Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9000 matches similar to: "Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> -- don't shoot the messenger ..."
2005 May 20
1
Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> -- don't shoot the messenger ...
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>
> IBM has since totally changed their thoughts with regards to GNU/Linux.
Actually, their cut-off of Monterey had everything to do with their current
change in strategy on Linux back in 2000+. Monterey was established
before IBM's interest in GNU/Linux. After IBM realized that it could use
an economical complement in Linux, it saw
2005 May 22
3
Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> -- don't shoot the messenger ...
From: Dag Wieers
> Sorry to interrupt but he was describing how you appeared in previous
> postings. And I have to say that I felt the same way reading some of
your postings.
Really? Then I'll re-read them since there's been a second confirmation.
Just know that I wasn't trying to make it about good/bad.
I'm just trying to make the point that companies aren't just
2005 May 23
0
Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> --
From: Feizhou <feizhou at graffiti.net>
> I still remember the FIRST Linux GUI installer for a Linux distro. It
> came on the Caldera Openlinux 2.2. It worked. It was really nice.
Actually, the first distro with a GUI installer was Yggdrasil, circa 1993.
It installed on 8MB of RAM using X and Athena/FVWM.
> The Novell guys that were behind Caldera deserve plenty of respect for
2005 May 19
1
Re: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
From: Martyn Drake <martyn at drake.org.uk>
> To be quite honest with you - that's been and gone so quickly I can't
> ever remember what my position was at that time.
It actually happened over the span of 2 years before any name change.
With the introduction of RHEL as a separate product, RHL was having an
identity crisis. It used to be that ".2" was the
2005 May 19
0
Re: [OT] FOSS or Freedomware? -- WAS: pronunciation/Red Hat
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>
> MUCH more FOSS oriented
I've been taking an informal survey on this for awhile now.
I know the new, official acronym is Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).
But even before that acronym was popular, I had long argued that
Stallman's insistence on calling it "Free Software" when that could
be confused with
2005 May 19
1
RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
From: Martyn Drake <martyn at drake.org.uk>
> When I did try that support, it didn't give me a favourable
> impression. However, that's just my opinion.
It's good enough that HP is losing lots of clients because HP (among
other tier-1 OEMs short of IBM) is finding that Linux their support
is sub-par. Even Dell and others are just farming support out to
Red Hat.
>
2005 May 19
0
RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
> Ubuntu and Knoppix can say they use Debian sources ... SLAX can say it
> uses Slackware sources. Those guys have trademarks too.
Debian and Slackware don't sell "enterprise" products. And many such
projects are non-profit or otherwise. Unless Debian plans to establish
itself as a commercial player, they don't need to defend their trademark.
In fact, the commercial
2005 May 25
2
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>
> I'm still wondering about that... If anyone except Linus himself
> even suggested that changing kernel interfaces in a way that would
> break device drivers was a good thing, I can't imagine the reaction.
> I could see that the changes through 2.4 were improving things, but
> is there anything that is measurably better in
2008 Jul 03
4
[LLVMdev] simply wonder pronunciation of Clang
Hello, LLVMers.
I just wonder How I can pronounce Clang.
[see-laeng], [see-lang], [k-laeng], [k-lang]??
Thanks,
Seung
2008 Jul 03
0
[LLVMdev] simply wonder pronunciation of Clang
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Seung Jae Lee wrote:
> Hello, LLVMers.
>
> I just wonder How I can pronounce Clang.
>
> [see-laeng], [see-lang], [k-laeng], [k-lang]??
We've been pronouncing it kl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abreve.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 62 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
2008 Jul 03
0
[LLVMdev] simply wonder pronunciation of Clang
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Seung Jae Lee wrote:
> I just wonder How I can pronounce Clang.
>
> [see-laeng], [see-lang], [k-laeng], [k-lang]??
I pronounce it just like the english word, which is probably one of your
later two options :)
-Chris
--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/
2005 May 17
3
pronunciation?
Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work
with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s,
with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it
supposed to be said?
2002 Dec 16
1
Dovecot Pronunciation/Meaning
Timo,
What is the "official" way to pronounce Dovecot? Is there a meaning to
the word? A background on why you chose it?
--
Jesse Peterson
erage at softhome.net
2005 May 29
1
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>
> No, I am looking for a solution that provides what a typical user needs,
> not what a particular vendor feels like supporting this week. I didn't
> really want this to be about motives for vendor's business decisions but
> I think Johnny Hughes nailed it in saying the push for 2.6 was because
> SLES 9 had it. Their
2005 May 25
0
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>
> We would not build and distribute either of these things if they were
> not released via the GPL. The RPMS/SRPMS that we are distributing are
> indeed GPL. We firmly agree with RedHat on this issue (that only GPL
> things should be distributed).
The problem is that many distros are statically building MySQL 4 with some
2005 May 26
0
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>
> Thanks - as you probably know, the long-winded discussion isn't
> really about CIPE specifically so much as the philosophy behind
> bundling a few thousand things together and then trying to
> please anyone with a blanket policy about maintaining backwards
> compatibility vs bug fixes vs new features.
You just can't
2005 May 29
0
Re: centos] Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com>
> Bryan - Please don't overstate this and make a problem where
> none exists. There is an infinity of choices of which you
> list three ...
> Nor does one _have_ to 'get involved' with either the
> RH-Fedora or Centos project to do effective distribution
> building, or add-on packaging. There are independent
2005 May 25
1
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>
> This is not really true. We will probably never have everything that FC
> has as added features ... but CentOS-4 has several added features and we
> have been out for only a 3 months (so, not required to wait a year).
Oh, sorry, I should have clarified.
What I meant by "wait a year" was the time from the first .0 or
2005 May 29
0
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com>
> It's a little more than that. I find few people who consider RedHat to
> be a Demon Evil or that they can't do anything right, but I can
> understand the concern about some of their decisions which have made
> life difficult for (granted) a few, and it's not really helpful to
> demonize those who complain, as Bryan has
2005 May 28
1
Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
From: Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com>
> I have a real problem with this thread. It seems as if, according to some,
> someone can only be with or against Red Hat.
Yes, that was my major complaint too.
> I'm sure Red Hat has made stupid decisions, has adopted buggy software and
> are responsible for some of the headaches people have had. And I'm sure
> even Red Hat