Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:43:36 -0700
From: "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 at 10:07 GMT, csj :
>> On 29. November 2003 at 11:07AM -0700, "Monique Y. Herman" :
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 at 14:56 GMT, Roberto Sanchez :
>>> >
>>> > I don't see how this is an issue. I foun
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 at 10:07 GMT, csj penned:
> On 29. November 2003 at 11:07AM -0700, "Monique Y. Herman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 at 14:56 GMT, Roberto Sanchez penned:
>> >
>> > I don't see how this is an issue. I found out the same way I get
>> > all my other news
On 29. November 2003 at 11:07AM -0700,
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 at 14:56 GMT, Roberto Sanchez penned:
> >
> > I don't see how this is an issue. I found out the same way I
> > get all my other news: from slashdot :-)
> >
> I read slashdot, too, and I r
On 2003-11-29, Monique Y. Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I read slashdot, too, and I read it enough to realize that their stories
> are as often misinformation as news.
Like when they've put a story just after the vote with a threatening
title "EU Parliament Approves Software Patents":
htt
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 at 14:56 GMT, Roberto Sanchez penned:
>
> I don't see how this is an issue. I found out the same way I get all
> my other news: from slashdot :-)
>
> -Roberto
>
I read slashdot, too, and I read it enough to realize that their stories
are as often misinformation as news.
--
Martin Schulze wrote:
Karsten M. Self wrote:
It had to be re-installed. You probably know that since you've read
the announcement we were able to send out before the machine was taken
down for reinstallation.
That announcement wasn't delivered for all users until _after_ murphy
was resurrected.
Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > It had to be re-installed. You probably know that since you've read
> > the announcement we were able to send out before the machine was taken
> > down for reinstallation.
>
> That announcement wasn't delivered for all users until _after_ murphy
> was resurrected. I my
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:14:19AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> I'll disagree with Martin's comment that the server compromise didn't
> constitute a security issue despite the lack of an archive compromise.
> For someone well versed in Debian procedures, it might have been
> plausible that the a
on Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:30:05AM +0100, Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > To us debian users, the most notable thing during this break in or
> > whatever episode, is how the communication structures crumbled.
>
> It had to be re-installe
On Nov 25, 2003, at 17:16, Dan Jacobson wrote:
With the mailing lists affected, what would average user me do to
learn the latest on the situation,
irc.debian.org #debian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Jacobson wrote:
> To us debian users, the most notable thing during this break in or
> whatever episode, is how the communication structures crumbled.
It had to be re-installed. You probably know that since you've read
the announcement we were able to send out before the machin
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 06:16:39AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > To us debian users, the most notable thing during this break in or
> > whatever episode, is how the communication structures crumbled.
Tru enough, there was some info but it w
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 06:16:39AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> To us debian users, the most notable thing during this break in or
> whatever episode, is how the communication structures crumbled.
>
> debian-announce had one message on the 21st, five days ago, saying for
> more i
To us debian users, the most notable thing during this break in or
whatever episode, is how the communication structures crumbled.
debian-announce had one message on the 21st, five days ago, saying for
more information, see www.debian.org.
Nothing special there, so I checked http
14 matches
Mail list logo
