Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #56901 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-06-16 07:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> - 2019-06-16 07:53 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-06-16 07:56 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Fenris <fenris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:35 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-16 16:53 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "School of Agriculture" <ag@hick.edu> - 2019-06-17 14:35 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-17 20:42 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:12 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-06-18 07:04 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Fenris <fenris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:18 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:17 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-06-18 08:52 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-20 05:57 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-06-20 07:05 -0500
Using 'sed' to delete a line from a file (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Using 'sed' to delete a line from a file (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 12:17 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:31 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:33 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:42 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-06-16 11:57 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-06-16 21:28 +0200
How come we're not talking about (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-16 20:12 +0000
Re: How come we're not talking about (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-06-17 06:52 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-06-21 13:24 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-16 11:12 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-06-16 13:26 -0700
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-06-16 13:34 -0700
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:20 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 10:55 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:37 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 13:13 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:31 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:43 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 09:36 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:36 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:37 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:32 +0300
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 20:47 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:23 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:09 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 05:21 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 04:16 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 06:21 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:38 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 13:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 19:21 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 18:39 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 22:52 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:48 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 12:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 14:51 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:43 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 08:55 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-06-21 13:33 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:39 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 10:14 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:09 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 13:39 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:07 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-06-21 17:19 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2019-06-21 23:14 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Lucifer <LuciferMorningstar@bigpond.com> - 2019-06-23 19:00 +1000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-06-22 00:17 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2019-06-22 02:08 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 12:59 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 11:18 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:10 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:09 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-21 08:17 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:03 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 19:51 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:46 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:00 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:20 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:43 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 16:44 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2019-06-19 16:17 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 17:43 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 00:58 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 17:40 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 23:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:31 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Freenet" <pieer@free.fr> - 2019-06-16 20:44 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-17 12:41 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:30 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-18 11:29 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 16:15 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 17:27 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 00:04 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 22:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:06 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 16:15 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:51 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-06-20 15:13 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 19:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 12:21 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-21 00:56 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-20 16:07 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 14:24 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-20 16:51 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:02 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:41 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 09:30 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 12:34 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 15:17 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 14:03 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 22:59 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 07:51 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 16:53 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 18:56 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 20:09 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 22:48 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 22:51 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:19 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 