On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:32:34 +0800, Lars Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 July 2006 05:05, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>> Either way, this makes them look like the biggest fucking idiots ever.
>
>Most people who have ever had to use any of their devices knew this already.
>
>---
>Lars H
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 05:05, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Either way, this makes them look like the biggest fucking idiots ever.
Most people who have ever had to use any of their devices knew this already.
---
Lars Hansson
J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
> to try to kill off VRRP. The Huawei IPR claim to the IETF is nearly
> identical to the crap Cisco put out years ago in their IPR claim.
>
It's funny how these Chinese guys like to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's
> technically better
> > than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems
> till stands
> > that it is not an "official" protocol, which simply means
> adoption and
> > inter operability will suffer to som
2006/7/3, laurent FANIS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yeah that is true i didn't see it but wouldn't be possible to buy off
people ?I mean the company is in china and it is a country that has a
certain degree of corruption.This is what i'm afraid of too.
You are right to a degree (the patent will surely
On 7/3/06, J. C. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:40:01 +0300, "laurent FANIS"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Couldn't resist asking but can they really patent :
>"sending "formatted" data over SSL" ?
>That is just plain ridiculous !!
As far as I know, at the moment it's on
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:14:59 -0600, Theo de Raadt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused by your reply. Yes, I kind of see what you mean but
>> it also seems I failed miserably to write things clearly. By putting
>> "Official" in quotes, I was trying to point out the stupidity of the bad
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:40:01 +0300, "laurent FANIS"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Couldn't resist asking but can they really patent :
>"sending "formatted" data over SSL" ?
>That is just plain ridiculous !!
As far as I know, at the moment it's only a patent *application* rather
than a granted patent
J.C. Roberts wrote:
Don't misunderstand me, CARP is an amazingly innovative and extremely
useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's technically better
than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems till stands
that it is not an "official" protocol, which simply means adoptio
> I'm a bit confused by your reply. Yes, I kind of see what you mean but
> it also seems I failed miserably to write things clearly. By putting
> "Official" in quotes, I was trying to point out the stupidity of the bad
> corporate decisions that occur far too often.
>
> There are countless corpor
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:09:02 -0600, Theo de Raadt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't misunderstand me, CARP is an amazingly innovative and extremely
>> useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's technically better
>> than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems till stands
-0400, "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 15:52:57 -0400, "Nick Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
> Don't misunderstand me, CARP is an amazingly innovative and extremely
> useful implementation of a redundancy protocol. It's technically better
> than HSRP or any of the versions of VRRP but the problems till stands
> that it is not an "official" protocol, which simply means adoption and
> inter
gt;> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>> >>http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/2320232
>> >
>> >This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP patent
* Nick Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060702 15:58]:
> On 7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog stan
On 7/1/06, J.C. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/2320232
This sucks. It&#x
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:14 +0300, "Alexey E. Suslikov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
>http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/2320232
This sucks. It's no different than what Cisco did with their HSRP pat
Patent jeopardizes IETF syslog standard. Read here
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/28/2320232
19 matches
Mail list logo
