>
GPL, section 3c, says exactly that
>
>
>
- --
A computer without windoze is like a fish without a bicycle.
Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who. Finger me for PGP
public key.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE/Sx14+ZSKG3nWr3ARAnVKAJ4lRg0pupSAQyTG4f8i5rIH9IHIsACg4Gsp
5jahoMmGjxxEWdADOKntN4U=
=zFjP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
er the old way of STDOUT with a hold prompt?
- --
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE/A0Hu+ZSKG3nWr3ARAl1SAJ0d8E9nrEwCIx
said
that there was a special spot in Hell for the people who remove non-free:
I guess that Hell in this case truly IS Redmond, WA.
>You bastards!
>
>
>
>
--
Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
t;been advised of the possibility of such damage. I acknowledge that this is a
>reasonable allocation of risk.
>
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-w write Output as WAV file
case sensitive...
> :[ !
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ mpg123 --longhelp 2>&1 |grep wav
>-w --wav Writes samples as WAV file in (- is stdout)
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$
>
>Admit you have to know it ...
>
>
--
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">John Galt
ket to the Mars...
RFC 1607 describes how to do it I think it's not due for at least
four more years.
>;)
>Marcus
>
>
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED] that's who!
Very limited scope. Not many configuration
> options.
>
> Would I like to find a co-maintainer for wmaker? Yes. Celestia? No.
> My criteria for considering co-maintainership is simple: "Can I cover
> all the possible ways of using this package myself?"
>
> [0] We never finished that conversation at Linux Tag.
>
>
--
EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
did to install-mbr...
- --
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOvDNXB9mehuYcOjMEQKooACfVLZgJEzIt1Q2tjlY/A3MuiB+uL4AnArk
YhCCMj6Qzd3LarvSunYR2mpA
=DtWS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enough said. Fuck him.
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
- --
Sacred cows make the best burgers
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP for
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
>On Wednesday 10 January 2001 03:23, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
>> > 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will
>> > only stop it from booting.
>>
>> Oh, well, as
I guess that Raul WAS right when he told me there *IS* only one way to do
it...
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
SB>On Monday 8 January 2001, at 9 h 5, the keyboard of Tollef Fog Heen
SB><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SB>
SB>> I intend to package mboxgrep, a utility which greps mailb
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
BR>On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 06:26:24PM -0600, Bud Rogers wrote:
BR>> It is spectacularly bad form to quote private email in a public forum,
BR>> but it is not illegal. And it is spectacularly naive to count on the
BR>> privacy of anything you tell anothe
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
SL>On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
SL>
SL>> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
SL>> > There IS a debconf question about it.. it's not like it just does it to
you
SL>> > without asking. Maybe the debconf priority of the question is too low if
SL>> > too m
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
JH>John Galt wrote:
JH>> JH>In other words, if you can have a religious war over it, we need an
JH>> JH>alternative. I have never seen a religious war over man. :-)
JH>>
JH>> Never heard RMS on info pages?
JH>
JH>Th
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D-Man wrote:
D>On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
D>> mutt allegedly shares code with pine...
^^
D>>
D>
D>That would be very strange since mutt's author was a part of the elm
D>group. Wouldn't m
On 4 Jan 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
MS>>>"John" == John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MS>
MS> SG> Wrong. This would break my MUA so that "reply" no longer sends mail back
MS> SG> to the originator, as it is supposed to do.
MS>
MS> Jo
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
JH>Peter Makholm wrote:
JH>> We have alternatives on almost everything but dpkg and man. If someone
JH>> thinks it's worth the effort to make alternatives for these they
JH>> should do it. If there is a general agreement that the alternatives is
JH>> better tha
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
SG>On 03-Jan-01, 22:53 (CST), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SG>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
SG>>
SG>> > I didn't say there was. Does "Mail-Copies-To:" begin with an X?
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:11:50PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use.
> >
> > Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header!
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > > > In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To:
> > > > headers,
> > > > which I might note you didn't include in your messa
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
> >
> > There is nothing about honoring X headers at all.
>
> I didn't say there was. Does "Mail-Copies-To:
Why the hell should we go on #debian on OPN when you so much as admitted
that the ops on it have some kind of power trip: devoicing instead of
rebutting when they have an issue with what's said? If I help somebody, I
really don't want to have to stay politically correct: getting the problem
solve
FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
There is nothing about honoring X headers at all. In fact, the only thing
the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers, which I might note you
didn't include in your message. Basically, you're on the wrong side of
RFC 1855 on this issue and all the bit
needs to be
a wnpp check on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless
adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died
during the potato freeze...).
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt w
Isn't there rudimentary ACL implementation in the kernel? An ACL would do
the job nicely...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Peter Eckersley wrote:
> >
> >
> > If my I want a file to be readable by everybody *except* user fred, I
> > can set permissions:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTEC
If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC
folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's
utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the
point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC
community
Bzzt! mentioned three times by my recollection in the "dualling
banjos" thread. Half the distance to the goal line, loss of down: second
down!
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, John Leuner wrote:
> I thought it was some metaphor for SMP
>
> > DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine specia
DuEling BANjos, I'd presume. Probably some search engine specializing in
"sound-alikes" for lousy spellers...
On 26 Dec 2000, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Kim" == Kim Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kim> could you please mail me sheet music for dueling banjos
>
> This is about
I was kind of feeling sorry about including you as a CC in the last
post--partial oversight, partial personal policy (I never quite know how
to deal with tertiary CCs: I generally detest people who adulterate a
message they're replying to, but I also think that responsibility for
replies stops abo
You going to send them the bill then? At the bottom off the mailinglist
subscription page:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe
is the mailinglist policy. Basically, the policy says either pay us
$1,000 up front or $1,999 after. Martin (Joey, whatever you prefer...),
Remco, Alexander,
I thought the netbase breakup was because of a old-BSD/GPL license
incompatibility...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
> > The big package breakups have historically been related to licensing
> > issues
>
> Not as far as I can remember. The X br
ument that I need to read?)
>
>
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding fools and money?
Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PR
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
You have paid nothing for the preceding, therefore it's worth every penny
you've paid for it: if you did pay for it, might I remind you of the
immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum regarding
I see
complaints about lack of manpower as rhetorical at best, hypocritical at
worst.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:24:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> >
> > > First of all, you
L PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">John Galt
35 matches
Mail list logo