07:33 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-23 15:07 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:09 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 22:22 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:41 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-24 07:24 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-23 11:50 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:41 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:08 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-30 21:14 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:22 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-30 21:47 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 08:10 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-01 10:05 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:54 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:08 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 11:54 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:30 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:11 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:06 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-02 09:35 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-02 09:20 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:28 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 07:51 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:46 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-01 09:50 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 17:31 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-01 12:10 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-02 10:22 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 19:10 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 19:16 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-02 12:27 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-02 14:33 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-03 13:34 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-03 09:06 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-04 03:14 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug - spam on mail "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-04 15:26 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:16 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:20 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-23 16:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 03:37 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-24 13:50 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 23:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-21 16:01 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 17:35 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 22:04 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-22 12:57 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 21:58 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 07:32 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 23:10 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-22 08:21 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-22 13:01 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 16:55 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 18:47 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 20:15 -0600
Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:52 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 10:02 -0500
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:17 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 22:30 -0500
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-23 11:56 -0600
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Sidney_Kotic <kant@have.it> - 2019-06-23 10:11 -0800
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 03:23 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-24 09:07 +0000
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:52 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-24 14:14 -0400
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 23:21 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:38 -0600
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:31 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:17 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:41 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 23:02 -0600
Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 14:02 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-24 09:11 +0000
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:53 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2019-06-25 07:37 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-25 16:49 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-25 19:34 +0100
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 08:52 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 08:25 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:57 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:47 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2019-06-30 16:13 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 00:43 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:28 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:51 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-19 11:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:03 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:11 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:10 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 22:18 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:33 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:05 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 21:43 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 05:50 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:20 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 21:45 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 21:45 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:15 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:54 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:06 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2019-06-19 11:55 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2019-06-22 13:20 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-18 20:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szv983ffa.vu3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56969 |
In alt.os.linux Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:29:43 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> Now, how did it happen that I wrote "alt.os.linux.suse" group above? It >> was supposed to be "alt.os.linux". >> >> Ah, I see why now while doing it again. Thunderbird tries to be too >> clever :-( > > Because I set a Followup-To: to avoid cross posting. > > Okay, you put the other groups back. Since SUSE is mentioned one could > add the Debian, RedHat, Fedora... groups. > > Furthermore this might be off topic in any group dealing with Linux since > the topic is about and editor running on UNIX and other operating systems > too and there should be a group having editors as topic. At least the > de.* hierarchy has. Since any discussion of Linux will invariably focus on some utility or other, I don't see how discussing an editor that is commonly used on Linux would be considered off-topic for a Linux group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-18 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87h88mbn3w.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #56970 |
