as far as I understood from the story - both. ;(
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Uri Bruck
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:29 AM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: star office
Sun distinguishes between star office and open office. I
> > Still with Nautilus?
> >
> > Whats up with the gnome people & Nautilus actually? from my tests on RH 7.2
> > and Ximian gnome - it took about 3 minutes to me to see nautilus crashes -
> > and that with GNOME 1.4 latest stable from Ximian...
> >
> > I thought I was alone on this one, but amazin
ftp.linux.org.il is terribly slow here. It was not like that in the
last few weeks. Is there some temporary problem?
Am I right that it is again not routed through IIX?
It was not routed through IIX in the past and Amir has changed that.
Until some time (days ?) ago it was routed through IIX.
i made a mistake with the URL for downloading the file. it is:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/syscalltrack/syscalltrack-0.70.tar.gz
(i.e. '70', not '7').
sorry,
--
guy
"For world domination - press 1,
or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy
=
Sun distinguishes between star office and open office. Is this just about
the former or about both?
Thanks,
Uri
http://translation.israel.net
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, tal amir wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone saw this coming :
>
> sun said that star office is no longer under GPL for linux\windo
syscalltrack-0.7, the 6th _alpha_ release of the linux kernel system call
tracker, is available. syscalltrack supports both versions 2.2.x and 2.4.x
of the linux kernel. The current release contains some major enhancements,
and various bug fixes and code cleanups. See details below.
* What is sy
I'm wondering if anyone saw this coming :
sun said that star office is no longer under GPL for linux\windows users.
ver 6.0 final (upcoming in this may) will be distributed free only for sun
solaris.
back to MS office, anyone ??
http://whatsup.homelinux.com/article.php?sid=12
tal.
=
Hi People,
I'm re-installing my truetype fonts and mkfontdir doesn't give me a single
ISO10646-1 line in fonts.dir or fonts.scale...
Of course - I could add manually them, but I don't know which of those fonts
actually has them and which one doesn't - which doesn't...
Any suggestion? another
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Itai Arad wrote:
> Well here's another chapter in the endless pathetic saga of fonts/bidi in
> abiword...
>
> I have downloaded the latest source (version 0.99.2) and compiled with bidi
> and gnome support. To compile it, I used the instructions from the BUILD
> (not BUILD.TX
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Itai Arad wrote:
[... complete and clear description of what he did - was snipped ...]
> P.S.: I am a semi-newbie. Please try to be as clear and as unambiguous as
> possible.
No, Itai is not a semi-newbie, as far as Linux-IL netiquette is concerned.
His question fully qual
Well here's another chapter in the endless pathetic saga of fonts/bidi in
abiword...
I have downloaded the latest source (version 0.99.2) and compiled with bidi
and gnome support. To compile it, I used the instructions from the BUILD
(not BUILD.TXT !) file. I did
/autogen.sh
/configure --prefix=
Hi,
After several attempts, I haven't been able to set the printer font size on my
box. I use CUPS and have an Epson 670 USB. The print quality is very good, but
when I try to print a plain text file, the fonts are much too big. I think
this is a KDE problem since it happens in KWrite and Kate -
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:34:11PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> >
> > > if you'll look at my headers, you'll see that i'm using mutt as well
> > > as of now. its handling of large mailboxes does leave something to be
> > >
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 05:34:11PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Christoph Bugel wrote:
> > > On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> > > > hello, linuxers,
> > > >
> > > > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Christoph Bugel wrote:
> > On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> > > hello, linuxers,
> > >
> > > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> > > large mailboxes? on the order of thousands andten
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
>mailboxes":
> > > > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, imagine your mail not being on a sleazy ISP, but rather on a server
> you trust (your own Internet-connected machine, you company's
> server, etc.).
I was thinking in terms of reading my mail off a server belonging to
an ISP, hopefully not sleaz
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
> hello, linuxers,
>
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
>
> mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now,doe
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
>mailboxes":
> > > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
> >
> > Ah? What do you mean imap is plain text?
> >
> > IMAP is
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
>mailboxes":
> > > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
> >
> > Ah? What do you mean imap is plain
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, Orr Dunkelman wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
mailboxes":
> I believe that mulix talked about encryption (plain text = not encrypted).
> Thus, all the messages can be understood by the entire network.
Oh :)
Most IMAP clients/servers support SSL (including mutt
Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> I believe that mulix talked about encryption (plain text = not encrypted).
> Thus, all the messages can be understood by the entire network.
It depends upon how paranoid you are. In some cases encryption is not
need and it does slow things down a bit. If you want it, you c
On Sun 2002-02-24, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> I use mutt too, by the way. It has no problems readying a 1000-mail folder,
> but it still takes quite a few seconds (because the folder is a sequencial
> file that needs to be read entirely - there's no "index" associated with the
> standard Unix mbox form
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large mailboxes":
> > imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
>
> Ah? What do you mean imap is plain text?
>
> IMAP is just a protocol for remote access to mail messages (IMAP="I
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large
mailboxes":
> I never bothered exploring IMAP as an alternative to POP from my own
> mail reading. While mostly it was due to unwillingness to invest time
> and effort into this, part of the reason was that I lear
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "Re: mua which handles very large mailboxes":
> imap is also *plain text*. need i say any more?
Ah? What do you mean imap is plain text?
IMAP is just a protocol for remote access to mail messages (IMAP="Internet
Message Access Protocol"). These mail messag
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> I suspect you misread the original posting, since mulix was
> specifically looking for a non-X MUA.
Sorry, I thought he said that he could not use an X based MUA as he was
connecting from SSH. If he tunneled his IMAP session via ssh the he would
have secure access to HIS
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you looked into IMAP? IMAP is a protocol that keeps mail on the
> server.
I never bothered exploring IMAP as an alternative to POP from my own
mail reading. While mostly it was due to unwillingness to invest time
and effort into this, pa
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 03:20:37PM +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> mulix wrote:
>
> > mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now, doesnt cut
> > it above several hundred messages), evolution, kmail, mozilla, any other
> > x based mailer. i read my mail over ssh frequently,
mulix wrote:
> mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now, doesnt cut
> it above several hundred messages), evolution, kmail, mozilla, any other
> x based mailer. i read my mail over ssh frequently, and an x mua is not
> feasible.
Have you looked into IMAP? IMAP is a protocol th
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:40:46PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> mulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> > large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> > of messages (think lkml archive).
>
> What do
mulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
What do you mean by "handle"? Like actually reading mail using it? I
use GNUS, which c
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Christoph Bugel wrote:
> On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> > hello, linuxers,
> >
> > anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> > large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> > of messages (think lkml ar
On Sun 2002-02-24, mulix wrote:
> hello, linuxers,
>
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
I'm using mutt. mutt supports many mailbox formats, but I use the
de
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002, mulix wrote about "mua which handles very large mailboxes":
>...
> anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
> large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
> of messages (think lkml archive).
>...
> i'll be checking out mutt ver
hello, linuxers,
anyone knows a good mailer, command line based, which can handle very
large mailboxes? on the order of thousands and tens of thousands
of messages (think lkml archive).
mailers i'm not interested in: pine (i'm using it right now, doesnt cut
it above several hundred messages), ev
Hey! I know you from the Areivim/Avodah list! I didn't know you were also
into linux.
I've been trying to run Bar-Ilan version 3 (five years old) on wine, but I
never get past the 'No response from NetHASP server' dialog. (It could be
just a problem with accessing the parallel port itself from a
37 matches
Mail list logo
