette > > Answer Gang. > > Yes, this 'point guy' was me. I tried to help you as good as I could, > however communication was kind of tedious as you emails came back > bouncing with : > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection timed out with firewall.jachomes.com. > Message could not be delivered for 5 days > Message will be deleted from queue
Yeah, DNS problems you can't control suck, don't they? > I don't think you will find anyone else on this list who still has > expertise about C&T chips. > Furthermore I don't think you can complain that I have given you > impolite answers. And you'll note that I didn't -- I went out of my way to point out that you had tried. > I have scheduled to look into the offset problem you are seeing. > However there are more things in XFree86 I need to take care of > so I was not able to do so immediately. Oh. Cool. Thanks. > > > "the internet" has more than one field, by the way. I doubt you're in a > > > personnel/user related area. > > > > Almost all of them in 20 years, except maybe BGP4. *Lots* of front line user > > hand-holding and training, in fact -- including teaching people how to work > > their mail user agents for best effect. So that poor configuration choices > > on mailing lists won't bite *them*. :-) > > > > And between your attitude and David's, I must say, I can see why there was a > > fuss with Keith, and why people suggested that he fork the project. If y'all > > can't be bothered to be polite anymore, go find something else to do, 'k? > > I don't see where David's answers been impolite - or anybody else. > Linking this issue to the discussion about a fork is neither fair > nor productive. > My main intention starting this thread was to point out that many > of those seeking support may never receive an answer. > I had no intention to provoke a general political flamewar. The flamewar was completely orthogonal to my support problem, really. > We instead need a pragmatic solution for our problem - unless > we want to keep making support for the garbage bin. I guess I'll have to pretend I parsed that. In any event, thanks for your help, Egbert. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows -- Simon Slavin, on a.f.c _______________________________________________ XFree86 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86