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:28:22 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > > In alt.os.linux Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:29:43 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>> Now, how did it happen that I wrote "alt.os.linux.suse" group above? It >>> was supposed to be "alt.os.linux". >>> >>> Ah, I see why now while doing it again. Thunderbird tries to be too >>> clever :-( >> >> Because I set a Followup-To: to avoid cross posting. >> >> Okay, you put the other groups back. Since SUSE is mentioned one could >> add the Debian, RedHat, Fedora... groups. >> >> Furthermore this might be off topic in any group dealing with Linux since >> the topic is about and editor running on UNIX and other operating systems >> too and there should be a group having editors as topic. At least the >> de.* hierarchy has. > > Since any discussion of Linux will invariably focus on some utility or > other, I don't see how discussing an editor that is commonly used on > Linux would be considered off-topic for a Linux group. Because vi exists for many operating systems. It's like discussing a problem with the Firefox browser in a Linux group. Where Firefox is available in at least the Linux, UNIX, Windows, iOS, Android or Mac OS or exotic systems like Haiku (formally known as BeOS), where it is known as Bezilla. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-19 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <szz9083.ahu3gva4@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56971 |
In comp.os.linux.misc Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:28:22 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >> In alt.os.linux Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:29:43 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>> Now, how did it happen that I wrote "alt.os.linux.suse" group above? It >>>> was supposed to be "alt.os.linux". >>>> >>>> Ah, I see why now while doing it again. Thunderbird tries to be too >>>> clever :-( >>> >>> Because I set a Followup-To: to avoid cross posting. >>> >>> Okay, you put the other groups back. Since SUSE is mentioned one could >>> add the Debian, RedHat, Fedora... groups. >>> >>> Furthermore this might be off topic in any group dealing with Linux since >>> the topic is about and editor running on UNIX and other operating systems >>> too and there should be a group having editors as topic. At least the >>> de.* hierarchy has. >> >> Since any discussion of Linux will invariably focus on some utility or >> other, I don't see how discussing an editor that is commonly used on >> Linux would be considered off-topic for a Linux group. > > Because vi exists for many operating systems. So do many other utilities. Are you suggesting that any cross-platform software is off-limits, and the only acceptable topics are the kernel and Linux-only utilities? That would make for a desolate newsgroup. > It's like discussing a > problem with the Firefox browser in a Linux group. Where Firefox is > available in at least the Linux, UNIX, Windows, iOS, Android or Mac OS or > exotic systems like Haiku (formally known as BeOS), where it is known as > Bezilla. If a problem exists with the Linux version of any software, it's on-topic in a Linux group, if for no other reason than giving users a heads-up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-18 22:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87ef3qb8s5.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #56974 |
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:04:35 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > > In comp.os.linux.misc Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:28:22 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >>> In alt.os.linux Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:29:43 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Now, how did it happen that I wrote "alt.os.linux.suse" group above? It >>>>> was supposed to be "alt.os.linux". >>>>> >>>>> Ah, I see why now while doing it again. Thunderbird tries to be too >>>>> clever :-( >>>> >>>> Because I set a Followup-To: to avoid cross posting. >>>> >>>> Okay, you put the other groups back. Since SUSE is mentioned one could >>>> add the Debian, RedHat, Fedora... groups. >>>> >>>> Furthermore this might be off topic in any group dealing with Linux since >>>> the topic is about and editor running on UNIX and other operating systems >>>> too and there should be a group having editors as topic. At least the >>>> de.* hierarchy has. >>> >>> Since any discussion of Linux will invariably focus on some utility or >>> other, I don't see how discussing an editor that is commonly used on >>> Linux would be considered off-topic for a Linux group. >> >> Because vi exists for many operating systems. > > So do many other utilities. Are you suggesting that any cross-platform > software is off-limits, and the only acceptable topics are the kernel and > Linux-only utilities? That would make for a desolate newsgroup. Am not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to avoid bloat posting non related Linux articles over many (non related) news groups. That might be old fashioned but that's what I am. > If a problem exists with the Linux version of any software, it's on-topic > in a Linux group, if for no other reason than giving users a heads-up. I agree. Well I give up. I will not set any follow-ups in this group in the future. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-19 10:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l07ptf-2lt.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #56975 |
On 19/06/2019 04.36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:04:35 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >> In comp.os.linux.misc Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:28:22 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>>> >>>> In alt.os.linux Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:29:43 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, how did it happen that I wrote "alt.os.linux.suse" group above? It >>>>>> was supposed to be "alt.os.linux". >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, I see why now while doing it again. Thunderbird tries to be too >>>>>> clever :-( >>>>> >>>>> Because I set a Followup-To: to avoid cross posting. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, you put the other groups back. Since SUSE is mentioned one could >>>>> add the Debian, RedHat, Fedora... groups. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore this might be off topic in any group dealing with Linux since >>>>> the topic is about and editor running on UNIX and other operating systems >>>>> too and there should be a group having editors as topic. At least the >>>>> de.* hierarchy has. >>>> >>>> Since any discussion of Linux will invariably focus on some utility or >>>> other, I don't see how discussing an editor that is commonly used on >>>> Linux would be considered off-topic for a Linux group. >>> >>> Because vi exists for many operating systems. >> >> So do many other utilities. Are you suggesting that any cross-platform >> software is off-limits, and the only acceptable topics are the kernel and >> Linux-only utilities? That would make for a desolate newsgroup. Not me. owl: You replied to my post and my quote. > > Am not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to avoid bloat posting non > related Linux articles over many (non related) news groups. That might be > old fashioned but that's what I am. But I think that it is related to Linux, and so do many, it seems. It is not related to Windows. > >> If a problem exists with the Linux version of any software, it's on-topic >> in a Linux group, if for no other reason than giving users a heads-up. > > I agree. > > Well I give up. I will not set any follow-ups in this group in the future. But why then do you remove generic Linux groups from the thread? Because setting up a follow-up header does that. I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why they are there. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-19 16:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87ef3p1gd1.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #56976 |
