On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, John Lowell wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 04:37:56 -0500, John Lowell wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What's the question? Why do you see need to use option -j
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, John Lowell wrote:
> Daniel T. Drea wrote:
>
> >This is pretty funny, he's done nothing except try to help you and your so
> >hostile. If you expect better help than he's given you, you'd have to
> >write the software yourself.
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Wolfgang Gill wrote:
> It's a trial version, it will expire after a certain period of time. (Which
> is why I have not tried them yet)
>
> Wolf
>
This is incorrect. From the alsa site:
" ALSA is released under the GPL (GNU Genera
f from cvs?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel T. Drea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2003 2:39 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Audigy 2: almost working... some further questions.
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSA
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Eric Burke wrote:
> > I think they want to match Mandrake's version number...
> > Just a thought...
> >
>
> I never even thought about that. The only thing there is...Mandrake is
> releasing 9.1but this would at least catch them up.
>
>
>
>
More like slackware 9.0 which w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Everyone has what they want, except for those who want the same old
> thing If you want the same old thing, run Slackware. It hasn't
> changed in YEARS. As a consequence, it's a damn pain to maintain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Daniel T. Drea wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Everyone has what they want, except for those who want the same old
> >>thin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Keith Winston wrote:
> Windows, and you will lose more control of both as time goes on. You
> are also supporting a group of very unethical people, at least at the
> highest management levels, who are not concerned at all about y
