On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 01:22 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On 7/15/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > >
> > > There was discussion on the use of "Free Software" which is a very
> > > misleading term usually
On 7/15/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is precisly why I think making a bill that will require
government to use only open source software is a big hindrance to
_measurable_ productivity and progress.
Wrong. There are many projects going on that are progressing at a
rap
or you can use an online tool to look up for theIP address of the site and use it for access (ifthat's really the case).On 7/14/06, Kelsey Hartigan Go
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sometimes it's not intentional blocking. just a faulty dns. try aother dns server, it might just work
__
sometimes it's not intentional blocking. just a faulty dns. try a
other dns server, it might just work
On 7/14/06, ES DC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but here goes.
Who do I call to report pi-el-di-ti blocking off access to one particular
On 7/15/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/15/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Souce available" doesn't necessarily mean that the source caa be
> modified and that the resulting compiled binary can be redeployed.
> Therefore, "source available" software does not nece
On 7/15/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free
> software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_
> software does the job as well if not better than open sourc
On 7/15/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> There was discussion on the use of "Free Software" which is a very
> misleading term usually connotated to software under the GNU GPL. I
> for one am just being cautious a
On 7/15/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Souce available" doesn't necessarily mean that the source caa be
modified and that the resulting compiled binary can be redeployed.
Therefore, "source available" software does not necessarily "do the job"
as well as open source software. It lacks one
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2006 22:45:48 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Andre John Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > which is exactly Dean's point. it's stupid to make it a requirement to use
> > > *ONLY* GPL
> >
> >
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free
software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_
software does the job as well if not better than open source software.
"Souce available" doesn't necessarily
Hello,I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but here goes.Who do I call to report pi-el-di-ti blocking off access to one particular website? 3 of my pi-el-di-ti-di-es-el connected offices cannot access it. And here at home if I don't use a proxy, I won't be able to access it.Right now
try hamachi - http://www.hamachi.cc
hth,
Richard
Jacques wrote:
scenario:
box 1: (mybox.org) // accessible from the internet
1 static PUBLIC IP address (eth0)
1 local ip address (eth1)
running centos 4
mail server (postfix/dovecot)
web server (apache)
shorewall / iptables
12 matches
Mail list logo