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:06:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > On 19/06/2019 04.36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:04:35 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >> >> Am not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to avoid bloat posting non >> related Linux articles over many (non related) news groups. That might be >> old fashioned but that's what I am. > > But I think that it is related to Linux, and so do many, it seems. It is > not related to Windows. Check out <https://www.vim.org/download.php#pc>. | For modern MS-Windows systems (starting with XP) you can simply use | the executable installer [...] I also just subscribed to | comp.editors -Topics related to computerized text editing. which carries about 1000 articles. First from 2012 talking about the Carlotta hurricane. *sigh* But most others are editor related. >>> If a problem exists with the Linux version of any software, it's on-topic >>> in a Linux group, if for no other reason than giving users a heads-up. >> >> I agree. >> >> Well I give up. I will not set any follow-ups in this group in the future. > > But why then do you remove generic Linux groups from the thread? Because > setting up a follow-up header does that. I *just* (yesterday) gave up and not do this anymore. > > I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why they > are there. Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. -- Andreas My random thoughts and comments https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 14:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a3cstf-p14.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57001 |
On 19/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:06:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> On 19/06/2019 04.36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:04:35 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: >>> >>> Am not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to avoid bloat posting non >>> related Linux articles over many (non related) news groups. That might be >>> old fashioned but that's what I am. >> >> But I think that it is related to Linux, and so do many, it seems. It is >> not related to Windows. > > Check out <https://www.vim.org/download.php#pc>. I guess that it is used mostly by some people coming from Linux. I do not see Windows users that know nothing about Linux using it. > > | For modern MS-Windows systems (starting with XP) you can simply use > | the executable installer [...] > > I also just subscribed to > > | comp.editors -Topics related to computerized text editing. > > which carries about 1000 articles. First from 2012 talking about the > Carlotta hurricane. *sigh* > > But most others are editor related. :-) > >>>> If a problem exists with the Linux version of any software, it's on-topic >>>> in a Linux group, if for no other reason than giving users a heads-up. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> Well I give up. I will not set any follow-ups in this group in the future. >> >> But why then do you remove generic Linux groups from the thread? Because >> setting up a follow-up header does that. > > I *just* (yesterday) gave up and not do this anymore. Thanks :-) I simply do not get the difference between comp.os.linux.misc and alt.os.linux - but then, I discovered Usenet late. Not that simple to use when connection was using a modem, and the phone call had to be paid per minute here. Then I found leafnode. >> I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why they >> are there. > > Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. Sure. They are said to have been epic. I meant why this thread was posted to those groups. To trigger a flamewar? -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 15:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20190620151331.14b925ea@nx-74205> |
| In reply to | #57031 |
On 20.06.2019 at 14:51, Carlos E.R. scribbled: > I simply do not get the difference between comp.os.linux.misc and > alt.os.linux - but then, I discovered Usenet late. The comp.* hierarchy is one of the Big Eight. alt.* newsgroups are generally not considered as "serious", notwithstanding the fact that many distros have (or had) their official support groups under that hierarchy. > >> I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why > >> they are there. > > > > Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at > > some point. > > Sure. They are said to have been epic. > > I meant why this thread was posted to those groups. To trigger a > flamewar? Yes. Why else? :p (comp.os.linux.advocacy is officially the sewer of Usenet. It's full of rabid Win-trolls, stalkers and people with other mental illnesses. And from what I've seen, the privacy group is a close second.) -- With respect, = Aragorn =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 19:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sfrstf-ime.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57032 |
On 20/06/2019 15.13, Aragorn wrote: > On 20.06.2019 at 14:51, Carlos E.R. scribbled: > >> I simply do not get the difference between comp.os.linux.misc and >> alt.os.linux - but then, I discovered Usenet late. > > The comp.* hierarchy is one of the Big Eight. alt.* newsgroups are > generally not considered as "serious", notwithstanding the fact that > many distros have (or had) their official support groups under that > hierarchy. Ah. I don't think many people are aware of those distinctions :-) > >>>> I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why >>>> they are there. >>> >>> Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at >>> some point. >> >> Sure. They are said to have been epic. >> >> I meant why this thread was posted to those groups. To trigger a >> flamewar? > > Yes. Why else? :p > > (comp.os.linux.advocacy is officially the sewer of Usenet. It's full > of rabid Win-trolls, stalkers and people with other mental illnesses. > And from what I've seen, the privacy group is a close second.) > Argh. Well, we didn't bite this time :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 12:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qegitc$qgn$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57038 |
