t. I can assure you that the
>> current trolls will be back in their cages safely under their bridges in
>> short order.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
> Hang around in OpenBSD-misc or Full-Disclosure for a while to reset
&
On 05/17/2011 12:51 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:41:23AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
What a load of undiluted crap.
Please keep this for yourself.
Why when it's the truth. Does the truth hurt?
It may be the truth
On 05/17/2011 12:47 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 2:41 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>> I never said I want to do it.
> ah, so what DID you say? you want someone unspecified to do a
> better/different job for you than someone else is already doing for free ?
>
> man,
On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>
>> The main "fear" the developers have is that somebody could steal their
>> work and come up with
>> another RHEL clone easily if they release their build sy
On 05/16/2011 11:50 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 3:38 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
>>> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
>>> in the au
On 04/13/2011 07:55 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/13/2011 10:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/12/2011 5:40 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
There is no compelling reason
to tamper with a system that works that I have seen so far.
Is there any amount of elapsed time that will convince you otherwise?
I'l
On 04/12/2011 08:00 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 05:19 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
>>> Fixing the timing of release is something we get from getting the
>>> process into the right place. And not the other way around. There seems
>> NO ONE IS SAYING TO PUSH CRAP OUT THE DOOR JUST FOR THE SA
On 04/12/2011 02:37 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 12:31 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>> I think you are avoiding the real issue here, again and again. It's not
>> about ownership. It's not about taking ownership.
>> It's about making the process open
On 04/12/2011 02:37 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 12:31 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>> I think you are avoiding the real issue here, again and again. It's not
>> about ownership. It's not about taking ownership.
>> It's about making the process open
On 04/12/2011 02:01 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 01:21 AM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>> Karanbir Singh wrote on 04/11/2011 12:20 PM:
>> ...
>>> No, re-read what I said. Ownership in the distro is quite a different
>>> ballgame from userend support.
>> Yes, but it seems to be rather closely
On 04/11/2011 11:54 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 03:37:28PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/11/2011 2:59 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:
Make your own experiment (i.e rebuild your own clone) and document/report back
what you find out as the proper order of rebuild of the upstream SRPMS ?
On 04/08/2011 01:34 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:31:10AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>> +1
> For the love of whatever $deity you believe in...
>
> If you're going to leave then go ahead and leave. But could
> you do so qui
On 04/08/2011 01:12 AM, Tamada Wilder wrote:
> Ian Murray hits the point.
> now i followed this list for some mounth and im gonna change also my
> last boxes to SL.
> I've never seen so strange and useless comments from devs in any other
> mailinglist before.
> The information politic is just horri
On 04/07/2011 07:02 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 08:11 AM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism wh
On 04/07/2011 06:49 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
>
>>> These people are priceless and don't deserve to be
>>> submitted to the harshness we have been witnessing lately.
>
> And everyone else is worthless and deserve the rudeness handed out by the
> devs?
> Why don't you make comment on that or is that p
On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
>> to this list.
> This coming from someone who frequently tells people to "SHUT UP" and go
> away and use something else. I guess th
Hi all,
I can confirm this has happened to all my CentOS boxes in production.
Regards,
Radu
On 12/14/2010 03:15 PM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
Hi all,
After the latest security update for bind (which came out last night),
now there's a new message on syslog, (facility: daemon, severity:
warning)
Hello,
Is there any maximum number of IP aliases or IP ranges that ifup can
handle? Right now i have about 12000 IPs assigned to the server and when
trying to assign range number 47 (ifup eth0-range47), i get his error:
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-post: line 21: 12733 Segmentation
fault
18 matches
Mail list logo
