On 05/06/10 23:27, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>
> Compared to the major Linux distros, you might want to keep one thing
> in mind: we are not backed-up by a commercial entity that pays for our
> work and for the hardware to do the work on. Indeed, I am not aware of
> any ports committer hired by someon
Funny enough, I cannot contribute to this thread anymore, as it appears that
only a fraction of the messages in this thread ended in my mail box. I
understand this is a deliberate and convenient policy!
Tim
__
[ top posting makes it hard to read ]
On Fri, 7 May 2010 03:27:50 +0300
Mihai Militaru wrote:
> Sarcasm may not be an excuse for an irrational behavior.
I don't understand what you are referring to above.
And let me note there is a difference between sarcasm and insults.
> I noted this "sup
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 03:27:50AM +0300, Mihai Militaru wrote:
> Most questions I investigated since I'm on this system have been
> answered already here and there on the internet by some maintainers,
> things like: "go read the Bible", "it is a problem with your hardware",
> "you've done somethin
Mihai Militaru wrote:
Sarcasm may not be an excuse for an irrational behavior. I noted this
"suprematism" he's talking about as well, although I'd not call it like
that - it assumes a superiority - but an unnecessary hubris.
Most questions I investigated since I'm on this system have been
answere
Sarcasm may not be an excuse for an irrational behavior. I noted this
"suprematism" he's talking about as well, although I'd not call it like
that - it assumes a superiority - but an unnecessary hubris.
Most questions I investigated since I'm on this system have been
answered already here and there
Am 04.05.2010 12:10, schrieb Tim A:
>
>> > >> 4) I don't understand the suprematism attitude of the maintainers
>> > >> in charge, who don't give a penny on the programs they are suppose
>> > >> to maintain. They are only interested in the statistics generated
>> > >> by their unprofessional ports
On Tue, 4 May 2010 05:10:17 -0500
Tim A wrote:
>
> > > >> 4) I don't understand the suprematism attitude of the
> > > >> maintainers in charge, who don't give a penny on the programs
> > > >> they are suppose to maintain. They are only interested in the
> > > >> statistics generated by their unp
> > >> 4) I don't understand the suprematism attitude of the maintainers
> > >> in charge, who don't give a penny on the programs they are suppose
> > >> to maintain. They are only interested in the statistics generated
> > >> by their unprofessional ports, but not in their quality.
QED **
Hi Matthias,
Thank you for the email and your efforts.
I have no problem with anything. Otherwise, your logic is wrong. At least one
person was interested.
Best,
Tim
> Subject: Fwd: Re: Dixit port bad management
> To: cx...@live.com
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:36:33 +02
On Mon, 03 May 2010 21:10:05 +0200
Rene Ladan wrote:
> On 03-05-2010 21:00, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tim A wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) I don't understand why the Textproc/Dixit port is so badly
> >> managed. The program itself is at version 10.4, while your
> >> unprofe
Thank you, Garrett and Rene.
If the port is motherless or orphan, I will look into it an fix it during the
summer.
Tim
_
Hotmail & Messenger. Get them on your phone now.
http://go.microsoft
On 03-05-2010 21:00, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tim A wrote:
>>
>> 1) I don't understand why the Textproc/Dixit port is so badly managed. The
>> program itself is at version 10.4, while your unprofessional port still
>> stays at version 1.0.1, claiming that the GCC
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tim A wrote:
>
> 1) I don't understand why the Textproc/Dixit port is so badly managed. The
> program itself is at version 10.4, while your unprofessional port still stays
> at version 1.0.1, claiming that the GCC 4.2 compilation is broken.
>
> 2) I don't underst
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 02:59:40PM -0500, Tim A wrote:
> 4) I don't understand the suprematism attitude of the maintainers in
> charge, who don't give a penny on the programs they are suppose to
> maintain. They are only interested in the statistics generated by their
> unprofessional ports, but no
On May 2, 2010, at 9:59 PM, Tim A wrote:
>
> 1) I don't understand why the Textproc/Dixit port is so badly managed. The
> program itself is at version 10.4, while your unprofessional port still stays
> at version 1.0.1, claiming that the GCC 4.2 compilation is broken.
>
> 2) I don't understa
16 matches
Mail list logo