On 6/20/19 11:14 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I don't think many people are aware of those distinctions :-) There is a LOT of information that has been largely lost to time. The meaning of the different hierarchies is just one tiny bit. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190620205327@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #57041 |
On 2019-06-20, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > There is a LOT of information that has been largely lost to time. The > meaning of the different hierarchies is just one tiny bit. Very true. I consider anyone on Usenet who doesn't remember the Great Renaming to be a newbie. (Never mind the point-n-drool set who refer to newsgroups as "sites".) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 16:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87k1dg6mxe.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #57031 |
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:51:22 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > On 19/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > > Thanks :-) > > I simply do not get the difference between comp.os.linux.misc and > alt.os.linux There might be not much differences. But as I pointed out there is a group covering editors, no matter what flavor of Linux, UNIX or even Windows you use. > - but then, I discovered Usenet late. Not that simple to use when > connection was using a modem, and the phone call had to be paid per > minute here. Then I found leafnode. Same here. Before unmetered DSL I was using leafnode. Using vwdial to establish an analog connection to the internet. Waited that the sound to negotiate the connection muted and launching the Leafnode command to get me new articles (also used fetchmail at the same time to download emails), then terminated the dial-up connection. >>> I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why they >>> are there. >> >> Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. > > Sure. They are said to have been epic. > > I meant why this thread was posted to those groups. To trigger a flamewar? I think the importance, whether you use Emacs or Vi, is over. Today it's nostalgia. Like, is the Commodore 64 better than the Atari 8Bit series? Is your Atari ST superior to my Commodore Amiga. Nobody cares today. It's just nostalgia. -- Andreas My random thoughts and comments https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 14:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qegq35$1ud$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57043 |
On 6/20/19 2:07 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > Before unmetered DSL I was using leafnode. Was the metering about time (minutes) and / or amount of data (bytes)? When I've seen "metered" in this thread, I have been thinking about amount of data (bytes) like some Internet connections still do. With that in mind, I saw little difference in leafnode vs having the news reader download articles. Likewise for email. > Using vwdial to establish an analog connection to the internet. When you get down low enough, it's still analog. ;-) > Waited that the sound to negotiate the connection muted and launching > the Leafnode command to get me new articles (also used fetchmail at the > same time to download emails), then terminated the dial-up connection. That statement is what clued me into the fact that you might be referring to time (minutes) instead of data (bytes). -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 16:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87a7ec6kv9.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #57044 |
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:24:31 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote: > > On 6/20/19 2:07 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> Before unmetered DSL I was using leafnode. > > Was the metering about time (minutes) and / or amount of data (bytes)? I got charged by the minute back then. [...] >> Using vwdial to establish an analog connection to the internet. > > When you get down low enough, it's still analog. ;-) That was back in the days of the late 1990s, when you got an analog connection to the internet. Analog it was. Only a few years later DSL became available for the masses. >> Waited that the sound to negotiate the connection muted and >> launching the Leafnode command to get me new articles (also used >> fetchmail at the same time to download emails), then terminated the >> dial-up connection. > > That statement is what clued me into the fact that you might be > referring to time (minutes) instead of data (bytes). That is correct. As mentioned, metering might have been differently handled in other countries outside of Europe. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 23:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2s8ttf-ufq.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57044 |
On 20/06/2019 22.24, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 6/20/19 2:07 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> Before unmetered DSL I was using leafnode. > > Was the metering about time (minutes) and / or amount of data (bytes)? Here, time. Minutes. Wait, no, "steps". There was a number of "steps" charged as soon as the other party lifted the phone, and then one step more every so many seconds. Depending on distance, the time for each step varied. This was stable, but the price per step was increased over the years. I had software that would read the call logs and calculate how many steps were used, and then calculate the exact cost - which I needed, as we were three room mates sharing one phone line. At some time, "steps" disappeared and were just minutes or seconds. > > When I've seen "metered" in this thread, I have been thinking about > amount of data (bytes) like some Internet connections still do. Yes, that's more recent, used with mobile phones that transmit digital data and can count it. > > With that in mind, I saw little difference in leafnode vs having the > news reader download articles. Likewise for email. Yes, but for us it was time which was critical. So a faster modem made economical sense. > >> Using vwdial to establish an analog connection to the internet. > > When you get down low enough, it's still analog. ;-) That's true. > >> Waited that the sound to negotiate the connection muted and launching >> the Leafnode command to get me new articles (also used fetchmail at >> the same time to download emails), then terminated the dial-up >> connection. > > That statement is what clued me into the fact that you might be > referring to time (minutes) instead of data (bytes). -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 15:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qegt1a$ajf$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57048 |
On 6/20/19 3:02 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Here, time. Minutes. Wait, no, "steps". Steps? > There was a number of "steps" charged as soon as the other party lifted > the phone, and then one step more every so many seconds. Depending > on distance, the time for each step varied. This was stable, but the > price per step was increased over the years. I don't know what to make of this. Is "steps" the proper term? I'd like to research it and learn more about it. It almost sounds as if steps might be a reference to the components that were used and they were charged (in aggregate) based on time intervals. One phone (line), one phone switch, another phone (line) ≈ 3 steps per interval. (I guess the first phone (line) and subsequently phone switch could billed at earlier time intervals before subsequent steps (equipment) became involved. I could see how this could get more expensive with longer distance calls as it would involve more equipment ~> steps. At least my hypothetical understanding. > I had software that would read the call logs and calculate how many > steps were used, and then calculate the exact cost - which I needed, > as we were three room mates sharing one phone line. Where did you get these logs from? The phone company? Or did you have some source for them locally? > At some time, "steps" disappeared and were just minutes or seconds. ACK I can't say that there wasn't anything like that in the U.S.A. I've only paid attention since the '90s. > Yes, that's more recent, used with mobile phones that transmit digital > data and can count it. ACK > Yes, but for us it was time which was critical. So a faster modem > made economical sense. That makes sense. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 13:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5csutf-t7s.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57049 |
On 20/06/2019 23.14, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 6/20/19 3:02 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Here, time. Minutes. Wait, no, "steps". > > Steps? The local word was "pasos", which can be translated as "steps". Possibly referring to the electromechanical counters they used. So counts of the counter, ticks, I don't know in English how it was called. > >> There was a number of "steps" charged as soon as the other party >> lifted the phone, and then one step more every so many seconds. >> Depending on distance, the time for each step varied. This was stable, >> but the price per step was increased over the years. > > I don't know what to make of this. Ok, local call. One call it step for every 40 seconds, plus one more as the other side lifts the receiver. Regional call. Two steps, or two counts, as the receiver lifts, then one count per each 30 seconds. Inter regional call. 3 counts on lift, plus one count every 20 seconds. Each count is 7.5 cents. Next month there is a price rise, the count will 7.78 cents. (arbitrary numbers). They did not have computers on many exchanges. Timer circuitry gave periodic pulses, with different frequency according to call distance. The counters (I had one, half the size of a cigarette package) were stacked in hundreds at exchanges, and someone read them manually and wrote the bills. For the bills they did use computers. The system has not been used since ages. It was in use till 199X at least. I don't know when they changed to seconds, somewhere around 1997 I think, but only on new companies. A source says 2006. You could contract a counter machine to have at home. Coffee shops with public phones used those to charge the clients for the calls. See the photos here: <https://www.teknoplof.com/2014/08/25/teletax-el-contador-publico-de-pasos-telefonicos-de-los-ochenta/> It is difficult to google for the thing because it finds apps and gadgets to count walking steps instead. I found the technical specs of the remote (Spanish), with photos and diagrams: <http://micolecciondetelefonos.blogspot.com/2011/03/contadores-de-linea.html> > Is "steps" the proper term? I'd like to research it and learn more > about it. I don't know the proper term in English, sorry. > > It almost sounds as if steps might be a reference to the components that > were used and they were charged (in aggregate) based on time intervals. > > One phone (line), one phone switch, another phone (line) ≈ 3 steps per > interval. (I guess the first phone (line) and subsequently phone switch > could billed at earlier time intervals before subsequent steps > (equipment) became involved. > > I could see how this could get more expensive with longer distance calls > as it would involve more equipment ~> steps. > > At least my hypothetical understanding. :-D Not quite :-) > >> I had software that would read the call logs and calculate how many >> steps were used, and then calculate the exact cost - which I needed, >> as we were three room mates sharing one phone line. > > Where did you get these logs from? The phone company? Or did you have > some source for them locally? Oh, from my computer logs. I don't remember exactly which one. Maybe from wvdial. Oh, and when fidonet was not on internet but needed a direct call (the original method, of course, but I had forgotten) the Frontdoor software generated the logs. There were mismatches with the official bill, but it was acceptable. Roundup in favour of the company. > >> At some time, "steps" disappeared and were just minutes or seconds. > > ACK > > I can't say that there wasn't anything like that in the U.S.A. I've > only paid attention since the '90s. I know. I looked at you with some envy, specially at being able to do local phone calls for free, or having things like Compuserve "nearby" :-)~ I read computer magazines (PC Magazine?) that included programs in source code. Like ted.asm --> ted.com. You could call the magazine BBS to obtain the source code, or connect to Compuserve. I had nothing of that. Not even a phone of my own, certainly no modem. Didn't have a friendly teacher with access, either. So I typed myself the whole thing... it worked, eventually: I made some typing errors. TED: tiny editor. Less than 3 KB. Wonderful little thing for having on floppies, not the awful edlin. <http://www.texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?action=browse&diff=1&id=TED> > >> Yes, that's more recent, used with mobile phones that transmit digital >> data and can count it. > > ACK > >> Yes, but for us it was time which was critical. So a faster modem made >> economical sense. > > That makes sense. > > > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20190621093019.615683bc@WizardsTower> |
| In reply to | #57061 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:41:25 +0200 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > The local word was "pasos", which can be translated as "steps". Doesn't it also mean passage or path? I'd think 'path(s)' was the intended meaning. -- Cybe R. Wizard My other computer is a HOLMES IV with the Mycroft OS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 19:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8tfvtf-73b.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57069 |
On 21/06/2019 16.30, Cybe R. Wizard wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:41:25 +0200 > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> The local word was "pasos", which can be translated as "steps". > > Doesn't it also mean passage or path? I'd think 'path(s)' was the > intended meaning. > No, not paths. Could be "ticks". Ticks that are counted in an electromechanical counter. For remote metering with a teletax they sent beeps at a frequency beyond that of voice. "This call took 9 ticks", etc. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 12:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qej80q$ln3$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57061 |
On 6/21/19 5:41 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> The local word was "pasos", which can be translated as
> "steps". Possibly referring to the electromechanical counters they
> used. So counts of the counter, ticks,
Okay.
> I don't know in English how it was called.
Fair enough.
> Ok, local call. One call it step for every 40 seconds, plus one more
> as the other side lifts the receiver.
So would calling your friend / family in the same (small town with a
single phone office) count as two steps, every 40 seconds?
Note: I'm ignoring the 0th item in the following lists. I think the
other listed numbers account for the steps. At least as I understand it.
Is that where a call would take the following path?
0) Your home to your central office.
1) Your central office to your friend's / family's home.
1 step billed at 40 second intervals.
> Regional call. Two steps, or two counts, as the receiver lifts,
> then one count per each 30 seconds.
What defines a "regional call"?
0) Your home to your central office.
1) Your central office to the central office in the neighbor town.
2) The central office in the neighbor town to your friend's / family's
home.
2 steps billed at 30 second intervals.
> Inter regional call. 3 counts on lift, plus one count every 20 seconds.
What defines an "inter regional call"?
Is that where a call would take the following path?
0) Your home to your central office.
1) Your central office to the long distance office.
2) The long distance office to the central office in your friend's /
family's town.
3) The central office in your friend's / family's town to their home.
3 steps billed at 20 second intervals.
It looks like each additional "step" / "pasos" / "path" (as Cybe R.
Wizard points out) accounts for elements of the telephone network that
your call is using. I'm guessing that they consider the connection
("step" / "pasos" / "path") between your home and your central office to
be yours to use. But the other connections take resources that others
can't use while you're making the call.
The "your call is utilizing" bit also accounts for the cost of dialing
someone and them not picking up, vs the additional step used when they
pick up.
> Each count is 7.5 cents. Next month there is a price rise, the count
> will 7.78 cents.
I'm not that surprised.
> (arbitrary numbers).
They work for the sake of this discussion. ;-)
> They did not have computers on many exchanges. Timer circuitry gave
> periodic pulses, with different frequency according to call distance.
> The counters (I had one, half the size of a cigarette package) were
> stacked in hundreds at exchanges, and someone read them manually and
> wrote the bills. For the bills they did use computers.
>
> The system has not been used since ages. It was in use till 199X at
> least. I don't know when they changed to seconds, somewhere around
> 1997 I think, but only on new companies. A source says 2006.
Sounds like the new phone switches installed in the '90s used new
simpler time only based billing.
> You could contract a counter machine to have at home. Coffee shops
> with public phones used those to charge the clients for the calls. See
> the photos here:
>
> <https://www.teknoplof.com/2014/08/25/teletax-el-contador-publico-de-pasos-telefonicos-de-los-ochenta/>
>
> It is difficult to google for the thing because it finds apps and
> gadgets to count walking steps instead.
>
> I found the technical specs of the remote (Spanish), with photos
> and diagrams:
>
> <http://micolecciondetelefonos.blogspot.com/2011/03/contadores-de-linea.html>
>
> I don't know the proper term in English, sorry.
Apology is unnecessary.
> :-D
>
> Not quite :-)
Is what I outlined above closer?
> Oh, from my computer logs. I don't remember exactly which one. Maybe
> from wvdial.
I now see that the information used for billing was available at calling
parties end of the line.
This means that you could have something local collect that information
and do something with it. Much like you did.
Was it also available at the called parties end of the line?
> Oh, and when fidonet was not on internet but needed a direct call
> (the original method, of course, but I had forgotten)
ACK
> the Frontdoor software generated the logs.
That makes sense for BBS calls.
I guess you had your computer listen for the billing information tones,
even for voice calls.
> There were mismatches with the official bill, but it was acceptable.
> Roundup in favour of the company.
Typical.
> I know. I looked at you with some envy, specially at being able
> to do local phone calls for free, or having things like Compuserve
> "nearby" :-)~
;-)
> I read computer magazines (PC Magazine?) that included programs in
> source code. Like ted.asm --> ted.com. You could call the magazine
> BBS to obtain the source code, or connect to Compuserve. I had nothing
> of that. Not even a phone of my own, certainly no modem. Didn't have
> a friendly teacher with access, either. So I typed myself the whole
> thing... it worked, eventually: I made some typing errors.
I dabbled in things like that a LONG time ago. They were BASIC programs
for my dad's TRS-80.
> TED: tiny editor. Less than 3 KB. Wonderful little thing for having
> on floppies, not the awful edlin.
ACK
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web